HC Deb 05 June 1856 vol 142 cc1027-53

House in Committee; Mr. FITZROY in the chair.

(1.) £2,000, Board of Manufactures (Scotland).

In reply to a question from Mr. WILLIAMS,

MR. WILSON

explained that this payment was made in conformity with a provision in the Act of Union; but the funds now went to support a flourishing school of design in Edinburgh.

Vote agreed to; as was also—

  1. (2.) £5,000, Highland Roads and Bridges.
  2. (3.) £12,000, Bounties on Slaves, &c

SIR F. BARING

said, there was only a sum of £4,000 expended out of the Vote of £12,000 last year, and there was a surplus of £1,400 on the Vote of the previous year. The year before that the Vote granted was £13,000. There might be circumstances which required this large Vote after the small amount of the expenditure of last year, but he should wish to have some explanation.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that by the exertions of our cruisers on the African and Brazilian coasts the slave trade, as far as concerned Brazil especially, had for several years been practically extinguished. It had prevailed to a very limited extent in Cuba. The sum expended on captures had, therefore, been very small of late; but last year a heavy mortality occurred in the Brazils, caused by epidemics; and symptoms were visible of a renewal of the Brazilian slave trade. It was well known that several vessels had been fitted out in the United States to carry on this discreditable traffic between the coast of Africa and the Brazils, and one or two of them had been actually detained on the Brazilian coast. The reason why a larger sum was asked for under this head this year was doubtless an apprehension that the slave trade might revive, and that more captures might, therefore, be anticipated.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes—

  1. (4.) £900, Commission for publishing ancient Laws and Institutes of Ireland.
  2. (5.) £9,000, Process Servers in Ireland.
  3. (6.) £70,900, Pensions under Merchant Seamen's Fund Act.
  4. (7.) £2,301, Office for Registration of Joint-Stock Companies.
  5. (8.) £1,790, Registration of Designs Office.
    6. 1028
  6. (9.) £29,000, Treaties of Reciprocity.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

complained that the particulars of this Vote had not been furnished to the Committee.

MR. WILSON

explained that regularly every Session there was presented to Parliament a statement, giving all the information that could be required on the subject.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

observed that many of the claims were not found in law. He had himself known cases where the right to demand these dues had been challenged, but the challenge had never been accepted.

MR. RIDLEY

complained that the Estimate had not been framed in such a manner as to afford the requisite information on many points of interest. For instance, it would appear on the face of the document as though the Trinity House of Newcastle-upon-Tyne received in its corporate capacity £6,742 a year for pilotage; whereas the fact was that every shilling of that sum was paid to individual pilots.

Vote agreed to.

(10.) £3,800, Inspectors of Corn Returns.

MR. STAFFORD

said, at the time when the corn laws were being discussed, great complaints were made of the machinery by which the returns were collected, and he wished to know what had been done to improve the machinery?

MR. WILSON

said, that the arrangements were still unsatisfactory, but he could state that a gradual improvement was being made in the system. Formerly persons were appointed inspectors merely because they were engaged in the corn trade, not because they had any peculiar facilities for performing the duties; but as they had died off, their places had been supplied by officers of the Inland Revenue, whose returns had generally been found correct. He hoped that the collection of these returns and of agricultural statistics generally would ultimately be combined, and that one result of that combination would be to secure an accurate return of the corn sold by the farmer as well as that sold by the dealer.

MR. WISE

said, that so far as corn rents and tithe payments were concerned, the present returns were entirely delusive. The whole system was unsatisfactory, and he trusted that some assurance would be given by Her Majesty's Government that the matter would be carefully considered with a view to an alteration, including, first, an extension of the number of towns from which the averages were made up; and, secondly, the compelling the seller to record every sale in some form or other. Without obtaining returns of all the corn sold in the country they could never arrive at satisfactory averages.

MR. FREWEN

thought the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade should have replied to the question. He was satisfied that the present system of corn returns was delusive and unsatisfactory. He was also satisfied that in some places no returns whatever were made. He hoped an assurance would be given that the existing system would be changed for a better one.

MR. LLOYD DAVIES

was of opinion that such a project was impracticable. From the very necessity of the case it continually happened that there were sales which never came to the knowledge of the officers engaged in the preparation of the returns. Perfect accuracy could be attained only by a system of espionage which the gentlemen and farmers of England would not endure for a week. They might mitigate the rudeness of the present returns, but they would never get them altogether perfect.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, his attention was first called to this subject some years since, when he was connected with the Board of Trade. The present system was no doubt most inadequate to the obtaining of complete statistical information with regard to the sale of corn; but if they were to make the machinery in any degree efficient for that purpose, in the first place the expenditure would be much larger than it was at present, and in the second place it would interfere with minute transactions in a manner that might lead to considerable difficulty. The practical purpose for which the returns were obtained related to the Tithe Commutation Act, and rude and imperfect as the process was, he did not believe it had produced any important error in the results. The returns were doubtless procured merely from sellers who were willing to give information, and he admitted that that was a loose way of getting them; but, on the other hand, the seller had no interest in misstating prices, and he believed that, rude and imperfect as the machinery was, practically it answered the purpose. As to the collection of agricultural statistics, that was a very large and important question, and it was certainly not contemplated when the arrangements under consideration were devised.

Vote agreed to; as were also—

  1. (11.) £17,000, Distressed British Seamen abroad; and,
  2. (12.) £3,600, Quarantine expenses.
  3. (13.) £17,850, Revising Barristers.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he thought the duties of the revising barristers should be performed by the County Court Judges, who had recently received a very large increase of salaries, which was unaccompanied with any increase of their duties.

MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE

did not agree with the hon. Member. There were times when the duties of revising barristers were extremely arduous, and it was impossible for County Court Judges to perform them in addition to their great labours. The vacation of a County Court Judge was already extremely short, and it must not be diminished.

MR. MULLINGS

said, the Committee on the salaries of County Court Judges, of which he was a Member, took this question into consideration, and they were unanimously of opinion that it would be highly objectionable to throw upon such persons the duties now performed by revising barristers.

MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERS

said, on all sides they were in the habit of hearing it stated that it was most important to have the registry properly kept, that proper persons should be on the registry, and improper persons struck off. He did not think that it would be of advantage to have County Court Judges act as revising barristers. If any fault existed in the present system, it was in the appointment of unqualified persons. If more competent persons were appointed to the duties of revising barristers the source of complaint would be done away with.

Vote agreed to.

(14.) £7,338, Constabulary Police at Aldershot.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he considered this item a most extraordinary one. He could not understand why taxes should be levied to pay county policemen for keeping 15,000 militia in order. He would be glad to know in what the duties of the police consisted, and why they could not be as well performed by militiamen as by police? Surely it would be easy to put blue coats on the backs of a certain number of soldiers, and leave them to attend to the police of the camp. He had certainly heard it jokingly said with regard to the regiments of militia that the front rank were obliged to take great care of their pockets lest the rear rank should pick them—but that was a matter of domestic police. Still he thought the Vote required explanation.

MR. WILSON

said, this Vote involved a great constitutional principle. The hon. Member should bear in mind that three years ago, when a camp was formed at Chobham, a large sum was expended in maintaining a police force there. When the camp at Aldershot was permanently established, the Home Office was asked to consider by what means the peace of the neighbourhood should be preserved, it being obvious that a very large concourse of people of various kinds would be collected round the camp, and that a large additional police force would be required. It was suggested by some persons at the time, as it had been that evening by the hon. Gentleman, that police officers in red coats might be employed; but, considering the jealousy which had always existed between the civil and military authorities in this country, the Government thought no one would like to see the preservation of the peace placed permanently in the hands of the militia. That would, in fact, have been transferring the duty of preserving the peace from the Home Office to the War Office. The Vote under consideration extended over a year and a half, and he certainly did not think it would have been fair to Hampshire and Surrey to impose that burden on them for the maintenance of the peace at the camp, which was formed for national purposes. The cost, too was not £7,338—that sum really represented a year and a half's expense. £4,892 was the cost for twelve months, the balance £2,446 being to repay advances made in anticipation of the present Vote.

LORD LOVAINE

observed, that the Home Office assented to the present arrangement on the application of the Chief Constable of Surrey. The county police force was insufficient, several burglaries had been committed, and an additional police force was essential.

MR. HUTCHINS

lived within a short distance of Aldershot, and could state, that the conduct of the militia, as well a of the regular soldiers stationed there, reflected great credit upon them. The fact was that it was not the conduct of the troops which rendered this additional police force necessary, but the number of disorderly persons who generally accompanied a camp. Under the circumstances he should certainly support the Vote.

In reply to Mr. A. PELLATT,

MR. WILSON

stated, that the sum expended last year in this way was £2,400, but that was only for the half year.

MR. HENLEY

looked upon this as a very large question, because the same principle applied to seaport towns, where a large number of seamen were brought together, and extra policemen were required to keep the peace. Now, Aldershot, he supposed, was to be a permanent establishment; barracks had been erected; and he effect of this would be to increase very much the value of the land there. When the Government Created a temporary inconvenience of this kind, no doubt it might very reasonably be asked to defray the expense arising from the increased police force necessary; but if such an establishment was to be a permanent one, a permanently increased value would attach to the neighbourhood, and then it became a question whether that locality should not bear its own police burdens. Though he had no objection to this Vote under the special circumstances of the case, he did not wish to preclude himself from considering at some future time whether, in the case of any permanent establishments of this sort, the inhabitants ought not to take the advantages with the disadvantages.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, it was clearly within the contemplation of the framers of the Police Act that these exceptional cases should be dealt with in the manner now proposed, because there was a clause in that Act by which private persons were enabled to contract with the counties to procure policemen on any special occasion, in addition to the ordinary force. The arrangement now made by the Government in respect to this camp had been acted upon in many other cases. Thus they found railway companies, when constructing a line and introducing into a certain district a large number of persons likely to endanger the property and the peace of the neighbourhood, sometimes contracting with the county for an extra police force.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

observed, that such a thing as a camp guarded by policemen was never heard of in foreign countries, where camps were guarded by sentinels. This was a most ridiculous Vote, and, if published in the French papers, it would bring contempt on the whole English army. The noble Lord said a short time ago that the great object, if we had any force at all, was to maintain an efficient one; but you could not call that an efficient army which required the protection of the police. There were no policemen at Shorncliffe. He should take the sense of the House against the Vote.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, his hon. Friend seemed to have mistaken the purpose for which the police were stationed at Aldershot. They were not there to protect the soldiers; if the soldiers were not competent to protect themselves they were certainly hardly competent to protect us. But it was well known that when they got together a large body of troops a very erratic population flocked together around them, and, unless his hon. Friend wished to see adopted the practice of foreign countries, and to have the military preserve order among what he was obliged to call the civil population, but who were really very uncivil characters—but civil because not military—unless his hon. Friend proposed to establish order among such persons by means of martial law, it was quite evident that they must employ a police force. It must be understood, then, that these policemen were not in the least necessary for the protection of the soldiers, but only for the preservation of order in the neighbourhood of the camp, where there was generally found a population of very loose habits and of very disorderly character. His hon. Friend would hardly like to see the police of the country undertaken by detachments of troops. If people were taken up by a corporal's guard, he (Mr. Williams) would be one of the first to complain of the non-employment of the constitutional civil force of the country. Then, again, when it was said that the district ought to defray this expense because it would be improved by the presence of a camp, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) should remember that this was a very barren country, a country chosen, indeed, on account of its barrenness, because a large tract of it could be bought at a much less expense than the same tract of fertile land. It was said that the neighbourhood of the camp would improve the rateable value of the district, but he did not think any one would be very much tempted to fix their residence by preference in a quarter where they were likely to have the sort of neighbours which a camp and its followers brought to the district they were now discussing.

MR. HENLEY

was quite sure that those who contributed to the wants, luxuries, and amusements of the camp would build houses or huts, however bad the land might be, and those buildings would become rateable if the camp were permanent. He should not object to the Vote if the camps were temporary.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, as a Hampshire ratepayer, he was not likely to quarrel with the Vote, but, if permanently given, it would be an admission that where ever there was a great congregation of troops the Government was bound to contribute to the expenses of a police force. He represented one of the naval ports, where they bitterly complained that Her Majesty's Government sent a good many of what had been termed the erratic population, and where none of the Government establishments paid rates. He hoped this Vote would facilitate the fair consideration of their case.

MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERS

hoped the hon. Member would not divide. The Vote might be taken this year, upon the distinct understanding that it was not to be drawn into a precedent. Next year the value of the land might have increased, and the neighbourhood might be able to pay for the police force required.

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding £7,338, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Constabulary Police at the Military Camp of Aldershot, to the 31st day of March, 1857.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 131; Noes 14: Majority 117.

Vote agreed to.

(15.) £3,000, Inspection of Burial-grounds.

MR. HADFIELD

complained that the rights of property had been disregarded by the State in the case of burial-grounds belonging to private parties, and wished to know what were the intentions of Government with respect to the management of the old burial-grounds?

MR. WILSON

replied, that the inspectors held their appointments under two distinct Acts of Parliament. It was their duty to report on what grounds ought to be closed, and what opened, and whether ground intended for cemeteries was suitable to that purpose. In the absence of the Under Secretary of State, he could not give any information as to the intention of Government in the matter referred to.

Vote agreed to.

(16.) £21,262, Battersea Park.

MR. WHITESIDE

expressed a hope that, whilst the Government were considering the health of the metropolis, they would not forget the health of the population of the manufacturing districts.

MR. P. O'BRIEN

said, that the House had voted up to the 31st of March, 1856, towards the expense of forming a park at Battersea, the sum of £287,000, and now they were asked to vote a further sum of £21,262. He supposed the park was in the borough of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), or else that hon. Member, who opposed the small pittance voted to the Dublin hospitals where the lives of persons were at stake, would have opposed the present Vote. It was doubtful whether this park was not formerly more useful as a pigeon ground than it was at present as a park. He wished some official connected with the Government would explain what advantage public of London derived from this Vote.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

could assure the hon. Member that not a single inch of Battersea park was situate within the borough which he represented. He was not a Member of the House when the scheme for forming a park at Battersea was proposed, but he remembered hearing the late Sir William Molesworth explain that a portion of the land purchased would be let upon building leases, and would not only repay the sum expended upon it, but would bring in a surplus.

COLONEL DUNNE

thought it natural that the people of a country should take a pride in their capital, and he was favourable to the embellishment of the metropolis up to a certain point; but he thought that this limit had now been passed to the neglect of the provinces.

MR. EVELYN

must express his astonishment at the course adopted by the hon. Member for Lambeth. He could not forget how that hon. Gentleman, upon a former occasion, had opposed a grant in aid of the rates of the counties of Hants and Surrey for public purposes. The hon. Member, however, was not so ready to oppose the application of the public money for objects connected with the metropolis, in which his constituents had an interest. It was quite evident, therefore, that if the hon. Member was a rural Reformer, he was a metropolitan Conservative.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that the present Vote was rendered necessary by an Act which had been passed some Sessions back. The park would be open, he thought, next year, and he believed that the present Vote would be sufficient for the purpose. The total amount of ground purchased was 320 acres, of which 125 acres would be let, and would, in all probability, return a large remuneration; but if it should be necessary to take another Vote, a full statement would be laid on the table of the House.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

defended his consistency, and eulogised the public spirit of his constituents, the inhabitants of Lambeth who had of themselves, unassisted by any public money, created one of the very finest parks in the metropolis—["Name!"] Kennington Park.

MR. P. O'BRIEN

It is nothing but stones.

MR. MICHELL

declared there never was a worse job than that same Kennington Park, of which the hon. Member was so proud. Last year, as they would all remember, a very large sum was voted for putting the park in order. [Mr. W. WILLIAMS: NO!] Yes, there was £1,000 voted for the purpose.

Vote agreed to.

(17.) £35,753, Embankment and public roadway between Vauxhall and Battersea Bridge.

MR.MICHELL

declared that if the last Vote involved a job, this was ten times worse. They were doing with the public money that which ought to devolve upon private individuals, whose property would be materially benefited by the outlay. The effect of this Vote would be to give value to the property of the Marquess of Westminster. When they wanted roads or bridges in Cornwall they made them at their own expense, and he did not see why the inhabitants of the metropolis should not do the same.

COLONEL DUNNE

concurred in the objection to the Vote, and expressed a hope that next Session something like a combined action would be got up against such proposals.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, the Vote was required to carry out the intentions of an Act passed in a former Session. The Marquess of Westminster had bound himself to pay a sum of money for any extent of frontage made on his property by this improvement, commensurate to the increased value, and which would be paid as soon as the works were completed.

MR. SPOONER

wished to know whether the present Vote was the last that would be required for the purpose?

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

could give no such assurance. At the same time he would promise that if any further sum were required a statement of the proposed outlay should be laid on the table previous to being incurred.

MR. HADFIELD

also objected to the Vote. In Manchester, Sheffield, and elsewhere, they get no public money for the formation of parks, and he could see no reason why the metropolis alone should be entitled to such assistance. Those whose property was advantaged by such improvements ought to pay for them, and none others. There was Westminster Bridge, hard by, one of the greatest thoroughfares in the world. That bridge was being rebuilt, and at the public expense, while all the time it was those living in the neighbourhood whose property would be benefited that ought to pay for the expenditure.

MR. LLOYD DAVIES

wished to know what sum the Marquess of Westminster would have to pay?

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

Between £8,000 and £9,000, that being considered to represent the improved value of his property. He might add, the bridge would be open before the end of the year.

MR. KENDALL

thought the Government might have done this year what they had promised to do in future, and have laid detailed estimates of all the expenses connected with this project before the House.

MR. MICHELL

would unquestionably divide against the Vote. He moved that it be rejected.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

thought they ought to know whether the Government contemplated the redemption of the tolls upon the bridges and roads round London. It seemed to him, otherwise, that it was rather unfair for the Government thus to compete with those who had expended their money in the construction of roads and bridges to the great advantage of the public, and interfere with their legitimate returns.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

thought that any such intention on the part of the Government would be strongly opposed in that House. Two years ago he had sat upon a Committee with reference to that subject, which recommended that a Metropolitan Board of Works should be created as the proper body to consider the question of the redemption of tolls and other matters. Well, such a Board had been created, and he was happy to perceive by the Report of their proceedings, published in the newspapers, that the subject was under the consideration of the Board, and he hoped would be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding £35,753, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying, to the 31st day of March, 1857, the Expense of constructing an Embankment and Public Roadway between Battersea and Vauxhall Bridges, and an approach from Sloane Street to Chelsea Bridge.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 66: Majority 43.

Vote agreed to.

  1. (18.) £109,000, Services connected with Improvements at Windsor; agreed to.
  2. (19.) £1,500, Works at Carisbrooke Castle.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that Mr. Hardwicke had estimated that the sum was necessary to prevent the Castle from falling into ruin. It belonged to the Crown, and was an object of historical interest.

Vote agreed to; as was the next Vote.

(20.) £9,000, General Repository for Records.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding £6,912, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Expense of Works, Furniture, Fittings, &c. of the British Embassy Houses abroad, to the 31st day of March, 1857.

MR. WHITESIDE moved to reduce that sum by £2,330. He objected to the sum of £550 which had been laid out in preparing the chapel of the Embassy at Paris for the reception of Her Majesty on the 19th August, 1855. The following sums had been expended for the fees and travelling of the architect in this matter:—In the year 1844, £481; in the year 1845, £946 10s.; and in the year 1846, £200. Then there were the expenses attending the palace of the British Ambassador at Constantinople. The sum voted this year for ordinary works, including repairs and fittings, was £1,020—Sir Charles Barry receiving a further sum of £183. He strongly objected to this Vote. The following sums had been expended in past years on the British Embassy in Constantinople:—In the year 1849 a sum of £12,000 for building the British Ambassador's house; in the year 1850 a sum of £14,765 for completing this house; in the year 1851 they were free; but, in 1852, a sum of £4,331 14s. 1d. was voted for building a chapel; and, in 1853, a sum of £2,054 for reinstating the chapel. In the following year £14,000 was expended upon the consular offices. In the year 1855 they had the moderate Vote of £1,540 for a seaman's hospital; but, in 1856, £4,578 more were voted for lamps and fittings at the Ambassador's residence. He thought these expenses ought to cease, and he moved to reduce the Vote accordingly.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding £4,582, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Expense of Works, Furniture, Fittings, &c. of the British Embassy Houses abroad, to the 31st day of March, 1857.

MR. HUTCHINS

would move the additional reduction of the Vote by £231, being personal and travelling expenses of the architect, unless explanation were given.

MR. WISE

was not surprised that the attention of the Committee had been called to the items of this Vote, for he had objected to similar Votes for the last three years. This Vote had, by degrees, crept on, to be an annual charge, and the question was, whether the Committee of Supply would permit money to be constantly expended before it was voted. He should like to know on what principle the Government acted with regard to these embassy houses. We had already paid £250,000 for the erection or purchase of the three embassy houses in Paris, Madrid and Constantinople, and additional expense continued to be incurred year by year. The Palace at Constantinople was estimated at £33,000, but the expenditure had been £90,000, and the Hotel at Paris had cost £87,320, besides an annual outlay of £1,000 for casual repairs, lighting and water rates. But the most extraordinary charge was, the payment to Mr. Albano the architect, who in 1855 had received £2,391 for his remuneration and travelling expenses to Paris and Madrid. In 1854, £l,400 was voted for a cemetery at Madrid, and it was arranged that Mr. Albano should go to Madrid, superintend the work and return for a sum not exceeding £300; but in the next Vote was a charge of £770, so that out of a total expenditure of £2,227 for the cemetery, the architect's share was £770. And what was the sort of work superintended at Paris. He found a sum of £550 put down for preparing the chapel and anteroom at the Embassy for the Queen; but in considering this charge, he would venture to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that in 1853, £400 was voted for making the drawing-room a chapel. The drawingroom was not thought a fitting place for such a purpose, and the diningroom was converted into a chapel at an expense of £300 more in the following year. This was trifling with the public money, and he should be glad to see some better principle of action laid down by the Government, so that travelling architects might not entail upon the nation such expenses as these to gratify their whims and fancies, laid down by the Government. During the last twenty-five years we had expended on embassy and consular chapels £158,535, and since the passing of the 6th Geo. IV. a sum of £203,320l. for the same purpose, so that at this moment we ought to have £203,000 worth of those chapels on the Continent. He traced a great deal of this expenditure to the system on which the Estimates were made up. There was a want of unity and consolidation in the Estimates, and Votes were to be found scattered over the whole of the Estimates connected with every department. The Secretary to the Treasury deserved thanks for having greatly improved the system of keeping the public accounts, but if the whole of the Estimates could be laid before the House in one view a still greater improvement would be effected. As an illustration of the present system, he might state that there was an estimate of £32,000 for secret service, but elsewhere there was a sum of £10,000 for the same service, making it £42,000 instead of £32,000. The latter sum was the annual Vote for the secret service, but the £10,000 was an annual charge on the Consolidated Fund. Then there was a sum of £148,000 for foreign Ministers charged on the Consolidated Fund; but, in addition to this, there were two other sums, one of £25,000, the other of £30,000. What he wanted to see was, all these various payments brought before them in one sum, so that the House might, at a glance, understand what the expenditure really was.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

was not at all surprised at the objections raised to this Vote, and the large sums proposed to be expended; but he would endeavour to give as good an account as he could of the several items complained of. In the first place, with regard to the Vote of £1,709, this not only includes repairs, furniture and fittings, and lighting and insurance, but an old account of £664, that ought to have been paid in former years. The sum for this year was therefore £1,100 instead of £1,700. The next item was £566 for taking down the old front wall in the Rue d'Anjou, and building another. This was really necessary, and he apprehended there could be no objection to it. For the next Vote, namely, £626, he was responsible. It was rendered necessary, in consequence of a fire at the Embassy, and it was hoped would prevent the recurrence of such a calamity in future. There was next a sum of £550 for preparing the chapel and anteroom for her Majesty when in Paris in August last. A great deal more, however, was done than was necessary for the reception of her Majesty, because repairs that were absolutely necessary for the chapel, were at the same time executed. The place was in a bad state, and it was thought better to have what was necessary done at once when the repairs were being executed in the chapel. The most material sum was that of £1,627 for professional remuneration to the architect, including personal and travelling expenses for 1854–55, and which were incurred before he entered upon his present office. He must say this was an indefensible Vote, though the charge was a fair one for the time the architect was employed. He thought, however, he should have been called back before he incurred so great an expense. There was in this item a sum of £200 for 1856, but he hoped the whole of this would not be required, and it was not his intention to allow more. With regard to Constantinople, the expenditure was for ordinary works, including repairs, the salary of the clerk in charge, and the payment of permanent workmen, and he did not think £1,000 too much for those purposes. With respect to the remuneration of Sir Charles Barry, that was for revising plans in 1848, and had been brought under the consideration of the House years ago. Nevertheless, he had thought it his duty to submit to the House in the present estimate everything outstanding; but next year no old accounts would be brought forward.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, that if he had had any doubt before about the propriety of dividing the Committee on the Vote, it would have been removed by the statement of the right hon. Baronet. If £200 were too much for the architect's personal and travelling expenses in reference to Paris in 1856, surely £946 must be too much for the same purposes in 1853. With regard to Constantinople, nothing could possibly be said in support of the extravagance there, and he should certainly persist in his Amendment.

MR. PELLATT

inquired what was the name of this architect, and how much per cent he received?

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

replied that the architect's name was Albano, and that he was not paid by a percentage, but by allowances.

MR. HENLEY

thought the allowance to the architect enormous, and that it ought to bear a more fair proportion to the work done.

SIR DENHAM NORREYS

wished to know on what principle these payments were made? Was the architect sent to Paris and allowed to remain there as long as he pleased, or was any check placed upon his proceedings?

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that he had already stated that this was a most improper Vote, because the portion of the expense incurred in 1854 ought to have been brought before the House at that time. The same observation applied to the expense incurred in 1855, before he filled his present office. In reply to the question as to what instructions were given to the architect when sent to Paris, he had to state that he directed him to proceed to Paris, to do his work as soon as possible, and to return with all convenient despatch.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

thought that the Committee would be inclined to agree with the right hon. Baronet that this Vote was not a correct one. If, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman meant merely to express dissatisfaction at the Vote, he should have no hesitation in voting with the hon. and learned Gentleman; but the Committee could not arrive at a correct Vote until they knew precisely what engagements the Government were under to Mr. Albano, and how much ought in justice to be allowed. He therefore suggested that the Vote should be withdrawn and referred to a Select Committee.

MR. HENLEY

expressed his concurrence in the suggestion.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

explained, that when these accounts were brought to him, he thought them very heavy, and he therefore placed them in the hands of an officer of the Board of Works, whose duty it was to examine such accounts. That officer assured him that they were proper charges, and it was not before he received that assurance that they were placed on the Estimates.

MR. HUTCHINS

inquired whether it was necessary to send an architect all the way to Madrid, when the Ambassador there wanted an outlay on his residence of merely £300?

MR. SPOONER

pointed out that in a subsequent Estimate there was a charge of £470 to this same Mr. Albano for professional services rendered by him in connection with the Protestant cemetery at Madrid, the whole expenditure on which only amounted to £357; and this £470, moreover, was stated to be a charge over and above the sum of £300 already received by him.

MR. MUNTZ

said, this Vote was a specimen of the manner in which the public accounts were allowed to run into arrear. Things were just as bad with regard to the building in which they were sitting as with regard to these Ambassadors' houses; indeed, the same mismanagement might be traced in every department. The money was got too easily, and the consequence was it went too easily.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

thought that, as the Government could not give any explanation of this Vote, it was impossible for them to resist its postponement. More than half the money spent in connection with the cemetery at Madrid, to which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had called the attention of the Committee, had been spent on a road, and surely the Government had not sent an architect to Madrid to repair a road.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said that his object was to postpone the Vote; but, as he could not make a specific Motion to that effect, he should move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that it would be quite new to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into a Vote. How could the Committee inquire into the charges of an architect for work done at Paris, Madrid and Constantinople. There was not the slightest doubt that, strictly speaking, each of these charges ought to have been the subject of an Estimate before the expense was actually incurred. The principle of Mr. Albano's payment was so much a day and an allowance for travelling expenses. He was sent to paris by the Board of Works, and by some inadvertence he was allowed to remain there longer than was necessary for the completion of his duties. Neither he nor his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Works nor the Secretary to the Treasury was personally responsible for this expenditure, and they could give, therefore, no explanation from their own personal knowledge of the subject. The President of the Board of Works, it appeared, had referred Mr. Albano's charges to the proper officer in his own department, and had been informed by him that they were just and reasonable. He would leave it, therefore, to the House to say whether inquiry would be of any benefit to the public service; but it seemed to him that the only result would be that, however much this irregularity was to be regretted, Mr. Albano's charges were such as the Committee could scarcely refuse to grant.

MR. DISRAELI

observed, that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not pointed out any remedy in lieu of a Committee, he seemed rather hopeless of any practical benefit arising in this matter from any process whatever. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that it was useless to discuss the question at all; and in that case, therefore, there was a primâ facie case in favour of the proposition of the right hon. Member for Portsmouth. It would appear as though the right hon. Gentleman were attempting to disclaim a responsibility which properly belonged to a Government to which he and his colleagues had succeeded, but, remembering the circumstances under which he who was personally responsible for this item, and who could have given the necessary explanation on the subject, was not present among them, it was hardly gracious of the right hon. Gentleman to disclaim that responsibility which it might have been supposed that he and his colleagues would cheerfully accept. It was perfectly clear that this was an item which the Government, who were responsible for it, could neither vindicate nor explain, and it was not unreasonable, therefore, that the Committee should, under these circumstances, fall back on the proposition of the right hon. Member for Portsmouth, and ask for a Select Committee to get that explanation which the Government could not afford. Unless they did interfere in a very decided manner when items of this sort which the Government could not explain were brought before them, the business of a Committee of Supply would become a mere farce. The least thing that could be expected from a Government was, that it should explain and defend the estimates which it brought forward, and when it could not do that, it was the duty of the Committee of Supply to take the matter out of the hands of the Government, and obtain for itself the information necessary for the public service.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had given the Committee as full an explanation as he was able. He had stated that he did not attempt altogether to vindicate these items. However, if the Committee thought it was desirable that these matters should be made the subject of investigation before a Select Committee, Her Majesty's Government had not any wish to interpose any objection to an inquiry as to the expenditure on account of these objects. In the meantime, therefore, he was prepared to withdraw the Vote, to afford an opportunity for such an inquiry.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he should withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn:—Amendment and Original Question, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Vote was then agreed to:

  1. (21.) £2,084, British Seamen's Hospital at Constantinople.
  2. (22.) £6,000, Spurn Point.

LORD HOTHAM

said, that on a recent occasion an irruption of the river Humber had taken place on the Spurn Point, which might have been very easily repaired, and at a small expense, if any person in authority had been on the spot; but in consequence of the person whose duty it was to attend to this living at a great distance, the injury which would at first have been but trifling, became so great that it ultimately led to an expenditure of an enormous magnitude. He hoped some arrangement would be made to have a responsible person on the spot, who would be able to give the necessary directions.

MR. MACARTNEY

asked, whether the sum now proposed to be voted would complete the works necessary to be done?

SIR CHARLES WOOD

replied, that it was impossible to state any particular sum which would be required for that purpose. The utmost economy would be observed.

Vote agreed to, as were also the two following:—

  1. (23.) £627, Menai Straits.
  2. (24.) £1,053, Professors in the University of Cambridge.
  3. (25.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
That a sum, not exceeding £15,529, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Salaries and Expenses of the Incumbered Estates Commission, Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1867.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, that he should object to the first three items of this Vote—viz., the Chief Commissioner, £1,549 16s. 10d.; his examiner, 400l.; and his clerk, 150l.—unless he received some satisfactory explanation as to the future constitution of the Court. A Committee was now sitting on the subject of the Incumbered Estates Court—whether they should discontinue it, or make it permanent, or amalgamate it with the Irish Court of Chancery—and he believed that it was not improbable that the result would be that they would recommend that the Court should consist of two Judges only. He believed that Committee had nearly finished its labours and would present its Report in the course of a few days. In the meanwhile he would ask whether the House was prepared to maintain the unconstitutional, mischievous, and indefensible principle of paying a Judge of the Court of the Exchequer for neglecting his duty, in order that he might sit as a Judge in another Court? He did not complain of paying a proper salary to the Chief Commissioner (Baron Richards), but he believed it to be the fact that that gentleman had never gone circuit since he had been appointed a Commissioner of the Incumbered Estates Court. What was the conflict of principle involved in this case? You first appointed a man of great legal ability to be a Judge, and you paid him liberally. In that capacity he was perfectly independent; but you then appointed him a Commissioner of another Court, making him dependent for the continuance of his office on the will of the Government of the day. Now, the position of a Judge ought to be such that he should be independent of everybody; that he should hope for nothing, and fear nothing. It might be said that these appointments were originally made by gentlemen sitting upon the Opposition benches; but there was a great distinction to be drawn between appointing persons to Commissionerships for two or three years and appointing them for a permanency. The establishment of this Court was a measure of emergency, intended to meet a difficulty, and then to cease. But he thought it was a fair ground of complaint against the present Government that they should have continued so long to abstract, as it were, a Judge from the service of the country, giving him patronage and making him dependent on the Minister of the day. What he wished to know was, whether the Government were prepared to sanction a principle which would wholly subvert the independence of the Judges. It seemed to him that two Judges would be sufficient for the performance of the duties of the Incumbered Estates Court—at least for another year—and he should unquestionably require that the present Chief Commissioner should be restored to his proper functions in the Court of Exchequer. He respected the ability and the knowledge of that learned person; but, if the Government required a Commissioner, let them employ another person. Certainly £1,542 a year was a moderate charge for the Chief Commissioner of the Incumbered Estates Court; but at the same time they paid this gentleman £3,500 a year for being absent from circuit. He requested, therefore, to be informed whether it was intended that Baron Richards should be continued as a working Judge of the Incumbered Estates Court? While acting as a Commissioner it was impossible that he could attend the Court of Exchequer. What he meant to say was, that it was impossible for a man to be in two places at one time, "barring that he was not a bird."

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman knew well that the answer to his question would depend upon the result of the deliberations of their Committee now sitting upstairs. The whole question was before that Committee in the shape of a Bill to regulate the Incumbered Estates Court and reform the Court of Chancery, and it was not for him to predict what might be the result of its inquiries. Until it had arrived at a conclusion, he should not be in a position to say whether the Government would ask the House to continue the Incumbered Estates Court with its present staff, or abolish it and transfer its jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery. But for the information of the House, he might state what had taken place. The Incumbered Estates Commission was appointed in 1849. At that time three Commissioners were selected—one, an English barrister (Mr. Hargreave); another, Mr. Commissioner Longford, who was certainly not entitled to the appellation of a Whig lawyer; and the third, Mr. Baron Richards, a Judge in the Court of Exchequer, who had discharged the duties assigned to him most faithfully and zealously. It was necessary to have a Judge of experience to preside, and therefore Baron Richards was appointed. His salary as Chief Commissioner in the Incumbered Estates Court was £1,500 per annum, but, after making certain necessary deductions, his whole emoluments for performing the heavy duties of his Court did not amount to more than £700 or £800. In 1852, when Lord Derby was in office, the usual annual Vote was passed for defraying the expenses of the Incumbered Estates Court, including the salary of Baron Richards, and he did not recollect that the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen upon that occasion intimated any intention to dispense with the services of the Chief Commissioner. The Vote, in fact, had been passed every year since the Court was established. He would remind the House that after the Committee had made its Report it would be necessary during the present Session to lay before the House some specific measure either for the continuance or the abolition of the Incumbered Estates Court, and that would be the proper occasion for the Government to state what they intended to do with the Commissioners, including Mr. Baron Richards.

COLONEL DUNNE

thought that, after the statement which the Committee had just heard from the Attorney-General for Ireland, it would be expedient to postpone the Vote until some decision had been arrived at with respect to the Incumbered Estates Court.

Motion made and Question proposed "That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again."

MR. WHITESIDE

maintained that the argument of the Attorney General was by itself insufficient to induce the Committee to defer the Vote. It was true that the Vote was passed in 1852, but with a pledge on the part of the Government to introduce a measure to give a jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery, which would have prevented the necessity of making a similar charge in future years. He brought in that Bill himself, and the person who resisted it the most was a late colleague of the Attorney General, the present Mr. Justice Keogh. He told that Gentleman that he would live to see the day when he and his friends would support the principle of the measure with the same zeal as he then opposed it, and so it had actually come to pass. What he complained of was that they should keep a Judge from the performance of his duties in the Court of Exchequer to preside in this Court. He hoped the Vote would be withdrawn.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD

called attention to the fact that the Vote was only an estimate up to the 31st of March next. Whatever might be the result of the deliberations of the Committee upstairs, the Incumbered Estates Court would continue its operations for the greater part, if not the whole of that time.

MR. WHITESIDE

, being dissatisfied with the explanations of the Attorney General, moved that the Chairman do report progress.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

hoped the Committee would agree to the Vote. All it was asked do was to vote a sum not exceeding £15,529 to-words the expenses of the Incumbered Estates Commission as at present constituted. That was a maximum sum. If, in consequence of any change which might be effected, a less sum were required, that less sum would alone be issued by the Treasury; and, although the Government asked for a continuance of the salary of the Chief Commissioner at the rate of £1,549 a year, that specification did not pledge the House by the Appropriation Act to assign that amount of salary to Baron Richards.

LORD NAAS

thought that the Motion for the postponement of the Vote was very reasonable. The Select Committee would probably make its report in the course of a week or fortnight at farthest, and in the event of any fresh legislation taking place the Vote would have to be materially altered. In fact, the Government would have to come to the House with another Vote to enable them to carry out the new arrangements.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

asked the Committee to consider how the matter really stood. A Select Committee was inquiring into the constitution of the Incumbered Estates Court. They were told that it might report in the course of a fortnight. That Report, when presented, would have to be considered, and then a Bill founded upon it would have to be prepared and introduced. We were now in the beginning of June, and he asked the Committee if it was likely that in the course of the present Session anything in the way of legislation would be done which would render the Vote unnecessary?

MR. HENLEY

thought there was considerable weight in what the noble Lord had said. We were getting fast to the end of the first quarter, and he apprehended that another would elapse before it would be possible to make any change. Moreover, the adoption of the Vote would not interrupt the removal of Baron Richards from his office in the Incumbered Estates Court.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, his only object was to hear from the Government that, if the Vote passed, they would consider fairly the impropriety of having the same gentleman filling the office of Judge in two courts which sat at the same time.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

admitted that such an arrangement was in principle objectionable. It was only a temporary measure.

Motion by leave withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

The following Votes were also agreed to.

  1. (26.) £3,000, Irish Census.
  2. (27.) £3,000, Gallery of Arts in Dublin.
  3. (28.) £29,400, Lighthouses abroad.
  4. (29.) £15,000, Australian Expedition.

MR. WILSON

stated, in reply to Mr. W. Williams, that the object of the Vote was to enable the Government, in conjunction with the Geographical Society, to explore the northern and western districts of the important colony of Australia. The Government thought it their duty to do all in their power to promote that object.

Vote agreed to.

  1. (30.) Monument at Scutari.

COLONEL NORTH

believed an universal desire prevailed among his countrymen that a monument should be erected to the memory of the brave men who fell in the late war, but he thought a testimonial for which a Vote of £17,500 was required might be erected in this country with greater propriety than at Scutari. He would suggest that the proposed monument should be erected in the grounds of Chelsea Hospital, or in some other place in this country, where it might be seen by many gallant soldiers who had served in the war, and by the relatives of those who had fallen. Some testimonial might be placed at Scutari; but he doubted the propriety of erecting there an expensive monument, because, when the British army was withdrawn, there would be no guarantee for its preservation.

MR. STAFFORD

expressed his earnest hope that the Government would persevere in their determination to erect the monument at Scutari. Many fond though mournful associations were connected with that place, and if there was any danger that the sanctity of its graveyards would be violated, the feelings of those whose friends and relatives were buried there would be deeply wounded; while, if no such danger existed, he thought there was no more appropriate site for the erection of a national tribute to the memory of the brave. He had been informed that a portion of the proposed monument was already on its way to Scutari. If it were thought desirable a similar monument could be erected in this country; but he believed there would be a general feeling of disappointment if the Government hesitated in carrying out the plan upon which they had decided. The design for the Scutari monument was so exceedingly beautiful that he would rejoice to see a similar testimonial in the grounds of Chelsea Hospital.

MR. BOWYER

thought that Balaklava, or any of those places at which our troops had maintained the honour of the British arms in the Crimea might more appropriately be selected as the site of the proposed monument than Scutari, where the hospitals of our army had been established, and where, he feared, in consequence of mismanagement, the lives of many brave soldiers had been sacrificed. He was also of opinion that the sum proposed for the monument was excessive. Taking into consideration the difference between the value of money in this country and in Turkey, it was perfectly monstrous to demand a sum of £17,500 for such a purpose. He thought that before the Committee agreed to the Vote, they should know what the monument was to be, what artist was to be employed, and how it happened that so large an amount was required.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Bowyer) did not seem to be aware that the monument at Scutari had been designed by a very distinguished artist, who was now resident in this country, that it had been prepared in this country, and that it was to be sent out to Scutari for erection. The Vote was not asked at random, but it was the amount required for a monument of extreme beauty, which would, he was sure, be an object of admiration to all who saw it, and which would perpetuate the memory of the gallant deeds performed by our brave troops. He agreed with the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford) that Scutari was the most appropriate place for the erection of such a testimonial. If Parliament chose they could sanction the erection of another monument in this country; but he thought it would be disgraceful to the British nation, if in that distant quarter of the world, in which the honour of the British arms had been so nobly supported, no record of the valour of our troops remained. Whether or not Parliament might sanction the erection of another monument in this country, he hoped the Committee would not withhold their assent from this Vote; and indeed it was almost too late to do so, for as the hon. Member for Northamptonshire had stated, a portion of the monument was already on its way to Scutari.

MR. BOWYER

thought that before the public money was expended upon a monument, the public should have had an opportunity of forming a judgment upon it.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that if the hon. Member had gone to the Crystal Palace he would there have become acquainted with the design of this monument.

Vote agreed to.

  1. (31.) £3,691, Orange River Territory.

MR. LABOUCHERE

explained that there were still some claims unsettled, but he hoped that the next would be the last year in which this Vote would appear upon the Estimates.

MR. ADDERLEY

expressed his regret that this territory had been abandoned at a cost equal to what would have sufficed to preserve it. The people of England ought not to forget that the present Government was the first which had abandoned any territory which had once belonged to this country.

Vote agreed to.

  1. (32.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
That a sum, not exceeding £30,361, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of the Commissioners for auditing the Public Accounts, to the 31st day of March, 1857.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

The House resumed.