CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS. (Hansard, 18 July 1884)

§ MR. MONTAGUE GUEST
said, he wished to take that opportunity of making a few remarks in regard to a subject upon which he had asked a Question—namely, the care of tapestries at Hampton Court. It appeared there was some difficulty with regard to ar- 1691 riving at a conclusion as to whose care they were under, whether of the Lord Lord Chamberlain or of the First Commissioner of Works, and on this particular subject he wished to make a few remarks. He asked a short time ago if some valuable tapestries at Hampton Court were to be restored, and the First Commissioner said the Lord Chamberlain had it under his consideration. He asked again this year—

MR. SHAWLEFEVRE
rose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member could open this question? He had explained that the tapestries were not under the charge of the First Commissioner; they were the property of the Queen, and were not included in this Vote or any Vote in connection with the Office.

THE CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERCHELL)
If the care of the tapestries to which the hon. Member alludes is not included in this Vote—if it does not come within the duties of those whose salaries are included in the Vote—the hon. Member is totally out of Order in referring to them.

§ MR. MONTAGUE GUEST
said, he thought it came under the Vote in question. There was a charge for the custodians of Hampton Court, who were paid through the First Commissioner. On that account he called attention to the subject. Moreover, he was told, Hampton Court was maintained at the expense of the public. It was very difficult to draw a conclusion as to whether the tapestries—

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
Hampton Court is dealt with under Class I. already passed by the House. It is not in this Vote.

§ MR. MONTAGUE GUEST
said, he begged to move a reduction of the Vote for the expenses of First Commissioner by £1,000. On this subject—

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
That is not in Order, for the tapestries not being under the charge of the First Commissioner, no question can be raised on that account for a reduction of the Vote.

§ MR. MONTAGUE GUEST
said, he thought he was in Order in moving a reduction of the Vote in consideration that the tapestries were part of the decoration of the building in which they were, and that they were not properly looked after by the First Commissioner.

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
It being no part of the duty of the First Commissioner to look after the tapestries, because they are not public property, it will not be in Order to deal with the subject of tapestries under this Vote.

§ MR. MONTAGUE GUEST
said, might he be allowed to show his case? He could prove that when the fire took place at Hampton Court last year certain tapestries were taken down and put up again by the First Commissioner of Works. The Secretary of the First Commissioner gave orders to put them up in a rotten state. He gave orders that they should be put up permanently; and, therefore, he (Mr. Guest) contended the tapestries were under the care of the Office of Works. If the First Commissioner put them up they were as much under his control as any part of the Palace. It would be difficult to draw a line between what part of the contents was under the control of the First Commissioner and what part was not. The furniture was under his control, and how was a line drawn at tapestry? He contended the care of the latter did come under the Vote, and he moved a reduction of the salary of the First Commissioner on consideration that the contents of Hampton Court, which he contended was national property—virtually national property—were not properly attended to.

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
Inasmuch as these tapestries are not national property, and are not under the control of the First Commissioners of Works, whatever may be said about the building, and the portion dealt with under Class I., the hon. Member is not in Order in discussing the subject.

§ MR. SEXTON
moved that Progress be reported, in order that information upon this subject might be given to the Committee.

§ MR. MONTAGUE GUEST
said, he should support that Motion, because he thought it was desirable that the Committee should have some information as to whose authority these valuable possessions were under—whether they were 1693 under the control of the Lord Chamberlain or the First Commissioner of Works. There was a difference of opinion on the matter, and it was almost impossible for the Committee to obtain any actual information; and meanwhile these valuable tapestries were going to decay.

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
The hon. Member cannot discuss this question on the Motion to report Progress.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, he thought there was something in what the hon. Member had said. The First Commissioner stated after the fire occurred that he was at the Palace, and gave orders there. He recollected well the interest the right hon. Gentleman took in the whole matter, and, therefore, it was clear there was a strong conflict of opinion upon the subject of authority; but at that rate now he thought it would be better not to proceed with these Estimates. He had a long speech to make that night; even if he had to speak at 3 o'clock he intended to make it; and he did not think it was fair to the Committee to take these important questions at that hour. He should support the Motion, and he thought it would be only fair to the Committee if, after the long Sittings there had been lately, the consideration of these Estimates was postponed.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he did not think a postponement was necessary. It was true that he had to go down to Hampton Court Palace and take precautions; but the tapestries were not national property. They belonged to the Queen, and were under the charge of the Lord Chamberlain.

§ MR. MONTAGUE GUEST
asked whether it was not the fact that the officers of the First Commissioner had ordered the tapestries, when they were much damaged by water, to be dried and re-hung in the Palace last year?

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
The hon. Member cannot discuss this matter on the Motion to report Progress.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he thought that if a point of Order had not been raised by the First Commissioner this Motion would not have been made, and the time of the Committee would not have been wasted. The hon. Member was, perhaps, technically out of Order; but if he had been allowed three or four 1694 minutes to make his little complaint the whole thing would have been over. There would be a Division, and then how would the First Commissioner be any better off? He should support the Motion, and he would submit that if time was to be saved, and Motions were not to be provoked, the Members of the Treasury Bench should refrain from provoking them.

§ SIR HENRY HOLLAND
suggested that this Vote should be postponed, and the Motion to report Progress be withdrawn.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he thought the First Commissioner had been very wrong in raising the point of Order.

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
The hon. and learned Member cannot discuss that point upon this Motion.

§ MR. MONTAGUE GUEST
said, the whole difficulty might be settled if the First Commissioner would say where the limit was drawn between the authority of the First Commissioner and of the Lord Chamberlain with regard to the contents of Hampton Court Palace.

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
That question would in itself be quite in Order; but it cannot be discussed on the Motion to report Progress. If that Motion is disposed of the question will be in Order.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, he hoped the First Commissioner would postpone this Vote.

MR. JUSTIN HUNTLYM'CARTHY
said, he believed that the subjects of some of the tapestries in Hampton Court Palace were taken from the "Triumphs" of Petrarch. As one of the greatest admirers of Petrarch living, he should have great pleasure in supporting the Motion.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he should be happy to explain the difference between the First Commissioner of Works and the Lord Chamberlain. The First Commissioner was responsible for 1695 all the buildings of the Palace, and the maintenance of the buildings; but the pictures and tapestry and other things of that kind were in the charge of the Lord Chamberlain. He therefore had no concern in the tapestries, and he had no responsibility for the pictures—they were solely under the charge of the Lord Chamberlain. They could be removed from Hampton Court to any other Palace. It was true that when they were damaged by the fire the tapestries were redried and put up again. The matter was under the consideration of the Lord Chamberlain. The responsibility did not rest with him (Mr. Shaw Lefevre).

§ MR. MONTAGUE GUEST
said, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) for the information he had received from him. He only drew attention to the matter because he considered it of importance, and because he believed that the question properly arose in connection with the Office of the First Commissioner of Works. There could be no doubt that all the tapestries at Hampton Court, unless properly examined and repaired, would be desperately damaged. They were at present in a very bad state, and now, whilst they, were being put up and refastened, they could be put in repair with very little trouble. Of course it required a person with some knowledge of the needle to remedy the defects. He would not proceed further with the matter at the present time.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he should like to ask the First Commissioner of Works a question. He understood that the Government had had occasion to dismiss a certain set of clerks in consequence of malpractices—that the Government had discovered that a whole series of peculations had been going on for many years, and he was informed that the First Commissioner of Works had made a change in the personnel of the Furniture Department. If, however, the change was such as had been described to him he certainly believed that it would lead to as many malpractices as had occurred before. He was informed that the arrangement was that, instead of going straight to the manufacturer for the purchase of articles of furniture, the Go- 1696 vernment went to the merchant. Why should that be the case in the Furnishing Department any more than it was in any of the other great spending Departments of the State? He could not see why an immense expenditure of hundreds of thousands a-year should be conducted through the merchants of London when they could deal straight with the manufacturers. He wished to know whether it really was the case that they dealt with the merchants as he understood it? The argument of the Department was that all these goods required to be fitted; but why could they not buy from the manufacturer, and get servants of their own to do the fitting? The persons who hitherto had had temptation placed before them had fallen into it; and, that being the case, he could not see why they should continue the system of placing temptation before anyone. They could not be blind to the fact that when they went into the City and made contracts with merchants they were dealing with people who had many opportunities of "getting at" the officials. Was it the case that, in spite of the reform brought about by the right hon. Gentleman in one respect, there were still defects in other respects?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, it was true that some time ago he had discovered that inferior linoleum was being supplied to the Department. In consequence of that, he initiated an inquiry which resulted in the dismissal of these officials and the reorganization of the Department. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was not quite correct in what he said as to the practice resulting from that change. The hon. Gentleman had said they could go direct to the manufacturers and obtain their supply of linoleum from them; but that was not the case.

§ MR. HEALY
I was not referring to one article, but to all articles.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, with regard to this special article, the manufacturer could not supply it direct to the Government. The method practised in the particular, article was such that the manufacturer could not supply direct to the Government. It could only be bought through an agent. Several gentlemen tendered—all agents of manufacturers—and the Government accepted the lowest. He had found that the system of adver 1697 tising for goods was not carried out to the extent to which it was represented to him to be the case. Since the change he had effected, he had directed that tenders should be applied for as openly as possible. In some cases only a limited number of persons were asked to tender; but that was in connection with special articles, where there was a very limited number to choose from. He had laid it down as a rule that, where it was possible, tenders should be invited; and he had not the slightest doubt but that in future it would be found that the system adopted would work to the public advantage.

§ MR. HEALY
said, that, as he understood it, the peculations had arisen in consequence of various articles being obtained through intermediaries in the City of London. He was under the impression that the articles obtained were got by these intermediate means, and not by direct means; and that it was this mode of obtaining goods which had led to the fall of the set of clerks.

§ MR. CARINGTON
said, he should like to know why these persons had been dismissed.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, it was not the case that the general practice was to obtain goods through agents. That was only the case with certain articles, like this linoleum manufactured by a special firm, where the firm did not supply goods directly to the public, but only through agents. With regard to the cause of the dismissals, these officers had been sent away for gross neglect of duty. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had not dismissed them for fraud; but for gross neglect of duty.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, the last answer fully illustrated one of the faults of the present system. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works seemed to consider that it was necessary in obtaining linoleum that they should purchase one particular kind. Why was it necessary that one kind, and only that particular kind, should be purchased?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
remarked, that experience had shown that Staines's linoleum was the best article of the kind to use—in fact, that it was almost essential for the use of some Government Offices. It was the only article which could be used for the passages of those 1698 Departments where there was a great amount of traffic.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he would now move to report Progress. They had had a great deal of work to do that night; and, seeing that the Government had thrown over a great many measures that blocked the way of the Estimates, there would, no doubt, be a great deal of time for the discussion of the various Votes in the remaining days of the Session, and therefore it was not essential that they should go on very late that night. They should consider the Estimates duly and properly. He moved to report Progress.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, he hoped that, before making that Motion, his hon. and learned Friend would at least allow the present Vote to be taken.

§ MR. WARTON
Well, this Vote, and this Vote only.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, that if they took only three Votes in the course of an evening, as they did yesterday, they could not expect the Prorogation to take place at a convenient period. He thought the Committee might very easily take this Vote and the next Vote to-night.

§ MR. WARTON
Very well; take those two.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
said, he saw China mentioned three or four times, and he wished to know whether the Board of Works were specially interested in China? It would be much better, he thought, that the Vote should appear under the head of Embassies.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, that before an answer was given to the last question, he should like to have some clear understanding arrived at as to the system adopted in the Department. It was absurd to talk about this particular kind of linoleum, in regard to the purchase of which these officials had been discharged, being better than any other linoleum. It was well-known that that particular linoleum had been sent in to the Railway Companies for their approval with other kinds, and that it had been beaten in the market over and over 1699 again. He did not know why this kind should be preferred to another; and he should not be able to account for the preference given to it if, from his official experience, he was not aware that contracts were sometimes made in consequence of the personal influence of members of the staff.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he could show that that was not so, by pointing to the fact that he had been specially informed that this linoleum was almost necessary for certain public Departments. If the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would communicate to him his knowledge of the better kinds of linoleum, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would institute other inquiries and endeavour to get at the bottom of the matter. If the Government could find a better description of article than that they were using at present they would be very glad to adopt it.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
Consult the Railway Companies.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
The linoleum we use is considered necessary, especially in the Post Office, where there is a very large amount of traffic.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
Do all the Embassies come under the Vote?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
No.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
said, that China and Constantinople seemed to come under this Vote, and what he wanted to know was why these two came under it, and other places under another? It could not be very convenient to have payments scattered around in this way under several Votes.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
The personnel comes under this Vote.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
The personnel of all the Embassies?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
Yes; we have a surveyor at China.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works seemed to attach the greatest importance to having the best, quality of linoleum; but he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) believed that these clerks had been dismissed because an inferior quality had been delivered. What he should like to know was, whether or not there had been a system of giving commissions going on in the Office of the First Commissioner of Works—giving commissions for passing an inferior article as the best article? What check had the right 1700 hon. Gentleman introduced to prevent such a proceeding? Why had these officials been dismissed? Was it for having taken these commissions—for passing off on the State an inferior article on the allegation that it was a superior one?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, the superintendent of the Furniture Department had for four or five years in succession been, they discovered, receiving inferior linoleum instead of the best.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
Was he paid anything for the transaction?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
I cannot say. We, of course, had very strong suspicions in the matter. Among other causes for the dismissal of the superintendent of the Furniture Department was this—that he had told the head of his Department and myself that a good article was being supplied, and on the strength of that representation we renewed the contract three successive years. We found, on the last occasion when he informed us that a good article was being supplied, that the contractor had failed, and had paid to his creditors only 1s. in the £. The superintendent of the Department knew that, and yet did not inform us of it. He knew it, and yet allowed the contract to be renewed with the knowledge of the fact. The other clerks were dismissed because it was their duty to go to the several Departments and see the article delivered. It was their duty to examine the linoleum when delivered, and report as to whether it was according to contract. They knew perfectly well what the requirements were; and yet when an inferior article was supplied, and they were questioned, they stated that they had never examined it at all. They had certified that it was equal to the best linoleum without having examined it. They were consequently dismissed, forfeiting all right to pension.

§ MR. HEALY
asked whether every article purchased by this Department was not in the same position? The Department supplied everything in the way of fittings and furniture; and he wished to know whether every article was not obtained through agents in the City of London, thereby even at the present time exposing existing clerks to the temptation which had been too powerful for the clerks who had been dismissed?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, the temptation would be the same, whether the article was supplied through the manufacturer or through an agent.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he did not think that was so.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
Why not?

§ MR. HEALY
said, he would undertake to explain to the right hon. Gentleman why it was not the same thing. It was a very different thing; because, in the first place, when dealing with the manufacturer, they would be dealing with a person who was one of a very small class. In the case of linoleum, it was admitted that there were a very small number of manufacturers. The firm had its reputation to maintain—they had the guarantee of the name of the firm.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, the manufacturer would not supply the linoleum direct; therefore the Government were obliged to get it from the agents. He had already explained that there were a few articles supplied in that way. The great bulk of the articles were supplied direct from the manufacturer, and when that was the case the trade were asked to tender. In the case of furniture, for instance, the Department generally invited seven or eight of the leading manufacturers to send in tenders. It was thought wise to ask only firms of good reputation to tender for furniture, and the Department chose the lowest price sent in.

§ MR. GRAY
said, he had been amazed by the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works that the temptation to commit fraud was the same whether they were dealing with the head of a manufacturing firm or an agent. He ventured to say there was no business man in the House who would endorse the opinion which seemed to commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman. Any man who had any knowledge whatsoever of business knew that in nine cases out of 10 the corruption of which they complained was practised by the middle men. They were frequently persons who had no reputation, and he was sure there were many Members of the House who, having to deal in considerable quantities of goods, would not think of going, or of permitting their manager to go, to middle men; they would go direct to the firm, and rely upon its reputation for their protection. 1702 The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had argued that the temptation to the clerk was precisely the same whether they dealt with the agent or with the manufacturer; but he (Mr. Gray) could hardly credit that. He certainly did not believe it was the experience of business men.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, that if a clerk was fraudulently inclined he could as easily receive a bribe from a manufacturer as from an agent; and there were just as many manufacturers who would bribe a clerk as agents. It was unquestionably the fact that if, in the case of furniture, they invited tenders from all the world, and took the lowest one, the probability was they would get articles of the lowest type of manufacture.

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH
considered that the First Commissioner of Works was perfectly right. It was notorious that in every Department there was just the same liability to corruption in cases where the manufacturer tendered, as in cases where goods were obtained through an agent. There was no more security against corruption in the one case than the other. What was wanted was, that there should be the greatest surveillance over the actions of the employés. He was sorry to hear from the First Commissioner of Works that he had no evidence upon which he could undertake a prosecution. Of course, there might be overwhelming evidence as to the negligence of the servants, but not as to the fraud. He was surprised that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House had not comprehended that which was plainly stated by the right hon. Gentleman. There were certain articles which manufacturers would not supply to consumers; they would only supply those who sold again. In the case of Staines's linoleum, there was no alternative but to get it through an agent, who, of course, received a small percentage for his work. It was necessary that furniture should be made of good and well-seasoned wood; and, therefore, it was wise for the Department to confine themselves to houses which possessed good reputations. Anyone who had any experience at all knew that, if people dealt with a fourth-rate furniture manufacturer, it was very possible for them to give 15s. for an article that was only worth 10s. It was well-known, too, 1703 that those who were open to be bribed, and those who wanted to transact business with the Department, were always at work, in the hope of getting some advantage out of the State. All the Committee could ask for was, that there should be as much vigilance exercised at head-quarters as possible.

§ MR. DAWSON
said, the system of confining contracts to a few contractors who had obtained a reputation entirely shut out from the competition a new manufacturer who wished to do an honest business, [A laugh.] The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) might laugh—he was prone to that amusement; he might be a great political economist, and have many high qualities; but he and his Colleagues showed no appreciation of business. He was sorry to find there were so many theoretical business men on the Treasury Bench. His object in rising was to point out that, if the Department continued the system of confining contracts to respectable firms, they would shut out men of enterprize, who wished to make a reputation and obtain an honest living. Contracts were not entered into without security. The smallest manufacturer could be obliged, if his reputation was not made, to satisfy the Department by ample security that he should supply for 15s. 15s. worth.