PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

HC Deb 30 May 1864 vol 175 cc844-69

SUPPLY considered in Committee — CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

(In the Committee.)

(1.) Question again proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £55,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1866, for erecting a New Office for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

complained of the enormous cost of the new building, and called attention to the item of £4,899 for preliminary expenses of designs which were not adopted. He found, when he added this item to the sums of a similar nature voted in previous years, that upwards of £10,000 had been paid for designs not used. He moved the omission of the item.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £4,899 8s. 9d., for Preliminary Expenses of Designs for a Foreign Office, which were not adopted, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Augustus Smith.)

MR. W. WILLIAMS

asked when the new Foreign Office would be finished according to the contract.

MR. COWPER

said, the contractor had bound himself to complete the building in two years and four months from the present time. It would probably, therefore, be in use in three years. In reply to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Augustus Smith), he explained that the estimate of £200,000 for the new Foreign Office was based upon the original tenders made in 1859. The building now in the process of erection was, in its internal arrangements, almost the same as that for which the contracts were given; but since that time the price of labour and materials had risen about 10 per cent, and the estimate founded on the lowest tender was £223,516. He reminded the Committee that in July, 1861, he stated that the Government could not bind themselves to the estimate of £200,000. The item of £4,899 was made up of various sums paid for drawings and plans. First, there was a sum of £500 due to Mr. Gilbert Scott for work done between November, 1858, and March, 1859; next, there was a further sum of £2,000 payable to Mr. Scott for working drawings and specifications for tenders in 1859; then the model exhibited to Members of the House cost £300, and £1,500 was paid to surveyors for preparing bills of quantities, There were also some smaller charges, bringing up the total to £4,899; but the money had actually been paid, did not require to be voted, and was mentioned only to show the total estimated cost of providing a new Foreign Office. The drawings and plans, though not adopted, were necessary to enable the House to decide what kind of building the Foreign Office should be. Architects had to be employed to prepare them, and he did not think any fault could be found with the amount. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, it seemed to him that there were several items in this Vote which had already appeared in a previous account.

MR. COWPER

explained that the items in question were not to be voted now, and were given merely for the information of the House as to the amount of the whole grant.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

asked whether Mr. Pennethorne's claim in regard to the Foreign Office was included?

MR. COWPER

said, that the only architect whose account was included was Mr. Scott.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Vote agreed to.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

The following Votes were then agreed to:—

(2.) £6,750, Industrial Museum, Edinburgh.

(3.) £3,355, Aberdeen University.

(4.) £6,574, To complete the sum for the Probate Court Registries.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

asked what the buildings were for which these sums were required.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he thought it would be very convenient if the fees and other sums received by the Probate Courts were put in the same account with the expenditure. They were receiving a large sum every year from the public in the shape of fees, out of which the Proctors' compensation was paid. It was understood that the fees in the Probate Court were to be reduced as the compensation charges for the Proctors gradually diminished, and he therefore thought that a statement of the sums paid to the Proctors should be in eluded in the accounts.

MR. ALDERMAN ROSE

said, he believed that under this Vote was the proper occasion to express the alarm he felt as to the custody of wills in the building in which they were now placed. It was understood that the building was very vulnerable by fire, and that no protection at all was afforded to its contents. He should be glad to know whether this subject was under consideration, and if any proper site for the custody of wills had been decided upon.

MR. COWPER

said, he shared to a certain extent the anxiety and apprehen- sion of the hon. Member. A railway was going to be carried under the Registry in Doctors' Commons, and a street was going to be taken through it. The Government had endeavoured to take care that the removal of the wills should be conducted in a manner that would not cause any confusion. A clause was to be introduced into the railway Bill, that the wills should not be removed until a proper place of deposit had been secured, and a similar precaution had been taken in the Act for the street. A portion of the present Registry was not, perhaps, in a satisfactory fire-proof condition, and the Government had been anxious to get another building. It was thought that they might be ultimately deposited in the basement of the new Courts of Justice. The circumstances to which he had referred rendered it necessary that a change should be made without delay, and probably the basement of the new Courts of Justice would answer the purpose. The larger portion of the expenses connected with the Probate Court would be found under the head of "Law and Justice," where they could more properly be discussed than on the present Vote, which had reference to a Registry at Manchester.

MR. HADFIELD

wanted to know whether all the wills of the district would be stored there?

MR. COWPER

said, that all the wills of the district would be deposited in the new building at Manchester.

MR. ALDERMAN ROSE

inquired how soon would the new Registry Office in London be completed?

MR. COWPER

replied that the existing Registry Office could not be taken possession of without the consent of the Lords of the Treasury, who, of course, would not give their consent until a perfectly proper depository for the wills was. provided. He believed that such a place would be ready in ample time.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) £574, to complete the sum for the General Register House, Edinburgh.

(6.) £19,000, to complete the sum for the Public Record Repository.

(7.) £15,000, to complete the sum for New Westminster Bridge Approaches.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

asked when the remaining houses in New Palace Yard were to be taken down?

MR. COWPER

stated that the owner of Fendall's Hotel and of the adjoining houses was bound by an award to surrender them, and their demolition would commence when surrendered.

MR. KINNAIRD

wished to know what was intended to be done when the houses were pulled down?

MR. COWPER

said, that the Government had asked for a plan for laying out the whole of New Palace Yard as an open space. The details were not yet decided on; but, probably, the best scheme would be to carry a balustrade wall along the southern side of Bridge Street, on account of the level of New Palace Yard being below that of Bridge Street. This difference of level might be made conducive to beauty in laying out the square.

Vote agreed to.

(8.) £7,930, to complete the sum for new Westminster Bridge.

(9.) £3,260, Architectural Designs &c., for Public Buildings.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

asked for an explanation of the Vote.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, that the Committee were now asked to Vote this sum for plans and estimates prepared by Mr. Pennethorne at different times between 1853 and 1856, and unless some explanation was given with regard to the Vote he would move its rejection.

MR. COWPER

said, the hon. Member must be aware from the various Committees that had sat on this subject, and debates that had taken place in the House, that a great number of plans had been prepared at different times. This Vote was confined entirely to the claims of Mr. Pennethorne Mr. Pennethorne did not send in his claim until after the question respecting the site of Downing Street was decided, because he did not know that he would not be employed upon it. This question had been the subject of great deliberation. In 1853 it was proposed to have a building facing St. James's Park; but that plan was set aside in November, 1854, and another plan was prepared which was to carry the offices all round the quadrangle. Committees and debates followed: it was afterwards thought desirable to enlarge the area to be employed for the public offices. With this change of opinion it became necessary to throw aside the designs that had been made, and to prepare others. The largest item in this Vote was for a sum of £2,100, charged by Mr. Pennethorne for his designs and his estimate, amounting to £435,000 for an office round the quadrangle, and for which he had prepared the working drawings for a contract in gross, and was entitled to ½ per cent upon the estimate. In consequence of the preparation of these designs, the House voted a sum of money in July, he believed, 1855, for the site, and it was intended that the plan should be adopted. Then it was found that the area would not be sufficient, and a Committee on the public offices was appointed in 1856. They determined upon rejecting the existing plans, and recommended a public competition Consequently Mr. Pennethorne's designs became useless; but he was entitled to remuneration, and the Committee would see that it would not be honest on the part of Parliament not to compensate an architect for work fairly done, and which had been of great use informing a decision on the subject. For himself lie (Mr. Cowper) rejoiced that the former scheme had been abandoned, and the larger area decided upon.

SIR WILLIAM MILES

thought the Government erred in the plan they adopted in paying the persons they employed. It appeared that in 1864 a large sum was due to Mr. Pennethorne for work commenced so long back as 1853. Would such a state of things be borne for one instant in a private establishment? Why could not the expense incurred for plans in one year be paid for and brought into the Estimates of the next year? This debt had been accumulating for eleven years, and he protested against such a mode of managing the public accounts.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

pointed out that no explanation had been given of the £5,600, which, according to the audited accounts, had been paid to Mr. Pennethorne in 1859–1860. It appeared as if Mr. Pennethorne were being paid twice over. In his evidence before the Select Committee Lord Llanover distinctly denied having given Mr. Pennethorne any authority for the preparation of these plans.

MR. COWPER

believed that Mr. Pennethorne had misunderstood the directions which he had received from Lord Llanover; but it was not likely that a man of his station and high character would have made these plans except he had believed that he was acting under instructions from the head of his Department. The work had been done, and after due consideration the Government were of opinion that, on the whole, Mr. Pennethorne was entitled to be remunerated for them. As to the sum paid two years ago, it had nothing whatever to do with the plans referred to in this Estimate.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

was sure that Mr. Pennethorne believed himself to be perfectly justified in preparing these plans, and was glad that the Government had concluded to propose this Vote. The difficulty in closing the architect's accounts lay quite as much with the House of Commons as with the Board of Works. An architect was directed to prepare plans for some public buildings which were thought to be urgently required. By the time he sent them in, perhaps, public opinion had changed, the buildings were not thought to be so urgent, or there might be doubts expressed as to the mode of carrying them out. Time went on, and the architect did not like to send in his bill, because he did not know but that at the end of two or three years' discussion his plans might be, after all, adopted, when he would get the usual percentage. For instance, how many years had the Foreign Office and the National Gallery been under discussion, and how many architects had been employed in preparing plans for them? As to the Foreign Office, he wished the noble Lord at the head of the Government joy of the building which was being erected in Downing Street, and he hoped that his name would be engraved in large letters over it, so that posterity might know to whom they were indebted for that ornament to the metropolis. Mr. Pennethorne was a most careful and painstaking public servant, and he hoped the House of Commons would not refuse him payment for work actually rendered.

SIR WILLIAM MILES

reminded his noble Friend that tins Vote was for plans which had been rejected and disposed of at once. Supposing any one not in Mr. Pennethorne's position had prepared these plans, would it have been fair to make him lie out of his money for eleven years?

MR. KINNAIRD

asked whether Mr. Pennethorne was not a permanent servant of some Department, and whether his whole time was at its service. He was under an impression that he received a salary either from the Board of Works or from the Woods and Forests.

MR. COWPER

said that, under the present arrangement, Mr. Pennethorne had a salary of £1,500 a year as surveyor and architectural adviser to the Board of Works. In these capacities he had rendered great services to the Department, for which he would have received a larger remuneration had he been paid in the ordinary way. With respect to plans for new buildings, Mr. Pennethorne was in the position of any other architect, and entitled to his commission. In 1853 and 1855, Mr. Pennethorne considered himself likely to be appointed architect for erecting those buildings for which he had made the designs. Even after the Committee of 1856 recommended public competition, he did not know, until the contract was made, that he should not be intrusted with the execution of the work. Consequently, he did not press for payment until the contract was entered into for the present buildings. His claims, however, had undergone considerable scrutiny.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

thought there would be a great economy in employing a Government architect in all public works. Mr. Pennethorne appeared to be paid a salary, and to make all his charges besides.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

observed that it would be absolutely necessary that where a competent architect was taken from his ordinary work he should be paid a competent salary. But it did not follow that because an architect did the ordinary work of his office very well, that he was one to whom they should intrust the design and execution of great public buildings.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

wished to know whether the plans now to be paid for included those of the Lombardo-Gothic building from which they had been saved by the noble Lord the First Minister, and which, however beautiful in itself, would have been totally unsuited to the locality.

MR. COWPER

No. The design to which the hon. Gentleman alludes was not prepared by Mr. Pennethorne, but by Mr. Scott.

Motion made, and Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £3,260, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, in the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865, the Charge for Architectural Designs, Plans, and Estimates for Public Buildings, prepared at different times between the years 1853 and 1863.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 84; Noes 21: Majority 63. Vote agreed to.

(10.) £4,000, Nelson's Column.

ADMIRAL WALCOTT

I rise, Sir, for the purpose of expressing the dissatisfac- tion I so strongly feel in the unworthy delay which, as it appears to me, has been permitted from year to year to occur in the completion of this monument to England's heroic and illustrious admiral; and to complain that, although a sum—in amount, £3,816—has been expended upon the lions destined to adorn its base, so little progress has been made in the work. Regarding this I may mention a circumstance, painful though it be in interest, which is, that a few mouths since one of the last of Nelson's captains—the late admiral of the fleet, Sir Graham Howard—almost in his dying hours expressed to his son, Captain Howard, of the navy, his strong and anxious regret that this last testimony to the great and illustrious man, whom he survived, was still incomplete. There were but a few left who had served under that great seaman, and he (Admiral Walcott) was afraid that they likewise would pass away with the same sentiment on their lips. Well might the passing foreigner exclaim— If Britain thus neglect her gallant son, She ill deserved that honour and that fame Which with his precious life for her he won. He therefore hoped that some effort would be made to complete this column.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

thought that it was disgraceful that the monument should be left uncompleted.

MR. COWPER

said, he fully sympathized with the feelings of the hon. and gallant Admiral, who, he believed, originally proposed the erection of the lions, and much regretted the delay which had occurred in the completion of the work. That delay, however, had arisen rather from an excess than a want of care. The first model was all but completed, and he was assured that one of the lions would be cast during the present year. When that had been done the difficulties would have been mainly overcome, and he trusted that no long period would elapse before the other three were finished, and that the hon. and gallant Admiral would have an opportunity of seeing and admiring them. Some money had been paid in advance, but the value of the work executed was fully equal to the sum which had been advanced.

SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY

said, there were in the Foreign Office four colossal lions of sufficiently large dimensions, executed by an eminent artist some years ago, and then only set aside by the vote of the late Duke of Wellington. They were to have cost 6,000 guineas, and every lion would have been distinct and different. Not only was the work, after being un fait accompli, thus thrown aside, but the work Of providing the lions for the angles at the base of the monument transferred to Sir Edwin Landseer. He trusted that the new work would be properly executed; but he could not help thinking, that as a matter of economy, the lions finished years ago might have been advantageously and properly used. He saw no reason why the British public should pay £17,000 for the same thing as they could get in as high or a higher style of art for £7,000.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

observed the House had been told last year that Sir Edwin Landseer was going every day to the Zoological Gardens — he presumed at feeding time — to study the lions Now the public were told that they were only going to have one cast some time this year. He trusted, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would give them some more precise information on the point. He hoped the four would not be all alike, and he thought that it would have been better to have engaged four artists. He really could not understand why Sir Edwin Landseer should have been commissioned at all. That he was a great painter of animals was not a very satisfactory reason why he should be a good artist in bronze. Indeed, he should have thought that Sir Edwin was one of the worst persons to whom the work could have been intrusted, for the great merit of his painting was the great finish of his work, whereas what was wanted was something bold and striking.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, one of the lions was ready for casting within the next month. The principal reason which caused Sir Edwin Landseer to go to the lions was that the lions would not go to Sir Edwin Landseer, and the artist deserved much credit for taking the special trouble be did. When the lions were seen they would give a practical answer to the remark just made, and he believed that the hon. Baronet (Sir George Bowyer) on seeing the model would come forward and say-that whoever selected Sir Edwin Landseer did well. He (Lord John Manners) had selected him because he considered him the best fitted to place the lions on the pedestal. The hon. Baronet (Sir George Bowyer) had suggested an eminent sculptor; but his next remark that there ought to be four employed was not consistent therewith.

MR. GREGORY

had heard from those who were competent to give an opinion, that Sir Edwin Landseer's model was a high work of art. The turn which the debate took reminded him of the heraldic artist who was brought to Exeter Change to see the lions, and who, when assured that they were lions, maintained that they were most misshapen beasts, and not the animals he had been painting all his lifetime. The British public were in the position of this painter of heraldry—they had only seen the conventional beast in stone or bronze—and Sir Edwin Landseer would teach them what the king of the beasts really was.

Vote agreed to.

(11.) £96,000, Harbours of Refuge.

MR. BAXTER

said, he had distinctly understood that no further Vote would be asked for on account of the works at Alderney, and yet a Vote of £50,000 was now asked for, and it appeared that more would be required.

MR. PEEL

said, it had been stated last year that the Government had decided on abandoning the construction of the eastern arm of the breakwater, and that the works would be confined to the completion of the western arm. There would thus be a reduction in the total estimate from £1,300,000 to £1,200,000; and there was reason to believe that this Estimate would not be exceeded. After the present Vote, a further sum of £50,000 would complete the whole work.

COLONEL W. STUART

was glad to hear that the rocks were to be blasted; otherwise the harbour was more likely to wreck than to save our ships.

MR. LINDSAY

said, he had recently been to Alderney and could not help being struck with the folly of successive Governments in throwing money away upon the works there. Alderney was one of a cluster of rocks. As to its being a harbour of refuge, if the eastern arm was abandoned no vessel would find protection against an easterly gale, or would run there for protection—and as to its being a look-out station from which to watch Cherbourg, even on a clear day it would be impossible to see ships entering or leaving Cherbourg, which was twenty-four miles off. In addition to £1,600,000 for the breakwater, the Government had spent £250,000 on I fortifications, which in a time of war would require 7,000 men to man them. No I enemy would ever have thought of attack- ing Alderney if we had not put fortifications for him to attack there. Did the House think that in time of war the country would keep its ships lying in the harbour? No, they would be cruising up and down the Channel, protecting our own commerce and watching the enemy. The pier erected at Alderney, if constructed somewhere on the coast of England, might be instrumental in protecting life and property; but in its present position it was exposed to the most violent gales, from which its concave instead of convex form rendered it very liable to injury. The harbour itself was nothing but a cluster of rocks; it was true that these were being blown up, but was it not a monstrous thing of any Government to select such a site? For his own part he would rather that the whole undertaking should be abandoned; but if the House should be of opinion that the works should be completed, he would suggest that the additional work should be performed by convict labour.

MR. CORRY

said, it was a great mistake to call Alderney a harbour of refuge, as no man in his senses would run down upon that dangerous coast. But at the time it was originally designed for a great naval port, the most distinguished authorities, including the late Duke of Wellington, were favourable to the scheme. To illustrate the matter, if a foreign Power were in possession of a great harbour and extensive fortifications upon an island only sixteen miles from Portsmouth, their importance doubtless would be generally recognized. The breakwater, however, would be perfectly useless unless the southeastern arm were constructed as well as the western. This would cost an additional £100,000, but whatever Government might be at the time in office he was sure the money would have to be spent.

MR. COX

said, he believed that the works at Alderney would only hold out an invitation to an enemy to attack a place which they would otherwise never visit. He also had recently been at Alderney, and one of the 200 or 300 inhabitants of the island told him that it would have been better if the vast sums which had been expended there in the construction of a harbour which could never answer the intended purpose, had been employed in cutting down the whole surface to low-water mark and removing to London the stone of which it was composed to pave the streets.

Vote agreed to.

(12.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £47,875, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865, for Works and Expenses at the New Packet Harbour and Harbour of Refuge at Holyhead, Portpatrick Harbour, and of Works at Spurn Point.

LORD NAAS

asked, when there was a reasonable prospect of the completion of the works at Holyhead, which the public had been looking forward to for several years past?

MR. TORRENS

asked for some information on the subject of Portpatrick Harbour, and moved that the Vote be postponed until the requisite details were furnished in the same form as in Vote 18.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £8,727, for Portpatrick Harbour, be omitted from the proposed Vote."— (Mr. Torrens.)

MR. COX

said, that when he was in the North of Ireland he was informed that the Government had agreed with a railway company to construct a line to Portpatrick; but on inquiry he could not discover that any such contract existed. There had been voted up to last year the sum of £21,000, and the House was now asked for a further sum of £8,700. The original Estimate was, he believed, from £12,000 to £15,000. He wished to know how long they were to go on voting money for making Portpatrick Harbour? A small outlay at Stranraer, to form a route by Larne, would be money much better laid out.

MR. MARSH

said, he had been two or three times to Portpatrick Harbour, and he believed that the works there were a mere job. Stranraer, on the other hand, might easily be made an excellent harbour.

MAJOR HAMILTON

said, he had attempted to land at Stranraer by the steamer, but he was obliged to get into a boat, and could not even land from that, for he was put into a cart and then shot out, like so much rubbish.

MR. COX

said, that the sum of £200 or £300 expended on a landing stage at Stranraer would make it a better harbour than Portpatrick, because a steamer could enter it at any time of the tide.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that the works for the accommodation of the packet service at Holyhead would, he believed, be completed within the present year; but some delay had hitherto been caused in consequence of some difficulty being thrown in the way of the London and North Western Railway traffic. This difficulty had now been removed. The Vote for Portpatrick Harbour was rendered necessary in consequence of an engagement, wisely or unwisely, entered into between the Government and the Portpatrick Railway Company in 1856, that if the Company brought down their line to the harbour the Government would render the harbour available for the steam packets between Portpatrick and Donaghadee. He understood that the works would not be completed during the present year, though the deepening of the water-way at the entrance gates would be completed within a few weeks, and the harbour itself would be dredged. This latter work was frequently interfered with by the weather, and, therefore, he could not say when it would be finished, but the Government must carry out their agreement with the Railway Company.

MR. COX

said, he had been unable to find that there was any engagement by the Government to do this work, and lie asked for the production of the document, if there was any. The Act of Parliament was silent on the subject.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that the agreement was founded upon a correspondence which took place between the Government and the Railway Company, and upon a subsequent Treasury Minute, ordering the execution of the works. Beyond that, there was no written contract with the company.

MR. CORRY

said, he could not, under the circumstances, support the Amendment; but he trusted that next year the estimate for this and similar works would be in the same form as those for Dover and Alderney. If there had been any Irishman at the Board of Trade or the Treasury, the works at Holyhead would have been completed long ago.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said that, years ago, a promise had been made that no more money should be spent upon this harbour.

COLONEL DICKSON

said, he was not so sanguine as the right hon. Gentleman in his belief in the speedy completion of the arrangements for the passenger traffic between Dublin and Holyhead. He thought that the attention of the Government could with very much greater advantage be directed towards the blowing up of Daunt's Rock. They were asked to vote £50,000 for the works at Alderney. He regarded those works as nothing less than a monstrous job, and while the Government were bestowing their attention in that direction, the applications for the destruction of Daunt's Rock, which would only cost £20,000 or £25,000, were entirely neglected; and yet if that rock were removed it would make fully available one of the finest harbours in the world.

MR. BENTINCK

objected to the principle of expending public money for local purposes. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had assigned a reason for the necessity for the expenditure of so much money the principle that, because the Parliament of, 1856 made an agreement, the Parliament of 1864 was bound to accept the conditions agreed to, and act upon them, whether those conditions were good or bad. His right hon. Friend was too good a tactician to admit that the bargain was a bad one, but if it had been advantageous he would certainly have said so, and in his remarks lie had carefully avoided making any such statement. The position of Portpatrick was not to be compared to that of Stranraer, and yet Government was spending money for no earthly purpose, while they had a magnificent harbour within five miles. With regard to Daunt's Rock, it was perfectly marvellous what an amount of misconception existed upon the subject. Daunt's Rock was no more an impediment to the entry of Cork Harbour than were the cross-benches to any one coming into the House —in fact, a vessel must go out of her way to get on it. There was actually existing at the present moment, at the very mouth of Cork harbour itself, a rock ten times as dangerous and inconvenient, which no one entertained any idea of removing; and the only ground upon which the removal of Daunt's Rock was urged upon the Government was, the fact of a vessel having run on it in cold blood.

Question put, and negatived,

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(13.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £72,452, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865, for Erecting, Repairing, and Maintaining the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland.

LORD NAAS

wished to know the amount which was to be devoted to the Albert Model Farm for additions and alterations.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

complained of the expenditure of money for the erection of model agricultural schools, which he maintained existed in reality for the benefit of the landlords. Many items had been included in this Vote which did not properly belong to it. He said that the sum of £4,000 was asked for the Phoenix Park. What was that for?

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

said, the Phoenix Park in Dublin was placed under the Board of Works, and therefore the sum asked for came under the amount voted for that Board. It was unreasonable to object to the Vote of a little more than £4,000 for the Phoenix Park when no less than £94,000 had been voted for the English Parks.

MR. PEEL

explained that the sum asked for the Phoenix Park was to carry out improvements in the way of levelling, draining, and planting shrubberies. With reference to the Vote for the Board of Education Buildings, the principal item was for a steam laundry at the Albert Model Farm, by which it was expected that a considerable annual saving would be effected.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

reminded the right hon. Baronet that last year he had undertaken to consider the expenditure at Glasnevin, with a view to its reduction and ultimate extinction. A new Vote for alterations and repairs did not seem adapted to the fulfilment of such a promise.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

did not admit that he had contemplated the extinction of the institution. He had promised to consider what reductions could be made, and he had carefully gone over the details of the establishment with that object in view, the result of which was that reduction had been made. He did not believe that it would be for the interest of Ireland to abandon the institution.

LORD NAAS

said, it was clear that as long as the schools were maintained repairs would be necessary; but what he objected to was that any enlargement or addition to the Model Farm should take place after the pledge which had been given last year, that the institution should be put upon a reduced scale, with a view to its ultimate suppression. The item of £600 for a steam laundry needed some explanation.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, it was perfectly true that last year he gave the Committee a pledge that the Agricultural Mode Schools should be reduced, and he had done all in his power to carry out the wishes of the House in that respect. The expenditure now proposed was, for the most part, for necessary repairs. In Class 4 the Estimate for that particular class of institutions would be found to be diminished; and when Class 4 came on for discussion he should be prepared to give every information in detail with regard to the Model Agricultural Schools in Ireland.

LORD NAAS

thought the proposition to increase the amount for alterations of the Model Farm was nothing more than an attempt to perpetuate the institution, and as its real purpose was simply to supply landowners with land stewards, he objected to the outlay for such a purpose. He should therefore move to reduce the Vote by £600.

Motion made, and Question, That the Item of £950, for additions and alterations to Model Agricultural Schools be reduced by the sum of £600."—(Lord Naas.)

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, the institution was something more than a school for land stewards; it was really a valuable national institution.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

wanted to know why such alterations were made in the Model Agricultural Schools and the Albert Model Farm as to require an outlay of £1,726 upon them.

COLONEL DICKSON

asked why it was necessary to build a steam laundry at an expense of £600. Whose washing was to be done in that laundry?

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, he supposed it was the dirty linen of the establishment.

MR. ESMONDE

said, that the school was of more use to the peasantry, from whom land stewards were taken, than to the landlords.

Question put and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to,

(14.) £13,000, to complete the sum for the New Record Buildings (Dublin).

(15.) £1,100, to complete the sum for the National Gallery (Dublin).

(16.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £13,703, 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, 1865, for erecting and maintaining certain Lighthouses abroad.

MR. CORRY

wished for some explanation of the item for the harbour master, and for the construction of a breakwater at Howth.

MR. PEEL

said, an Act of Parliament was passed last Session authorizing the advance of money to make certain improvements in Howth harbour, in consequence of the number of fishing vessels that went near the harbour. At the same time, power was given for levying tolls on vessels that should frequent the harbour, and it was expected that a considerable sum would be received in that way which would clear off the amount expended.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

objected that this country should be called upon to pay for lighthouses which were of value only to the ships frequenting the coasts of our colonies. He thought that the colonies themselves should maintain those light houses. Ceylon had a surplus revenue, and yet the taxpayers of this country were called upon to maintain the light houses upon the coasts of that island, He should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £2,000, the cost of the maintenance of the lighthouses in question.

Motion made, and Question, That the Item of £2,000, for the Little Basses Rocks Light Ship at Ceylon, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Augustus Smith.)

MR. THOMSON HANKEY

could not understand why this country should not pay its proportion for the keeping up of this light ship, for if it were not maintained the shipping of this country would materially suffer.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

also observed that the lighthouse at Ceylon was kept up to facilitate the navigation of ships going to and from China and Australia, and that it would be very hard to call upon the inhabitants of the island itself to submit to the heavy charge necessary for that purpose.

MR. HASSARD

wished the right hon. Gentleman would apply the same argument to the case of Daunt's Rock, in the vicinity of Cork.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, the light ship was principally for the use of the local shipping.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

£4,000, Lunatic Asylum, Isle of Man.

COLONEL W. STUART

moved the rejection of the whole Vote. Here was a large sum proposed to be voted by the country for building a new lunatic asylum in the Isle of Man. What the population of the Isle of Man was he did not know. The Governor had £800 a year, and therefore, so far, it was an agreeable place. The probable cost of the building was £20,000, and £2,000 for the purchase of the site, He did not see why English taxpayers should contribute this money for the purpose of building a lunatic asylum in the Isle of Man.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £4,000, 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, 1865, for the erection in the Isle of Man of an Asylum for the reception of Criminal and other Lunatics.

MR. PEEL

said, the Vote was proposed with the view to fulfil engagements which had been entered into in 1850, when Sir G. C. Lewis was Secretary to the Treasury. At that time an application was made by the Isle of Man for a grant towards erecting an asylum for its criminal and pauper lunatics; and the Government undertook to provide half the expense necessary for erecting the proposed asylum provided the inhabitants of the island themselves would raise the other half. Considerable difficulty was however found in the island in raising the necessary sum. Matters remained so until 1858, when the island took upon itself to raise the necessary money by means of a local assessment on real property; and then, upon a second application, the late Government declared that they were willing to pursue the same course as had been suggested in the year 1850. The necessary preliminaries were accordingly completed, and plans and estimates were prepared for the buildings, which were approved by the proper authorities in this country. It was, therefore, deemed desirable to propose the present Vote to defray half the cost of the buildings. He might add that the revenue which the Exchequer received from the Isle of Man amounted to £27,000 a year, while the sum annually paid out of that revenue did not exceed £15,000, thus leaving a sum of £12,000 to be appropriated to the purposes of this country. He thought that, considering this circumstance, and that an asylum was necessary for the island, this Vote might be agreed to.

LORD ROBERT CECIL

said, it might be true that Customs duties were raised in the island, and that those duties went into the Imperial Exchequer; but similar duties were raised by every county in England, which besides raised rates for such objects as the building of its own lunatic asylums. Why, then, he should like to know, should the right hon. Gentleman seek to arouse the pity of the Committee for the Isle of Man? Or why should it be made an exception to the rule which applied to other parts of the kingdom? That island was in a peculiar position. It had no representative in the House of Commons. It was governed by a Parliament of its own, and if it governed itself it ought to tax itself. If the Committee agreed to the Vote, they would be introducing the principle of taxation without representation —a course to which he objected; and he should therefore support the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind him.

Question put.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 73; Noes 95: Majority 22.

(17.) £17,000, Sheriff Court-Houses (Scotland).

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

called attention to the fact, that while one-half the cost of building and repairing these court-houses in Scotland was borne by the Consolidated Fund, the like charge in Ireland had to be entirely defrayed out of the county rates. In England, again, a still richer country than Ireland, the whole expense of building and repairing the county courts came out of the Imperial Exchequer.

MR. PEEL

said, that the arrangement by which one-half of the expense of Sheriff Court-houses in Scotland was provided out of the county rates, and the other half out of monies voted by Parliament, was based upon an Act of the Imperial Legislature. It did not follow from that that in Ireland the Assistant Barristers' courts ought also to be built or repaired from funds voted by Parliament. They should take into ac-count the relative apportionment of the local charges in each part of the United Kingdom. In Ireland the entire expense of the police force was paid out of the Imperial Exchequer, whereas in England and Scotland the county rates were charged with the cost of providing barracks for the police.

Vote agreed to.

(18.) £20,000, Rates for Government Property.

LORD NAAS

observed that the principle involved in this Vote was one of considerable interest, and he invoked the close attention of the Government to it. The practice in this matter varied very widely in different parts of the country. At Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Chatham, contributions were granted in aid of the local rates, while in Ireland not a shilling was expended in that manner. It was high time that some rule should be laid down whereby the Government property should be liable to certain assessment in all parts of the country. Before they voted this money, they should insist on knowing whether any general rule would be laid down applicable to all parts of the kingdom.

MR. PEEL

said, it was proposed to deal with this money in the same way as the Vote of last year was applied. The rule laid down was, that where the assessable value of the Government property exceeded one-sixth of the assessable value of all the other property in the parish, a contribution should be made in aid of the local assessment. The Government believed that by that arrangement they would indemnify the other properties of the parish for any losses they might sustain by the establishment of Government property in their districts. It was also proposed to make contributions where the Government purchased property, and so withdrew it from the previous rateable area. They would contribute the same amount as they found the property paying when they took possession of it; but it would be a fixed amount, and would not be increased as the value of the property increased by the Government expenditure. Whether in respect to official residences the liability to pay rates should be placed upon those occupying the residences, or the Government, was a question which must depend upon circumstances. That question was, in fact, still under the consideration of the Government.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

asked why the property in question should be liable only to the payment of poor rates?

MR. PEEL

replied that where the property acquired by the Government had been assessed for other local rates, contributions would be made to them also.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

protested against the mode in which this money was distributed by the Treasury. He knew that a large quantity of land had been taken by the Government in the neighbourhoods of Plumstead, Woolwich, and Deptford, on which no rates were ever paid. He trusted that before next Session Her Majesty's Government would declare some distinct principle by which this money should be applied.

MR. COLLINS

thought that the principle adopted by the Government was very illogical. It appeared that when the Government property should amount to one-sixth of that of the whole parish a special contribution in aid would be given. He could not see any reason why every kind of property in possession of the Government should not pay its fair share of taxation as well as every other property. Then, again, the hon. Secretary of the Treasury said that the Government would not pay any more for property which they had improved by an outlay than what they paid before, But that was laying down a different principle from that which applied to the property of private individuals. He hoped that henceforward the logical principle would be laid down that all Government property should pay its fair share of taxation in the same manner as every other property was liable to.

MR. LOCKE

said, it appeared to him an extraordinary principle to lay down that Government property should make a contribution in aid of rates only when it amounted to one-sixth of the rateable value of the parish. This question of rating should not be left in the hands of the Government, but rather placed in the hands of the ordinary local authorities of the country. He thought the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman very unsatisfactory.

SIR JOHN TROLLOPE

said, that when the right hon. Gentleman admitted that a certain proportion of the Government property was rateable, the question assumed a much larger shape, and the question arose whether or not all the Government property should be rated, and dealt with like all other property. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Collins), that this Vote should be rejected because all the Government property was not rated. It was but reasonable when the Government took possession of land and improved it by the erection of large buildings it should be rated in common with other property under similar circumstances at its full value. He should vote for the present amount, though he considered it should have been a much larger sum.

MR. COLLINS

explained. He considered all property should be rated. It was a fallacy to have a mere rate in aid, as the present mode of rating Government property was.

MR. THOMSON HANKEY

said, the hon. Member appeared to be taking an unusual course. Instead of agreeing to or rejecting the present Vote, most of the hon. Members who had spoken had urged the necessity of a larger Vote, and to meet the views of all, the Government ought to have proposed a sum of £120,000. He, on the contrary, thought the Vote should have been smaller, being of opinion that it was wrong to rate Government property.

Vote agreed to.

(19.) £53,000, Land, &c., at Kensington Gore.

LORD ROBERT CECIL

said, he believed the House was in hopes that the late Exhibition had been disposed of now and for ever, and that the last decision on the question had been given in a way that should not encourage the Government to revive it He was anxious, therefore, to know what was implied by the rather suspicious phrase, "certain buildings used for the purposes of the late International Exhibition."

MR. COWPER

explained, that the buildings in question were the two arcades which were of a permanent character, and had been used as refreshment rooms.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD

asked whether any Vote would be proposed this year for the new buildings at South Kensington, for the design of which Captain Fowke had received the prize?

MR. COWPER

said, it was not intended to ask for a Vote this year.

MR. AYRTON

asked whether the buildings the Government had agreed to purchase were to be dedicated to tavern purposes?

MR. F S. POWELL

wished to know whether they were to be applied to national purposes, or whether the Horticultural Society were to have the benefit of them?

MR. COWPER

stated that the portions of the late refreshment rooms bought by the Government were on each side of the central part which remained in the hands of the Commissioners of the Exhibition. The Horticultural Society had no right over the portion which had been sold to the Government. These buildings were to be devoted to purposes of science and art.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

thought it was much better to get rid of the whole of the land instead of completing the purchase of these arcades. He last year voted against the purchase of the land. They were then told it was a very good bargain, that it had been sold cheap, and he was of opinion it would be better for the nation to sell it for a profit. In order to get rid of any further difficulty or dispute about the matter, he moved the rejection of the Vote.

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR

, asked to what particular purpose of science or art it was intended to devote these arcades? It was difficult to understand to what other than the culinary art they could be devoted. He thought they had sufficient room on the other side of the ground for the purposes of science and art.

MR. F. S. POWELL

asked when the Exhibition building would be cleared away? As it was rumoured that a Patent Museum was to be erected there, it was important to know when they would have possession of the ground.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he did not intend to propose a Vote for the erection of any building on the ground this season; but he hoped that reply had no reference to the Vote they were led to expect would be asked for this year for a building for the reception of the Natural History collection of the British Museum. He hoped that that Vote would not be delayed. The opinion out of doors was favourable to such a Vote.

MR. COWPER

said, he was very sorry, but he did not think it would be possible to propose a Vote this year with reference to the removal of the Natural History collections from the British Museum to South Kensington, as it would be impossible to get the arrangements completed this year. The contractors were removing the old Exhibition building at South Kensington as fast as possible, but he could not say exactly when the ground would be cleared. The Government were not responsible for the contractors' arrangements. They were bound to remove the building, but it did not appear there was any binding covenant entered into by them with the Commissioners of 1862 for the clearing of the ground in a given time. He was unable to say at present to what particular purpose of science and art the arcades would be devoted. That was a question for further consideration. The ground was purchased on the understanding that it should be devoted to such purposes connected with science and art as Parliament should determine. The buildings were well adapted for the collections of Natural History. Unless the House voted the money so as to complete the purchase and to obtain a conveyance there could be no legal title, and the money which had been already paid would be lost.

LORD NAAS

hoped that nothing would be done to prejudge the question as to the removal of the Natural History collections from the British Museum. He objected altogether to the removal of these collections, which were so attractive to the working classes. He believed the proper place for the Natural History collections was the British Museum, and protested against any steps being taken for the removal of the collection.

MR. GREGORY

said, he did not wonder at the House being aghast at the notion of any addition to the Science and Art Department at Kensington, and he believed that the very phrase "Science and Art" stank in the nostrils of every one. With respect to the removal of the Natural History collections of the British Museum, nothing could be done without the sanction of Parliament; and when a Vote for the purpose should be taken, then would be the time to have plans submitted to the House for the accommodation of the collections.

MR. HASSARD

asked, whether there was any plan for the appropriation of that part of the twelve acres purchased for the purpose of the South Kensington Museum, which seemed to be insufficient for the Patent Museum?

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

inquired what was the period when the Exhibition Commissioners had agreed to clear the ground of all buildings and hand it over to the country.

MR. COWPER

said, that at present there was no proposal before the House for the disposal of the Exhibition ground. That might be brought forward next year; but as yet the matter was not ripe. The Exhibition Commissioners of 1851 were in possession of the land, which they sold to the Government; but they did not possess any legal power to require the ground to be cleared within a certain day. The building was, however, in process of demolition. The Patent Museum occupied a small place belonging to the Kensington Museum, and upon the ground referred to by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Hassard) the building was being proceeded with.

MR. FERRAND

asked, whether the contractors had not pledged themselves to have the building removed from the ground by a certain day?

MR. COWPER

said, that there was originally an agreement for the removal of the building within a certain date; but the stipulated period having elapsed, the Commissioners had no legal power to name any other time.

MR. LOCKE

wanted to know, whether the building on the twelve acres which had been referred to was to be erected in accordance with Captain Fowke's plan, which ultimately assumed a very handsome appearance?

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR

observed, that though it was stated that the arcades would be useful for the exhibition of the Natural History collections, yet if the House decided not to remove the collections there, then the arcades would be perfectly useless. By the Vote now proposed the House would be pledged more deeply than ever to the removal of those collections, and therefore he thought that his hon. Friend was quite right in moving the rejection of the Vote.

MR. COWPER

said, that upon being-asked of what use the arcades would be, he replied that they were for the same use as the land—namely, for purposes connected with science and art, and he had referred to the opinions of competent judges, who stated that they were very well adapted for that object.

Vote agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;

Committee to sit again on Wednesday,