SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 8 July 1861)

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
wished to know whether any estimate had been made of the entire expense to be incurred by the erection of the new office?

MR. COWPER
said, a general estimate had been made, as far as it could at pre- 541 sent be calculated, of the whole expense of the building, which was £200,000. But tenders would be asked for, and no building would be commenced until they had a contract in gross of the whole sum. The £30,000 now asked for was the amount which might be expended during the present year.

§ LORD ROBERT CECIL
thought the Government ought to name a sum beyond which they would not go in accepting tenders for the erection of the new offices. He made this suggestion because he feared we should go again through precisely the same process as had been gone through in regard to the new Houses of Parliament. In the first instance, a sum approximating to what the whole expense was supposed to be was named; but the Government of the day said there were some uncertainties in reference to details which it was impossible to define at the outset; but great hopes were expressed by the treasury Bench that beyond a certain amount the expenditure would not extend. What, however, were the facts? Year by year greater expenditure was incurred, so that the cost, instead of being confined to £700,000, the original estimate, rose to £2,500,000; and the building was still unfinished. He hoped the Committee would take every precaution against any similar waste and extravagance. It ought to insist upon an absolute pledge from the Government that a certain amount of money would not be exceeded; and that the Government should be held responsible for any unauthorized changes in the design of the building in volving an augmentation of the expenditure originally agreed upon.

§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE
complained that there was no unity of design so far as the proposed buildings were concerned, and thought an estimate of the whole of the improvements which it was intended to make in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament should be furnished.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works evidently did not under stand the question put to him by the hon. Member for Evesham — namely, whether this sum of £30,000 would be the whole expense of the new office. In the course of the recent debate the sum of £200,000 was spoken of.

MR. COWPER
said, that the total estimate was £200,000. The sum now asked for was that which it was proposed to expend during the present year. With 542 regard to the remarks of the noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) in reference to the augmented expense of the Houses of Parliament, he might observe that there was no security for a definite expenditure so good as a contract. When Sir Charles Barry was architect to the Houses of Parliament there was no contract in gross for the whole building, and no security taken that the approved plan would be adhered to. The plans were altered and enlarged from time to time, and after the first block of building had been erected, the only contract was for a schedule of prices. The course intended to be taken in the case of the new public offices would be different, inasmuch as he intended, having procured plans and specifications to put them out to tender, and then to enter into a contract providing for their construction for a gross sum. Such a contract would be superseded only in the event of a departure from the original plans, which could only take place on the responsibility of the person holding the office which he occupied. He had no reason, therefore, to suppose that those buildings would not be erected for a previously ascertained sum, or that the amount of the original estimate would be exceeded.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
asked the right hon. Gentleman to inform the House upon one point. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government incidentally let fall an observation, to the effect that the President of the India Board was anxious that the building should be commence, in order that there might be a grant obtained. Now, he (Mr. Osborne) wished to know whether this sum of £200,000 included the building of the Colonial, Indian, and Foreign Offices?

MR. COWPER
No; only the Foreign Office.

§ LORD ROBERT CECIL
said, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered one important part of the question, namely, whether the Committee was to receive any guarantee from the Ministers of the Crown that a certain amount to be named as the expenditure for this new building should not be exceeded.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, it was utterly impossible for the Government to do more than cause an estimate to be made, to apply for a Vote founded upon that estimate, and to give instructions that the contract should not exceed the sum stated. But everyone knew that in spite of every care estimates of that kind would 543 be exceeded. Should that happen the only course the Government could take would be to bring the excess under the notice of the House. The House could then inquire into the circumstances, and if they did not approve of the additional estimate, they could revise it. The Government could not go beyond the money voted by that House. It was impossible to say that unforeseen circumstances might not arise to make an increase of the Vote necessary. All they could do was to take every precaution that such should not be the case.

MR. WHITE
said, he could not accept the reply of the right hon. Gentleman as satisfactory. There were so many instances of the estimates having been greatly exceeded, and architects seemed to have such capacious notions, that although the Minister might not intend to spend more than £200,000, the building might be commenced upon proportions which would render it impossible to stop at that amount; and then the House would be asked to vote large sums in addition, in order to prevent the first outlay being made to no purpose.

§ MR. PEASE
said, he understood that the buildings were to be constructed by contract. That involved the question, what was the limit which the House would assign to that contract? He begged, therefore, to move that the vote be deferred until the tenders be received by the First Commissioner of Works.

MR. COWPER
said, the course taken with the Houses of Parliament was that which he was anxious to avoid. The course which he proposed to pursue in the case of the new Foreign Office was that which in the case of ordinary buildings was usually adopted. Tenders would be invited, but what the amount of those tenders would be he could not, of course, pretend to say. The present estimate was founded on a tender sent in two years ago from the design which had received the approval of his department believed that the estimate now before the Committee would cover the expenditure, and the sufficiency of the Estimates would be ascertained when he received the tenders. He could not say what a future Chief Commissioner might do with respect to any excess of expenditure, but he was decidedly of opinion that no excess should be incurred without the knowledge of the House. It was money till they had the tenders; but 544 how could the Government get substantial tenders when Parliament had not sanctioned the Vote?

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
said, if they could ensure that his right hon. Friend should remain at the Office of Works, he would be content to leave the matter in his hands, for he well knew his zeal and perseverance. But suppose that the right hon. Gentleman should, by some dispensation of Providence, be removed from his present office, how could they tell what might be the character of his successor? They might get a Gothic Commissioner instead of a Palladian; and the House might hereafter be of a different temper from what it was now. As matters, therefore, stood, they had no guarantee whatever that the expense would be confined within the present estimate. The Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Pease) would postpone the estimate for a year; and he would gladly support it on that ground, for the was of opinion that they were going into this matter without sufficient consideration.

§ MR. BLACK
said, every gentleman engaged in building knew that the cost was likely to exceed the original estimate; and this was more likely to happen with a public building than a private one. But he did not think that was any reason for postponing the estimate. The great object ought to be to get the plans made out as perfectly as possible, and when the contracts were taken to have them laid before the Houses. It would then be the duty of the House to see that these contracts were not exceeded.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
asked what was the estimated expense of Mr. Scott's Gothic design?

MR. COWPER
stated that the Gothic building first designed by Mr. Scott would have cost £230,000; but by diminutions in the amount of accommodation provided and otherwise that sum might have been reduced to £200,000.

§ MR. CONINGHAM
thought it would be unsatisfactory to vote the money until they had some further information as to the plans and interior arrangement of the building. These matters of seemed to have been regarded as matters of altogether secondary consideration.

§ MR. E. BALL
thought that they could not postpone this Vote, and that, in reason, they ought not to do so. The argument on the other side appeared to be that they should not spend what was admitted to be 545 necessary now for fear they might afterwards be called to expend what was not necessary. Now, it was admitted on all hands that they could not bind their successors, and, therefore, all they could undertake to do was to study economy in the most rigid way, and thus guard themselves and set the example to their successors to guard against the extravagance that in former times had been practised.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
thought it was obvious that the chief Commissioner could not pledge any future Government or any future House of Commons. There would be no use, therefore, in postponing the Vote for one year, or even for ten years. They could only go upon reasonable expectations. The internal arrangements had been much considered. Some time ago the Under Secretary and other persons connected with the Foreign Office went over the whole subject, and the interior accommodation was found satisfactory. The only opinion he had himself expressed was that he thought it would be unnecessary to provide any residence for the Secretary of State. He believed the plan had been curtailed to that extent.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR
submitted that the working place ought to laid before the Committee. It had been assumed that we ought to spend £200,000 upon the Foreign Office alone. He denied that that so large an expenditure was necessary, and stated that many Members had gone away under the impression the £200,000 would build, not only the Foreign Office, but, likewise, the India Office and the Colonial Office. The Select Committee said that £90,000 would be sufficient for the Foreign Office. Until they had seen, not only the elevation, but the plan of interior arrangements, the Committee would not do its duty if it voted this Estimate; the proposal of the hon. Member for Durham was, therefore, a reasonable one. If they knew they were in the hands of a great architectural genius—some Sir Christopher Wren, who would produce a work that would be a credit to the country and to the age—they might leave him to expend the public money with something like confidence; but everybody condemned this plan, and the only reason the was given for proceeding with it was that they were tied hand and foot to Mr. Scott, Why did they not pay Mr. Scott a sum of money for his trouble, and then procure a proper plan for the erection of the building that might be worthy of the country? For 546 his own part, he thought that plan was the best which provided the requisite accommodation at the cheapest rate—for no plan of great beauty had been laid before the House. Mr. Pennethorne had erected the Museum of Practical Geology in Jermyn Street: it was a very simple building; everyone admired it; and he offered to build the Foreign Office for just one-half the sum Mr. Scott required for a most common place building, which had only been accepted in the block in the hope that it might be susceptible of improvement in the details. Nothing could be done until next Spring, and he thought it a very reasonable proposal that this Vote should be postponed in the meantime.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
Certainly my hon. Friend proposes a method of securing that there shall be no criticism on the foreign Office, because if his proposal be adopted it will never be built. That is the only way in which you can prevent criticism on the Foreign Office, by not having it at all; because in regard to architecture, as in regard to every department of the Arts, it is impossible for the genius and ingenuity of man to invent anything which shall not be criticised. Now as to the elevation—buiding is a more ambiguous word—but after the discussion which has take place it may be assumed the elevation is decided upon; and I may venture to say this, my hon. Friend thinks it is not sufficiently ornamented. It is not so ornamented as other elevations, and, therefore, it costs less. It may not be a splendid and magnificent piece of architecture, but it is handsome enough for the purpose, and I am quite sure it will be constructed at less cost than any of the other elevations. My hon. Friend has talked of Mr. Pennethorne's—a very handsome elevation; but, if I am not very much mistaken, there was a great deal more ornament in it than it the elevation of Mr. Scott. Well, now, with regard to the ground-plan, my hon. Friend wants the drawings and distribution of the interior to be laid before the House. Now, how can this House form any judgment as to the working plans and internal arrangements? My hon. Friend says when a man builds a house he requires an architect to submit plans as to the distribution of the interior. He is quite right to do so, because he means to live in the house, and he naturally wishes to know whether the arrangements of the interior will suit his convenience. But the House of Commons is not going to live in the Foreign Office. 547 The Foreign Office has been examined by the persons who are going to inhabit the building, and they have informed Mr. Scott what extent of accommodation will be necessary for them, and how it should be given. As to the capacity of this House to judge advantageously and economically of plans of distribution, we all know that the distribution of this building was very much looked to by Committees of the House; I cannot say that the result has been exceedingly satisfactory. With regard to expense, that depends on the amount of space covered by the building, and the elevation to be given to the building. The amount of space is a fixed quantity; the elevation we have seen, and the fault found is that it is not sufficiently handsome. That is a fault which economists cannot urge. I think it is quite handsome enough. It will be an ornament to the Metropolis; but if we go on postponing from year to year providing the money for it, the Foreign Office will never be built. It is now only lodged in a temporary manner in a building hired for the purpose. Nothing can be got by delay. The sooner the building is begun the sooner we shall obtain out object, and save inconvenience and expense.

§ LORD ROBERT CECIL
said, they would gain this by delay—they would gain some guarantee for the expense, which they had not at present. He did not care much about the style of the building himself; but he knew that Mr. Scott could not give them very accurate estimates, for Mr. Scott was a Gothic architect, and to get a Gothic architect to build a Palladian Structure was about as reasonable as to employ a landsman to build a man-of-war.

§ MR. CONINGHAM
said, that the manner in which the plan had been brought before the committee bore every mark of haste. he thought it was only reasonable that the Government should state distinctly what they were going to do, for of late years they had been erecting public buildings at an expense greatly exceeding the estimates.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR
observed, that Mr. Pennethorne had offered to build the Foreign Office for £60,000, while Mr. Scott's plan was estimated at an expense of £170,000. Why should they give Mr. Scott the difference? By obtaining an estimate of the proposed building hon. Members would be able to determine whether it was likely to be erected for the sum named. He wished to explain that he had never said that this design was not sufficiently 548 ornamented; but that he disapproved of the ornamentation proposed.

§ MR. BRISCOE
said, although a majority of the house had decided in favour of Palladian architecture, they were wholly without information as to the ground-plan of the building. The former plan contemplated a ball room 150 feet in length, and a supper room 50 feet in width; he trusted that on this occasion such absurdities would be avoided, and that in the building only the actual requirements of the public service would be contemplated. In the absence of a model, or of some reliable details, the House was proceeding with unjustifiable haste. He thought they ought to have some security as to the way in which the money was to be expended, and he, therefore, hoped the Vote would be postponed.

§ MR. PEASE
thought he could gather that the Committee was not prepared to withhold its confidence from the Government on the matter; and, therefore, he would not divide the House. It was only due to the First commissioner of Works that he should have some authority to strengthen his hands. It would be found that this discussion on the Estimates was only like the drops before the thunder storm, if they proceeded with the reckless expenditure of the public money they was now going on.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
asked, whether the present Vote was to be expended with a definite object, or whether it was but the first step by which the House would be drawn into an indefinite expenditure, as in the case of the Houses of Parliament, which commenced with an estimate of £700,00 and gradually swelled to £2,000,000? If it was to be supposed that by voting for this sum they were pledging themselves to an expenditure of £200,000 he would not vote for it. He should greatly like to know on what foundation the present calculations were based.

§ MR. W. E. DUNCOMBE
said, the plan proposed was very mush objected to; and, therefore, he trusted the noble Lord would consent to some delay. There was also a fair claim for the postponement of this Vote from the circumstance that many hon. Members had left the house under the impression that it included not only the Foreign Office, but an expenditure upon the Indian Office, and a residence for the Secretary of State.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
wished to know, did the £230,000 include the pur- 549 Chase of the land as well as the erection of the building?

MR. COWPER
said, that the total of the Estimate was £200,000 and not £230,000. That was for the works only and did not include the purchase of the land. He did not see how hon. Members could justify the impression that the India Office was included; because his noble Friend had distinctly stated that the India Office would be paid for out of the revenues of that country. He was surprised at the charge of haste in this case, seeing that the subject had been under discussion for the last four years, and had been carefully examined by two Governments, and he could not see how matters would be improved by delay. The plan of Mr. Pennethorne, which had been referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Poole, was made before the competition for the foreign Office, and formed part of a general plan for public offices. It was not adopted at the time, and would, if it were now submitted, be found totally inadequate to the demands of a Foreign Office. There was a large space in Downing Street lying waste, and in a condition that was disgraceful to the Government. He did not see that any advantage could arise from detailed plans of the interior of the building being submitted to the House; for it would be impossible for the House to go into them. The Vote now before the Committee would authorize the Government to ask for tenders. He could not now foresee exactly what the tender would be. It was impossible for him to bind himself to any sum; but he would undertake that tenders should be asked for on a complete plan, from which there need be no departure.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
believed the Committee would be lucky if they got the Foreign Office erected for £200,000. He rejoiced that the House had decided in favour of the Palladian style of architecture, but he deplored that the building was to be erected by a gentleman whose great renown had been obtained from his designs of Gothic buildings. The best thing that could be done would be to pay Mr. Scott a premium, and then to engage a good architect who had fully studied the Palladian style of architecture.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR
explained that he found the estimate of Mr. Pennethorne— £60,000—in the Report of the Select Committee, and that that estimate was submitted to the House by the responsible Government of the day.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
wished to ask again how the architect would be remunerated, and how the land had been paid for, or possession of it obtained, and whether any part of it appertained to the Land Revenues of the Crown?

MR. COWPER
said, the architect would receive the ordinary Commission on the cost of the work. The Government did not intend to depart from that custom. A portion of the land which formed the site formerly belonged to the Woods and Forests Department; but an arrangement was come to whereby an exchange of property took place between the Board of Works and the Woods and Forests, and the whole of the site was now vested in the Board of Works.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
complained that there was no detail of the estimate for the House of Lords.

MR. PEEL
explained that it was not usual for that House to consider the application of the sum voted for the expenses of the other House.

MR. LINDSAY
complained that there was no room in which a Member could see a stranger who had business with him, and he wished to suggest that a waiting-room should be provided for distinguished strangers visiting the House, who at present were obliged to wait in the lobby.

§ MR. CAIRD
suggested that the latest telegraphic intelligence should be supplied to the reading-room. He also thought that messengers of the House should be allowed to enter the House to deliver to Members the cards of strangers wishing to see them, as was done in the House of Lords.

§ MR. MONCKTON MILNES
observed, that the access to the house was very difficult owing to the number of person in the lobby. He thought that one of the libraries, that on the right hand upon entering the House, could be applied to the use of Members wishing to see strangers. The want of accommodation for strangers was a subject of general complaint.

MR. COWPER
replied, that all the accommodation had alreaddy been appropriated, and the only place he could think of would be one of the libraries, if that would not interfere with members who were reading there. He did not think it would be well to relax the rule and allow 551 persons not Members to cross the floor of that House. The number of messages was so great that the admission of messengers would interfere with the debates.

§ LORD HOTHAM
remarked that the difference between the numbers usually attending the two Houses rendered any comparison between them quite out of the question.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
asked for explanation concerning the balances for former years. The hon. Member also animadverted on the system of employing "temporary, supplemental, and extraclerks" in the Government offices. Vacancies in the permanent staff ought, he thought, to be filled up from the list of temporary employes. There should also be a better classification between those who did head work and those who were mere copyists. The practice of employing men of superior attainments in mechanical drudgery led to discontent, slovenliness, and useless expense.

MR. PEEL
said, that the balances were given as they stood on the 31st of December, in consequence of the recommendation of the Committee on Miscellaneous Expenditure to that effect. He did not know how a better arrangement than that at present existing in regard to the clerks in the Government offices could be adopted. The business of registering and copying papers was not performed by the superior class of clerks, because it would be a waste of power for them to do so. In the Treasury there were about twenty supplemental clerks, with salaries ranging from £120 to £500, and it was only in exceptional cases that they rose to the superior class. They knew the footing on which they entered their situations, and he was not aware that any dissatisfaction existed among them. The temporary clerks were appointed to meet an occasional extra pressure of work.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
complained of the number of messengers in the Treasury. There were sixty-three clerks and twenty-four messengers. In the Lord Advocate's office there were three messengers.

MR. PEEL
said, a great many messengers were required in the Treasury. In the Lord Advocate's office one of the messengers acted as clerk.

MR. LINDSAY
said, there were five or six gentlemen in the Foreign Office—the chief clerk and the senior clerks—who were receiving from £1,000 to £1,200 a year each, who were allowed to act as agents for consuls and persons engaged in the diplomatic service abroad, and receive fees for so acting. He considered that such a practice was at variance with the rules laid down for the guidance of the clerks in public offices. This matter had been discussed before the Committee on Consular Services. In the course of the examine-he asked Mr. Alston, one of the gentlemen who acted as agent, what he did for those for whom he acted? He replied that he drew the salary and took charge of the letters; and on being further questioned he said, "I believe I stand their friend in all things. I endeavour to be so, and do all I can for them." Now, this might be attended with prejudice to the public service. As "their friend" he would naturally do what he could for them in the way of promotion, in privately advising them of any vacancies, and so forth. And suppose that he (Mr. Lindsay) were to complain of a consul for not having attended to his duty in reference to one of his ships. He brought the matter before the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who referred the question as likely enough it would be one of detail, to a clerk in the Department. It might so happen that that clerk was the agent of the consul complained of, and of course he would endeavour to put the case in a favourable light for his client before the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. If he did not get a satisfactory explanation he should consider it his duty to move to reduce the Vote by £3,000, which, he believed, was about the sum these clerks received for these services.

§ MR. MONCKTON MILNES,
as Chairman of the Committee that was sitting on the Diplomatic Service, felt himself called upon to make an observation or two on his subject. At first sight it might appear to be inconvenient, and a practice liable to abuse, that the clerks at the Foreign Office should be allowed to act as agents in the way that had been described. Before he took part in the inquiries of the Committee he had formed that opinion; but he came out of the inquiry with a contrary conviction, and with a belief that the custom had 553 sprung up naturally and inevitably out of the relation that subsisted between the Foreign Office and the diplomatic and consular services abroad. These services were, in fact, a portion of the Foreign Office, performing its functions all over the world. The gentlemen employed in these services found it convenient to be brought into connection with the Foreign Office by means of some persons connected with it, without the necessity of having to apply to the Foreign Secretary on matters on which the chief clerks were in possession of all the information; and he must say he was unable to find that any abuse had ever occurred from the fact of these gentlemen acting as agents for them. The relations, also, between the officials of the Foreign Office were of the most confidential kind, and it would be productive of public inconvenience if strangers were permitted to interfere between the Office and its agents. The question which, in his opinion, the House and the public had to consider was whether any Foreign Minister had ever complained of the system as one that interfered with the right discharge of the duties of clerks in the Foreign Office, and whether it in any way detracted from their usefulness as public servants. So long as no complaint could be made on those heads he thought it would not be right for the House to interfere.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, this was a matter upon which evidence had been taken before the Committee on the Diplomatic and Consular Service, and on which they could report if they thought fit. For his own part, he thought there was no public wrong done by the chief clerk and the senior clerks holding these agencies for our Ministers abroad. Those Ministers sometimes would be glad to receive information for which they could not write to the Secretary of State, and they could not with propriety get some agent out of the Office to go to the Foreign Office and obtain it for them, because the nature of the service in the Foreign Office was of the most confidential kind, and it required that there should not be reports spread abroad as to the changes likely to take place, or leave of absence, or anything of that kind. The chief and senior clerks could give the information privately to the diplomatic Minister without employing a great deal of time. There were certain hours, and certain duties that must be performed, whatever the hours might be, and he could not find that those public duties were neglected 554 in consequence of these agencies; while, on the other hand, he believed the public service was benefited by the arrangement.

MR. LINDSAY
said, that at the War Office and Admiralty there was no objection to afford information to agents of officers of the army and navy, and he did not see why there should be objections to an agent visiting the Foreign Office.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
could confirm what had been stated by his noble Friend (Lord John Russell). He had certainly in the first instance entertained the doubts which had been expressed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Lindsay) as to the expediency of the arrangement in question; but inquiry had satisfied him that it was a desirable and proper arrangement to be continued. The Foreign Office was totally different from the Admiralty or the War Office, inasmuch as it had to do with very delicate diplomatic transactions; and if our Ministers and Consuls abroad could appoint persons not in the Office as agents, they must have the run of the Office, and they would thus often obtain a knowledge of facts which, put together by persons out of the Office, might be of very serious inconvenience to the public service by enabling persons to further their own interests in a manner which it was not proper to encourage. He had himself been sometimes engaged in difficult and delicate negotiations upon which foreign Ministers took a different view to that which he himself took; and those persons might consider it of great importance to know when a messenger was going to leave, the hour of the day, or the day of the week. The knowledge of that simple fact might be of great importance for thwarting the object in view. His hon. Friend said that the system might lead to favouritism; but from the practice pursued in the Foreign Office he thought that this was not likely. He could assure his hon. Friend that this system of agency could not lead to any indulgence to any particular diplomatic agent abroad.

MR. LINDSAY
said, that what he had heard from the two noble Lords had in no way altered his opinion of this arrangement. He made no charge against the honour of these gentlemen, but if they occupied any portion of the time between ten and four o'clock in their correspondence with the Ministers they were occupying upon their private concerns time for which they were paid by the nation. Why should there not be some person in the Foreign 555 Office, not paid by the Crown, who should do all this business?

§ MR. DISRAELI
thought that the matter was deserving of consideration, and that the hon. Member had put it before the Committee clearly and without any partiality; but at the same time he should remember that there was a Committee sitting upon the Diplomatic Service, which Committee had investigated this matter, and were about to report to the House. Probably, under these circumstances, the hon. Member would not think it necessary to ask the opinion of the Committee. He must, however, express his regret that the Chairman of that Committee (Mr. M. Milnes) should have thought fit to favour them with the foregone conclusion of the Committee upon this subject; it would have been far better if he had stated that the Committee were still receiving evidence, and, of course, had not concluded their labours.

§ MR. MONCKTON MILNES
said, that this was a question which did not necessarily or even naturally come within the purview of the Diplomatic Committee; and, therefore, he could not accept the reproach of the right hon. Gentleman.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
considered he was bound to answer the question put by the hon. Member — namely, whether he thought the public lost the salaries or time of the senior clerks by these agencies. He had to reply that the public service did not suffer thereby, and he should have left an unfavourable impression if, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, he had declined to answer the question until the Committee had made their Report.

§ MR. HENNESSY
moved that the Vote be reduced by £2,150, the salary of the Lord Privy Seal and his Secretary. He expected that some member of the Government would have told the Committee what were the duties of the Lord Privy Seal. He believed he had no duties to perform. The Commissioners of the Civil Service, the paymaster General, and other officials 556 received no salaries, although they had onerous duties to discharge, while the Lord Privy Seal had nothing to do and received a salary.

MR. PEEL
said, that as the hon. Gentleman gave no reasons for moving the reduction no explanation seemed necessary. It did not follow that the public officers to whom the hon. Gentleman had referred received no salaries from the public, the fact being that they held offices for which they were paid conjointly with others which they discharged gratuitously. The subject was discussed last year, and it was then explained that as a member of the Cabinet the Lord Privy Seal had very useful duties to perform; inasmuch as it had been found very advantageous that there should be one member of the Cabinet who would have time to attend to any miscellaneous business that might arise.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
observed, that as the Commissioners were unpaid he could not see the necessity for so many clerks and other officials.

MR. PEEL
said, that the clerks had a great deal to do in examining the returns of the candidates.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, there was no establishment with regard to which it was less necessary to make inquiry as to the expenses it entailed. A great amount of collateral business sprang up upon the vast number of examinations which took place annually, and no department of the Government was able to give a better account of its services.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
inquired whether it was intended to make the office of Paymaster General really effective? As he understood the matter, the Paymaster General did not give any pecuniary recognizances; and the duties of the office devolved on the Assistant Paymaster, who had no legal status whatever. He thought the head of a Department should be its responsible officer.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he was not surprised that, 557 after the recommendations of the Select Committee, the hon. Gentleman should bring this subject forward. But with respect to the office of Paymaster General, it was one of the cases in which it would be impossible to obtain recognizances of such an amount as would cover the pecuniary risks involved. That, however, was a separate question, and might very properly be considered by any Member of that House who was desirous of raising the question. The Government believed that the present arrangement, which did not depend on recognizances, but on mutual checks, was perfectly sufficient for the purpose; and since it had been in operation he did not believe there was any reason to suspect that any fraud had taken place, or could take place. With regard to the question put by the hon. Baronet, he had to state in reply that it was not the intention of the Government to make any change by substituting an effective Paymaster for the present nominal head of the office. The Paymaster General was a political officer of importance and an unpaid servant of the Crown, and the practical duties of the office were discharged by an accountant of the highest skill and ability. If the Paymaster General were abolished, the change, as far as salary was concerned, would be nominal, and in making the Deputy Paymaster the head of the office the Government would be obliged to make a difference in the salary of that officer; but he was not aware that any other alteration would thereby be effected.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
thought that there were grave considerations involved in the question, for the Paymaster General was intended to be a control in certain matters on the Treasury.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he was not aware that the Committee on Public Monies had ever given the smallest countenance to the doctrine that the Paymaster General should be made a check on the Treasury; but he should protest against such an arrangement as being destructive of the responsibility of the Treasury.

§ MR. HENNESSY
inquired, why the Paymaster of the Civil Services in Dublin was abolished, while the Paymaster in Hanover was still retained?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the office of Paymaster in Hanover was connected with military duties which had to be discharged on the part of the British Government; but there 558 were great hopes that the office would be abolished very shortly. It was a question whether it might not be convenient to make use of this officer in reference to the Stade Dues, the English portion having to be liquidated in German money, and the Paymaster in Hanover might be kept alive for conducting the operation. With respect to the Paymaster in Dublin, the occurrence of a vacancy in the office offered an opportunity for reviewing the whole establishment, and the result had been an arrangement which would conduce to the effective discharge of the public business in conjunction with a considerable reduction of the public charge.

§ MR. BUTT
said, there was nothing to which the Irish people were so much opposed as the system of centralization, and it ought to be clearly shown that the arrangement effected would be both economical and efficient for the public service.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS
asked, whether the recent changes would not allow of the whole business of issuing Exchequer bills being performed by the Bank of England?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
agreed that it would be desirable the whole business and manufacture Exchequer bills should be placed in the hands of the Bank of England. There were, however, various other points connected with the duties of the office of the Exchequer standing for consideration and decision, and the Government had, therefore, thought it convenient to postpone handling with this matter until the Report of th Public Monies Committee could be considered, rather than to deal with it piecemeal.

§ MR. PEASE
asked, what was the difference between the duties of the Assistant Surveyor of Works in, and those of the Assistant Surveyor of, Works out of London?

MR. COWPER
said, it was the duty of the former to examine works in London, and of the latter to examine those beyond that limit—such, for example, as Windsor, Hampton Court, Kew, and Frogmore.

§ MR. CAIRD
objected to the large amount of fees paid to the solicitor employed in this office—amounting to almost as much as the sum now asked for—and also to the fact, that he was employed in other Government Departments, for which he received extra fees and commissions. Each Department of the Government requiring a surveyor ought to have attached to it a regular surveyor with a fixed salary. It was impossible, in his opinion, that the officer in question could perform such multifarious-duties efficiently. Another gentleman was paid for similar duties in another Department a much lower amount. In fact, most competent officers could be obtained, who would do the work for much less payment, and he objected to such a waste of public money. The charge, too, for legal expenses in Scotland was monstrous. It amounted to about 10 per cent of the whole revenue for Scotland. The solicitor for Ireland received but £250 per annum, while the revenue from Ireland was double that of Scotland. In order to test the feeling of the House he would propose that the Vote be reduced £1,000—a reduction which he considered should be made upon the amount paid to the solicitor in Scotland.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
contended that the Committee were not in a position to enter into the question of this Vote. By the 11 & 12 Vict., c. 102, sec. 8, it was provided that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests should lay on the table of the house a full account of their expenditure for the year within three months after the termination of each financial year. This they did, but the statement was kept back until the latest possible moment. Last year it was June 29, and this year it was June 25 before the statement was made. The instant, however, it was placed on the table it was whisked away to the printer, but who whisked it away he did not know. He had endeavoured to get a sight of it, but found this to be the case, and he was unable, therefore, to gain any information about the matter; and further that the probability was the statement would be delivered to hon. Members somewhere about the middle of the recess. It was 560 perfectly impossible under these circumstances that the House could proceed to discuss a Vote with regard to which they really knew nothing. The gross revenue of the Woods and Forests appeared to be £417,000. The expenditure of the establishment was £142,000, making the net revenue £275,000. The expenditure over which the house had no control was, in round numbers, £100,000, in addition to £16,000 percentage paid to surveyors. He wished to have some explanation on those points from the Secretary of the Treasury, and to know whether those charges were increasing. Now, in respect to the Parks, which were in the department of the Woods and Forests, he observed that for Windsor Park the receipts last year were £6,000. This fact showed the folly of a nation farming. It cost for the oxen upon this park about three times their real value. The expenditure on this Park last year was £18,000. The document showing the receipts and penditure of the Parks was a very curious one. There was another point connected with this subject to which he wished to call attention. There was a great financial movement going on in reference to this public property, under the authority of the 10 Geo. IV. In the last year it appeared that there was £60,000 of the public property sold, but there was £180,000 of new property purchased. Now he confessed he could not see the advantage of those changes which entailed great losses of the public money, and a considerable expenditure for surveyors and valuers. He wished the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury to give the Committee some explanation upon those points. There would be no occasion to trouble the right hon. Gentleman if the proper papers were before the House. He was compelled, therefore, to ask the Secretary of the Treasury the following questions:—Whether there had been £100,000 expenditure out of the revenue of the Woods and Forests before any balance went into the Exchequer? Whether £16,000 and upwards were paid in the shape of commission? Whether £65,000 had been obtained for the sale of pieces of land here and there? Whether upwards of £100,000 were not invested in other portions of land in the United Kingdom? And where the public advantage was in this system of buying and selling land?

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
objected to the Vote altogether, because the House 561 had no cognizance whatever of the expenditure of this Department, which he believed would prove to be far greater than the hon. Baronet supposed, the practice being to account only for the balance between income and expenditure. The Committee on Public Monies, which sat four years ago, recommended that this department should be brought under Parliamentary control, but nothing had been done to effect this object; and while the Commissioners of Works had to come to the House for its approval of the smallest sums, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests expended much larger sums on precisely similar objects at their discretion, which he held to be highly undesirable. They should have Estimates laid before the House of all the expenses connected with this Department as well as with every other Department.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, that the large sum of £173,000 had been expended by the Woods and Forests, and he could not understand why this further sum of £25,700 should be asked for. If the Crown estates were properly managed he felt convinced they would produce an amount equal to the Queen's Civil List. They might spend £38,000 on the management of the Crown property and the residue would be equal to the Civil List. It seemed to him that £38,000 was a large expenditure on a property producing £400,000 a year.

MR. PEEL
said, this Department had been carefully inquired into by a Treasury Committee, and they had reported that it was in a most efficient state. As to the large amount of legal expenditure in Scotland, he did not believe that £2,200 was more than was likely to be expended. He would not enter into the constitutional question, as to whether the expenditure for the management of the Crown properly ought to be submitted to and voted by the House; but he believed the present arrangement was in accordance with the compact made with the Crown at the commencement of the present reign. It was not surprising that, with so large a property, opportunities should constantly occur for advantageous sales and purchases, but they were never made without the sanction of the Treasury. Ten years ago this property produced £350,000, and it now produced £417,000 a year. The increase of £60,000 or £70,000 in the rental was proof of how well the property was managed. There would be no objection 562 to giving a Return, showing the cost of management during the last five years.

§ MR. GREGORY
wished to know why the expenses of the management of the Crown property in Scotland exceeded the cost in Ireland in the proportion of eight to one?

THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, the whole sum asked for was £25,707. The share of Scotland was £2,200, and that of Ireland £2,000, being as excess of Scotland over Ireland of £200. It was true that the probable amount of the Irish solicitor's expenditure was £250 as against £2,200 for Scotland; but in Ireland there was a machinery of salaried clerks for carrying on the business, while in Scotland the solicitor's charge included the cost of his clerks, counsel's fees, and other expenses. Many questions had arisen in Scotland as to rights of the Crown in the foreshore and salmon fisheries, which, if not insisted upon, would have ended in a great loss of revenue; but they had entailed considerable legal expenses.

§ MR. FINLAY
said, that, in addition to the £2,200, there was a further sum of £6,000 for Scotland. The expenditure was £8,000 to get a revenue of £27,000 a year. He believed that an unnecessarily large amount was spent in litigation in Scotland.

§ MR. CAIRD
said, that the clerks in Dublin were not connected with the legal proceedings, but with the management of the landed property. Ten per cent for legal charges on the whole amount of receipts was surely exceptional.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, the Secretary of the Treasury had not noticed an inquiry as to the expenditure of £500 to feed game at Windsor. Last year when he called attention to the great distress in Ennis he was told that it was absurd to ask this House to vote money to feed the poor. As they were not to vote money to feed human beings, he should like an explanation of £500 expended to feed game.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, it was perfectly competent for hon. Members to investigate any of the charges incurred in the management of the Crown lands; but this Vote was for defraying the expenses of the office of Woods and Forests, and it was no more possible effectually to examine into the charges of management when debating the expenses of the office than it would be possible to discuss the Army Estimates in voting the expenses of the War Depart- 563 ment. The mode of dealing with the Crown estates had been settled at the beginning of the present century by express contract. At the commencement of the reign a contract was entered into with the Sovereign, and the Sovereign in pursuance of that contract had made over the right to receive the net proceeds after all the charges connected with the management had been defrayed. No estimate could possibly be submitted to the Committee for its previous sanction of those charges without an alteration in the law. At the same time he did not intend to imply that they were removed from the control of the House, but that control could not be exercised by proceedings upon the Estimates. The Act of parliament passed in 1851 gave the Treasury control over the proceedings of the Woods and Forests, and the House of Commons, therefore, might challenge the conduct of the Treasury in regard to the proceedings of the Woods and Forests, and call on the Treasury to show why those proceedings should not be altered.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, the management of this property did not rest on any compact between the Crown and Parliament, inasmuch as very important alterations had been made in the arrangements by the Act of 1851. The 8th section of that Act directed that the accounts of the Woods and Forests should be laid on the table within three months of the end of the financial year; but they never were presented until the last moment, and then were whipped off to be printed, so that when this discussion came on Members were totally in the dark as to these charges. These establishment charges were put upon the Estimates for the express purpose of giving an opportunity for discussion, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would promise that for the future the accounts should be laid on the table at an earlier period, so that hon. Gentlemen might have an opportunity of inspecting them before this Vote was brought forward. There was a tendency in the Woods and Forests, as in all other departments, to extravagance, and he complained that this was the only opportunity afforded to the House of discussing the question and getting at the real facts.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, the expenses of the War Department were brought forward along with the Army Estimates, and in like manner, when the establishment charges of the Woods and Forests 564 were to be voted, the House ought to have before it the other accounts of the Department.

§ MR. CAIRD
said, that when he brought forward a specific Motion some time ago relating to the management of a Crown estate in Essex, on which, though it was only 1,900 acres in extent, £67,000 was expended, the Secretary to the Treasury asserted that the extent of the estate was 17,500 acres. He was so taken by surprise that he was not prepared at the moment to prove the truth of his own statement; and when he came down afterwards with proofs he was stopped on the point of order. This Vote was the only real opportunity the House had of discussing the management of the Woods and Forests.

MR. HENLEY
thought the House was placed in a difficulty by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He admitted that the House had control over the expenditure, but not in the way of estimate. But they had an estimate of £27,000 now before them. He wanted to know what were the other charges, or why, if one class of expense was met by estimate, the other class could not be the same? He wanted to know farther, whether the solicitor's expenses for Scotland could not be met by salary, as in England, instead of being paid by bills?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he was not able to give an opinion upon the question whether it was expedient to defray the law charges in Scotland by salary. With regard to the Woods and Forests, it was enacted that salaries of the Commissioners and other expenses of management should be defrayed from time to time by Parliament. He had referred in his observations to other charges which could not be dealt with by estimate unless an alteration were made in the law. He had never attempted to deny the right of the House to deal with those charges, but he had said that they were to be dealt with otherwise than by estimate. He could not give a specific answer to the question of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Willoughby) as to the accounts, although he agreed with him that the accounts ought to be laid before Parliament in the shortest possible time.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, he did not think any satisfactory explanation had been given by the Lord Advocate of the greater proportionate expense charged by the solicitor in Scotland than by the Solicitor in Ireland. It appeared that great complaints 565 were made in Scotland of the amount of litigation which had been going on in connection with the Department.

THE LORD ADVOCATE
had no doubt the duty might be paid by salary, but it was not usual. There had been considerable litigation in the Department, but the solicitor acted only on the instructions of the Woods and Forests, and made an annual report to them. The proceedings which had been taken might not be popular, but since these actions had been raised there had been a considerable increase of the Crown revenues in Scotland. It would be very easy to obtain a return of every item of the expenditure, and he had no doubt it would be found to have been perfectly authorized.

§ MR. KINNAIRD
said, he must divide with his hon. Friend, if the Committee went to a division; because he had found, when an account was given of the salary of this officer, an additional charge was always found to have been made for clerks in the Department. He believed that many of these claims on behalf of the Crown were most vexatious.

§ MR. BLACKBURN
thought that some means should be taken to prevent excessive expenses being incurred in litigation of this kind.

MR. HENLEY
said, that he was sorry to find that the efforts of the Crown to obtain its rights by legal proceedings appeared to be distasteful to the Scotch Members. He thought at the same time the work might be done more cheaply.

MR. LESLIE
expressed his intention to divide with the Lord Advocate upon this question.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
moved the postponement of the Vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN
said, it was not competent for an hon. Member in Committee of Supply to move the postponement of a Vote.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, in that case he should have no alternative but to oppose the Vote altogether, on the ground that the Committee had no sufficient account of the expenditure.

§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNY
said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his remarkable speech, seemed to support both sides, and completely mystified the Com- 566 mittee. It would be a wholesome example to reject the Vote.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, this Vote included an item of £1,500 for forming abstracts of State papers, including editing. He wished to ask whether the post lately filled by the gentleman who was turned away on account of his religion had been filled up; and, if so, whether the testimonials of Mr. Turnbull's successor had been submitted to the criticism of the Protestant Alliance?

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, that Mr. Turnbull was not turned away; he resigned his appointment, and his resignation was accepted. A trial connected with the case was going on, and the result would probably be known to-morrow; and, therefore, he would not discuss it further.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
deprecated importing into the discussions in that House matters that were now sub judice. The hon. Member for the King's County put his question intending to raise the issue which he supposed existed between Mr. Turnbull and the Protestant Alliance; and it was only right that he (Mr. Newdegate) should inform the House that Mr. Turnbull had taken proceedings against the Secretary of the Protestant Alliance, and it would not be befitting for the House to go into a question that was before the courts of law. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would delay any further observations he might desire to make until the case had been decided, when, no doubt, there would be Members in that House ready and willing to answer him.

§ MR. BUTT
objected to the administration of the Poor Laws in Ireland, and moved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,200, the salary of one of the Commissioners in Ireland. All the members of the Irish Poor Law Board were Englishmen, but he submitted that there ought to be at least one able to inform his colleagues as to the feelings and habits of the Irish people. Moreover, one of them 567 ought to be a Roman Catholic; and one of them ought to be what was called a Parliamentary Commissioner, that was to say, a Member of Parliament, so that he might always be ready to answer any questions as to the adminstration of his department. It was true that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was an ex officio member of the Board; but he did not hold himself responsible for the acts of the Commissioners, but simply exercised a general control over them. The only result was to shelter the Board from the criticisms of the House. He (Mr. Butt) had joined in a vote of censure on the Board last year. but he should certainly have refrained from so doing if he had thought he was including his right hon. Friend in the Vote. He trusted that the Chief Commissioner, whose salary, like that of the President of the English Board, was £2,000, would in future sit in Parliament.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, the Poor Law Board in Ireland was composed of two Englishmen and one Irishman. He would be glad to see more Irishmen upon the Board; but it must be remembered that the Poor Law was an ancient institution in England, but a recent one in Ireland, and it had been deemed most important to have persons who were practically acquainted with the working of the system. A Committee had recently sat upon the subject of Poor Law, whose Report had just been delivered; but he believed no suggestion had been made by any Irish Member of the Committee to alter the constitution of the present Board. That Report would also convince the House of the zeal and ability with which the present Commissioners had performed their duties.

LORD NAAS
denied that there was any foundation for the allegations made by a certain portion of the Irish press against the constitution of the Board of Commissioners, whose labours had been most arduous and had been crowned with entire success. So far from being unacquainted with the habits and feelings of the people, one of these gentlemen (Mr. Senior) had had probably more experience than any other man in the country. No doubt the Poor Law Commissioners made occasional mistakes, but so did every one else, including even the Judges on the bench. It was 568 not easy to see how the Chief of the Irish Poor Law Board could discharge his official duties and at the same time attend that House as a Member of Parliament. No important step was taken by the Commission without consulting the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the present system, therefore, insured perfect Ministerial responsibility. The Irish public had no right to be dissatisfied with the Commission; and if fewer Irishmen were connected with the Board than some might desire, it should be remembered that, as the system was a comparatively new one in Ireland, it was necessary to obtain men of experience to work it wherever they could best be found. Moreover, Irishmen were sometimes similarly employed on account of their superior qualifications in other parts of the kingdom; and one of the most intelligent witnesses examined before the Select Committee on the Poor Laws was an Irishman holding the office of Poor Law Inspector in Scotland.

§ GENERAL UPTON
inquired why the medical officers in Ireland were not placed upon the same footing as in England?

§ MR. CARDWELL
replied that when the arrangement was made by which certain local charges were placed upon the Consolidated Fund, a much larger sum was taken from the local charges of Ireland than from those of England; the whole of the charge for rural police in Ireland being placed on the Consolidated Fund, whereas in England only one-fourth of such charge was transferred.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
moved that the Chairman report Progress, and stated that the Government proposed to fix Supply for to-morrow evening, after the other Notices.

§ MR. DILLWYN
called attention to a deviation that had taken place that evening from the ordinary course of proceeding in regard to the Estimates. It was the usual practice for the Government to submit the Estimates for discussion in the exact order in which they were printed; but that night Vote No. 5, for the Colonial Establishments, had been taken before Vote No. 4, for the Foreign Establishments. That had probably happened through mistake, but it would be highly inconvenient if allowed to be drawn into a precedent.

MR. PEEL
explained that the irregularity referred to had arisen purely from mistake.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
asked, whether the Government intended to propose that the House should adjourn over Wednesday next, on which the Sovereign's birthday was to be celebrated?

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, that as Her Majesty would be out of town, and there would be no Drawing Room on Wednesday, there seemed no reason why the House should not meet on that day as usual.