CLASS II. SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS. (Hansard, 26 May 1865)

§ MR. BLACKBURN
complained that he and other hon. Members had been taken by surprise. He was not aware they were going into another class of Estimates at that time of night.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, notice was distinctly given that the Civil Service Estimates would be taken.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
thought the proceeding was somewhat unfair. The First Commissioner of Works was absent when these Estimates were last before the House.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the real question was, whether the House was disposed to go on with business?

MR. COWPER
said, he owed an apology to the Committee for not being present on the former occasion; but he could not understand why his presence now should be a reason for not going on with the Vote.

§ MR. BLACKBURN
asked for some explanation of the Vote, the aggregate amount of which for the mere inspection of public buildings, parks, &c., seemed to be excessive. There were no less than forty clerks in the Department, costing £11,500 a year.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
asked, whether Mr. Pennethorne, who received £1,500 yearly as the salaried architect and surveyor of the Board, received a further sum of £800 in another capacity. He also wished to know whether it was 944 the same gentleman who had been engaged in the preparation of plans for the transference to South Kensington of those collections which the Government for ten years had been vainly trying to induce the House to send there?

MR. COWPER
said, that Mr. Pennethorne received a salary of £1,500 a year for his services as Surveyor, and as adviser of the Office on architectural questions. The arrangement under which the services of Mr. Pennethorne were secured to the public was economical; the professional fees for the work performed by that gentleman would have amounted in some years to a larger sum than his salary. The extensive purchases of land on the site of the new Foreign Office and of the land between Bridge Street and New Palace Yard, had been conducted by that gentleman, upon whom had also devolved a great deal of business connected with Battersea Park and other metropolitan improvements. It was necessary that there should be some professional man permanently connected with the department to whom application could be made for advice, and Mr. Pennethorne was a very able man, of great experience. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn) had spoken of the largeness of the total payments; but in reality the office was undermanned, and the persons employed had more business devolved upon them than they ought to have if they were more numerous. What was required of the surveyor of works, was not too highly paid by the £1,000 a year given to him as salary.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
asked, whether Mr. Pennethorne was paid extra as architect for the Record Office. [Mr. COWPER: Yes.] He then wished to know whether, if the Government nominated Mr. Pennethorne as architect for the new Law Courts, he would have extra pay for furnishing plans for them.

MR. COWPER
said, that the agreement with Mr. Pennethorne was that he should give his services to the Board as acting surveyor and consulting architect; but when he was employed to furnish designs, or act as an architect in erecting new buildings, then he would receive his 5 per cent like other architects. In former days the Office of Works had three architects, who received a percentage—3 per cent, he believed—for their labours, and the Office was bound to employ those architects in every work which was erected. It was, however, thought that it would be an immense advantage that the Office should 945 not be restricted to any particular architect, but should have the selection of the best talent. Mr. Pennethorne had no absolute claim to be employed on any now work; but if the Office should prefer him to any other architect, he then took his ordinary position as an architect, and received his 5 per cent.

§ MR. COX
said, that it appeared that Mr. Pennethorne had his £1,500 a year when he had nothing to do, and when he had something to do he then took his 5 percent.

MR. COWPER
observed that Mr. Pennethorne received £1,500 for his services as surveyor in valuing and purchasing property required for public and Government purposes, and the other payments were for services as architect in designing and superintending new buildings.

§ MR. DOULTON
inquired whether Mr. Pennethorne bad anything to do with the Foreign Office.

MR. COWPER
replied that the building in Downing Street was being erected by Mr. Scott. When important works wore to be executed by Votes of that House, it was thought undesirable that Mr. Pennethorne or any other gentleman should be necessarily employed. It was deemed better to appeal to the profession at large, and, after competition, to select the best man.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
thought that what Mr. Pennethorne did for his £1,500 a year had not been satisfactorily explained. The right hon. Gentleman said that he acted as surveyor; but he perceived by the Estimates that there was a surveyor of works at £1,000 a year, and also an assistant-surveyor at £800 a year. The legal charges connected with the Board of Works amounted to no less than £4,000 a year.

MR. COWPER
explained that Mr. Pennethorne was the surveyor who surveyed and negotiated the purchase of property that might be required, and Mr. Hunt was consulting surveyor in the office, giving his advice on matters referred to him.

§ MR. COX
asked what the man did who received £1,000 a year.

MR. COWPER
said, that the political head of the Department required a professional man like Mr. Hunt to give him his advice on matters coming within his special knowledge and experience.

§ MR. BLACKBURN
said, be had no objection to the Board giving a good surveyor £1,000 a year, but why was it necessary to spend £5,000 a year in assistants? The Board bad forty-three clerks, which seemed to argue an incredible quantity of writing.

§ MR. LYGON
asked, whether some arrangement could not be come to by which the legal expenses of the two Departments of Works and Woods should not be swollen by their Parliamentary contests. Hon. Members would remember how the two Departments contended with each other about the Thames Embankment. It was for the responsible Advisers of the Crown to settle the squabbles of these two Departments.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he was not aware of any opposition between the Offices of Woods and Works that entailed expense. There was a question in regard to the Thames Embankment between the Woods and Forests on the one hand and the tenants of the Crown on the other, and the latter thought it worth their while to fall back upon an opinion given by the Commissioner of Crown Estates. It was, however, a mistake to suppose that there was any conflict in law.

§ MR. DOULTON
inquired the cause of the delay in laying before the Chancellor of the Exchequer the materials necessary for him to form an opinion in respect to the Estimate required for the new buildings at Kensington designed by Captain Fowke.

MR. COWPER
said, that as the building was intended for the Natural History collections of the British Museum, it was thought right to give the officers of the Museum an opportunity of considering the plans. Accordingly, Captain Fowke's plans were sent to the Trustees at the end of last year. They were anxious to give them full consideration, and they had only lately expressed an opinion, which was not however final, as they had referred the plans to a sub-Committee. When the Trustees had made up their minds the Government would resume its action.

§ MR. BLACKBURN
said, that the Commissioner of Woods took one view about the proposed road between Piccadilly and Park Lane, and the Commissioner of Works another.

MR. COWPER
said, that the Office of Works was concerned in the scheme, because a portion of the Park was proposed to be taken. It was true that there was some difference between the Commissioner of Woods and himself as to the propriety of making the street; but no expense was caused thereby to either Department. The best and most costly plan would be the widening of Park Lane, but the work must be undertaken by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and he doubted whether the 947 Board would incur the expense of the best plan.

§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
said, that having served on the Thames Embankment Committee, he could assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a fierce war was waged between the two Departments. The Commissioner of Woods thought that the Crown property was damaged by the proceedings of the Commissioner of Works. What additional expense was caused by this fierce contest he did not know, but it occupied the Committee for a very considerable period, and he could not but think that disputes of this kind ought to be avoided. The matter had Deen argued by counsel, and considerable expense and loss of time had been incurred. He quite agreed that there should be a thoroughly good legal authority in the office of the Commissioner of Works to consult, and also that there should be a thoroughly competent architect. But for new works why should he not have recourse to the architects and surveyors who were to be found in such abundance in the metropolis? He was confident that if that plan were adopted a saving of expense would be effected in the Department.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, it was quite as true that the speech just delivered by the hon. Baronet had cost the public a certain sum of money. Every hour of the sitting of that House involved expense in the shape of the labour of officers, wear and tear of furniture, and light; and in that sense only was there any difference in the expense which arose between the Office of Works and the Office of Woods. Then the hon. Baronet laid down the proposition that if the Commissioner of Woods and Works had been the same person, no difference would have arisen. That was undoubtedly true. Twenty years ago that was the case; but Parliament was not satisfied with the state of things, and an Act was passed, the object of which was to give an independent voice to those officers who were placed in the immediate control of the Crown Estates. Occasionally, the Commissioner of Works, viewing a question from one point, formed a different estimate from that of the Commissioner of Woods, who looked at it from another point of view, but the general result had been beneficial. Parliament had a fuller and more perfect bearing of what was to be said upon a question in reference to the several interests involved, and there was no additional expense to the State.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
asked 948 whether it was the intention of the Government to erect upon the piece of ground at Brompton the building designed by Captain Fowke for the reception of the Natural History collections of the British Museum.

MR. COWPER
said, it was the intention of the Government to make a proposal, but he thought it better not to go now into the question what that proposal might be. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that no stop had been taken which would in the slightest degree prevent full and ample consideration of the subject, and nothing would be brought before the House without ample notice.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
protested against the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that Parliament in its wisdom had thought proper to do so and so, when the fact was that they had been beguiled into doing so by the Government. Formerly the Offices of Woods and Forests and of Works were one and the same, and represented the interests both of the Crown and the public. But now the Crown lands were no longer considered to be held for the benefit of the public. He should take an opportunity of showing that additional expense had been thrown upon the public by the separation of the Departments.