§ LORD REDESDALEpresented a Petition from George Scott, complaining of his Removal from the office of Engineer-in-chief of the Ventilating Department of the New Palace at Westminster, and praying for Redress. The noble Lord said that the case of Mr. Scott appeared a very hard one. He had discharged his duties with uniform zeal and efficiency, yet he had been deprived of his office, which he had regarded as permanent, and another man had been appointed in his place. The dismissal of this gentleman, coupled with that of the firemen, favoured the idea that there was a general intention among persons in authority to get rid of every one who had been appointed by Sir Charles Barry. Reverting to the case of the firemen, which he still regarded as one of peculiar hardship, he was authorised to state that the fire to which the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Somerset) had alluded the other evening, as having taken place in the House, had occurred in the clock tower, a portion of the building which, being in the hands of contractors, was beyond the control and responsibility of the fire-brigade. He still adhered to the opinion that the dismissal of these poor men was a harsh and arbitrary proceeding, for which there was the less excuse when it was remembered that, so far from promoting economy, it would defeat it, the cost of the old system being only £637, while that of the new would be £1,120 a year. The innovation would occasion 1691 much distress to a number of poor and deserving men who had performed their duties with strict propriety, and, as the advantage to the public was more than problematical, some better reason should have been assigned for it than the mere fact that the building, being a Queen's Palace, was under the jurisdiction of the Board of Works, who might make what regulations they pleased. It was only the other day that Mr. Gurney, who had the superintendence of the ventilation, declared that he did not think the House would be so secure from fire under the new as it had been under the old system.
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETrepudiated the intention of casting censure on the firemen, and should, indeed, be sorry if anything he had said were interpreted in the sense of calling in question any claim they might have to compensation for the loss of their appointments, or to remuneration for their past services. Their dismissal was no act of his. He had merely expressed himself against the principle of such divided responsibility as must ensue if the fire arrangements were under the joint control of the Board of Works, the contractors, the police constables, and the brigade.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYobserved, that the Palace, having been now transferred to the undivided control of the First Commissioner of the Board of Works, that Minister was entirely responsible for its safety, and it was by no means expedient for their Lordships to interfere with the arrangements which he in the discharge of his important public duty might think fit to adopt. With respect to Mr. Scott, his appointment was a new one, bearing date as recently as 1851, and Sir Charles Barry desired him to state that he never gave Mr. Scott to understand that it was an appointment for life. That Mr. Scott could not himself have regarded it as permanent was evidenced by the fact that, in 1853, he applied for the office of engineer to the Harwell Lunatic Asylum.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEconcurred in the opinion that the firemen had been hardly treated, and expressed a hope that they would receive compensation.