The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-02 00:00:00

HARWICH HARBOUR.

On the motion for going into committee of supply,
Captain JERVIS moved—" That in the opinion of this
house it is the duty of her Majesty's Government, before
applying to this house for grants of money to construct
harbours of refuge, to take steps that the natural harbours
of refuge of this country be maintained." The hon. member
referred to a number of reports made to the Admiralty,
showing that with every long continuation of easterly winds
there was an extension of Languard Point, threatening
the access to Harwich Harbour, remarking that though
attention had been drawn to the fact so long ago as July,
1852, no remedy had as yet been provided. Regarding the
subject as one of very great importance he had written to
the Board of Trade, but was told that it was no business of
the Board of Trade, but of the Admiralty. The Admiralty
told him it was the business of the Treasury, and the Trea-
sury that it was in the department of the Board of Trade.
(A laugh.) Ho had, therefore, no alternative but to bring
the question forward in the house. He might be told that
it was not a question for the Government—that the town
should look after its own harbour; but Harwich had been
looked to from time immemorial as an important harbour of
refuge, and his constituents had no jurisdiction over the
harbour. The matter was one of deep interest to the east
coast of England, and he trusted the Government would
take it into their consideration, and do something with a
view to remedy the evils complained of. He should not have
brought the question forward had it not been for the direct
authority of the Trinity House and of the hydrographer of
the navy that it was a matter that could not be delayed,'that
unless some steps were taken the harbour would be stopped
by a bar of sand, and then the cost of the remedy would be
so great that it would not be worth while to undertake it.
The cost of the work was estimated at only £15,000, and he
trusted that the Government would not grudge keeping the
harbour in its integrity at so small an expense when they
were asking Parliament to vote very large sums for artifi-
cial harbours of refuge.
Mr. M. GIBSON was sorry the hon. gentleman should
have been inconvenienced by the reference made from one
department to the other; but as his application was for a
grant of money, the Board of Trade thought, therefore,
that it was a more appropriate subject for the considera-
tion of the Treasury than for the department with which
he (Mr. M. Gibson) was connected. The Board of Trade were
quite alive to the importance of the question, and it would
be admitted by every one that the filling up of so valuable a
harbour of refuge would be a great national misfortune.
(Hear, hear.) He had heard it stated, however, that the
predictions which had been made were not likely to be ful-
filled to the extent that it was supposed, and that the access
to the harbour was not likely to be put an end to altogether ;
but no doubt it was possible that the access might be ren-
dered far more difficult than it was at present. The subject
should receive the most serious consideration of her Majes-
ty's Government. He quite admitted that it was a matter
of importance, and that the hon. gentleman had done good
service in bringing it under thenotice of the house. (Hear.)
He should not anticipate what the Secretary to the Treasury
was likely to say on the financial part of the question, but
this they knew, that estimates for engineering operations of
this character were not generally to be relied on, but that
difficulties arose in the progress of engineering operations
connected with harbours involving a great outlay beyond
the original estimate. He hoped that full inquiry would
take place, and that means would be found to deal with the
difficulties of this case.

Capt. JERVIS, after the reply of the right hon. gentle-
man, expressed his willingness to withdraw his motion, and
The motion was withdrawn accordingly.
SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

The house having resolved itself into committee of supply,
Mr. PEEL proposed a vote of £38,214 for the expense of
maintenance and repairs of the royal palaces—the first vote
of the class " Public works and buildings."

Mr. CHILDERS drew attention to the form in which
these estimates were presented, and expressed his hope that
the system which had been applied to the army and navy
estimates would be extended to the civil service estimates.

Mr. WILLIAMS complained of the increase year after
year of the civil service estimates. In the last year of the
unreformed parliament the civil service estimates amounted
to £2,000,000, while this year the amount was £7,665,000,
that being £123,000 more than was required last year.
With regard to the vote before the committee, he did not
complain of the expense of the palaces occupied by her Ma-
jesty, but he wanted explanations of the items £2,750 for St.
James's Palace occupied by the royal household ; £3,627
for state rooms, chapels royal, and apartments occupied by
the royal household; £4,755 for Kensington Palace, with
the stables and out-buildings; and £6,054 for Hampton-
court Palace.

Mr. PEEL said that comparison in the miscellaneous
votes could be fairly made before the year 1834, when seve-
ral new charges were transferred to these estimates. The
vote for the police alone made an addition of £lOO,OOO.
With regard to the comparison with last year, the census
vote alone was £127,000, which more than accounted for
the increase this year.

Mr. COWPER said the tree palaces referred to by the
hon. gentleman were not in the occupation of her Majesty,
but being royal palaces they had to be maintained. The
Lord Chamberlain and Lord Steward had offices in St.
James's Palace, there being no room for them in Bucking-
ham Palace. The palace of Kensington was in a dilapidated
state and required considerable repairs ; indeed, some por-
tions of it would have to be pulled down before long. He
was sure no one would grudge the money for the repair of
a monument of such architectural beauty as Hampton Court.
The works carried on there were works of necessity. Of late
years, persons who got apartments in that palace, from the
bounty of the Queen, were the widows of officers in the
army and navy who had not the means of renting houses of
their own.

Mr. "WILLIAMS observed that he could find the names
of only three widows of officers amongst those who were
provided with apartments in Hampton. court Palace.
The vote was then agreed to.
On the vote of £35,470 for the maintenance and repair of
public buildings,
Mr. WILLIAMS complained of the item of £4,200 for
supply of water to the Houses of Parliament and the foun-
tains at Trafalgar-square, also of the item of £9OO for the
Tithe and Copyhold Commission,and the increase of £4,855
for the maintenance of Holyrood Palace. He should take
the sense of the committee on the item of £6BO, the rent of
the house in the occupation of the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sion. He thought they were wealthy enough to pay the
rent themselves. He moved that the vote be reduced by the
sum of £6BO.

Mr. A. SMITH complained that so many items were
jumbled together in this vote, and recommended a better
classification in future. He also complained that the public
were paying high rents for houses on Crown property.
Mr. PEASE thought that the charge for the Ecclesiasti-
cal Commission was to have been removed from the esti-
mates. He understood the commissioners stated that they
had not asked for this money.
Mr. PEEL said he believed this money was not for the
rent of the house, but for the performance of duties which
were formerly performed by the Church Building Commis-
sion. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners stated that one-
fourth of their time was occupied on business that did not
Properly belong to them, and it was under that calculation
that the sum was put down in the estimates.
Mr. WILLIAMS said he should withdraw his amend-
ment, in the hope that when the house was more full he
should have a better chance of carrying it.
Mr. The emnotiirDzststhweniswihetdhdtoraknwn.
of the Admiralty and the War bur
Ow why there was a dis-
tinction made between the build
eartpmpreonptr.iatTedhetroethweaussea
rent paid for the one, and not for Department.
other. He thought
üb:o
the votes of the public departments sheput together.
By that means they would be
betterable
of £7OO
the
whole cost of each. There was the large
aura
paid for the Stationery-office, which had been built a- ear
en built entirely
at the public expense. That seemed to him every large
sum
Mr. LAYARD called attention to the item of £340 for the.
removal of a hideous piece of upholstery, known as the
Wellington Burial car, from Marlborough-house to the
crypt in St. Paul's Cathedral. He thought it would be
better to make a present of it to Madame Tussand.

Mr. DISRAELI wished to know what had become of
the amendment of the hon. member for Lambeth.
The CHAIRMAN said it had been withdrawn.

Mr. DISRAEDI said the putting of the question of with-
drawal had not been heard on his side of the house. If it
had he certainly should have opposed it. It was desirable
that the business should ba conducted with more precision
and less haste. It was easy for the hon. member for Lam-
beth to obtain credit for.attending to the estimates; but
then it ought to be understood that he withdrew his amend-
ment when there was a chance of its being carried.

The CHAIRMAN said the amendment had been with-
drawn at the instance of an hon. member who wished to
move an amendment on a previous item.

Mr. COWPER observe i that the Admiralty had its own
department of works. The two houses which had been re-
ferred to were sublet, so that in reality the rent was paid
by the tenants and not by the public. He thought it was
very desirable to keep the departments of Woods and Works
separate, and not blend their accounts as had been sug-
gested. As to the Duke of Wellington's funeral car, he con-
sidered that though it had been exposed to great criticism
as a matter of taste, it was an object of great interest to a
large portion of the public, as was proved by the numbers
that had visited it at Marlborough-house. It did seem to
him, therefore, that connected as it was with the memory
of that great man, the Duke of Wellington, it would be de-
sirable to place it in the crypt of St. Paul's Cathedral, near
bin reautio, The expense woad be YerY light, and weitl4 he