§ House in Committee; Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
§
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,—
That a sum, not exceeding £44,595, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of Maintenance and Repair of the Royal Palaces, to the 31st day of March, 1861.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee appointed to inquire into those Estimates whether they had yet agreed to any Report?
§ LORD HARRY VANE,as Chairman of the Committee, stated that a short Report, referring to the subject generally, had been drawn up. It did not, however, enter into those details which the hon. Member, no doubt, was desirous of obtaining.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, they wanted a more careful expenditure upon these Royal Palaces. Upon those Palaces occupied by Her Majesty, the expenditure appeared to him to be very large, but he did not wish to dwell upon that point. What he wished to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to were these Palaces not occupied by Her Majesty. There was Kensington Palace, for which there was a Vote of £16,000, and he was not aware that any member of the Royal family occupied that Palace. Then there was £6,803 for Hampton Court, and, as that was only occupied by the ladies of those who had served their country, he did not think the public ought to be annually called upon to pay for that accommodation. He had visited Hampton Court lately, and he considered that it would be a place well adapted for the training of Volunteers, and, for shooting, the best to be found in the neighbourhood of London. He suggested that the grounds there should be converted into rifle practice grounds for Volunteers. He also found a sum of £924 for Bushey, and £1,402 for Frogmore, 61 and he should like to have some explanation who it was that occupied those houses.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHregretted that the Report of the Civil Service Committee had not been presented to the House before these Estimates were brought on, and thought it would have been more convenient if the Secretary to the Treasury, before proposing them, had made a general statement as to the whole civil expenditure of the country. The Civil Service Estimates had been increasing in amount every year for a long time, and he attributed that circumstance to their being submitted to the Committee at a late period of the Session, when hon. Members were worn out and anxious to get rid of their duties as fast as possible, and likewise to the Treasury not exercising a due control over those Estimates. He would, therefore, move that the Vote be reduced to £40,000.
§ MR. LAINGsaid, that if he had not made a lengthened statement in bringing forward those Estimates, it was from no disrespect to the Committee; but because, having made such a statement on a former occasion, experience showed that to mix up a multitude of questions together which had no connection with one another in a single speech, was an inconvenient course to adopt. The questions arising on the Civil Service Estimates could only be discussed separately, vote by vote; and any attempt to discuss them, when mixed up together, was only a waste of time. But those Estimates, which for the last ten years had increased at the average rate of £200,000 per annnm, showed now a decrease of £345,000 upon the corresponding expenditure of last year. That fact probably formed the best speech he could make upon the subject. With regard to the time at which the Civil Service Estimates should be brought forward, the House had never shown any readiness to go into them at an early period of the year, while large questions like the Budget were before it. The only effect of the hon. Member's proposal would be that Votes on account would have to be brought forward at an early period of the Session. Moreover, it was an inappropriate moment to urge an alteration of this kind, when the whole question of the Civil Service accounts and the mode of audit would come under the attention of the Government during the recess. The present system of account and audit was confessedly unsatisfactory, and ought 62 to be revised. Independently of other objections, therefore, he thought it was premature to call upon the Committee to pledge themselves by a vote of this kind.
§ SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Truro, (Mr. A. Smith), that the Estimates were delayed far too long in the Session. The House was kept, night after night, listening to the quarrels between the Government and their supporters, and the Estimates were delayed till independent Members had left town.
§ MR. W. EWARTsaid, that with reference to the item of £850 "for glazing, cleaning, and preserving pictures and cartoons," he would suggest that the cartoons should be brought to London; for being now protected by glass, they would not suffer from the effects of the London atmosphere.
§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he did not think the explanations of the hon. Secretary to the Treasury were at all satisfactory. They had been entertained this Session with a flashy Budget in February, which had been picked to pieces before July, and had that night been altogether given up by the First Lord of the Treasury. They would have been much better employed in discussing the details of the Estimates; and he hoped that in a future Session the House would insist on their being brought forward at a proper time. It was a complete mockery to go into the Estimates at a time when hon. Members were leaving, or were preparing to leave town, and when Government could always command a majority. If that was to be the normal system adopted, the House of Commons would virtually abdicate their functions as the guardians of the public purse.
§ COLONEL SYKESsaid, he observed there was a surplus in hand, from an unexpended Vote of last year, to the extent of £14,000. He wished to know whether that would be added to the Vote now proposed.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the sum of £14,000 was in the Exchequer, but had nothing to do with the Estimate; and so able a statistician as the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought not to confound an estimate with a balance.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, the Committee had not only to deal with the estimate but with the balance. He should press his Motion for a reduction of the Vote to £40,000.
SIR GEORGE LEWISrepeated that the £14,000 balance from the expenditure of last year had nothing to do with the present Estimate, and was neither a reduction upon, nor an addition to, the Estimate. It was not available in aid of the Estimate, and stood wholly independent of it. With regard to bringing on the Miscellaneous Estimates before Easter, the question was very fully considered by the Committee on Public Moneys two Sessions ago, and the Committee saw, as everybody must see, that they were not likely to do more than vote the Army and Navy Estimates before Easter. The Committee proposed that, in order to apply to the Civil Service Estimates the rule which extended to the Army and Navy Estimates, that they should be brought to a close each year, and the balances turned over, there should be a Vote on account. It was the best contrivance which the Committee could suggest. It never entered into their heads that the Civil Service Estimates could be voted before Easter; and he was sure, if hon. Members considered it, they would see it was a most improbable contingency, and one upon which they were not entitled to speculate.
§ LORD HARRY VANEsaid, that no one supposed that the Civil Service Estimates would be voted before Easter; but they ought to be laid on the table at an early period, and the Budget, as a rule, ought to be brought forward after the Estimates. Having formed a Commercial Treaty, the Government was obliged to bring forward the Budget this year, at a very early period, and perhaps it would have been impossible, after the consideration of the Estimates, to deal with a Budget of this ambitious character. This was an exceptional year, but the Committee over which he had the honour to preside, were of opinion that the Estimates should precede the Budget. It was not the practice, but it would be of advantage if there were an enumeration of the unexpended balances of each Vote, so as to enable hon. Members to judge completely of the expenditure.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to know whether there was any method by which the Committee could find out the application of the balances, for until that was done they would have no just or correct notion of the country's accounts. Was it the intention of the Government to lay any information on that matter on the table?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that in the Army and Navy Votes the excess of one might be transferred to the deficiency of another, with the consent of the Treasury. But that was not the case in the Civil Service Votes. The Treasury had no power to transfer the excess in one Vote to make up the deficiency in another, but the money voted for each Vote might be carried on from one year to the next. They were balances in the Exchequer, and had nothing to do with the amount which the House authorized the Government to expend. Supposing a balance of £10,000 on a particular Vote last year remained, and £40,000 were voted this year, the Treasury would have a credit of £50,000, but not be entitled to expend more than £40,000. The £10,000 would be merely a balance standing to the account of the Treasury. It was a mere question of account. It did not influence the power of the Government to expend money, and had nothing whatever to do with Votes in Committee of Supply.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought that the whole system required consideration, and that it would be much better if in the Civil Service Estimates they were to follow the recommendation of the Committee on Public Moneys, and adopt a system somewhat similar to that which was pursued in the Army and Navy Estimates. The difficulty was that money would be wanted before the Votes were passed. The remedy suggested was to vote money on account before Easter, which would enable the Government to effect a very desirable reform. The hon. Member for Truro proposed to cut down the Vote, which was not too large for the year, in order to compel the Government to come at the beginning of next year for a Vote on account. He did not think that a Vote on account was desirable. It might be so far desirable if they were going to have the great reform which he hoped they soon would have. If the Civil Service Estimates were to be put on the same footing as the Army and Navy Estimates, then, he said, let them have Votes on account; but, as nothing was more inconvenient or tended more to withdraw Estimates from the consideration of Parliament than voting money on account, and as the Amendment of the hon. Member would only have that effect without giving them the better system, he hoped the hon. Member would not persist in dividing the Committee.
MR. CORRYsaid, it was stated by one of the witnesses from the Treasury who was examined before the Public Moneys Committee that the reason why the Estimates were not laid on the table of the House very early in the Session was that they might be able to provide for any unforeseen expenditure; but the proper mode to meet that expenditure was to bring in Supplemental Estimates.
§ MR. HANKEYsaid, that the Vote on account recommended by the Public Moneys Committee, would enable them to effect a very great and important improvement by putting the Civil Service Estimates on precisely the same footing as the Army and Navy Estimates, the unexpected balances of which were paid again to the Treasury at the end of the financial year. He thought the Government were to blame for having done so little towards carrying out the recommendations of the Public Moneys Committee. At present the Committee were voting in the dark. They were asked to vote £44,000, when perhaps only £30,000 would be expended. Still he could not think that the Amendment of his hon. Friend would effect its object.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not believe that the Public Moneys Committee recommended anything like a system of taking Votes on account. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had said that, although £14,000 remained from last year's Vote and £44,000 was now asked for, yet the Government would only be authorized to expend the latter sum. If that were the case, the Estimates were framed in an extraordinary manner; for he found on page 24 an item of the sum to be voted for new works in 1860–1, exclusive of the balance of the last Vote unexpended. That implied that the sum unexpended last year would be used this year. There was another item of £229,000 for the maintenance of prisoners in county gaols and lunatic asylums, but a note was appended stating that only £159,000 would be required to be voted, the balance being made up from the sum remaining unexpended from last year. Surely that must mean that balances from last year would be used this year.
MR. COWPERsaid, one reason for the discrepancy was that the money was always voted to be expended between the 31st of March in one year and the 31st of March in the next, but it did not always happen that the money was spent within that period, and they only got their Esti- 66 mates, as the hon. Member for Truro complained, in the month of July. That, however, was not the fault of the Government; but it was owing to this, that the hours of the day were not sufficient to get through the work which was to be done. The money was taken for the year beginning the 1st of April, but they were now late in July; but though it ought to have been spent in the beginning of the year, it could only be spent now. The sum of which this £14,000 was called the balance, was to some extent spent up to the 31st of March, 1860, and probably the balance had been spent between the 31st of March and this day of July.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the difficulty pointed out by the hon. Member for Pontefract was the same that occurred to his mind. He would remark that money expended in the financial year began from the 31st of March, and not from the time at which it was voted.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was not surprised at the apparent difficulty there was in understanding [the difference between Votes in Supply and Votes in Ways and Means, but the answer was simple. The balances in the Exchequer had no tiling to do with the authority to expend, which was founded on a Vote in Supply. If a Vote for one year was £40,000 a credit would be raised to the Exchequer to that amount. If only £30,000 was expended, there would remain £10,000, which the Exchequer was authorized to carry on to the account of the same Vote in succeeding years. Supposing that in the following year again £40,000 was voted; the Exchequer would then have £50,000 to apply; but they would not be authorized to expend more than £40,000. Their authority to expend was limited by the Vote of the House. The Treasury might make a saving of the £10,000 and pay it into the Exchequer, or they might carry it on to the next year; but the fact of there being an undrawn balance would not authorize them to exceed the Vote.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to know how the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman could be reconciled with the fact that in Vote 47, where the total Estimate was £229,000, the sum to be voted was only £159,000, there being "a sufficient balance to meet the rest of the charge."
§ MR. BLACKBURNpointed out that it was expressly stated in the Estimates that the Vote of £160,000, with the balances 67 unissued of last year's Vote, would be "sufficient for the service of the year 1860–1." The right hon. Gentleman must therefore be mistaken.
§ MR. LAINGsaid, he thought his right hon. Friend had not been quite accurately understood. What he intended to convey was that under no circumstances could the total amount voted by Parliament be exceeded by any authority of the Treasury. That was to say, that if £60,000 had been voted last year for certain services, and if only £50,000 had been spent, the £10,000 which remained over might be expended in a future year. In the present instance, £44,000 was the estimate of expenditure from the 1st of April, 1860, to the 31st of March, 1861; but there might be expended in addition to that amount the sum of £14,000, which from various circumstances remained over from the Vote of last year. That was the great question raised by the Committee on Public Moneys. He was sorry if any hon. Member was under the impression that the Government had overlooked the importance of the Report of that Committee. The only reason why no steps were taken in regard to it was the illness during the whole of the recess of Mr. Anderson, the officer of the Treasury to whom any Government in office must practically look for the revision of the department which had to take charge of this business. The difficulty of carrying out the recommendation of the Committee was not in the slightest degree one of principle, for on that they were generally agreed. There was, however, considerable practical difficulty in deciding whether the appropriated accounts should be prepared by the Audit Office, the Exchequer, or some other independent office, by each department for itself, or by one central office at the Treasury, exercising a general supervision. On the whole, the opinion appeared to be that it would be better for the public service that the work should be done at the Treasury. It was the intention of the Government to carry out the minor reforms recommended by the Committee which sat this Session—such as the publication of the amount of unexpended balances along with each Vote, and the production of the Estimates at an earlier period of the year. The Government were also generally favourable to the principle of the more important reform recommended by the Committee on Public Moneys; and they intended to take it up during: the recess, with the assistance Of Mr. Anderson, with ail 'anxious desire, 68 if possible, to give effect to it. After these assurances he trusted the Committee would not pass what would be practically a Vote for only ten and a half instead of twelve months, for the purpose of compelling the Government to bring forward the Estimates early in the year, when, perhaps, very important business might await consideration, and when Votes on account might have to be resorted to.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he hoped the hon. Member (Mr. A. Smith) would not press for a division after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works for some explanation as to the items of £2,400 for improving the entrance and approaches to the chapel at Buckingham Palace, and £1,802 for the Royal Mews, Pimlico.
MR. COWPERsaid, that the first item was absolutely necessary, on account of the very tortuous and inconvenient character of the present approach, which was not originally intended for that purpose. On one occasion when the chapel was used, the Queen of Hanover had a fall coming down the steps, and was very nearly seriously injured. The other items included nothing out of the ordinary course.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHexplained, that the object of his Motion was simply to reduce the balance in hand, and he felt it his duty to divide the Committee.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought that the amount in any case unexpended should be stated next year and deducted from the ensuing Vote. It was most important to know the exact expenditure on each item for every year.
§
Motion made, and Question,—
That a sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of Maintenance and Repair of the Royal Palaces, to the 31st day of March, 1861,
§ Put, and negatived.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,—
That a sum, not exceeding £119,529, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of 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, to the 31st day of March, 1861.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSdrew attention to the vast increase in the Vote of this year, which he said was as much as £20,812, and unless some very satisfactory explanation was given of that very large increase, 69 he should certainly move its reduction. He complained that the Civil Service Estimates were now between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000, whereas, a few years ago, they were not much above £2,000,000. He objected to the large expenditure which was incurred in renting a house for the Copyhold Commission, and another at Whitehall for the Ecclesiastical Commission, at a rent of £680 a year and £685 for furniture.
MR. COWPERsaid, he had been in hopes that his hon. Friend would have highly approved of this Vote, which, when compared with the Vote of last year, showed a decrease of £3,211, With regard to the houses provided for the Copyhold Commission and the Ecclesiastical Commission, the rents were not above the fair market value of those houses.
§ MR. MILDMAYsaid, he rose to move that the Vote be reduced by £1,200, being the sum put down for the erection of a building for the reception of the funeral car of the late Duke of Wellington. His first reason for objecting to the Vote—without intending any disrespect to the illustrious man for whom the car had been prepared—was that it was much too large a sum for any building of the kind; and his second was that the funeral car was not worth any building at all. At the time of the funeral the design of the car was generally reprobated, and the impression was that it would have been in better taste to convey the Duke's body to the grave on a gun carriage than on such a car. He did not know who designed it, but he hoped he was not an Englishman. The most appropriate place for it would be the Chamber of Horrors. It looked like a locomotive, and if a boiler were put inside and a chimney on the top, it would answer admirably to convey funeral trains to the Necropolis Cemetery.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he did not like to hear questions of taste discussed in that House, as he never found that any two hon. Gentlemen agreed in opinion. He would not give any opinion on the artistic merits of the car, but it was used on a memorable and national occasion, it had since been viewed with interest by thousands of persons, and it would be a dereliction of duty on the part of the Government if, when it became necessary to remove it, they did not provide some place for its reception. The Government proposed to place it in a building in Chelsea Hospital, which was on many grounds a 70 fitting place, and he, for one, should not oppose the Vote.
§ MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he wished to remind the hon. Member who had impeached the design of the Wellington car, that it was the work of the young men in the School of Design—our own school of art. He could not help thinking that the proposed outlay was a very proper use of public money.
§ MR. JOSEPH LOCKEsaid, notwithstanding what had been said by the noble Lord opposite, every hon. Member was entitled to declare his opinion upon a matter of that kind. He rose not for the purpose of expressing an opinion upon the particular sort of vehicle; his objection was not to the design, but to the Vote, which he considered was altogether a folly—and he was surprised that any Government should have brought forward such a scheme for a new establishment. They would have to warm and light it, and keep somebody to look after it, and wash and clean it. They would have the South Kensington Musem over again—and he should raise his voice against this beginning of another scheme. It might appear invidious for an hon. Member to rise to say a word against anything connected with the memory of their great hero, but nevertheless he thought the time was come when, as a body of practical men, they should well consider those matters. He called upon the House to reject that part of the Vote.
§ MR. JACKSONsaid, he rose to bring another matter forward.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, according to the rules of the House, whenever an objection was made to a Vote the debate upon that question must be proceeded with and the matter determined.
MR. COWPERsaid, that the car had been used on a very solemn and memorable occasion, and, although the criticisms passed upon it might be correct, there was no one object in London more sought after or more visited than this car. The interest it excited was not owing to any peculiar beauty it possessed, but because it was associated with the memory of the great man whose mortal remains it had conveyed to their last resting-place. The car had been kept under cover in the courtyard of Marlborough house. It was now necessary to remove it, and the question arose what was to become of the car. He had thought it right to provide a place where it might, be safely and permanently deposited, but he 71 had never contemplated forming an establishment such as had been described by the hon. Member for Honiton, or paying people to watch it. All that he designed was to provide a safe resting-place for the car, where it might be accessible to those who desired to see it. Chelsea Hospital was considered a suitable place for this purpose. He believed that the public would not like to see the car broken up.
§ MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw this Vote. This was not a question of taste, but of arithmetic—namely, whether the public should be taxed in a sum of £1,200 for perpetuating an affair which every one agreed, so far from commemorating the memory of the late Duke of Wellington, was about as ugly as the statue on the arch opposite Apsley House.
§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsuggested whether it would not be possible to transfer the car to the Tower of London, of which the Duke had so long been the Constable.
MR. COWPERsaid, he should be sorry that this car should not be placed in a proper situation, but there was one thing he should still more deeply regret—that any proceeding of that House should be at all wanting in respect to the memory of the Duke of Wellington. As he perceived that the feeling of the House was adverse to the Vote he would withdraw it. He trusted some other place would be found for the car, where it would not be a source of expense.
§ MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he regarded the car as an unworthy monument of the Duke.
§
Motion made, and Question,—
That the item of £1,200, for the erection of a Building in the Grounds of Chelsea Hospital for the reception of the Wellington Car, at present located in a temporary building in the Courtyard of Marlborough House, he omitted from the proposed Vote,
§ Put, and agreed to.
§
Original Question, as amended, again proposed,—
That, a sum, not exceeding £118,329, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of 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, to the 31st day of March, 1861.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSmoved the omission of the item of £680 for the rent of offices for the Ecclesiastical Commission.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he thought that the expediency of contributing from 72 the Consolidated Fund would be better discussed on a future Vote, when that contribution would come more fully before the Committee. With regard to this particular item, the Government had considered the subject this Session, and at first were disposed to put an end to that contribution, but it appeared that by an Act of Parliament there was a certain sum for the expenses of the Church Building Act which the public undertook to defray out of the Consolidated Fund. The Commission for carrying out that Act had been abolished, and its duties transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commission. This contribution was no more than had been undertaken by the Church Building Act, and he hoped therefore the Committee would not object to the item.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the hon. Member seemed to think that the revenue administered by the Ecclesiastical Commission belonged to the State. It belonged, in fact, to the Church, and the State, for purposes of its own, had taken hold of it to manipulate it in accordance with certain views of its own. There was no reason, therefore, why the public should not contribute to the expense of managing this property.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, that when the Church Building Act Commission was first established, there was a guaranteed contribution of somewhere about £10,000 for the purpose of carrying it out. After a time its duties were transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. At that time about £3,600 was taken annually in the Votes for the Ecclesiastical Commission, but in consequence of what passed in that House that sum was removed from the Votes. The Vote under discussion, therefore, was only carrying out so much of the guaranteed expenses of carrying out the Church Building Act as was necessary to defray the rent of a house for the purposes of the Act, and, properly speaking, there was no greater justification for taking away this contribution from the Commission than for disallowing the expenses of any other Commission which had been established for the public benefit.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, this was a matter which did not affect the public, but the Church, and the Church only. These Commissioners had now a balance of pretty nearly £80,000 in their hands, and under those circumstances he could not see why the people should be taxed for an expense which ought to be borne by the Church.
§
Motion made, and Question put,
That the item of £680, for the rent of No. 11. Whitehall Place, for the Office of the Ecclesiastical Commission, be omitted from the proposed Vote.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 179: Majority 118.
§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEasked why rent was still paid for houses occupied as Stationery-offices in Great Newport Street and Gate Street, Lincoln's-inn-fields, although a new Stationery-office had been built at the expense of the nation.
§ MR. JACKSONcomplained of the enormous sum asked annually for the rent and repair of the various buildings for public offices, and inquired of the First Commissioner of Works whether the recommendation of the Select Committee on Public Buildings was to be carried out.
§ MR. HANKEYsaid, the Government were spending the interest on a million of money yearly in the hire and repair of houses for public buildings—a system which called for alteration.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that a great part of these rents were for houses which belonged to the Woods and Forests, and of which the country formerly had the use rent-free. He did not understand why the public should now be called upon to pay rent for them and keep them in repair.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to know from the First Commissioner of Works whether this Vote was not really £20,000 in excess of the corresponding Vote of last year. Such appeared to be the obvious inference from a comparison of the totals for the two years.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYasked, whether the item of £4,100 for Chelsea Hospital was for the erection of new buildings or merely for repairs? He also wished to know if it was intended that the plans for the new Foreign Office were to be deposited in the Library of the House for the inspection of hon. Members?
MR. COWPERsaid, that there was an actual decrease upon this Vote for the present year. The drawings of Mr. Scott would be presented as soon as they were in a state for the consideration of the House, which would probably be before the end of this week.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSasked, Whether the House of Commons would have both designs—the Gothic and the Italian—before them at the same time?
MR. COWPERstated that the Gothic 74 designs which were exhibited Inst year would be again exhibited at the same time. He added, with regard to the general question, that it was no doubt inconvenient that the public offices should be distributed in private houses, but he had at the present moment nothing to propose with regard to their accommodation.
§ MR. EDWIN JAMESregretted that the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle had not received a more satisfactory answer. The most extraordinary places were now rented at an expense of £36,000 per annum for the transaction of the Government business. To find them you had to go from the Old Jewry to Newport Market, from Newport Market to Kennington Common, and from Kennington Common to Duke Street, Westminster. The most extraordinary item was "Middle Scotland Yard, at the rear of Whitehall Place, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's stables, £50." Perhaps the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, who appeared to be performing the duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this occasion, would state what public business was transacted in those stables. This was an illustration of the absurd manner in which the Government now conducted business, because they had not courage to propose some scheme for the erection of proper public offices.
§ SIR MORTON PETOsaid, the very fact of there being 87 public offices scattered over the Metropolis, showed the necessity of devising some more eligible system by which those various deportments might be more conveniently centralized.
MR. COWPERsaid, that these houses were still occupied, and therefore the rents had to be paid. The charge for Chelsea Hospital referred only to ordinary repairs.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSreminded the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone that a scheme for new public offices was proposed, but was withdrawn on account of its great expense. The delay in the erection of the Foreign Office had arisen from an objection to the design proposed, which was taken on the ground of taste, by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. It was, therefore, not fair to blame the present First Commissioner of Works for the want of public offices.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to know why the rent of £700 was charged for the new Stationery Office. The Museum of Practical Geology in Jerniyn Street, too, was, he always understood, a public 75 building, yet they were paying a yearly rent of £1,000.
MR. COWPERobserved, that they had to pay the ground-rent of the Museum of Practical Geology, and also the rent of the house next to it, which was used for the service of the Museum. They had also to pay rent for several of the houses in Prince's Street, Westminster, in connection with the Stationery Office.
MR. EDWIN JAMBSsaid, as a matter of curiosity he must again inquire what was meant by the item of "Middle Scotland Yard (rear of Whitehall Place), Chancellor of the Exchequer's stables." Then, again, there was a suspicious item of £56 1s. for Manley Cottage, Kennington Common, what was that?
MR. COWPERsaid, that for many years, ever since the Chancellor of the Exchequer's house had been appropriated as an official residence, a stable in Great Scotland Yard had been attached to it. He presumed the hon. and learned Gentleman did not object to an official residence having a stable attached to it. He did not know the history of Maniey Cottage, but he knew the rent stated was paid for it.
§ Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
§
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,—
That a sum, not exceeding £23,000, be grant ed to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply and Repair of Furniture in the various Public Departments, to the 31st day of March, 1861.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he thought there was great room for economical reform in this department. The evidence given before the Committee on the Kensington Museum abundantly proved this. He gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for what had been done; but the matter still required great attention.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he found there had of late years been a constantly growing increase in the Vote, and he thought the time had come for reducing it. The whole of the Vote of last year had not been expended, and under those circumstances be moved that the present Vote be diminished by a sum of £12,000.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,—
That a sum, not exceeding£10,100, be grant ed to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply and Repair of Furniture in the various j Public Departments, to the 31st day of March, 1861.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSmoved that the Chairman should then report Progress. The 76 Vote was one of considerable importance, and ought, he thought, to be made the subject of future consideration.
MR. COWPERsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth would allow them to deal at once with the Vote. In reply to a statement made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. A. Smith), he had to inform the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that all that portion of the Vote of last year which had not been expended had been returned to the Exchequer, and was not available for the same service in the present year.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, as there appeared to be a difference of opinion amongst the Ministers as to the way in which the balances were disposed of, it would be most desirable that the Chairman should report progress, to give them an opportunity of agreeing upon the explanation that should be given. He wished to have a clear explanation of what was done with the balances.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that the money voted for the military and naval departments must be expended within the year, but the balances which arose under the Civil Service Estimates were applicable in future years for the services for which the Votes were originally taken. At the expiration of a certain term of years, however, whatever remained unexpended was returned to the Exchequer.
§ MR. BARROWsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Truro would divide the Committee. Indeed, if there was a balance of £27,000, the Vote should be omitted altogether.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid the increase in the Vote arose from the fact that a good deal new furniture was required for the science and arts departments. Twenty years ago there were comparatively few picture galleries and scientific collections. Nothing could exceed the care with which Mr. Austin had represented this particular item.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he believed that Mr. Austin wanted the support of the House to enable him to enforce economy.
§ MR. LAINGsaid, the only effect of reducing the Vote, as proposed, would be to derange all comparison of the item from year to year.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"
§ Put, and negatived.
77
§
Question put,
That a sum, not exceeding £10,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply and Repair of Furniture in the various Public Departments, to the 31st day of March, 1861.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 162: Majority 118.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported this day; Committee to sit again on Wednesday.