HC Deb 03 April 1862 vol 166 cc517-28

Order for Committee (Supply) read.

SIR JOSEPH PAXTON

said, he hoped the Government would not think of going into Committee of Supply that night. The House had been sitting six hours discussing the Budget, and hon. Members were exhausted.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, he also would press upon the Government not to go into Supply that night. They had passed the Army and Navy Estimates, which embraced two-fifths of the expenditure. The National Debt took other two-fifths, and they had now only to deal with the Civil Service Estimates, which were the remaining fifth. It was only by reducing the expenditure under that head that they would be enabled to make ends meet; and as those Estimates required careful con- extreme inconvenience. The inconvenience to the Committee is not so great as it seems. It is true the Committee enables us to levy a certain duty to-morrow morning, or to remit a certain duty; but all those proceedings are taken provisionally, and their final adoption is contingent upon the future approval of Parliament. I am only acting in conformity with the uniform precedent. Resolved, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, in lieu of the Duties of Customs now charged on the articles under mentioned, the following Duties of Customs shall be charged thereon on importation into great Britain and Ireland, on and after the 4th day of April 1862: viz. [See Table.] And for every degree of strength beyond the highest specified, an additional duty of 3d. per gallon. No more than 10 per cent of Proof Spirit shall be used in the fortifying of any Wine in Bond; nor shall any Wine be fortified in Bond to a greater degree of strength than 40 per cent of such Proof Spirit. sideration, he hoped the Government would not call upon them to go into Committee of Supply to-night.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he trusted the House would not object to go into Committee of Supply for an hour.

Motion agreed to.

House in Committee.

MR. MASSEY in the Chair.

1. Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £32,647, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for Works and Expenses at the New House of Parliament.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he wished to know whether the account for the expenditure for building in connection with the Houses of Parliament was entirely closed; and whether might be reckoned as the average annual charge for keeping them up.

MR. COWPER

said, the Vote was for the ordinary expenses in connection with the Houses of Parliament, and contained no item for building purposes. He could not say that any great reduction of the amount in future years was to be expected.

MR. KENDALL

said, he wished to have some explanation of the item for lighting. There were in or about the building some 5,000 gaslights, and about 200 argand lamps. Nevertheless, while the expense of the former (which were equal to 7,000 argand lamps) was only £2,500, the 200 oil lamps actually cost £2,000.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he desired to ask who the two Sovereigns were whose statues were to be added to the four which were already in progress?

MR. AYRTON

said, that four statues to Sovereigns of this country had already been erected. The four selected had been Charles I., George I., George IV., and William IV. That year two new ones were to be added, and it would be instructive to know which of the kings were considered equal in merit to George IV. and Charles I.

SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY

said, if it were right that Parliament should grant money for the encouragement of the arts in this country, he would submit that the Committee had not exercised a proper discretion in endeavouring to promote that object by statues of the sovereigns of this country as part of the accessories of the House. The effect was, not to hold out the patronage of Government and the authority of Parliament to genius, but to give a helping hand to mediocre talent while they obtained works which did not excite the sympathies of those who looked upon them. The production of merely mediaeval statues would have no effect upon fine art in this country. But by inviting our artists to represent great incidents in our history, or noble passages in the poets, the Committee would really lend to genius a fostering hand. He regarded the annual Vote for statues produced by mediocre artists as mere waste of the public money, and he should therefore move the omission of the item of £1,600 for the two statues proposed that year.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £1,600 for two Statues of British Sovereigns to be placed in the Royal Gallery, be omitted from the proposed Vote.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, he also desired to know the names of the two sovereigns for whose statues the item of £1,600 was proposed. He objected to frescoes being placed in such a position that the only light falling upon them came through painted glass windows.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he would beg leave to ask whether the name of Oliver Cromwell had ever suggested itself to the Chief Commissioner. [A laugh. Hon. Members might laugh, but no less a personage than Earl Russell recently stated to a deputation that there was no period in the history of England so much entitled to be remembered as that which was identified with the name of Oliver Cromwell. Why, then, he asked, should that glorious period not be commemorated in some way or other in connection with the Houses of Parliament? About a year before he escorted a party of Frenchmen round the buildings; and when he showed them the highly poetical frescoes, they asked him whether it was because the English people had nothing in their national history worthy to be commemorated that they had recourse to the imagination of their poets. They requested him to explain some of the frescoes, but he was compelled to acknowledge that he could not do so. He wanted to know whether the name of Oliver Cromwell had occurred to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner; and, if not, why not?

MR. COWPER

said, the oil used in the Houses of Parliament was supplied under a contract which had been in force for a long period. He had given orders, however, that it should be discontinued at the end of six months, when a new, and he hoped a more economical, arrangement would be made. Reference had been made to the statues in the Royal Gallery. The Estimate of 1860 had been so framed as to commit the House to a long series of statues from the earliest to the last Sovereign. The House was unwilling to be so committed, and the Vote was withdrawn. Last Session the House voted four statues as a portion of a chronological series of twelve, which were required for the decoration of the Royal Gallery; and the Estimate for the present year contained an item for two more statues, also a porportion of the series of twelve. He believed that those two statues, which were to be executed in accordance with the recommendation of the Fine Arts Commission, would represent Sovereigns whom he was sure the House would be anxious to commemorate, since they were associated with an illustrious period in our constitutional history. He alluded to William III. and Queen Mary. ["Which Mary?"] It was not the Mary to whom the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) so much objected, but the Mary who was consort to William. He thought the House would be of opinion that the Royal Gallery would be incomplete without statues, and the object of the Fine Arts Commission in recommending that the Sovereigns should be represented in marble was to gratify the feeling to which the hon. Member for Peterborough had just given expression— namely, that in so magnificent a building as the Houses of Parliament there ought to be historical recollections. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir M. Ridley) had objected to the proposed statues in the Royal Gallery, not because he was not favourable to art, but because he was a lover of very high art. There was no reason for supposing that the statues would be low in art; and when the hon. Baronet expressed the apprehension that medisaeval statues were going to be put up, he did not properly distinguish between the statues placed in the niches, and forming part of the decoration of the walls, and those marble statues which were to stand out separately on the floor. No fault could be found with the statues in St. Stephen's Hall on the ground of mediaevalism. They were executed by the best sculptors whom England could produce, and were generally considered creditable to English art. They did not show any great fondness for mediaeval costume. Leather breeches formed no part of mediaeval costume, but they were in fashion at the end of last century, and Mr. Fox was faithfully represented in the dress of his period. He hoped the hon. Baronet would not think it necessary to oppose the Vote.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, he would beg leave to suggest that there ought, without loss of time, to be placed in one of the most prominent positions the Houses of Parliament contained a statue executed by the first artist of the day of the late Prince Consort. Such a work of art, whatever its cost, would be one of those tributes which the country delighted to see paid to that virtue which so eminently distinguished the present reign, and which they were all so anxious to perpetuate.

SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY

said, he altogether dissented from the opinion that the statues in St. Stephen's Hall were superior works of art. On the contrary, he affirmed that those, for example, of Fox, Pitt, Burke, and Grattan were as bad statues as were ever perpetrated. They had neither mind, speech, nor thought in them. The perpetration and repetition of such statues could do nothing whatever to promote art. They pointed no moral, and adorned no tale. They did not appeal either to the perceptions, the sensibilities, the sympathies, or the national feelings of those who beheld them. He would not, however, press his Amendment.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

observed, that while the proposed Vote was for £33,000, there appeared to be on the 20th of February a balance of £54,000 on last year's Vote. For what purpose was that £54,000 required?

MR. COWPER

said, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Estimates last year only passed in August, and such was the punctiliousness of the Office of Works that they did not give their orders till the Estimates were passsed. The £54,000 would be paid for the orders so given.

MR. CAIRD

said, he hoped that in the chronological series of Sovereigns it would not be forgotten that they were dealing with a united kingdom, and Scotland should not be overlooked.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he regrettted that the right hon. Gentleman had neither answered his question, nor expressed any opinion respecting Oliver Cromwell. He rose, however, to call attention to the fact, that the most conspicuous place in the House of Lords had been given to a fresco depicting Augustine baptizing some Saxon king, which he understood was intended to represent the introduction of Christianity into this island, but which he could not designate otherwise than as a gross and palpable falsification of all history. It rather represented the authority of the Popes of Rome. ["Oh, oh !"] Christianity had been introduced into this country five hundred years before either Augustine or the Pope existed. He wished to know under whose direction such a perversion of our national history had been perpetrated.

SIR JOSEPH PAXTON

called attention to a sum of £3,000 for racks in the Victoria Tower for the reception of original acts, records, and documents.

MR. MILDMAY

said, he wished to ask how it was that so large a sum as £1,200 was required for haircloth, &c.

MR. COWPER

said, that the records of the House of Lords were encroaching so much upon the disposable space in the passages and offices of that House that the Clerk of Parliaments had made application that they should be lodged in some other situation, and there appeared to be no other place for them than the Victoria Tower. There were at present but two rooms fitted up, and the item in the Vote was intended to fit up another floor. There were altogether sixty-four rooms in the Victoria Tower. He hoped the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) would not ask him to follow him in his historical discussion. Whatever inferences the hon. Gentleman might draw from the facts, it was not to be denied that St. Augustine had baptized the Saxon King, and that important event was represented on the walls of the House of Lords. It was an historical fact which might very properly be represented. He quite sympathized with the hon. Members in their admiration of Oliver Cromwell, and he should be glad to see a well-executed statue of that great ruler in a suitable place. However, they had so little encouragement in the erection of statues that Members should not be surprised if he did not propose any more. If the House were inclined to have one erected hereafter, such a proposition would meet with no discouragement from him; but on the present occasion they could, only discuss the statues in the Estimates, and they were limited to those of William III. and Queen Mary as part of a series.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

2. Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £5,104, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for the Maintenance and Repairs of Embassy Houses, &c. Abroad.

MR. AYRTON

said, he wished to call attention to an item of £2,668 for the houses of our ambassador to Turkey at Constantinople and Therapia, and to ask how it was that so large a sum was required?

MR. COWPER

said, that the Sultan had made a present of the site to the British mission, and consequently it was natural that they should spend a little sum in keeping up the house and giving the British Ambassador the benefit of the Sultan's liberality.

MR. FREELAND

said, this was not "a little sum;" it was a very large item —£2,668. For the year ending March 31, 1861, the embassy-houses at Constantinople and Therapia had cost £2,350, and for 1862 the cost was £2000, so that the total for the three years would be £7,018. The item was perfectly monstrous. If a grand Turk had come over here, and thought of building a new wing to his house for a seraglio, that sum would be sufficient to build it; but, of course, in the case of the British Ambassador, no such appendage to his residence would be required.

LORD ERNEST BRUCE

said, he should be glad to have some explanations with respect to the embassy-house at Paris.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, the embassy-house at Constantinople had been burnt down some twenty-five years ago, and had been rebuilt at enormous expense. Since he had been in Parliament large demands had been made for maintaining it. Therapia was a very bad place for carrying on diplomatic relations, but during the summer the ambassador went there from the heat. He did not know why the ambassador should not keep up the house at Therapia at his own expense.

SIR JOSEPH PAXTON

said, the embassy at Paris comprised a large extent of building, and, considering the manner in which it ought to be kept up, the sum asked (£885) was not large. So also with respect to the Vote for the houses at Therapia and Constantinople, a large expenditure was required to keep them in order as they were built of wood.

MR. MILDMAY

said, he thought the salary of £185 for "the clerk of works in charge" at Paris most objectionable. Such a clerk, if kept up, would find work to do.

MR. COWPER

said, it was economical that the Office of Works should have an officer of their own residing at the Paris Embassy, otherwise they would have to be constantly sending over some one whenever repairs were wanting. He did not think the item of £500 for "casual and ordinary repairs and painting, furniture, fittings, and contingencies" of the ambassador's house at Therapia was too much. The Committee could not wish that our ambassador should not reside during the summer months at Therapia, where all the other embassies had houses, and where the Turkish Ministers also resided.

MR. H. A. HERBERT

said, the payment to a clerk of the Works at Paris of £185 was an enormous charge for superintending the repairs of a house that was nearly new. There was also an item for a surveyor to look after the clerk of the works.

MR. MONSELL

said, that the remarks of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Freeland) had not been answered. During the last three years the sum of £2,500 had been spent in repairing the ambassador's house at Constantinople. He thought the Vote for the house at Therapia was nothing less than a piece of unnecessary extravagance. If they kept a clerk of the works there, they must expect he would find something to do. He would move, as an Amendment, that the Constantinople Vote of £2,668 be reduced by the sum of£1,000.

MR. COWPER

said, he had thought it better to confine himself to the Vote before the Committee, and he could state that the sum was not more than was necessary for the coming year. He could not agree with the proposition that having a clerk of the works was likely to increase the expense of repairs; for being paid by a fixed salary, if there were any temptation at all, it would be to do little rather than much, If, on the other hand, the repairs were left to local tradesmen, they would have an interest in running up a bill. It would be the most short-sighted economy to remove the clerk of the works at Constantinople, for it was not a place in which contracts to keep the ambassador's house in repair could be entered into. The ambassador's house at Paris was rather an old one, and had required very serious repairs. It was thought desirable to send over a surveyor to Paris from time to time, instead of trusting entirely to French architects, when more serious repairs were required. If the clerks of the works were removed, the Board of Works would lose the only check they now had on the expenditure for repairs in these capitals.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, that the Government ought to give the Committee grounds for supposing that these sums would be required, and that they would be duly appropriated. The right hon. Gentleman ought to explain how the sums voted for previous years had been appropriated. He should vote for the Amendment.

MR. COWPER

said, the sum proposed was the amount which, judging from past experience, it was thought would be necessary for ordinary repairs. The sums which had been alluded to were, he understood, not for ordinary, but special and particular repairs. The subject of past Votes was immaterial to the present discussion.

MR. FREELAND

said, he thought those past Votes had a most important and material bearing on the question. The repairs of one year, if well done, would obviate the necessity of further repairs in a subsequent year. Not only were repairs executed at great expense when Sir Henry Bulwer went to Constantinople, but others had been executed at a later period. The Committee were now invited to vote £2,600 odd for this purpose, the corresponding charge last year being £2,000. L'appétit vient en mangeant; and he supposed that next year a demand would be made for a still larger sum.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, there could not be worse economy than to give a large house to an ambassador and let it go out of repair. Everybody who had a house, great or small, knew by his own experience that in proportion to its size he must incur a certain annual expenditure for ordinary repairs. There was a Dutch proverb that painting and whitewash cost nothing—not, indeed, that these things had not to be paid for, but that the money spent on them prevented the necessity for much heavier outlays. His hon. Friend said there could be no need of a house at Therapia, because when he was at Constantinople years ago the embassy residence was burnt down, and our ambassador was then compelled to live at Therapia, when great inconvenience occurred, as during a great part of the year our ambassador had to be at Pera, in order to have communication with the diplomatists of other countries. But it should be remembered that in summer not only did the diplomatic agents of other Powers, but the Ministers of the Porte itself, all go to Therapia; and it would be inconvenient for the British ambassador alone to be kept at Constantinople at that season through not having a residence at Therapia. He should really hope that the Committee would not refuse the sum estimated for the ordinary repairs of the embassy house at Pera, which was very large, and intended for the accommodation not only of the ambassador, but also of the other members of the embassy. If the money voted should not really be required, it would not be spent.

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

said, that he was fully aware of the fact that the house of our ambassador in Therapia was in an exceedingly bad state of repair, and in such a condition that no gentleman could be expected to reside in it. The money proposed for its repair was then absolutely necessary. As regarded our ambassador's house at Constantinople, understanding that the sum asked for its repair was only calculated upon an average of years, and that the money would not be expended if the repairs were not needed, he would certainly support the Vote.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, that all that had been said only showed that the large sums in former years for this purpose had been wasted. That was hardly a good reason why the Committee should now vote upwards of another £2,000.

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

said, he believed that only a very small portion of the sums voted in past years were spent upon the house at Therapia.

MR. MONSELL

said, that only £500 of the present Estimates was for the house at Therapia.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Item of £2,668, for Repairs of the British Embassy Houses at Constantinople and Therapia, be reduced by the amount of £1,000.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 88: Majority 27.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, he would move as an Amendment the reduction of the Vote by £1,500 the item for repairs to the British embassy-house at the Hague.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £1,500, for Repairs of the British Embassy House at the Hague, be omitted from the proposed Vote.

MR. THOMSON HANKEY

said he would remind the Committee of the report of last year, which recommended as the best economy that the Government should take the houses for the ambassadors upon lease, on an understanding that a certain percentage should be deducted from the salaries of the ministers to meet the expenses attending them. It was well known that it was often very difficult and sometimes impossible for the ambassadors to procure houses for themselves by the year, as they were, of course, precluded from taking them on lease from a consciousness of their own uncertainty of tenure.

SIR MINTO FARQUHAR

said, he fully concurred in the principle of the Government taking those houses for our ambassadors, and therefore he should deeply regret any such reduction in the Vote as the Amendment contemplated.

MR. PEEL

said, that the case under consideration was exceptional. A reduction of the Vote would amount to a breach of engagement to which the Government had deliberately bound themselves.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

intimated that he would not press his opposition to the Vote.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported this day; Committee to sit again this day.