HC Deb 04 June 1863 vol 171 cc367-81

SUPPLY considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £5,329, 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 1864, for the Maintenance and Repairs of Embassy Houses, &c. Abroad.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

asked when there would be an end to expenditure on account of the Embassy houses at Constantinople and Therapia.

MR. COWPER

said, that as long as the Ottoman Empire lasted, and as long as we maintained our Embassy there, we must pay for its accommodation.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, he had great faith in the continuance of the Ottoman Empire, but deemed £3,000 a year an excessive outlay for the annual repairs of the Embassy houses.

MR. COWPER

explained that the ordinary repairs amounted to about £2,000. The rest of the item was for special works.

MR. DODSON

said, that after having spent some £80,000 in building a palace at Pera, we had had to pay for a number of years past £2,000 annually to keep it from tumbling to pieces; and this year the repairs cost as much as £3,200. It would be much more economical to give the Ambassador an allowance for house accommodation.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, the palace at Constantinople was built contrary to the opinion and wishes of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe; while the discomfort experienced in it and the want of consideration which marked all the proceedings connected with it were such as excited the greatest surprise among the European residents. The officer employed in its construction ought to be retained no longer.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, it was impossible to hire a residence of a suitable character at Constantinople. Every Embassy had a house built for it. The present palace was the third which had been erected for the English Ambassador, the two previous residences having been burnt down. The present palace had been built upon plans approved by Parliament, and he believed it was a very convenient residence; but, of course, it required an annual sum for repairs. In England every gentleman had a certain charge every year, proportioned to the size of his house; and he did not think the sum wanted for the palace at Constantinople was at all beyond what was required.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that what ha objected to was the continual increase in the sum asked for repairs. Then there was another item for a house at Therapia. He could not understand why our Ambassadors at Constantinople should require two residences. No man could live in more than one house. The answer of the Chief Commissioner was rather a bit of sharp practice than an explanation.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that in summer all the Turkish Ministers went to Therapia which was a considerable distance from Pera, and it was necessary that our Ambassador should follow them. Moreover, Pera was so hot in summer that nobody could live in it with any comfort. The house at Therapia was given to our Ambassador by the late Sultan. It was not a large building, but still there was a certain amount of expense connected with it.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, the palace in Pera stood on elevated ground, and commanded one of the most beautiful views in the world—on one side the whole of Constantinople and the Sea of Marmora, and on the other the entrance to the Black Sea. It was surrounded by immense grounds, and, on the whole, the house at Therapia was not to be compared with it for a moment.

MR. FERRAND

inquired, whether the architect was an Englishman or a Turk; and, if a Turk, whether he was placed under any control, or whether he could run up enormous bills annually, without any person to check any serious amount of expenditure which might arise.

MR. COWPER

said, that the clerk of the works, resident at Constantinople was an Englishman, and perfectly competent for his position of trust. He was obliged to send home his estimates, and all the expenditure was carefully examined into by the assistant surveyor in the Office of Works. There was, therefore, as complete a control over it as if it took place in London. A great deal of the expense incurred was owing to the dearness of Constantinople, and also to the necessity of sending out some things from England. The palace at Pera, a large building, was the residence, not only of the Ambassador himself, but likewise of many of his Attachés; while the house at Therapia was in a rather dilapitated condition, and required a good deal of repair.

MR. ROGERS

asked what was the salary of the clerk of the works?

MR. COWPER

said it was £400 a year. His duties extended not merely to the building, but to the furniture.

MR. DODSON

thought the explanation of the Chief Commissioner disclosed a very unsatisfactory state of things. The clerk of the works might be a very competent man—he was certainly competent to run up enormous charges. It was impossible that the Office of Works in London could judge of the necessity of repairs and the cost of materials at Constantinople. Did the Chief Commisioner mean to say that bricks or stones were sent out from London? As the present charge was £1,200 above that of ordinary years, it would be satisfactory to know whether the palace at Pera had been newly furnished, and, if so, whether the Vote would he less next Session.

MR. COWPER

replied, that next year the Vote would be less by £1,000. The extra charge this year was owing to a new roof and some additional furniture.

SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON

said, he could not think it necessary that there should be two palaces, Pera and Therapia were not far apart—not more, if he recollected rightly, than three mile3. [Viscount PALMERSTON: Six.] At all events, they were not very distant from each other by water. If the clerk of the works got £400 a year, he was bound to spend some £2,000 or £3,000 for it, because if he were to lay out only £400, the cry would be raised at once that he got 100 per cent. on his expenditure.

COLONEL SYKES

was persuaded, that if the Chief Commissioner were to dismiss the architect, he would save £2,000 per annum.

LORD ROBERT CECIL

said, that the for the purpose of giving a practical effect to the discussion, he would move that the Vote be reduced by £400 a year, the amount of the salary of the clerk of the works.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that if the Motion of the noble Lord were agreed to, our representative at Constantinople must employ a Turkish clerk of the works, who would make us pay twice as much.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, he did not believe that a Turkish clerk of the works would be more expensive than the present clerk. He wanted to know what necessity there was for any clerk of the works at all.

MR. COWPER

said, the houses and the furniture belonged to the Government. The Ambassador was only a resident. If there was no clerk of the works, the Ambassador must be allowed to exercise his discretion in the expenditure of money for repairs and furniture. It was most desirable that some person should be responsible for not expending more money than was absolutely necessary.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

asked, whether the Ambassador could not be trusted to spend the money requisite for repairs and furniture. Would any gentleman with a large house keep a clerk of the works at £400 to manage repairs?

MR. FERRAND

asked, whether there was a clerk of the works at a salary of £400 attached to all our Embassies? If not, why should there be one at Constantinople? He believed that the grossest jobbery went on in these matters. If the salary were stopped, he was convinced that the saving would not be under £1,000 a year.

LORD ROBERT CECIL

said, the answer of the right hon. Gentleman opened up a frightful state of things. Nothing could be more preposterous than the supposition that the Board of Works in London could act as any check upon the expenditure of an official at Constantinople. That Board could know nothing about the prices on the spot, and of course the clerk of the works would run up a Bill.

MR. PEACOCKE

inquired, if it was really meant that the clerk of the works at Constantinople reported to the Board of Works in London, and that that was the sole check on the expenditure at Constantinople?

MR. COWPER

Yes. The Board of Works had an assistant surveyor who had been at Constantinople. The Board of Works was not quite so ignorant of Constantinople as hon. Members seemed to imagine—they knew quite sufficient to be able to check any expenditure incurred there. The reason why a salary of £400 was given was because they could not expect an Englishman of any professional position to act as clerk of works at so great a distance for the same money as they could get him to do it in London; and if they did not employ such a man, they must be at the mercy of the local tradesmen, and that, he thought, would prove very bad economy.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

thought the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs ought to resent this aspersion on the Turks. Were the people whom that hon. Gentleman the other day praised as the perfection of everything that was honest and gentlemanlike not to be trusted with the mere repairing and furnishing of the British Embassy house? He called upon the Under Secretary to stand up for his friends the Turks, and to say that they were honest tradesmen.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he should like to know whether the hon. Baronet would turn loose upon his country house the carpenter, plumber, painter, glazier, and all those tradesmen, who would be only too happy to run Up a large bill? Would he not rather employ somebody he could trust to regulate their operations, and see that they not only confined themselves to what was necessary, but did not charge unduly for it? It was asked whether there were clerks of the works at all our foreign missions; but it was only at Paris and Constantinople that we had houses. The usual arrangement was for the Ambassador to receive a sum of money with which to find himself a house; but at Constantinople it was impossible for him to do that, for there no house was to be had.

MR. FERRAND

begged to tell the noble Lord that he had heard it repeatedly said by Englishmen in Paris that gross jobbery went on in connection with our Embassy there.

MR. HUBBARD

thought it the wisest economy in such a case to have a clerk of the works. It was impossible for any country gentleman, and still less for an Ambassador, to act as a check upon tradesmen like a professional man.

MR. DODSON

said, that if economy had been the result of such an arrangement in this instance, that argument might have held good; but, unfortunately, it bad Jed to extravagance. The right hon. Gentleman said, they could not trust the Am- bassador with the expenditure upon the repair of his palace, and therefore they kept a clerk of the works. But how could such a man, with £400 a year, be any real check upon a person in the high position of an Ambassador if he chose to be extravagant? It was absurd to imagine that the Board of Works in London could exercise any efficient control in this case.

LORD JOHN BROWN

asked, whether this was an Estimate for work to be done for the ensuing year, or for work already executed?

MR. CHILDERS

said, the French Government allocated a fixed sum of 52,000f. every year for the expense of its embassy buildings at Constantinople; and that amount was not exceeded. That was a much better arrangement than ours; and if we voted a fixed sum, say of £2,000 a year, for the whole of the mission building at Constantinople, the saving effected would be between £2,000 and £3,000 per annum.

LORD ROBERT CECIL

said, the right hon. Gentleman had furnished his own refutation in the paper before the House. The clerk of the works at Constantinaple had £400 a year, while the charge for the clerk of the Works at Paris was only £185. The expenses at Constantinople might be greater, but it was absurd to suppose that it could exist in so great a proportion.

MR. COWPER

said, this was an Estimate of expenses for the ensuing year, and not a payment for the past year. The sum of £2,000 was for ordinary repairs, and £1,051 for what were called special repairs. With regard to the difference in the payment of the two clerks of the works, the officer at Constantinople was required to perform more difficult duties and to discharge a more considerable trust, and was therefore a man of a higher class, and received higher remuneration.

Motion made, and Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £4,929, 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 1864, for the Maintenance and Repairs of Embassy Houses, &c. Abroad.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 68: Majority 6.

Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to; as was also—

(2.) £748, British Consulate, Constantinople.

(3.) £30,000, to complete the sum for the New Foreign Office.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, that the sum originally estimated as the cost of the New Foreign Office was £200,000. They had already voted £75,000, and this year £40,000 was asked, making together £115,000; and yet he observed in the last column a statement that there was a further sum required of £137,000. He wished for an explanation how that arose.

MR. COWPER

said, it was true that £75,000 had been already voted under this head; but that money was not in hand, what was unexpended having been repaid into the Exchequer on the 31st of March. The only money spent was £16,868, and the only work executed was in the foundations. The tenders had not yet been received for the building, and his purpose was not to allow any money to be expended on the building until he had a contract fur its entire completion. He expected the tenders would come in shortly. The sum in this Estimate would be expended before March 1864.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, he could not understand how such a sum as £200,000 could be requisite to erect a Foreign Office. He remembered the old Foreign Office well, and it was for a great many years found sufficient for the service of the country. He thought that such a sum as £200,000 could not be expended for this purpose without the greatest extravagance. Taking into account the number of persons employed in the Foreign Office he thought £50,000 would be sufficient; and if the building was erected with simplicity and good proportions, it would be a great deal handsomer and more beautiful than a costly edifice. Proportion cost nothing, and next to proportion was simplicity. But the architects of this country did not seem to understand either. He was quite sure, that if anybody who understood architecture were to supervise the designs of this Foreign Office, he would find that there was an enormous expenditure in ornament and things which were of no use, and which would diminish and not increase the beauty of the building. He wished the hon. Gentleman would tell the House how many persons were to be employed in the Foreign Office that it was required to be of such a size.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

said, the First Commissioner of Works had not explained the discrepancy pointed out by the hon. Member for Truro.

MR. COWPER

said, if his hon. Friend would add up the three sums in the last column he would find that they amounted to the sum in the first column, £200,000. In reply to the hon. Baronet, he had to say that this was a matter that had been before the House for seven or eight years, and it had been agreed to be necessary to have a building of the size proposed; the question had been repeatedly considered, and a division had been taken on the plans and elevation of the building, and the money had been voted three times over. It was too late now to retrace their steps.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

begged to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the question decided by the House was whether the building should be Gothic or Classic; but he thought that now, when they had come to vote the money, some explanation was required why such an immense building was necessary. The papers and records would not occupy much space. How many persons were to be employed, and were any residences to be attached? Was it intended that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs or the Under-Secretary should reside at the Foreign Office?

MR. COWPER

said, that all the details were to be found in the blue-books of 1857 and subsequent years. Those documents would give the size of the rooms and the amount of accommodation. There was to be no residence for the Foreign Secretary, but there were to be reception-rooms which might be used by the Foreign or other Ministers. There would be an extensive library, not only for documents in use, but for State papers during the last hundred years.

LORD ROBERT CECIL

, having served upon one of the Committees referred to, doubted whether the blue-books would give the information asked for. The Committee did inquire into the nature of the building to be constructed, and they made a certain recommendation; but the noble Viscount at the head of the Government declined to carry it out, and having a preference for a different style of architecture, by a sort of ukase set aside the recommendation of the Committee. The amount under consideration was not very important, as, if the new Foreign Office were to be built upon the usual scale of our public offices, he thought we should be fortunate to escape for £300,000.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, the only change that had been made at his suggestion—which appeared to be distaste- ful to the noble Lord—was as to the elevation of the building. No change had been made in the distribution of the interior, which had been arranged by communication with persons connected with the Department, who had stated what were their requirements for the discharge of their public duties. The whole of that had been settled long ago.

MR. CONINGHAM

thought the country was indebted to the noble Lord for his ukase, because nothing could be more un-suited for the purpose than the Gothic style of architecture. At the same time, nothing could be more disagreeable to an architect who was an enthusiast for the Gothic than to have to abandon his own ideas and to carry out another style of architecture.

Vote agreed to.

The following Votes were also agreed to:—

(4.) £8,674, Industrial Museum, Edinburgh.

(5.) £1,459, Aberdeen University.

(6.) £22,000, Probate Court Registries.

(7.) £3,727, General Register House, Edinburgh.

(8.) £20,000, Public Record Repository.

(9.) £1,806, Court of Probate Principal Registry.

MR. LYGON

asked whether this sum formed part of the £70,000 required for the Registry. He also wished to know whether the Government had abandoned their intention of making the Registry a portion of the general scheme for the concentration of the Courts of Justice?

MR. COWPER

explained that this was merely a re-Vote to pay the rent of some houses in Knight Rider Street, forming part of the establishment for Wills and Probate Registry, and was a temporary arrangement. He hoped that shortly some better accommodation would be provided. The views of the Government in respect to a concentration of the courts of justice had not been abandoned.

MR. LYGON

remarked that by a previous Vote £1,750 was taken for rent, &c. for the Principal Registry at Doctors' Commons. If the General Registry of Wills were to form part of the scheme for the Courts of Justice, why go to further expense now?

MR. COWPER

said, this amount was to meet the expense of hiring certain houses which were required for a temporary purpose.

MR. LYGON

observed, that the total Estimate for the office was set at £70,000, of which £33,194 had been expended. Only £1,800 was now asked, and the future requirement was set down at nil. What did that mean? Was there to be any further demand?

MR. COWPER

No. When the amount was originally fixed, it had been intended to make a permanent arrangement at Doctors' Commons; but subsequently that view had been altered, and a more satisfactory and permanent arrangement contemplated by placing the Registry in connection with the courts of law and other offices.

MR. LYGON

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman had now shifted his ground. The £70,000 had been originally voted for a permanent arrangement with Doctors' Commons; but the right hon. Gentleman now told them that the original plan was abandoned, and that they were to spend £35,000 on a temporary arrangement. He wished to know whether that £35,000 would include half the plan originally contemplated?

MR. COWPER

said, that according to the original plan for providing a Registry for the Probate and Admiralty Courts, it was calculated that it would be necessary to buy premises to the amount of £70,000, but on consideration it was thought sufficient to buy premises to the amount of £35,000 only. For the present that arrangement was quite satisfactory; but hereafter when it became necessary to make a permanent arrangement to supply the ever-increasing wants of the Registry, instead of going on buying more property it was thought that the best course would be to sell this property, which was extremely valuable, and place Registry in connection with the courts of law.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

asked whether the £35,000 bought half of Doctors' Commons.

MR. COWPER

thought certainly more than one half.

MR. LYGON

asked whether this Vote was to be taken as committing the Committee to the propriety of abandoning the rest of the site of Doctors' Commons, supposing that at some time it should be decided that that was the best site for the Registry.

MR. COWPER

did not think that any such inference could be drawn. All that the Vote was asked for was to secure those houses in Knight Rider Street.

Vote agreed to.

(10.) £1,500, Site of the New Foreign Office.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

called in question payments to the Woods and Forests on account of Land which had been devoted to the public service for centuries without acknowledgment.

MR. COWPER

said, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests rightly considered it their duty to require payment from the Government for land that was to be appropriated for a public purpose, just as much as they would from a private person.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, that the principle was new, and had been acted on only during the last ten years. When the National Gallery was built on the site of the old Royal Mews, there was no such payment. He hoped the House would allow a Committee to inquire into the way these charges were put upon the public purse for the benefit of the Crown hereafter.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

asked, whether the purchase money was paid into the Exchequer?

MR. COWPBR

thought everybody knew that. Formerly it was the custom to use balances of the Land Revenue when necessary for expenses connected with public buildings or public parks; but Parliament in 1851 directed that the Land Revenues should be kept entirely separate, and that all the expenses of public buildings should be defrayed by Votes in Committee of Supply; consequently all such purchase monies would be paid into the Exchequer. It was a mere matter of account. Whenever any land belonging to the hereditary Land Revenue was disposed of for public purposes, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests considered it their duty to require payment, just as they would if it were sold for private purposes. It would be highly culpable in them to act on any other system.

MR. O'REILLY

said, that whatever was added to the land went with the land; and therefore if the hereditary property of the Crown was resumed by the Crown, the buildings upon it would be taken. He wished to know what was the tenure upon which the expenditure of public money was incurred—in plain English, what was the building lease?

MR. COWPER

said, there was no building lease. The land was bought in fee simple. The money paid became capital in the hands of the Commissioners of Land Revenue, and the interest of that capital was paid into the Exchequer.

Vote agreed to.

(11.) £12,000, Westminster Bridge Approaches.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

asked, what it was to be paid for.

MR. COWPER

said, this money was intended to complete the purchase of the houses on the south side of Bridge Street, and when the purchases were completed, the Government would make a proposition to the House on the subject; but that could not possibly occur before next year.

MR. THOMSON HANKEY

thought the Vote ought not to pass without the Committee hearing from the right hon. Gentleman what was the intention of the Government as to the continuation of the Houses of Parliament from the Clock Tower, on the south side of Bridge Street. Was the original scheme of Sir Charles Barry altogether abandoned, and had any new scheme taken its place?

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

asked, whether any arrangement had been come to with the proprietor of Fendall's Hotel?

MR. COWPER

said, this sum was intended to cover all the amount of purchase money which it was at all probable would be required to purchase all the houses, including Fendall's Hotel. At present, there were no negotiations on foot with the proprietor; but his lease terminated in June of next year. He thought, it would be very unwise to enter into a discussion of what might hereafter be proposed to be done in New Palace Yard. It was quite clear that such a proposal ought to be deliberately considered and carefully detailed, and he thought it better to leave next year's work until next year.

In reply to Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE,

MR. COWPER

said, it was believed that this £12,000 would accomplish all that was wanted; but if the juries should award a larger amount of compensation than was anticipated, a further sum must be voted next year.

Vote agreed to.

(12.) £12,357, to complete the sum for New Westminster Bridge.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

asked, whether £2,107 was to be the annual charge for watering, cleansing, and maintaining the Bridge, and £250 for police?

MR. COWPER

said, the police were employed at the two ends of the bridge to insure the separation of the traffic, and to enable the lighter vehicles to pass unimpeded on either side of the heavy and slow traffic. The bridge estate, now vested in the Commissioner of Works, produced more than the annual expense; but he believed the £2,107 would be required every year for the maintenance of the roadway and footpaths, and lighting the bridge with gas. The first item in this Vote comprised all the works necessary to complete the bridge and its approaches. Landing-stairs would be required, and the two sides, both in Surrey and Westminster, were unfinished. Although large receipts were coming in from the sale of plant, they could not be brought to the account of this Vote, but must be paid into the Exchequer. As to the approaches to the steamboats, the works were suspended until the embankment should be in a more advanced state.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

asked, whether the Board of Works intended to do anything with the steamboat piers on the Surrey side at once, or whether the work would be deferred till the southern embankment was completed?

MR. COWPER

replied that the latter course would be pursued.

MR. CHILDERS

complained of the inconvenience arising from the slow traffic running over the bridge being placed at the middle instead of at the sides as at London Bridge.

MR. THOMSON HANKEY

asked, why the charge of £250 for police employed on the bridge was not paid out of the general rates, as in other parts of the metropolis?

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

said, there were certain estates connected with the bridge, and wished to know what had become of the revenues derived from those estates? Why were not the expenses of lighting and police for it paid out of them?

MR. COWPER

replied, that the property in question consisted of houses, and had been vested in the Commissioners of Works in consideration of certain monies expended on the bridge. The receipts from it could not now be directly applied to the purposes to which the hon. Gentleman referred. With respect to the employment of the police on the bridge, he might ob- serve that the usual course was taken. They were stationed on it for the purpose of directing the traffic, and were thus removed from their ordinary beats. It was deemed right, therefore, that they should be paid the sum named. As to the inconvenience caused by the way in which the traffic over the bridge ran, he must admit that it was a point on which some difference of opinion might very naturally prevail. Mr. Page, the engineer, thought it would be better the heavy traffic should run in the centre, and it would not now be desirable to make any change in its course.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

asked, what was the amount of bridge property in the hands of the Exchequer?

MR. COWPER

I am not quite sure. I believe about £10,000 a year.

Vote agreed to; as was also—

(13.) £983, National Gallery, Dublin.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

moved that the Chairman report progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress."

LORD ROBERT CECIL

hoped, that as the Vote upon the threshold of which the Committee now stood—that for Harbours of Refuge—was a very important one, due notice would be given of the time when it would come on, in order that the sense of the House might be fully expressed upon it. It was not fitting, he contended, that the question of proceeding with the harbour at Alderney should be hurried over at the dinner-hour, or at any other time when it would not be likely to obtain a due amount of consideration.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

also expressed a hope that an ample opportunity of discussing the next Vote would be afforded.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

asked, whether Supply would be taken again next evening?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

We propose to go on with Supply to-morrow, if we can get to it.

LORD ROBERT CECIL

Does the noble Lord intend to bring on the question of Alderney to-morrow evening after all the other Motions have been disposed of?

MR. WYKEHAM MARTIN

trusted the Government would not go on with Supply to-morrow. There were Questions enough on the Motion for going into Committee to occupy the House for a fortnight.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON

wished to know when the Civil Bills Courts (Ireland) would be brought on.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

To-morrow, after the Notices of Motion on going into Supply.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

We should not ask the House to go into Committee of Supply to-morrow evening, say after ten o'clock.

MR. CONINGHAM

asked, whether it was intended to go on with the Vote for Harbours of Refuge to-morrow?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

We shall take the Votes in their order.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.