The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-08 00:00:00

FORTIFICATIONS.

Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN brought in the
Fortifications Bill, which was read a firsttimo.

THE PATRIOTIC FUND.

Mr. J. A. SMITH postponed his motion for a select com-
mittee to inquire into the past management and present con-
dition of the Patriotic Fund, without naming a day when
he would bring it on. He had been informed that the Royal
commissioners were about to hold a meeting and inquire
into the matter which he intended to bring before the house.
In consequence of that, he postponed his motion, but he by
no means pledged himself to wait till the Royal commis-
sioners had investigated the matter and reported.
ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH THROUGH PERSIA.
Colonel SYKES asked the Under-Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs whether there was a new convention for
the construction of the electric telegraph through Persia,
drawn out by Mr. Eastwich, charge d'affaires at Teheran,
on Dec. 17, 1862, and whether there would be any objection
to lay a copy of the same upon the table of the house.
Mr. LAYARD said there was a new convention, but it
was not signed; there would be no objection to lay it on the
table of the house when it was signed,
SALE OF FORESTAL RIGHTS OF THE CROWN.
Mr. TORRENS asked the Secretary to the Treasury
whether the consent of her Majesty, signified in writing
under the Royal sign manual, in conformance with section
5 of cap. 56 of the Act 16th and 17th Vic., had been ob-
tained for the sale of the forestal rights of the Crown over
the southern and the northern portions of the Forest of
Epping, which were authorised to be sold by the two Trea-
sury warrants particularised in page 122 of Appendix to the
Report from the Select Committee on Royal Forests, dated
June 9, 1863; and, if such written consent had been ob-
tained, whether there would be any objection to laying it
upon the table of the house.
Mr. PEEL said it was necessary only in disputed cases.
Here the right was recognised and undisputed, and the
Treasury warrants were sufficient for the purpose.

THE GODAVERY RIVER.
Mr, a. B. SMITH asked the Secretary of State for India,
Whether he had received any communications respecting
the progress of the opening out of the River Godavery since
the date of last published correspondence laid beforeParlia-

went, viz., May 2, 1862; and, if so, whether he would lay
the same upon the table of the house.
Sir C. WOOD said no report had been receive I since the
last published correspondence.
THE AUGMENTATION OF BENEFIC S BILL.
In answer to Mr. HADFIELD,
Sir G. GREY said the second reading of the Augmenta-
tion of Benefices Bill would be moved on Thursday.

MR. ROEBUCK AND THE EMPEROR OF THE

FRENCH.

Mr. S. BEAUMONT—who had the following question
on the paper—To ask the hon. member fur Sheffield whether
the conference in the palace of Fontainebleau, which took
place on Tuesday, the 30th of June, was recorded by any
memorandum made on the same or the following day; and,
if so, to ask the hon. member and the lion, member for
Sunderland, whether (having regard to the assertion in re-
ference to that conference with the French Government had
thought fit to insert in the Moniteur), they would have any
objection to lay it upon the table of the house—said he had
received a private communicationlfrom the hon. member for
Sheffield, in which he informed him he would not be able to
be down to the house that evening to answer the question,
but that all the evidence in his hands upon the subject
would be adduced on the future discussion of his motion.

OFFICE OF WORKS.
for public buildings
" That the large sums annually voted
Mr. B. COCHRANE moved the following resolution :
view to the , w
it should be constituted on
and improvements in the metropolltsharae not expended in
a satisfactory manner, and that
effi-
ciency of the Office of Works,
a different basis." He saidthe
many occasions the sub-
ject
why he should not make the above motion,
being a reason w
had been before the house showed that, so far from its
it was a proof of i
about which but one
architecture of the metropolis,
the upon that house ththenof the errors which they found in
necessity. It was very hard to charge
evils
opinion prevailed. Every one admitted that the public
spent
in an improper manner, and he had
brought
money
ywfaos rward this motion to enable the Government, if
it was carried, as he hoped it would be, to consider the
tnatter during the recess, and modify the Office of Works so
as to meet the requirements and necessities of the metropo-
lis. He would begin his complaint with Burlington House.
That property was purchased by the Government in 1852,
for £160,000. In 1855, and every year since, her Majesty's
Government had been asked what they intended to de with
it, and it was but the other night that the present First
Commissioner of Works made a joke about it. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer also told them on a recent occasion
that they must wait until they had come to a decision about
the Kensington Exhibition building, and then he would tell
them what was to be done with Burlington House. They
could all tell what had been dons with it since 1855, and
now it was turned into a kind of foraging berth for volun-
teers to go through their mancsuvres, and throw up embank-
ments on a small scale. The Geological and two or three
other Societies had taken possession of the building, and the
property was entirely lost to the country. The National
Gallery and the Royal Academy were still together, after
repeated committees had reported in favour of their separation
In 1861 a sum of between £16,000 and £17,000 was voted to
put the building in a state to meet the requirements of both,
and now after all they were to be divided. All these unsatis-
factory proceedings arose from the constant change of the
First Commissioner of Works—the average period of his
holding office being two years only—who invariably on taking
office threw over what had been done by his predecessor.
A balance of between £26,000 and £30,000 was left from
the vote for the Duke of Wellington's funeral, with which
it was intended to erect a monument to his memory in St,
Paul's Cathedral. That had not been done, and he had no
idea of what had become of the money. He was not blam-
ing one particular Commissioner of Works, but only the
system, feeling that every one of them had been anxious to
discharge the duty of the office. In 1838 a committee re-
ported the Foreign-office as unsafe; yet, up to this time
nothing had been done towards erecting a new one. The
estimate for the Houses of Parliament was £700,000, but
there had been upwards of three millions spent on them,
and they were considered by many hon. members a disgrace
to the country. Buckingham Palace was estimated at
£240,000, but £1,400,000 had been expended upon it. The
Record-office was in an incomplete state, and the only thing
that made the War-office in Pall-mall reconcileable was the
pleasant view the chief officials had on to the park, which
they did not like to lose. (Laughter.) He mentioned a cir-
cumstance in connection with the erection of a floating or
permanent light for the shipping of Ceylon, as a proof of
how public money was spent. In 1826 a representation was
made that a floating light should be placed on Bass's Rock,
Ceylon ; and in 1848, the Government having made up their
mind that something should be done, wrote to Ceylon for
advice, and in 1854 they got a report, stating that a floating
light was impracticable, and that it should be a permanent
one. In that year a vote for £4,500 was taken for its erec-
tion; and in 1855 £3OOO more; and in 18:56 £17,000 more,
with £6,000 for steamers to carry over the materials. In
1857 £B,OOO more were voted; in 1858 £10,000; in 1859
£lO,OOO ; making, together, £54,000 on the £4,500 estimate.
(Hear.) The lighthouse had not been put up, and was, be
believed, now lying on the wharf at Point de Galle, because
in 1861 it was found a permanent lighthouse could not be
erected, but that a floating light must be stationed over the
place where the light was required. (Hear, hear.) In 1860
a vote of £B,OOO was taken for the floating light; in 1862
£2,000 ; and this year they had voted £B,OOO ; making alto-
gether very nearly £BO,OOO. And that was the way they
trifled with public money. (Hear, hear.) Since the last
time he brought the subject before the house he had taken
a ride with his right hon. friend the First Commissioner of
Works to the Serpentine, but the only thing hecould admire
there were the water-lilies. The water was a green colour,
and a jet had been put up 8 feet high on the monolith, so
that the water could not flow out cf it. Why was it that
the:land at Carlton-terrace had been sold for so small a price
as £30,000 per acre, when they had it upon the authority of
the noble lord at the head of the Government that land else-
where in the metropolis sold for £60,000 per acre ? Why,
also, waa the aspect of the metropolis, as regarded its public
buildings, so inferior to that of all other capitals ? These
failures were all due to the bad organisation of the Office of
Works. But were they to go on for ever in that way ?
Nearly £1,000,000 was expended every year upon public
works, and since 1847 or 1848 something like £3,000,000
had been spent in connection with science and art. It was
not for him to say what should be done; still he might
point out that if the department were worked by a perma-
nent commission of able men, they never would have wit-
nessed the scene of the other night, for they would have
known what they wanted. Hie
principal complaint was
that the office had not authority enough.
Mr. FERRAND seconded the motion.
Mr. COWPER had no doubt that many of our public
buildings must be most offensive to a person of such well re-
cognised taste as his hon. friend. At the same time he could
have wished his hon. friend had taken the trouble to inquire
into the causes of this evil. He thought he could show that
in the instances quoted the Office of Works were in no way
responsible. It was true that Burlington House was pur-
chased for a sum of £140,000; that instead of being no use to
the public, the contrary was the fact ; for it had been of the
very greatest use. Of late years it had been occupied by a
number of the learned societies--by the Royal Society, the
University of London, and the Linnesan Society ; while the
public were thereby enabled to obtain much needful accom-
modation at Somerset House. He quite agreed that the
garden of Burlington House might serve for the erection of
a most splendid picture-gallery; but unfortunately the Office
of Works could not have their own way in the matter, and
it certainly was not owing to them that the site had not
been availed of for the purpose. The National Gallery was
a building of which they had no reason to be proud ; but
then the Office of Works had had nothing to do with its
erection.. The blame lay with the Government of the day,
who were unwilling to spend more than £50,000 upon the
diand that was a +gum entirely too small for an edifice
to u
beil erected in such a situation. And it was entirely owing
building,
to the efforts of Lord Monteagle, who was the Chancellor of
the Exchequer of the day, that stone was made to take the
place the building, such as it was. Neither
were
h o f e
worksstucco in
eßuckingham Palace carried out under
t
andtetr the
the control of the department. Tthhey
Sovereign
executed by
MT
re' a sNashury. the sale of
()f ianed:stovceartelitgn.en.
Carlton-terrace,
unldheern the directions
that did not concern the Office of Works, as it was sold
by the Commissioners of Land Revenue. Nor could he e
state of the Serpentine.
ac-
knowledge them responsible for th
dtoirtehe
The waters of the Serpentine were shallow, and therefore
it was impossible to prevent the growth of week's. He cer-
tainly did not consider it his duty to stand up for the artifi-
cial features of the metropolis. At the same time it was
impossible to deny that with respect to many of their public
buildings they might well be proud. There was Somerset
House—than which he did not know a handsomer
building—the Custom House, the Post Office, and the
Museum of Geology. All these were plain, substantial,
well-arranged, and economical buildings, and very suit-
able for their several purposes. In regard to Public Im-
provements, he thought the conduct of the department
had been very satisfactory ; in proof of which he
might refer to such great improvements as the forma-
tion of New Oxford-street, the projection of the new street
from Blackfriars to the Mansion-house, and the Thames
embankment scheme. The right hon. gentleman having
traced the history of the department, said that until 1832 it
might be said to be quite a subordinate department. In that
year, however, the office was for the first time placed under
a Minister of the Crown, who was assisted by a board; and
so the department was constituted until the year 1851,
when the existing constitution was adopted. The office had
charge of 120 buildings in England, 24 in Scotland, 17 parks
and gardens, 80 post-offices, and 41 probate registries; and
he ventured to say there was no department under the
Crown the business of which was more efficiently conducted.
But his hon. friend complained of the want of permanency
about it; well, the secretary Mr. Austin was permanent, and
a most efficient public servant 100 ; there was a permanent
collector, and several permanent surveyors and assistant
surveyors, and 15 clerks of works. Moreover, the depart.
ment was not dependent upon the official servants con-
nected with the office, for, as occasion required, they had
recourse to the highest professional talent outside. As
architects, they had recourse to Mr. Gilbert Scott and Mr.
Edward Barry, to Mr. Fowler as an engineer; and on the
subject of landscape gardening they received notice from
Mr. John Leslie. When it became necessary to take
counsel with respect to the decay of the stone used for the
Houses of Parliament, they called in Mr, Farraday and Sir