Sitting of 16 April 1855

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS. SWORN.—For Kilmarnock, Right Hon. Edward Pleydell Bouverie; for Lewes, Hon. Henry Bouverie William Brand; for Gloucester, William Philip Price, esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Court of Session (Scotland); Testamentary Jurisdiction.
2o Metropolis Local Management; Public Libraries and Museums (Ireland).

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. MACKINNONsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) proposed to make any alteration with respect to Clause 103. He did not concur in the principle of vesting the whole power in vestries. There were also certain other clauses in the Bill which had reference to the power of raising money which required careful consideration.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought there could be no question that great credit was due to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Marylebone, for the labour he had bestowed upon the Bill, or that some measure of a similar character, though not precisely like that before the House, was desired by the whole of the inhabitants of the metropolis. For his own part, he considered that what was wanted was a Bill by which the existing Parliamentary boroughs, including Green-
1470
wick and the new borough, proposed in Lord John Russell's late Reform Bill, to be formed out of Kensington and Chelsea—in all, nine boroughs, should be incorporated. He thought that there ought also to be one central body, which he would make a very important one, and at the head of which he would place the Lord Mayor. The Bill of the right hon. Baronet did contain a provision similar to this, and he regarded it as a very valuable proposal. If the metropolis were divided into nine municipal corporations instead of thirty-six districts, all those public works which were to be executed by the local Government would be carried on with much greater harmony, economy, and effect, than would be the case under the present Bill. Nevertheless, the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, as it stood, was one calculated to confer great benefit upon the metropolis. Before, however, they were called upon to support the second reading, he thought that they ought to have more clearly defined the exact powers which it was proposed to give the central body under schedule D. He considered that the whole sewerage of the metropolis ought to be placed in that schedule in the same manner as it had been placed in the hands of the Metropolitan Commissioners since 1848. If that were done, then the central body ought to have sufficient borrowing powers to enable them to carry out a complete system of drainage, and the money so raised ought to be repaid in, say, fifty yearly instalments, for he did not think that the cost of the very expensive works that would be necessary ought to be thrown entirely upon the present owners of property. He did not think the powers given by the Bill to vestries were sufficiently defined. He objected also to the clause by which a 40 l. qualification was required of members of the local boards. In some parts of the metropolis a 25 l. house was quite equal to one of 40 l. in other district, and he was afraid the effect of the 40 l clause would be greatly to limit the inhabitants in their choice of men to fill the office. He knew that houses in several parts of the metropolis were depreciated greatly in value—to the extent of twenty-five or thirty per cent—in consequence of the defective state of the drainage. He would not offer any opposition to the second reading of the Bill, and was ready to admit that the great body of the inhabitants of the metropolis were thankful to the right hon. Baronet for the

1471
elaborate pains he had bestowed on this measure.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he must appeal to the right hon. Baronet not to proceed with the second reading of the Bill in so thin a House, or, at all events, to refer the Bill, if read a second time, to a Select Committee. The inhabitants of Southwark, in a recent meeting, had expressed their opinion that the borough ought rather to be restored to its ancient influential position in the metropolis than cut up into a number of small districts. They thought that there ought to be two central bodies to manage the sewerage of London—one for the north and the other for the south of the river. At present the inhabitants of Southwark had some semblance of municipal institutions, and they had certainly no desire to part with their high bailiff. It was true the Bill would put an end to a number of self-elected coteries; but if Hobhouse's Act were adopted it would destroy all the open vestries, which were the safeguard of the country, so far as public discussion was concerned.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he thought the thinness of the House was easily accounted for. It was not every day that the Emperor and Empress of the French did us the honour to pay us a visit, and he only wished that the metropolis, both as regarded its buildings, its paving, and its drainage, was in a fitter state to receive those distinguished personages. At the same time he thought that if they had had an Act like this Bill in operation, they would have been able to do much. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had expressed an opinion that it would be well to amalgamate the City of London with the rest of the metropolis; and, perhaps, it might be right to ask when they were to have the promised Corporation Reform Bill? Other corporations had been reformed long ago, and he wondered whether they would be able to get through Temple Bar this year? With respect to the Bill now before them, it appeared to contain provisions of a very despotic and arbitrary kind. The only thing that would make them tolerable was, that the powers proposed to be given would be administered upon the representative principle. In some of the parishes—St. Giles's and St. George's, Hanover Square, for instance—they would not give a farthing for the Bill, unless it adopted Hobhouse's Act. On the other hand, if they went a
1472
little further east, they would find other parishes—such as Clerkenwell, St. Lukes, and Islington, which rather objected to that Act. Nor was it hard to give a reason for this difference of opinion. Under Hobhouse's Act the qualification was 40 l., whereas in Islington it was 25 l., and in St. Luke's and Clerkenwell only 20 l. Something should be done to meet this objection; in other respects he believed the Bill would give universal satisfaction.
MR. BUTLERsaid, that the Bill had been attentively considered by his constituents, and it was found that some of its clauses would not work well for the Tower Hamlets. He thought, however, that when some alterations were made in the Bill, which might be done in Committee, it might be passed, and he was willing to allow the second reading to be taken.
MR. BRADYsaid, he believed that the measure which had been introduced to the House would act beneficially in a sanitary point of view for the metropolis. He hoped the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. A. Pellatt) would not press his objection, for he trusted that the Bill would not be delayed. Nothing could be worse than the state of the south portion of the metropolis.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the Bill, which he thought, with some few alterations, would be a most useful measure.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he should be very sorry if the Bill were referred to a Select Committee. The practical result of such a course would be, that the House would hear no more of it that Session, and they would be without any legislation for the improvement of the metropolis. It was not likely that this Session would be productive of many measures of improvement and amelioration; but he trusted they should have to boast that they had passed such a Bill as the present very judicious measure for the metropolis; and if they did so, they would effect a public object of no ordinary magnitude and value. It had been asked by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) whether it was the intention of the Government to propose any measure for the reform of the City Corporation during the present Session. He thought it most desirable, if such a Bill were to be proposed, that it should be introduced, and be before the House during the discussion of the Bill for the local Government of the metro-

1473
polis at large, as there were many points which would of necessity be common to both the measures. He did not believe that they should be putting the Government of the metropolis on a satisfactory footing, if they did not at the same time deal with the City of London, properly so called. He could not blame the Government for having given precedence to the larger measure, but be hoped that no time would be lost in bringing forward the measure referring to the City of London. He entirely agreed with the principle of the Bill now before the House, though some of the details might require further consideration in Committee. He was not sure whether it would not be necessary to place some check on the power of these municipal bodies to tax the ratepayers, and also on their power of mortgaging the rates. But these were matters of detail, which would be best considered in Committee.
SIR GEORGE GREY: It is, Sir, the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose a Bill to Parliament during the present Session, for the reform of the corporation of the City of London. The public and the Government are, I am sure, deeply indebted to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) and his colleagues, for the care and attention which they bestowed last year upon this matter, as Members of the Commission of inquiry. A Bill founded on their recommendation has been prepared; but it has been thought better that the Bill of my right hon. Friend (Sir B. Hall) should take precedence of it. If the House agrees to this Bill, we hope at an early period to have an opportunity of introducing the Bill for the reform of the corporation of the City of London.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that when he introduced this Bill, a mouth ago, he had stated that he was quite aware of the magnitude of the subject, and of the difficulties by which it was surrounded. But he was happy to find, from the present discussion, that the objections raised to the measure referred only to its details, and that its general principle had been approved by his Colleagues in the representation of the metropolis. Some hon. Members had been good enough to express their great approval of the manner in which he had framed and conducted the Bill. He had certainly taken much pains with the measure, which was aided materially by the very able report made by the Com-
1474
missioners of Inquiry into the Corporation of London. He thought it much better to take their suggestions as the basis of his Bill. The hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Mackinnon) had objected to the vestry being the body in whom was vested the power of administering to the local affairs of the parish. Some gentlemen had a certain horror of the word "vestry," and therefore he called them "the local boards." They were in reality local boards, having the whole management of local affairs; and the business of the vestry would be a very small part of the business which they would have to transact. But if they were to have a local board separate from the vestry, that board would have to be elected by precisely the same mode of election as the vestry was elected; therefore it was much better to have only one body to administer the local affairs in each large parish. In smaller parishes, which were already formed into unions, the vestries would be elected under the same provisions as in the larger parishes, and from those vestries would be elected members to sit at the local board of the district, which would have the management of the local affairs of that union, in the same manner as single parishes not in union. It was not his intention to deviate at all from that proposition; the local board would be elected as proposed; and that board would have the management of the lighting, cleansing, and sewerage of the district. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had said that his constituents, and he believed all the metropolis with the exception of Marylebone, were in favour of municipal corporations. He differed entirely from his hon. Friend. In 1851 a deputation from the metropolitan boroughs waited upon the Secretary of State, who stated that if he could be satisfied that there was a general desire on the part of the inhabitants of those boroughs in favour of corporations, he would be glad to pay every attention to any memorials which might exhibit that feeling; and from that time to this there had been no expression of opinion on the subject. Generally speaking, he believed the ratepayers did not desire to have all the paraphernalia and the expense connected with corporations. One of the principles of this Bill was, that there should be a representative body to manage the sewerage. That had been hitherto done by a central body, created by the Crown; all these bodies had failed in their management, and had only suc-

1475
ceeded in adding to the debt. They could manage the great arterial drains well enough; but the local drainage ought to be placed under local authorities, as in Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, and other large towns. The Bill fully provided for the borrowing and repayment of money for the improvement of the metropolis. It was said that the landlord should pay the sewer rate. He did so at present, unless it was expressly provided otherwise by agreement. The Bill proposed that the landlord should continue liable; it left him in precisely the same position as he was in at present. The objection which was entertained against Hobhouse's Act in some parishes would be remedied by a short Bill to be brought in to amend that Act. In Marylebone, for instance, only one polling-place was provided for 20,000 parochial electors. This was a point in which alteration was required; and there were other matters which would be included in the amending Bill if Members desired it. He objected to the proposal of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Pellatt), to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. It was a measure which required to be considered in Committee of the whole House. It was said that the borough of Southwark had its own officers, who managed their own affairs, and that they did not desire the machinery of this Bill. He (Sir B. Hall) must say, from his experience at the Board of Health, that no part of the metropolis was in so bad a state as some portions of the borough of Southwark. In the four weeks ending the 9th of September, 1854, no less than 1,010 persons died from cholera, in consequence, to a great extent, of the manner in which that part of the metropolis was kept, and in consequence of those offensive trades and those nuisances of which the hon. Member was the champion in that House. He hoped to mitigate those evils before the Session closed. It was further objected, that the Bill conferred arbitrary powers. These were only the same powers which were possessed by the City Commissioners of Sewers; the provision had been copied from that Act. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Butler) objected that 40 l. was too high a qualification for a member of the local board; but in some parts of the Tower Hamlets the qualification of those who voted for vestrymen was almost as high as that. He hoped that the House would pass this Bill, and that in doing so they would be laying the foundation for a
1476
great and permanent improvement of the metropolis.
Bill read 2o.
SIR BENJAMIN HALL: I propose to take the Committee on this day fortnight.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee read.
SIR GEORGE GREYmoved that the hon. Henry Fitzroy take the Chair in place of the hon. Edward Pleydell Bouverie, who has accepted the office of Vice President of the Board of Trade.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee of Supply.
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding 154,952 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, to the 31st day of March, 1850, the Expense of Maintenance and Repairs of Royal Palaces and Public Buildings."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he rose to protest against these Estimates being proceeded with in such a thin House, and without due notice having been given that they were to come on that night. He felt so strongly on the subject that he should move that the Chairman report progress. Those Estimates had gone on increasing year after year to a most enormous extent. Under the Tory Administration of the Duke of Wellington they only amounted to 1,900.000 l., while last year they reached to 5,290,000 l. It was, therefore, most unfair to attempt to smuggle these Estimates through the Committee, involving, as they did, so large an amount of the public money. There were many items in the Vote highly objectionable, and which called loudly for explanation—thus, he found a sum of 12,000 l. inserted on account of the Palace of Hampton Court—a palace which, in all probability, Her Majesty had never even seen, but which was kept up for the benefit of the pauper members of the aristocracy. Upon that palace and park, and the adjoining park of Bushey, a sum of 200,000 l. had been expended since the accession of Her Majesty to the Throne. Again, there was a sum of 1,665 l. demanded for the repairs of the Duke of Cambridge's apartments in St. James's Palace. Now, he could not see why that should be. Parliament had voted an annual grant of 12,000 l. for the maintenance of the Royal Duke, besides which he was colonel of the Coldstream Guards, and enjoyed other emoluments. The late Duke, his Royal father, had provided himself with a residence, and had never come to Parliament

1477
for a single shilling on that account. Why, then, should the present Duke be differently treated? The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a promise that the expenditure upon the different public parks and palaces would be annually brought under the revision of Parliament. Now, the present Estimates were brought forward in a manner that directly violated the compact thus entered into. The fact was, everything had been placed before the House in a state of the utmost confusion, and it was quite apparent that the right hon. Baronet the Chief Commissioner of Works was enabled to expend vast sums of money without any accountability whatever. He regretted very much that he was precluded by the forms of the House from moving the postponement of the Committee altogether. What he would do, therefore, was to move that the Chairman report progress.
MR. WILSONsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment, for full and due notice had been given before the recess of the intention of the Government to proceed with these Estimates on that evening. His hon. Friend was of opinion that the proper course would be to refer these Estimates to a Select Committee, but that would be a most inconvenient proceeding, and, if resorted to at all, ought to be adopted at a very early period of the Session, when a Committee would have full time for inquiring into the subject. If a Committee were now appointed to inquire into these Estimates they could not possibly report until the close of the Session. He must remind his hon. Friend that, in consequence of the inquiries that had been made on the subject of the Estimates within the last few years, many charges which used to fall upon the Consolidated Fund were now voted in the Estimates. The Fees of Courts and other public establishments were now paid directly into the Exchequer, and the expenses of those establishments were defrayed by annual Votes, in order that they might come under the revision of Parliament. The consequent increase of the Estimates had been enormous, and he believed the increase in this particular department of the Estimates for the present year was not less than 1,000,000 l., owing to the charges which had been removed from the Consolidated Fund and placed upon the Estimates.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he fully concurred in the representation of the hon. Member
1478
for Lambeth, that if they proceeded that evening, in so thin a House, to vote these Estimates they would be voting away the public money without proper consideration. It was only on Thursday last that they had been placed in the hands of Members, while, in former years, the custom had been to have them printed and delivered to Members before breaking up for the Easter recess.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he also agreed that it would be quite improper to proceed with the Committee on that the first night of their meeting after the recess. For his part, he believed it would be attended with a great saving of time and expense, if, at the commencement of every Session, a Standing Committee were appointed to consider these Estimates previous to their coming before the House. He certainly would support the Motion for reporting progress.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he was most anxious to give every explanation in his power with regard to the Vote. With respect to the palaces entirely in the occupation of Her Majesty, those partly in her occupation, and those not in her occupation, there was a diminution of expenditure in the Estimates of the present year as compared with last year. There was a diminution of 1,312 l. in the expenditure on the palaces in the occupation of Her Majesty. There was an item of 750 l. for a new carriage entrance for the convenience of Her Majesty from the end of Grosvenor Place. There was also an item of 1,000 l. for gas meters and additional mains in connection with the new buildings at Buckingham Palace. There was a sum of 5,558 l. for Windsor Castle, the greater part of which was for ordinary repairs, and considering the large area covered by that building, he did not think the sum was a large one. There was a diminution of 595 l. in the estimate for St. James's. His hon. Friend (Mr. W. Williams) said that there was an expenditure of 1,665 l. for the repair of the Duke of Cambridge's residence. That was a mistake. The sum required for the repairs of his Royal Highness's residence was only 75 l. The Estimate for Hampton Court was not 12,000 l. but 8,000 l., of which 2,800 l. was for supplying the palace with water in case of fire. Hampton Court was a handsome palace, and it should not be allowed to fall into decay.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he wished to call attention to a subject which had cre-

1479
ated much inconvenience in the neighbourhood of Pimlico. He referred to the present formation of the road from Buckingham Gate. Last year, when the Vote was taken in connection with this subject, it was stated that the street was to run directly leading to Birdcage Walk, and was to pass through the Gun Tavern. The people of Pimlico were much annoyed at seeing a different kind of road formed. He wished to know whether any deviation from the original plan laid down had been ordered.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, it was the intention of the Govornment to carry on the street in a straight line through the Gun Tavern. They could not, however, legally obtain possession of the building till next year. In the meantime as much of the road as could be proceeded with had been formed, so as to lose as little time as possible.
MR. AYSHFORD WISEsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the item of furniture for the public offices. In five years the expense of furniture had amounted to 107,634 l.—a sum which he thought enormous for such a purpose. He had heard of an anecdote connected with a piece of furniture in one of those offices that reminded him very much of what had been going on lately at Balaklava. One of the officials wanted a bookcase that had been put away in some department or other, and in order to get it a requisition was necessary to bring it from the office in which it was placed; a second requisition was wanted for a porter, a third requisition for a joiner, a fourth for a person to clean it, and a fifth was required for some one to put up the books. With regard to the accounts generally, he might state that the Auditors in their last Report complained that they were kept in such a manner that a faithful and complete comparison could not be instituted between the expenditure and the Votes of Parliament. The Commissioners were required by Act of Parliament to classify the accounts and submit them to that House; but they had not the means of satisfactorily discharging their duty, for certain of the accounts, examined by a set of gentlemen called "professional examiners," attached to the Board of Works, were not properly laid before them. Now, if it were required by an Act of Parliament that certain accounts should be submitted to the Board of Audit, that House should not be satisfied with their being passed merely by professional examiners belonging to the
1480
Board of Works, whose very accounts were to be controlled.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, that in reference to the hon. Member's remarks relating to furniture, at the commencement of every financial year the Board of Works directed their officers to examine the different offices, and supply any deficiency in the ordinary amount of furniture. For this purpose there was an excess of 6,000 l. over the sum required last year, a great portion of which was occasioned by furnishing the new Stationary Office and the new Record Office. But, independently of the ordinary furnishing of offices, there had been created a new Department of War, which had taken possession of the house formerly occupied by the Copyhold Commission. The expense occasioned by the new department, the necessity also of finding a new residence and furniture for the Copyhold Commission, and various other similar items had caused an expenditure of 24,842 l. With respect to the Board of Audit, which had been referred to, he had to observe that there were certain works executed under the superintendence of the Office of Works, and for the examination of these accounts persons especially acquainted with their nature were required. The Treasury Committee appointed last year stated that those professional examiners exercised a check over the details of the accounts such as none but professional persons could supply. Their examination, therefore, to a great extent superseded the examination by the Audit Office, which, if these accounts were sent there, would only have to do the same duty over again.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he thought the Committee ought to feel indebted to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. A. Wise) for having called attention to the Report of the Commissioners of Audit, who, not for the first, but for the third time, had complained of the want of information in reference to these accounts. If Parliament required the Commissioners to perform their duty, they ought to have the means of properly discharging it. To know that the money voted was properly applied was even of more importance than cavilling about the amount to be granted. He had, on a former occasion, called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the accounts of the Commissariat, and he was told that he need not trouble himself about them, as they would go before the auditors, who would supply all

1481
proper check. He must say, however, that he was not so well satisfied with this check, for the auditors said that the form in which certain accounts were laid before them rendered it impossible for them fairly to set the expense of the year against the Votes of the year. The result of this mode of stating the accounts, and of having balances hanging over for two or three years, or even longer, was to give a power of transferring charges from one year to another, thus leading to great insecurity and uncertainty as to the Votes which Parliament was called on to give. The point for which the Treasury contended was that, as these accounts had been audited by the officials of the department, there was no need for sending them to the Commissioners of Audit; but this was certainly not in accordance with the constitutional functions of the Commissioners of Audit, who had been appointed by Parliament to control the expenditure of money, just as the Controller of the Exchequer controlled its issue. The practice might perhaps be cheaper if it were adopted as a general principle, and if every department had auditors of its own, but that certainly was not a mode of auditing the public accounts which he should recommend the House to sanction.
MR. WILSONsaid, he quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet that it would be a great improvement if the same practice were adopted with regard to the Civil Service Estimates as prevailed in reference to the Army and Navy Estimates—that of closing the accounts each year, and not allowing balances to hang over from one year to another. That, however, would be impossible until an entire change took place in the principle on which these Civil Service Estimates were voted. In the first place, it would be necessary that all these Estimates should be voted by the 31st of March, and if Parliament were to continue to meet at the commencement of February, as usual, and there were a press of business, that could scarcely be done. With regard to these accounts, it must be remembered that they consisted, in a great measure, of the accounts of masons and other artificers employed by the Board of Works, which the Commissioners of Audit had neither the means nor the ability to audit. It was, therefore, more convenient that they should first be audited by professional men—servants of the board, who understood such accounts—and that the Commissioners of Audit having received
1482
their vouchers should then make a general audit.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, the explanation of his hon. Friend was not satisfactory to him. It was quite true that this practice had gone on fur some time, but the same might be said of the army accounts. He believed it to be possible, though it might be difficult, to do with these Estimates exactly what was done with respect to the Army and Navy Estimates. There were works connected with the Admiralty as large as those in the present Estimate, and there was no such difficulty as the hon. Gentleman seemed to apprehend in having them audited by the Audit Board.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to know what were the intentions of the Government. Did they mean to give the Audit Office the go-by? There wore certainly difficulties in the way, but they should have been stated when the Audit Commissioners had appealed to the Treasury. He should like to hear the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon that point. No branch of the public service required the audit more than the Woods and Forests.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the Audit Board at present acted under the authority of several Acts of Parliament. Those Acts were of the most conflicting nature, and the heads of departments were anxious that they should be consolidated, so that they might know how to perform their duties. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he had any objection to bring in a Bill for the consolidation of the Acts?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was an entire mistake of the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham to suppose that the accounts of the Board of Works were not as much subject to audit as those of the Admiralty, or the Ordnance. They were thoroughly examined and passed by auditors, and went through precisely the same process as the accounts of any other public department. Tie only difference between the two related to a species of sub-audit which the accounts for certain works executed under the superintendence of the Board of Works now underwent. It had been found convenient in practice that the surveyors and other officers of the Board of Works should themselves examine the measurements of brickwork performed and other details con-

1483
nected with the labour of the artificers employed in their own department. They therefore audited this separate class of items and then sent the aggregate accounts to the Board of Audit for its examination. It might be a fair question for consideration whether this special audit should not be conducted by the Board of Audit rather than by the officers of the Board of Works; but certainly those officers possessed the knowledge which fitted them for the duty, and, moreover, they could have no interest in concealing the errors of the persons employed. However, the subject having been started, the Government would have it investigated, to ascertain whether any change in the existing practice would be advantageous. With regard to the various Acts relating to the Audit Board, our present legislation in that respect, no doubt, was not in the most satisfactory state. The subject had already been brought under the consideration of the Government, and though it would be premature now to give any distinct promise as to the introduction of a measure upon it, yet the series of Acts in question would be examined with the view of effecting an improvement or consolidation of them.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he was quite aware that great difficulties existed, but on the whole believed the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be very satisfactory.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Commissioner of Works to the charge of 464 l. set down in the Estimates for the repair of the stud-house and paddock in Hampton Court Park. Last year he was informed by the right hon. Gentleman, that the Vote then proposed would be the last; but to his surprise he found it again among the Votes, although it was well known that the produce of the stud of horses which were annually sold amounted to a large sum of money. What he wished to know was, whether a regular debtor and creditor account was kept of the sums so received, which, at all events, might be applied in keeping up the buildings instead of taxing the public to do so?
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he had nothing whatever to do with the stud, that the money required was for the repair of certain buildings at Hampton Court, and he really knew nothing of the produce of these horses alluded to by his hon. Friend.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he
1484
thought an account ought to be given of the sums received for the sale of these horses; but he believed many of them were used in Her Majesty's carriages, and, as such, were the property of the Crown.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, the hon. Baronet had evidently misunderstood him. The horses he alluded to were regularly thorough-bred, and sold for racing purposes. The sum realised in that way was, he believed, very considerable.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, were it not a case of absolute necessity. What he desired was, that the Miscellaneous Estimates should be postponed in order that members might have an opportunity of considering them, and he also thought that the Government should supply the House with the materials requisite for instituting a comparison between the Votes for the present year and those for the past three years. They had already voted upwards of 40,000,000 l. for the army and navy, with scarcely a single objection; and afterwards the Estimates of another department, amounting to nearly 4,000,000 l., were brought forward surreptitiously at midnight, and agreed to without an observation. There was a sum of 12,357 l. in the present estimate which he wished to have explained. One item of 4062 l. was for repairing Hampton Court Palace; and to lay down mains for the purpose of procuring water in case of fire, there was a sum of 5000 l. additional. Then there was, for the gardens, 82 l.; 464 l. for the paddock, alluded to by the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley); and next followed 2159 l. for Hampton Court Great Park, and for pleasure-gardens 590 l., the whole making a sum of 12,357 l. Now, he wished to know what necessity there was for laying down pipes to convey water to this old palace, built over 300 years ago, and upon which he believed as much had been unnecessarily expended as it cost Cardinal Wolsey to divert the river from its original bed in order to convey water to the palace? It was only on his return to town a day or two ago that the Miscellaneous Estimates were put into his hands. No time had been given for their examination, and he certainly did not expect that the Committee would be asked to proceed with them that night. He should, therefore, press his motion that the Chairman do now report progress.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- QUERsaid, he must beg to remind the hon. Gentleman that, on the last night before the recess, he expressly stated that the House would go into Committee on these Estimates after the second reading of his hon. Friend's (Sir B. Hall's) Bill, respecting the local government of the metropolis, had been disposed of. The Estimates themselves were delivered some days ago, just as they had always been annually, and there could, therefore, be no difficulty in a gentleman of his hon. Friend's experience, in two or three hours on any morning, making himself master of the subject. Great complaints had been made of the Revenue Estimates being brought in by his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury at midnight; but the fact was, that he had been compelled to do so against his own inclination, and the notices on going into Supply were so numerous, that he was prevented from giving the necessary explanation. Happily, however, there were few obstacles on that evening, and as his hon. Friend's Local Management of the Metropolis Bill was disposed of in a short time, the Government would be prepared to give any explanation that might be required. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would at once proceed with the Votes on the paper.
MR. FRENCHsaid, he considered that the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury, with respect to the Estimates brought forward at midnight, was anything but satisfactory. He also wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Commissioner of Works, whether he had taken any measures to protect the magnificent trees in the park, at Hampton Court, from being injured or destroyed?
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he was informed that no injury had been done to those trees; and if any danger arose, he would take measures to protect them.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, he thought that, at a period when there was a deficiency in the revenue, and an increased expenditure, it was not decent in the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose any Estimates until he stated his budget to the House. For his own part, he had seen so much carelessness and apathy displayed in voting away large sums of the public money in that House, that if his hon.
Friend the Member for Lambeth divided the Committee, he would support him.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 3; Noes 126: Majority 123.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2.) 69,544 l. Royal Parks, Palaces, and Pleasure Grounds.
MR. W. EWARTsaid, there was a house in Hyde Park belonging either to the Ranger or Deputy Ranger, with extensive grounds attached. He wished to know whether those grounds could not be thrown open to the public?
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he had no control over the matter, but he would make inquiries.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he had, on former occasions, urged the right hon. Gentleman to restore the Diana fountain at the beautiful piece of water in Bushy Park; he hoped it had not escaped his attention.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, it had not; and a Vote for the restoration of the fountain would be found in the present Estimate.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that, after the late division, he would not again divide the Committee; but he thought some items called for remark. He wished, for instance, to know whether Windsor Park cost any money to the public last year. There was no item for it in this year's or last year's Estimate, though, in the accounts of Woods and Forests, it would seem to have cost 18,000 l.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHwas understood to say that he had nothing to do with any other parks and pleasure-grounds than those mentioned in the Vote, and therefore was unable to give the information desired.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that from the year ending March, 1854, there was a receipt from Crown lands of 387,000 l., and an expenditure of 131,000 l., and he should like to know why that Vote had not been brought under the consideration of the Committee. He hoped that there was some Member of the Government who could answer him.
MR. WILSONsaid, he thought he could answer the hon. Member. The matter was under consideration last year, and in connection with the measure then brought forward the land revenues of the Crown

1487
became the subject of discussion, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer then thought that he should not be justified in altering the form that had been followed in these accounts, as the public had no interest in the property except during the life of the Sovereign, it having been exchanged for life only, in consideration of the Civil List. He could assure his hon. Friend that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had maturely considered the matter before he had come to his decision.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he was of opinion that the property of the Crown, during the assignment of it in consideration of the Civil List, was as much the property of the public during the assignment as any property was, and ought to be dealt with as such. 131,000 l. had been squandered, and there were now Votes of 69,544 l. for these parks, besides an enormous amount for the royal palaces, although Her Majesty had a civil list of 385,000 l. a year.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, he had no wish to limit the magnificence or convenience of the royal palaces, but if they went back to the time of the building of Versailles (Louis XIV.), they would find that three times as much had been spent in this country as in France, and the whole history of jobbing and recklessness could not equal what might be found in connection with the royal palaces.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he doubted whether the present was a fitting opportunity for raising questions respecting the expenditure of the Woods and Forests. He admitted that the subject was a very important one, but he thought that within the last few years there had been a great improvement in the management of these accounts by the Woods and Forests. He (Sir H. Willoughby) claimed the right of discussing every item in the Votes for the management of the Crown property which came before the House of Commons; and he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Williams) would not be daunted by the division on his Motion from inquiry into the subject if he saw fit.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he only wanted to know how it was that Windsor Park was not included in the Vote. 18,000 l. had been expended upon that Park last year, and he wished to know whether there was to be any outlay upon it in the present year? The Government had not fulfilled the engagement of the
1488
late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who promised that 6,000,000 l., which had formerly been spent in silence, should be brought to light, and placed under the cognisance of the House.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the present Government had punctually and exactly fulfilled the engagements of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. He undertook to bring the revenue service under the cognisance of the House, and not that that expenditure should be paid into the Exchequer before any Vote should be taken in the House. It had been already stated that it was not his intention to place the expenditure of managing the land revenue of the Crown upon the Estimates, and that intention also had been adhered to. With regard to the parks, they had been originally the property of the Crown, but had been gratuitously granted by the Crown to the public for their benefit and pleasure. Windsor Park was in the occupancy of the Crown itself, and so was put upon the expenses of the land revenue. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), had, apparently in his eye, an Act which transferred certain charges upon the Consolidated Fund, and which therefore were paid by the Exchequer without any annual Vote of that House. They were included, every one, in the Miscellaneous Estimates, which had been and would be laid on the table.
MR. W. EWARTsaid, he thought there should be a greater number of seats provided in the Parks. He also objected to the carrying away of quantities of gravel for the purpose of making roads, and then filling up the spaces left with filthy street sweepings, so as to create a kind of artificial swamp.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, that a greater number of seats should be provided, and that the taking away of the gravel should be discontinued.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he thought that the wooden railing in Rotten Row should give place to a handsome iron one.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, that a Vote would be proposed this year for completing the iron railing which had been already begun in Rotten Row.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) 122,209 l., New Houses of Parliament.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished for some information as to the total

1489
amount to be required for the building. The original estimate was 750,000 l., and there had already been spent more than 1,700,000 l. Three years ago he had raised the question, and Sir Charles Barry had given an approximation within 500,000 l. He wished to know also, whether any decision had been come to as to the Commission of Sir Charles Barry, as it would cost an enormous sum if he was to be paid a per-centage on the expenditure. He believed 2,000,000 l. at the very least would be expended, before the buildings were completed.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, that last year a promise had been given by the right hon. Baronet the Chief Commissioner of Works that a plan of the entire building which it was proposed to erect should be submitted to Parliament, and it was most important that that promise should be adhered to. From the nature of the new bridge which was to be constructed, it was evident that the houses at the north side of the Palace-yard would have to be purchased, and he presumed that it was proposed to erect some new buildings on that side, and if so the House ought to be informed what the nature of those buildings was. He perceived also an item for the payment of a sum of money to Mr. Cope, and he wished to know if he was the same gentleman who bad painted the fresco of "the First Investiture of the Garter" in the House of Lords? because, if he were the same, that fresco appeared to him and also to others to be, in its drawing, disgraceful to the present state of art in this country, and he should be inclined to oppose any further grant for decoration to the same artist.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, that it was quite true that last year he had made a promise to the House that he would endeavour to obtain a statement from Sir Charles Barry of the works which he wished to execute, and of their probable cost; and he had obtained a full report on that subject. On the 31st of March, 1854, Sir Charles Barry estimated that to complete the works which had been already sanctioned would require a sum of 280,000 l. Last year a sum of 107,000 l. was voted, and this year 85,000 l. was asked for, so that there would remain a sum of 88,000 l., which would have to be voted in following years. In addition to the works which had been already sanctioned, he had asked Sir Charles Barry to give him an estimate of all the works which he thought ought
1490
to be executed to complete the Houses of Parliament, and then he took that estimate and ascertained what was the value of the land necessary to carry out those works, and his estimate was that a further sum of about 651,000 l. would be required. There had been expended up to March, 1854, 1,583,000 l., the sum voted last year was 107,000 l., making 1,690,000 l., and that with the present vote would give 1,812,000 l. odd; but if all the views of Sir Charles Barry should be carried out 651,000 l. more would be required, making a total of about 2,500,000 l. With regard to those works which had been considered necessary by Sir Charles Barry, but which had not yet been sanctioned, he could only say that they were under the consideration of the Treasury. With regard to the other question of the hon. Gentleman, he had to state that the decoration of the Houses of Parliament did not come under the control of his department, but were under the superintendence of the Commissioners of Fine Arts, and therefore he could give no answer as to that matter.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he thought that the right hon. baronet had promised to lay before the House the plans of Sir Charles Barry with regard to the new buildings which he proposed to erect.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he thought that the Committee was under an obligation to the right hon. baronet for having ascertained what the ultimate cost of the buildings would be, but he hoped that the Treasury would not permit one single shilling to be expended before the plans of the new buildings proposed had been laid before the House.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to know if any agreement existed as to the amount of remuneration which was to be paid to Sir Charles Barry? He thought that, if the suggestions of that Gentleman were followed, the total expense of the buildings would far exceed 2,500,000 l.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he hoped that the First Commissioner of the Board of Works would keep Sir Charles Barry in subjection. The present building was, to his mind, a monument of extravagance.
MR. BAILLIEsaid, he wished to enquire what was to be done with the Courts of Law? Was it intended that they should be replaced? It was impossible that they could remain in their present state, and he should like to know if the cost of their alteration or replacement was

1491
included in the expenditure now before the House?
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, that Sir Charles Barry did propose to remove the Courts of Law, but that removal was not included in the works already sanctioned by the House, and this estimate of 650,000 l. would not include the expense of building new Courts.
MR. WILSONsaid, the Committee would probably be aware that Sir Charles Barry's commission had been a matter of serious dispute between that gentleman and successive Boards of the Treasury, and until within the last twelve months his claims had not even been brought into the shape of an account. The original agreement with Sir Charles Barry was made by Lord Besborough, who was the First Commissioner of Works when the palace was commenced, and by it the architect was to receive a sum of 25,000 l. in full for his commission upon the building as then contemplated, though Sir Charles Barry protested that he never quite assented to this agreement. He (Mr. Wilson) might here mention that the original expenditure of 700,000 l. then contemplated was never intended to finish this building, but only included the shell. As far as he could make out, the calculation upon which Lord Besborough based this agreement was of something like 3 per cent. upon the whole expenditure. The usual commission paid to architects was 5 per cent.; but in this case, where the cost of measurement—which was a very serious item—was defrayed by the public, the commission allowed was 3 per cent. It appeared to the Treasury, therefore, that it would be an equitable arrangement to adopt the principle upon Which Lord Besborough appeared to have acted—although Sir Charles Barry said he never assented to it, while admitting that he had acted upon it—and to pay the architect a commission at the same rate as that originally contemplated. Sir Charles Barry protested against that decision; a correspondence had gone on upon the subject from that day to the present; the Treasury had kept their payments to him within that amount of 3 per cent. upon the actual outlay on the building; and, with regard to the question of measurement, as Sir Charles Barry stated that he had incurred considerable expenditure of his own under this head, that matter was at present under consideration until the facts were discovered. In a very short time a final
1492
decision, he hoped, would be come to—a decision which might not satisfy Sir Charley Barry perhaps, but which would be, he thought, a just one as between that Gentleman and the public.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that a commission of 3 per cent. upon the expenditure vould produce a sum of 54,000 l., and he wished to know whether the Treasury meant to resist any further claim, and to confine Sir Charles Barry's remuneration to 3 per cent upon the actual outlay?
MR. LLOYD DAVIESsaid, he begged to ask whether the 3 per cent. commission was charged upon the decorations of the interior as well as upon the building generally?
MR. WILSONreplied that the commission was charged upon the entire outlay, including decorations, and that the Government were prepared to resist any further claims beyond the 3 per cent., though they would of course replace any private expense incurred by Sir Charles Barry with regard to measurement.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, he wished to ask if, in addition to decorations, the commission was charged upon repairs, because as alterations and repairs appeared never to be finished, the percentage upon them would furnish Sir Charles Barry with a perpetual annuity.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, that Government was prepared to resist any further charge beyond the 3 per cent, which was the usual amount paid to architects for public works, including decorations and other similar matters.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, a proposition ought to have been made to Sir Charles Barry to this effect, that if he did not choose to afford his services on certain terms, they would be dispensed with.
MR. PERCYsaid, he noticed that there was in these Estimates a sum of 6,000 l. charged for warming and ventilating the Houses of Parliament. The Committee ought to know whether this was to be a regular annual charge.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, that with respect to the ventilation of the House, the sum of 6,000 l. was proposed in consequence of the recommendation of the Committee which had been appointed to consider that matter. A portion of that expense had been already incurred, when Mr. Gurney was employed on the recommendation of the Committee. For his own

1493
part, he must say that he thought the improvement which had taken place in the ventilation of the House was worth the expense, but for the future he anticipated considerable reductions.
MR. PIGOTTsaid, considerable dissatisfaction already prevailed on this matter, and it would be increased if it went forth as it now stood, without some explanation having been given, without which he considered the House ought not to have this expenditure hanging over it year after year.
Vote agreed to; as were also—
(4.) 6,000 l., General Repository for Records.
(5.) 122,841 l., Holyhead Harbour.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he wished to inquire the depth of water at neap tides in the harbour of refuge and the roadstead of Holyhead; and whether the works recommended by the Admiralty had been sanctioned by Parliament?
MR. BAILLIEsaid, he also begged to ask whether the original plans had not been altered, so as to reduce the area of the breakwater?
SIR CHARLES WOOD,in reply, said, he must refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Scobell) to the report of Captain Skinner and Mr. Rendell on the subject. The object of bringing the Estimate forward was to obtain the sanction of Parliament for the expenditure, the proposal being to enlarge Holyhead Harbour, and afford greater security than hitherto, a measure which was justified by the large increase in the number of vessels that resorted to it. He believed there had been some alteration in the original plans.
Vote agreed to; as were the following Votes—
(6.) 234,000 l., Harbours of Refuge.
(7.) 375 l., Port Patrick Harbour.
(8.) 30,963 l., Public Buildings (Ireland).
(9.) 5,876 l., Kingstown Harbour.
(10.) 82,140 l., Two Houses of Parliament.
(11.) 54,400 l., Treasury.
(12.) 27,595 l., Home Department.
(13.) 83,849 l., Foreign Department.
(14.) 35,897 l., Colonial Department.
(15.) 75,733 l., Privy Council Department, &c.
(16.) 2,700 l., Lord Privy Seal.
(17.) 25,211 l., Paymaster General's Department.
(18.) 7,314 l., Comptroller General of Exchequer.
(19.) 21,595 l., Office of Works and Public Buildings.
(20.) 21,862 l., Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues.
(21.) 14,098 l., Public Records Department.
(22.) 205,383 l., Poor Law Administration.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he wished to call attention to the large expenditure required for the maintenance of the establishment in Ireland as compared with that in England. Last year the cost in Ireland was 40,794 l., while in England it was only 35,728 l., and in Ireland eighty-nine persons were employed upon the establishment, the number employed in England being only sixty-six. He wished to know if the Government could give any assurance that the establishment in Ireland would be reduced so as to be more upon a footing with that in England?
MR. WILSONsaid, every effort was being made to reduce the expenditure connected with the administration of the Poor Laws in Ireland. Last year the amount asked for was reduced from 48,000 l. to 40,000 l., and this year there was a further reduction to 34,000 l., making altogether a reduction of 14,000 l.in two years.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the late Secretary for Ireland promised last year that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the whole system of the Poor Laws in Ireland, and he hoped to have a renewal of that promise from the present Secretary.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, the hon. Gentleman's reply could hardly be considered satisfactory to the hon. Member who had just put the question. What the hon. Gentleman wanted to know, and what Irish Members also desired to know, was, whether steps had been taken to reduce the expenditure connected with the administration of the poor law in Ireland. He did not understand that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson) had given a satisfactory answer to the question.
MR. WILSONsaid, it would be seen that the Irish expenditure had been reduced this year by a sum of 6,200 l. This reduction was caused by the abolition of the secretary of the Poor Law Board; by the abolition of one assistant secretary, whose duty was done by the senior clerks; and by inspectors and auditors, amounting together to ten persons, whose united salaries amounted to 5,600 l. He trusted that this would show to Irish Members that

1495
what Government had previously promised on this subject had been in progress of performance.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he wished English Members to be aware of the difference of expenditure on account of the Poor Laws in England and Ireland. The expenditure was at the rate of in England and 1⅞d. in England and 9¾. in Ireland. He could see no valid reason why this discrepancy should exist.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, what he and the Irish Members wanted to know was, whether any prospect existed of such a reduction in the poor law expenditure for Ireland as would make that expenditure conformable to the expenditure in England. The matter afforded a fair subject for inquiry. He understood that the number of persons employed in Ireland in the administration of the poor law was greater than the number of persons employed in England, while the whole amount of the poor law funds for Ireland did not amount to one-seventh of the aggregate amount for England. No assurance had as yet been given that a suitable reduction in the Irish expenditure would occur, and it was, therefore, desirable to know whether any considerable reduction was in contemplation which would be likely to bring the two expenditures to an equality.
MR. WILSONsaid, it was true there were eighty-nine persons employed in Ireland in reference to the poor law, and but sixty-six in England. But hon. Members must be aware that the reason of this difference was that more work was done by the central body in Ireland than was the case in England, where the greater portion of labour was done by local authorities. There was a Bill in progress for altering the poor law of Ireland, with the view of extending local authority and taking away the powers of the central body; and it would be seen that every step in this direction would have the effect of reducing the expenditure, and of course of bringing the expenditure of both countries to a comparative equality.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the Bill in question contained a clause against which he had already protested, as it contemplated the giving away of 160 places of 500 l. a year each, by the Board of Commissioners. What he wanted was that, in conformity with the promise given by Government last year, the question should be thoroughly investigated by a Select Committee.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following, Votes—
(23.) 38,222 l., Mint.
(24.) 15,530 l., Inspectors of Factories.
(25.) 5,156 l., Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in the Exchequer, &c. (Scotland.)
(26.) 6,431 l., Household of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
(27.) 17,032 l., Chief Secretary for Ireland.
(28.) 6,889 l., Paymaster of Civil Services Department (Ireland).
(29.) 22,789 l., Board of Public Works (Ireland).
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he wished to know whether the recommendations in the Report of the Commissioners had been carried out with respect to public works as well as with respect to the poor law.
MR. WILSONsaid, that the Commission intrusted to Messrs. Bromley and Stephenson had not cost the country a single shilling beyond the travelling expenses of those gentlemen, who were public servants of great eminence. Their Reports with regard to the Board of Works, made about two years ago, had been entirely carried out. Their Report with respect to the Poor Law Board, however, had not been acted upon; for that Report was made upon the assumption that the then existing establishment would be maintained, whereas on the discussion of the Estimates in Parliament a very large reduction was made in those establishments. The Report, therefore, which was made upon a very different establishment, could not now be carried out, but so far as it applied to the portion of the establishment that was maintained it would be acted upon.
Vote agreed to.
(30.) 46,421 l., Commissioners of Audit Department.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he must complain that the Civil Service Estimates were submitted to the House in driblets, instead of being presented in a complete form, and he must also reiterate his objection to proceeding with the Estimates on the first day of meeting after the recess.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that as it was necessary the general Estimates should be voted before the commencement of the financial year, it had been the common practice to commence the Miscellaneous Estimates after the Easter recess. Full notice had been given by the Government of their intention

1497
to proceed with these estimates that night, and he saw no reason for complaining of what had been the established practice.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he did not think the Committee had any right to complain of the course pursued by the Government. He believed the Estimates had been for some time in the hands of Members, and there had certainly been an understanding before the recess that the Miscellaneous Estimates should be brought forward on the reassembling of the House. He thought it of great importance and advantage that the Estimates should always be fully in the hands of Members, but he must protest against the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) that no business of importance should be brought forward on the first night of the meeting of the House after a recess. He (Mr. Disraeli) considered that the first night after a recess was exactly the occasion when, with renewed energies, they ought to give their consideration to any important business. If the principle were once admitted that the House met on the first night after a holiday merely as a matter of course, they virtually prolonged the holiday, and introduced a lax mode of carrying on business, which, if it were once adopted, would be found to work most unsatisfactorily. The late recess had exceeded the usual limits, yet the hon. Member for Lambeth complained, on the first night of the reassembling of Parliament, and when apparently they had scarcely sufficient business before them, that they should be asked to consider the Estimates. He fully agreed with that hon. Gentleman that it was of the utmost importance that the Estimates should be placed in the hands of hon. Members at such a period as to afford full time for their consideration, but he (Mr. Disraeli) was not aware that an opportunity had not been afforded of giving these Estimates fair consideration. He had received the Miscellaneous Estimates some days ago, and due notice had been given before the recess that those Estimates would be considered on the day that the House reassembled.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the House ought to proceed to business on the first night of their reassembling instead of prolonging the holidays; but what he complained of was that the Miscellaneous Estimates had not been placed in the hands of hon. Members at an earlier period.
MR. WILSONsaid, the practice which had existed for many years had been followed in this case—the Estimates had been printed in the earlier days of the recess, and had been delivered to Members several days before the reassembling of Parliament.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, for his part, he objected to voting Estimates while they were in ignorance of the intentions of the Government with regard to the Ways and Means.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following—
(31) 16,270 l., Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission, &c.
(32.) 12,190 l., Imprest Expenses under Inclosure and Drainage Acts.
(33.) 42,500 l., General Register Office, England and Wales.
(34.) 3,768 l., Ditto, Dublin.
(35.) 5,715 l., Registrar General of Births, &c., Edinburgh.
(36.) 14,986 l., National Debt Office.
(37.) 3,260 l., Public Works Loan Commissioners.
(38.) 1,570 l., West Indian Islands Relief Commissioners.
(39.) 820 l., Commissioners in Lunacy Office.
(40) 3,000 l. Metropolitan Buildings Office.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he considered that no Act contained so much of injustice and inconvenience as the Metropolitan Buildings Act. Instead of tending to secure the safety of houses, it often tended to endanger them, while, instead of tending to good drainage, it tended to just the contrary. There were two official referees under the Act, one a lawyer, the other an architect; but they so little agreed with each other that they would not sit in the same room together. Now, before they passed this Vote, they ought to have some pledge that a Bill would be brought in to remedy this disgraceful state of things.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he had already obtained leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Metropolitan Buildings Act; and in that Bill he proposed to deal with the question of referees.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following—
(41.) 984 l., General Superintendent of County Roads, South Wales.
(42.) 1,610 l., Registrar of Friendly Societies Department.
(43.) 32,000 l., Secret Services.
(44.) 360,470 l., Stationery, Printing, &c.
(45.) 100,000 l. Public Education, on account.
MR. WILSONsaid, he proposed to take the next Vote out of its usual course. It was the Education Vote, but if the Committee objected to pass the Vote without discussion, perhaps they would allow him to take a sum on account.
MR. DISRAELI: Why not have the discussion now?
MR. WILSONsaid, he did not think it would be convenient to take the discussion now. The Vote was 381,000 l.; would the Committee allow him to take a Vote on account for 200,000 l.?
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he thought it would be much better to postpone the Vote until it could be introduced by a statement from the Minister.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, a Vote on account was required for the sake of carrying out pressing arrangements. A statement would be made before the balance was moved.
MR. DISRAELI: Cannot you take a smaller sum?
MR. WILSON: Yes, 100,000 l.
A Vote on account for 100,000 l. was then agreed to.
Mouse resumed.
The House adjourned at half-after Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Lord Ravensworth after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Charitable Trusts (1855).
Reported—Dean Forest, &c.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS (1855) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that two years ago a Bill was passed for the purpose of constituting a Board, and that certain powers were given to the Commissioners for the purpose of superintending and regulating the charities of the kingdom. Under that Act the Board consisted of a permanent Chief Commissioner, two other Commissioners—one permanent, and one appointed only for four years—two inspectors, and a secretary. There was also to be at the head of the Board a functionary who was not paid. The Board was constituted soon after the close of

1465
Session 1853. Unfortunately for the interests of the public, the temporary member of the Board, a gentleman of considerable experience in these matters—Mr. Jones—had since died, and it was necessary to fill up the vacancy. The first object of this Bill would therefore be to give powers for the appointment of a new permanent Commissioner, because the business of the Commission had been found to be so great, that it would be impossible for the Government to get any competent person to accept the office for a period of merely two years from the present time. He had seen it stated in the public papers, that the Board had done nothing; but he could not admit that to be a fair representation of the fact. They had not done as much as could be wished, because they had not the powers which he was going to ask should be conferred by the present Bill; but they had done a great deal, as was evident from the Report, which had been some time in their Lordships' hands. They were only appointed in the autumn of 1853, and during the year 1854 they had received 1,100 applications for advice from persons connected with the administration of charities. In questions of a minor nature and involving matters of small pecuniary amount, the great object was to have the funds administered with tolerable discretion, if not in strict conformity with the trusts; and for that reason a clause was introduced into the Bill of 1853, by which trustees, doubting how they should administer charities, could ask the advice of the Commissioners, and, acting upon that advice—which in ninety-nine cases out of every hundred was not only discreet, but in conformity with the trusts—they were indemnified. That most beneficial and important power had been very largely exercised. Another power, which had also been exercised to a very considerable extent, and was also of a very useful character, was that which enabled the Board to give authority to trustees to lease land, not only on fair leases, but on building and mining leases, and in some cases even to alienate them. Many charities had been inquired into, and numerous had been the applications to the Board for permission to institute proceedings where abuses existed, which, accordingly as they thought themselves warranted, the Commissioners had either sanctioned or refused. There were a great many other minor matters in which the Commissioners had acted, and upon which they observed in their Report. The
1466
very useful power which enabled the Commissioners to call for distinct accounts of charities had not been complied with by anything like the whole of the charitable trusts of the kingdom. They had received returns only from about 10,000 out of 25,000 trusts, and it was obviously necessary that some legislative interference should take place in that matter. The Board, to a certain extent, had been efficient, and with more extensive powers could be rendered far more efficient. In the first instance, it was proposed by this Bill to sanction the appointment of a third permanent, instead of the late temporary, Commissioner, because the business was found to be more than had been contemplated, and no person who was competent would accept the office, to be turned out of it in a very short period. In the progress of the working of the Act, the Commissioners had discovered a number of minute matters, with respect to which they suggested that alterations would be expedient. They were of too trifling a nature to make it necessary for him to enter into details, and he would therefore confine himself to the more prominent alterations which he proposed. By the Act of 1853 the Commissioners could only recommend and authorise trustees to appeal either to the Court of Chancery or some local court for the purpose of doing certain acts, such as appointing new trustees or settling schemes for the administration of the Charity; but it was found that, in matters of small amount, the sanctioning an appeal to a Court of Justice was really refusing the trustees what they wanted, because they allowed the matter to drop rather than be involved in expense, vexation, and delay. In by far the larger number of cases which the Commissioners had sanctioned no application had been made, and, to obviate that difficulty, power was given by this Bill to the Commissioners to do the acts themselves, subject to an appeal to the Court of Chancery, in a summary way, if what they did were not satisfactory to the parties. Another case in which the Commissioners found they had no authority, and in which it would be of great advantage to the public if authority were given them, was that of charities appropriated to particular parishes, which parishes were divided; and the question was then raised how such charities were to be appropriated. This Bill would give the Commissioners power to apportion the parochial charities, subject, as in the other

1467
case, to an appeal to the Court of Chancery if their apportionment were disapproved. The Commissioners found that it would be in many cases a great saving of expense, if the legal estate, as lawyers called it, was vested in an official person; and this Bill would give facilities for vesting lands and other property in an official trustee, the management of the charity however would be left entirely in the hands of the previous trustees. The Act of 1853 was deficient in reference to enabling parties to make exchanges or partitions, and by this Bill that defect would be remedied. There was no power under the former Act of taxing costs, and it was proposed to enable that to be done by reference to a taxing Master of the Court of Chancery. In cases where Commissioners called for accounts under the authority either of this or the former Act, and their request was disobeyed, it was proposed to treat the default as a contempt of the Court of Chancery, as the most efficient means of compelling parties to comply with what the law enjoined them to do. The Bill also pointed out generally what were the accounts which the Commissioners from time to time were to call upon these parties to render, leaving them to enter into the details hereafter. This was the outline of the measure. There were a great number of smaller clauses, which it would be idle and useless to detail at any time, still less when there was so thin an attendance of their Lordships. There was, however, one matter of a more substantial nature. Under the Act of 1853, it was provided that the Commissioners should not, for two years after the passing of the Act, or from the end of the present Session of Parliament, interfere with Roman Catholic charities; it was now necessary to deal with that subject, which was not without difficulties. At first he had thought it better to deal with it in a separate Bill, but, upon consideration, he was inclined to make it a part of this measure. There was a difficulty in dealing with the subject, and the difficulty arose in this way. For a century and a half, charities for the benefit of Roman Catholics—for instance, for schools and for the maintenance of priests—had existed, though at the time they were constituted they were illegal; and in one sense they were, therefore, not constituted at all. In order to preserve the property appropriated to the support of these charities, a conveyance was made of it to secret trustees, who applied it to
1468
the purposes intended by the founders of the charities. These charities had existed illegally, for, as he had stated, a century and a half to the present time. With regard to a large portion of these charities—those which referred to the maintenance of Roman Catholic places of worship—if they had been constituted since the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Act, they would have been perfectly legal. He therefore saw not the least difficulty in dealing with them, any more than with property connected with Dissenters' chapels; the trust for which had also been constituted at a time when those purposes were illegal, Parliament had dealt with them by enacting, that if the chapels had been used for the purpose stated for twenty-five years no inquiry should take place; and that as the purpose had become legal, the trusts should continue. He saw no difficulty in dealing with the Roman Catholic chapels in the same manner; that was to say, that the trusts relating to anything now lawful, instead of being administered secretly, should be permitted to be exercised openly. But it could not be concealed that many of those secret trusts for Roman Catholic charities were now illegal, and came within the definition of what used to be called "superstitious uses," and which certainly could not be constituted at the present time. He had consulted with Roman Catholics, in order to ascertain what were their sentiments on the subject; and he thought that among rational Roman Catholics there would be no objection to the mode of dealing he proposed. There was no doubt that where the trust was made up of purposes partly legal and partly illegal, the whole of it would be dealt with, and that portion of it which was illegal would be considered as though an information had been filed by the Attorney General; but with regard to those Roman Catholic charities which were wholly illegal, he proposed to exempt them from the operation of the powers of the Commissioners, in order not to allow them to be interfered with, except by the Attorney General. These additional clauses he proposed to print and submit to the consideration of the House before he asked their Lordships to go into Committee on the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, the Bill was important, as it altered an Act which had been very carefully considered in Select Committee, and he thought that it should undergo a similar ordeal. He was

1469
not disposed to resist the Bill; on the contrary, he was inclined to think that in a great degree it was proper; but it required full consideration, especially the religious portion of it, which was one of great difficulty. It was now proposed to create a third paid Commissioner. Care must be taken lest a Board constituted in ease of the subject did not become so cumbrous and costly that it would be a relief to remit the suitors to the Court of Chancery, from which this Act had taken them. He should move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
EARL GRANVILLEwas glad to hear that the noble and learned Lord did not object to the second reading of the Bill, and could assure him that there would be no objection to the course proposed of referring the Bill to a Select Committee.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.
House adjourned till To-morrow.