Lords Sitting of 18 June 1863

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Sheep and Cattle (Scotland)* (No. 144); Metropolis Turnpike Roads Act Amendment* (No. 145).
Second Reading—Local Government Supplemental* (No. 130).
Select Committee—Report—Thames Embankment (North Side) (No. 107).
Report—Prison Ministers (No. 43 & 146), Bleaching and Dyeing Works Act Amendment* (No. 29).
Third Reading—Redemption of Rents (Ireland) [H.L.]*(No. 139), and passed; Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act Continuance * (No. 138), and passed.

THE INDIAN NAVY.—QUESTION,
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHwished to ask the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty, What arrangements had been made between the Admiralty and the Indian Government consequent upon the abolition of the Indian navy. He understood that all the war services formerly performed by the Indian navy were to be
1030
henceforth performed by ships of the Royal navy; but that the Indian Government was to retain a certain portion of the vessels under its control for the conveyance of troops and stores.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that there would be a small local navy for the transfer of troops and stores from one part of India to another; but for the general naval protection of India—or what might be called Imperial purposes—the Admiralty at home would provide.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHasked who was to have the direction and distribution of the force?
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that for all Imperial purposes the direction would rest with the Home Government; but the Governor General would have power to call upon the commanders to do certain duties in India.

THE INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION BUILDING.—QUESTION
THE DUKE OF RUTLANDrose to put a Question relative to the proposed purchase of the Exhibition Building. He believed that any attempt to adapt a building erected for a temporary purpose to a purpose totally different from that for which it was originally intended could not but signally fail. With regard to economy, none of their Lordships would deny that the building as it stood was not adapted for the purpose for which it was now required. This must be the case, for it was proposed to spend £264,000 for the mere purpose of altering it so as to make it suitable. It was extremely difficult to arrive at the true value of a building of this kind; the only manner in which it could be approximated was by taking the raw material of the building as it stood. Of this raw material the bricks were the most valuable. In the building as it stood there were 6,000,000 bricks, and putting these at £1 per thousand the whole value of the bricks would be £6,000. The timber and iron would hardly be of equal value, and how the price of the building had been got up to £80,000 he was at a loss to find out. His belief was that it would be dear at £30,000, and even £20,000. He, therefore, hoped that on the ground of economy Her Majesty's Government would not purchase the building. With regard to the architectural taste of the building, public opinion had so entirely condemned it that it was hardly necessary to say a word on that point.

1031
Certainly, he had not the slightest faith in its being made ornamental by any powers of stucco. Close by it there certainly was another building, which for enormity of hideousness could not be matched in any part of any country in the world. In all his travels through the manufacturing and agricultural districts he had never seen anything which for ugliness equalled the Kensington Museum. It had been proposed in another place to appoint a permanent official who should have the superintendence of the Government buildings, and the same suggestion had been made by the President of the Royal Academy. He should very much like to see that project carried into execution. In the middle of the Horticultural Gardens there had recently been erected a very handsome statue, by Mr. Durham, to the memory of the late Prince Consort, and immediately above it it was proposed to erect a great national testimonial to his merit as the patron of the arts and sciences of this country. He submitted that it was most desirable, if a large building was to be erected in the neighbourhood for the reception of part of our national collections, that there should be some harmony of style between the two. His wish would be that the whole of that property should be one great testimonial to His Royal Highness. Instead of taking the bare four walls of this building and turning it into a museum, he would suggest that his noble Friend should take the opinion of some eminent architect, or—what would perhaps be still better—submit the design to public competition, in order that a building might be raised which really would be a second memorial worthy of the lamented Prince. The Question he wished to put was, Whether the noble Earl opposite was aware of the nature of the foundations of this building; and whether, in his opinion, it would be necessary, in order to make it a permanent structure, to re-drain the whole of the ground on which it stood?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, it is hardly necessary to follow my noble Friend into all the points into which he has gone. He says truly that after the Vote of the House of Commons the other night the question of the purchase of the land is virtually settled. With regard to the question of economy, I really do think it quite idle for noble Lords, without any professional knowledge, going into these details, about how much a certain quantity of bricks and iron and timber ought to sell for. I believe my noble Friend has ridiculously
1032
understated their value in this case. The course the Government ought to take is to get the best professional advice on the subject; but I demur to the calculations of amateurs in this House as to how much what the noble Duke calls "raw materials" are worth. With regard to the question of taste—I have no pretensions to taste, and am sometimes glad that I have not, for those who do pretend to have taste certainly entertain diametrically opposite opinions as to what ought to be. My noble Friend, who couples taste and economy together, says we ought to pull this building down, though one part was universally admitted to be admirably suited for its purpose. Except by some violent critics of a partisan character the picture galleries were allowed to be the best ever constructed—certainly in this country—and I hardly know any gallery so well adapted for displaying a large number of pictures in a good light and at the same time accommodating a large number of people. My noble Friend, when he talks of pulling down this building, clearing the site—a matter of no small expense—and then constructing sixteen acres of a building which shall be in harmony with the monument to the Prince Consort—an entirely different thing, in my opinion—seems to have entirely lost sight of the economy which he coupled with taste. I have not the slightest doubt that the sum required for putting the present building into a state of complete repair, and giving it a pleasing appearance, would be incomparably smaller than that which would be required for pulling it down and building another one in its place. The noble Duke throws great ridicule on the idea of giving the structure an ornamental appearance by means of stucco; but there are some buildings in London which, it appears to me, are not deficient in beauty, and which are faced with stucco. The Travellers' Club is finished in that way, and the building of the Royal Institution has a very ornamental facing of stucco. I should be very glad indeed if we could have all our public buildings faced with stone; but when we come to deal with large spaces, and with buildings of great size, we must be mindful of economy. I do not think it would be right to demand from the House of Commons the large sums which would be required for the erection of those palatial edifices if they were to be all that could be desired both in material and form; and under these circumstances I submit that the view taken by

1033
the Government cannot be considered an unreasonable one.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lord, I think that we should have the fullest information that can be obtained with reference to this subject. I think the Government should have obtained that information before they put to the House of Commons the question as to the purchase of the buildings and the purchase of the lands. It appears, however, that the Government are not in possession of any estimate of the comparative economy of improving as compared with building. I hope they will obtain information on that point, and that such information will be laid before the House of Commons without prejudice to the merits of the whole question. My noble Friend (Earl Granville), in speaking of the advantages which would arise from adopting the present building, referred to the expense of pulling down. Without going into the merits of the general question, I would ask my noble Friend whether the cost of pulling down would not have to be defrayed by the contractors? Certainly I agree with my noble Friend that it would be difficult to find any picture gallery possessing greater advantages in respect of light and other points than that in the Exhibition Building, apart from the question of site. I wish to make an inquiry of my noble Friend, not as a Member of this House, but as a Commissioner of the Exhibition of 1851. I was summoned to attend a meeting of the Commissioners to sanction an offer of £120,000 for the ground, which, at the lowest estimate, is worth £250,000. My noble Friend is aware that the reason we felt justified in accepting so low an offer was, that the site was to be applied to the purposes for which it was originally intended—to the purposes of science and art. I want to know from my noble Friend why, of the sum of £120,000 so accepted, only £67,000 has been asked of the House of Commons this year, leaving it to the caprice of Parliament to grant or withhold the balance? I am at a loss to account for this, as I had understood that the whole of the purchase money of the land was to be paid down at once.
EARL GRANVILLE: With regard to the first Question of my noble Friend, it is true that the contractors are bound to pull down the building, if it be not purchased by the Government; but there would be the expense of replacing the ground.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I apprehend
1034
that the contractors are bound to replace the ground.
EARL GRANVILLE: With regard to his other Question, my noble Friend ought to call a meeting of the Commissioners and put it to them. None of the details were entered into at the meeting to which my noble Friend refers. They were left open. As to the payment of the remainder of the purchase money being subject to the caprice of Parliament, it cannot for a moment be apprehended, that after sanctioning the purchase, the House of Commons would refuse next year to vote the sum necessary for its completion.
LORD REDESDALEobserved that the noble Earl seemed to base his arguments on the value of the building as it stood; but as the contractors were bound to take it down if the Government refused to have anything to do with it, he thought it could be got for the sum named by his noble Friend (the Duke of Rutland) £30,000.
EARL GRANVILLE: I can assure the House that the Government have had the very best professional opinion as to the value of the present building. There would be very great difficulty in coming to an exact estimate of comparative cost, such as that spoken of by my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Derby), because you must decide on the precise character of the structure you would erect instead of the present building, before you could arrive at such an estimate.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, it was manifest the Government were in favour of keeping the present building. Now, as a general rule, it was a very disadvantageous thing to buy a building erected for temporary purposes to apply to a permanent use. If the Government bought the old building as a building, they would pay much more for it than if they purchased it as old materials; and as the contractors were bound to take it down, there was no reason why the Government should not purchase it as old materials. If they dealt with the contractors on this footing, the Government would have a great advantage, for by disposing of it to them the contractors would not be at the cost of pulling it down and taking it away. He had no intention of saying anything in disparagement of professional men, but he had observed there was a great tendency among them to hang together; and consequently, when the Government took the opinion of the builders, contractors, and architects, they ran a great risk of having

1035
a unanimous opinion from those parties that the building was a good one, and suitable to all the purposes to which it was intended to apply it. No doubt the picture gallery was a very good one; but a good picture gallery might be copied in any building they might erect. Having seen something of buildings, and, as a landed proprietor, having built a good deal in small way, his decided opinion was that any one who undertook to patch up an old and temporary building in order to render it handsome and permanent, would have to spend a great deal more money than if he rased it to the ground and erected a new and much superior structure in its stead.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the question whether it was expedient to retain the building was, as one of evidence, dependent on the opinion of professional men, and it was futile for persons without professional experience to express an opinion. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Hard-wicke) had laid it down that no building erected for temporary purposes could possibly be of use for permanent purposes. But this depended on the manner in which the building had been constructed. Parts of such a building might indeed be useless, but other parts—such as, in this instance, most of the brickwork—might be turned with advantage to permanent use. As to the value of the materials, although the contractor was bound to remove and sell them, yet much would depend upon the time within which he was bound to do so. If he were obliged to pull down and remove the building suddenly, he might have to dispose of the materials at an immense loss; whereas if the time were ample, he would be able to make much more of them. Now, the terms of the arrangement in this instance were so vague that the contractor would have a long time to dispose of the materials.

PRISON MINISTERS BILL—(No. 137.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order): (The Luke of Somerset.)
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he was only astonished that such a measure should have been reserved for the year of Grace 1863. He thought the arguments against making this Bill compulsory were conclusive. He had only one doubt, and that was as to the Application of the Act by the magistrates at the Quarter Sessions, It would
  1036
  probably give rise to theological discussions in a tribunal perhaps of all others the least adapted for them. He had no doubt whatever, notwithstanding the doubts which had been expressed by others, that the Act would come into operation in every case where it was intended by the framers of the measure that it should operate.
  Clause 4 (Keepers of Prisons to register Religion of Prisoners).
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset), in moving the second reading of the Bill, stated that the object of this clause was to prevent improper communications. Now, that was a very vague expression; and be-sides, he (Lord Belmore) thought that the machinery provided by the clause was hardly sufficient to effect that object, which he understood to be, the preventing these ministers from attending or visiting prisoners of a denomination differing from their own. He did not move this Amendment in any hostile spirit, for he thought that the principle of the Bill was fully justified by the speeches of the noble Duke and of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby); but this question seemed to be misunderstood in some quarters. There seemed to be an idea that there was some latent object in the Bill to subvert the privileges of the Church of England; in fact, he had seen it stated within the last day or two in an article commenting on the noble Earl's (the Earl of Derby's) speech, "that the intention of this measure was to open the door for proselytism to the Roman priesthood." Now, any person who would take the trouble to read the noble Earl's speech candidly and carefully through, must see that he, at any rate, had no such intention in supporting the Bill. He did not believe the noble Duke had any such intention; and certainly, if he (Lord Belmore) had thought that there was any such latent object, he he would not have given his vote for the second reading. At the same time, he thought it was better that there should be no doubt on the subject, and he therefore hoped that the noble Duke would assent to the insertion at the end of the clause of these words, which he would move—"But no such minister shall be permitted to attend or visit any prisoner belonging to any religious denomination differing from that to which such minister belongs."
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsuggested, that the Amendment should be postponed till the third reading, and in the mean time he would consider if it could be inserted.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREassented to this course.
  Further Amendments moved, and negatived.
  Amendments moved, and (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Bill to be read 3a, on Monday nest; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 146.)

VACCINATION.—QUESTION.
LORD LYTTELTONasked the Lord President, Whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any Measure amending the Vaccination Acts? The country had just passed through one of those panics on the subject which were of periodical recurrence, and which were well known to those connected with the administration of the affairs of boards of guardians, and which would continue to recur while the law was in its present imperfect state. The Act of Parliament on the question, which he had introduced, like much amateur legislation, was not perfect, and he had brought in a Bill for its amendment, which passed their Lordships' House without the slightest difficulty, but which was rejected by the Commons. Since then very little had been done. There had been some little further legislation, but there was still something wanting; for at this moment, in one or two of the smaller kingdoms of Europe, smallpox had been entirely eradicated by vaccination—a result which was far from being attained in this country. The Epidemiological Society, through their President, Dr. Babiagton, offered four suggestions for the amendment of the existing state of the law, which he thought would be well deserving of the favourable consideration of the Government in dealing with the subject. These suggestions were, first, that provision should be made for the systematic local supervision of vaccination; secondly, that more effectual means should be provided, whereby the local authority might ascertain who were or were not vaccinated in the district under their jurisdiction; thirdly, that there should be an extension of the ago within which vaccination must be performed in those districts in which, from the limited population, vaccination from the arm could not be maintained periodically; and fourthly, that there should be an extension of the powers of the Privy Council over local arrangements for vaccination, as far as was necessary to secure the more effectual maintenance of local supplies of
1038
fresh lymph. After having stated those recommendations, he had, in conclusion, only to ask whether the Government contemplated the proposal of any amendment of the law during the present or the next Session.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the Government were alive to the importance of the subject, and that the expediency of affecting an amendment of the existing law was under their consideration.
LORD LYTTELTONexpressed a hope that any improvement of the existing system would be extended to Ireland.

VACCINATION.—QUESTION.
  THAMES EMBANKMENT (NORTH SIDE) BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments; and Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next: (The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  OFFENCES (SOUTH AFRICA) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: Bill, with the Amendments, to be printed. (No. 143.)

  CAYMAN ISLANDS BILL [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.