SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 26 July 1861)

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, the Vote was certainly less than it was on the preceding year, but still it was an enor- 1619 mous tax on the people of the country, and he wished to know whether there was any prospect of it being reduced. The traffic between England and America had increased so largely that he believed companies would be willing to carry the mails without any subsidy, and he wished to know what the Government intended to do to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee who had sat on this subject.

MR. PEEL
said, the Vote was less this year than last, on account of the contributions which had been received from the colonies. Part of the expense of the conveyance of the mails from Ceylon to Sydney was to be contributed by the colonies; and the colony of Mauritius had decided to bear the whole of the expense for carrying the mails from Suez to Mauritius. No doubt the recommendations of the Committee were entitled to the best consideration of the Government. But the sum then asked for was in respect of contracts concluded with companies. As they terminated, arrangements would be made for giving effect to the Report of the Committee.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
reminded the House that the American Government had their mails carried by private packets without any expense. He wished to know what had become of the Estimate for the Galway contract.

MR. PEEL
said, the arrangement made by the American Government was that the packets carrying the American mails should receive the postage due upon those mails. The Galway contract having been terminated by the Postmaster General, no provision for that contract was any longer called for, but, should it be decided to reestablish a postal service between the west coast of Ireland and America, it would be for the Government to propose a Vote for that purpose.

§ COLONEL FRENCH
said, he did not understand that the Galway contract was at an end. His hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) was about to put a question on the subject of intercourse between Ireland and America that evening, to which he hoped the noble Viscount the Prime Minister would give a favourable answer.

MR. PEEL
said, that he did not mean to say that a new service might not be established.

MR. PEEL
said, that the Vote was a Vote of Credit for necessary expenses connected with the China War. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated to the House that he would propose this Vote, and they would recollect that provision was made for it in the service of the year, which provision had received the sanction of the House. There had been in all three Votes of Credit for the China War, the first of £850,000 in 1859–60, the second of £3,350,000 for 1860–1, and the present Vote. With respect to the Vote of 1859–60, half a million was for the army, and a quarter of a million for the navy; but it was found that the ordinary provision made for the navy was sufficient for all naval purposes, and so the quarter of a million remained in the Exchequer. The army expenditure had exceeded the grants for the year, and, therefore, a further sum of £105,000 was issued, leaving therefore the available surplus on the Vote of a quarter of a million. With regard to the Vote last year half a million was issued to the navy and £350,000 to the army, and there had been a further issue for commissariat services in China of £1,083,000, and to the Indian Government of £1,146,000. The balance in the Exchequer, however, could only be used for expenses incurred during the year for which it was voted. The sum of £1,000,000 was, therefore, asked to meet the expenditure of the forces in China for the present year. Extra allowances were required for the European troops, and, as it was doubtful how long they might require to remain there the present Vote became necessary. The claims from the Indian Government amounted to £1,327,000 up to the 1st of May last, and they had issued to that Government on account a sum of £114,000 out of the Vote of Credit under consideration, leaving a balance due to that Government of £170,000. In case it should prove possible to return the Native troops to India, the extra allowances to European troops would cease, and the necessity for the extra expenditure would be superseded. At the same time, it was necessary to make this provision; which, however, by no means indicated that an extra expenditure to that amount would be incurred.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he felt some doubts as to whether the £1,000,000 which the Committee were asked to vote on account of the China War, was the last call that would be made upon them. He did not clearly understand from the right hon. 1621 Gentleman what was the balance in hand on the Vote of Credit. Out of the early Vote of Credit taken for the China War payments were made for stores which were sent out to China as far back as 1848, and he should like to have explained upon what principle any portion of a Vote of Credit taken for the China War could be applied to the payment of stores sent out previous to the war. Nearly six millions of money had been taken in the shape of Votes and Credit for the China War, in addition to the ordinary expenses paid out of the money taken for the ordinary army and naval services. Could the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee an assurance that the £1,000,000 he now asked for would cover the entire expenditure on account of China? Until the accounts were squared and the final payments were made they could not be satisfied. He should like to know whether the expense incurred for the transport of troops to China by the Indian Government had been sent into the Treasury or not. He was informed that a single item of expense amounted to nearly £850,000 for conveying troops from India to China. He would also express a hope that better arrangements would be made with regard to our accounts with India, otherwise British finance would fall into the utmost disorder. For seven years there had been a sort of running account with India, and no one knew what would be the end of it. He was afraid they were going on very much in the dark in this matter. As long as there were old and unadjusted accounts for years they could have no notion in that House how the British finances really stood. As long as those accounts were outstanding it was ridiculous to talk of a surplus, or raise questions respecting the repeal of taxes.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he must admit that the China war had been a very costly War; but, on the other hand, the sufficiency of the provision had brought the war to the more speedy termination. There was a balance in hand from the late Votes of Credit to the extent of £750,000; but he doubted whether that sum could be spent in operations undertaken after the Vote itself was granted, and hence the present application for the present sum. As to the charge for transport, it might be true that such a charge had been sent home to the Indian Office, but it did not follow that we had that sum to pay. As one instance of the vagueness of the Indian Estimates, he 1622 might mention that the Indian Government had sent home charges for operations which had already been settled at home by the Admiralty through a different channel. The charges for China during the present year would be chiefly under two heads—for the charge for transport and the charge for extra pay and allowances to the troops, which must be paid to the whole army as long as any portion of the Indian army remained there. He hoped, however, that would not be long if the instructions sent from home were strictly followed out. He did not think that the state of our account with India was likely to prove very formidable to British finance. He knew that two or three months ago the balance was rather in favour of England; if any charge had take place since, it was amply covered by the Vote before the Committee. He could not say that this was the whole of the accounts that had come from China, but he did not anticipate any further large sum to be asked from that source.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
Am I to understand that we are to save £750,000 cut of the last Vote of Credit for 1860–1?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, a great many troops have left China. If they left before the 30th of April the expense of their transport would fall on the £750,000 standing from last year. If they left after that date the expense would fall on the million now granted.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
But the expense will not fall upon both years. If it is taken from the sum of £750,000, then the Vote for this year will be retained?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
Certainly. The expense cannot fall on the Vote of both years.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he thought the explanation was satisfactory as far as it went.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, if they declined to interfere as they were doing in China, between the, two parties in that country, there would not be any necessity to keep so many troops in China—which was a great charge on the British taxpayers.

§ MR. GREGSON
asked in what position the claims of the merchants in China stood, and what portion of the Vote the Government intended to appropriate to that purpose? Or were other arrangements in view for an immediate or speedy settlement of these claims?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that no part of the Vote could be applied to the payment of the claims of the merchants. He had received the papers respecting those claims, and as soon as the pressure of business would permit, he hoped to be able, with his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, to look into these claims. The subject was a very important one, and one in which the Government should do all they could to meet the reasonable demands of the merchants, consistently with the fair claims of the public.

§ SIR LAWRENCE PALK
asked whether the million then asked for was in addition to the balance on the former Votes of £750,000?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, it was difficult in military operations to apportion the sums voted in different years very accurately. If the balance of the Vote of Credit of £750,000 for last year was not expended, the sum would lapse entirely, and remain only in figures. But to meet all contingencies that might arise a million was asked for the year 1861–2.

MR. PEEL
explained that the Vote was asked on account of part of a sum of £115,000, arising out of claims and counter claims between the French and English Governments. The amount had been included in a Vote of Credit granted in 1858–9, but that Vote of Credit was surrendered, and the Vote was now necessary, in order that the sum might be transferred to the charge against the Vote of Credit. It involved a reduction of the excess of expenditure for the Russian War. He believed this would be the last of the Votes for the Russian War.

MR. HENLEY
said, he wished to ask, whether the right hon. Gentleman was quite sure that the Vote would cover the whole outstanding amount for the Russian War?

MR. PEEL
Yes.

MR. PEEL
said, the sum was asked for the payment of those pensions which had been granted in consequence of the reduction of the establishments. There had been a saving on the effective establishment of £78,000, which had been returned to the Exchequer.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, that he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his financial statement had anticipated a saving in these departments of £150,000. It seemed that the whole saving was only £78,000. He wished to know if that £17,983 was to be deducted from the £78,000.

MR. PEEL
said, that the saving of £78,000 only represented that which had taken place in the year after the changes were made. There was no doubt the saving in the end would be as large as had been anticipated.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
asked, why the sum asked for was not charged to the Revenues of India?

MR. PEEL
said, the Vote was in consequence of a liberal offer made by a scientific gentleman at Madras to erect a telescope at Poonah, and make observations free of charge, if the Government would send out the instrument.

MR. HENLEY
said, he hoped the Vote would not be considered as laying the foundation for further such charges, either at Poonah or anywhere else.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, he hoped some explanation would be given of this Vote by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works. There had been great mismanagement in the arrangements for constructing Westminster Bridge, and much time and money had been misspent. Mr. Page told them that the works would be completed for £206,000. He wished to know why they were now called upon to pay the sum of £60,000?

MR. COWPER
said, the expense and loss of time incurred in the construction of Westminster Bridge were, to a considerable extent, to be traced to the fact that the bridge had been the subject of three Committees of the House of Commons. If there was any opprobrium connected with the construction of the bridge it was to be attributed not solely to the Office of Works, but must be shared by a Select Committee of that House. He believed that if the bridge had been left to the sole responsibility of the Office of Works, it would have been completed long ago, and within the sum originally stated. When the bankruptcy of the contractor caused a suspension of operations, a question as to the soundness of the plan of 1625 the foundations was referred to a Committee which reported in favour of a new mode of construction, superseding the use of coffer dams. In 1857 another Committee was appointed, and it was to that Committee he attributed the want of control on the part of the Office of Works over the expenditure and construction of the bridge. That Committee recommended that the works should be proceeded with by day work as recommended by Mr. Page and under his superintendence. The consequence was that the chief part of the works were being constructed without a contract. He knew of no security for the completion of a great work for an agreed sum, except a contract in gross. But in this instance the engineer was substituted for a contractor, and there was little control of the works at the bridge. The estimate made by Mr. Page was made in 1858, and the explanation of the additional Vote asked for was that the removal of the old bridge cost more than Mr. Page anticipated. It was a very difficult and complicated work to remove piers under water, and it was not easy to foresee the exact expense. Then the very mode of construction, which was so ingenious in its conception, led to an increase in the expenditure. A great deal of the expense had been caused by keeping open the old bridge during the construction of the first part of the new. A portion of the money voted would be met by credits from the old bridge, for it was anticipated that about £23,000 would be realized by the sale of stone, plant, &c. He must say that the only two works in which a great excess of expenditure had occurred were the Westminster Bridge and the Houses of Parliament; and those were the very works in which the Office of Works had not been entrusted with the entire management, but where a great deal of the details had been carried out by direction of Committees of that House.

MR. HENLEY
said, the right hon. Gentleman had, no doubt unintentionally, entirely misrepresented the facts of the case with reference to Westminster Bridge. The right hon. Gentleman had mixed up the consideration of two things totally distinct from each other—the building of the new Houses of Parliament and Westminster Bridge. The two things were as different as chalk from cheese. The right hon. Gentleman laid down the broad proposition that all the mischief connected with the erection of Westminster Bridge 1626 had been caused by a Committee of that House, and not by the Office of Works. It was when Sir William Moles worth was at the Board of Works that the works at the bridge commenced. The new principle of bridge-building was provided for in the first instance in a contract entered into by the Office of Works, and the right hon. Gentleman had no right to allege that the House of Commons had anything to do with it. On the failure of the contractor the Commissioner of Works came to the House and asked for a Committee to relieve himself of the responsibility of making the changes which he wished to introduce. That could not with any fairness be called an interference of the House of Commons. He (Mr. Henley) was chairman of that Committee, and they had before them all the engineering talent and experience of the day. The Office of Works had already decided that half the bridge was to be built at one time, and the other half at another; but the Commissioner of Works had doubted if the old system of coffer dams should not be resorted to. The Committee recommended that the bridge should be proceeded with on the system then in operation, and it was then open to the Commissioner to enter into a contract if he so chose. On that point the Committee gave no opinion. In the following year another Committee was appointed. It was then decided that that half of the bridge which had been already begun should be completed under the engineer's direction, and not by contract. There was nothing, however, to prevent the Board of Works from contracting for the other half, and the blame, therefore, rested upon that department. As to the new principle upon which the bridge was constructed, there had, so far, been no symptom of giving way. He admitted that it was a great experiment to build a bridge over such a river without coffer dams, to build it in halves and then bring those two halves together; but if such works could be carried on they would be completed at an infinitely less expense than under the old system. Though there was an excess of £60,000, he believed that the bridge, when completed, would compare advantageously as to cost with Waterloo Bridge and similar structures.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
explained that the way in which Lord Llanover intended to carry out the building of the second part of the bridge was by calling regularly for the accounts from Mr. Page, and ex- 1627 ercising a strict supervision of the various details of expenditure.

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM
asked whether, in the absence of a contract, Mr. Page was to be paid by commission, and if so, whether he was to have a percentage upon the excess expenditure of £60,000?

MR. COWPER
said, that Mr. Page was paid by commission. The Board of Works, however, maintained that that commission was to be upon the estimate, and not upon the excess; while Mr. Page contended that he was entitled to a percentage on the £60,000. The point was not yet decided. On the general question he must not be understood as wishing to blame the House of Commons, but he still thought that the injudicious principle of employing the engineer without a contractor to construct the bridge originated with the Committee. It was true that their recommendations applied only to the first half, but he assumed that his noble Friend (Lord Llanover) who was then Commissioner, and was a member of the Committee, was influenced by the opinion of the Committee to entrust Mr. Page with the construction of the second half without the limit to expenditure which a lump contract alone could give. He thought also that he was justified in his reference to the Houses of Parliament, because it resembled the case of the bridge in this respect, that both works were executed without having a contract in gross.

MR. HENLEY
said, the Office of Works ought to have ascertained, when the first half of the bridge was completed, whether Mr. Page had kept within the proportion of the Estimate; if not, the office ought to have insisted on a contract.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he had never felt any doubt that they would get into a financial mess in the matter. He did not wonder at the difficulty of meeting with a new contractor after the failure of the first one, on account of the half-finished state of the works. There was a very good estate belonging to Westminster Bridge of the annual value of upwards of £7,000, and worth a capital sum of £171,000. The original estimate of Mr. Mare was £206,248. Mr. Page thought it would be completed for £316,000, and there had been an excess of £60,000. Would £377,828 conclude the matter? The principle of recompensing Mr. Page by a commission was a most vicious one, and was the old case of Sir Charles Barry over again.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, he could understand why when the contract for the first part failed it should be finished without a contract, but a grievous mistake was made when it was determined to complete the second part of the bridge by day work, for that was what it ought to be called. The proper course would have been to have instructed Mr. Page to obtain contracts from houses of solidity, to get him to report upon those contracts, and if Mr. Page would have undertaken to complete the bridge at a less cost it would be for the Chief Commissioner to say whether he would have accepted Mr. Page's offer. The Chief Commissioner could not say that the £60,000 asked for would be the last sum that would be required, nor did he (Sir Morton Peto) believe that Mr. Page himself had any conception of it. He did not throw any blame on Mr. Page; his character stood high, and his works were all favourably executed, and he believed the bridge would be after all more cheaply finished than other bridges of similar extent. But the fault, if fault there were, lay with the Office of Works, and the right hon. Gentleman must not throw it on the House.

§ MR. T. J. MILLER
remarked that some of the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken were members of the Committee, and it was to them a matter of notoriety that a portion of the bridge was to be erected without a contract; and it would be more just to the Commissioner of Works if they had gone to the House and given warning before the harm was done, instead of complaining of it on the present occasion. He wanted to know whether anything was likely to be recovered from the sureties of Messrs. Mare. As to the bridge itself, he believed it would be the finest ever erected. They were indebted to the Committees that had been so much blamed for obtaining a bridge double the width of the other bridges on the Thames, and at two-thirds of the ordinary expense of stone bridges.

MR. COWPER
said, it had been found impossible to recover any money from the assignees of Mr. Mare. As to the future expense he could only say that the estimate before the Committee was the estimate prepared by Mr. Page. Application had been made to a great contractor to contract for the completion of the remaining half of the bridge; but he had very fairly stated that in the present advanced stage of the work it would be cheaper to finish the work as it had been begun.

§ MR. SPOONER
remarked that the right hon. Gentleman had mistaken the question addressed to him by the hon. Member (Mr. Miller). That hon. Member did not speak of the assignees of the original contractor but of his sureties, and he (Mr. Spooner) now begged to ask if any amount had been recovered from the sureties of the original contractor. He (Mr. Spooner) also wished to know if anything was left of the Westminster Bridge Estate?

MR. COWPER
said, he meant to say that it was found impossible to recover from the sureties as well as from the assignees the money they were entitled to demand. The estate was valued at £111,000. It consisted of the north side of Bridge Street, and other houses. The site would much increase in value when the houses on the south side were removed, and if not required for public buildings it would be disposed of by the Government when it reached its full value.

§ MR. VANCE
said, he did not grudge the expenditure on Westminster Bridge, which was a great metropolitan improvement; but he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the people of Dublin had suffered for a long time from the want of a new bridge, in place of that which was called after an ancestor of the present Lord Lieutenant.