The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-01 00:00:00

"
13 TIM 8 ITN, ON

Trtg-DAY EVENING, AuGrsT 13 1884.

the hon. member had made with regard to the voting of
nearly half a million sterling for the purchase of land for
public buildings, and yet that accommodation could not be
found for the officers of the Duchy of Cornwall was un-
founded, because a munificent sum of 1,50,0001. had been
given by the commissioners of the Great Exhibition, and a
sum of 200,000/. had been voted for the purchase of land
at Kensington, anti a further sum of 150,000/. for the pur-
chase of Burlington Hou-e, yet it was not merely for the
building of public offices that thesg sums were voted for
the purchase of land. It was impossible to give an equi-
valent to the Duchy of Cornwall for the loss of their offices,
and the country was bound to find the Duchy a proper
place for the transaction of its business in return for those
they gave up for the public convenience.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS stated that what he said was, that
no explanatio❑ was given of the obj.:cts for which this
467,000!., including the 150.0001. given by the commis-
sioners of the Great Exhibition, had been expended.
Mr. WISE observed that the act of 1775, which gave a
vested interest to the Duke of Cornwall in the offices in
Somerset House, and which charge l 100,0001. out of the
revenues for that purpose, was so contrary to Parliamentary
usage, that a subsequent act repealed it ; and he doubted,
therefore, whether the Duchy really possessed any vested in-
terest in these offices. Then there was no gua, antee that
the expenditure contemplated in this vote would not be ex-
ceeded. (" Yes, there i,.") He was glad to hear that the
estimate was not to be exceeded. They were always told tha
they could not interfere in matters connected with the
Duchy of Cornwall any more than they could interfere
with the private property of the Duke of Bedford and the
Marquis of Westminster, but if that was the position of
the Duchy of Cornwall, how was it that the public were
called upon to provide it with offices at all? (Hear, hear.)
He thought an establishment having a revenue of 59,1581.
and a surplus of 25,000/. a year, might well pay for it.,
own offices. (Hear, hear.) He must enter his protest
against the vote.
The Marquis of CHANDOS defended the vote, and de-
nied that the Duchy of Cornwall were asking for any money
for their own accommodation. This grant was required not
for their convenience, hilt for the public convenience. All
the duchy desired was that they should be provided with
accommodation equivalent to that they now possessed, and
which, for the public convenience, they were asked to sur-
render. (Hear.)
Mr. KENDALL also supported the vote.
" Mr. HADFIELD thought some further explanation was
necessary as to the disposal of these sites, which ought to
be appropriated to Government buildings. They had had
a conversation tne other night as to the renewal of the
lease of Montague house, Now that was, of all others, the
site which, according to ail authority, was the best adapted
to public offices, and though same explanation had been
given by the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Disraeli)
of the accusation he made against the present Govern-
ment as to that renewal, the house ought to know
something more about it, and by what influence it
was that the public had been deprived of that
valuable site. (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had promised to examine the papers, and give the
house full explanation on the subject, but be had not
done so. He (Mr. Hadfield) thought it would be well if
those papers were produced, and also that the house should
be informed whether the renewed lease had been granted,
if not to a member of the late Government, whether it had
been at the instance of any member of that Government,
or in any way for party purposes? (Hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI was perfectly ready to admit, as he had
admitted before, that he was the party who had renewed
the lease of Montague-house, and that he alone was the
person responsible for it. That lease was renewed to a dis-
tinguished nobleman, who was a member of neither the
present nor the late Government ; and the transaction had
been uninfluenged by party feeling in the slightest degree.
But with-regard to the general question, as to the renewal
of leases of crown property in the vicinity of the public
offices—when he gave his opinion on a previous evening
that such leases ought not to be renewed, but that the pro-
perty should be retained for the public service, that opinion
had no reference to the accommodation required for the
offices of the Duchy of Cornwall. He believed had Mon-
tague House been retained for the purposes of the Duchy
of Cornwall, it would have been the most disastrous arrange-
ment for the public that could have been made. (Hear,
hear.) It was to a very superior class of service to which
he referred when he said Montague House should have been
retained for the public service. But he believed very equi-
table claims had been shown to exist for the renewal of the
lease, and for making this case an exception to the rule he
had laid down in reference to the renewal of the leases of
crown property in such situations.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The hon.
gentleman (kr. Hadfield) having reminded him that he
had given something like a pledge to the house
in connexion with this subject, considered that he owed
a word or two of explanation. When ho stated that his
recollection differed from that of the right hon. gentleman,
but that the papers relating to the transaction were at the
Treasury, and he would examine them, be had the facts
pretty clearly in his mind, but did not consider it either

wise or just, seeing that the affair had taken place many
months ago, to speak positively without referrinc, to the
documents. The right hon. gentleman had, however,b
rendered any statement of his unnecessary by the explana-
tion he gave the other evening, and after that explanation
he thought it hardly necessary to lay the papers upon the
the table. If, however, the hon. gentleman wished them
to be produced, and moved for them, he saw no reason
against it. (Hear, hear.) Although he considered that
an error in judgment had been committed in renewing the
lease of Montague House, it was only due to the right
hon. gentleman to say that nothing that had occurred gave
the slightest justification that there had been anything
more than an error in judgment. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. V. SFIELLEY inquired whether it would be
stated in the papers to be produced how much more the
Duke of Buccleuch paid for Montague-house under the
new lease than under the old one?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Yes.
Sir W. MO LESWORTH, in reply to a question from
an hon. member, stated that he was not aware that the
Act of Parliament referred to by Mr. Wise, by which a
vested interest was given to the Duchy in the offices at
Somerset house, had been repealed.
The vote then passed.
On the vote of 2.2731. for defraying the salaries of joint-
stock companies officers,
Mr. BRIGHT would take this opportunity of asking the
right hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Trade,

whether the important question of limited liability was
under the consideration of Government. He would say
that he was acting for an important mercantile class,
connected with Manchester and also with Liverpool, who
were desirous of establishing a steam-shipping company
under a charter of incorporation, and, on attempting to
forward their views, he found it was not a very easy task
to get at the information he required. The resolution
passed recently by the house bore very strongly on this
question, and he hoped the right hon. gentleman would
state, for the advantage of the house and the country,
whether it was the intention of Government to do any-
thing next session, and to bring in some measure upon the
subject ?

Mr. CARDWELL said the resolution referred to the
principle of en conmandite, and did not apply to the
granting of charters to joint-stock companies. He believed
it was the general opinion, and no one more cordially
shared in that opinion than himself, that it was undesir-
able power of this kind should be exercised by a political
official who was without the means of collecting evidence
on both sides. Wit'h respect to the commission, the
recommendations of the commissioners had received the
most careful attention of Government, and Government
would not fail to take these recommendations into con-
sideration.
Mr. BRIGHT wanted a more definite answer. He
wanted to know whether Government intended to take
proceedings to place this department on a more satisfactory
footing ?
Mr, CARDWELL would reply that Government were
acting in strict accordance with the recommendations of
the committee.
Mr. BRIGHT asked if the right hon.- gentleman could
give a positive answer that he would
was duvoin9;
aThpeoliligohatl
hon. gentleman said the difficulty in
officer applied to for a charter in apvat He wished to
eroom,wherehe
was not in a condition to hear evidence.
know whether Government proposed
things, and to make such arrangern to alter that state of
caseents heardtha andtpart deesaopipdleyti
ing for a charter would have their
without delay ?
Mr. CARDWELL—Considering that a committee of
that house, after examining into the subject, refrained
from coming to anyconclusion,
he thought it would be
highly unbecoming
in him to anticipate the conclusion to
which Government would arrive. The report hat only
been laid on the table a short time. When it was fully
considered then the determination of Government would
be known.
The vote was agreed to.
Upon the next vote, 50,0001. for the expense of the
British department of the Paris Industrial Exhibition of
1855,
Mr. BRIGHT said that his constituents were most
anxious that our textile fabrics should he properly repre-
sented in the Penis Exhibition, and to show that their
object was a public one had subscribed a large sum for the
purposes of the Exhibition, stipulating that on the goods
sent over no name of any particular manufacturer should
be inscribed. He had received a letter from the town
clerk of Manchester, containing some observations respect.
ing the disposition of the Government grant, which he
thought he could not do better than read to the house.
The writer stated that the manufactures of Man?hester
gathered from Mr. Cole's letter that very little substantial
aid would be afforded to the Exhibition of British manu-
factures. Mr. Cole allotted to the subdividing of space
upwards of 3,00 i ; expenseof office in Paris about 3,000/. ;
cleaning, &c., 5,000/. ; painting, decorating, &c., 3,0001. ;
travelling and other expenses of jurors, etc., 11,000/.
(Hear, hear.) In the whole estimate there was only 9,7501.
appropriated in aid, direct or indirect, of the objects
of the exhibition, while the whole of the residue would he
expended in matters which he believed would be amply
provided for by the French Government, or in entertain
ing large staff of jurors and others sumptuously in Paris.
He hoped that as he had now called the attention of Go-
vernment to the matter, the money would not be spent in
eating or drinking, or wasted in extravagant official man-
agement. With respect to the large sum set down for
jurors, he thought that much, if not all of it, might be
dispensed with. He did not know what the jurors in
France might do, but in England in 1851 the distribution
of medals was so general, and indiscriminate, that little or
no value was rat, ched to them by the recipients. (Hear.)
He did not wish to say a word against Mr. Cole individu-
ally, against the grant, or against its object. He believed
that if the French people were made acquainted with our
inanfactures much good might result, but if 9,0001. was
sufficient to be expended in their transmission, surely
43,0001. was excessive for the other purposes indicated in
Mr. Cole's letter.
Mr. CARDWELL said that with regard to the distri-
bution of the sum it should he recollected that expenses on
occasions like the present were' of two kinds. Those of
which individual exhibitor felt the benefit, and those
which went in promotion of the general object. The hon.
inenil,er*seerned to think the estimate for superintendence
and clerical assistance too ranch, but they were based on
the audits of 1851, and it was thought that what the
French did for us then we should do for them in 1855. The
money would be spelt under the control of an official ac-
countant, and must ultimately be examined by the Board
of Trade. The a hole expense would be much less than
that of the French Government in 1851. He should take
that opportunity of stating that the French Government
had made arrangements for the admission and consump-
tion in France of all the British goods, even those which
were at present prohibited at a maximum duty of 20 per
cent. His hon, friend might depend upon it that every
effort would be in: de to economise, and that the items
would be reduced, if possible, consistently with the objects
of the exhibition.
Mr. A. PELLATT thought the item for glass fittings !I
excessive.
Mr. BRIGHT repeated his objections not to the vote
but to the distribution, especially 11,0001. for jurors'
travelling expenses. He wished to know how many jurors
would be necessary. What he objected to was, that a large
staff of jurors, officials, and clerks should live for weeks
luxuriously in Paris, at the public expense, while so small
a gun as 9,7001, wan allotted to the actual transmission of