SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 1 July 1861)

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he wished to call attention to the manner in which the Estimates were framed, as he thought great facilities were afforded to the Government for spending more money than was voted, 147 from the system of balances that were allowed to lie over. He hoped to hear from the Secretary of the Treasury that the Government had resolved to adopt entirely the recommendations of the Committee of Public Monies in respect to the Estimates, and that measures would speedily be taken to carry those recommendations out.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, that these Estimates in the last year of the unreformed Parliament, when the Duke of Wellington was Prime Minister, were £2,000,000. They were now £7,665,000, and that was £123,000 more than was required last year. He would make no comment on the expenditure on the palaces occupied by Her Majesty, as it did not appear to be extravagant. But explanation should be given of some items. There was an item of £6,377 for repairs, &c., of St. James's Palace. He was not aware that St. James's Palace was occupied by any of the Royal household, and the State apartments were only used half-a dozen times a year. There was another item of £4,775 for Kensington Palace. He wanted to know who occupied that palace, as it was not occupied by any of the Royal Family. There was another item of £6,054 for Hampton Court Palace. It was all very well for members of the aristocracy to have a palace like that to dwell in, with splendid gardens around it, but the public ought not to be taxed for everything required in it.

MR. PEEL
said, he would remind the Committee that it was useless to make a comparison between the Estimates of the present time and those before 1854, because since the latter period there had been transferred to the Miscellaneous Estimates many charges, which were previously defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund, and out of the gross revenue before it was paid into the Exchequer. It should also be borne in mind that the census Vote amounted to £127,000, which sum alone was greater than the increase mentioned by the hon. Member.

MR. COWPER
observed that it was true that St. James's Palace was not in the personal occupation of Her Majesty, but the apartments for which the Estimate was proposed were the State apartments used on the occasion of drawing rooms and levees. Some of the subordinate officers of the departments of the Lord Chamberlain and Lord Steward were lodged in St. James's Palace. As to Kensington Palace, many parts were in a considerable degree 148 of dilapidation. It required repairs every year, and before long some portion must be pulled down as not being worth repair; but in the present year the sum taken was necessary to keep the walls and roofs in good order. That palace was only partly occupied, and the occupation, such as it was, did not much increase the amount of money that would be required even without any occupation. Hampton Palace was a monument of architectural beauty, and he was sure the House would not grudge money to keep it in repair. The hon. Member spoke of the aristocracy being lodged there, but the apartments were given to persons of very slender means, to the widows of distinguished officers in the army and navy, and to those whose connection with eminent individuals and with men who had rendered public service, entitled them to this favour from the Queen.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he had not been able to discover that there were more than three widows of officers among the occupants of Hampton Palace, and he had not the least objection to granting the use of the Palace to persons of that description. He understood His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief had apartments in St. James's Palace. He did not object to that; but he thought His Royal Highness ought to maintain those apartments himself, and not let the charge fall on the public.

MR. COWPER
said, that the Duke of Cambridge had no longer occupation of those apartments, which he left on proceeding to Gloucester House, and the apartments in question were for the most part vacant.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
observed that £4,200 were required for supplying water for the Houses of Parliament and other public buildings and offices. He thought that the Houses of Parliament and most public offices were supplied with water from the fountains in Trafalgar Square. There was also an enormous sum asked for on account of furniture, independent of the item of £26,318 for the maintenance and repair of public offices and the 149 charges attendant thereon. He wished to know why the whole cost was no included in one item, so that the extent of the expenditure might be understood at a glance? The rent paid for offices reached a high amount; £900 a year were paid for a house in St. James's Square for the Tithe and Copyhold Commission. He thought it high time that that Commission should be brought to an end. The Ecclesiastical Commission occupied apartments in Whitehall Place, for which £680 were given, besides taxes. That Commission had an enormous amount of money in hand, and these charges ought to be taken from the backs of the public, those who derived advantage from the Commission being made to defray them. He should take the sense of the Committee on the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £680, the rent paid for the house occupied by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
complained of the manner in which the expenses of the public offices were jumbled up together. It would be much more convenient if the Estimates were so arranged that it could be seen at a glance what were the expenses of the public buildings.

§ MR. PEASE
said, he thought that while the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had a large surplus income to dispose of they ought not to come on the public for the expenses of their offices.

MR. PEEL
said, these payments were made to the Commissioners, not as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but as the Church Building Commissioners, the duties of which Commission had been transferred to them by Act of Parliament some years ago. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners stated that one-fourth of their time was occupied on business that did not properly belong to them, and it was under that calculation that the sum was put down in the Estimates.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he hoped the hon. Member for Lambeth would not press his Amendment then, as it would preclude Amendments in preceding items.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, that looking to the state of the Committee—there were only twenty-two Members in the House—he would withdraw his Amendment, in hopes that in a short time there would 150 be more hon. Members present to divide on it.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he also must complain of the inconvenient manner in which the Estimates for the expenses of the public offices were arranged. He also wished to know why it was that a distinction was made between the Admiralty and the War Departments in respect of money required for buildings? Already £10,000 had been voted for the War Department for purposes precisely similar to those for which they were now called to provide in respect of the Admiralty. Votes for the public buildings ought to be placed altogether. He wished also to know why a large rent was paid for houses in Gate Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields, which were not now occupied by the Government? He should be glad to hear also why so much as £700 a year was paid for the Stationery Office?

§ MR. LAYARD
said, that there was a hideous piece of upholstery under cover opposite Marlborugh House at the disposal of anybody who would take it; but, as nobody would take it, they were now asked to vote £340 for its removal to St. Paul's, where it would be placed beneath one of the crypts. He alluded to the car used at the funeral of the late Duke of Wellington, and than which nothing more hideous had ever been invented. The best thing would be to give it to Madame Tussaud, or, if she would not take it, to burn it.

§ MR. DISRAELI
asked whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lambeth had been withdrawn?

THE CHAIRMAN
replied that it had.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, the withdrawal of the Amendment had not been heard on that side of the House. Some explanation ought to be given to the Committee of the reason for its withdrawal. The hon. Member for Lambeth, who was a great advocate for economy, moved to omit an item to which he appeared to have a great objection, but the moment it appeared from the state of the Committee that there was a chance of his Amendment being carried he immediately withdrew it. If that item was outrageous in the opinion of the hon. Member, he could not understand why he should have retreated from his Amendment in so nervous and precipitate a manner when it seemed likely that he would effect a reduction.
151 Well-considered Amendments ought really not to be withdrawn in this hasty manner. The hon. Gentleman and his friends obtained great public credit and esteem for always being in their place on these occasions when the House was there; but it also ought to be known, as a concomitant to this state of affairs, that when they had a majority of their friends present, they invariably retired from any chance of carrying their opinions into effect.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that the Amendment had been withdrawn at the instance of the hon. Member for Pontefract, because if it had been pressed to a division, it would not have been competent to move any Amendments on the previous items of the Vote.

MR. COWPER
said, the reason why no sum for the repair of the Admiralty Offices was included in the Estimates was that that department itself possessed the machinery for doing all the work which it required. With respect to the houses in Newport and Gate Streets, he had to state that, not being wanted for Government purposes, they were under-let to tenants who paid a rent, the account of which appeared under another head; so that in reality the rent of those houses constituted no charge on the public purse. As to the Wellington car he could only say that, notwithstanding the manner in which the taste exhibited in its construction had been criticised, it was naturally an object of great interest to numbers of Englishmen, and crowds of visitors flocked to see it while at Marlborough House, and that he considered it was not inappropriately placed in proximity to the tomb of the great man whose remains lay buried beneath St. Paul's Cathedral. He might add, in reference to the remarks which had fallen.from the hon. Member for Lambeth with regard to the supply of water to the public offices, that that supply was drawn from a deep well behind the National Gallery, and that three engines were constantly employed in pumping up the water from a considerable depth. This year some fresh hose, pipes and stopcocks were required, which rendered the item under that head larger than it had been in previous years.

§ MR. BLACKBURN
said, he thought the want of respect for the memory of the Duke of Wellington in reality lay in connecting it in any way with the absurd car, for the removal of which a Vote was now 152 asked. In the hope of getting rid of it altogether he should move the omission of the item of £340.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he hoped the Committee would not condemn the car. For the taste of its construction the Government were not answerable; but the noble Lord opposite could, no doubt, give a satisfactory explanation on that point. [An intimation of dissent from Lord JOHN MANNERS.] Whether, however, the car was in good or bad taste, it was a relic connected with the funeral of the Duke of Wellington, and the Committee would not, he felt assured, hesitate to grant the small amount which was asked for under the circumstances of the case.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he always trembled when questions of taste were submitted to the House, and he would not say a word on that subject. He agreed, however, that it would not be right or proper that the car should be broken up, and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had made a very wise selection of a place in which to deposit it?

§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, he wished to know whether anybody could see the car in the place in which it was proposed to place it? If they could it would certainly be a great hardship.

MR. COWPER
said, it would be underground where nobody could see it without going expressly for the purpose. There was a difference of opinion as to the artistic merits of the car; many persons considered it an excellent example of English metal work and worthy to bear a hero to the tomb. He could assure the Committee the car would add to the effect of the arrangements in St. Paul's Cathedral.

§ MR. BLACKBURN
said, he must protest against the notion that any feeling of disrespect to the memory of the Duke of Wellington had prompted his Motion. On the contrary, he did not see why the one failure of the public funeral should be perpetuated. Everybody admitted that it would have been infinitely better that the coffin should have been borne upon a common gun carriage; and, in fact, the disrespect to the memory of the Duke seemed to him to be connecting it with such an abominable abortion.

§ LORD WILLIAM GRAHAM
called attention to the item of £4,200 for the waterworks before alluded to.

MR. COWPER
said, the item of £4,200 for the supply of water included the water supplied for the Houses of Parliament, the public offices, and the Trafalgar Square fountains. There was a special supply from the well in the Orange Street works to the fountains. This required enlargement, and there would thus be an increase of the bulk and of the effect of the fountains.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he would then move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £680, rent of office in Whitehall Place for the use of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He thought the public ought not to be taxed for the support of a commission which had such a vast amount of money passing through their hands. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) he might add had imputed to him a very unworthy motive for withdrawing his Motion previously. He had done so partly for the reason stated by the Chairman, and partly because he had no wish to count out the House at a time when there were only some two-and-twenty Members present.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that the Vote had been agreed to for a series of years. It must not be supposed that the Ecclesiastical Commission had been instituted at the wish of the Church, or that the Church had desired that the estates of deans, chapters, and bishops should be transferred to it for the augmentation of small livings. On the contrary, the arrangement had been effected by the interference of Parliament for what it considered and what he believed to be a great public object, the endowment of the less well paid portion of the clergy at the expense of the more wealthy and dignified portion. Besides, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had latterly performed the duties (which were not light) of the Church Building Commission. It was, therefore, not unreasonable that the country should be asked to pay a portion of the Commissioners' expenses.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, he wished to know whether any part of the expenses of the Commission was paid by themselves?

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were trustees for the purpose of dealing with a special fund 154 derived from the income of church lands. They paid, however, a greater portion of their own expenses out of their Common Fund.

§ LORD FERMOY
said, he thought the Commissioners ought to pay the rent of their house. He thought that if that Vote of £600 was refused the Commissioners might occupy Kensington Palace, which was going to decay from want of occupation.

§ MR. PEASE
said, that the operations of the Commissioners were no doubt satisfactory. The Commissioners derived £30,000 or £40,000 a year from the county of Durham, and the people there complained that after paying this amount they should be called upon to pay more from the taxes of the country. He also wished to protest against the statement of the right hon. Members for Bucks, that those who criticised the Estimates did so from a desire to gain popularity, and hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not again attempt to discourage reasonable inquiries on the various items of public expenditure.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, the hon. Member had misunderstood his meaning. He did not deprecate discussions upon the Estimates; on the contrary, he thought it was the first duty of hon. Members to criticise the Estimates, and to endeavour to effect prudent reductions. What he objected to was, that having ably criticised particular items, and having established a case which in their opinion called for the decision of the Committee, they should recede from challenging that decision because they were afraid of obtaining a majority.

§ MR. BLACK
remarked that, as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners carried on their business for the exclusive benefit of the Church it was hardly fair that the public should be burdened with a portion of their expenses.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were required by the late Sir Robert Peel to enter upon an inquiry on the part of the State into the Revenue of the Church, and it was only reasonable that the public should bear a portion of the expense.

§ MR. LAYARD
inquired whether the Government were prepared to place plans 155 before the House for the erection of suitable buildings on the site of Burlington House? Several years ago that site was purchased at a cost of £180,000, and up to that moment nothing had been done to render it available for public purposes. He thought the time had come when accommodation should be furnished at Burlington House for the various public institutions of science and art. The Geographical Society, for example, had claims upon the Government which should not be overlooked.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR
said, he hoped the Government would not produce plans for the erection of buildings on the site of Burlington House. Whatever had been done hitherto in the way of public buildings showed that they were not advanced enough in the art of architecture to occupy the vacant ground at Burlington House with buildings of a satisfactory character at present. Considering the large annual expenditure, it was unreasonable to ask the Government to give additional grants either to the geographical or any other private society. He wished to know, however, what the Government proposed to do with the main part of Burlington House. The Royal Society was lodged merely in one of the side pavilions.

§ Mr. LAYARD
said, the Geographical Society would be willing to receive premises, instead of the grant, if the Government would provide them.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, he had understood that Burlington House was purchased for the accommodation of certain societies that had claims on the Government. That accommodation had not been provided, and he should be glad to know if it was intended that it should be provided.

MR. COWPER
said, that every inch of Burlington House was now occupied most advantageously for the public by the societies having claims on the Government. No final decision had yet been come to by the Government on many plans before it for appropriating the site and garden of Burlington House; but he hoped in a short time that decision would be made. He did not agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. D. Seymour), however, that we had not architects capable of erecting a building that was worth looking at.

§ LORD WILLIAM GRAHAM
said, the Vote included £10,400 for furniture for the Kensington Museum; if it was to furnish the new building there he objected to the Vote, as he objected to the building itself.

MR. COWPER
explained that the £10,400 included the expense of all the furniture, both for the old building at South Kensington and for what would be required for the new part of them.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
moved that the Vote be reduced by £10,400.

MR. COWPER
said, he feared no scrutiny into this item; the expenditure had been made under strict regulations, and with great economy.

§ MR. LAYARD
said, he hoped the hon. Member would not divide the Committee on this item. He did not think any public money had been better expended.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, the Vote was not for furniture only, but for the Museum fittings; great care had been taken to keep down the estimate.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, he thought that the museum at Kensington conferred advantages upon the working classes which they could not derive elsewhere, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, he objected to the expenditure in toto, and he had no doubt, if the Committee passed the vote of £10,000, it would be £20,000 the next year.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, he sat on the Committee on the South Kensington Museum, and he was disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Augustus Smith). He thought that the South Kensington Museum was going on at a very great pace. They ought to have some explanation of what these fittings were and for what purposes they were intended. He admitted that the museum had done good service, but still they might be paying too much for an establishment of that kind.

MR. COWPER
said, a very large addition was to be made to the South Kensington Museum by throwing a glass roof over four sides of a quadrangle. A sum had been voted for that purpose, and that building must be fitted up. These fittings were necessary to enable the South Kensington Museum to exhibit the finest collection of medieval objects of art and manufacturing industry which existed in 157 Europe, and which must attract the attention and admiration of all who understood the subject. The Department at Kensington had greatly improved the artistic manufactures of Great Britain. Looking at the question in a money point of view, the nation had gained immensely, while, as regarded the objects of recreation, amusement, and instruction of the middle and lower classes, the gain had been ten times the value of the money expended.

CAPTAIN JERVIS
said, he was at a loss to understand what necessity there was for so great an increase of window room. He complained of the rather insidious attempt to keep up Kensington Museum against the wishes of that House. He had paid great attention to that museum, but he could not tell from whence the large collection for which the fittings were required had come.

§ MR. GREGORY
observed that if the hon. and gallant Member had paid the slightest attention to Kensington Museum, if he had been there lately and had made use of his senses, he would very soon have discovered what the collection was. It was a most important and valuable collection of busts, terra-cottas, and other works of mediaeval art, which had been deposited in a room not accessible to the public, and which, to be exhibited, must be placed on tables with appropriate fittings.

§ LORD WILLIAM GRAHAM
said, he understood that the fittings were for the new schools and residences of the officers; not for any new collection.

§ MR. LAYARD
observed that he was surprised at the ignorance which had been displayed in regard to the South Kensington Museum. If that museum had not stepped in at the present time, one of the finest mediaeval collections would have been lost. It was absurd to spend £20,000 in purchasing a collection, and then refuse the money requisite to purchase the cases for properly exhibiting the articles.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, the great unpopularity of the South Kensington Museum was attributable in great measure to the unfair way in which the Votes for it had been brought forward. At first it was stated to be merely a temporary institution, Last year it did not appear in the Estimates, and a Committee was appointed, but at so late a period of the Session that the independent Members could not attend, and the majority who did attend were members of the Government, who had it all their own way.

CAPTAIN JERVIS
said, he thought it would be more satisfactory to the Committee if they received their information in respect to the Vote from the First Commissioner of Works, whose legitimate function it was to furnish it, instead of from the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory).

MR. COWPER
said, they might assume that of the Vote about £7,000, would be required to furnish these new buildings, and the remainder for the annual expenditure on the whole building. It was proposed to cover over the quadrangle, and to obtain a large space for the purposes of the collection at comparatively little cost. There was such a readiness among persons possessing interesting objects of industrial art to lend them for exhibition, that, supposing the museum had not sufficient property of its own, it might be filled with specimens lent for a time by the owners. They had an architectural museum to which valuable additions had lately been made. The extent of glass cases required for such a building must be costly; and chairs, tables, pedestals, and other furniture were wanted as well as fittings.

§ MR. LOCKE
, said, he did not regard the right hon. Gentleman's explanation as at all satisfactory. The term "fitting" was a most indefinite one, and he could not understand how £10,000 should be required for tables and chairs.

§ MR. BLACKBURN
complained of the deceptive nature of the comparative statement of expenditure between this year and last year—an inaccuracy which was common to other Votes in the Estimates. There was an apparent diminution of £2,000 as compared with the Vote of last year, but when all the items were included there was a positive increase of £13,000. The amount asked for was very large, and he would like to know whether £80,000 was absolutely required for the maintenance of the parks round London? The Committee ought to allow a fixed 159 sum, and say that it must be made to do.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he objected to the extraordinary charge for Kew Gardens. For the botanic gardens £12,135 was asked, and for the pleasure gardens £24,262. Then there was a sum of £23,417 for St. James's, Green, and Hyde Parks, but he was at a loss to know for what that money was required.

§ MR. PEACOCKE
said, he was glad the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn) had called attention to the question of the Estimates. The manner in which they were presented was thoroughly calculated to deceive the House. There was throughout the mention of a "probable surplus" from last year. The House ought to have fuller information as to what this surplus was. He thought the same precision ought to be required for those Votes as for the Army and Navy Estimates. There were some items which required explanations—such as £2,800 for the ranger's department in Richmond Park, and £2,020 for the department of the ranger of St. James's Park, those departments costing more pounds than there were acres to look after.

§ MR. W. EWART
said, he wanted to know what were the duties of the deputy-ranger of Hyde Park, and he hoped that when a vacancy occurred in the office the ground now occupied by the deputy-ranger's house would be devoted to public use.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he observed a charge of £2,500 for providing a walk and ride near the Serpentine, and he wished to ask how that money was to be expended? There had been a walk near the Serpentine, but it had been stopped and converted into a ride by simply putting up hurdles to prevent persons from walking there.

§ MR. DILLWYN
complained that the enormous sum of £23,000, which was quite a nobleman's income, was expended on those parks. He thought it quite right that the parks of the Metropolis should be kept in good order for the enjoyment of the public, but surely that was a preposterous sum to expend upon them. He hoped further explanation would be rendered to the Committee.

§ SIR JERVOISE JERVOISE
said, he thought that as the property in the neighbourhood of the parks was increased in value by the improvements in the parks, it was not right to make the nation at large pay for all those improvements.

§ LORD FERMOY
said, he thought there 160 was some reason to complain of the way in which this Estimate had been drawn, the money for two very different things being put into one Vote without saying how much for each. Thus there was an item of £2,500, which was said to be for a walk and ride near the Serpentine.

MR. COWPER
said, that as to the form of the estimate the mention of the probable surplus of former grants was an arrangement which in the early part of the evening met with great approbation from hon. Gentlemen. It had been adopted in pursuance of the recommendation of a Select Committee. It did not mislead, because the total estimate was given, and the probable surplus being deducted would leave the net amount. As to the walk and ride being included in one Vote, that was a misprint. It ought to have been simply "a walk;" the word "ride" was mistake. Every Sunday afternoon a very large number of persons were walking on what was formerly grass, but was now a very bare and ragged strip of land. Since the public seemed to have made up their mind to use it for a walk he wished to render it suitable for that purpose, it was 2,000 linear yards in length, from Hyde Park Corner to Kensington Gardens. The distinction between the rangers' department and the department of the Office of Works was one of form and not of substance. When Hyde Park, Greenwich, and Richmond Parks were kept as parks for hunting deer, the office of ranger was more required, the lodges and the grazing of cattle were under his direction. As for that part of the parks near the Serpentine which was occupied, as it was likely that some years might elapse before the house there could be pulled down, it was thought desirable to make it as convenient as could be, and, therefore, £2,000 was asked for that purpose. With regard to the expense of the parks in general, that for the Green Park and Hyde Park was less than in previous years, and yet there had been increased accommodation for the public. There had been an increase of convenient walks and of flowers, and more comfort and recreation had been supplied to the public for the money than heretofore.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, that the form of the Votes gave as the total amount a sum less than was likely to be required, because the surplus of former years was to be taken into account. Some days ago the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking 161 of the subject, said that was an approximation to what the Committee on Public Monies, and other Committees had recommended; but he (Sir Stafford Northcote) did not think that a fair description. What the Committee desired was that these Votes should come before the Committee in the same form as the army and navy Votes—namely, that Votes should be taken for the money actually to be paid during the year, and that if there was any surplus at the end of the year it should be surrendered. Such a plan enabled them to compare one year with another, which they could not do while the present practice was adopted. The surplus of £296,000 from last year ought to have been surrendered to the Exchequer, and Votes larger than those now asked for by that sum ought to have been proposed.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he could not admit the fairness of the criticism, considering the quarter from which it proceeded. The hon. Gentleman imagined that he had discovered a practice which greatly deluded the House of Commons, but the Government in following it, and cutting down the Estimates by means of the balances from the preceding year, had carefully informed the House what they had done. But in the year 1858 the same course was taken by the Government, of which the hon. Baronet was a Member, but he did not recollect that in that year any notice was given that that course had been taken. It was then announced that the Miscellaneous Estimates would be less than they were the year before, and so they were, because the balances were drawn upon to such an extent that upon some Votes there was left an insufficient provision for the wants of the year. When he said that it was an approximation to the state of things recommended by the Public Monies Committee he did not mean that it was to be the permanent condition of things, but only that it was a state of transition to the complete carrying out of the recommendations of that Committee. As regarded the merits of the question, he believed the description given by his hon. Friend was entirely inaccurate. For the last three years the balances of the Estimates for the miscellaneous services had been considerably drawn upon, but in no single instance had the total expenditure equalled the amount voted—not even in the particular case where the hon. Baronet claimed for the late Government the merit 162 of originality in the course which they adopted. Undoubtedly, when the House voted money for 202 services with 202 margins, it followed that the general effect was to make a provision largely in excess of the actual requirements. He had for years advocated the principle that balances ought to be paid over to the Exchequer, and he hoped they would soon be able to give full effect to the recommendations of the Public Monies Committee.

§ MR. PEACOCKE
said, he thought the Government entitled to credit for the efforts which they had made to fulfil some of the recommendations of the Committee, and for that reason he had supported the Motion for a Vote on account, in opposition to the party with whom he usually acted, But the Committee had a right to ask whether next year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared fully to carry out the recommendations of the Committee.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works had given no explanation of what appeared to his untutored mind an extraordinary demand for the pleasure gardens at Kew. Year after year there was a continued increase in the demands for parks and gardens, and as long as the heads of departments lent a willing ear to the representations of their subordinates there would never be a cessation of these growing calls on the public purse. Such items in moderation were not grudged, but if carried to excess a revulsion of feeling would some day manifest itself, which would eventuate in the total suppression of these pleasure grounds. The House being called upon to vote money for works already half executed, had no opportunity of judging of their desirability.

§ LORD JOHN BROWNE
said, he wished to remind the Committee of the circumstances connected with the erection of the temperate-house at Kew Gardens. Some years ago great complaints were made that valuable plants and trees were being destroyed for want of a proper house, and the necessity for such a building was strongly urged on the Government of the day. A pledge was given that it should be erected at a cost of £30,000; and by a majority of ten to one that decision was afterwards supported in the House. In accordance with that vote contracts were entered into, and it was rather late in the day for hon. Gentlemen now to come down and open the subject afresh.

CAPTAIN JERVIS
said, he thought the works at Kew were a credit to the Government. He would also congratulate the Chief Commissioner of Works (Mr. Cowper) on the improvements he had effected in Battersea Park, which formed a most agreeable place of recreation for the large population congregated on both sides of he river.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to state the amount of the expenditure on the ride in Kensington Gardens?

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, it ought to be matter of praise rather than blame that the heads of particular departments attached importance to the interests confided to them, and pressed them upon their superiors. It was not the influence which they brought to bear, but that which the House itself put upon the Board of Works, that caused the large expenditure at Kew, which was complained of. Having himself been instrumental in inducing the House to agree to the expenditure at Kew, to which allusion had been made, he was by no means ashamed of the part he had taken.

§ MR. SLANEY
said, he wished to return his acknowledgments to the right hon. Gentleman for the improvements which he had carried out for the public advantage. He hoped it might be possible at a future day to establish some pleasure grounds in the south-west district of the Metropolis.

MR. LYGON
observed that the expense of erecting a drinking fountain in St Jame's Park was £100, while in Regent's Park it was £150, and he should like to hear the discrepancy explained.

§ MR. THOMSON HANKEY
said, that Kew Gardens were the only public establishment of the kind that were a credit to the country. He was surprised at the limited cost for which they were maintained. He had only one fault to find, and that was that for a large portion of the year there was but one means of ingress and egress to the gardens, and that was at the Kew side.

§ LORD FERMOY
remarked, that another entrance was very much wanted to the Kew Gardens, which certainly were a great credit to the country. With regard to the new ride in Kensington Gardens, he thought, although the riders were admitted in the least objectionable place, the general feeling was that it was an invasion of the rights of the public.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, he did not intend 164 to oppose the Vote, but he hoped that next year the right hon. Gentleman would give the House an account of the way in which the large sums voted for the parks were expended.

§ MR. PEASE
approved of the expenditure in St. James's Park and Hyde Park, which were public parks from time immemorial; but he strongly objected to the large expenditure for Battersea Park, amounting last year and this to £17,000. He objected to the continual laying out of new parks in the Metropolis at the expense of the country generally. He would divide the Committee if he thought he would be supported in a protest against that system.

§ MR. CLAY
also complained of the heavy demands made for water supplies to the parks.

MR. COWPER
said, the temperate house in Kew Gardens would soon be complete, when, no doubt, there would be a great influx of persons there in the winter. The pleasure gardens would then be thrown open in the winter, and additional access given to the gardens. As to the water supply to the gardens generally, the sum set down from it included also the labour, the water carts, and the horse hire. He did not think it was necessary for him to enter into details as to the cost of the parks, for last year the Estimates were referred to a Committee, and no recommendation of a diminution in those Estimates was made. The new Kensington ride had not cost more than £20, and that sum had been defrayed out of a Vote of £250 of last year.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he could not but complain of repeated demands on the account of the new Houses of Parliament, after it was understood that the last of them had been paid. They began the Houses of Parliament with an estimate of £700,000, and ended with an expenditure of £2,500,000. For many years he and other had tried to draw this expenditure to a conclusion, and it was owing entirely to the late Sir William Molesworth that a termination was arrived at. It was then settled that the sum of £180,000 was to 165 cover every cost. But what had happened? They were now asked to vote an item of £20,895 which had been expended by the late distinguished architect without authority. The Committee had a right to expect some explanation, and to ask whether they had yet got to the end of this expenditure. A more prodigal expenditure of money he never heard of.

MR. COWPER
said, that no doubt it appeared upon the face of the Estimates that a sum of £20,895 had been spent beyond the estimate prepared by Sir Charles Barry in 1859. He agreed with the hon. Baronet that this excess was a matter to be deplored. It could, however, be traced to the course that was taken in the beginning. A contract in gross would have furnished better security against an excess of the Estimates, than confidence in the architect. The architect had exercised a general authority over the works without being subject to effectual control. He was responsible to a Committee of the Commons and to a Committee of the Lords, then to a Commission. He had many masters, but none were able to control the expenditure. It was a long story but everybody agreed that the arrangement had been a mistake. With regard to the item of £20,895 in the present Estimate "for the completion of the unfinished portions of the entire building," an explanation would be found in the annexed correspondence. He would admit that it was not entirely satisfactory, but since Sir Charles Barry had been removed by death it was impossible to get the detailed explanations which he alone could give. Sir Charles Barry had authority to expend the money, and he made periodical returns, but they did not give all the information desired. The works for which the sum was now taken were necessary. They ought to have been included in the specification of 1859, but were not. But although the Committee were asked for the sum of £20,895, it was more than covered by a balance of £35,000 recently surrendered which had been saved in other directions. With regard to future expenditure, Mr. Edward Barry had undertaken to make half-yearly reports, giving in detail the expenditure on the works for which this Vote was taken. There was no reason to doubt that the sum of £20,985 would be sufficient, under the management of Mr. Barry, to complete the building.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, there was an 166 item in the Vote for statues of four British Sovereigns. Who were they? They had statues of all the British Sovereigns about the House, and in St. Stephen's Hall statues also of great and distinguished men. But there was an absence of the statue of the greatest man, the greatest soldier, the greatest statesman, the wisest governor, and the greatest friend of liberty the country ever had. He need not add that he meant the Protector, Cromwell. Historians were beginning to throw light on his before blackened character. Was the Government, he would ask, about to give a statue to this great man? The public—some of them, he meant—were willing to do so by subscription. To that he would never consent. The statue to that illustrious man ought to be erected at the national expense.

§ MR. E P. BOUVERIE
said, there was an ambiguity in Mr. Barry's letter; in consequence of which he would ask whether the "£20,000 to finish works in hand" would finish the building? Of course there would be ornamental work; but would the building be substantially finished for that sum? The north-west corner of the building, under the clock tower, was incomplete. Sir Charles Barry had a magnificent design, which he remembered was lithographed, having an immense court in Palace Yard, with a beautiful screen of decorative architecture, which was to cost the modest sum of £900,000; and the gap in the clock tower was, he believed, left as a hint that such a grand scheme was to be carried out at the public expense. Was anything included in this £20,000 for removing this blot in the wall?

§ COLONEL WILSON PATTEN
said, he also would be glad to know whether any further sums were to be called for beyond the £20,000 to complete the Houses of Parliament, as well as whether there were any plans or specifications of the works required for that purpose?

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
remarked, that although Mr. Dyce had been paid £560 for the frescoe he had undertaken, he had executed very little of his work; and he wished to know whether any steps had been taken to bring him to a sense of what was due to the country? As long ago as 1857 the Commission on the Fine Arts wrote to him that his work ought to be finished by the following year. Perhaps the First Commissioner of Public Works would inquire into the state of the 167 frescoes, and would he apply the unexpended balance to that work?

§ MR. LAYARD
remarked, that the First Commissioner on a former occasion had stated that the condition of the frescoes was owing to the badness of the materials used in laying on the "intonico" or plaster on which the picture was painted. That plaster came from Munich, where frescoes painted on the same foundation were also "going." Some of the artists who had painted the frescoes in the Houses of Parliament were willing to repaint their works, but they wished it to be perfectly understood that the material to be painted upon must be good. He would suggest the appointment of a Commission, to comprise chemists among its members, to examine into the nature of the plasters, for in some places frescoes were good after being painted hundreds of years.

CAPTAIN JERVIS
said, he wished to know whether the First Commissioner had come to any determination as to the various processes for preserving the stone of the Houses of Parliament?

MR. COWPER
said, that a Commission of scientific and experienced men was investigating the last-mentioned subject, and had not yet reported. The explanation of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) confirmed what he had previously stated. If the decay were not attributable to the manner in which the colours had been applied, but to a defect in the plaster, he still thought that the artists ought to have satisfied themselves of the proper quality of the plaster upon which they painted before they commenced their work. The more recent frescoes did not exhibit the same signs of decay as those first executed. No Vote was required for frescoes this year, because there was a balance in hand. Allusion had been made to Mr. Dyce's conduct in a recent Report of the Fine Arts Commission, and he was not aware that that gentleman had challenged the allegations in the Report. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) had expressed a wish that there should be a statue to Oliver Cromwell. That distinguished personage had not been forgotten, and in the list of persons to whom statues might be erected, which had been published in an appendix to one of the Reports of the Fine Arts Commission, the name of Oliver Cromwell appeared, but no place in the building had been assigned to his statue. In reference 168 to the question of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), he might say that the Vote of £20,000 was intended to complete all those portions of the Houses of Parliament which were now in hand, but did not include any of the designs sketched out by Sir Charles Barry for the encloure of New Palace Yard by two additional wings. It would be premature to come to a conclusion as to what should be done with the site until the houses in Bridge Street were pulled down, and those houses would not be pulled down for another year. None of the £20,000 was intended to fill up the rough wall of the Clock Tower.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, the completion of the unfinished part of the wall of the Clock Tower was provided for by a Vote taken two years ago.

§ MR. LAYARD
said, he wished it to be understood that the painters had nothing to do with putting up the plaster on which the pictures were painted. For any defect in that the persons employed by the Government were responsible.

§ MR. E. BALL
said, that no great body ought to be ashamed to acknowledge Oliver Cromwell as the originator and founder of England's greatness. Oliver Cromwell was one of the chief conservatives of his age. He was the originator of the Navigation Laws. Without those laws England would never have been mistress of the seas, and, therefore, to Oliver Cromwell was owing the greatness of this country. In addition to that every one must acknowledge the high standard of moral principle and rectitude maintained by Oliver Cromwell. While monarchs were unobservant of their word, the word of Oliver Cromwell was always binding. While there were soldiers who regarded neither the laws of God nor man, his soldiers regarded their commanders, and paid reverence to the great Commander of all. When he spoke in terms of respect of Oliver Cromwell he was not wanting in reverence for the Royal Sovereigns who followed or preceded him. He felt no diminished attachment to monarchy, and he was no less sensible of the privilege of living under such a monarch as now governed these realms. At the same time he was not ashamed to say that there were many parts of the history of Oliver Cromwell which monarchs would do well to study and imitate. Oliver Cromwell possessed those great qualities of moral worth, indomitable courage, and unwavering attachment to his country, of which no mo- 169 narch and no Englishman could ever be ashamed. He hoped that the statue would not be placed in some obscure or hidden corner, and that it would prove to all future ages that worth was always recognized, and that truth would always prevail.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, he wished to have a reply to the question as to who were the four sovereigns who were mentioned, because last year they had a pleasant debate upon whether they were to have some Saxon kings, or some of the Georges, and many hon. Members would like to know if they had escaped that infliction?

§ MR. TITE
remarked, the great decay in the frescoes was confined more particularly to one, which must have arisen from some accident or carelessness in the workmen; but the part could be cut out and be replaced with new painting. He said the quality of the plaster depended on the purity and age of the lime employed.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he he had no objection to a statue to Oliver Cromwell, or to additional frescoes; but he had an objection to additional taxes being taken out of the pockets of the English people. He wished to have a distinct answer as to whether they had done with the designs of Sir Charles Barry? Was there to be an end to the expenditure on the House? He did not allude to the buildings to be erected where the houses now were which were to be pulled down, but was there to be additional expenditure on the House itself? If the question were not answered honestly he should move the omission of the sum from the Vote.

MR. COWPER
said, that the sum now asked for would complete the residences, approaches, and everything that was understood under the term "Houses of Parliament," but he guarded himself against expressing any opinion with respect to what was to be done with New Palace-yard hereafter. That was not a portion of the Houses of Parliament, and future consideration must determine whether the northern side should be closed with buildings. He also wished to guard himself against being supposed to be committed to the erection of a statue of Oliver Cromwell. All he had said was that the name of Oliver Cromwell was to be found in the appendix of the Fine Arts Commission among men to whom statues might hereafter be erected. With respect 170 to the statues in the Royal Gallery, the Fine Arts Commission had been engaged for twenty years in endeavouring to develope and elevate art in its application to those buildings, and, as the Royal Gallery required sculpture as well as painting to complete it, it was proposed this year that four statues out of twelve in all should be placed in four prominent positions of that gallery. The statues were, he understood, to be a chronological series of the Sovereigns of this country. The sculptors selected were rising men whose talent deserved encouragement. [cries of "Name!"] They were Mr. Theed and Mr. Thorneycroft. Sculpture required more public encouragement than painting, because there were fewer opportunities of employing it in private houses.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, that the Committee had now come back to exactly the same point which was decided last year. It was then distinctly understood that the House would not enter upon the expense of having a whole chronological series of British sovereigns; but that a selection of four of the most eminent should be selected for representation in sculpture, and the statement now made by the right hon. Gentleman showed a desire on his part to set aside that decision. He should, therefore, move that the Vote be reduced by £3,200, the cost of the four proposed statues.

§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTON
said, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman included in his statement all the expense occasioned by the decay of the building before its completion? With regard to the statues, he was one of the those who considered, if there were to be statues in illustration of English history, that it would be a perfect farce to exclude the statue of Cromwell—one of the most remarkable men in history. He did not wish to hold him up as an example; but his energy and firmness had swayed Europe in a way that few British statesmen had been able to do, and it would be a mockery and delusion to attempt to illustrate British history by statues and at the same time to exclude the statue of Cromwell.

§ MR. STIRLING
said, he desired an explanation of the item of £6,455 for the furniture and repair and cleaning of furniture. With regard to the four sovereigns, he thought the Committee, before voting the money, should know who they were to be. Were they to be sovereigns known in history, and whose portraits were known, 171 or sovereigns of that mythical kind who were sculptured first and christened afterwards?

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, the hon. Member for Galway was a little hard on the scheme. What the House declined to agree to last year was that there should be a chronological series beginning either at the beginning or at the end; and what was now proposed was that the series should begin in the middle. He (the noble Lord) sincerely hoped that the Committee would not attempt to determine what kings should have statues? If they did, they might depend upon it that the debates they would have as to the appropriation of these four seats would exceed those which they had just finished upon a similar question. They had better leave the decision to the responsible Ministers of the Crown.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
I join with the noble Lord in recommending the hon. Gentleman to be warned by his past experience. He has seen how difficult it is to form a Committee. He had the charge of forming the Galway Committee, and great difficulty he had in selecting a few names from the body of the House. If he undertakes to form a committee of Sovereigns who are to sit in this Royal Gallery he will find it still more difficult to satisfy, not himself, but the public at large. The question is a very simple one. The object for which the Fine Arts Commission was appointed was to forward and promote the arts of painting and sculpture in connection with the construction and ornamentation of the Houses of Parliament. Paintings have been placed in the Royal Gallery, and it was thought—and justly, in my opinion—that it was a proper site for works of sculpture. Then the question comes, what works of sculpture are most appropriate for the Royal Gallery, though which the Sovereign has to pass? Would you have allegorical statues of heathen deities? No; you would naturally put in it statues connected with the history of the country. You cannot obliterate the history of the country. One man, as he reads over history, may think one Sovereign good and another bad, but there they are—they are persons who have reigned, and whose reigns form part of the history of the country. Here it is proposed that in this gallery should be placed a certain number of statues, and naturally it seems to me they should be statues which represent portions of the history of the country. The way 172 in which they are identified with portions of our history is by being statues of Sovereigns who have reigned in remarkable periods of our history. I do not know who are to be selected: but I quite agree with the noble Lord that the selection should be left with the Fine Arts Commission, with whom the house may find fault afterwards, rather than the house, which would only have itself to reproach if it changed its mind.