CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS. (Hansard, 14 March 1881)

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
wished, before the Vote was put, to make one or two remarks upon the conduct of the Government in reference to these Supplementary Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had represented to the House that they were urgent; but the Government had themselves failed to take the steps that were necessary, if there were any real urgency. The noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had for years been a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, and in that capacity the noble Lord was responsible for sundry paragraphs in successive Reports made by the Committee bearing upon the question. But the Committee of Public Accounts——

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the Supplementary Estimates generally upon the Vote now before the Committee; but only this particular Vote.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
presumed that it would be in Order to discuss them on a Motion to report Progress.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make a Motion to that effect; but he cannot discuss the Estimates generally on one particular Vote.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
thought he was at liberty to show the general 929 bearing of the Estimates. The Government had failed to take the steps that were necessary to enable the Committee to form a proper judgment upon the proposal they were now submitting, and he thought before these Supplementary Estimates were placed before the Committee, the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) should present some Report from the Public Accounts Committee. Nothing could be more emphatic than the language of the noble Lord as Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts upon that point, and although he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was unable to see in what respect he was out of Order, he submitted to the adverse ruling of the Chair. Otherwise, he should have desired to urge the matter, which he regarded as an important one, upon the attention of the Committee. He thought he should have been able to show conclusively that the course taken by the Government in this instance was an objectionable one. In regard to the particular Vote now before the Committee, he should be glad if the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would state whether anything was included for the Engineering Department in the Estimate of £1,500 for the Survey Buildings?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
was understood to reply in the negative.

MR. BRAND
asked when the Survey was likely to be completed?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he had stated a few days ago, in answer to a Question that was put to him, that if the Committee consented to vote the sum now asked for the Survey could be completed by the end of the year 1890, or about nine years hence.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
complained that a part of the sum in the Vote was not really for Supplementary Estimates, but for entirely new works, which were not provided for in the original Estimates of last year. Instead of voting a sum to cover a particular expenditure for the year, and then to ask for a Supplementary Estimate in order to cover any additional expenditure for that voted service, the practice now-a-days seemed to be to have two distinct sets of Estimates for two distinct services in the course of the same year. He strongly objected to the practice, and hoped that the Government would do 930 something to prevent it from occurring again.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, his hon. and gallant Friend (General Sir George Balfour) had a right to be jealous of these Supplementary Estimates; but how were they to avoid cases where unexpected demands were made on the Exchequer for expenditure which was not contemplated when the Estimates were framed? For instance, there was the sum included in the present Vote for the site of the Mint, which might be taken as an illustration. Before the present Government entered upon Office, the question of the purchase of the Mint site was referred by the late Government to arbitration, and the sum now asked for was in payment of the fees of the arbitrators. He could not suppose that his hon. and gallant Friend would wish that the arbitrators should be kept out of their fees, because the question had not occurred at the time the Estimates were originally framed. When it became necessary to pay such an item of expenditure the Government did all they could in the matter by drawing attention to the item in a note. The next item in the Vote was one of a similar character—namely, the payment for Metropolitan improvements. Arrangements had been made for acquiring certain property for improvements, and it was necessary to pay the purchase money into Court, as it was not clear at the time to whom it would have to be paid. As soon as the right to the money was established it was paid out of the sum deposited in Court. In regard to the item for Survey Buildings, the increased expenditure was due to the fact that the House last year desired that the Survey should be expedited, and the Government were endeavouring to comply with the wish thus expressed. It was necessary, in order to do this, that the Survey should be commenced in new districts.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
did not object to any further expenditure that was necessary for the purpose of expediting the Survey. It was highly necessary, he thought, that the Survey should be completed as soon as possible; but the Vote included a demand for work entirely new. He should be glad, however, to have some information as to the mode in which the sum of £141,000, which was the total 931 cost of the Survey for the year 1880–81, was made up. He would not oppose the Vote; but he was strongly of opinion that it was most objectionable to vote money in the shape of a Supplementary Estimate, when, in reality, it was nothing of the kind.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, he had no wish to object to these Supplementary Votes, and could fully understand the difficulty which the Government found themselves placed in. He presumed in regard to the item for the Mint site, that it only had reference to a preliminary arrangement, and that the matter would, on some subsequent occasion, be brought before Parliament in such a form that a discussion could be taken upon it.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
stated that the present Estimate would in no way interfere with any subsequent discussion.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that he found from the Appropriation Account of the Estimates last year, that something like £120,000 was received from the sale of two prisons. The sum of £49,000 was derived from the sale of the Queen's Bench. It, therefore, appeared to him, that this particular Department did not require any Supplementary Vote at all. Instead of requiring a further grant, there ought to be something carried forward to this year's account. He wished to know if there were any other prisons for sale?

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that the money was devoted to the relief of the Exchequer.

§ SIR HARRY VERNEY
thought that great injustice had been done to certain parts of the country in the manner in which the Ordnance Survey had been conducted. The whole country paid for the Survey—only a portion of the country benefited by it. The work ought to be pressed on as rapidly as possible—more surveyors and draftsmen employed—more money expended, which would be in great degree refunded by the sale of the maps. Sir Henry James, the late Chief of the Survey, had said to him that there ought to be no absolute limit to the number of the men employed in making the Survey, but that whatever 932 number of men were found to be necessary should be employed. He trusted there would be no unnecessary delay in completing the Survey.

Mr. GLADSTONE
was afraid that it was not altogether possible to meet the difficulty referred to by his hon. Friend of an appearance of unequal dealing in the progress made with the Survey in different parts of the country. It was manifestly impossible to proceed with the Survey at an equal rate of progress all over the country. It was the desire of the Government to expedite the completion of the Survey as much as possible so that they might be in a position to invite the House to legislate at an early period upon questions connected with the registry and transfer of land. So far as the registry and transfer of land were concerned, it was a matter of public expediency that they should have the Survey completed as early as possible. They were limited, however, in their operations by the impossibility of proceeding with the Survey beyond a certain rate of progress; but everything that could be done to expedite the completion of the Survey would be done.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
remarked, that the sum now asked for was in addition to the sum of £138,500 included in the original Estimate for 1880–81.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
remarked, that there was a claim upon the Landed Estates Court in Ireland, in Connection with the Survey, which amounted to a sum of £10,600, and which had been allowed to stand over for a considerable period. The fact that it had been allowed to stand over so long was sufficient to show that the administration of the Department was not all that might be wished. Unless the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was able to give a satisfactory explanation, he should feel inclined to object to any subsequent Estimate.

§ LORE FREDERICK CAVENDISH
explained that steps had been taken in Ireland to expedite a settlement; but the matter was not a very easy one to deal with. The Treasury were in communication with the Landed Estates Court on the subject, and had called upon them to hasten a conclusion.

§ Mr. BIGGAR
said, it seemed to him that the Landed Estates Court in Ireland had no idea of making any payment at 933 all. As long ago as the month of May last they promised to pay, and if there was any Public Department that had any control over them they ought to be made to pay.

§ MR. RYLANDS
thought the Vote required a little explanation. He did not understand why there should be an Estimate of £2,500 for new buildings at South Kensington, in addition to the original Estimate of £15,000, and a further sum of £1,456 for maintenance.

§ MR. MACDONALD
regarded the state of things displayed by this Vote as most unsatisfactory. The additional sum for maintenance was £1,456, and it included a charge for works and alterations, but without specifying the details. To his mind, this bore all the colour of a job—which was alike to be deplored under whatever Government or Party it was perpetrated. He thought that in all such cases it would be better to give the items. He trusted that, in future, in preparing these Estimates, the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would take steps for having them simplified.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, there was nothing more difficult than to decide, on framing the Estimates, what details ought to be given. One hon. Member accused the Government of presenting a mass of details which nobody could understand, while another complained that the details supplied were altogether inadequate. The expenditure at South Kensington was due to the fact that it had been found necessary to erect an additional storey to the offices of the Science and Art Department. He believed the necessity of doing something in the matter was impressed upon the late Government; and when it came before him he found, on inquiry, that a considerable number of the clerks who were employed in the existing offices were absolutely made ill by the insufficiency of the accommodation and the bad ventilation. The number of clerks had been considerably increased, owing to the urgent nature of the work, and still no additional accommodation was provided. In addition, the chimneys of the room in which they were employed smoked, and he had found it necessary to consider whether it was proper to retain a number of valu- 934 able public servants in this unsatisfactory condition for another year. He came to the conclusion that it was not; but it was not until after careful investigation that it was decided upon adding a new storey to the building. In regard to the Estimate for maintenance, it was principally duo to the removal of the Metallurgical Laboratory from Jermyn Street to South Kensington, and partly to the renewal of a portion of the internal painting of the Industrial Museum at Edinburgh. When the House in Jermyn Street was given up, a claim of £450 was made for delapidations, and there was a further sum for providing accommodation at South Kensington, and for the expense of removal.

MR. BRAND
asked for some further explanation in reference to the erection of the additional storey to the offices of the Science and Art Department at South Kensington. He wished to know why it had only been found necessary to erect the additional storey recently, and when it was that the additional number of officers were appointed for whom the extra accommodation was required?

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, the additional accommodation had been urgently required for the last two years. When the matter was brought under his notice, he did not feel himself justified in condemning these unhappy clerks to the room they had been occupying, for another year. He had hoped however, that the cost might have been defrayed out of the Estimates voted last year.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
was able to confirm the statement of the noble Lord, that the Department had been pressing for several years for the addition to the building of this storey; and if, like the noble Lord, he had been fortunate enough to possess a large surplus, he would certainly have yielded long ago to the pressure which had been put upon the Government. He was also able to confirm the statement of the noble Lord that the number of clerks had been lately increased, which added weight to the other arguments for additional accommodation. One argument was that the chimnies throughout the building smoked. That was met by altering the stoves, but it did not satisfy the clerks; and he was certainly able to say that, in the last year of his tenure of Office, the grievance had become a substantial one. 935 He had no doubt that the noble Lord had been pressed very strongly upon the matter, and that he had acted wisely in providing the additional accommodation.

§ LORD ELCHO
believed that the jealousy with which increased expenditure upon South Kensington was regarded was not altogether unfounded.

§ SIR HARRY VERNEY
had been informed by Professor Owen that all the ground on the north side of the new Museum would be wanted for the enlargement of the Museum in the course of time; that the new building was sufficient for a generation, but not more; and that the ground now offered for sale for building ought not to be sold. Any buildings erected there would have to be pulled down when the ground was wanted for the extension of the Museum.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, the system of dividing these Votes into Ordinary and Supplementary Estimates was very misleading, and was adopted by the Government in order to produce an impression, when they presented their original Estimates, that they were in favour of economy and retrenchment. Yet, having taken that course, they invariably came forward to ask for Supplementary Votes. He believed that the Estimates last year were considerably below what they ought to have been, and the Supplementary Votes now asked for abundantly proved it. They showed that the original Estimates had been largely exceeded; and in some instances there seemed to have been three series of Votes for the same service£an original Estimate, then a first Supplementary Estimate, and now an additional Supplementary Estimate. In regard to the particular items contained in the sub-heads of the present Vote, he found that for the year 1878–9 the Original Estimate was £20,774. In that year the actual expenditure was only £20,400. In 1880–81, the Government asked for £20,706; but they now found that that sum of £20,706 was too little by £5,087, and they therefore presented a Supplementary Estimate for that amount. In the Estimate for next year, he found they were actually doing the same thing—namely, cutting down the Estimate unreasonably, and asking for less than they were likely to require. Under the second sub-head of the Supplementary Estimate for the supply of water, precisely the same thing occurred— 936 £270 was asked for 1879–80, and £270 for 1880–81; but £50 additional was demanded in the shape of a Supplementary Estimate. Nevertheless, the Estimate for the present year was fixed at the same sum of £270; and, of course, it would be necessary to ask Parliament for a supplementary grant. The same thing occurred in the sub-head for fuel and light—£1,405 was asked for in 1878–9; £1,447 in 1880–81, and a Supplementary Estimate was required for £250, making the total expenditure £1,700. Notwithstanding that fact, the Government only asked this year for £1,525. It was perfectly clear that upon each sub-head it would be necessary to present a Supplementary Estimate next year, and the House had no real check whatever upon the expenditure.

§ MR. RYLANDS
rose for the purpose of asking the reason for the present supplementary expenditure. He objected to the system of framing the Estimates which placed in the possession of the Departments sums of money far above their actual necessities, and thought that where a Department had the means of estimating expenditure, the exact sum reasonably expected to be required should be laid before Parliament. No doubt, Parliament had a right to complain when Estimates were carelessly prepared, and when items, supposed to have been already provided for, made their appearance in Supplementary Estimates. The foot-note stated that the item of £250 was for water, fuel, and light at the Natural History Museum, for which no provision had been made. But, surely, the Department must have known it was necessary to make provision for these things. It appeared from the note, not only that the Department had not estimated the amount required, but that no provision whatever had been made for purposes that would clearly be necessary. He protested against the Estimates being prepared in such a manner as to prevent the Committee of Supply judging of the total expenditure, and objected to the necessity of being called upon for further sums in Supplementary Votes.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, the item in question was a new one, and would probably be larger next year.

§ MR. RYLANDS
considered this a most objectionable Supplementary Estimate. He ventured to warn the Committee that the Embassy houses abroad were a standing source of expense to the country. It appeared to him that there was no sufficient control of the expenditure either in Constantinople or St. Petersburg. The alterations, partly made at the suggestion of Ambassadors' and clerks of the works, were continually costing the British Exchequer very large sums of money. In fact, the amounts that had been spent on the Ambassadors' houses, which he thought the country had unwisely purchased, reached an almost incredible total. He thought, also, that large sums of money were spent, not only in this, but in other ways, for which the country received no benefit at all; and he ventured to say that the Department were bound to tell the Committee how they justified the expenditure for the present year. Let the Committee consider that a sum of £3,450 had been laid out in one year upon the palace of our Ambassador at St. Petersburg. That was a sum which he thought ought not to be allowed to pass without criticism, and he trusted the noble Lord would justify so serious a demand.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had only stated about one-fourth of the expenditure. The Estimates for last year only asked for £1,357, which sum showed an apparent excess of £320 over the previous year. But in 1879, after having first asked for £1,440, the Government claimed a further sum in the Supplementary Estimates of £8,356—that was to say, six times the amount originally asked for—and yet, when the Estimates of last year were produced, they showed only an apparent excess of £320 over the previous year. He, therefore, supported the appeal of the hon. Member for Burnley for information as to how much the palace of St. Petersburg had cost during the last 18 years.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, he could not say how much the Ambassador's palace at St. Petersburg had cost during the last 18 years.