HC Deb 05 August 1857 vol 147 cc1105-19

House in Committee.

MR. FITZROY

in the Chair.

(1.) £2,000, Board of Manufacture in Scotland.

LORD ADOLPHUS VANE-TEMPEST

said, he thought it his duty to insist upon receiving an answer to the question which he had addressed to the Government relative to the clothing of the troops sent out to India. He should move that the Chairman report progress unless his question was answered.

THE CHAIRMAN

pronounced the noble Lord to be out of order.

Vote agreed to, as was also,

(2.) £5,000, Highland Roads and Bridges.

(3.) £10,000, Slave Bounties, &c.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, he wished to inquire what amount was in hand of the £12,000 granted last year? He understood £2,000 of that Vote, only, had been spent.

MR. WILSON

said, that not having had notice of the question, he was sorry that he was not able to answer it. Moreover, the matter more particularly belonged to the Foreign Department. The present Vote was the estimate for the current year.

SIR GEORGE PECHELL

observed, that he thought the hon. Gentleman ought to have been prepared with the necessary information to reply to the question which had been asked. The discussion which took place a few nights since might have been satisfactory to new Members, who believed in the virtue of an Address to the Crown, but it had not been so to himself. He had no faith in any good result being obtained from the remonstrances of our ambassadors at Madrid, unless they were followed up by stringent measures for the suppression of the slave trade. If it was true that only £2,000 had been expended in bounties, last year, it showed how little had been done, and how utterly insufficient our naval force in those seas was to check the traffic. He could not understand why it was, but the Government always seemed afraid to deal with the strong hand in this matter, although it was obvious that no other mode would be effectual. Could the hon. Gentleman say for how many slaves bounty had been paid upon during the year?

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, the House appeared to pass their Votes rather blindly. In 1855 and 1856. £12,000 was voted each year, and now £10,000 was asked for. He would beg to inquire how much of the money voted in the last two years had been drawn out of the Exchequer, how much had been expended, and, if the whole had not been expended, where the balance now was? He believed there was enough money now in hand to render the present Vote unnecessary.

MR. WILSON

said, he would have made the inquiry if notice had been given him, but he was not able to answer off-hand. He would lay on the table a statement of the details for which the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) had asked, and that would show the amount which had been paid. The money could only be applied to the purpose for which it was voted.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

remarked, that he was not sure of that, and would like to have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that it had been applied to no other purpose.

MR. WILSON

replied, that he was certainly not aware of any appropriation of the money to any other purpose than that for which it had been voted.

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

  1. (4.) £1,300, Law and Institutes of Ireland Commission.
  2. (5.) £9,000, Process Servers in Ireland.
  3. (6.) £65,000, Pensions under Merchant Seamen's Fund Act.
  4. (7.) £1,593, Registration of Joint Stock Companies.
  5. (8.) £1,783, Registration of Designs.
  6. (9.) £40,000, Treaties of Reciprocity.
  7. (10.) £4,500, Inspectors of Corn Returns.

MR. STAFFORD

said, he had to make the same statement on this Vote that he made some nine or ten times before. He protested against the expense incurred on account of corn returns which were utterly valueless. A quarter of corn was sold at one place, put down at one price; taken to another place, not ten miles off, perhaps, and there put down at a different price. The result was, that, as a criterion of prices, the returns made by these inspectors, which originated under the Corn Laws, were notoriously fallacious, and nobody engaged in agriculture believed in them. It was perfectly well known that they gave no information whatever as to vast quantities of corn that wore sold throughout the country, and, therefore, the expense incurred was literally thrown away. Time after time, this had been admitted, and the Secretary to the Treasury had promised that something should be done in the matter; but here the old Vote was again proposed.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the system was first introduced with reference to the Corn Laws, and the object of the returns was to regulate the intercourse between this and foreign countries, with respect to the important article of food. At that time these returns were an object of great national importance, but the repeal of those laws rendered them unnecessary for their original purposes, and they were now kept up only with a view to the regulation of the tithe averages. That object was attained with sufficient accuracy under the system, though, certainly, the returns did not give anything like complete information as to all the purchases and sales of corn effected in the kingdom. So far, however, as regarded the average price of corn, they were sufficient to secure an accurate result.

MR. DRUMMOND

said, it was admitted the returns were fallacious. Somebody, therefore, must be cheated. Whether was it the parson or the landlord?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

rejoined, that he had stated that the present system did not give a complete return of the sales of corn throughout the kingdom, but that it answered the purpose for which the returns were now obtained. It gave sufficiently accurate information as to the average price of corn to form a standard for the regulation of tithe averages.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following:—

  1. (11.) £20,000, Distressed British Seamen Abroad.
  2. (12.) £3,600, Quarantine Arrangements.
  3. (13.) £11,850, Revising Barristers.
  4. (14.) £2,892, Constabulary Police at Aldershot.
  5. (15.) £2,000, Inspection of Burial Grounds.

On Vote of £6,679 for Embassies,

MR. WISE

said, that this was an increased and increasing Vote. Having made an outlay of £177,320 on the embassy house, the Committee was required to assent to an annual expenditure of £5,675 for repairs, ordinary works, and rates and taxes. The French Government had proposed that the English Government should provide an embassy house in London for the French representative, and that the French Government should provide a residence in Paris for the English Ambassador, and considering that the embassy house and gardens at Paris were worth from £20,000 to £130,000, and that it cost some £3,000 a year to keep it, he thought it bore the aspect of a beneficial proposition. Notwithstanding, that £8,320 in 1843. £3,892 in 1844, £9,213 in 1853, and £5,078 in 1856, had been expended on the Ambassador's house, and that pound;2,725 was now required, he had been informed that the building was in such a state that £18,000 or £20,000 might be spent upon it now with propriety. He wished to know why this large sum was required, and what prospect there was of this expenditure being reduced? It would be better to sell this property and give the Ambassador a round sum, say £3,000 a year, to provide a residence for himself, than to keep up the present expensive house at Paris. At St. Petersburgh we allowed £1,000 a year, and at Vienna £900 a year to our Envoys for residences, and he thought the same system might be followed at Paris. At Constantinople it was no doubt necessary to have a house, for it differed from Paris, but still there was great room for economy. The embassy house at Constantinople cost £90,000. In 1855 the amount voted for its maintenance was £1,183; in 1856, £1,020; and this year there was a sum of £2,950 put down for ordinary works, repairs, &c. He hoped some explanation would be given on this head, and that the Chief Commissioner of Works, who he was aware looked to these things himself, would be able to effect a reduction for the future. Knowing what embassy houses cost at Paris and Constantinople there was one item in the present Vote that he confessed considerably alarmed him. He observed that the Government contemplated, or at least had been making inquiries relative to the purchase of a house as a residence for the Embassy at Madrid. Now, he would be most unwilling to encourage in any way the purchase or erection of an embassy house at Madrid. It would be much better to make a handsome allowance to the Ambassador for a house than to encumber ourselves with another expensive establishment of that kind. There was an item of £289 for remuneration to an architect who was employed at Madrid to survey and report on two offers—one having reference to a house and the other to a site for an embassy, but he hoped his right hon. Friend would be able to say that, this was some old arrear, and that there was no intention to proceed to the erection of any embassy house at Madrid.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he would answer his hon. Friend's question with reference to Madrid first. As to the item of £289, he had to state that a committee was appointed to inquire into the expenditure at Madrid and into the charges of M. Albano, the architect employed at Madrid. During the sitting of the Committee last year, he (Sir B. Hall) stated that in consequence of the staff of the Office of Works having been remodelled he did not think it would be necessary to require the services of M. Albano again. There was not any charge on his account subsequent to that period, the sum of £289 having been incurred antecedently to the sitting of the Committee. With regard to the apprehensions of his hon. Friend as to the erection of an embassy house at Madrid he had to state that he had no intention of advising the Government to build such a house at Madrid. He was quite aware of the expenditure that had been incurred at Constantinople in purchasing a house, and also at Paris, where the house was in a very unsatisfactory state, and therefore he would not be very ready to advise the Treasury or Parliament to take the same course at Madrid. With regard to the embassy house at Paris he had looked into that matter himself, he went to Paris and examined the house, and found it very much out of repair. He also desired the Surveyor of Works to go to Paris and look into the condition of the house. When his hon. Friend (Mr. Wise) said £18,000 or £20,000 might be expended upon the building he was not far from the truth, for after a careful survey it was found that it would require £18,000 to put it properly in repair. The call made upon the House, however, was for a sum of £2,300, and that was not all for repairs, a portion being allotted to the payment of insurance, water rates, and other items. With regard to Constantinople, he would only say that he had done all he could to keep down the expense, but the Committee must see that from a variety of circumstances the expenditure in that city must necessarily be considerable.

MR. P. O'BRIEN

asked whether it was the intention of the Government to purchase a house at Madrid?

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he was not aware of any intention at present to propose the erection of an embassy house at Madrid. It was very probable that during the recess he might send an officer from his department to inquire into the state of the case.

MR. NICOLL

said, he did not think the explanation given at ail satisfactory, and he should therefore vote for the rejection of the Vote on the ground that the ambassadors should pay for their own houses.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he could assure the Committee that everything in the power of the Government would be done to reduce these Estimates. They were aware that the salary of our Ambassador at Paris was arranged on the understanding that his house and office should be maintained at the public expense, and that the charges for insurance and local taxes should also be paid by the public. The expenses of the ambassadorial establishment at Constantinople was likewise paid by a Vote of that House, and if these expenses were thrown on ambassadors a necessity would arise for revising their salaries and allowances. In that case it would be necessary to ask the House to vote in another form the sums which were now proposed in the Estimates. Under all the circumstances, he thought the present the most direct mode of proceeding.

In reply to Sir FRANCIS BARING,

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he had stated to the House that he could not at present advise the purchase of an embassy house at Madrid, but that during the recess he should send an officer to inquire into the state of the case. Of course, nothing could be done till the matter came before the Treasury and that House.

MR. DRUMMOND

had reason to know that the salaries of our ambassadors both at Vienna and St. Petersburg were very much below what they should be; and the public interests suffered from that circumstance.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

remarked that he did not discredit the statement made as to the unsatisfactory condition of the embassy house at Paris, for when he was in the office now held by the right hon. Baronet his attention had been drawn to it, and the wonder was that the house had remained above ground so long. A great expenditure had been incurred to put it in a creditable state of repair; but he was only afraid that every year such repairs would be declared necessary, and a large expense incurred.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he wished to know if he correctly understood the right hon. Baronet to say that no contract would be entered into for the purpose of an embassy house at Madrid without reference being first made to the Treasury and to Parliament. Ought not the reference to Parliament to come first?

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

Of course nothing could be done without reference to Parliament; but if anything was to be proposed, the proposition must be made in the first instance to the Treasury before it could be submitted to Parliament.

MR. TATTON EGERTON

said, he would remind the right hon. Baronet that this would not be the first time that an arrangement implying outlay had been come to by the Treasury without applying to Parliament. He might specify the recent improvements in the Park, where the money was spent first, and Parliament applied to afterwards.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following:—

  1. (16.) £6,679, British Embassy Houses, &c.
  2. (17.) £1,053, Professors in University of Cambridge.
  3. (18.) £13,730, Incumbered Estates Commission (Ireland).
  4. (19.) £37,060, Lighthouses Abroad.
  5. (20.) £5,000, Exploring the Region of British North America.
  6. (21.) £19,325, Expedition to the Niger, &c.
  7. (22.) £1,000, Orange River Territory (Cape of Good Hope).
  8. (23.) Motion made, and Question proposed,—
That a sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1858, the cost of executing Public Works, maintaining Educational and Benevolent Institutions, and promoting Civilization among the Native Tribes in South Africa.

MR. STAFFORD

said, he wished to ask for an explanation of this Vote.

MR. FORTESCUE

said, this sum had been spent by the Governor of the Cape Colony, Sir G. Grey, according to a scheme which would be found in a paper printed with the Estimates of 1855. The objects on which it had been spent were numerous—the employment of natives on public works, the payment of magistrates to administer English law among the native tribes, gratuities to native chiefs who were willing to co-operate with the Governor in maintaining order among their people, maintaining hospitals for the native sick, and the establishment of industrial schools. The Governor had been most successful in accomplishing the ends for which he had asked this Vote. He had averted a Kaffir war, he had maintained peace on the frontier, and he had brought the colony to such a secure condition that it was confidently anticipated that he would be able to spare troops from the Cape to reinforce our army in India in the present moment of necessity.

MR. STAFFORD

wished to know whether any despatch had been received showing in detail the manner in which the Vote had been spent?

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he had not received any such account at present, but he had written to the Governor desiring him to forward an account to the Home Government, and he had no doubt that it would be sent in due course. Nothing could be more satisfactory than the condition of the Cape at the present moment, and it was due to that distinguished man who was now the Governor, to say that this state of things was owing almost altogether to the energy and ability with which he had administered the affairs of the colony. He had confronted and baffled the danger of an impending Kaffir war, and he had succeeded in keeping the natives in such a peaceable condition that a very considerable portion of the large military force which had been collected for the defence of the colony was available for the purpose of reinforcing our Indian establishment. He had just received the following despatch from Sir G. Grey:— Cape Town, June 8, 1857. Sir,—A good opportunity offering of communication with England, I think it may interest you to hear that affairs upon the frontier and in Caffraria continue in the most satisfactory state, mid that I have no doubt that, if the measures in progress are consistently persevered in, it may now be said that our way to the final settlement of the difficulties which so long prevailed in this country can be distinctly seen. The Colonial Parliament is still sitting; but the Session is now drawing near its close. The several measures brought forward by the Government have all been passed, either as proposed or with flight modifications; and ample supplies have been most cheerfully voted for the public service, including a vote of £50,000 to be expended in the current and ensuing year in introducing European immigrants into this colony. I think I am justified in saying that the colony of the Cape of Good Hope and British Caffraria are, at the present moment, as flourishing and contented as any part of Her Majesty's dominions. I have, &c., G. GREY. The Right Hon. H. Labouchere, M.P., &c. By means of this Vote Sir G. Grey had been able to effect a great deal of good. He had kept the natives quiet, and by giving them employment he had saved many of them from starving when the murrain destroyed their cattle in such great numbers.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, that this grant appeared to him to be an extraordinary one. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman had received any answer to his despatch of January last, inquiring of the Governor General how this money was expended? He (Sir H. Willoughby) also asked whether the Government were prepared to tax the country year after year for money to civilize the tribes? He would not grudge the money if he thought that it would do any substantial good. But if it were intended to saddle the country permanently with this Vote he should certainly oppose it.

MR. HENLEY

said, he was afraid from the words read by the Colonial Secretary from the Governor's despatch—"if the measures now in progress are consistently persevered in" that it was intended to continue these Votes, and he hoped some assurance would be given that that was not the case. He for one protested against being drawn into the payment of black mail to the amount of £40,000 a year to keep the peace at the Cape.

SIR JOHN TRELAWNY

had such a strong objection to the Vote that he should divide the Committee against it.

MR. TATTON EGERTON

said, he also was afraid that the Governor's despatch did not hold out much hope of a diminution of the Vote.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that the Governor did not at all contemplate that this would be a permanent Vote. He had expressed a hope in a late despatch that the revenue of the colony would be speedily in such a flourishing condition that some portion of this Imperial Vote at least might be dispensed with, and he had pointed out various accidental and extraordinary causes which had led to a temporary impoverishment of the revenue.

MR. DE VERE

asked whether any portion of this Vote had been devoted to missionary purposes?

MR. FORTESCUE

said, that part of this Vote had been applied to the establishment of industrial schools, in which good work the missionaries had co-operated, and the only capacity in which the missionaries, so far as he knew, could have received any of this Vote would be as managers of industrial schools.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, that though he intended to vote in favour of this Vote, it was upon the distinct understanding that he was not pledged to support any similar proposal next year. When the grant was first proposed it was stated that it would be asked for three successive years, and this was the third year. He had the utmost confidence in the abilities and prudence of Sir G. Grey, and he thought the country was under infinite obligations to him for the manner in which he had surmounted the difficulties with which he had to deal both in New Zealand and the Cape Colony; but at the same time it could not be denied that payments of this kind, though they might be more peaceful means of keeping the natives quiet than the use of arms, were yet of a very questionable nature. As a Borderer he had a sort of hereditary right to know the nature of these payments, and they were after all nothing better than black mail paid to purchase peace. That was not a system which ought to be countenanced by this country. The Governor himself had stated that there was no colony which was in a more satisfactory state, and under these circumstances he could see no pretext for continuing a Vote of this description in future years. He was not exactly satisfied with a passage in the right hon. Gentleman's despatch to Governor Grey on this subject, where he said, This liberal assistance having been readily voted by Parliament, I hope it will be in your power to report that a smaller sum will suffice in the next ensuing year. That clearly showed that the right hon. Gentleman did not contemplate the discontinuance of this grant, but merely its reduction.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he had a lively recollection of the large amount of money which we had to pay for putting an end to the Kaffir war. If then by continuing the Vote for another year or two they could ensure the permanent peace and contentment of the colony, he should not certainly be one to discourage such an experiment.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he bad no wish to consider any hon. Member who supported this Vote this year pledged to support it next year. At the same time a system of this kind could not be suddenly stopped. He should be glad to refrain from asking for a similar Vote to this next year if he found such a course consistent with his sense of duty. At the same time there might be events—a rising of the Kaffirs for instance—which might render it necessary to give assistance to Kaffraria which the rest of the colony did not need, and therefore he must hold the Government entirely free to propose a Vote next year of a similar description, though it might be of a smaller amount, if it should seem necessary to them in the exercise of their discretion. It would be seen by a reference to Sir G. Grey's despatch that it was not originally contemplated that the grant would be discontinued after three years, but that it would be reduced from the amount of £40,000 at the end of that time, and afterwards annually diminished.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he should oppose the Vote. He wished to know what missionary societies received assistance from this Vote? He believed that the reception of Government assistance was a sure move to ruin any such society.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he was not able to furnish any precise answer on the point. He believed that the only assistance given to the missionaries was by appointing them to superintend the industrial schools which Sir George Grey bad thought it desirable to establish throughout the country.

MR. BONHAM-CARTER

remarked that he agreed with the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) that it was much better to spend £40,000 a year in raising a barrier of civilization against the incursions of the Kaffirs, than to have to pay £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 now and then for the expenses of a Kaffir war. At the same time he thought the Vote should be gradually reduced.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 6: Majority 129.

Vote agreed to; as was also

  1. (24.) £5,580, Pitcairn Islanders Removal.
  2. (25) £7,550, Agricultural Statistics in Ireland and Scotland.

MR. STEUART

said, he wished to call attention to the fact that the expense in Scotland was about £1,000 more than in Ireland. He recommended the application to Scotland of the system of collecting these statistics by means of the constabulary, which obtained in Ireland.

MR. WILSON

said, he would remind the hon. Member that in Scotland the police at present received no payment from the Government. The country was greatly indebted to the Highland Society for the trouble which they took in collecting these statistics.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he would be glad to see a similar Vote for England. He hoped that the time was not far distant when the farmers, less mystified than they were at present, would see that the collection of these statistics was as much for their interest as for that of the public.

MR. BAILLIE

said, he did not think that much reliance could be placed on the Scotch Agricultural returns collected by the Highland Society. They did not give more than a general idea of the produce of the country.

COLONEL SYKES

said, that in the infancy of inquiry they could not obtain perfection, but as they proceeded the results would improve.

MR. DRUMMOND

thought that it was not the fanner, but the British public, which was mystified. These were not agricultural statistics, they were agricultural deceptions, and not of any use to a single man, woman, or child.

MR. PACKE

said, that so far as his experience went, the farmers were greatly opposed to the collection of these statistics.

MR. DE VERE

thought that although the Irish statistics were collected cheaply they were not collected well.

Vote agreed to.

(26.) £6,000, Freight of Specie.

SIR GEORGE PECHELL

said, that some of this money was conveyed by Her Majesty's ships of war, and the parties in those ships were no more justified in charging for the conveyance of this money than a gentleman's coachman was to charge for carrying parcels to his master's house.

Vote agreed to.

On the Vote of £2,000 towards the formation of the Gallery of Portraits of the most eminent persons in British History,

MR. CONINGHAM

said, he rose to oppose the Vote, not because he objected to the formation of a gallery of portraits of distinguished persons, but because he objected to the establishment of such a gallery with a separate staff in a building in Great George Street, Westminster, instead of allowing it to form part of the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square. Sir Charles Eastlake, the director of that Gallery, was a great pluralist. He had £1,000 a year for that office, £500 as Secretary to the Fine Arts Commission, and £300 as President of the Royal Academy. With all these duties to perform he could not have much time to devote to the National Gallery, He had a clerk at a salary of £750 a year, whose duties could be as well performed, under efficient superintendence, by an ordinary clerk receiving only £150 per annum.

MR. TATTON EGERTON rose to order. The question before the Committee had nothing to do with the salaries of the officers of the National Gallery.

MR. CONINGHAM

thought that he was quite in order. It was very desirable that the Committee should ascertain whether it was necessary to set up a new establishment in Great George Street when they had ample machinery for the formation and management of this gallery in Trafalgar Square. The system of having a body of irresponsible trustees, which had been abandoned with regard to the National Gallery, was proposed to be restored in the case of this gallery of portraits, and among the list of names was that of Sir Charles Eastlake and of a noble Marquess who was one of the principal delinquents in the purchase of the Holbein portrait. No responsible officer was appointed, and the inevitable result would be that pictures of the most worthless description would be foisted upon the public as original and valuable gems. Already there had been admitted a portrait given by the late Lord Ellesmere, which he would stake his reputation as a judge of works of art would not by competent judges be estimated at £10. He objected to the gradual dotting over of the West of London with archæological collections, collections of pictures, collections of crockery, of furniture, and of all sorts of rococo, and he was sure that if the House did not make a stand against a system which was pursued with a view to create places for foreigners and Englishmen, but principally the former, there would be a general outcry in the country against it. If he received any encouragement he should divide the Committee against this Vote, and he should certainly next Session take some very decisive steps to put a stop to this extravagant system of expenditure, which was attended with very small results, and was calculated rather to deteriorate than to improve the public taste.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he was ignorant of what decisive steps the hon. Member was going to take to put an end to the expenditure of which he disapproved, but he apprehended that no such steps would be of any avail unless the hon. Gentleman could induce the majority of that House, by whose decision he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was prepared to abide, to support him. He was sorry to have heard a renewal of the attacks upon Sir C. Eastlake in which the hon. Gentleman had indulged on a former occasion, for it was his opinion that Sir C. Eastlake was a most accomplished man, and had performed his duties to the public with great ability and with great assiduity. The gallery to which this Vote was to be appropriated originated in an Address to the Crown which was agreed to last Session by the House of Lords. Its object was different from that of the National Gallery, because while the latter was a collection of pictures valuable as works of art, this was to be a gallery of portraits which might throw light upon the history of the country, and which would be chosen on that I ground, and not with reference to their artistic excellence. He was at a loss to understand the hon. Gentleman's reference to the number of institutions in the west of London. The collections which used to be at Marlborough House having been removed, he knew of nothing to which the remark could apply except the National Gallery of Pictures.

MR. SPOONER

said, he should certainly divide the Committee against the Vote. This was an object for which he did not think it fair to tax the labouring classes from one end of the country to the other.

The hon. Member was addressing the House at a quarter to six o'clock, when the debate was, owing to the Standing Order, suspended, and the House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again on Friday.