CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS. (Hansard, 12 May 1865)

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, that he objected to several of the items in this Vote, on the ground that they ought to be included in the Army Estimates, instead of the Estimates for the Civil Service. Not only were they asked for money for the maintenance and repair of the Chelsea Hospital and the Tower of London, both military charges, but the rents of the Army Medical Inspection office—Delahay Street and Delahay Mews—were also 242 charged under the Vote, in addition to which there were large sums charged for the rent of the War Office. He regretted to find that a practice had sprung up within the last few years of charging the public with rent on buildings which were practically Crown property. He should also be glad to know why the Geological Museum, in Jermyn Street, was not included in the Vote this year? He wished to know why these items were omitted, and whether they appeared in any other Vote?

MR. COWPER
said, it had been the desire of the Government to place the various expenses of each Department, as far as possible, together in the same Estimate. The item for the Geological Museum had, therefore, been transferred to the Science and Art Department, and also the items for the furniture of the museums. With respect to the Tower of London, the portion for the expenses of which a sum was asked in this Vote did not come under the control of the military department, but, being a portion of an ancient palace, was managed by the Office of Works. With regard to Chelsea Hospital, although it was in one sense a military establishment, it had always been treated differently from such purely military buildings as barracks. The building was occupied by the Commissioners of Chelsea, and the cost of repairs came properly under this Vote.

§ SIR HARRY VERNEY
rose to put two questions to the First Commissioner of Works. At present persons wishing to pass from Bayswater to Knightsbridge were compelled to do so by traversing three sides of a square, and he thought that an alteration might be made which would greatly conduce to the public convenience. He fully appreciated the beauty and the charms of Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park, but he believed that a sunken road might be made from Bayswater along the eastern side of Kensington Gardens, and carried on by a widening of the existing bridge over the Serpentine, and then be continued under Rotten Row to Knightsbridge. Such a road might be made without causing inconvenience or creating an eyesore. With regard to the second question, he would observe that equestrian exercise had now become so general, and especially with ladies, that it 243 might be termed an English institution. It appeared to him that the ride might very easily be continued from Rotten Row round Kensington Gardens without at all interfering with the public enjoyment of those beautiful gardens. He was fully aware of how much the public was indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the improvements he had made in the parks, and for the manner in which they were kept. He believed that no capital in Europe could boast such beautiful public gardens as we possessed. He would, therefore, ask the First Commissioner of Works to consider whether it was practicable and desirable to make a cart and carriage communication from Victoria or Buckhill Gate, Bayswater, to Knightsbridge, by means of a sunken road, the bridge over the Serpentine being widened, and a tunnel under Rotten Row, and to ascertain at what expense it could be done; and, whether it would be desirable to prolong Rotten Row, so as to form a road for riding all round the exterior of Kensington Gardens, like that lately made in Birdcage Walk.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, he thought that the Committee were bound to give the right hon. Gentleman credit for the admirable way in which the parks were kept. He hoped, however, that the general acknowledgment of that fact would not stimulate him to expend more money upon them, £30,000 was, after all, a good sum to pay for keeping up St. James's Park, the Green Park, Hyde Park, and Kensington Gardens.

§ MR. F. S. POWELL
said, he hoped that well-intentioned suggestions would not induce the right hon. Gentleman to destroy the real charm of the public parks. Those who lived in the metropolis must pay some price for the enjoyment of the parks. Either they must be kept as places of recreation, or they must be cut up for roads for the public convenience. The right hon. Gentleman ought to exercise the greatest jealousy with reference to all proposals for increasing the traffic across the parks. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would steadfastly adhere to his principle of preserving a great portion of the metropolis for the purpose of promoting the public health as well as for recreation. He (Mr. Powell) was glad to find that the parks were becoming year by year the resort of working men and their children, as well as of the higher and more educated classes, who some years since might be said to be the exclusive visitors of them. He felt bound 244 to pay his tribute of admiration to the right hon. Gentleman for the improvements he had effected in those parks. He hoped, however, that those improvements would not be carried to an extreme by any attempt to give them the character of gardens instead of parks.

§ MR. HARVEY LEWIS
said, he thought that a sunken road from Bayswater to Knightsbridge, across Hyde Park, might be made, which would be a great convenience especially to the residents at those places, and which would not in the slightest degree interfere with the objects to which the parks were primarily dedicated. The right hon. Gentleman deserved the greatest credit for the care which he took of the parks. It seemed to him that the House had become a great deal too fond of cutting down the expenditure upon the metropolis. Now, although they need not imitate the immoderate expenditure upon parks they ought not to allow themselves to be influenced by that parsimonious feeling which had been creeping in of late years. People who came to London from all parts shared in the enjoyment of these parks, and it was an object, therefore, to which the country at large ought to contribute.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he did not deny that the parks were very tastefully kept, but thought that every Member not actually connected with the metropolis ought to look with the greatest jealousy at this expenditure, and he should like to have an explanation of the circumstances under which they appeared on the Votes. Five additional parks had "cropped up" of late years. Battersea Park was one of them. It was understood that its expenses would be paid by the inhabitants and out of some fund mentioned at the time it was opened. Kennington and Victoria were also now parks. No doubt the arrangement and management of them all were admirable, but he wished to know how much each contributed to the Treasury.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, he thought that a great reason for the expensiveness of these parks was the ornamental gardening, A large garden establishment, with hothouses and expensive plants of all kinds, had recently been commenced at Battersea Park, the cost of which had increased upwards of £2,000 this year. It would be well if the Treasury would put a check on the exuberant fancy of the right hon. Gentleman. He should like to have an explanation of the Ranger's Department, as distinguished from that of the Board 245 of Works. If a Ranger were not needed for Kensington Gardens, what did Hyde Park or St. James's Park want with one?

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, the Committee might at all events rest satisfied that sufficient money would be expended upon those parks so long as the metropolis was represented by such able Gentlemen as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lewis). It appeared by a foot-note in the Votes that the income derivable last year from the Royal parks and gardens, and which was paid into the Consolidated Fund, was £3,584 odd. Now a whole crop of parks had lately burst upon us. He wished to know how many of them contributed towards the amount of income to which he had referred.

MR. COWPER
said, he agreed with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney) that it would be very desirable to enable carts and omnibuses as well as cabs to go across from Bayswater to Kensington during the day and night, provided that object could be attained without any sacrifice of the pleasure and enjoyment of the parks. The matter was thoroughly discussed in 1862—the Exhibition year—when it was proposed to make a sunken road across Kensington Gardens, and strong objections were urged against making a gash, as it was called, across Kensington Gardens. The reception which the proposal met with was not an encouragement to repeat it. That scheme, however, was much less objectionable than that now proposed by the hon. Baronet, which was to have two tunnels or sunken roads, one on each side of the bridge. One would have to pass under Rotten Row, and would make a disagreeable feature in that part of the park. His hon. Friend had pointed out the disadvantage to which Rotten Row was exposed by not leading anywhere; and, no doubt, it would be very desirable if Rotten Row could be prolonged round the outskirts of Kensington Gardens. It had been considered, and was feasible, but he was not prepared to do anything at present. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Dunne) had studied the Estimates more carefully, he would have seen that there were no new parks. Battersea Park was fifteen years old. The expenses of making it were defrayed out of a loan of money made by the Public Works Commissioners, and would be repaid in the course of time. When the land set apart round the park for building purposes was built upon there 246 would be an ample sum to repay the money advanced. The delay had arisen from the slowness of building operations in that part of the town, and perhaps also from the fact of there being a loll bridge there. He did not remember the date of Kennington Park, but certainly no new park had been made since he was in office. This was not an increasing Vote, and though it was slightly higher this year than last, it was lower than it had been in previous years. The expenses in the way of gardens and hothouses really formed a very small part proportionately of the whole expense. The great burden lay in the expense of maintaining the roads and watering them, and in keeping order by constables. There were seven miles of road in Hyde Park, and seventeen miles of walks. He was glad to find that the House was of opinion that the parks should be kept up in a perfect state. They were enjoyed by people coming from all parts of England, Ireland, and Scotland, they belonged to the Crown, were used by the nation, and ought to be worthy of the Empire. The £3,584 set down in the Estimates was the amount of receipts for grazing sheep in the parks. The grazing had the double advantage of improving the herbage and producing some revenue, and he must say that Battersea Park had contributed its full quota in that respect.

§ SIR FRANGIS GOLDSMID
said, he wished to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the ornamental water in the Regent's Park smelt so badly in hot weather that it was injurious to the health of the neighbourhood.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, that the £99,000 was all for the metropolis, with the exception of £2,000 for Holyrood Palace. There was nothing for Ireland in the Vote, though there was a magnificent park of between 6,000 and 7,000 acres in extent, close to Dublin, and though the Government were at this moment about to make a gross infringement on the public rights by handing over the Curragh of Kildare to the War Department.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, he wished to know which of the metropolitan parks was self-supporting, and which of them contributed something towards the sum of £3,584 referred to.

MR. COWPER
said, that all the Royal parks contributed something to this amount, though not one of them was self-supporting, When they came to the Votes 247 for Ireland it would be found that a sum would be taken for Phoenix Park.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, they paid much more money than they got back.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, that it would appear that none of the metropolitan parks were self-supporting, and that while some of them contributed a small sum towards their maintenance, the others were entirely kept up out of the public purse. He was glad to get the admission from his hon. Friend that they annually voted a large sum out of the public purse for the benefit of the metropolis. He hoped to live to see the day when there would be a successful resistance to this Vote.

§ MR. F. S. POWELL
said, he wished to ask for explanations on two or three points connected with this Vote; and first as to the clock tower, and the mode in which it was to be completed. Part of the original design was a large enclosed square between Westminster Hall and Bridge Street, and it was intended that the clock tower should form part of the block of buildings instead of rising from the ground independently. In consequence of the view of Westminster Abbey which was obtained from the open space in New Bridge Street it had been determined to depart from the original design of Sir Charles Barry, and have the clock tower springing from the ground instead of rising from a square, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) would give some explanation of the plans for the modification, and name the architect who was to carry it out. He considered, too, that plans of the proposed change should have been submitted to the view of hon. Members. The next question he wished to ask referred to the Peers' Robing Room and its decorations, especially, "Moses Coming Down from Mount Sinai," and the "Judgment of Daniel." He wished to know what was the arrangement between the Government and Mr. Herbert with respect to the "Judgment of Daniel." Had Mr. Herbert received full commission for the completion of the design? Were they in future years to have a painful controversy respecting the sum which should be paid to that most distinguished of modern artists? Had any negotiation been entered into with reference to the completion of the full design for the decoration of the 248 Robing Room? Two other pictures having been planned by the artist, he wished to ascertain whether any arrangement had been made in reference to the entire execution of the comprehensive plan first conceived? Another question he wished to ask referred to the Royal Gallery—namely, whether Mr. Maclise's picture of the "Battle of Trafalgar" was nearly completed?

MR. COWPER
said, it would be in the recollection of the House that after the discussion last year respecting the remuneration of Mr. Herbert a Commission was appointed to consider the whole subject of remuneration for the wall paintings. That Commission recommended that the payment of Mr. Herbert for "Moses delivering the Law on Mount Sinai" should be raised to £5,000; and it also recommended that the agreements for those wall paintings should be cancelled, as they were inapplicable to present circumstances. The Government had acted on these recommendations, and were prepared to propose to Parliament the Vote now necessary in order to raise the payment for "Moses delivering the Law on Mount Sinai" to £5,000. They had asked Mr. Herbert what sum he should expect to receive for his next picture, "The Judgment of Daniel," and he named £4,000, which sum the Government were advised would be a proper one to give him; accordingly, an agreement had been entered into with Mr. Herbert for that amount. The design for this picture had been approved by the Fine Arts Commission, and was a fine composition, and there was every reason to hope that the next picture would equal the former in power, and expression, and impressiveness. Mr. Macliso had nearly finished his picture, and would shortly be entitled to receive payment, which was to be raised from £3,500, as it stood under the original agreement, to £5,000. The future paintings of Mr. Cope and Mr. Ward were to be raised by £100 each, according to the recommendation of the Fresco Commissioners, and each picture would in future be made the subject of a distinct agreement. The sum proposed for completing the clock tower and New Palace Yard was intended to be spent in this way:—The side of the clock tower which was now imperfect would have the same front as the sides towards Westminster Bridge and towards the river. It was proposed to take advantage of the higher level of 249 the ground in Bridge Street to make a subway, by which Members proceeding from Palace Yard might escape the danger of the present passage, and reach the other side of the road without crossing the causeway. This subway would open into the station of the Metropolitan District Railway, which was proposed to be made on the other side of Bridge Street, so that persons coming to and from Westminster would be able to pass into and out of the station without crossing the road. With regard to the open space, he would not adopt the suggestion of Sir Charles Barry of converting New Palace Yard into a quadrangle. It was proposed not to erect any more buildings around New Palace Yard. He preferred the grand effect of combining New Palace Yard and Parliament Gardens in one large open square, laid out as a whole, and securing a good view of the Abbey. The whole extent of space would therefore remain open; but it was proposed to put an iron fence where the wooden one now was, to cover the sloping ground with green turf, and to plant it with trees, for trees would flourish there if they were of the proper sort and well taken care of. Some expense would be incurred in levelling Palace Yard. In another year the arrangements would be completed for laying out Parliament Square, he had not been able to include all that in the Estimates this year. The architect intrusted with these matters was Mr. Edward Barry, who had shown much of the talent and power of his father, and the Department had entire confidence in him. The hon. and learned Gentleman would see clearly what was to be done from what he had stated. He had no specific plan to exhibit; but the plan the Government proposed would be gladly shown to the hon. Member.

§ MR. F. S. POWELL
said, one question he had asked had not been fully answered, with regard to the pictures for the Peers' Robing Room. He had asked what arrangements were made with Mr. Herbert for the paintings to decorate that room, and whether the "Judgment of Daniel" was to be executed on the walls of the room, or on canvas, to be fixed after its execution.

MR. COWPER
said, the Fine Arts Commission had estimated for eight pictures, but Government were unwilling at present to commit themselves for that number. The last agreement was for the picture of "The Judgment of Daniel;" 250 but the complete series would, of course, be painted by Mr. Herbert. He had prepared designs, and they had been approved by the Fine Arts Commission. Although, therefore, the Government had not asked the House to commit itself by the approval of a new agreement for many pictures, yet it was generally understood that there was no intention to deprive Mr. Herbert of what the Fine Arts Commission had committed to him—namely, the completion of that room, whenever Parliament provided the funds. "The Judgment of Daniel" was not to be executed in the room, but in Mr. Herbert's studio, on canvas, and to be placed on the wall when completed. This arrangement had been submitted to Sir Charles Eastlake, who entirely approved it.

§ MR. BRISCOE
said, he was glad to think there could now be no doubt as to the future intentions of the Government, that Mr. Herbert should have the opportunity of completing the other pictures pointed out by the Fine Arts Commission in the room in which he had already achieved such success.

§ SIR WILLIAM FRASER
said, he wished to ask, if the Government were determined not to allow a station on the Metropolitan Railway near the House of Commons? It had formerly been proposed to construct a railway close to the Houses of Parliament, but an objection, he understood, had been raised that it would interfere with the rights of the Crown. He wished to have some explanation upon this point?

§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS
said, he wished to know, if Mr. Herbert had abandoned fresco and adopted canvas?

MR. COWPER
said, that the room in the Lords where "The Judgment of Daniel" was to be placed required by the Peers, who could not give it up to enable Mr. Herbert to paint the wall; the only alternative therefore open to him was to paint on canvas and carry it into the room after being completed. Mr. Herbert, who was the best judge of what his pencil could execute, had told him that the new painting would exectly harmonize in colour, tone, light and general appearance with that now on the wall. The Government had not objected to the station of the Metropolitan Railway, but to the railway taking possession of the tunnel from Palace Yard. The station would be not in Palace Yard, as was proposed, but opposite the tower, on the other side of Bridge Street. 251 The railway company had power to take the houses on the north side of Bridge Street, provided they obtained the assent of Government, and that assent would only be given on the condition that any houses which might be erected in lieu of those to be pulled down should be built in a style which would harmonize with the architecture of the Palace.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
said, he wished to ask, whether the houses were to be built in the Gothic style?

MR. COWPER
said, that they would be in the Tudor, not in the Gothic style.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, he wished for information as to the large sum asked for the housekeeping expenses of the Houses of Parliament, amounting to £22,761. There was a sum of £4,775 for gas, the greater part of which, he understood, was consumed in the private residences in the Palace. This appeared to be an enormous sum for the purpose, and he was desirous to know whether the amount of gas was accurately measured by proper persons appointed for the purpose, as he thought there must be great waste somewhere?

MR. COWPER
said, that the large amount of gas consumed had been already brought under his notice. Dr. Percy, under whose superintendence the Houses were lighted and warmed, had been making a careful measurement of the amount consumed, and they were rather surprised at the office to find how much gas was used in the private residences. The attention of the occupiers of the private residences had been called to the fact, and a considerable saving had already been effected. He had no doubt that next year they would be able to make a further reduction.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, he wished to ask what amount had been expended in the restoration of St. Stephen's crypt. There was an entry of £2,055 only in the Votes for that purpose, but he understood that it had, in fact, cost £30,000.

MR. COWPER
said, that the chief expense connected with the crypt at present was incurred in lighting it with gas, and the gasburners would be expensive, as they were obliged to be in harmony with the rest of the structure. He could not say exactly what the restoration had cost, as it was included in contracts for the whole building; the stone work had been calcined in the fire, and had required to be renewed. He should say that a sum of 252 £3,500 would cover the cost of the decoration in painting, marble, and in painted glass. The charge for painting and gilding was £630.

§ MR. DILLWYN
What is to be the use of this crypt?

MR. COWPER
It is a place of worship, and I presume it will be used as such.

§ MR. WYLD
said, he wished to draw attention to the letters which appeared in the Standard, from a former officer of the House, complaining of the state of the boilers, and the danger likely to ensue from the want of proper superintendence. There were four steam boilers, connected with the warming and ventilation of the House, immediately underneath where they were sitting. He wished to know whether they were under proper scientific superintendence. He might also say that the ventilation of the House was most unsatisfactory, it being alternately either too cold or too hot. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to direct the officers of the House to attend to the matter, and, while he was seeking to surround hon. Members with the fine arts, would not altogether forget their comforts. Hon. Members on the Government side of the House often suffered considerable personal inconvenience.

§ SIR WILLIAM FRASER
said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would attend to the health and convenience of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches as well as of those occupying seats on the Government side of the House. The fact was, there were frequent complaints as to the ventilation on both sides of the House; for from some mysterious cause between the hours of four and six in the afternoon many Members were in a state of semi-asphyxia. He believed it was owing to the imperfect state of the ventilation.

MR. COWPER
said, that the hon. Member need not have the slightest fear respecting the boilers, as Mr. Fairbairn had reported as to their entire safety, and had undertaken to keep them in order. He was sorry if the drowsiness of hon. Members were attributable to the ventilation, but everything possible should be done to supply pure air and to prevent hon. Members feeling any unpleasant effects from bad ventilation.

MR. COWPER
said, in answer to a question, that the buildings in Doctors' Commons stood in the way of the proposed new street from the Mansion House to Blackfriars, and would have to be pulled down. No expense would be immediately occasioned by pulling them down, because the Metropolitan Board of Works, which would purchase the property, would be bound to supply another registry, to which the deeds would be transferred until they could be removed together with the whole of the probate registers to one building in the proposed new courts of justice. Then the site of that registry would be for sale, when owing to the opening of the new street it would be more valuable.

§ MR. F. S. POWELL
said, he wished to ask whether the same style of architecture would be adopted for the enlargement as in the present building, and whether there would be adequate provision made against the casualty of fire?

MR. COWPER
said, that one complete design had been made of the whole building, and this Vote would enable one wing and also a tower to be completed. The reason for proceeding with the tower in preference to the other parts was because it would give them a reservoir for water, which would be available against any outbreak of fire in the buildings in Rolls Court.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS
said, that there were very large estates the funds arising from which were applicable to the building of Westminster Bridge, but those estates had been taken by the Government, and were now merged with the other estates under the management of the Office of Woods, and the present expenses of that bridge would far exceed anything which those estates would yield. The history of the new bridge illustrated the unfitness of Government for the execution of such 254 works. The contractor having failed the Government undertook to build it themselves by measure and value. He thought what had been done showed that the Government were unable to construct a work which required skill. It cost a very large sum, and was certainly a very handsome structure; but although the bridge was a wide one, it was divided into narrow roads, along which it was intended that the traffic should go. Those Government grooves were so inconvenient that the police had great difficulty in compelling the public to keep to them; and now the trams were being taken up. The level of the bridge had also been altered, and some hundreds of tons of useless material with which the arches had been loaded were now being removed at an expense of nearly £10,000. He hoped that there would be no Vote of the same kind in the Estimates for another year. Moreover, there was a further expense to the State of £2,500 per annum for watering, cleansing, and lighting the bridge. As the bridge had been built at the cost of the country, it was surely not too much to expect that the local districts should pay for its cleansing, watering, and lighting as in the case of country bridges.

MR. COWPER
said, he was glad to hear the hon. Member admit, although he said the Government could not construct a bridge that required any skill, that Westminster Bridge was a handsome structure. He declined to be responsible for what the hon. Member termed "the Government grooves," or trams on the bridge, because from the beginning he thought it a mistake to place them in the middle of the road, and they were now being removed to the sides. His motive for not at once insisting on the correction of the mistake of the engineer in that respect was, that it would have delayed the opening of the structure to the public. The present Vote would cover all the expenses that could be incurred for these alterations. The change in the level was required through Mr. Page the engineer not having strictly adhered to the Parliamentary plan. It would be very desirable that the parishes should undertake to pay for the cleansing and lighting of the bridge, but they could not easily be induced to do so. The answer of the parishes on that point was, that since its erection the bridge had been maintained out of trust funds. Although the item of £2,500 might be an annual 255 one, yet the State had received trust property which amounted, when taken, to £11,000 a year.

§ SIR WILLIAM FRASER
said, that the designs for the lions for the column could not have been intrusted to better hands than those of Sir Edwin Landseer, but a long delay had taken place, and he wished to inquire when it was probable that the lions would be completed.

MR. COWPER
said, that Sir Edwin Landseer had been fastidious in doing this work, for feeling how much was expected of him, he was not content with anything which would fall short of the standard of excellence which he felt his genius could attain. He was happy to say that the model of the first lion was completed, and now in the hands of the casters, being put into metal, and he hoped that the others would follow very rapidly, so that, probably, next year they might see the whole four.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, it had been proved before the Select Committee of last year that the Patent Office was crowded and insufficient for its purpose, and he thought that spending any more upon it was like throwing good money after bad. It would be better to take the bull by the horns, and erect a suitable office and library at once.

§ MR. F. S. POWELL
said, he wished to know if there was any present intention to carry out the recommendation of the Committee as to the patent library? With reference to the museum, he desired to be informed whether it was to be a museum confined to patent inventions, or including mechanical arts generally? Was the museum to be continued at Kensington, and was it to be upon the pattern of that in America or of the one in Paris?

MR. COWPER
said, that the Committee were unanimous that the Patent Office should be near Chancery Lane. They also thought that it was not desirable that the Museum should be in close proximity to the office. They also thought that it might be a museum of general mechanical inventions. The Government felt that accommodation should be at once provided for the Patent Office, while they thought that the museum might wait for further consideration. They also thought that no 256 better site than the present could be had for the Patent Office; and they therefore would continue it in the present building, to which, however, they would add another storey for a library room and for the convenience of reference. A portion of the house in Southampton Buildings, which was used for other offices, would soon be given up to the Patent Office, As to the Museum, the Government had not yet come to any decision upon it.

§ MR. F. S. POWELL
said, he thought the building in which the patent models were at Kensington was extremely inadequate for the purpose, and asked whether the Government would extend it.

MR. COWPER
said, that this building would soon be removed, but another might be erected.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, he did not agree that the Museum should be at Kensington.

SIR WILLIAM ERASER
said, he believed it to be the general opinion that the duty of extinguishing fires in London ought not to be left entirely to the insurance companies, however meritorious their efforts had been, and however ready they were to assist in saving property, whether insured or not. It might be very desirable to establish a central fire brigade in the metropolis, but he thought it would be well if some explanation were given by the Government of this novel item amounting to £10,000.

MR. T. G. BARING
said, that the £10,000 would only be made use of if the House assented to a Bill which he should ask leave to introduce next week for the formation of a metropolitan fire brigade. At present the protection of the metropolis from fires was entirely in the hands of the insurance companies, which had proved efficient brigades for their own purposes; but the Committee of 1862 reported that the means now in existence were quite inefficient to protect the metropolis. It was, therefore, proposed to place the duty in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The insurance companies had agreed to contribute £10,000 a year towards the new brigade; the Metropolitan Board would levy a rate of not more than a halfpenny in the pound within the metropolitan area for the same purpose; and, in consideration of the large amount of Government property and 257 of public buildings which would enjoy protection, it was thought not unreasonable that £10,000 per annum should be contributed in aid of the brigade from the general taxation of the country, that being the same proportion which was contributed to the cost of the metropolitan police. The total cost of the brigade would be £50,000 a year.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, there could be no objection to the imposition of a tax on the metropolis for the protection of the property of its inhabitants. But he saw no reason why the country generally should be required to contribute to such a charge. Were not the public buildings insured, and if they were insured, was it not the business of the insurance companies to provide against their destruction? That was a matter in which the great question of general and national, as distinguished from local and metropolitan taxation was involved, and he held such decided views upon the subject that he should feel it his duty to oppose the Vote.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, that the proposed payment was not in aid of the local rates of the metropolis, but in respect of the protection which would be enjoyed by public buildings in which the whole country had an interest. They were in London because London was the scat of the national Government. It was only reasonable that the Houses of Parliament and public offices in which the whole business of the country was transacted, should be protected from fire by the help of the public funds.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, that the rate would be paid all over the metropolis, and why should not the Government pay as well as everybody else for the protection which would be afforded to the Government buildings?

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, that the explanation of the Home Secretary was more remarkable for ingenuity than for candour. He said that this Vote was for the protection of public property. But the proposed fire brigade was for the protection of property generally in the metropolis; and the protection of the public buildings was only a collateral circumstance. This was another attempt to dive into the public purse for the benefit of the metropolis; it would add to the profits of the insurance companies, amounting to a grant to them, so that they also would share in the general taxation of the country. There was no pretext for the Vote.

§ MR. THOMSON HANKEY
said, that the House was not asked to vote the whole sum required for the protection of life and property in the metropolis, but only to contribute to the general charge in respect of the property of the nation, such as the Houses of Parliament, the Palaces, the public offices, and Woolwich Arsenal and Dockyard.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
said, he should support the Vote, believing it to be a step in the right direction. He thought the Government ought to contribute their fair proportion towards the rates of the country.

§ MR. BRADY
said, if the Vote were agreed to, other large towns would ask the House to make them grants for the establishment of fire brigades. The reduction of the fire insurance duty would greatly improve the business of the fire offices, and there was the less reason for subsidising them with this Vote of £10,000 for that was the real object of the Vote.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS
said, that the existing brigade was supported by those who insured their property; the State did not insure, and it was not right that those who did, should have to bear the cost of protecting the national property. In Manchester and Glasgow the fire insurance offices did not provide brigades, but they were provided by the town.

§ MR. POLLARD-URQUHART
said, he wished to know, whether the contribution of £10,000 would be repeated in future years? He thought it too large.

§ SIR WILLIAM FRASER
said, he wished to inquire, what would be the character of the brigade which was about to be established?

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, that the Government could not attempt to bind the House of Commons in future years. The sum which was now asked for was intended as a contribution towards the establishment of a fire brigade of a more extensive character than that which now existed. That brigade would be placed under the management of the Metropolitan Board of Works; the insurance companies would contribute a sum towards the general expenses, and would hand over their plant and engines; and the brigade would be supported partly by a general rate and partly by a contribution from the insurance offices and a grant from the public revenue in consideration of the protection which would be afforded to the national buildings.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, that hon. Gentle men talked of the necessity for insuring the Houses of Parliament, but they had already done that by a Vote of £1,650 which the Committee had passed that evening.

MR. COWPER
said, the Vote which had been already passed was merely for means for the extinction of fire within the Houses of Parliament; but the £10,000 now asked was to provide for fire brigades outside. One of its purposes was to secure fire engines for the security of property on the banks of the river, including docks, such as those at Woolwich; and a Government contribution was necessary. When hon. Gentlemen considered what the loss would be if Woolwich Dock yard were consumed by fire; and the various public offices, barracks, arsenals, that were to be preserved, they would not grudge the sum required.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, that £10,000 a year represented an insurance upon £4,800,000, and he thought this a most expensive method of insuring public property. He wished to know why the brigade was not to extend to all Government establishments throughout England?

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
said, he hoped it would be remembered that it was not merely buildings, but valuable records and public papers that were to be preserved.

§ SIR WILLIAM FRASER
said, he wished to ask, whether this included the purchase of the block of houses extending from opposite the Duke of Buccleuch's house towards Westminster Abbey?

MR. COWPER
explained that he had intended to introduce a Bill for the purchase of the property opposite the Duke of Buccleuch's house and down to Upper Charles Street. Arrangements could not be made in time for the introduction of a Bill this Session, but he hoped that it would be submitted to the new Parliament.