SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 19 June 1857)

§ SIR DENHAM NORREYS
said, that having given notice of a Motion for that evening with respect to the Estimates, he had endeavoured to render himself deaf to all that was passing around him, and to shut his ears to the discussions upon the multifarious topics which had sprung up since the meeting of the House, when the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) roused him from the state in which he was by appealing to him to postpone his Motion, He did not wish to become a bore, or to trouble the House with disagreeable propositions, but he believed that the subject of which he had given notice had long attracted the attention of every hon. Member who attended to the proceedings of that House, and that in placing his Motion upon the paper he was pointing out an evil the inconvenience of which was very generally recognized. He was quite ready to leave his Resolution in the hands of the House to adopt it if they thought there was common sense in it, or to reject it if there was not; but if he might be allowed to express an opinion upon his own Motion he should say that it was of more importance to the people of tins country, so far as their pockets were concerned, than any Reform Bill that could be introduced. He 59 believed that all their great speeches about retrenchment went for nothing, and that the really practical way in which to introduce economy in the finances was by attacking the Estimates in detail. Probably no official man, nor any man who had been or expected to be in office, would agree to his proposition, but, if it were adopted, the Estimates would henceforward be examined in such a manner as they had never been examined before. Under the present rule one hon. Gentleman started one hare, and twenty other hon. Gentlemen started twenty other different hares, and the result was that hon. Members' minds became so thoroughly confused that not a single hare was run down. Every job and every extravagance which a Government proposed was sure to pass because the Committee had not by its own forms the power of deciding on each item of a Vote. If each item were separately considered and separately decided, the Estimates would be very different to what they were now. He respected the ancient forms of proceeding, but those in respect to Votes in Supply were no longer applicable to the times. He should very much prefer that the matter should he referred to a Committee, but he would propose his Resolution and leave the House to deal with it as it thought fit. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that it be an instruction to the Chairman in Committee of Supply that if a Member raises a discussion on any item of the Estimates, by proposing that it be omitted or modified, the Chairman shall confine the discussion to that item until it shall have been disposed of by the House, and that the Question shall be put to the House on the item under discussion separately and apart from the other items comprising the total amount to be voted.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
seconded the Motion.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I ought to point out to the hon. Baronet that the only mode in which he can put his Motion is in the form of an Amendment on the Motion that I do now leave the Chair. That is the Motion at present before the House, and no other Motion can be now made except as an Amendment to that Question. It will be necessary, too, for the hon. Baronet to make a change in the wording of his Resolution before I can with propriety put it, because the instruction ought to be to the Committee, and not to the Chairman. Amendment proposed, to leave out from the 60 word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it be an Instruction to the Committee, That if a Member raises a discussion on any item of the Estimates, by proposing that it be omitted or modified, the Chairman shall confine the discussion to that item, until it shall have been disposed of by the Committee; and that the Question shall be put to the Committee on the item under discussion separately and apart from the other items comprising the total amount to be voted," instead thereof.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he agreed with the noble Lord the Member for London and the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in thinking that it would be well that this subject should be referred to a Committee, but if the Motion were now persisted in it would be necessary to give an opinion on the subject at once. An idea seemed to have suddenly struck a great many hon. Gentlemen, from the proceedings of Friday night, that the rules of the House needed amendment, so that it might he possible for hon. Members to vote in two lobbies at one time. The confusion consequent upon discussing two or three questions at one time arose, not so much from the form of proceedings in the House of Commons, as from the desire of the Government to submit the Estimates in detail, and to give every information which hon. Members might desire in reference to them. If the hon. Baronet's proposition were adopted he was afraid it would only make confusion worse confounded. Supposing an Estimate of fifty items were under discussion, the first question to be put would be, "That a sum not exceeding—whatever the amount might be—be granted to Her Majesty." An hon. Member might take exception to the last item, say, of the fifty; if the discussion was to turn and the votes to be taken on that item, as the hon. Baronet proposed, the first step would be to withdraw the original question by leave, and to put the item objected to as the main question. After that was disposed of the original question would again have to be put, when some other hon. Member might drop down upon some other item, and the same process would have to be gone through, and so on throughout all the fifty items of the Estimate. The true remedy was in the hands of the Government. They had not these difficulties heretofore, because the items were kept more together, if he might use such a phrase, and he could not help expressing 61 his opinion, that with respect to a Vote containing a number of small items, if the House were to attempt to give a separate decision on each of those different items, it would not be able to exercise economy in reference to them so effectually as the Government could who had considered them. He did not think it right to allow the Minister to shelter himself under the authority of that House in respect to every one of these little details, for he would have no difficulty in making out a case for each, which the House could not resist, as the House would not know anything about the items but what he chose to tell them. Such a course of proceeding, so far from leading to a beneficial result, would have quite a contrary tendency. If the Government thought fit to have the matter inquired into by a Committee, he (Mr. Henley) was not inclined to object to that proceeding; but, as the existing forms had lasted so long, he had a strong opinion that it would be difficult to alter them with advantage to the public.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had on the whole taken so sound a view of the matter that he should have had but little disposition to add anything to his statement, had he not thought that it might be expected that something would be said on the part of the Government. According to the 206th section of the printed Rules and Forms of Proceeding of the House it was settled that where there arose a question between a greater and lesser sum, or a shorter or longer time, the least sum and the longest time were first to be put to the question; and that was stated to be an ancient order observed in November, 1675. Consequently, that rule had the merit of prescription on its side, and had stood the test of long experience. That was a point deserving consideration before an alteration was hastily adopted; and he recollected it to have been remarked by the late Speaker, than whom no one could speak with greater authority on such matters, that the more he considered the rules of procedure in that House the more he was convinced that they were founded on good sense. He would, therefore, strongly advise the House not, without good and solid reasons, to alter the present simple rule. He was willing to admit that when that rule was first introduced, and for very many years afterwards, the forms of the Votes were much simpler 62 than at present. Some years ago the Votes proposed in the Estimates simply stated certain services with scarcely any detail, and, whenever detail was required it was furnished by some member of the Government, who orally, and while a Vote was under discussion, furnished the requisite explanations to satisfy the House of its propriety; but in consequence of the repeated demands of the House, and particularly of the Committees on the Estimates which sat in 1848, the Estimates were now really loaded with an amount of details which almost defeated the purpose which that detailed information was sought for, and prevented hon. Members from reading and studying the Estimates to the extent to which they might attend to them if less information were given. He doubted, without meaning improperly to remark on the industry of hon. Members, whether they all took the trouble to go in detail through the immense quantity of matter in small print now submitted to them. If hon. Members looked to the Army and Navy Estimates of the present year they would see under the head of Public Works and Fortifications a great succession of items, many of them of considerable importance, and if they had been inclined to deal with them in the same manner as the Civil Service Estimates had been dealt with the other night, they would have met with precisely the same embarrassment. If the Committee of Supply really undertook to go through the Estimates on the plan according to which a Bill was considered in Committee, and if the Estimates were to be read line by line, and each item put separately, he really did not know how many nights would be required for Supply in the course of the Session. The hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment had said that no person in office, or who desired to be in office, would ever assent to it; but he assured the hon. Baronet that no official Member had any wish to promote any rule of procedure other than that which should create the greatest clearness in the Committee of Supply, and enable the question to be put with the least confusion. He, however, entirely agreed in what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) with his usual shrewdness, had remarked, that the course now suggested would not tend to substantial economy. A vast deal of time would be consumed in discussing minute items of expenditure while the practical result, undoubtedly would be that the responsibility of 63 the Government would be diminished, and the House by attempting to go through a mass of details, would really limit the control it otherwise exercised. He thought the more convenient and advantageous course would be to throw the responsibility of the details of expenditure on the executive, and to leave the decison of great and important principles of expenditure to the House. Let not the hon. Baronet suppose that the mode of proceeding suggested by him would increase the trouble of the Executive Government. Their trouble consisted in mating the Estimates and studying them, but not in explaining them, since they were in possession of all the facts. If the House should on consideration find that the present rule was insufficient there would be no difficulty on the part of the Government to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee whenever it should be thought fit to appoint such Committee. He should not have the smallest objection to that course, but he had considerable doubt whether the present rule would not be found sufficient. When there were several items in a Vote the question was put upon the total Vote, and if single items were objected to it would be easy for hon. Gentlemen to state their different objections and add the several items objected to together ["Oh, oh!"] He was only stating the course actually adopted, and such cases would not occur frequently. If that course should be found unsatisfactory the House would have to consider whether some other course of procedure should be adopted, such as that sketched out by the hon. Baronet; but as far as the Government were concerned, they had no objection to the appointment of a Committee and to the substitution of any simple rule for the existing one. Unquestionably they had the strongest wish and interest for the promotion of that course of procedure which tended to the greatest clearness, and was most calculated to obviate confusion in the discussion of the different Votes.

§ Mr. CROSSLEY
said, he believed that it was true that more detailed information was now given than formerly with respect to items in the Votes of Supply, but it amounted to nothing more than waste paper if, when it was laid before the House, hon. Members could not object to separate items. It was quite impossible to follow the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that hon. Members objecting to different items, should add the sums together, 64 and then move that the total amount be deducted from the Vote proposed, because with respect to those several items some hon. Members might concur in a portion, objecting only to one or two, and therefore they could not possibly amalgamate their objection with the objections of others. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), thought matters went on very well because they had never met with a difficulty before, but the reason of that was that the Government was always too strong for them, and able to push the Votes through; but when they became too strong for the Government they might be able to strike out from the Estimates items that ought not to be there. As the Government did not seem to object to the appointment of a Committee, the best course for the hon. Member for Mallow to pursue would be to withdraw his Motion and leave the matter in the hands of Government.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, it seemed to be the general opinion, that if the forms of the House were to be considered at all, they had better be considered by a Select Committee than in the House itself. He had been a member several times of Committees appointed to confer on subjects like these, and he knew that after that process very different results were obtained from what could have been arrived at in the heat of debate in that House. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, based his argument on a ground that rather astonished him. He said, the difficulty now complained of never occurred before, because we had always strong Governments to deal with. Now, he had always thought, till now, that the general subject of congratulation was, that we had a strong Government, and he certainly had expected that the new Parliament would have given the noble Lord a trial for at least one Session. His opinion was, that the more they altered the forms of the House in respect to matters like these, the more they were increasing the power of the Members of the House and proportionally diminishing the responsibility of Ministers, and this was a course to which he could not give his approbation. He knew that no Motion was more popular than to move, that the Estimates should be referred to a Select Committee. Now, to refer the Estimates to a Select Committee was, in effect, saying to the Ministers that they should not exercise their intellect or incur any responsibility in reference 65 to these Estimates. Under our Parliamentary constitution the Ministers of the Crown were the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and those who would refer such questions to a Select Committee were only endeavouring to take the work out of the hands of the Government. With regard to the Estimates, a very great change had taken place within the last two or three years in the form of drawing them up. There was the appearance of a great deal more information being imparted to the House of Commons, and the House accepted that as an evidence of its increased authority. Now, he thought the House should view that information with considerable suspicion. In old days a Vote was asked, say, for £100,000 for palaces; the Minister who proposed the Vote was supposed to be master of his subject. He explained it, if necessary; and the House, if satisfied, granted the £100,000 on his responsibility. If any details required explanation, he could be reckoned upon in his place to give it. He was prepared with a statement on the subject of the Estimate; and the Committee, after hearing his statement, with the advantage of cross-examination, were able to form an opinion; and if they were satisfied that his general and aggregate Estimate ought to be sustained, then they passed it. Now the fault of the present system was, that they had in one Vote too many items. It was perfectly absurd to fill up the Vote with the details of every miserable item, as if the Ministers could not, for example, be charged without the interference of the House with the responsibility of a water-closet. But, under the present system, the matter might become serious as regarded the public business. Any four men might, by the forms of the House, bring its business to a close. Any four men could, by the forms of the House, make a dissolution of Parliament absolutely necessary. And if there was not sufficient good sense in the country to insure that these four men would never be returned again, they might soon have such a dissolution of Parliament brought upon them. Why, they might destroy the British constitution at any time. Suppose they were to lay down, as one of the great principles of the Parliamentary constitution, that they should go into the minute details of every Vote. Every one would, of course, be entitled to require an explanation of the most minute particulars, and in such a case he wanted to know how 66 business was to be carried on. The Minister who ought to be responsible, required a certain amount to maintain Her Majesty's palaces, and if he was a Minister who deserved their confidence—and his position implied that he did—they must suppose that he would not propose a sum for that purpose without making himself master of the business. With him, then, ought to rest the responsibility; but, if the Members of that House were to analyze the Estimate in detail, they would introduce into public business and into the conduct of the affairs of this great nation principles which they did not adopt in the management of their own establishments, and which, if they did, they would get no servant to carry out, or, at the best, such a servant as would not be worth keeping in any establishment.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he wished to ask, how it was possible for the House to deal satisfactorily with thirty or forty different items, all lumped together in one Vote. Within the last few years, a sum of £9,882,000 had been taken as one Vote, and in a Vote of this year (No. 12) thirty-four different items had been lumped together. The consequence of such a system was, that they could only address themselves effectively to some one leading topic, while numerous other objectionable matters escaped notice. The first thing to be done was, to have well-devised and well-considered Estimates, and have the items so classified, that discussion could take place on any item with something like effect. It was impossible in a House of 654 Members to discuss any small matter, but if the Votes were properly classified, the opinions of the House could be brought to bear upon any great particular grievance. He hoped some practical result would flow from this debate. The great difficulty they had to remove was, that after the first objection to a Vote, all other hon. Members were shut out from objecting. He hoped the Government would consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the subject.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, it appeared to him that the difficulty which was complained of, might be removed by a very simple process. Under the present system the Government proposed a Vote—say, of £39,691, that Vote being composed of a large number of items. He would suppose that four of those items were objected to by different Members. If, upon a division 67 the reduction proposed by one of these hon. Members was carried, no further reduction of the Vote could take place. That appeared to him—and, he believed, to every hon. Member of the House—a most unwise arrangement, because a Vote might contain 100 or 200 items, and he thought an opportunity ought to be given to hon. Members to object to every item which they deemed exceptionable. He was aware that the objection to increase the power of the House in this matter would have the effect of diminishing the responsibility of the Ministry was a favourite objection; but he must say, that he regarded with a good deal of suspicion the disinclination which existed to afford too much information to the House. He knew that Ministers, and those who expected to be Ministers, were not anxious to afford such information; but, as the great majority of Members of that House never expected to be Ministers, and only sought to promote the interests of their constituents, he would advise them to require the fullest information with regard to every item of expenditure. He thought that the best course would be, that the Chairman of the Committee of Supply should begin by announcing the total amount of a Vote—say, £39,691—and should then proceed to read the items which constituted the Vote. The first item, for instance, might be "Buckingham Palace, £2,450." Well, nobody took any objection to that. Then the Chairman passed to the next item, which was not opposed; but when he came to the third item an objection was raised. He (Mr. Roebuck) thought all the items which had been read without objection should be taken as passed; but that when exception was taken to a particular item, a division, if it were called for, should take place upon that item. He recollected that when an alteration in the mode of taking divisions was suggested, and it was proposed to take down the names of hon. Members, it was objected that the change would only tend to waste the time of the House, but he would put it to the hon. Members who were acquainted with the old system whether that had been the result. He believed that if his suggestion were adopted, the Estimates would be passed very rapidly. Under the present system, scenes of contention occasionally occurred which were disgraceful to the House. Why, only on Friday they were engaged in discussion from five o'clock in the afternoon until one o'clock in the morning 68 without passing a single Vote, and the Estimates were now precisely in the same position in which they were when that debate commenced. In his opinion, if an objection was raised to a particular item in a Vote, a division should be taken, and the Committee should then proceed to consider the subsequent items. This would ensure a discussion pertinent and consecutive, and they would not then have to complain of every one starting a hare and nobody catching it. He believed that if a Select Committee, consisting of experienced Members, were appointed to consider this question, they would speedily arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.

§ LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR
suggested, that if a Select Committee was to be appointed, it was an unnecessary waste of the time of the House to proceed with this discussion. He, therefore, would advise the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion.

§ SIR DENHAM NORREYS
said, if the Government were prepared to state that they would appoint a fairly selected Committee, to consider in what manner the Estimates could be most conveniently discussed, he would withdraw his Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
observed that, as it seemed to be the wish of the majority of the House that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider, whether any and what alteration could be made in Parliamentary forms, with the view of expediting proceedings in Committee of the whole House, he was prepared to state that he would move for the appointment of such a Committee.

§ MR. STAFFORD
wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether the Estimates of his Department were submitted to an audit, and if not, whether it was intended to submit them to the same audit as the Army and Navy Estimates?

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
said, in reply to a question from Mr. Stafford, that the accounts of the Board of Works were regularly audited; the mode of keeping those accounts would probably be brought under the consideration of the Committee on public moneys, and that when the report of that Committee was presented, the accounts of the Board would be made out in a different form from that in which they were now prepared under the provisions of an Act of Parliament. He was glad to 69 have the opportunity of stating that those accounts were now subject to audit, under the provisions of the 14 & 15 Vict.

§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNY
said, he should divide the Committee on the item of £4,500 for the erection of a residence for the Royal Equerry, unless he received some satisfactory explanation of the necessity for such a building.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
said, that before he inserted this item in the Estimates he visited the Royal Mews, and satisfied himself that the proposed changes were necessary.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
observed that this item included a charge for "a schoolroom for the children of Her Majesty's servants." He considered the promotion of education a very praiseworthy object, but he did not wish to see education promoted by these means. The House of Commons did not provide a place of education for its servants, why, then, should there be a school for those of the Queen? He thought the whole item ought to be struck out. It was— For the erection of a residence for the Crown Equerry, including a waiting-room, porter's-room, and store-rooms, and for the appropriation of the present residence of the equerry as apartments for the second clerk, and for an office and waitingroom for the Master of the Horse; for the removal of the third clerk from the rooms he at present occupies in the east wing to the apartments to be vacated by the second clerk; and for adapting the rooms of the third clerk as a schoolroom for the children of Her Majesty's servants, and as a residence for the schoolmistress, also for new carriage and foot gates to the principal entrance. If the public money were to be spent in that way, the sooner the House of Commons ceased to call itself the guardian of the public purse the better. He really thought the Government should have been ashamed to submit such items to the House.

§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNY
asked why St. James's Palace could not be adapted for public offices? Buckingham Palace ought to be sufficient for court purposes, and St. James's would make a very good War Office.

§ MR. BRISCOE
thought the Vote for 70 filling up the spot of ground at Pimlico was most reasonable, and with regard to the item for the erection of a schoolroom he should most cordially concur in supporting it, believing it to be a most praiseworthy application of money.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he thought that the Committee ought not to pass such Estimates. The question was, not whether the amount was large or small, but whether the Vote was right or wrong. It was very right for Her Majesty to erect a school for these children, but then the public ought not to be called on to pay it. He found, also, that it was proposed that there should be expended on the repairs of those portions of St. James's Palace, occupied by Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge and His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, a sum of £2,689. But it seemed to him that if residences were provided for those Royal personages they ought themselves to defray the cost of keeping them in proper condition; at any rate, he should like to reduce that item by half. He had also to object to the proposed outlay of £6,218 on Hampton Court Palace. It appeared that during the last ten years there had been expended on that building not less than £70,000. That was, he maintained, an extravagant outlay; and in page 14 he found another Vote, Hampton Court Park. The different items were so scattered about that it was almost impossible to tell what any one building really cost. Hampton Court Park was put down at £961. The pleasure grounds of Longford River, £2,525, and the roads £833, making together over £4,000; and during the last ten years these items had amounted to £40,000 or £50,000. Let it be remembered, too, that Hampton Court Palace was never used by Her Majesty, but was occupied principally by indigent members of the aristocracy. He might be told that apartments had been provided there for the widows of two distinguished officers who had fallen on the field of battle; but he would venture to say that if the proper inquiry were made it would be found that worse accommodation was given to those ladies than to other persons who had no similar claims on the gratitude of the country. He did not complain that a provision had been made for those two widows, but he thought it would be better if it were furnished in the shape of an annuity. It appeared that there was a stud at Hampton Court, for in page 4 71 there was a Vote on account of it, and that young horses from that stud were annually sold. He wished to know to whom the proceeds of those sales went? And he would also ask what Members of the Royal Family occupied Bushy Park and Frogmore House and grounds, for the maintenance of which a sum of over £2,000 was set down in these Estimates?

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
replied, that Bushy Park was unoccupied, and Frogmore House was occupied by the Duchess of Kent. He had stated on a previous evening, in reference to the Vote for Hampton Court paddocks, that the young stock which were sold last week were the property of Her Majesty, who of course received the proceeds; and at the same time he explained that none of the stock had been bred in the paddocks for which the Vote was asked.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he did not wish to withdraw at once the whole amount for the Royal Palaces, but there were several which were not occupied by any Members of the Royal Family. He must also beg again to express his disapproval of the Vote for the repairs of those portions of St. James's Palace occupied by their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. He also objected to the charge for Kensington Palace, which was at present, he believed, occupied by no person except the Duchess of Inverness. He wished to see the Votes for St. James's Palace, Kensington Palace, and Hampton Court, reduced by one-half; and in order to obtain that object, he moved that the Vote should be reduced by a sum of £4,926, so that it should stand at £34,765 instead of £39,691. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £34,765, be granted to Her Majesty, for the maintenance and repair of the Royal Palaces for one year, from the 1st day of April 1857 to the 31st day of March 1858.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
said, he understood the hon. Member for Lambeth to say that he would allow one-half of the sum for the repair of the Royal palaces to be voted that evening. What would be the consequence? They would be able to effect one-half of the repairs, and next year or the year after they would have to vote an additional sum for the purpose of making at a higher cost those repairs which, if taken in time, might be done for a moderate sum. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that these Estimates had 72 not been inserted in the Votes without the most careful consideration. He had attended to most of them himself, so far as he could do so. The hon. Member for Lambeth always let fly, especially at Hampton Court Palace, saying that the people took no interest in it. He wished that the hon. Gentleman would go down some Sunday, and see the number of people that flocked thither. A few Sundays ago between 13,000 and 14,000 persons passed through the apartments of Hampton Court Palace, thoroughly enjoying themselves. What would the people say to the House if they allowed the palace to fall into decay? He had therefore felt it his duty to produce these Estimates for the purpose of keeping in repair that structure, which was one of the decorations—if he might use the expression—of this country. Let him call the attention of the Committee to the manner in which the apartments of Hampton Court Palace were appropriated by the Queen. Formerly the Lord Chamberlain had the appropriation of the apartments, and it was charged against him that he divided them among his friends and relations. All that had been changed. The Queen had now taken them under her own supervision, and nothing could be more admirable than the way in which Her Majesty had appropriated them to the widows of men who had distinguished themselves in the wars of the country. [Mr. W. WILLIAMS: Who are they?] He might mention the names of Shadforth, of Boxer, of Strangways, of Cureton, and of many other distinguished officers, whose widows had been accommodated with apartments in Hampton Court Palace. It was now proposed to keep that and other palaces in order, so that they might not get worse than they were; and he would venture to say that if they had been put in a proper state of repair in time, they would have been much less expensive than the Committee now found them to be.

MR. BIGGS
said, that the population of 70,000 which he represented was for true economy, but not parsimony. These debates were, to a great extent, time wasted, and he was sure that a great majority of hon. Members would agree with the poet that they are— Petty quarrels about petty things.

LORD JOHN MANNERS
observed that the hon. Member for Lambeth had blamed the Government for having distributed the Votes under so many different heads; but 73 it was not too much to say that when he sat down the Committee had not the faintest conception what Vote he was speaking about, or to what palaces or buildings his remarks were applied. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not act in the same way in future, but would remember the difficulty in which the Committee was placed when Votes were placed before it in such a way as to render systematic or regular discussion altogether impossible. The hon. Member, to whom the Chief Commissioner had given an admirable answer, so far as any answer could be given, seemed to propose either to make those palaces which were not in the personal occupation of Her Majesty perfectly useless by allowing nobody to inhabit them, or to permit them to fall into decay, and become a perpetual monument of his absurd economy. The Committee would act far more wisely if it followed the advice of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Biggs), and discussed all these questions with a view to true economy. Wholesale reductions of Votes indicated no principle, and could lead to no result except to enable hon. Members who had not the courage to face real extravagance to say to their constituents, "See what bold fellows we are! In a Committee of the whole House of Commons, and in opposition to Government, we proposed to cut down one-half of the Votes for the Royal palaces."

§ MR. DILLWYN
hoped the hon. Member for Lambeth would withdraw his Amendment, and allow the Committee to discuss the proposition of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Trelawny) with respect to the Crown equerries. The Royal palaces ought either to be kept up in a proper manner or not at all. It was of no manner of use to keep nibbling at the Votes in this way.

MR. PIGOTT
could not agree with the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire (Lord J. Manners) that the observations of the hon. Member for Lambeth were either unnecessary or ill-timed. They had, at all events, effected one good object, for they had drawn forth some excellent advice from the noble Lord, and a very satisfactory explanation from the Chief Commissioner. He believed that the discussion of these Votes was both necessary and useful.

§ SIR JOHN TROLLOPE
observed that the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire had not deprecated the discussion of these estimates, but had simply found fault 74 with the mode in which they had been dealt with by the hon. Member for Lambeth as being based on no intelligible principle. He must say, for his own part, that the hon. Gentleman was so confused, so little to the purpose, and so rapid in his transitions from one portion of the Votes to another, that he found it impossible to follow him through his statement. There could be no doubt that Hampton Court Palace afforded immense gratification to the hard-worked, middle, and lower classes of this great metropolis; and if anything could lessen his regret at knowing that they flocked thither in large numbers on Sunday, which was the last day that ought to be devoted to such a purpose, it would be the fact that they spent their time there in a reasonable and happy manner. He hoped the Committee would maintain the Vote in its integrity. The hon. Member for Lambeth proposed to reduce it by a round sum, but he stated no reason why the Committee should lop off that particular amount.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that he agreed that the House ought to express its opinion upon some principle with regard to these Votes, and not upon the pounds, shillings, and pence alone involved. A very important question might be raised on the present Vote. A large sum had been spent by the nation in providing a splendid palace for the Sovereign, and if Buckingham Palace were not everything that could be wished, it was not because the House of Commons had voted the money wanted with a grudging hand. The question to which he referred was, what ought to become of the old palaces which the Sovereign had vacated? He contended that they ought to be surrendered to the country, in order that they might be made available for national purposes. The proper mode of carrying out this principle would be by disallowing all the money proposed to be voted for St. James's Palace, and thus declaring that the House would not recognize the keeping up of St. James's Palace for the Sovereign. He had not had time to consider this matter maturely, but upon a future occasion he would not allow the Vote to pass without raising the question. He therefore gave the Government twelve month's notice to quit St. James's Palace.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he knew the alacrity with which the House voted away the public money. Was it necessary for the maintenance of Hampton Court Palace 75 and grounds to expend every year £12,000 upon it? Still he was not for doing away with Hampton Court. He would beg to withdraw his Motion.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, he must protest against the imputation which his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Williams) was always ready to cast upon those who differed with him,—that they voted away the public money with alacrity. He was just as ready as his hon. Friend to be economical, but he hoped he showed more common sense in his economy than his hon. Friend. If his hon. Friend declared that those who lived in these palaces, and paid no rent for them, ought to keep them in repair, that would be a definite proposition; but to come down, as his hon. Friend did, and detain the House for an hour on a Motion to withdraw half a Vote, so that the palace might be half painted and half cleansed, passed his comprehension. That was about as sensible as for his hon. Friend to come home from a public meeting with his face dusty and dirty, and to wash one side of his face to-day and the other half to-morrow.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, in page 2 of the Estimates it was stated that the sum voted on account last Session was deducted at the head of each estimate; but, it appeared to him that the sum of £39,961, now asked for, was the total expenditure for the year. He wished to know what had become of the sum voted on account.

MR. WILSON
explained that last Session a Vote of £60,000 had been taken on account of the sum of £196,000, required for royal palaces and public buildings. The estimates for these purposes were now divided under three separate heads; the full amount was asked on each of the two first, and credit for the whole amount of £60,000 would be found under the third head, at page 5.
In answer to a question from Sir H. WILLOUGHBY,

MR. WILSON
explained that the Return for 1856 placed in the margin of these Estimates, showed the amount that had actually been expended in the twelve months ending September last. The present Estimates gave the sum which it was considered would be required for the various objects during the present year, but from the nature of these objects the money was not always expended during the year, as the objects could not be 76 carried out in a given time. That was a distinction between the Civil Service Estimates and those voted for the army and navy, the amount voted for which was always expended during the year.
The Chairman was about to put the question, when

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, that the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trelawny) had not withdrawn his Amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN
said, he had received only one Amendment.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, that in that case he would move that the Vote be reduced by £4,500, the item for the alterations in the equerries' house. Motion made, and Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £35,191, be granted to Her Majesty, for the maintenance and repair of the Royal Palaces for one year, from the 1st day of April 1857 to the 31st day of March 1858," put, and negatived. Original Question put, and agreed to. (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £60,386, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary for maintenance and repair of Public Buildings, for providing the necessary supply of Water for the same, for Rents of Houses for the temporary accommodation of Public Departments and charges attendant thereon, for one year, from the 1st day of April 1857 to the 31st day of March 1858.

§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNY
said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the British Museum was not opened in the evenings, by which working men after the cessation of the day's labour were precluded from visiting it. At present the privilege of seeing the Museum might be said to be exclusively enjoyed by the higher and middle classes only, and he could not see why an arrangement might not be made for admitting the humbler classes in the evening.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
reminded the hon. Baronet that the British Museum was under the management of the Board of Trustees, and that the proper time for raising the question which he had just brought under consideration would be when the separate Vote for the Museum was proposed. He might state that the suggestion of the hon. Baronet was a matter which had been much discussed at different times by the Trustees of the Museum. It also became a question with the Trustees whether the reading-room should be open at nights. The objection to lights in the reading-room in the evenings was considerable, 77 and, notwithstanding the earnest wish of the Trustees to make the Museum as extensively available as possible, they had come to the conclusion that, charged as they were with the public duty of guarding so valuable a collection of books and manuscripts, they would not be justified in opening the reading-room at nights. They were fortified in that conclusion by the fact that their present practice of only opening the Museum and reading-room in the daytime was in unison with that adopted in similar institutions on the Continent.

§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNY
said, the difficulty might be got over by opening the Museum on Sundays. ("No, no!") Some hon. Members might differ with him on that point, but Hampton Court Palace and Kew Gardens were open on Sundays, and no one ventured to say that any harm had ensued from that practice. He did not see why after, or between, the hours of divine service on Sundays the Museum might not be opened to the public. He knew that the result of such an arrangement would be that thousands of the working classes would gladly avail themselves of seeing the antiquities and works of art collected within the building, instead of spending their leisure on Sundays in public-houses. He had another suggestion to make, and that was that the ugly screen in front of Burlington House might be taken down with advantage to the public and to the appearance of the building itself.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
said, he could not suppose the hon. Baronet had been inside the courtyard of Burlington House, otherwise he would have been convinced that if the wall or screen were taken down the public would see very little more worth looking at than they now saw through the centre gates, for, except the house itself, a great part of the courtyard only communicated with stables and back premises which were not very agreeable objects to look at.

LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, there was a considerable Vote taken for furnishing accommodation to certain learned societies in Burlington House, but he had always understood that the occupation there of those societies was only to be a temporary one; and he should wish to hear from some Member of the Government what was to be the ultimate destination of Burlington House.

MR. WILSON
said, no decision had been come to by the Government as to the 78 permanent occupation of Burlington House, but certainly the want of room felt in Somerset House occasioned by the necessity of providing offices for the collection of the succession duty and for other public departments rendered it necessary that they should make arrangements for the removal of the learned societies in question from the premises where they had been located for so many years, and providing other accommodation for them elsewhere. They had consequently been transferred to Burlington House, which they were to occupy for a time. He believed, however, the present arrangement in respect of those societies was a convenient and economical one.

§ SIR JOHN TROLLOPE
wished to know whether there had been a specific agreement with those learned societies that apartments were to be found for them in any of the public buildings. Undoubtedly, office room was wanted for the Department of the Succession Duty, but he had never understood it to be necessary that if those learned societies, some of whom were wealthy bodies, were removed from Burlington House, the Government were to provide lodgings for them elsewhere. The time had come, he thought, when they should be called on to furnish accommodation for themselves. He did not agree with the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) that there would be no public advantage in taking down the wall in front of Burlington House. On the contrary, as a matter of taste, he submitted it ought to be taken down, and that if the view of the house were thrown open to the public they might expect to get something for their money. But at present the public only knew that certain learned societies had lodgings in Burlington House.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
said, he should be very glad that the public should be enabled to see all that was worth looking at in Burlington House. It appeared to him, however, that with the exception of the view of the building which was to be obtained from the central gateway, it would present no feature of particular interest, unless the stables which were behind the walls at each side of the gateway were taken down, and in order to accomplish that the Committee must be prepared to vote an additional sum of money.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, the statement to the effect that when Burlington House was first purchased no agreement had been entered into to give it up to the 79 learned societies was perfectly correct. It was, however, a very natural arrangement to make, that as those societies had been deprived of the rooms which, owing to the beneficence of King George III., had been allotted to them at Somerset House, apartments at Burlington House should be placed at their disposal. He should be sorry, however, to find that the temporary occupation of those apartments should be converted into a permanent title to their possession. If Burlington House were to be allowed to remain as it at present stood, he thought an iron railing in front might with great advantage be constructed, but he was at the same time of opinion that the whole plan in connection with it might be reconsidered, with the view of turning the three acres which composed its site to the best possible account.

MR. WILSON
observed, that the learned societies in question were entitled to the possession of rooms by royal grant, and therefore that, upon their removal from Somerset House, it became necessary to procure apartments for them elsewhere. They had consequently been located in Burlington House, but only upon the distinct understanding that they should leave it the moment the Government might deem it expedient to turn its site to some other use.

§ VISCOUNT GODERICH
said, that the Royal Society was the only Society which had been removed from Somerset House to Burlington House. The Linnæan Society had removed, at a great expense to themselves, from their house in Soho Square, and he should maintain that that Society ought not to be turned out of its present quarters, unless the Government were prepared to make some compensation for the outlay to which he had referred.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
objected to the item for the buildings for the War Department, which were dispersed over various streets. He could not understand why the War Department should be spread over so many offices. There was a house next door to the Ordnance Office which might be advantageously added to the buildings of the War Department. The same offices appeared to be charged twice. They were found in two items.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
said one item was for rent, and the other for repairs.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, he observed an item for the expenses attendant on the bringing of these learned bodies into Burlington House. He had no doubt, how- 80 ever, that when the time came for their removal, the country would be called upon to pay the cost of getting them out; he should move as an Amendment, therefore, that the sum of £4,725, which the Committee was asked to grant for the purpose of converting the buildings of the west wing of Burlington House into lecture and examination rooms for scientific societies be deducted from the Vote. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £55,661, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary for maintenance and repair of Public Buildings, for providing the necessary supply of Water for the same, for Rents of Houses for the temporary accommodation of Public Departments and charges attendant thereon, for one year, from the 1st day of April 1857 to the 31st day of March 1858.

§ MR. TITE
said, that the Royal Society, the Geographical Society, and the Antiquarian Society, were formerly located in Somerset House, and they were asked by the Government to go to Burlington House. The Antiquarian and Geological Societies declined; the Royal Society, and the Linnæan and Chemical Societies went there, and this charge was for the improving and decorating the hall for their meetings. These societies were not wealthy, and they understood that their location in Burlington House was to be permanent, and they had gone to expense on the faith of that understanding. As the Society accommodated the Government in leaving Somerset House, the Government were bound to provide other accommodation for them if they could not retain Burlington House. The money and some time had been spent, and it would have been wrong of the Government if they had not provided accommodation for the discharge of public duties at Somerset House, by providing another place for the assemblage of the learned societies. It was idle, thereford, to talk of reducing the Vote.

MR. WILSON
observed that the Government had, some time since, been charged with neglect for not having provided a sufficient staff of clerks for the purpose of collecting the succession duty, and that, the matter having early last autumn been brought under the notice of the Treasury, they had made a proposal to these learned societies to the effect that, if they were prepared to give up the apartments in Somerset House, which had been allotted to them by Royal grant, the Government would place at their disposal rooms in Burlington House. Now, if the Government had taken a contrary course, 81 it was quite clear that they would have been obliged to pay a considerable rent for rooms in which to accommodate the staff of clerks to which he had just alluded. The Government never contemplated that, by putting Burlington House to this purpose, they infringed the right of these public societies to permanent accommodation. The societies were good enough to go out of rooms in Somerset House which they were perfectly entitled to retain, in order to accommodate the Government, and it was only reasonable that, in the event of leaving Burlington House, when it was wanted for other purposes, they should be furnished with a new building. He quite agreed in the proposition that the Government were bound to furnish other rooms in the event of these societies not being able to retain the rooms they now used in Burlington House, and he thought that great blame would have attached to the Government if they had neglected to make this arrangement.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, he was glad that Government had purchased the garden of Burlington House. It was, however, useless to anybody except the sparrows, and he thought Government ought to produce a proper plan for utilizing it, and making it available to the public. Still, under all the circumstances, he was not sorry to see it applied to its present purpose. So much public feeling attached to these literary and scientific societies, that they ought to be fostered and encouraged by the Government. He would suggest that the house, being very low, should be raised two or three stories, that the unoccupied grounds behind should, if necessary, be built over, and that the collections, which used to be visited by so many thousands when in Marlborough House, should be recalled from their honourable exile, in what had been irreverently styled "The Brompton Boilers." It was obvious that the public offices must be concentrated, but they could find better sites than Burlington House in the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament, which was in fact the official and Government quarter of the town.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
observed, that the discussion had been productive of great good, and he was glad that it had been elicited that these societies had a claim on the Government. It was said, however, that the money was all spent, but he believed that the property might be sold at a profit. Burlington House stood on only 82 a small portion of the ground which had been purchased, and it was wasting money to allow those three or four acres in the heart of the town to be unoccupied. Nothing could be more unsightly than the wall, and a light railing, in substitution of it, would be a great improvement.

LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) had thrown new and important light upon the subject under discussion. It was from the statement of that hon. Gentleman, who was no Member of the Government, that the Committee had first obtained any real information, and from that it now appeared that Her Majesty's Government made offers to many learned societies, some of which were, and some were not found in Somerset House, to give accommodation—and, as they thought, permanent accommodation—in Burlington House. Some one or two of them accepted; some declined; and there was a third class, which had no right to accommodation in Somerset House, which accepted, and now claimed permanent habitation at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. It was said by the hon. Member himself, an "administrative reformer," that it was useless to inquire into the matter, because the expense had been incurred—the societies were there, and would think themselves very ill-used if they were not allowed to remain there. Although, in other instances of small amounts, a note was appended that the money had been spent, this was a most improper exception to the general rule, and he wished to ask the Secretary of the Treasury whether he had any objection to furnish the House with a copy of the document under the authority of which the money had been expended?

§ MR. DRUMMOND
said, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. B. Hope) had declared the general feeling to be, that these learned societies ought to be fostered and encouraged by the Government. Now, fostering and encouraging meant giving public money. If that were the feeling of gentlemen on both sides of the House, and if that were the feeling of the country, for goodness' sake let there be no more nonsense heard about administrative reform, or declamations upon hustings about retrenchment and economy. It was all stuff. Now, with respect to these societies—or, as they really are, clubs—one set of gentlemen, who were travellers, called themselves the Geographical Society; another set of gentlemen, who caught butterflies, called them- 83 selves the Linnæan Society. Those were the learned bodies which should be fostered and encouraged. Then there was a Geological Society: but what on earth was the use of a Geological Society? Could not the gentlemen who were fond of discussing questions of strata meet in their own houses? Why should the House go on year after year, providing out of the public taxes, for all these clubs, which they chose to dignify with the name of scientific societies? He protested against this as not only a useless expenditure, but as being no part of the proper business of the State.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
must protest against the doctrine of his hon. Friend who had just sat down, which was founded on views of the duties of a Government which were exceedingly narrow, and quite unworthy of a great nation. Parliament and the country had for years deemed it right to contribute largely from the public revenues for the promotion of art, not simply on account of the credit which a country derived from its successful cultivation, but from a feeling that the development of art added to the creative power of a nation's industry. Yet we had altogether neglected the promotion of science, while other States had devoted great means to its encouragement. Would any man say that science was of less importance to a country than art? The progress of science obviously contributed more directly to the prosperity and power of a country than any ornamental pursuits, however estimable in themselves: therefore, in rendering to these scientific bodies the slight assistance, afforded by facilities for meeting and communicating together, as they did in Burlington House, the Government were guilty of no lavish expenditure of the public resources. Indeed, if the Government were liable to any reproach in the matter, it was for not having sufficiently attended to the claims of science, which was so intimately bound up with the wealth and greatness of the country, and was the spring of so many important improvements. He trusted, then, that the country would not be run away with by any declamation such as that in which his hon. Friend had just indulged, but would continue to feel that, by giving to these societies the small assistance, which enabled them to conduct their valuable pursuits in contiguous apartments, they were doing that which was mainly for the advantage of the country.

§ MR. STAFFORD
, said, he also hoped that the country would not be run away with by declamation—not even by that of the noble Lord. This item had no comment of any kind attached to it, and the acute, practised eye of the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) was perhaps not aware that it came in the same category as the Vote of £11,000, to which he had called the attention of the Committee on a former occasion. That great Administrative Reformer, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) exultingly proclaimed that the money was all spent. No doubt the Committee would be curious to hear the explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. The Chief Commissioner of Works had told them that he had the authority of the Treasury for the outlay of £14,000 on the ornamental water in St. James's Park; so that the Treasury were the actual offenders themselves in one case and the authority for the offence in another. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes." Let the Secretary to the Treasury leave all disquisition on the comparative merits of science and art to the noble Viscount, and tell the Committee distinctly by what authority the funds already spent had been drawn.

§ MR. SPOONER
asked what had become of the two societies which, it was alleged, had a right to public buildings, and would not consent to remove to Burlington House.

MR. WILSON
could assure the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Manners) that the Treasury did not execute these works, but had only sanctioned them. They were carried out by the Board of Works. Their execution was not a matter of choice, but one of public necessity. A great revenue department, charged with the collection of millions of money, absolutely required more accommodation; and, if they had hired additional buildings to meet their pressing wants, the rent they would have had to pay would have cost as much per annum as the alterations made at Somerset House. The two societies to which the hon. Member (Mr. Spooner) referred, still remained at Somerset House, and could not be turned out without their own consent. Another body, for which the Government was obliged to furnish accommodation, was the Senate of London University, who used to conduct their examinations in Somerset House; but they now occupied one of the wings of Burlington House. These works had been executed 85 under the authority of the Board of Works. It was true the money had been spent without the sanction of Parliament, but it was impossible that the Government could have allowed the operations of a great department like that of the Inland Revenue to be brought to a complete stand still for eight or perhaps even twelve months until the pleasure of Parliament could be taken on a Vote of £4,700. Burlington House having been unoccupied it was thought the most economical arrangement to remove the learned societies thither from Somerset House. No absolute cession of the buildings had been made to these bodies, as some hon. Members seemed to suppose; but when they were turned out of the apartments to which they were entitled, the Government undertook to provide them with other rooms. The Royal Society thought these various bodies ought to be located together. One condition of the arrangement was, that the public should have access to their conjoint library.

§ SIR JOHN TROLLOPE
said, that this sum of £4,700, did not include all the expenses incurred about providing accommodation for these societies, for the hon. Gentleman had forgotten the capital sum of £140,000 which had been expended in the purchase of the building itself. He also believed that one of these learned societies at least—namely, the Senate of the University of London—had no right to be established there, as that college was originally established by private subscriptions.

SIR FRANCIS BARING
observed that he did not think the explanation of the hon. Gentleman very satisfactory, for he had not answered the question. If the act was done, why was it not stated in the Estimates? It was quite possible that in the course of the year an expenditure might become necessary that was not contemplated when the Estimates were voted; but in that case the first duty of the Government in the next year's Estimates was to call attention to the fact by a special note in the Estimates themselves, stating the circumstances under which such excess of expenditure had occurred. The hon. Secretary for the Treasury must have calculated largely on the inexperience of the young Members of the House, he thought, when he talked of the difficulty of meeting such unexpected charges white Parliament was not sitting, for it was well known that there was £100,000 voted for civil contingencies, besides which he had the surplus 86 arising from former years to draw upon in any emergency such as he referred to. It was quite clear that this sum had been paid out of money voted by Parliament for other purposes, and was consequently a most improper proceeding, which it was the duty of the Committee to notice.

§ MR. MORGAN
remarked, that being a fellow of the Royal Society and also of the Society of Antiquaries, he was able to assure the Committee that the distinct understanding on which they removed from Somerset House to Burlington House was that their abode in the latter building should be permanent.

§ MR. TITE
said, that as another fellow of the Royal Society, he could corroborate Mr. Morgan's statement, and would add that the change of residence was consented to on the part of the societies in order to meet the wishes and convenience of the Government. He had been misunderstood with regard to the Vote for Burlington House. He approved the sum proposed for repairs, but not the sum of £4,000 for alterations. He regretted to say that hon. Members were in the habit of twitting him with supporting the Government whether right or wrong. There was no ground for that uncourteous insinuation. He should support the Government when he thought they were right, and reprehend, and probably vote against them, when in the wrong.

MR. LOCKE KING
said, no large outlay should have been expended upon Burlington House at the mere will of the Government. The purpose to which that building should be put ought to have been left to the decision of Parliament.

§ Mr. MOWBRAY
said, he wished to know whether the sum of £5,205 represented the whole amount of liabilities and expenses in regard of Burlington House, or whether there was anything due beyond?

MR. WILSON
replied that it included the whole cost except the purchase-money. And with regard to the interest on that sum the Committee should recollect it would have been the same whether Burlington House were left empty or occupied as now. There was a general Vote for works, out of which the First Commissioner paid wages and other items during the year. If the amount was short at the end of the year he applied to the Treasury, and they, if they saw fit, authorised an advance to meet the deficiency, charging it in the next year's Estimates. He quite 87 agreed with his right hon. Friend that it would be better if a note of such payments were made in the Estimates, and in the next year's Estimates he would take care if any expenditure beyond the sum voted was incurred during the year the fact should be noted and the circumstances explained. The course, however, which had been taken in the present instance was one which had been pursued from time immemorial.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
inquired whether it was intended to purchase the houses next to the old Ordnance Office, in Pall Mall, in order to bring all the offices connected with the War Department into one building? He wished also to know whether any Vote was to be taken for the new buildings near Waterloo Bridge, connected with Somerset House?

MR. WILSON
replied that a charge had appeared each year in the Estimates for the Board of Inland Revenue for the new buildings at Somerset House, as they belonged to that Department. With regard to the houses in Pall Mall they had only been attainable within the last two or three months, and after other arrangements had been made; and it being in contemplation to concentrate all the public offices in one spot, it was not thought advisable to make the purchase.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, that as it appeared that in one case the money now asked for had already been expended, he should like to know if there were any other items in the same condition.

MR. WILSON
said, he was not aware that there were any other items in the same condition, although he could not say positively that in no case a portion of the money now asked for had been spent on account. Care would, however, be taken in future that no money should, except under circumstances of necessity, be expended without the previous knowledge of the House; and, if it should be necessary that money should be expended, that a clear statement with regard to it should appear in the Estimates.

LORD JOHN MANNERS
remarked, that he considered the promise of the Secretary of the Treasury as to the future satisfactory; but his explanation as to the past by no means so. He recommended his hon. Friend, Mr. Spooner, however, to be content with the promise, and withdraw the Amendment.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
undertook that for the future there should be an ex- 88 planation given of any excess of expenditure in his department.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, that on the understanding alluded to, he would withdraw his Amendment.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, that he did not consider that the declaration of the Government went far enough. The Board of Works and the Treasury together had no right to spend the public money without the sanction of that House, and he trusted that the Committee would receive an assurance from the Government that no money should be expended upon any work without a distinct grant being voted for the purpose.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
said, he could not make any such general promise. It might happen that while Parliament was not sitting the building occupied by one of the departments might get into such a state as to require expenditure to prevent further dilapidation, and surely it could not be expected that the Government should not have the power of expending money in such a case. If, however, a case should arise in which any expenditure became a matter of necessity, an explanatory note would be affixed to the item in the Estimates of the following year.

§ MR. STIRLING
said, he wished to call attention to the lodging of the London University in Burlington House, and to ask if it was to be a permanent or local occupation?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
stated that the University of London was a public institution, established by Royal charter, and apartments for purposes connected with that University had always been provided at the public expense.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
asked whether any portion of this sum had already been expended.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
said that there was an item of £9,157 expended under the authority of the Lords of the Treasury. A portion of this expenditure had been rendered necessary by the re-arrangement of the Treasury Chambers, and other portions had been incurred in taking premises for various commissions appointed to inquire into particular matters.

§ COLONEL BOLDERO
complained that in this and the preceding Votes there were 89 items for furniture required in the military departments to the amount of £16,000, and which, therefore, ought to have appeared in the Army Estimates. Putting them into the Civil Service Estimates was not dealing fairly with the public.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said that the Vote also included £2,000 for the Commissariat.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, he fully concurred in what had been said as to the impropriety of cutting off portions of a Vote unless there was some good reason for such a course, but he trusted the Committee would understand, that in the objection he was going to raise to an item in this Vote his wish was to vindicate a distinct and positive principle. He was not going to revive the discussion that had taken place as to the authority of the Government to make certain expenditures without the previous sanction of Parliament. There might be expenses that would properly come under the head "emergencies," but he could not understand how it was possible that the portion of the Vote which he was about to object to could come under that head. He could not see how payment for the clearing out and paving a fish-pond could be called an emergency. The principle which he wanted to assert was, that the public money should not be applied with a niggard hand for useful works while it was lavishly expended on works which were comparatively useless. He found in the Vote now before the Committee a sum of £11,985 for removing the mud in the lake in St. James's Park, levelling and concreting the bottom, intercepting the land drainage, sinking a well, and refilling the lake with pure water. He did not think it could be contended that this expenditure was for a sanitary purpose. He thought it should be considered that it was for an ornamental purpose, and what he complained of was the lavish manner in which money was laid out for purposes of, as he might call them, amusement, while grants for objects of national importance were doled forth in the most niggardly manner. A handsome sheet of water in St. James's Park might be a very agreeable sight; but what was the improvement 90 of that lake as compared with the works which were required to save the lives and property that were annually sacrificed for want of harbours of refuge and other coast works? Another objection he had to this item for the Park was, that it was a sum charged on the entire country for beautifying the metropolis. If it was desirable to adorn the metropolis the people of London should pay for it, and not the population of Great Britain at large, many of whom never visited London, and therefore never saw those works for which they were charged. On these grounds he should move the reduction of the Vote by the item of £11,985—the money spent on the lake in St. James's Park. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £63,796, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray, to the 31st day of March 1858, the Expense of maintaining and keeping in repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c., and other charges connected therewith.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
assured the hon. Member for West Norfolk that his real object in carrying out this improvement was a sanitary one, though undoubtedly it would at the same time have an ornamental effect. In his communication with the Treasury on the subject it would be seen that he did not say one word in relation to the ornamental, but he had felt it absolutely necessary in a sanitary point of view that this work should be undertaken. There was not an hon. Gentleman present who, if he had in his park a piece of water like those in St. James's Park and Kensington Gardens, would allow it to remain in so filthy a state for a single day if he had the means of cleansing it. As to the charge of spending money which had not been voted by Parliament, he hope the Committee would not think him so arrogant or so presumptuous as to desire to override the privileges of that House in checking the public expenditure. The fact was, he believed it to be necessary that this work should be undertaken; an opportunity offered to carry it out at a much cheaper rate than it could afterwards have been executed for; nobody, he believed, could object to the manner in which the work had been performed, for it had hitherto been entirely successful; and he hoped the Committee would think that he had done wisely in taking advantage of a favourable moment to begin it.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
wished to call the attention of the Committee to 91 the fact that the Vote for parks and pleasure grounds was in 1855, £69,100; that in 1856 it had risen to £89,000; and that for the present year, including the portion of the Vote already taken and that now before the Committee, it amounted to £116,000. A sum of no less than £42,000 had been spent on the London parks this year. There was in the Estimates now before the Committee a sum of £3,400 for the formation of a sewer from the lake in St. James's Park to the Horse Guards, and thence on some further distance. That sum was placed under the head "emergencies." Now, he altogether objected to this proceeding. A sum of £850 was voted for this sewer in 1855, and the work having been thus recognised by the House in 1855, he was at a loss to know why it should have been left out of last year's Estimates and made this year to figure as an emergency at a sum so much larger than that voted for it two years ago.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
had already referred to the condition of his office about the time in question, and could only say that the omission of the item from the Estimates of last year was occasioned by the state of confusion into which that office was thrown owing to the unfortunate circumstances of which he had apprised the House on a former occasion.

MR. PIGOTT
thought that his right hon. Friend spent rather too much money in one year, and that it would be better if he distributed his outlay over a longer period. He hoped that next year the expenditure on the parks would not be so heavy.

MR. H. BERKELEY
said, he wished to express his thanks to his right hon. Friend for his sanitary measures in the parks, which had been attacked by the hon. Member for Norfolk. No one who reflected upon that muddy lake, under the very nose of Royalty, who knew the unhealthy state of the houses in Carlton Gardens at certain seasons from the foul state of the water, and who had seen the number of children congregated by that dirty pond, which his right hon. Friend had now cleaned out, but must be thankful to him for the good that he had accomplished.

§ MR. SEYMER
said, that he was not quite happy yet about the cows in Hyde Park. They were told the other day that the cows were desirable on account of the milk that they supplied; but so long as the railways brought in good milk and the 92 water companies laid on plenty of water there was no fear of a deficiency of milk in London. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would make some proposition to the Ranger by which the public might have the benefit of a close sward in Hyde Park instead of long grass and the other inconveniences which resulted from the depasturing of cows. The country paid £40,000 a year for the keeping up of the three parks, but there seemed to be doubts as to who had control over the pasturage. He believed that if sheep were placed in Hyde Park instead of cows the change would be found to be a matter of profit.

§ MR. SLANEY
thanked his right hon. Friend for the improvements which he had effected in the parks, which had greatly increased their healthfulness and beauty, and stated that so far from grudging the Vote he thought that it was exceedingly well bestowed.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, that these thanks were justly due, for the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works certainly had shown very great taste and judgment in the improvements which he had carried out in the parks, but he could not help thinking that more money was expended upon them than was necessary. For example, the new lodge at Cumberland Gate was estimated to cost £1,281, and it appeared to him that it was just such a lodge as a gentleman would put up on his own estate for about £300 or £400. He thought that the entrance to the park at Marlborough House also had cost a great deal more than such a work would have cost under the inspection of private individuals.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
said, that he took great interest in the parks, and that he was there nearly every day watching what was going on, and endeavouring to curtail the expenditure as much as possible. Almost every piece of work that was done was put up to tender, and it was in pursuance of this system that he had been enabled to accomplish so much with so little money. The lodge at Cumberland Gate had been submitted to five or six eminent builders, and the sum of £1,281 for it in the Estimates was the amount of the lowest tender that had been sent in. It must be remembered that the whole of the money voted for a work was not always expended upon it, and the new road and entrance at Marlborough House afforded an instance of this. The sum voted for those improvements was 93 £4,500, but the sum actually expended had been only £2,631, being, £1,630 for forming the road and walls, paving, and gasworks, and £1,001 for the lodge, walls, and paving, which lodge was not included in the original Estimate, but was erected in consequence of a desire very generally expressed by the House that there should be such a building.

§ SIR JOHN TROLLOPE
hoped that the hon. Member for West Norfolk would not press his Amendment to a division. Connected as he was with what might be called an aquatic county (Lincolnshire), he had some experience in waterworks, and having inspected the works in the park, he felt bound to say that they were well conceived and well executed. As a sanitary matter the improvement was greatly needed. The miasma from the old water was like to be very injurious to all who had to live near. For instance, the valuable lives of many of Her Majesty's Ministers were in danger, and though, of course, as a Member of the Opposition, he could not be expected to say that it would be difficult to find as good men to fill their places, yet his opposition was to their measures in Parliament, rather than to their health. The water which had been put in was clear and limpid, and any one who would compare it with that which was there before must confess that the improvement which had been effected was very great.

§ MR. BLACKBURN
said, he also hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn. At the same time he would beg to call the attention of the Committee to the large amount of money voted. Any amount they gave would be spent, but they ought to give a limited amount, and not allow it to be exceeded. The sum was increasing at a rate that they could not afford if they reduced the taxation next year. In 1851 the sum asked for this purpose was only £41,000; in the first year of the right hon. Gentleman's accession to office it had risen to £115,000. Let them take the average of a series of years and fix it at that amount. There was an increase of 66 per cent within five years. He had a great mind to propose an Amendment to reduce the amount in accordance with that Vote. An hon. Gentleman opposite had an Amendment against the Vote for Battersea Park, and here the forms of the House stood very much in the way. If he proposed such an Amendment as he was suggesting what was to become of the bon. Member opposite? He did not object to 94 the maintenance of the existing parks, but he did think the whole country ought not to be taxed for these parks for London. There was a talk of the formation of a new park in the north of London, but he trusted that the expense of its creation would not be thrown on the public at large. All other towns paid for their own parks, and so ought London.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, that the principle he had to contend for was that money ought not to be spent in ornamental and useless purposes, when it was required for more urgent purposes. As the feeling of the Committee seemed to be against him he should withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. GROGAN
said, that seeing an item of £8,069 in the Estimate for Battersea Park, he wished to ask if it was intended to charge a toll for passing over the bridge which led to that Park?

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
replied that the toll was imposed by a clause in the Act of 1847, under the sanction of which the bridge from Chelsea to Battersea was erected, and it was impossible to forego that toll unless Parliament should pass an Act to repeal that clause.

§ MR. BLACKBURN
said, he should move, for the reasons he had already stated to reduce the Vote by £17,916, which sum being deducted from the Vote proposed (£75,781) would leave the Vote £57,865.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, that if the hon. Member's Motion should be rejected he should then move to reduce the Vote by the sum proposed to be granted for Battersea Park.

§ MR. ALCOCK
said, he thought it right and just, as there were parks in other parts of London, that there should also be one at Battersea for South London; but he objected to placing a toll bar at Chelsea Bridge to impede the peoples' enjoyment of the new park. If care were not taken, there would be excited in the metropolis as violent a feeling against these tollbars as had been manifested in the Rebecca riots of South Wales some years ago. Besides, the imposition of the toll would be a financial mistake, as it would injure the neighbouring property to a greater amount than would be gained by the impost.

§ MR. BENTINCK
reminded the Committee that the question involved in the Vote on which a division was about to be 95 taken was, whether or not the whole of Great Britain and Ireland was to be taxed for the luxuries of the city of London.

§ MR. P. O'BRIEN
wished to know whether this expenditure for the parks was to be continuous? He thought this expenditure, which was to be defrayed by Ireland, Scotland, and the various counties of England, extremely extravagant, and he would call upon the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams), as peculiarly the guardian of the public purse in that House, to say whether he was prepared to consent to an annual expenditure of £8,000 for a park which nobody cared anything about, and which was in fact useless. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £57,865, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray, to the 31st day of March 1858, the Expense of maintaining and keeping in repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c., and other Charges connected therewith.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, he should now move that the Vote be reduced by £8,069 14s., being a Vote for the maintenance of Battersea Park. The question was whether the country was or was not to be saddled with the maintenance of a park which ought to be kept up by the inhabitants of the district in which it was situated.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
said, Battersea Park was purchased and laid out under an Act of Parliament, and he had done all in his power to get it brought into a state in which it would be available for the purposes intended. It would soon be in a condition to receive the population of that part of the metropolis, and now his hon. Friend stepped forward and proposed to strike out the Vote necessary for its maintenance. The inhabitants in the neighbourhood could not be asked to keep up the park. It was a property belonging to the State, having been purchased by the authority of Parliament, and the State must of course maintain it.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, that he hoped measures would be taken to remove the toll on the bridge at Battersea, so as to enable the inhabitants on the north side of the river to go over to the park free. What Parliament had done Parliament could undo. It was absurd to keep the people out of a park which had been expressly formed for them.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, that, upon the ge- 96 neral principle, he was disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn); still, as the park was the property of the public, and not under the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works, he could not see how otherwise it was to be given up. As for throwing open Battersea Bridge, while he had no doubt that ought to be done, he would remind hon. Gentlemen that they must be prepared simultaneously to open the bridges on either sides of it, for they were equally toll bridges. They should also remember that if it were opened to the public all the traffic from both sides of the river would pass through the park, and the roads would consequently be completely cut up. He was opposed to tolls, but if this bridge were thrown open to the public he considered that it ought to be maintained by the counties of Surrey and Middlesex.

§ MR. TITE
asked whether the proceeds of the surplus property connected with the new park, a portion of which had recently been sold to a railway company, could not be applied to the reduction of the charge upon the public, with the view of rendering the bridge toll free?

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
replied that certain portions of the property at Battersea Park were to be thrown open to the public, but about 125 acres, forming a most valuable estate, would be sold or let, and he had within the last few days disposed of about thirty acres upon terms most advantageous to the public.

§ MR. P. O'BRIEN
said, he must object to the poor taxpayers of the country being called upon to contribute to the establishment and maintenance of metropolitan parks, and also express his belief that such proposals as that under consideration were attributable to the fact that the President of the Board of Works was a metropolitan Member. Motion made, and Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £67,711 6s., be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray, to the 31st day of March 1858, the Expense of maintaining and keeping in repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c., and other Charges connected therewith," put, and negatived.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
begged once more to impress upon the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) the necessity of excluding cows from Hyde Park as had been already done in Regent's Park.

MR. MACKINNON
(Rye) called attentention to a petition which he had recently 97 presented from 200 persons residing near the Marble Arch, Hyde Park, complaining of the erection of another lodge in that park; and urged the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Board of Works to comply with the request of the petitioners that such a building might not be erected.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
observed that he lived in the neighbourhood of the Marble Arch, and he considered that the opposition of the petitioners was most ridiculous.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
said, that when the petitioners complained that the Commissioners of Public Works were about to erect in a public lodge certain public conveniences of various descriptions, and that they begged to be protected against this outrage upon public decency, as such accommodation was not required in the locality—they spoke only for themselves.