§ 1. Motion made, and Question pro posed, "That a sum, not exceeding£43,400, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1908, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces."
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS (Kent, St. Augustine's)called attention to the item 19 for restoring the panelling at the Orangery at Kensington Palace, and also asked if anything was being done in regard to the Grinling Gibbons' carving there. Some nine years ago when the restoration of the building took place, many coats of paint were removed from the panelling. History related that the original intention of Sir Christopher Wren had been to carry out the pannelling in oak, but that design was, owing to the niggardliness of the Lord High Treasurer of the day, refused, as was later an application for paint to cover the deal. To show the building as originally left a coat of clear varnish was put over the panelling, but it was not intended that it should remain so. He wished to know to what extent restoration was necessary, and whether painting it had been decided upon.
§ MR. MORTON (Sutherland)asked what was proposed to be done to Holyrood Palace, and whether the restoration of the chapel at that palace was included in the Vote; also whether King's Park, Stirling, came under the same heading.
§ MR. LEA (St. Pancras, E.)said that as there was an item for the upkeep of the residential apartments at St. James's Palace, he wished to draw attention to a matter which was nothing short of a public scandal. The gentleman of the Cellars to the King, Mr. Kingscote, who occupied apartments in the Palace, and received a large salary from His Majesty's Privy Purse, was also in the employment of a foreign firm of champagne shippers, and received from them a salary of several thousands a year in order, he supposed, to push their brand of champagne at the Court.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not think the point raised by the hon. Member had anything to do with the Vote before the Committee.
§ MR. LEAMay I point out that these apartments, which are at present occupied 20 by this gentleman, might be used for some other purpose?
*THE CHAIRMANThe Committee does not allocate these apartments nor does the Minister whose Estimates we are discussing. The matter is out of order.
§ MR. C. E. PRICE (Edinburgh, Central)asked if anything could be done to restore the original stone work of Buckingham Palace, which was at present covered with coats of paint. If the paint could be removed and the original stone uncovered it would be a great improvement. The stone had been quarried near Edinburgh, and nothing was more offensive to a Scotsman than to see it covered with five or six coats of paint.
§ MR. MORTONasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he could tell the Committee under what conditions the champagne vendor already mentioned occupied his position at St. James' Palace.
§ *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,) Lancashire, Rossendalesaid before he replied in detail he wished to make an appeal on similar lines to that which he made last year; viz., that the Committee would allow all the Votes to pass that night with the exception of that for his own salary. The reason why he made the request was that the Office of Works was in a peculiar position with regard to these Votes. If the Votes were held over until August he would have lost a great deal of the best weather for building purposes, which would be an unsatisfactory state of affairs. With regard to the Orangery of Kensington Palace, which had been mentioned by the right hon. Member for St. Augustine's, a strong alkali pickle was unfortunately used in the previous renovation; that had injuriously affected the woodwork and caused an appearance of mildew, which it had been found impossible to remove. In consequence of the poor condition of the panelling they had decided to re-do it in the way it was no doubt done by Sir Christopher Wren, and paint it white. 21 He could also assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Grinling Gibbons carving would be touched very tenderly, if at all. In answer to the hon. Member for Sutherland, King's Park at Stirling did not come under the Vote. With regard to Holyrood Chapel, they had always taken the necessary steps for the preservation of the ruins; but as for restoration and rebuilding, that was a matter with which he was not officially concerned. It was left that the work should be carried out by a specified architect and trustees, and failing action on the part of those gentlemen the moneys to be devoted to that purpose should lapse. They had lapsed. After the ruling of the Chairman, the hon. Member for St. Pancras would not expect him to say anything about the subject he had raised, and as a matter of fact, he did not think it was a matter about which he could say anything.
§ MR. LEAasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Mr. Kingscote acted as wine and spirit buyer to the Great Northern Railway, and that until eighteen months ago his letters were dated from St. James' Palace and bore the Royal Arms.
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid he had no knowledge of the matter. With regard to the painting of the Scottish stone of Buckingham Palace, the stone used was so bad that it would not stand the English climate and the face crumbled away. For that reason the stone had to be treated with the preparation to which the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh had referred.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid the appeal the right hon. Gentleman had made was not an unusual one, and diving the time he himself held the office of First Commissioner of Works he often had occasion to make a similar appeal. He was certain the Committee would recognise the reasonableness of the proposal. If they were to hold back their sanction to these Votes until August the building works would be seriously affected. It was important that the Votes should be passed, and he for one would raise no objection. He took it, however, that if the right hon. Gentleman's Votes were assented to by the Committee 22 the Government did not intend to take any other business that night. He congratulated the First Commissioner of Works upon his answer with regard to the Orangery.
§ MR. SMEATON (Stirlingshire)asked whether any steps had been taken to preserve the Bore stone on the Field at Bannockburn.
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid he recognised the interest taken in the stone by Scotsmen generally, and he had written to the proprietor on whose ground it stood suggesting that it should be placed under the care of the Office of Works. The reply he received was that the proprietor was unwilling to assent to such an arrangement and that the stone was properly cared for as it was; consequently he had no further powers in the matter.
§ *MR. MORTONasked what the right hon. Gentleman intended to do with regard to Holyrood Palace. A great deal required to be done to the palace to put it into a decent respectable state and one worthy of the United Kingdom. It was one of those palaces which were taken over at the time of the Union, with the undertaking that it should always be kept in repair out of funds to be provided by the United Kingdom. He wanted to know what steps the Government intended to take to put the palace in as good a condition as the Royal palaces in England, so that it might no longer be the disgrace it was at the present time.
§ SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)called attention to an item of£300 for the building of sheds for lawn mowers at Windsor. It seemed to him a very large amount to spend for such a purpose. He himself had built a shed 60 feet long and 30 feet wide with a corrugated iron roof, for about£40. There was also another item he had noticed, viz., the sum of£500 for a new fire alarm system at St. James' Palace. As far as he could gather it was not a system of fire prevention, including fire hydrants, etc., but merely an alarm system, by which communication could be obtained with the fire station. If the right hon. Gentleman could give them some explanation on the matter he would feel obliged.
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid that as far as Holyrood Palace was concerned, he spent some time there last August and he did not form such a bad opinion as the hon. Member for Sutherland entertained of its state of repair. It was quite clear that as far as the historical apartments were concerned, the less they did the better, so long as they just did enough to keep them going. What he desired to do was not to hand the palace over to restorers, but simply to preserve what there was; a few changes had been made, such as putting a new lamp in the quadrangle and repairing the sun-dial. With regard to the proposed shed for lawn mowers at Windsor the sum did appear rather a large one, but the mowers were large machines, considerable in number, with a large acreage to deal with. The Committee might rest assured that he would not spend more upon decorative building of that sort than was absolutely necessary to make it effective for its purpose, and at the same time to prevent its being an eyesore to, and an outrage upon the beautiful gardens around it. In the matter of the fire alarm system at St. James's Palace, the hon. Baronet seemed to be under the impression that they were simply putting up a bell which would communicate with the fire station.
§ SIR F. BANBURYIt certainly gives one that impression.
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid that was not so. It was really a complete system of fire alarms throughout all the passages and rooms of the Palace. It was a system which would replace one which was quite antiquated.
§ SIR F. BANBURYagreed that everything necessary should be done to provide for the safety of the palace, and he was quite content with the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. With regard to the shed for lawn mowers at Windsor, he was sure that no one would wish to destroy the amenities of one of the most beautiful palaces in Europe. He did not contemplate the putting up of an iron shed, but he would point out that close to the ground where the mowers would be used there were extensive shrubberies, and he thought that possibly a shed could be erected there which need not be of quite such an artistic and expensive character 24 as that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He was, however quite willing to accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the interests of economy had not been forgotten, his object in bringing the matter forward having been to obtain an explanation of the item. On the subject of Holyrood Palace, he intended to give his support to the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Sutherland, apparently, wanted Holyrood Palace put into a perfect state of repair.
§ MR. MORTONsaid he asked for a decent, not perfect, state of repair.
§ SIR F. BANBURYpointed out that the building was an extremely old one.
§ *MR. MORTONHave you ever been there?
§ SIR F. BANBURYadmitted that he had not, but he was prepared to take the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, in preference to that of the hon. Member for Sutherland. To put the palace in "decent" repair might mean the expenditure of£50,000 or£100,000, for when they started to repair old buildings they never knew when they were going to stop. He was astonished that the hon. Member should have made such a proposal, and he appealed to him not to lose that spirit of economy which so distinguished him when he sat for an English constituency.
§ Mr. MORTONsaid that the hon. Baronet's memory must be a very bad one. If he would read the Hansard reports of the date he had mentioned he would find that the question of repairing the Scottish palaces and castles was then discussed at much greater length than it was their intention to discuss it that night. He had a greater faith in the present First Commissioner of Works than he had in his predecessors, and before the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London attempted to criticise his (Mr. Morton's) action in the matter he should visit the spot and then perhaps he would be in a position to criticise his (Mr. Morton's) remarks. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. Baronet was going to support the Government in the matter, he 25 hoped the right hon. Gentleman would realise that they in Scotland expected, now they had a good First Commissioner of Works, that he would look after these matters and treat Scotland at least as well as England.
§ MR. LEAmoved a reduction of the vote by£3,240 as a protest against a gentleman in the employ of a French champagne firm occupying apartments at St. James Palace at the public expense.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item E be reduced by£3,240."—(Mr. Lea.)
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid he wished to make a serious protest against the hon. Member's Motion. He hoped Parliament was not going to step beyond its own limitations in the matter. In consideration of certain properties which were handed over to the State certain residences were transferred to His Majesty to be treated absolutely under his own control. There was no possible justification for dealing with the exercise of His Majesty's right of gift in these matters, and he hoped the Committee would not attempt to go into matters with which they really had no concern. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion, which was to delete the sum required for the repair of the Palace as a whole.
§ MR. LEAsaid he was very 10th to refuse the request of the right hon. Gentleman, but he felt convinced that, whatever limitations Parliament imposed upon itself when the Civil List was arranged, it was never in contemplation—
*THE CHAIRMANOrder, order. I allowed the explanation so that the matter might be made clear, but I can not allow it to be discussed.
§ SIR F. BANBURYasked if it would be in order to protest against the reduction.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Baronet could protest against the reduction on its merits, but he could not go into the arguments which appeared to be in the mind of the hon. Member who moved the reduction.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the Chairman's ruling limited him considerably, but he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was most inopportune that such a reduction should be moved. It was really a private arrangement of His Majesty's. He would have great pleasure in supporting the Government, and he hoped the Committee would not attempt to interfere in the matter.
§ MR. LEAsaid he would withdraw his Motion, but he hoped that representations would be made in the proper quarter—
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ 2.£9,100, to complete the sum for Osborne.
§ MR. MORTONsaid that last session they were told that Osborne House, the munificent gift of His Majesty, was only open to officers in the Army. He asked why Tommy Atkins was shut out of that institution, which was a gift to the nation. It should be open to the private soldier as well as to the officer, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not in future see that all soldiers, whether officers or men of the non-commissioned ranks, should have the benefit of the gift.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he understood that Osborne House was provided for cadets going into the Navy, and also as a training school for officers; there was also, of course, a convalescent home there. It was not a very large place.
§ MR. MORTONHave you been there?
§ SIR F. BANBURYadmitted that he had not been inside, but he had viewed the building from a distance. The Army and Navy had been reduced almost to vanishing point under the present Government, but if private soldiers and seamen as well as officers were allowed to go into Osborne House, the result would be the creation of an impossible 27 state of affairs, as the building was only a small one. He had nothing to say upon the Vote except that he thought the item£758 for the gardens rather a large sum.
§ SIR W. EVANS-GORDON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)thought the point raised by the hon. Member for Sutherland was somewhat captious. Although he quite sympathised with his desire that private soldiers as well as officers should be given consideration, yet the hon. Member must be well aware that there was a magnificent institution at Netley for the non-commissioned men of the Army, and there were others of a similar kind scattered about the country, both for soldiers and for sailors. He believed that until the munificent gift of Osborne House there was no institution of the kind available for officers. The salaries enjoyed by many officers were very small, and he had known of cases where officers had been practically in a position of destitution, owing to the heavy expense attendant on long illness contracted while in the service of their country.
§ MR. LEAsupported the appeal which had been made to throw open Osborne House to the barrack room and lower deck. He pointed out that though there might be isolated cases of destitute officers, for every one of those there were forty similar cases from the non-commissioned ranks and the lower deck. There was not sufficient accommodation at Netley. At Osborne there were large open spaces where the men returning sick from active service could be placed in marquees during the summer months, and such accommodation would be highly appreciated.
§ MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)thought the hon. Member for St. Pancras had somewhat under-rated the accommodation at Netley. In the discussion on that institution last session it was made apparent that there were 900 beds vacant in Netley hospital, there never being more than 300 of the beds occupied. If it was the desire of the Government to accommodate soldiers and sailors of the non-commissioned ranks there was plenty of room for doing so at Netley. This munificent gift having been made to to the nation for the purpose of a convalescent home for officers as well as a training college for naval cadets, there 28 ought to be no question as to the hygienic conditions of the buildings. Some years ago a Commission of eminent medical men inquired into those conditions, and reported very unfavourably in regard to the water supply and some of the buildings. As a rumour had been circulated that the health of the boys at Osborne had not been very good he would be glad to hear that the recommendations of the Commission had been carried out.
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid there appeared to have been a considerable amount of confusion in the minds of hon. Members in regard to the expenditure at Osborne. The training college for boys for the Navy was not under his Office but under the Admiralty, and all his Office was concerned with was the erection of the building. When Osborne House was taken over the drainage was found to be very bad, but the whole system had since been remodelled, and the main sewer replaced. It was now in a perfectly sanitary condition suitable for the highest requirements of a convalescent hospital. Special pains had been taken to secure a good water supply. The old wells were not being used; a special supply had been secured. As to the use of this hospital by officers only, hon. Members had apparently forgotten the conditions of the Royal gift. Undoubtedly the country received a magnificent gift, but it was made on certain terms embodied in the Osborne Estates Act of 1902. Under that Act a part of the House and the grounds were to be kept in their present state as a memorial to Her late Majesty the Queen, but the remainder was to be devoted to the purposes of a Convalescent Home for officers of the Navy and Army. That accounted for the way Osborne had been administered, and he thought its administration had been most successful. Those hon. Members who had had experience of hospitals generally would agree with him that the expenditure had not been extravagant. He felt sure that anyone who had visited the hospital and seen the patients would not begrudge the money spent upon the obvious advantages which the forces of the Crown were receiving. No less than 330 patients passed through the Home in the year 1906–7, an increase of thirty over the previous year, and eighty-eight over the year 1904–5. He reminded the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that, 29 the expenditure covered not only the upkeep of the Convalescent Home, but also the maintenance and custody of the State Apartments and Museum and grounds, all of which were open to the public. It was a very large place to look after, and it was visited every year by some 60,000 or 70,000 persons.
§ MR. MYER (Lambeth, N.)asked for further information in regard to the£850 for "work incidental to the discontinuance of electric generating and change over to a supply from the company's mains."
§ *MR. HARCOURTreminded the hon. Member that that was an item in last year's Estimates. There had been a considerable fall in the maintenance expenses, amounting to£235, and that was a direct result of the change.
§ SIR F. BANBURYthanked the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, and said he was not aware that the grounds were open to the public. He was quite as anxious as hon. Members opposite that every facility should be given for the admission of private soldiers to convalescent homes, but it would not be possible to deal with them at Osborne House.
§ MR. MORTONcalled attention to the item of£85 for the travelling expenses of the Osborne Advisory Committee and Consulting Staff. As for the lack of facilities offered to the private soldier—
*The CHAIRMANThe question of facilities for the private soldier is out of order. Had I known the terms of the Act of Parliament I should not have allowed the previous discussion on that point.
§ MR. MORTONasked for an explanation of the sum of money spent upon the Osborne Advisory Committee.
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid the Advisory Committee consisted of very eminent surgeons who gave their services and made periodical visits to the institution to satisfy him that the Convalescent Home was being properly conducted. These surgeons examined the patients, and he thought the least the Government could do was to pay their travelling expenses seeing that they gave their services. He 30 could not speak too highly of the valuable services which these men had given most willingly.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 3.£50,700, to complete the sum for Diplomatic and Consular buildings.
§ SIR F. BANBURYcalled attention to an item of£11,000 for the erection of a new consulate at Cairo, and stated that the original estimate was£6,000. If a proper estimate had been made at first, why should an increase of nearly 100 per cent. have been necessary? An item of£51,600 for the acquisition of a new Embassy House at Madrid, and for alterations to the house and stables, showed an increase of£11,600 on the original estimate. That seemed to be a large amount for the house of the Ambassador at Madrid. It was not easy to know exactly what would be the final cost of a new building unless a very careful estimate was made, but in this case it was not a new building. Before the house was bought the Government should have known what they were going to pay for it. The amount of the item seemed to him to be extremely large and to require explanation.
§ SIR W. EVANS GORDON,referring to an item of£830 for the maintenance and repair of certain cemeteries abroad, asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied that the sum was sufficient for the careful and sympathetic maintenance of the cemeteries. From time to time complaints were made in the public Press and otherwise as to the neglect of these cemeteries. That was very painful to persons who had relatives or friends buried in these cemeteries. He thought it was discreditable to this country if the cemeteries were not properly and sympathetically looked after. He would be very glad to have some reassurance from the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
§ *MR. MORTONalso asked an assurance from his right hon. friend that these cemeteries were being kept up in a decent and proper manner. He had received private information that at several places that was not the case. He would like to know why they were asked to vote£51,600 for a house and stables at Madrid, and£11,000 for the erection of a new 31 consulate at Cairo. One would have thought that with the income-tax at a shilling in the pound a great many of the places mentioned in the Vote might have waited for a few years before large sums of money were spent on them. If the people of Sutherlandshire wanted money for necessary improvements they could not get a penny, but consulates abroad could get money voted by the£100,000.
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid he heartily sympathised with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. Owing to the pressure of the war expenditure the items before the Committee were kept down to the lowest possible amount. These places had been waiting for many years, and many of them were in such a scandalous condition that they could wait no longer. No effort was being spared to effect economies, but if we were to have ambassadors abroad they must be provided with proper dwellings. As to the increase in the cost of the Cairo Consulate the item was not so unsatisfactory as it looked on the paper. The first estimate was not made on a detailed plan or specification. It was a rough, and more or less speculative, estimate made by the consul; but when a proper estimate was made it was found that more money would have to be spent. At Madrid not only had the house to be acquired, but a good deal of money had to be spent on the necessary alterations. The adaptation of the house was more expensive than was originally expected. The furniture in the house was found to be absolutely unsuitable for the purpose for which the building was purchased. In reply to the hon. Members who had called attention to the cemeteries, he had to say that there appeared to be a little confusion as to the cemeteries which were under the charge of his Department. Some of the cemeteries abroad were not under the charge of the Department at all. The cemeteries of which they had charge were at Athens, Bayonne, and on the Bosphorus; in China, Japan, Corea, and Siam; in the Ionian Islands; Cathcart's Hill, Crimea; Gallipoli; the Piraeus; and at Suakim. He had not personally received complaints in regard to any of these cemeteries, but he hoped that any hon. Members who got complaints would bring them to his notice in order that he might see that proper and reverent attention was paid to them.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)asked whether in estimating the cost of the new consulate at Stanleyville at£4,000 the fact that labour was cheap had been taken into consideration. In the Vote there was a small item for the new house for the assistant Japanese secretary at Tokio, and he would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman if the amount put on the Estimates for the buildings represented the real money spent on them. The policy of the Government in regard to the provision of good consulate houses was one which ought to commend itself to both Parties in the House. There was an item for a new Legation House at Adis Abeba, in Abysinnia, and he could not see that that could be objected to. It might be advocated that rough and ready houses ought to be sufficient for our consuls in these days of economy, but wherever the representatives of Germany and France went they attempted to impress the natives with the importance of their position and of the countries they represented. All over the world he found that Germany especially, and France, but not the United States, who were in European rivalry for prestige amongst semi-civilised or semi-savage countries, spent money lavishly so as to impress the natives. He, therefore, believed that the policy of the Government was wise, and if the right hon. Gentleman came down next year requesting£5,000 or£10,000 for Consulates in the Congo Free State he would support him. Our Ministers and Consuls abroad, especially in semi-savage tropical countries, ought to be provided with the very best accommodation possible—for that at the best was very poor comfort for their exile.
§ *MR. REES (Montgomery Boroughs)said that there was an item of£5,000 for the erection of a new Legation House at Adis Abeba. Why was it called a Legation? He understood that our representative was only of the rank of a Consulate-General. The hon. Member for Gravesend had said that our representatives were never so well housed as the Ministers of Germany and France.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that he had not stated that our Ministers were badly housed, but that they were often 33 not so well housed as those of Germany and France
§ *MR. REESsaid he agreed that the nations named made much of their representatives, but at Teheran no one was housed like our own Minister. He presumed that the new premises in the estimates were erected in the Legation Compound, and it was hardly conceivable that£5,000 should have been spent on additions to the small garden house at Gulahek. In regard to Persia, it was not said in the Estimates what India contributed towards the very handsome palace at Teheran. He would like to know how much was paid by the Indian Government towards the upkeep of that luxurious palace and how much India contributed towards the building expenses.
SIR F. BANBUEYsaid that the First Commissioner of Works had deplored the increase in the expenditure on the buildings at Cairo and Madrid, but that the Estimate had not been made on specification, and therefore could not be relied on. In regard to Madrid, it was said that after the house had been bought it was found that the alterations necessary to make it suitable for an Embassy were much greater than was originally expected; but he did not think that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the new Consulate at Cairo was satisfactory. What he wanted to know was who was responsible for the Estimates, and for the supervision of the works? Who was responsible for proper contracts being obtained and for seeing that the works were carried out in a proper manner? It would almost appear as if the repairs to, and the erection of, Embassies and Consulates abroad were carried on in a haphazard manner, and without proper supervision. The right hon. Gentleman might say that those buildings were being carried on all over the face of the globe, and that it would be impossible—certainly very expensive—to have a permanent staff to supervise them. He did not know what happened in Persia, but he knew Cairo and Madrid; and it seemed to him that it might have been possible to obtain native professional talent to supervise the works at those places which involved an expenditure of such a large amount of money. That raised the point as to whether under 34 these circumstances it would not be better to hire houses for British Embassies and Consulates instead of buying them.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid they did exist in Madrid and Cairo. He had already stated that he did not know anything about Persia; but surely in all European countries it would be easy to hire a building, and he was perfectly right in saying that even now a very large number of houses for Consulates were hired and not purchased. He noticed that Japan was the only instance in which the estimates for construction and addition had been adhered to. He further called attention to the fact that the large sum of£47,000 was put down under the head of "minor works" for the "acquisition of sites and buildings and works in connection there with." Of that sum the Vote required for 1907–8 was£20,000. They had had no statement of what that meant, and he hoped they would have one from the First Commissioner of Works.
§ *MR. ANNAN BRYCE (Inverness Burghs)trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not listen to the seductive suggestion of the hon. Baronet that he should hire these buildings instead of acquiring them. As anyone who had any knowledge of the matter knew, it was infinitely better in the long run for this country to buy than to hire. In other countries the interest on money borrowed for building purposes was very high, not less than 8 to 10 per cent., whereas in this country it would be 2½ to 3 per cent. It was, therefore, infinitely better for the Government of this country to build or buy a house in St. Petersburg, for instance, than to hire it.
§ *MR. ANNAN BRYCEsaid that Russia was a civilised country, and he supposed that the Government could insure there as well as here. He also called attention to three Votes for the erection of Vice-Consulate buildings in Siam. One was at Chiengmai, a very important place with a Consul of high 35 standing in the Civil Service living there. There were a great number of British subjects, and a judge who was a member of a mixed court. The total estimate for these buildings was, however, only£350. At Laken the total estimate was£650, the probable expenditure till 31st March, 1907, being£300, and the Vote required for 1907–8£350. At Phré again, the original total estimate was,£650; the Vote, required for 1907–8 was£350, and the further amount required for completing the service was£300. None of the sums to be spent upon these establishments could possibly be adequate for the proper accommodation of His Majesty's servants in the places mentioned. He asked, therefore, whether they were the total amounts which it was proposed to spend.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERthought the Committee were entitled to some further explanation as to the new Consulate at Cairo, and as to the expenditure to which the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had called attention. The original Estimate was£6,000, but the revised total was£11,000, a difference of£5,000. He asked whether the increase was due to the acquisition of land after the Estimate was framed, because the cost of land had gone up tremendously in Cairo during the last five years, and prices had become very inflated. All these differences showed a lack of sufficient care in framing the Estimates, and at any rate, a little light on the subject would be useful. His hon. friend the Member for the City of London had raised important questions as to the acquisition of a number of sites and buildings and works in connection therewith, involving the expenditure of a very large sum indeed, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them details in regard to those sites and buildings. The amount was put down at the bottom of the list, and no doubt it was deemed insignificant, but£47,000 was a very large sum indeed, and he thought they were justified in asking for a full statement with regard to it. Then there was a sum for allowances to certain Ministers. What Ministers? No one wanted to deprive any Ministers, insufficiently paid as they were, of any allowances which might be required, but he thought some explanation was necessary. The allowances seemed to be traditional, and were 36 allotted in addition to the Minister's usual salary. The Estimates were very useful, as they gave them a clear knowledge of what was going on in Government Departments, and he thought they were fully justified in spending some time in debating them, as by that means they brought out what otherwise would not be made clear. Of course, the First Commissioner wished to get his Votes as soon as possible, but he urged his hon. friends not to be deterred from pressing the right hon. Gentleman by any idea that they might be erroneously described as obstructionists.
§ MR. J. WARD (Stoke on-Trent)desired to know the method that was adopted to arrive at the improvements that were necessary in the different buildings. Who decided that extra accommodation was necessary? By what method was it decided where was the best site? Was the selection made by some officer of the Consulate or by some special officer sent out from this country? He would also like to know who drew the plans of the buildings to be erected, and whether the plans were submitted to the Office of Works and investigated to see that the Estimates approached accuracy. He thought the Committee would have more confidence in the Estimates if they knew the method employed by the Office of Works in preparing and checking them.
§ *MR. REESasked, in connection with the Vote for radiators installed at St. Petersburg, whether the building occupied by the Embassy had now become the property of the nation. When he lived at Petersburg the British Ambassador occupied a portion of the Soltikoff Palace, but as money was being spent by the State on this portion of a private house, perhaps the Government had since purchased the front upon the Palace quay? If the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London knew many of these places for which provision was made in the list under consideration he would not, he was sure, suggest that buildings should be hired. Having a good deal of know ledge of many of these houses he could only say that they were not in any way beyond the necessities of the case. It was only in the case of Teheran that our 37 representative was housed in a conspicuously suitable manner. Probably that was because India contributed to the cost. He did not believe that further knowledge of these places would lead to the belief that more money than was necessary was being spent upon them.
§ MR. HARCOURT,replying to the hon. Member for Stoke, said that the method of deciding upon the sites required for these buildings was, in the first place, by means of communications by letter between the people on the spot and his office. Therefore, they had before them, often for many years, knowledge of the sites which were available, and those which were suitable. When that preliminary had been decided the plans were drawn in his office, and bills of quantities were prepared. The Estimates were made before he was able to make a contract, as he could not put out a request for tenders and accept a contract until he had Parliamentary authority. Before that, however, he had to hand into the Treasury a rough estimate of what he thought was necessary. The hon. Baronet had talked about the contracts of private individuals and firms, but very often in those cases the estimates were largely exceeded. In every case the Government had their own clerk of the works in charge of the building, and in most cases they had the benefit of the services of an architect, generally one of their own staff, during the course of construction. He thought that every precaution was taken in the matter, but of course the Committee would realise that it was more difficult to build at such a distance than at home. In many foreign countries local contractors would not give them a firm contract for a lump sum, but they were perfectly willing to work on schedule prices, and therefore the Department had to proceed very carefully in framing the schedule. He agreed that the amount put down on the Estimate for the expenditure at Chiengrai was insufficient, but the total amount was£750, and the balance came from Indian sources. Exception had been taken by the junior Member for the City to the item for the acquisition of sites and buildings in different parts of the world. He did not expect that that item would escape the vigilance of the hon. Baronet, and he had rather hoped he would be asked about it. The conceal- 38 ment it implied was quite intentional. It was necessary for the Government to purchase sites in different parts of the world, and if he were to indicate the places where the Government proposed to purchase the price of the land would be raised against him. Therefore he was compelled to ask the Committee to trust him to that extent. The hon. Baronet had also referred to an item for the maintenance and repairs of buildings, expressing the opinion that the amount was large. He would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the number of buildings which we had to maintain and repair in various parts of the world was also very large. The hon. Member had drawn attention to the fact that that item included not only structural repairs but also new works. The new works under this head were extremely few; they were very small and absolutely necessary to the maintenance of the buildings. He him self was responsible for most of the contracts. Of course before a contract was entered into rough estimates had to be obtained, and other persons might be asked to supply those estimates; but the contracts were all drawn up by the Government architect. He did not agree with the hon. Baronet that the Government would do well to hire houses in these places instead of purchasing them. It was in his opinion most desirable that this country should own its own embassies and houses of that kind. The saving by purchase as against hire was enormous. In many of these places there was no house which could be hired suitable for an embassy. Private houses had no chancellories attached to them. It was much more dignified and economic to own houses for diplomatic purposes. Referring to the questions of the Member for Montgomery Boroughs, our representative at Adis Abeba was now a Minister, the extra buildings at Teheran were at Gulahek, and the embassy at Petersburg was still a private building, though that was no reason why we should freeze our Ambassador. Perhaps the radiators were capable of removal if required.
§ SIR W. EVANS GORDONthought the right hon. Gentleman, when he replied with regard to the upkeep of the cemeteries in South Africa, did not quite appreciate the point which had been put. The right hon. Gentleman 39 had said that if complaints were received with regard to the upkeep of those cemeteries he would be glad to inquire into the matter. What he really desired to ask was whether the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied that the sum of£830 was sufficient for the purpose for which it was allotted, and whether it was properly distributed. He hoped the First Commissioner would satisfy himself that the persons who were carrying out the work in the different parts were proper people for the work, and the wages they received were adequate. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that in the case of buildings for diplomatic purposes purchase was by far more economical than hiring.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid the Estimates for building these large houses in different parts seemed to have been exceeded in every case before them, and all he had said was that it might possibly be wise to consider the question of hiring houses as well as the question of building them.
§ SIR W. EVANS GORDONThe hon. Baronet went somewhat further than that.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid it had not been his intention to do so. The hon. Member opposite had alluded to St. Petersburg, but there, the right hon. Gentleman said, the house was hired.
§ *MR. ANNAN BRYCEAnd in other places as well as in St. Petersburg.
§ SIR. F. BANBURYsaid it was really a matter of business. If they could buy more cheaply let them buy; if it was cheaper to hire let them hire. He was concerned for economy. He did not care about dignity. There were a great many places abroad which at very little expense could be adapted to their purposes. There were many old palaces which belonged to the ancient nobility in different cities of Europe. They would not part with them under any circumstances, but not being able to live in them, they would be only too glad if some one would occupy them and keep them in repair.
§ *MR. MORTONsaid the complaint about exceeding the Estimates was a very old one, and it certainly was an 40 had extraordinary way of conducting business. Any private firm managing its business in that way could not long keep out of the Bankruptcy Court. He would mention only one or two items. The cost of the Cairo buildings, up to date, exceeded by about 90 per cent. what the Committee were led to expect when the undertaking was entered upon. In the case of the building at Amoy the Estimate was exceeded by 50 per cent. It was hardly fair that the Government should ask the Committee for money if they did not keep nearer to the Estimates. He was not blaming the right hon. Gentleman, who was not responsible for these Estimates. It was the previous Government which had got them into this trouble. He knew, also, that they could not expect Estimates to be absolutely adhered to, but he thought they ought to keep within 10 per cent. of them. He asked what was the meaning of the item of£5,000 for the reconstruction of the Chancery at Paris. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that it was not intended to keep up all the cemeteries in South Africa, and he would be glad to know the names of those which it was intended to keep in order. He was bound to say that, what ever number of cemeteries there were in South Africa or elsewhere for the interment of our soldiers and sailors, they ought to be kept up by this country. If the right hon. Gentleman would state what cemeteries he intended to keep up in South Africa, it might render it unnecessary for anyone to make complaints, because certain of the cemeteries would not be under the control of the Government at all. He thought it was always right, when they had the opportunity, to criticise the Estimates, because it was so easy to spend other people's money. It was remarkably easy to call upon them to give£6,000 for a public building, and then to come down upon them afterwards and say "we want£11,000." He would like to see public business carried on at least as carefully as private business.
§ MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)in regard to the building at Cairo, the Estimate for which, he said, had been nearly doubled, pointed out that the value of land at Cairo was very much inflated at the present time. Recently land had been sold in Cairo at a price per foot greater than had ever been paid 41 in London, except in the City. The Committee would agree that such a price was not likely to be continued for any length of time. Therefore, would it not be possible, even at this late hour, to wait until the price of land had fallen? In that way a certain amount of money would probably be saved, and he did not suppose the Consular Service would be very much hurt.
§ MR. FELL (Great Yarmouth)agreed with the hon. Member for Gravesend as to the erection of Consular buildings in the Congo Free State, on which they were going to spend£8,000. He suggested that the buildings should be constructed of strong and substantial material, because it was not unlikely that they might be used as places of refuge. He wished to make an inquiry as to the Consular building at Dakar, on which it was proposed to spend£7,476. They were putting up one at Monrovia; not very far off, which was to cost£3,500. Dakar was a place, he believed, where a certain number of ships were signalled; it was a French port, and he did not think there was much English shipping there, at any rate. He desired to know what reason there was for a Consular building of the magnitude proposed. Reference had been made to the expenditure of£5,000 on the Chancery of the Paris Embassy. It had cost an enormous sum of money in the past, and was one of our finest buildings. He did not know what the reason was for the reconstruction of the Chancery, but he confessed the item surprised him, because the Paris Embassy was one which most of them had seen and admired, and was considered the most complete under the British flag.
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid he quite agreed as to the Embassy at Paris being one of the finest in the world, but the Chancery was thoroughly unsuitable for the work which was done there, and it was essential, where so much work had to be carried out, and where the pressure was so great, that accommodation should be provided in order to enable its being conducted under proper and business-like conditions. The hon. Member for Black pool had asked about the Consular building at Cairo, and had spoken rather as if the Government were going into the market to buy land. He was aware 42 that the price of land was high, but in this case the site was already bought, and it would be most wasteful to keep it vacant and not to put up a Consular building which would meet all requirements. The hon. Member for Sutherland had asked a question with regard to the excess on the estimate for the building at Amoy. It had been necessary to reconstruct a portion of the building, as part of the woodwork had been destroyed by white ants.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 4. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding£427,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1908, for the Customs, Inland Revenue, Post Office, and Post Office Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices abroad, including Furniture, Fuel, and sundry Miscellaneous Services."
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was sorry to see that in connection with this Vote there was an increase in every item but two. The Vote was for a large sum and it was very strange that a Government pledged to economy should find it necessary to increase every item but two. The original Estimates had been very much exceeded, and although there might be considerable force in what the right hon. Gentleman bad said about it being extremely difficult to supervise works carried out in foreign countries, that argument did not apply to works in this country. For example, at Sunderland the original estimate for a Customs Building was£1,500, whilst the revised estimate was£2,150, or an increase of£650. That was a very large increase on such a small amount. At Southampton£6,950 was required for the erection of new Inland Revenue offices under the original estimate, but the revised total estimate was£8,450. For the Blackfriars new power station for the General Post Office the original total estimate was£40,000, and the revised estimate£48,500; and for Post Office buildings at Hull the original estimate was£40,000 and the revised estimate£58,000. He noticed that in the case of the Gloucester (George St.) Branch P.O. extension the 43 original estimate was£51,800 and the revised estimate£5,920.
§ *MR. HARCOURTThat is a misprint. There is a cipher too many, and the amount should be£5,180.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid that at New port the orginal estimate for a new Post Office was£24,850, whilst the revised estimate was£31,000. In almost every case the estimates were nothing like accurate. Post Office buildings were simple business buildings, and it ought to be perfectly easy to obtain reasonably accurate estimates for them. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them some assurance that in the future greater care would be exercised in the preparation of Estimates. He invited hon. Members opposite who were pledged to economy to support him in his desire to have these works carried out in a business-like manner. He would moved to reduce the Vote by£100.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding£426,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
§ *MR. HARCOURTexplained that the original estimates were only provisional and approximate, and it was not until Parliamentary authority was obtained that they prepared the detailed specification on which the contract was made. They arrived at the best estimate they could, but they were obliged to make a speculative estimate. The Blackfriars power station was to provide an electric supply for the Central Post Office. For the Post Office buildings at Hull the original estimate was only a provisional one. In the case of Sunderland it was simply a readjustment of several offices under the same roof.
§ MR. ASHLEYcalled attention to an item of£1,000 for the new post office at Blackpool. That work had been a long time overdue. In the season he himself had had the greatest difficulty in getting attended to, not on account of the staff, but because the accommodation was inadequate. He impressed on the right hon. Gentleman that, if he was only going to spend£1,000 in the current financial year, he 44 ought to give a promise of a considerably larger amount next year.
§ MR. WARDpointed out that the building programme of post offices and other public buildings had been considerably delayed owing largely to the scarcity of money caused by the war. There was at present in nearly all Departments enormous arrears in building operations. Many of the office buildings were in nothing like the condition necessary for effective and efficient work. He had seen defective and inadequate buildings all over the country. There was room for very considerable improvement all round. The House of Commons voted millions of pounds for works of destruction without criticism, and if it was proposed to throw money away on useless objects it was always possible to get support for such expenditure. But when it came to the question of building or increasing the wealth of the nation by public works, any amount of pettifogging criticism was made about little details not worth considering. As a matter of fact he thought that the building programme of the Government was especially disappointing considering how good the present time was for such work. The building trade was depressed all over the country. Thousands of workmen were out of employment. Contractors found themselves without work to do. Now, therefore, was the time when the Government ought to try to make up leeway for the omissions of the last ten years and for circumstances over which the present Administration had no control. He was quite sure that the Committee would be very pleased to vote money for works of public utility—considerably larger sums than those specified in the Vote—if they were satisfied that the works were required. In his opinion, considering the position of the building trade and the amount of unemployment, the criticism directed against the First Commissioner of Works should have been not that the Vote was too large, but in the direction of trying to induce him to increase the expenditure. He would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee what he proposed to do next year to make up the leeway which undoubtedly existed in the building programme of Government Departments. 45 If the statement were not satisfactory he would be inclined as a protest to support the Motion for reduction.
§ MR. C. E. PRICEsaid post office extension in Edinburgh was a matter which needed to be dealt with. He urged that the work should be pressed forward for the simple reason that there were at the present moment a large number of men connected with the building trade unemployed in that city. He would have been better pleased if the Vote for this year had been larger in amount. By pressing on the work with all speed great relief would be given to the tradesmen.
§ *MR. HELME (Lancashire, Lancaster)said that a few weeks ago a correspondence was placed in his hands which had taken place between a certain authority in his own constituency and the Board of Works. It had been suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite that there was carelessness in drawing up the Estimates, but that correspondence showed that, so far from that being the case, the right hon. Gentleman and the members of his Staff gave great attention to the details of the Estimates, and if he had been attending to his own business, he could not have exercised greater economy, or taken greater interest in the matter than he did. He thought it was only fair that that should be stated.
§ *MR. J. D. WHITE (Dumbartonshire)called attention to an item for the post office at Dumbarton, and asked how that matter stood. It had been under consideration for some time. About a year ago the Post Office had in contemplation a site which would not have met with the approval of the people of the burgh. It was considered that that site would prove inconvenient, and that it was not in the direction towards which the burgh was extending. He would like to be informed whether that site had been selected, or whether a new site had been settled upon. If they looked through the list of proposed works in this Vote, it would be seen that the allowance to Scotland was by no means so large as it ought to be, and that seemed to him a reason for generous treatment as regarded post office accommodation at Dumbarton.
SIR BANBUKYsaid that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway seemed to have the war on the brain. It was said that owing to the war building work was in arrear. It would be out of order to enter into discussion with the hon. Member for Stoke upon the question of spending money for destructive purposes, but he might say that he and his friends, being anxious that peace should be preserved, thought that the best way of providing for peace was to have a strong Navy. He had never questioned the right of the First Commissioner to provide the proposed new works. What he criticised was the bringing forward of an Estimate of£40,000, and then a revised Estimate of£58,000 for the same work. He always understood that the hon. Member for Stoke was an apostle of economy. It was not economy to spend£58,000 if they could get the same work done for£40,000. He disagreed with the First Commissioner when he said that it was difficult to get an accurate estimate. The building of a post office was not a new thing, and it should be perfectly easy for an architect to make a proper estimate. Hon. Members below the gangway did not seem to grasp a fundamental principle in the governing of a great country. If they wished to manage a great country, or a great business, economically, they must look into all the items. It was in small items that extravagance occurred, it was necessary that the heads of the great departments should bear in mind that their Estimates would be freely criticised in the Committee. He did not blame the officials; they were not dealing with their own money, and unless there was criticism they might be tempted to save themselves trouble by putting on a little extra cost. He was not satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the increase of this item. He could not conceive that there should be any great difficulty in arriving at a fairly accurate estimate Probably the estimate was correct, but the contract was excessive. He expressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not be led away by the airy sentiment of the hon. Member for Stoke. Hon. Members were there to see that the nation got a sovereign's worth for a sovereign; and they had 47 no right to spend 25s. in getting a sovereign's worth.
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid that the hon. Member for the City of London had apparently not considered how great was the variation in the sites and requirements of the post offices in different towns all over the country. The hon. Member seemed to think that post offices were cut out to one pattern, as if they were so many Noah's arks in a toy shop. The hon. Member for Dumbarton had spoken of the site of the post office of that town. He was quite aware that that matter had not been settled, but he hoped that it would be soon. The hon. Member for the City of London said that they had got "war on the brain"; but he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Stoke as to the financial effects of the war. The Office of Works was rather the Cinderella of the Departments, and when there was that great and, in his opinion, unnecessary expenditure on war, his office suffered most by having all its Intimates cut down, so that building fell into arrear. He had added£30,000 to the building Vote this year, and it was because he was making up those arrears of buildings that he was attacked by hon. Members opposite. To the hon. Member for Stoke he would say that he had taken as much as he could for building, and that he must spread his zeal for building over the years he might be allowed to control it. At any rate, he had no desire to limit the occupation which would be afforded to workmen in the erection of these buildings. The hon. Member for Blackpool was not such a rigid economist as his neighbour the hon. Member for the City of London, and he had complained that the Office of "Works had been too modest in beginning a post office suitable for the correspondence which no doubt took place between the hon. Member and that town. He had provided the usual sum for the foundations of the new post office at Blackpool, and when these were laid the building would proceed more rapidly. It might be some consolation to the hon. Member, at least, that they had got a Government in office which had paid attention to the demands of Blackpool, and had not neglected them in a manner which, according to the hon. Member, had been the custom of the previous Government.
SIR W. EVANS GOEDONasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention had been called to the post office building situated opposite the new Victoria and Albert Museum buildings. He was glad to think that that post office was to be enlarged, but he desired to call attention to the deplorable condition of the site, which adjoined an old wooden shanty that might be a positive danger to the post office building. He asked whether the£1,200 on the Estimates for the enlargement of the post office there was sufficient to secure the erection of a suitable building for that neighbourhood?
§ MR. ASHLEYsaid he had asked the right hon. Gentleman how long it would be before the new post office at Blackpool would be completed. It was estimated to cost£15,000, but there was only£1,000 this year on the Estimates for it. He did not think that his constituents would be so grateful to the Government as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. They asked for bread and he gave them a stone. At the present rate it would take fifteen years to get the post office completed.
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid that the hon. Member evidently did not understand building operations. A post office took about two years to build, and he hoped to complete the Blackpool post office in about eighteen months, after the completion of the foundations, although he could give no pledge as to the exact time it would take. As to the remark of the hon. Member for Stepney in regard to the branch post office opposite the Victoria and Albert Museum, he believed that the building would be suitable.
§ *MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)objected to the reply which the right hon. Gentleman had giver to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London in regard to the extraordinary excess of expenditure over the estimate in connection with the post office at Hull. The state of things entirely warranted everything the hon. Baronet had said of it, and the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman had given did not meet the case at all. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London evidently fancied that post 49 offices could be turned out en bloc or punched out in any quantity; but there was no question of comic opera about the supply of post offices, and his hon. friend was entitled to a serious reply. He, however, got nothing from the right hon. Gentleman but a reflection upon his ideas of building. They all knew that, given a certain state of things and certain requirements, it ought easily to be within the capacity of the right hon. Gentleman so to arrange his estimate that it was much nearer the actual cost than was represented by fifty-eight as compared with forty. There must have been some very gross error in the quantities, and he thought the Committee were entitled to learn how the error arose before they voted this large sum of money, which was altogether disproportionate to the services rendered, if a certain site was selected for a post office there ought to be no difficulty about the matter, because it was perfectly well known what the requirements were, having regard to the number of letters, telegrams, parcels and newspapers to be dealt with. There was no difficulty at all in arriving at an accurate estimate, but instead of that they had, as in the case of Hull, a vast expenditure over the estimate. The hon. Member for Stoke had said that the building trade was in a depressed condition, but they would like to have some information on that point. He did not think it was in a depressed condition in many parts of the country. In the last week he had wanted a dozen men for building purposes within twenty miles of the House, and had been unable to get, them, and he was not sure that the same condition of things did not prevail in other parts of the country. He therefore thought the hon. Member for Stoke was
§ exaggerating, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them some well-thought-out answer on the subject, such as would satisfy reasonable persons. So far, however, up to the present, from the inquiry of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London having received the consideration which it deserved, they had been treated in a light, although kindly and genial manner, and had been given no information at all.
§ *MR. HARCOURTregretted that the hon. Member was dissatisfied with his reply, because he thought he had clearly pointed out that in the case of Hull several difficulties had arisen in regard to the foundations. Everybody who had had to do with building knew that in certain cases unexpected difficulties as to foundations occurred when the excavations for that purpose were made. He might point out, moreover, that the Hull estimates were made under the old bad system of rough estimates before taking a Vote of the House. He was so much impressed with the badness of that method that about twelve months ago he gave orders that the estimates should be made much closer than they had been before.
§ MR. BRODIE (Surrey, Reigate)associated himself with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stoke that in times when the building trade was depressed, there should be as far as possible increase of expenditure upon public works.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 33; Noes. 174. (Division List No. 100.)
51| AYES. | ||
| Baldwin, Alfred | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Fletcher, J. S. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East |
| Bull, Sir William James | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'rHam. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Valentia, Viscount |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'd | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Cave, George | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir. John H. | |
| Cavendish. Rt. Hn. Victor C. W. | Kimber, Sir Henry | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Liddell, Henry | Frederick Banbury and |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Mr. Ashley. |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | |
| Fell, Arthur | M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh, W | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Priestley. W. K. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Harvey, W. E (Derbyshire, N. E | Pullar, Sir Robert |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Haworth, Arthur A. | Radford, G. H. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Helme, Norval Watson | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Rees. J. D. |
| Barker, John | Henry, Charles S. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n) |
| Barlow, John Emmott (S'merset | Higham, John Sharp | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd |
| Beale, W. P. | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Hodge, John | Robinson, S. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Horniman, Emslie John | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Bell, Richard | Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Hudson, Walter | Rowlands, J. |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Idris, T. H. W. | Runciman, Walter |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Bertram, Julius | Jackson, R. S. | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex. R'mf'rd | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Jones, Wil1iam (Carnarvonshire | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Jowett, F. W. | Sears, J. E. |
| Brace, William | Kearley, Hudson E. | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Kekewich, Sir George | Seely, Major J. B. |
| Branch, James | Kelley, George D. | Shackleton, David James |
| Brodie, H. C. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Laidlaw, Robert | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Lambert, George | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Byles, William Pollard | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E. | Snowden, P. |
| Causton, Rt Hn Richard Knight | Lehmann, R. C. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Levy, Maurice | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Charming, Sir Francis Allston | Lewis, John Herbert | Steadman, W. C. |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Stewart-Smith. D. (Kendal) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Lough, Thomas | Strauss, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Summerbell, T. |
| Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Toulmin, George |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | M'Micking, Major G. | Ure, Alexander |
| Cox, Harold | Mallet, Charles E. | Verney, F. W. |
| Cremer, William Randal | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Crooks, William | Marnham, F. J. | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds. S.) |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Masterman, C. F. G. | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Davies. Timothy (Fulham) | Menzies, Walter | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Micklem, Nathaniel | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n |
| Duckworth, James | Molteno, Percy Alport | Wardle, George J. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Wason. John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Montagu, E. S. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Mooney J. J. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Elibank, Master of | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Essex, R. W. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Everett. R. Lacey | Myer, Horatio | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Faber. G. H. (Boston) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | Whitley. John Henry (Halifax) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Nolan, Joseph | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Wiles, Thomas |
| Fuller. John Michael F. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Gill, A. H. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Ginnell. L. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Pearson. W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Glover, Thomas | Phillpps. J Wynford (Pembroke | Whiteley and Mr. J. A. |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Pease. |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Price, C.E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.) |
Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ 5. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding£313,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 52 31st day of March, 1908, in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLASasked for a statement as to the erection of official residences for the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Senior Naval Lord 53 in lieu of existing residences. This item in the Estimates, he understood, referred to the building now being erected at the end of the new processional avenue—or rather, the continuation of the old Mall. He desired an assurance that the work would be proceeded with upon the plan approved by the late Government, although the amount asked for the year was small. He was certain that such a building was the only proper termination to the avenue, because the alignment of the Mall was at an unfortunate angle at Charing Cross, and therefore the only proper way of terminating the avenue was to have a building of the kind proposed facing Buckingham Palace in the way suggested. He also desired some explanation in reference to the£5,000 on account for extension of the National Gallery over part of the barracks site. The total estimated cost was not ascertained, but it would be remembered that the removal of the old St. George's Barracks had often been discussed, as it was generally considered they were a source of danger from fire to the national collection. He supposed that it would not be possible to remove the whole of the buildings, but he hoped that the removal would include the dangerous part. Another item of interest was£1,500 for the casting and erection of the statue, "Physical Energy," by the late Mr. G. F. Watts, R.A, the model of which was lent to the nation. He would be glad to know how the work of casting was proceeding, whether it was likely to be finished in the present year, and what site had been selected for its erection. He observed that an amount of£5,000 was set down for a new Stationery Office warehouse, but the total cost had not been ascertained. Why was that? Where was the warehouse to be erected? He hoped the mistake would not be made of taking expensive land in the neighbourhood of the Stationery Office, for there was no necessity for that in these days of telephonic communication. He noticed that a beginning had been made with the arch which was to connect the new with the old buildings for the Local Government Board. That means of communication met with general approval when the designs were exhibited, and it was felt that the arch would do much to hide the difference in the street alignment. He was glad to find there 54 was no truth in the rumour that the arch was to he abandoned.
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid in reference to the new wing of the Admiralty which the right hon. Gentleman had described as at the end of the processional avenue —a word he hoped would never be adopted as describing the new thorough fare —
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he had no intention of so describing it.
§ *MR. HARCOURThoped it would always retain the old, the historic name, "The Mall." The foundations of the new buildings were finished, and the superstructure was now rising in accordance with the original plans. He was pleased to get the Vote for the National Gallery upon the Estimates in the present year, for it marked an advance in a policy the Board of Works had in the past been very anxious to follow. The National Gallery would be much safer, and there would be space to extend it westwards for the reception of many art additions. The Vote would pledge the Government to the removal of part of the barracks, now a source of danger and a disfigurement upon a space that would be available for extension of the Gallery. He had himself a plan for the removal of the recruiting depot also, but for reasons the right hon. Gentleman would appreciate he would not go into that. The casting in bronze of the statue "Physical Energy," by the late Mr. Watts," had taken longer than had been anticipated, but it was being proceeded with. He wished to explain that a sort of implied promise he made last year that the statue should be erected on the bridge at the end of the Serpentine could not possibly be carried out. He had some doubt as to the scale of the statue, as compared with the bidge, and had had drawings made to scale and shown on the bridge. They were ludicrously out of proportion, and after consulting Lord Plymouth and others it was obvious that the statue could not be placed there, apart from the heavy structural and engineering expenditure involved. On further consideration he thought he would be able to find a very good site where the statue would have a dignified and appropriate position, 55 somewhere in the broad avenue from the Serpentine to the Round Pond, Kensington Gardens. He had not been able to give the full estimate for the Stationery Office warehouse, but he wished again to say that, in pursuance of a policy similar to that applied to the; National Gallery, the warehouse would not be placed, as was originally intended, at the back of the Tate Gallery. The land there would be left for the possible extension of the Tate Gallery, and the warehouse would be erected in Elverton Street, Westminster. As to the arch over Charles Street, though there was a rumour that a wicked Radical Government and an unappreciative First Commissioner had decided to knock out that portion of the design, there was no truth in the rumour. The original design would be carried out, except that in the statuary some few details had been altered after consultation with the architect. There would be no departure from the original design.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAScongratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his extremely satisfactory statement, especially with regard to the National Gallery. In reference to the statue by the late Mr. G. F. Watts, it had always struck him that the site proposed for it was unsuitable, and that it would be entirely out of proportion to the place. He was glad, therefore, that the matter had been left over for a time, though he did not commit himself to approval of the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman was considering as to a site in the Broad Walk. He was quite certain that the proportions of the statue in relation to the original site would have been entirely wrong, and the work would have been anything but an improvement there. With regard to the arch over Charles Street, the right hon. Gentleman's answer was again satisfactory. He understood that while they were going to carry out the arch they proposed to modify the idea of the statuary above it. He was certainly satisfied with the information which the right hon. Gentleman had given, because he thought it was quite possible that, on reconsideration, some modification would be found to be desirable.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAY (Shorditch, Hoxton)called attention to the charges for 56 insurance on buildings, his object being to ascertain why these amounts were spent at all, in which offices the insurances were effected, and what properties. Another general subject to which he wished to call attention had reference to the matter of furniture. A sum of over£9,000 was taken for furniture. Was there any arrangement in the Office of Works by which it was ensured that all the furniture purchased was made in England, and that the work was fairly allocated to different parts of the country. With regard to the items of brushes, brooms, glass, china, etc., he asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could assure the Committee that in no case would prison-made goods be purchased for the public departments. He also asked whether, in the arrangements which were made, every possible encouragement was given to those industries which produced glass and china goods. Might he also ask for information as to the as tounding figure of£80,000 to be spent on the private official residences of the First Lord of the Admiralty and of the First Sea Lord? Why was that large sum of money to be spent on buying two houses for two officials—especially when they had regard to the fact that not a shilling had to be spent on a site, because the site was adjoining the Admiralty building? On page 19, there was an item of£28,000 for a vaccine station at Hendon, about which he desired some information. Further down a sum of£3,000 was taken for the sanitary improvement of public offices. Could the right hon. Gentleman explain the main items of that expenditure—an expenditure which he was sure the Committee would not grudge if the public offices were brought to the highest state of efficiency? Then a sum of£1,590 was to be spent on the Orange Street water works to supply water for the Royal palaces. What was the reason for that very large expenditure? Did the next item of£1,150 also apply to the water works, or did it apply to other heads of expenditure? In conclusion he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having increased by nearly£4,000 the sum for the maintenance and protection of ancient monuments in Great Britain.
§ MR. C. E. PRICEcongratulated the First Commissioner of Works on what was 57 being done in connection with the Law Courts in Edinburgh. That was a subject which had been under the consideration of the Government for many years, and it might be interesting to the right hon. Gentleman to know that so far back as 1885 his father visited the Law Courts in Edinburgh, and, having considered their position, was satisfied that it was necessary to make some alterations, and, he understood, agreed to see those alterations carried out. Unfortunately a change of Government came about, with the result that the intention was not fulfilled. Five or six years ago a committee was appointed by the late Government to report on the matter, and then it was recommended that considerable alterations should be made. Four new Law Courts were recommended, and he was sorry that the recommendation had not been carried out. At the same time they were very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the trouble he had taken in the matter. Though the larger scheme was not to be carried out, yet the two Law Courts proposed to be built for the better accommodation of the public would be a very great boon indeed. Another item to which he would like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention was rent and insurance, etc., in Scotland. In Edinburgh there was a large number of public offices scattered all over the city. These were rented from different persons for Government offices. Each of these places had its attendants, and public business was carried on at present with very great inconvenience. To bring these offices under one roof would effect economies in many ways, and would constitute a reform which he was sure would be greatly appreciated. He had specially risen, however, to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the great trouble he had taken in visiting Edinburgh last summer. While others were away enjoying themselves on their holidays, the right hon. Gentleman was visiting the Law Courts and informing himself about a question which had been so long under consideration.
§ *MR. MORTONsaid he quite agreed with his hon. friend about the Law Courts in Edinburgh. He was afraid, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had not provided enough money for them, but he hoped that the amount would be made up in next year's Estimates. He, 58 too, would like to know something about the£80,000 to be spent on official residences for the First Lord of the Admiralty and the First Sea Lord. It seemed to him to be extravagant to spend so much money on official residences. Not only were they pledged to economy, but they must carry out that policy in a practical manner. In reference to the protection of ancient monuments, the right hon. Gentleman told them a little while ago that the works at Stirling in the King's Park and the King's Knot were included in this Vote. He would like to know what had been finally settled with regard to that matter, and whether it would now be under the right hon. Gentleman's charge and be maintained and kept up for the public use for all time. He did not wish to prevent the Committee from getting on with its work, but he would point out that while they spent money in the extravagant way suggested by this Vote, they could not find money for things that which were wanted, and, in all this expenditure there was not one solitary shilling provided for Sutherlandshire.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he joined with the hon. Gentleman opposite in protesting against the expenditure of£80,000 on two official residences, in which sum the price of the land was not included. They could almost build a palace for the amount asked for. For£40,000 they could build a house with thirty or forty bedrooms—quite a palatial dwelling. It was quite unnecessary. He did not agree with the hon. Gentleman that this money might be saved and spent in other directions; he thought the money could be saved altogether. It seemed to him that two houses could be built for£15,000 or£20,000—houses as good as any ordinary person would want to live in. It would be ludicrous to spend£80,000, in addition to the value of the land. A sum of£91,495 was put down for the maintenance and repair of public offices, an increase of£8,000 on the Vote for last year. He would like to know why that increase was so large. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the expenditure of£80,000 on two official residences, as up to the present only£13,000 had been spent upon them.
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid the hon. Baronet did not seem to be aware that 59 the plan for these houses, which he thought so costly, was the plan of the late Government.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAYDid the First Commissioner vote against that plan?
§ *MR. HARCOURTCertainly not, but this plan was in operation when he took office. These were the buildings which were to end the Mall and formed the plan which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Augustine's had pressed so much on his attention as one which would finish off in a fitting way the Memorial to the late Queen Victoria. That the buildings were going to be occupied by two officials was of no importance, because those officials already occupied houses. The house of the Senior Naval Lord in Queen Anne's gate would be disposed of, and the First Lord would be transferred and his present house would be available for the extension of public offices. These two residences were being put into an ornamental building which was part of the plan for the Queen Victoria Memorial. The reason for the increase in the expense of maintaining public buildings was that they were taking over new buildings and had to pay for the dilapidations in houses given up owing to the transfer of the War Office. One item was£1,500 for securing the safety of the Rubens' ceiling in the Whitehall Banqueting-hall. There were also a number of chimney stacks on public buildings in Whitehall in a dangerous state, and he had had to ask for£1,000 in respect of them. There was also an additional£1,200 for the maintenance of the new War Office. The hon. Member for Hoxton was of a very inquiring turn of mind. He wanted to know a number of things, some of which were obvious, and some of which, as Lord Dundreary said, no fellow could understand. The hon. Gentleman asked why the cost of insurance was included in rents. One reason was that they had had to take over some buildings on short leases in which there was a covenant to insure, and they had to insure in order not to violate that covenant.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAYasked what was the amount of money spent on insurance. Was it large or small?
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid he could not say, but he should think it would be a small sum. As to the purchase of furniture, so long as he was in his present office he would certainly not allot the making of furniture to any particular district. He must go where he could get what was best at the least cost.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAYasked if the right hon. Gentleman could state the amount spent upon furniture in London.
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid he could not. Goods made in English prisons, such as baskets and mats, were used in Government offices, and he thought that a very proper source of supply.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAYasked if any goods made in foreign prisons were bought.
§ *MR. HARCOURTCertainly not to his knowledge. He believed that no goods made in foreign prisons were bought for Government offices. The Orange Street Waterworks were necessary for the supply of public offices as well as palaces, and London was indebted to them for the fountains in Trafalgar Square. Certain sanitary improvements had been found to be urgently necessary, and he had carried them out a little in advance of the authority of Parliament.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)moved the reduction of the vote by£100 as a protest against the item of£80,000 for official residences. The right hon. Gentleman's answer that the plan was made by the late Government was no excuse for the extravagance of the scheme. He ventured to think that the bulk of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters would agree that for the House of Commons to vote£80,000 for two residences for officials of any sort was a monstrous thing. It was quite clear that there was yet time for repentance. He was aware that the expenditure was part of a plan for some ornamental buildings, but surely the place could be used for more ornamental purposes than for two people to live in. On page 46 of the Estimates there was an item of£1,000 for a passenger lift at the Admiralty 61 Office and,£1,450 for another passenger lift at the Foreign Office. He had had a good deal to do with passenger lifts, and he knew they could be obtained for less than half that money. Why should the taxpayers be called upon to pay such extravagant sums? This was an example of the way in which public money was being frittered away by the present Government. The sum of£10,580 was put down for the Meteorological Office at South Kensington. He noticed that that amount was required "on account," and therefore he thought they were entitled to some explanation as to what the total amount to be spent was likely to be. There was an item of£1,800 to replace two defective boilers in the Royal Law Courts. Everyone who knew about the value of boilers for heating knew that that was an exceedingly extravagant amount. A passenger lift was to be provided at the Royal Law Courts at a cost of£1,000. That also was an extravagant amount, and the Committee ought to take exception to it. He thought the work should be done for£500. It was proposed to pay£9,300 in the shape of an annuity to the Land Registry. He supposed he should be out of order if he pointed out how exceedingly useless an institution the Land Registry was. But the£9,300 was to be paid "on account." He thought the Committee were entitled to an explanation of that. An item of£3,000 additional was described as including works of a minor character not exceeding£20. There must be a great many of those minor works to make up an increase of£8,000.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding£312,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid he had already, when replying to the hon. Member for the City of London, dealt with a number of the matters to which the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of 62 Liverpool had referred. The building which was to be utilised for the housing of the two Admiralty officers formed part, not indeed of the Queen Victoria Memorial, but of the Queen Victoria Memorial scheme. The actual purpose to which the interior of the building would be put was not very material. It was thought best, however, to put it to the use proposed, for which part of it was more suitable than for public offices. In reply to the hon. Member's Question as to the amount to be spent on the Meteorological Office, he had to say that the amount was£10,580. As to the cost of the lift at the Royal Law Courts he might say that he had had some experience in the putting up of passenger lifts in private houses, and he knew that they were not so expensive as in public buildings. The hon. Member had said the work should be done for half the price proposed. If the hon. Member could provide an effective lift, including all the structural work, as well as the machinery, for less than£1,000 he would give him the job.
§ *MR. CARLILEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the two palaces at the Admiralty formed part of the Queen Victoria Memorial. In other words the right hon. Gentleman practically debarred the Committee from discussing the Vote.
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid he could not allow the hon. Gentleman to make that statement. What he said was that the building formed part of the memorial scheme, not that it was part of the memorial itself. The late Government added it to the Queen Victoria Memorial scheme. He had no wish to bar discussion. The hon. Member must not say it was for that purpose that he stated that it was part of the Queen Victoria Memorial scheme.
§ *MR. CARLILEsaid the right hon. Gentleman might take that view of it, but it was not the view taken by Members amongst whom he sat. There had been 63 previous discussions on the provision of these two palaces, and now the Vote was thrown at them in a way that practically closed the discussion. He protested against that. He thought it would have been better if the two residences had appeared in the Estimates as a part of the Memorial scheme, in which case no criticism would have been offered. To spend£80,000 in merely providing palaces for two officials appeared, on the face of it, to be a piece of gross extravagance. One of the residences was for the First Sea Lord. Sailors were not difficult to satisfy in the matter of accommodation. The size of these palaces seemed to be suggested by the size of the British Navy. Had the two individuals immediately concerned been consulted? He could not think they desired that such palaces should be provided for them. In view of the large outlay which the palaces would involve, he doubted whether the First Lord of the Admiralty and the First Sea Lord would be able to afford to live in them after they were built. He hoped that the Amendment would be carried to a division as a protest against such wasteful extravagance.
§ *MR. ANNAN BRYCEsaid that, in his opinion, there was some force in the objection raised on the other side to devoting these expensive buildings to the residences of officials. The officials had not salaries adequate to keep up such houses, and he agreed that it would be better to use them as public offices. He hoped the new buildings would not be so offensive to public taste as the Government offices recently completed in Whitehall. Anything more monotonous, tedious, and unworthy of the nation it would be difficult to imagine. He did not think that anyone would agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that building was of an ornamental character. It was like a building that a boy might make out of a box of bricks.
§ *MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)said that he desired some information in regard to an item of£40,000 64 for furniture for public offices. Some years ago, when a similar item was under discussion, it was ascertained that the supply of furniture for public offices had been practically in the hands of two or three firms in London, and a promise was then made that the practice should be discontinued, and that in the future the furniture should be tendered for, and that tenders should be open to firms, not only in London, but also in the provinces. He wished to know whether tenders had been invited for this£40,000 worth of furniture, and what publicity was given to the invitation for such tenders? He did not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman would be guilty of any trick of the kind—far from it: but it was quite possible to advertise for tenders in a newspaper which was not seen by anyone connected with the furniture trade. There was another point to which he wished to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention. Many Members to whom he had spoken on the subject agreed with him that it would be a great convenience if another lift were constructed in that building.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANWe are not on the House of Commons Vote now. The Vote is for the public offices.
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid he would consider the suggestion which the hon. Member for Shoreditch had made. Anyone could be put on the list of contractors for furniture, so long as he could satisfy the Office of Works that he was competent to carry out the contract, and paid his men fair wages. He could not tell the hon. Gentleman at the moment in what newspapers the tenders were advertised for.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)asked when the Mall would be opened into Charing Cross?
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid that it could not be opened until the new building was finished.
§ MR. DALZIELIn one year or two?
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 27; Noes, 183. (Division List No. 101.)
67| AYES. | ||
| Ashley, W. W. | Fletcher, J. S. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Haddock, George R. | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton |
| Cave, George | Hay, Hon Claude George | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W. | Hervey, E. W F. (Bury S. Edm'ds | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kimber, Sir Henry | |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Mr. Watson Rutherford |
| Fell, Arthur | M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W | and Mr. Carlile. |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n | |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. | Everett, R. Lacey | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Ferens, T. R. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Findlay, Alexander | Marnham, F. J. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Fuller, John Michael F. | Masterman, C F. G. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Gill, A. H. | Menzies, Walter |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Ginnell, L. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight | Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Barker, John | Glover, Thomas | Montagu, E. S. |
| Barlow, Jn. Emmott (Somerset | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Morgan. J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Beale, W. P. | Griffith, Ellis J. | Myer, Horatio |
| Beauchamp, E. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Nicholson, Charles N (Doneast'r |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil | Nolan, Joseph |
| Bell, Richard | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S Geo. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Helme, Norval Watson | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Bertram, Julius | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd | Henry, Charles S. | Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembr'ke |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Higham, John Sharp | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central |
| Brace, William | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Price. Robert John (Norfolk. E.) |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Hodge, John | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E. |
| Branch, James | Horniman, Elmslie John | Pullar, Sir Robert |
| Brodie, H. C. | Hudson, Walter | Radford, G. H. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Idris, T. H. W. | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Illingworth, Percy H. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Jackson, R. S. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford |
| Byles, William Pollard | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Rees, J. D. |
| Causton, Rt Hn Richard Knight | Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Jowett, F W. | Renton, Major Leslie |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Kearley, Hudson E. | Richards, Thomas(WMonm'th |
| Clarke, E. Goddard | Kekewich, Sir George | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n |
| Cleland, J. W. | Kelley, George D. | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Corbett, CH(Sussex, E, Grinst'd | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Robertson, Sir G Scott(Bradf'rd |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Laidlaw, Robert | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Cory, Clifford John | Lambert, George | Robinson, S. |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Cox, Harold | Lehmann, R. C. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich | Rowlands, J. |
| Cremer, William Randal | Levy, Maurice | Runciman, Walter |
| Crooks, William; | Lewis, John Herbert | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Crossley, William J. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Scott, AH(Ashton under Lyne |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Lough, Thomas | Sears, J. E. |
| Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Seely, Major J. B. |
| Duckworth, James | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Shackleton, David James |
| Duncan, C. (Bairow-in-Fnrness | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Elibank, Master of | M'Crae, George | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Essex, R. W. | M'Micking, Major G. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Snowden, P. | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Walsh, Stephen | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Spicer, Sir Albert | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Steaclman, W. C. | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wardle, George J. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Summerbell, T. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney | |
| Thomasson, Franklin | Waterlow, D. S. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Thorne, William | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. |
| Toulmin, George | Weir, James Galloway | Pease. |
| Trevelyan, Charles Philips | White, George (Norfolk) | |
| Verney, F. W. | White, T. D. (Dumbartonshire |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ 6.£47,400 to complete the sum for Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)asked if the right hon. Gentleman could give them any information as to how long it would be necessary to exclude the public from the British Museum Heading Room? It was a very serious; step to take in view of the fact that large numbers of people earned their livelihood at the Museum.
*MR. H ARCOURTsaid it was estimated that the cleaning of the Reading Room would take six months, but arrangements were being made by which students would have the use of a large room capable of accommodating some 200 readers. He realised the great inconvenience it was to have the room closed, but after fifty-seven years it was necessary to do some cleaning. No pains would be spared to have the work completed as rapidly as possible.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, and would only appeal to him to make the choice of those who were allowed to use the large room as liberal as possible because, in many cases brought to his notice, it was a question of earning a living. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give attention to the matter, so that no one would suffer 68 through the cleaning, which might entail great loss upon a large number of people.
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid he would do what he could personally, but the hon. Member no doubt realised that he had no official control over the building.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would make representations.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 7.£46,600 to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain.
§ 8.£91,000 to complete the sum for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.
§ *MR. MORTONasked for information as to Linlithgow Peel or Palace. The walls were in a good state of repair, and he had never been able to see why a roof should not be put on the building. If the money could not be found in any other way it might be raised by public subscription in Scotland. If a roof were put on, the Palace, with the grounds attached, would be a very fine place. A few years ago Lord Rosebery suggested getting up a public subscription for the purpose of improving the Palace, but did not successfully carry out the movement, so that the building still remained in the same state. He was aware that the Architects' Association in Scotland were all in favour 69 of the building not being maintained as a ruin, but that a roof should be put on to it, as it was in quite a good condition for the purpose. His right hon. friend took a very intelligent interest in these old buildings, and he had no doubt that he had visited the Palace and made up his mind what ought to be done. He (Mr. Morton) was sometimes accused in these matters of being wanting in economy in dealing with public money, but he personally took a great interest in old castles and palaces, and he thought they should be maintained as being of historical interest. He had always contended that the Palace should be made fit for residential purposes, but he had never yet found a First Commissioner of Works with sufficient intelligence, such as he hoped the present occupant of the office enjoyed, to under stand that it was essential that a roof should be placed on this building.
§ MR. MCCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)called attention to the fact that a footpath between Holyrood park and King's park, Edinburgh, which in the interest of public safety ought to be lighted, was unlighted. He understood that communications had taken place between the corporation of Edinburgh and His Majesty's Board of Works, and they had agreed that it was in the public interest that that path should be lighted. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to put money on the Estimates to carry out the scheme this year, but he would press him to do so if possible.
§ *MR. HARCOURTwas afraid his hon. friend the Member for Sutherlandshire would be as much dissatisfied with his intelligence as he had been with that of his predecessors. He had, 70 it was true, taken a great interest in Linlithgow, and he had made inquiries as to what were the possibilities. He did not as a result think they could put a roof on the old walls, as it would involve the erection of skeleton steel frames to carry the roof apart from the walls. That would be a very costly operation, and he preferred Linlithgow as it was, in other words as a venerable and valuable ruin, than to have it with a new roof. As to the lighting of the footpath referred to, the matter had been laid before him and he would take care that it was dealt with before next year.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 9.£32,400 to complete the sum for Houses of Parliament Buildings.
§ MR. MORTONasked for information with regard to the item of£4,150 for furniture on page 21. He wished to know how much of that amount was for furniture for the House of Commons, and how much for the House of Lords. He desired to have the information because he believed that the House of Lords was a very expensive institution, and that it was costing the country a good deal more than it was worth.
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid he was afraid he could not give the information asked for, because in this matter they treated the Houses of Parliament as a whole. In all probability, however, a very small proportion of the amount would be required for the House of Lords, because that august body' sat so seldom and for such short hours that it was practically impossible for them to wear out their carpets and furniture in the same way as the House of Commons.
§ MR. J. WARDurged the necessity of separating the accounts of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The House of Lords was an institution antiquated and useless—at least a good proportion of the people thought it useless—and Members of the House of Commons should be given an opportunity of saying whether the time had not arrived when they who voted the supplies should cease to do so for an institution which performed no useful function whatever in the Constitution. The accounts of the two Houses should therefore be separated in order that the House of Commons might see whether they were getting value for money. Under no circumstances could the House of Lords be described as a representative body. The two institutions were absolutely hostile in character, and that was another reason why the accounts should be separated.
§ *MR. HARCOURTsaid that it was impossible to separate the accounts of the two institutions which, although extremely different in character, occupied a common building, and therefore all requirements such as electric current, water, fuel and gas, etc., were taken in common. He could not, for instance, without having very elaborate meters to measure the gas consumed in this House and that emitted in the other possibly separate such an item as that. He sympathised with the ultimate object of the hon. Member, and when the hon. Member went tiger hunting across the lobby, he hoped to accompany him either as loader or beater. It would not, however, be the act of a prudent shikari to go into the cover and disturb the game in advance with a pop gun. By separating these items they would only make members of the other 72 House uncomfortable, whereas what they wished to do was to make that institution not uncomfortable, but innocuous.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 10.£2,100 Salisbury Memorial.
§ *MR. HARCOURTin moving to report progress, said that he reserved the Vote for his own salary in deference to the desire that had been expressed.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.