The Sun.
London, England, 1860-12-03 00:00:00

WHEN ARE THE .7%7 RIF PUBLIC
OFFICES TO BE COMMENCED
How is it that the public are still kept in the
dark as to what is eventually to be done with the
public offices in general, and with the Foreign-office
in particular ? Rumours are afloat that the Foreign-
office is in such an unsound condition that Lord
John Russell does not feel safe when a cabinet is
summoned to meet there, and that, therefore, his
lordship and staff are forthwith to remove to
Spring-gardens, until something definite shall be
arrived at as to the class of architecture to which
the new edifice shall belong : whether it shall be
built upon its present site; or whether the plan
originally recommended by the Committee on
Public Offices, of having them in close contiguity,
and near the Houses of Parliament, is to be
carried into effect. The difference of opinion
as to the style of architecture of the new building
is as great as ever. Lord John Manners,
the late Chief Commissioner of Works under Lord
Derby's Administration, is as firm a supporter of the
medireval system as ever, whilst Lord Palmerston
will not give way one iota as to the Italian design,
which he has so strenuously supported. The Chief
Commissioner of Works naturally adopts the views
of his illustrious relative ; but there is still the
House of Commons to be dealt with, and they have
as yet shown a determination not to allow a stone
to be laid for the new offices without their sanction.
The two former chief commissioners and the pre-
sent are at variance. Lord Llanover is for the
plan as originally recommended, of having all the
public offices concentrated. Lord John Man-
ners does not take so comprehensive a view, and
would prefer that the buildings should occupy
something about the same site, but that the
architecture should be Gothic. Mr. Cowper does
not like to ask the House of Commons for thelarge
sum that would be required to complete the ori-
ginal plan, and therefore proposes to adopt the
present site generally, to sink the concentration, but
to adopt an improved system of architecture. Each
have partisans who more or less chime in with
their views, and they are as firmly attached to
them as if the question was really one of great poli-
tical importance. There is, however, this distinc-
tion ; the two latter chief commissioners only fall
foul with the first on the ground of expense. Lord
Llanover would take the site as originally proposed,
from the Thames up to Whitehall to St. James's-
park, and have all the public offices, figuratively
speaking, under one roof. Lord John Manners and
Mr. Cowper (the late Mr. Fitzroy held the same
opinion) admire the proposition in the abstract,but
demur to the details and to the cost. The tem-
porary removal of the Foreign-office to Spring-
gardens will, at the very least, entail a first
charge of £20,000, besides a variety of con-
tingencies, to which every one knows public depart-
ments are subjected. Granted that the Foreign-
office is removed to Spring-gardens, at the above
cost, what then may be expected? Why, that the
old office will be pulled down, and thus add another
eyesore to that which is presented by the vacant
piece of ground opposite to the Privy Council-
office, and next to the Foreign-office, for which the
Government paid large sums, and which for years
has been allowed to remain useless, except as afford-
ing facilities for bill-stickers. It is much to be
feared that once the Foreign-office is removed to
Spring-gardens, the old edifice pulled down, and
the officials comfortably settled in their new habi-
tation, they will not care to trouble the Government
to press on with the new office, and then the interest
of the purchase money will be lost to the public.
Great, however, as is the loss there can hardly
be more than one opinion that it should
be incurred rather than an incongruous
pile of buildings should be erected without
any reference to the great plan of concentration
that may eventually be carried into effect. The
House of Commons at the present time has large .;
demands to meet. The constituents twit their
members with a tenpenny income tax and the high
price of provisions, and the members, especially the
representatives of country cities and towns, hardly
dare vote for a large outlay, although it may ulti-
mately prove an economical work. With respect
to public offices, however, the great objections
raised against employing the public funds for
metropolitan improvements cannot apply. Because
although the erection of new and proper offices would
materially add to the beauties and attractions of the
metropolis, yet they could not by any ingenuity of
reasoning be considered as other then national works.
The House of Commons has voted several millions
for the fortifications of the country ; its executive
might, therefore, be fairly entrusted in laying out
Ohne few hundred thousands in providing sufficient
accommodation !for the public service. The sum
of money annually paid as house rent for the
accommodation of the public departments is
enormous ; and if this amount were only capita-
lised, enough would be raised to erect almost
all that the public requirements demand. The
great scheme must come sooner or later. When
the new Westminster-bridge is opened, and
the beauties of its proportions seen, an
outcry will be raised that all the buildings which
intercept the view of the bridge and the palace at
Westminster should be at once removed, and this
will evidently be done. But whilst the Govern-
ment has its hands practically tied by a House of
Commons who will not vote the necessary funds,
they can do nothing ; and thus it will turn out that
that which might have been obtained reasonably
will not eventually be procurable for less than
three times the amount. The freeholders, the
lessees, and the tenants of the property, of course,
take every advantage of this interregnum, and by
making showy improvements and increased income-
tax returns, will be able to squeeze out of Govern-
ment a much larger sum than the public ought to
pay.— Observer.

PAUPERISM IN _ENGLAND AND WALES'

The Poor Law Board have just issued a set of
tables giving an account of the number oZpaupers is
the various " unions" of England and Wales at the
end of the first half of the year 1860, but not includ-
ing parishes incorporated under Gilbert's Act,
or still under the Act ofElizabeth—an exception
which makes the returns of the Board to a certain
degree imperfect, extending as it does to a portion
of the kingdom containing rather more than a
quarter of a million of persons in 1851. The returns
comprise 646 unions and parishes, with a popula-
tion of 17,672,475 at the last census, and now esti-
mated at 19,740,000; and the number of paupers
relieved on the Ist of July last was 817,573
(104,204 in-door, 713,369 out-door). This givesthe
proportion of paupers as one in 24, or 4.20 per cent.
on the estimated population ; the ratio for the year
ending at Lady-day, 1849, was 6.2 per cent. ; for
the year ending at Lady-day, 1856, 4 8 per cent.
since which date it has been further decreasing. It
is true that on the Ist of July, 1859, the number of
paupers was only 817,082, but the apparent increase
this year is accounted for by the circumstance that
many unions have now included in their statements
of the number of paupers relieved two classes not
hitherto reckoned in such returns—namely, paupers
receiving medical relief only and non-resident
paupers, so that these last, we presume, are counted
twice over. Excluding now the vast parish of St.
Pancras, the returns of which are not so exact in
their details as those of other places, we can give
some analysis of this great company of the poor.
First, it may be decided thus—There were 162,337
men, 357,271 women, 289,587 children under 16,
and Ivaguants, the men thus forming 20 per
cent.;7th3e7women 44'1, the children 35-7. Again,
a classification may be made upon a different prin-
ciple : 338,497 are described as able-bodied,
438.935 as not able-bodied, and 31,763 insane, the
1,737 vagrants completing the number; the able-
bodied forming 41.8 per cent., the not able-bodied
54.1, the insane, 3.9. Still another division may be
made, excepting
the vagrants, but it is necessary to
explain that, in Poor Law computation, children
relieved with able-bodied parents are classed as
able-bodied, while children relieved without their
parents, or with parents not able-bodied, are classed
as not able bodied; so reckoning, we find the able-
bodied class consist of 28,367 men, 95,205 women,
and 214,925 children under 16; the not able-bodied
—120,398 men, 244,524 women, and 74,013
children ; the insane-13,572 men, 17,542 women,
and 649 children. Lastly, concerning these able-
bodied paupers and their children, there is an
account supplied by 629 unions of the causes which
brought them on the poor-rates—an account apply-
ing to 303,797 out of the 338,497 able-bodied paupers
above-mentioned. The description of Class 2
appears to require explanation or correction, but
we can only give it as it stands in the return .

Causes of relief to oat-door able
bodied paupers, July 1, 1860.
1. Widowhood—widows
Children dependent on them
2. Families dependent on males
in classes 2,3, and 4—wives
Children „
3. Sickness, accident, or

Children
Men. Women. under 16.
49,232 -
- 123,646

19,618

51„194

mity—Their own .......... 16,11 G
That of any of the family, or
funeral
4. Husbands non-resident

7,376 -
- 3,867 10,102
- 1,568 4470
- 2,122

5. Husband in gaol, tte
6. Bastardy --mothers

Children
7. Husbands in the army or navy
Wives
Children — 3,407
8. Single women without children 5,267
9. Want of work and other causes BC9 ____
10. Sudden and urgent necessity 117 .___

1,435

24,478 83,139 196,180
It will be seen from this table that of the large
number returned as "able bodied paupers," not
quite a 12th-part are men. The proportionate
numbers mayulbeardst
women, be taken
children under 16.
pn about one adult man
d as
eight
•