HC Deb 08 July 1869 vol 197 cc1456-82

SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

(1.) £91,045, to complete the sum for Post Office and Inland Revenue Buildings.

In answer to Mr. Alderman LUSK,

MR. LAYARD

said, the General Post Office in St. Martin's-le-Grand was not equal to its requirements, and an entirely new office was to be erected opposite to the present building.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

asked what was to be done with the present building? Was any part to be utilized for extra offices that would now be required for telegraphic purposes?

MR. AYRTON

said, it would be kept up. The new building was to be in addition to the existing one.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) £58,475, to complete the sum for Harbours of Refuge.

MR. ALDERMAAN LUSK

observed that last year the Committee was told only a few thousands more would be wanted; he could not, therefore, understand why demand was here again made for £22,000. The original Estimate for Alderney Harbour was £755,000; but £1,324,000 had been spent upon it.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, this was the last Vote that would be required for harbours.

MR. DODDS

said, he was delighted to hear it. In the North of England people were going begging for means to improve really useful harbours, while vast sums were being frittered away to no purpose, comparatively speaking.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) £3,300, to complete the sum for Portland Harbour.

MR. BOWRING

said, it was worthy of notice that this harbour had cost £14,000 less than the original estimate.

Vote agreed to.

(4.) £7,000, to complete the sum for Metropolitan Fire Brigade.

(5.) £19,839, to complete the sum for Rates on Government Property.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, that while the whole Vote for four years past had only amounted to £27,000, it was this year £2,000 more. Moreover, an office seemed to have grown up in connection with the Vote, and that office and the salaries it involved cost £900 a year. He wished some explanation about this office, or he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £900.

MR. AYRTON

assured the hon. Member that he was in error in his reading of the Votes. The rates, during some years past on Government property, amounted to £36,000, and the different appearance the Vote assumed now arose from a transfer of part of the charge to another Vote. The total charge on this account amounted, as the explanatory Vote showed, to £39,175, which, however, was not a real increase on recent Votes. The Government long since agreed with the House that it would decide at what rate public property should be assessed to local rates, instead of leaving the matter in the hands of local officials. To carry out this arrangement an officer in the Board of Works was appointed with assistants, as described in the Vote; but the arrangement led to a vast amount of circumlocution in cases of rating property belonging to the Army and Navy, and it appeared to him that it would be better to have the officer in the Treasury, and settle the matter without departmental correspondence. It had been decided to charge the rates to the Department whose property was rated, and next year the items would appear in the Army and Navy Estimates. He could not say he liked separate establishments, and hoped in time to get the officer and his assistants incorporated in the Treasury; but Departments were sometimes stronger than reformers, and prevented beneficial changes.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he did not know what the hon. Member meant by "Departments being stronger than reformers," and he did not know to what Department he referred; but the Office of Works had nothing to do with the rating of Government property, and had become mixed up in the matter only because the Government, in casting about for an officer to superintend and control that novel service, found Mr. Austin, the then secretary of the Office of Works, who was experienced in rating and had also gained experience in the office of the Poor Law Board, and appointed him to the office. When Mr. Austin retired from the Office of Works the connection between that Office and this Vote ceased.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, that his objection was not to the largeness of the Vote; but that the public offices did not contribute their fair share to the taxation of the metropolis. He wished to know upon what principle offices occupied by the Civil Service were entitled to exemption? The Home Office and the new Foreign Office had the advantage of good drainage, but they did not contribute anything towards it.

MR. CANDLISH

said, he was glad to hear that some reform was contemplated in the matter of this Vote. It appeared to him that the Government offices, as well as all other offices, should pay a fair proportion towards the local rating. As to the Departments being stronger than the Treasury, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was all-powerful in that Department, and surely an inspector, his clerk, and an extra clerk were not too formidable for the prowess and courage of the hon. Gentleman? He hoped that the item for the salaries of these officers, who existed to investigate claims for contributions, would disappear from the Votes, and that we should have a general rating Bill, applying to every species of property, not excepting Sunday schools.

MR. M'LAREN

said, that the Government property in Edinburgh was not rated, and no contribution was made at all by it. That principle he considered to be most unjust. Government property everywhere should be placed on the same footing in regard to rates.

MR. CARTER

said, Government establishments ought not to be exempt from rates, for in many instances they contributed largely to pauperism. No doubt there were many large establishments that would like to appoint their own officers to determine what rates they should pay, as the Government did; but he hoped the Government officers would be abolished, whether they were compensated or not, and that all Government establishments would be subjected to all rates, local and Imperial.

MR. CAWLEY

said, that Salford contained a large extent of Government property, and received nothing, although the streets around the barracks had been paved. He should, therefore, like to know on what principle contributions were made?

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

complained of the Vote being increased over that of last year. He should move that it be reduced by £1,000, unless some satisfactory explanation was given by the Secretary of the Treasury.

MR. AYRTON

said, he had not the rules with him, but there were rules, and they were strictly administered; but the chief consideration was the proportion which Government property bore to the whole amount of property in a parish, and it was in cases in which, a certain proportion was exceeded that a contribution was made. When the system was re-arranged each Department would be responsible for the expenditure which belonged to it, subject to the control of the Treasury.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he was not satisfied with this explanation. He thought that Government property, wherever situated, should be made liable to the payment of its fair proportion of local rates.

MR. CAWLEY

trusted that the Government would, at some future time, explain to the House the rules by which these matters were regulated.

Vote agreed to.

(6.) £1,800, to complete the sum for Wellington Monument.

(7.) £267, to complete the sum for Palmerston Monument.

(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £95,455, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for Erecting, Repairing, and Maintaining the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland.

MR. CANDLISH

said, that this was a large Vote, and contained a vast number of items. He desired to know how and by whom these Estimates were prepared, and what machinery existed for thoroughly analyzing them before they came into the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury? He observed £46,362 for New Works and Alterations in Ireland. Although there was a reduction in the sum total from the. Vote of last year, there was a considerable increase amounting to £7,788 in sub-sections B C D E and F. Believing that the Department would not suffer if the amount granted did not exceed that asked for last year, he should move the decrease of the Vote by £7,788.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £87,667, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for Erecting, Repairing, and Maintaining the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland."—(Mr. Candlish.)

MR. MONK

asked the meaning of the £500, which for the first time was asked for on account of "contingencies" in connection with Phoenix Park, Dublin? It was, of course, impossible for the House of Commons to investigate such Votes as these, complicated as they were by so many items; but he could not help thinking that the question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland was a very pertinent one, and that was, under whose supervision were these Votes prepared, and who guaranteed the accuracy of the sums which the country was thus called upon to pay?

MR. AYRTON, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish), said, that the original estimate was prepared by the Board of Works in Ireland—a Board which exercised in regard to Ireland functions very similar to those which his right hon. Friend performed in England. That Board was in direct communication with the individual establishments on whose behalf this expenditure was called for. It received from them a statement of their individual requirements. These statements it carefully investigated, and then a schedule, very much more in detail than the statement in the Votes, was prepared, containing an explanation of every minute item. The Chief Commissioner in Ireland came to London with this mass of papers, and he (Mr. Ayrton) went through every item with him, acting on the principle that it was for him to show the necessity of each item, and challenging him to make good every claim upon the public purse. Many of the items originally demanded were struck out, in consequence of the explanation proving unsatisfactory. It was only those against which he could find no objection that he had allowed to remain. The original claim was much larger than it now appeared, and he could assure the Committee that the result of the examination to which it had been submitted had created great dissatisfaction in Ireland. With regard to the items of increase, one increase was occasioned by a change having been made in the supply of water necessary for Dublin. The £500 for contingencies, however, had hitherto been voted under the head of "Civil Contingencies," and had been re-paid. The Vote for contingencies was put into this Estimate rather than into a supplementary one. If no contingency arose the money would stand to the good.

MR. CARTER

asked an explanation of the item of £170 for Irishtown Church, and the item of £18 for furniture and fittings of the said Church? He believed that in the Army Estimates a Vote was taken for the salary of a clergyman, a clerk, and a sexton of the Irishtown Church.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he thought the item of £14,835 for furniture for the public buildings in Ireland a very extravagant one. Last year the amount under the same head was £10,168, making a sum of about £25,000 for two years. No such amounts were ever asked for public buildings in Scotland, though that country contributed £2,000,000 annually to the Imperial Revenue more than was contributed by Ireland.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

called attention to the item of £1,777 for maintenance and repairs of metropolitan police courts and stations in Dublin, in addition to the large sum voted last year. The total amount required for courts and stations was £7,916. He found that for the Chief Secretary's lodge and gardens in the Phœnix Park £1,432 was required, though £1,465 had been voted for them last year.

MR. SERJEANT DOWSE

said, he did not know that Scotland contributed more towards the Imperial Revenue than Ireland, but he did know that Ireland had more inhabitants than Scotland, and he presumed, therefore, that the Irish required more furniture than the Scotch. It was a subject of complaint in Ireland that the people there did not receive enough of the public money. Since he entered Parliament he had. frequently been asked by his constituents and others to whom was to be attributed the Imperial stinginess towards Ireland. He thanked his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury for enabling him to answer the question. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk) would show the same economical spirit when the Votes for this metropolis came to be considered as he was manifesting in the case of those for the Irish metropolis.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he hoped that the expenses of the police courts in London would receive the attention of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk). He thought some explanation was required as to why the expenses of the six prisons had been placed in this class, rather than in the one to which the prison departments more properly belonged.

MR. MONK

inquired how it was that all educational Votes for Ireland did not come under the general educational Votes?

MR. RYLANDS

remarked upon the large sum, £3,165, required for furnishing the Dublin police courts.

MR. M'LAREN

said, that the offices in Dublin must regularly sell their furniture on the last day of December and purchase new on the first day of January each year to require £14,000 per annum for movables.

MR. AYRTON

said, it was quite impossible for him to carry in his head the details of all the items of the Vote, which had been considered at the time. With regard to the item for furniture, to which his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) so strongly objected, he might remind him that fittings as well as furniture were included, such as glass cases for museums and the fittings of new buildings. Under the system which prevailed in Ireland, all requirements for buildings, furniture, and fittings were placed under the Irish Board of Works, and it therefore became necessary to group them in some such way as they appeared in the Estimate. With regard to the item for the Church he had not taken upon himself to commence the work of disestablishment, and therefore he had continued the Vote which had been annually granted ever since the Union. Dublin was supplied with water under an Act of Parliament which fixed the amount of the rate to be charged.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(9.) £2,362, to complete the sum for Ulster Canal.

(10.) £26,810, to complete the sum for Lighthouses Abroad.

MR. CANDLISH

complained that no account had been rendered to the Audit Office of the expenditure of the money voted for 1868.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

asked, why it was that there was every year a re-Vote of some £10,000 or £20,000; and he also asked whether it was the Board of Trade or the Trinity House that was responsible for spending this money?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

replied that the Board of Trade spent the money, though the Trinity House was occasionally employed to render services. The contracts were made abroad, and that often led to delay, and caused a re-Vote of the money. The cause of the accounts of expenditure not having been furnished for 1868 arose from some delay on the part of the Indian Government.

Vote agreed to.

(11.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £687, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for the Maintenance and Repairs of Embassy Houses Abroad.

MR. POLLARD-URQUHART

observed that a large sum was asked for year after year for the Embassy House at Paris, and he thought it better that a certain fixed amount should be allowed the Ambassador for repairs.

MR. W. FOWLER

said, that if they went on spending money in this fashion on the Embassy House at Paris the building would soon be full of nothing but furniture. A clerk of works was also constantly employed at the Embassy House, at a salary of £185 a year. To bring these things under the notice of the Committee, he would move that the Vote be negatived.

MR. MONK

said, he thought that the sum of £1,787 for the repairs of the Embassy House at Paris was more than they should vote. For an annual rent of that amount an excellent house for the purpose might be obtained.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

said, that the Embassy at Paris required a house of a high character, and some years ago, as the charges for the Embassy House were great, the Government undertook to make whatever changes in it might be necessary gradually. However, it was one thing to spend money for repairs and another to keep an officer in Paris as clerk of the works; and if these works were carried on by contract, the permanent officer in Paris might be dispensed with, and an officer of the Board of Works might occasionally visit Paris to survey the works, providing himself with a return railway ticket for a month.

MR. LAYARD

said, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) was greatly mistaken in supposing that a fit house could be obtained for a rent of £1,700, for in Paris the rents were higher than in London. He had been over to Paris lately, and he was thoroughly ashamed of the state of the furniture in the upper rooms of the Embassy House. It was an expensive house to keep up, and constantly required repairs, and perhaps the best plan would be to have a new house. A clerk of the works had been appointed for some years, because the House desired that there should be some one in Paris to look after the expenditure; but he would consider whether arrangements might not be made for sending a person to Paris occasionally to inspect the building.

MR. CANDLISH

said, he thought the statement just made was discouraging. There was £3,600 spent in 1868, £1,900 in 1869, and now £1,700 more was asked for. He should like to know what security they had that the sum they were asked to vote for that building would not be exceeded.

MR. MONK

said, he thought that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works with respect to the state of the Embassy House in Paris was discreditable to the Ambassador. They had been annually voting £1,600 or £1,700 for the building, and yet it appeared that it continued in a very dilapidated condition. Some years ago it was said that economy would result from having a clerk of the works always at Paris, but the consequence was that there had been an increase of expenditure.

SIR HENRY BULWER

said, it seemed to him extraordinary that they should every year have to vote that sum. He suggested that the Vote should not be rejected, but that the Government should be asked to give some details; so that the House might be able to judge what the expenses consisted of, and whether they were likely to go on year after year to the same amount. No facts had. been stated on which this Estimate was founded.

MR. HERMON

said, they had last year voted on that account something like £2,000, and they had no assurance that by granting a similar sum this year they would not be throwing good money after bad. He attributed this continual expenditure to the clerk of the works at Paris, who would generally find work to do.

MR. AYRTON

said, that subject had engaged the very serious attention of the Committee up-stairs. That Committee had called for a detailed account of the expenditure under that head; their Report would soon be published, and he had no doubt that when hon. Members read it they would be very much surprised, as the Committee had been, by its details. That expenditure had often been discussed in the House, but he did not think it had been understood; and when it was understood he believed that hon. Members would see the significance of the statement made by his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works that an inquiry would be instituted into the outlay with a view to the introduction of a new system. His right hon. Friend had told him that the subject would be carefully considered by his Department, and after that assurance he (Mr. Ayrton) hoped they would be prepared to pass the Vote.

MR. HIBBERT

agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Hermon) in attributing the chief part of the expenditure at Paris to the presence of a clerk of the works in the Embassy House there, and said he should move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £185, the allowance of this officer.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £185, for Salary of the Clerk of the Works in charge (including allowance for Lodging), be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Hibbert.)

LORD JOHN MANNERS

, said that every sort of system had been tried to produce economy in the two Embassy Houses of Paris and Constantinople, and all alike had failed. But he certainly believed that Lord Lyons, the present Ambassador, did not deserve the censure which had been cast upon him by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk). He had himself always found in Lord Lyons a zealous co-operator in every attempt to keep down the expense of the Embassy.

MR. POLLARD-URQUHART

expressed his surprise at the description given by the First Commissioner of Works of the discreditable state of the Paris Embassy House.

MR. MUNTZ

said, the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) had told them that every plan had been tried for keeping down the expenditure. But there was one plan they had not yet adopted, and that was to discontinue the Vote. It was absurd to suppose that £2,000 could be really required every year to keep that house in repair. He believed it was all to be attributed to the appointment of a clerk of the works, for while they had such an officer he would naturally be always finding something to do. He was persuaded that, if they discontinued the Vote of £185 for the clerk of the works, and employed an eminent Parisian architect, the expenditure under the present head would be diminished by at least one-half.

MR. SEELY

said, he thought it was very undesirable that they should vote separate sums for every kind of petty work at the Paris Embassy House, because such a system was sure to tend to careless and extravagant expenditure. He would suggest that that system should be abandoned, and that, for the future, the Ambassador should receive a lump sum which should cover the entire of his outlay.

MR. OTWAY

said, the Embassy House at Paris was a very large and expensive one, and from its size and condition must always require a considerable amount of annual expenditure. He could corroborate what the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) had said of Lord Lyons, than whom there was no man more disposed to economy or more likely by observation to prevent any improper expenditure on the house in which he lived.

SIR HENRY BULWER

thought, with reference to the observations of the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton), that the Committee should have means of understanding the Vote before they were called upon to pass it, and it should rather be deferred until this information was supplied.

COLONEL SYKES

said, that a reduction had been made a few years ago in the Vote for the Embassy at Constantinople by expunging from it the salary of the clerk of the works. Whether owing to that reduction or not he could not say, there had since been a decrease of £1,335 in the Vote for that Embassy, and, perhaps, an equally satisfactory result would follow if the item were struck out in the present instance.

LORD JOHN MANNERS, referring to the advice which had been given by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) to the effect that the office of clerk of the works should be abolished, and that the services of a first-rate Parisian architect should be secured in his place, observed that some years ago an eminent Parisian architect had been employed, and that he should never forget the length of his bill.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

suggested, that as the present Embassy House in Paris was an old tumble-down building, it should be sold and a new house obtained in its stead. The public would, he thought, be gainers by the transaction.

MR. LAYARD

said, he saw no great objection to having the office of clerk of the works done away with, which he believed was established at the suggestion of the House. If, however, the Committee would leave the matter in his hands, he would take care that it should be looked into, and if he found the abolition of the office was likely to lead to economy, the charge for it should not appear in the Votes next year.

MR. HIBBERT

said, that being satisfied with that assurance, he should not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(12.) £37,585, to complete the sum for Embassy Houses, and Consular Buildings, Constantinople, China, Japan, and Tehran.

MR. AYRTON

said, that the balance which the Committee was asked to vote was less by £10,000 than the original Estimate.

MR. MONK

said, he was not aware whether any part of that reduction referred to the Embassy House at Constantinople. Presuming that it did not, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury to explain — for he knew that, as an independent Member, he objected to the sums which were expended on some of our foreign Embassies—how it was that the sum of £10,000, which had been voted for the purpose of building a country house for our Ambassador at Therapia, had been exceeded by £3,000? He desired also to call attention to the large sums which year after year the House was asked to vote for the Embassy House at Pera, in building which a sum of £80,000 was not many years ago spent. It was true, as had been stated by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes), that the office of clerk of the works at Constantinople had some time since been abolished; but then he found that there was a salary for a superintendent put down in the Estimates, and he wished to know whether he was not much the same functionary as a clerk of the works, for he had a very strong suspicion that such was the case? He desired further to say that there appeared to be two sets of plans for the house at Therapia, the original plans of a local architect having been superseded by those of Colonel Gordon, whose plans, he understood, had since been modified by those of some other official at Constantinople. He hoped his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury would inform the Committee which of those plans had been finally fixed upon.

MR. AYRTON

said, he entirely sympathized with the dissatisfaction which his hon. Friend seemed to feel at the expenditure which was incurred in con- nection with the establishments which we kept up at Constantinople. It had, however, been the policy of this country for some years to keep up great establishments in that city. His hon. Friend was right in stating that he (Mr. Ayrton) had constantly protested against so large an expenditure; but he was obliged to take matters as he found them, and to accept the expenditure which was deemed to be necessary for the purpose of making our Ambassador comfortable. Not only had he a mansion at Constantinople, but a country house at Therapia also provided for him at the public expense. Provision had, besides, to be made for his secretary, as well as for the maintenance of an hospital and courts of justice. The whole of the expenditure for keeping up these and other establishments amounted to £32,816, the item of £4,000 being for the completion of the building at Therapia. It was impossible for the Government, dealing with this question in the advanced stage in which they found it, to do more than they had done. The expenditure was as final as expenditure usually was. He did not know what demands might be made from Constantinople another year; all he could say was he would do his best to resist them.

SIR HENRY BULWER

observed that previous to the change of the clerk of the works the Ambassador had no control whatever over the expenditure. The clerk of the works made a job of the whole business. It was found very advantageous to do away with the clerk of the works altogether. As to the house at Therapia, he should like to have some idea of the work done and what there was still to construct. He thought that the house now provided would not be a very satisfactory one. He did not think the expense would be confined within the £10,000, and there would be always a constant and useless expenditure upon it.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he was altogether at a loss to understand how there! had been a diminution under this Vote of £10,000. There was a great fallacy in the statement of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury as to that reduction. He strongly objected to the sum of £174,000 proposed to be taken for the purchase of land in China and Japan. He was very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman below him (Sir Henry Bulwer), who had occupied so distinguished a position in Constantinople, that the clerk of the works had not been restored, and that subsequent to his dismissal a considerable saving had been effected.

MR. STANSFELD

begged to inform his hon. and gallant Friend that the Treasury had. sent out an extremely able and economical public servant (Major Crossman) to make inquiry with reference to the erection of the proposed consular establishments in China and Japan. He had very nearly completed his inquiry and survey to ascertain the cost, and had given the Government information on which they reduced the demand for the present year. He also informed them that, unless the demands were sifted, criticized, and reduced, they would lead ultimately to a considerable increase above the original estimate. Major Crossman had asked for leave of absence, and it was deemed advisable to comply with his application, consult with him personally on the subject, and devise some means for the reduction of the Estimate. He was expected daily to arrive in England; it would be his duty to communicate with him on the subject, and he could assure his hon. and gallant Friend the Vote would not remain at its present amount unless he were satisfied it should.

VISCOUNT BURY

said, he had always understood it was the duty of the Secretary to the Treasury to consider what sum was necessary before proposing a Vote; he was therefore rather surprised to hear it stated that the proposed sum was as final as expenditure usually was, and no hope was held out that it would not be ultimately exceeded. Unless some Member of the Government gave a more satisfactory explantion he should move to reduce this Vote.

MR. AYRTON

said, he had stated that this money was required to complete plans and estimates made before the present Government came into Office. At the same time he must say he did not admire the policy of keeping up an expensive establishment at Constantinople.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, he had never heard a less satisfactory explanation of a Vote; for if any one could explain those Votes it was always the Secretary to the Treasury. He hoped some assurance would be given that no more money would be asked for.

MR. MONK

said, he thought the Committee had a right to know whether £4,000 would be enough to complete the buildings. Last year he had taken the sense of the Committee on this subject, but he had been beaten by 2 to 1.

MR. W. F. COWPER

gave credit to the Government for a general intention to be economical, but he had no confidence in their power of being economical at Therapia. The clerk of the works who used to be there was paid, not by fees, but by salary, and being responsible only to the Office of Works it was his business to enforce economy. What machinery had the Government for enforcing economy, since the Vote of the House would disestablish him? If matters were left to the local architect or to an engineer officer, that would account for the fact that no one knew what the new buildings at Therapia would cost. At so great a distance the Government at home could exercise no control, but they ought to have some one on the spot.

MR. AYRTON

said, there was a superintendent at £300 a year, who was responsible for the expenditure. The sum now to be voted was to complete the house and to furnish it. Of course, demands were always made for keeping up these establishments, but it would be the duty of the Government to resist any further expenditure for these buildings.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he would like to know something about the expenditure in China and Japan. Last year the Government asked for £37,000 for Japan, without giving any explanation as to what it was for; and now £10,000 more was asked for buildings, but no one knew anything of the details, which were yearly promised but never given.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he was sorry to hear the remarks made by the right, hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Bulwer) with regard to the clerk of the works at Therapia. His differences with that officer were tolerably well known. [Sir HENRY BULWER: I never disagreed with the clerk of the works, but I did not approve what he did.] Well, the clerk of the works was not there to explain. His position was felt to be incompatible. He was necessarily a man of comparatively humble position, and no great amount of good was likely to flow from his efforts to keep down expenditure. The abolition of his office was therefore rather beneficial than otherwise. He had been succeeded by a simple superintendent, and perhaps it would be advisable if some explanation were given from the Treasury Bench as to the relationship subsisting between that superintendent and the Embassy. His own opinion was that at present there was no connection between the Office of Works and the Embassy House at Constantinople, and that it lay either with the Foreign Office or Treasury to decide what money was required for the Embassy House. The Secretary of the Treasury had given the Committee to understand that although it had been his duty to defend the Vote, he had no great sympathy with it, and that, indeed, he rather disliked the whole system which regulated our international affairs at Constantinople. That, however, was a large question of policy which could not be discussed in Committee of Supply. He thought the Committee need have no difficulty whatever in agreeing to the Vote under discussion, because it was only intended for the carrying out of the plan sanctioned by the House last year.

SIR HENRY BULWER

said, that in his time the clerk of the works appeared to have entered into many unnecessary expenses; but when the office was abolished a much smaller sum than was previously expended was allowed the Ambassador, within which he was to keep the outlay. During the year he had the management of that sum he left a considerable balance unexpended. He thought it a far better and simpler plan to have one man who was responsible than to have a person sent out from the Board of Works, at very great expense, over whom the Ambassador had no control, and over whom it was impossible for one residing in London to have any.

MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUN

inquired whether the superintendent really performed the same duties as the clerk of the works had done. When the clerk of the works had disappeared it looked very much as if a new office of the same kind had been created. He wanted to know how the superintendent differed from the clerk of the works?

SIR HENRY BULWER

said, the clerk of the works was sent out by the Board of Works, and had the entire control and management of the expenditure; the superintendent, who in his time was suggested by the Ambassador, and confirmed, of course, by the Government at home, was appointed at a much less salary; his business, no doubt, was to keep down the expenditure, and to go over the accounts, but he had not the unlimited control that the other possessed.

MR. MUNTZ

said, he agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Henry Bulwer) that a great deal of good would be done if a fixed sum was granted for all the European Embassies. The sum asked for was not very large, but it was a constantly increasing expenditure. He could not vote for the proposed reduction; but there was one item which required explanation—that of £800 for "adapting old buildings. "When we were erecting new buildings, why were not the old ones sold?

SIR JOHN HAY

asked whether the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth would add this further information, who this superintendent was? "Was he the old clerk of the works transmogrified?

SIR HENRY BULWER

said, he could speak only for what had occurred in his own time. The superintendent that he suggested was an Englishman and an architect. He was certainly not the same person as the clerk of the works.

MR. AYRTON

said, the superintendent was the Vice Consul at Constantinople.

SIR JOHN HAY

wished further to know what qualifications he had for the discharge of the duties to which he had been appointed?

MR. AYRTON

said, he had not been appointed by the present Government; but he presumed that those who had selected Mm were satisfied with respect to his fitness for the office. It was no doubt a difficult task to know how to meet all the requirements of Consuls and Ambassadors, but the policy in question did not begin with these Estimates. Her Majesty's Government, on assuming Office, could not undertake to solve all the difficulties. As to the £800 to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Muntz) had referred, it was for putting part of the former house into a state fit for occupation by the secretary, because when the Ambassador went to Therapia he was accompanied by his secretary.

MR. STANSFELD

said, the Govern- ment were not satisfied with the present arrangement in connection with the Embassy at Constantinople, and that the charges would not appear in the Estimates next year without some modification. He would make the same statement with respect to the Embassy Houses in China and Japan. Colonel Grossman had been sent out specially to report upon the subject, and was now on his way home with information for the direction of the Government. He could assure the House that the charges in connection with the Embassy Houses in these countries would also be revised before the Estimates were made up next year. With respect to the new buildings at Teheran, that was an arrangement made by the late Government, and, as far as he could judge, it was a reasonable one. A proposal came home as to the old buildings, which were in an extremely bad and ruinous condition, and would cost £15,000 to repair. But the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) thought that a better site could be chosen, upon which a new residence could be built, while the old property might be sold. It was important to have a good supply of water, and that would be obtained at the new site, and he had reason to believe that the Estimate of £20,000 would not be exceeded.

Vote agreed to.

(13.) £31,438, to complete the sum for House of Lords Offices.

MR. WHITE

asked for some explanation of this Vote. For some years, when there were a large number of Private Bills before Parliament, the House of Lords had more than sufficient to pay its expenses; latterly the reverse had been the case, but he wished to know what had been done with the surplus of those years. Among the items requiring explanation he noticed two principal door-keepers, £900, one of whom was a receiver of fees with another salary; and there was a "necessary woman," with a salary of £208.

MR. LOCKE KING

inquired whether the sum of £4,000 paid to the Lord Chancellor was intended as his salary as Speaker in addition to his salary as Lord Chancellor; how it happened that the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords received£2,500, while the Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons received but £1,500; and what salary Black Rod received in addition to an amount of £90 for fees mentioned in the Votes?

MR. AYRTON

said, he hoped the Committee would view with satisfaction the appearance of the particulars of this Vote for the first time in the Estimates; the demand of the Upper House could now be compared with the charge on account of the House of Commons. As the salaries would, no doubt, be reviewed as vacancies occurred, there was a chance of the Vote being reduced. He could not explain the language describing an official referred to; but believed the designation justified the appointment, since she was described as "a necessary woman." The surplus funds had been carried into an account to secure superannuation allowances for retired officials of the House of Lords, in accordance with the wish of the Committee of the House which dealt with such matters. The payment of £4,000 to the Lord Chancellor as Speaker was in addition to the payment made to him out of the Consolidated Fund as Lord Chancellor. The salary of Chairman of Committees in the Lords was fixed a long time ago, and it was not for the Treasury to require the reduction of such salaries under the circumstances. With reference to the item for the Usher of the Black Rod, the salary paid to him was very small; but he was an officer belonging to the Household, and as Usher he was placed by Her Majesty in the House of Lords, receiving certain fees for the performance of his duties. He did not know what the fees amounted to, but whenever the office became vacant the present system would be discontinued. The Treasury had been in communication with the Lord Chancellor with the view of fixing a certain salary for the Usher of the Black Rod, instead of payment partly by fees and partly by salary. The arrangement would be a considerable saving to the public.

COLONEL SYKES

observed that they were upon the first of forty-one Votes in Class II., in twenty-seven of which there were increases amounting altogether to £386,000. He was sorry to find this increase under an economical Government when two great Departments—namely, the War Office and. the Admiralty—had managed to retrench. The prospect of twenty-seven wrangles drove him to despair, and he gave it up.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

thought if they compared the Estimates for the two Houses those for the Lords would favourably contrast with those for the Commons.

MR. GOLDNEY

wished to know whether the receiver accounted for the whole of the fees, or for those that remained after certain payments were deducted—whether, in fact, he accounted for the gross or the net amount of the fees?

MR. AYRTON

said, that under the new system he would account for the whole gross amount of the fees.

Vote agreed to.

(14.) £36,482, to complete the sum for House of Commons Offices.

MR. LOCKE KING

wished to know why the salaries of the Speaker and the Serjeant-at-Arms were not included in this Vote?

MR. AYRTON

replied that they were charged on the Consolidated Fund.

MR. DENT

asked for an explanation of the charge for four Referees of Private Bills at £1,000 each?

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, that by the lamented death of Mr. Hassard a vacancy had occurred in the office of one of the Referees.

MR. AYRTON

said, that the vacancy which had occurred would not be filled up. There would, of course, be no objection on the part of the Government to re-consider the amount required for Referees of Private Bills. The expenditure of that money was, in fact, not under the Treasury but under the House of Commons itself. The exact sum that was necessary for the services of the Referees during the present Session could be ascertained before the Report was brought up.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN

said, it would depend on the Report of a Committee now sitting whether there would be established a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons upon Private Bills; and in that case it was very probable that the office of Referee would be done away with. Until, however, that point was decided, he thought the Speaker should have a discretionary power as to the number of Referees to be appointed to assist Committees on Private Bills.

MR. BOWRING

condemned the system of paying officers of that House by fees, and animadverted especially upon the item of £1,500 for fees upon Private Bills.

MR. W. FOWLER

said, there were great complaints of the enormous cost of carrying Private Bills through that House; but as the amount put down for those fees was only £17,000, he could not understand why the cost of such Bills should be enormous.

MR. WHALLEY

said, the fees to counsel in the case of Private Bills were often exceedingly heavy; and the Parliamentary expenses of certain small railway companies, with which he had been connected, actually amounted to no less than £4,000 per mile; or, as nearly as possible, about what ought to have been the natural cost of constructing their lines. That was the result of the House retaining the existing tribunal for dealing with those questions.

MR. AYRTON

explained that the item of £1,500 for fees on Turnpike Bills was merely a matter of account. In regard to the fees paid to the officers of the House, the fees were not received by those officers for their own benefit. The officers of the House were paid by salary.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, the fees were paid by the public on Bills partly of a private and partly of a public character, and they were accounted for to the House.

MR. MELLOR

asked for information relative to the Vote for ventilation.

MR. AYRTON

stated that the Establishment charges of the House of Commons were not regulated by the Treasury, but by a Committee of this House, who forwarded the Estimate to the Treasury, and who, he presumed, carefully considered the requirements of the House before making the Estimate.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, there was no such Committee appointed by the House.

MR. AYRTON

said, the expenditure was regulated by statute, and a Committee was appointed by the statute, consisting of the Speaker, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Home Secretary.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he was not aware of the existence of such a Committee appointed by the House.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he saw this item in the Votes—one of £724 and another of £500 for messengers. He wished to know whether the Votes included the salaries of the men who de- livered the Votes and Papers at hon. Members' residences, and whether they were so insufficiently paid that they had to ask hon. Members for gratuities?

MR. DILLWYN

wished to know who was responsible for the Vote for lighting and ventilating the House, as the present and late Secretaries of the Treasury differed in opinion upon that point?

MR. AYRTON

said, the Speaker, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Home Secretary were a Committee for that purpose, and they were appointed by statute, and they were responsible for the salaries, and not the Treasury.

MR. BROGDEN

asked for an explanation of the item of £500 fees to the clerks for attending divisions. He objected to the clerks being paid by fees.

MR. AYRTON

said, it was a sum paid in addition to their regular salary, for their attendance at the divisions of that House. They had, of course, to remain so long as the House sat, and. this sum was distributed amongst them for those extra and special duties. To them it was an extremely arduous service, because they did not take the same interest in divisions that hon. Members did.

Vote agreed to.

(15.) £39,275, to complete the sum for Treasury and Subordinate Departments.

MR. DILLWYN

asked for an explanation of the sum of £460 for audit clerks.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

asked for an explanation of the item for the salaries and office of the Parliamentary draftsman. Although an increased sum had been awarded to that Department, he still found an item of £1,000 for additional services.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

replied that it was quite impossible for one or even two persons to draft all the Bills required by the Government, and the arrangement now made was this— the counsel for the Home Office was appointed Parliamentary counsel for the whole Government, and was provided with as much extra assistance as was necessary for drawing all the Bills for the different Departments. There was some economy in this arrangement, as compared with the old system; but, what was of still greater importance, there would now be uniformity in the drafting of the Bills of the Government. Last year, while the Parliamentary counsel of the Government had £2,000, another counsel, not regularly employed by the Government, had £3,500. It was time to put an end to such a system; and the fresh arrangement, by which all the work was put into one hand, would he believed, be found both more economical and more efficient than the old one.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, the new system did not appear to get rid of the anomaly of engaging other counsel to assist the Parliamentary draftsman of the Government, who did not therefore appear to have gone far enough to make his department complete in itself.

MR. AYRTON

said, the object now was to keep the fixed establishment of the draftsman at the lowest possible point, and obtain extra help when it was wanted. In answer to the hon. Member's (Mr. Dillwyn's) question, he had to state that the clerks referred to did not audit accounts, but they examined the accounts before they were sent by the Treasury to the Audit Department.

MR. W. M. TORRENS

said, that in this Vote there was included a sum of £14,000 for the salaries of the First Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Third Lord of the Treasury, and two Junior Lords; a third Junior Lord serving without salary. Now, he was not about to object to that amount, which he thought a moderate one; but, on the contrary, what he wished to bring under the notice of the Committee was the objection which existed to the principle of accepting the services of one of the Junior Lords without a salary. For the Marquess of Lansdowne he had the greatest respect. He believed it was notorious that his Lordship had devoted himself with much zeal to the duties of the office which he had undertaken, and that he had done so with considerable advantage to the country; but, notwithstanding the hereditary claims of the noble Lord, and his own estimable character, he thought the Government ought not to have accepted his services as a Lord of the Treasury, without insisting on his receiving a salary. The receipt of a salary by a public servant made him more directly responsible to the State. Besides the precedent of allowing a member of one of the great families who could afford to fill a public office without a salary to give his services gratuitously would destroy the principle of competition. Lord Grey had refused to allow a noble Duke to hold office in his Government without salary. He believed Lord Grey had adopted a constitutional course in acting in such a manner, and he thought the present Government would have done well to have adopted the same principle.

Vote agreed, to.

(16.) £57,696, to complete the sum for Home Office and Subordinate Departments.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

called attention to the fact that £5,000 or £6,000 was charged for expenses connected with the Local Government Act. Cities and towns applied to the Home Office for assistance in borrowing millions of money, and they obtained it without expense and without stamps. He disapproved of this practice.

MR. BRUCE

thanked his hon. Friend for bringing this important matter before the House. When the Public Health Act was passed it was thought undesirable to prevent local authorities seeking advice and assistance from the Home Office by fixing a scale of fees. But now the time had come to re-consider this question, and say whether localities, whose work was done by the Home Office, should not be called upon to make some contribution to the expenses. A scheme had been for some time under consideration in order to effect this, and in due time it would be laid before the House.

MR. SCLATER- BOOTH

remarked that this subject was an old one. He was glad to hear that the Government intended to move in the matter. There were half-a-dozen other departments in connection with the Home Office and the Treasury which ought to be considered with a view to an arrangement similar to that referred to by the hon. Member for Greenwich.

MR. GOLDNEY

called attention to the question of travelling expenses allowed to the Poor Law inspectors and the inspectors of schools. In the case of the Poor Law inspectors their travelling expenses were commuted for a payment of £300 a year each; but the school inspectors, who had much more travelling to do, and who were paid their actual expenses, averaged only £91 a year each for the cost of travelling. He suggested that the Poor Law inspectors should also be paid their actual travelling expenses; and then it would be seen whether their inspections were really made, about which sometimes some question was raised.

MR. BRUCE

said, the school inspectors were paid a fixed salary of £250 over and above that which they otherwise received for all expenses incurred during absence from home, other than travelling expenses; and it was a fair matter for consideration whether that was the best arrangement, for it acted at present very unfairly, as some were necessarily more frequently and for longer periods absent from home than others. The question of applying the same system to mine and factory inspectors had been under the consideration of the late and the present Government; but it was found that the variety of their circumstances was so great that it was found impracticable to arrange any uniform system of fixed payments in lieu of travelling and other expenses.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he thought that all inspectors should be placed upon the same footing, and that the owners of the factories, mines, or salmon fisheries inspected should pay the expenses of the inspectors.

MR. BRUCE

said, that in the case of mines and factories the inspectors were appointed in the interest not of the owners, but of the people working in them, and that, therefore, it would be unfair to call upon the owners to pay the expenses of the inspection. The case of the salmon fisheries, however, was different; the expenditure of the Government in that respect conduced to private advantage, and if a way of doing it could be found, it would only be just and equitable to make the owners pay.

MR. HIBBERT

called attention to the Vote for the superintendent of roads in South Wales, and asked why that payment was kept up.

MR. BRUCE

said, a great experiment was made in South Wales in the turnpike system, and he hoped the time would come when it would be followed in this country. The money advanced by Government would be re-paid in about ten years.

MR. WHALLEY

said, the experiment tried in South Wales had been thoroughly successful, and he did not see why turnpikes should not be put an end to altogether.

MR. BRUCE

said, he merely declined to bring in a Bill on the subject in the present Session.

Vote agreed to.

MR. VANCE

moved that the Chairman report Progress, as it was not customary to go on with the Estimates after twelve o'clock.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;

Committee to sit again To-morrow.