HC Deb 25 April 1873 vol 215 cc1003-23

(In the Committee.)

(1.) £7,500, to complete the sum for Works at Anstruther Harbour.

MR. MACFIE

said, he had no particular objection to the amount being voted, but there were other harbours which deserved consideration. He alluded to Newhaven Harbour, where the fishermen were exposed to very great dangers from the want of sufficient protection. He had had communication with the Scotch Fishery Board, but they said they had no funds at their disposal to execute any works. Now, the harbour was a subject eminently worth the attention of the Government, and it ought no longer to be neglected.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he considered the money hitherto spent on Anstruther Harbour had been very badly laid out, and he hoped that future expenditure would be of some more public benefit than past.

MR. BAXTER

said, no doubt the money had hitherto been badly spent on that harbour, and the works reflected very little credit on those in charge. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, however, taken the trouble to inspect the locality, and steps had been taken to put matters on a more satisfactory footing. There was great force in the remarks of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Macfie) respecting Newhaven Harbour; but the large sums spent on Anstruther Harbour had prevented any money being voted to the other harbours.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) £763, for Grant in aid of Expenses of Ramsgate Harbour.

(3.) £130,308, to complete the sum for Public Buildings in the Department of Public Works in Ireland.

MR. MONK

said, there was an item of £7,129 in the Vote for the maintenance of the Phœnix Park, Dublin, and of that sum £4,535 was taken for keeping the roads and the deer-park in a proper state. That seemed to be an enormous charge, and he would like to hear some explanation in reference to it. He should like also to have some explanation as to the item of £500 for contingencies under the same Vote.

MR. M'LAREN

took exception to the sum of £17,036, for furnishing the 60 public offices in Ireland. In Scotland there were not a dozen public offices, and their expenses for furniture were not more than £4,000 a-year. £1,000,000 more revenue was obtained every year from Scotland than from Ireland, yet in several respects she got much less money out of the public purse than Ireland did.

SIR JOHN GRAY

hoped that Scotland would soon be relieved of any part of the charge for furnishing Irish offices. All they wanted was to be allowed to manage their own affairs and expend their own revenue, and they would very gladly on those terms furnish their own offices.

MR. BAXTER

said, that considering the vast sums spent on the London Parks as compared with the sums spent for like purposes in Ireland, there was no reason to complain of the Vote in question. He assured the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) that he had carefully gone into each of the items composing the sum of £500 to which he referred.

Vote agreed to.

(4.) £19,560, to complete the sum for Lighthouses Abroad.

MR. BOWRING

said, that since the year 1868 sums amounting to £5,000 per annum had been voted for a lighthouse on the Bird Rocks at the Bahamas, the estimated cost of which was only £10,000. They were now asked for £4,500 for the same purpose. He hoped some explanation on the subject would be given by the Secretary to the Treasury.

MR. BAXTER

said, he could not defend the delay which had existed in the construction of the lighthouse on the Bird Rocks. It was, however, not the fault of the Treasury, and he had himself written a strong letter, calling upon the Board of Trade not to ask the Treasury to provide money which they were not going to expend. The cause of the delay in the erection of this lighthouse was, in the first place, the absence, and in the next the illness of the architect; but he hoped the expression of opinion in the House to-night would stimulate the Board of Trade to more activity in the matter. The money voted had not, however, been expended, but had been from year to year returned to the Treasury.

MR. BOWRING

was glad to have received the explanation just given, as, if it had not been made, it might be thought that between £30,000 and £40,000 would ultimately be expended on a work the total estimated cost of which was £10,000.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

inquired how it was that we had to contribute to the erection of lighthouses at Barbadoes, the Cape of Good Hope, and Cape Bon, and what progress was making, as we had this Vote every year?

MR. BAXTER

said, with regard to the lighthouse on Ragged Point, Barbadoes, the Colonial Government had agreed to erect it at a cost of £3,400, and all that Her Majesty's Government was asked to do was to supply the lighting apparatus at a cost of £2,300. Con- sidering that the greater portion of the vessels that passed the Point were British and not Colonial, he thought that that was a fair expenditure of public money. The total cost of the lighthouse at Cape L'Agulhas, near the Cape of Good Hope, was £12,800, and the contribution of Her Majesty's Government to that was simply £2,200, the cost of the lighting apparatus. Lastly, the Bey of Tunis had agreed to erect a lighthouse on Cape Bon, and this country was asked to supply the light. This lighthouse was rendered necessary by the opening of the Suez Canal, and, as the Committee was aware 80 per cent of the vessels passing through that Canal were British. It was proposed that they should ask Foreign Governments to contribute a part of the £4,000 which would be required for the light; but their proportion would have been so infinitesimally small that he thought it would be beneath the dignity of this country to ask it, and he had therefore sanctioned this expenditure of £4,000 without the least hesitation.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) £700, to complete the sum for Maintenance and Repairs of Embassy Houses Abroad.

(6.) £51,863, to complete the sum for British Embassy Houses, &c., Constantinople, China, Japan, and Tehran.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

inquired what the total cost of the Consular buildings at Tehran would be, and whether the sum now required for the Embassy House at Constantinople was for building or furnishing?

MR. AYRTON

said, that the estimate was for refurnishing the portion that was rebuilt after being burnt of the Embassy at Constantinople. In the case of Tehran the work to be done had been placed in the hands of an Indian officer, who—as often happened in such cases—had probably never undertaken a service of the kind before, and a building at Tehran with all the modern improvements of a house in London was of course rather expensive, besides which a great many casualties, such as the famine in Persia, had occurred, and had contributed to increase the cost.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that buildings in distant countries constituted a difficulty to the Government in this country; but he asked whether they might not have employed Persian architects? With respect to the sum of £2,000 for buildings at Constantinople, no doubt great inconvenience was felt from the constant practice of asking for re-Votes. If there was a reasonable probability of the whole sum being required during the year, then it was unfortunate that for the sake of lessening the estimate for the amount, the sum of £2,000 had been struck off.

MR. MUNTZ

protested against the slur which had been cast upon the Indian Service by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works.

Vote agreed to.

(7.) £37,675, to complete the sum for the Offices of the House of Lords.

(8.) £40,482, to complete the sum for the Offices of the House of Commons.

MR. MACFIE

said, they had had a very important debate that week on the subject of Central Asia, and very elaborate details were presented to the House, which it was very important for the public interest should have been preserved. The newspapers had not very fully reported these elaborate details, Now, he saw a sum of £2,500 put down for shorthand writers reporting the proceedings of the Committees, and it had never appeared to him to be wise to take such accurate reports of the Committees while no official reports were taken of speeches in the House such as he had referred to. Would it not be judicious to increase this item next year, so as to have shorthand reports of the speeches which were delivered in the House preserved, and that the public might have the benefit of them?

Vote agreed to.

(9.) £46,713, to complete the sum for the Treasury Department.

(10.) £77,330, to complete the sum for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices.

MR. HEYGATE

urged the desirability of a more satisfactory inspection in the case of burial grounds.

MR. BRUCE

said, a change in the matter could only be made by altering the Act of Parliament which dealt with it.

Vote agreed to.

(11.) £51,585, to complete the sum for the Foreign Department.

(12.) £26,282, to complete the sum for the Colonial Department.

(13.) £26,075, to complete the sum for the Privy Council and Subordinate Department.

(14.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £84,778, 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 1874, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments.

MR. BOWRING

after expressing his regret at the absence of both the President and the Secretary of the Board of Trade at the time when the Estimates for that Department came on for discussion, said, that although the Vote had not materially increased in amount as compared with that of last year, yet the form in which the Estimates were presented was such as not to give to the House the amount of clear information which ought to be afforded to it in respect to the changes which had been made in the establishment of the Board of Trade. He should, therefore, like to have some further information upon the subject, since a foot-note in the estimate said "the establishment has been so completely remodelled that a detailed comparison between the estimates for the years 1872–3 and 1873–4 is impossible." The Estimates stated that the total staff for this year was to be 152, as compared with 150 last year, whereas on referring to the Estimates for 1872–3, it would be seen that it was then only 103. There was therefore an increase of 50 per cent in the permanent Establishment. A close investigation showed that the discrepancy arose from the transfer to the permanent staff of a great number of temporary clerks, involving a large eventual charge to the public for superannuation. From the way in which the estimate was made out, that important fact was concealed from the House of Commons altogether. Last year there were 55 clerks on the Establishment this year there were 110, and a much higher scale of salaries had been adopted. In regard to the upper staff, also, the Department had been remodelled; and the Estimates again did not convey proper information to Parliament on that subject. The Board of Trade had an invaluable Economical Library, consisting of some 30,000 or 40,000 volumes, which was inaccessible and useless to the public, although it cost for salaries and expenses not much less than £1,000 a-year. A Committee had been sitting on that matter for two or three years, and as he had often before directed attention to the desirability of making the library more useful to the public, he should be glad to know the result of their labours. It appeared that the librarian's office was to be abolished, and that there would be nobody to look after that valuable collection.

MR. MACFIE

called attention to the sum of £1,777 for salaries in the Design Office, and inquired how much was received from designs to counterbalance that charge?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, in regard to the Library, the Committee had recommended—and effect had been given to their recommendation—that it should be placed in the Foreign Office and taken care of for the benefit of the Civil Service generally, instead of being the library of only one Department. He believed his hon. Friend (Mr. Bowring) was correct in his statements as to the changes at the Board of Trade. A very large number of persons had been employed nominally as "writers," but really in discharging the functions of clerks, to which they were quite equal, and their pay rose by increments according to length of service. They were not, however, within the rule of the Order in Council, which regulated the competition for admission to the Civil Service; and it was competent for the head of the Department to appoint them and regulate their salaries as he pleased. It was found that if that were to go on, it might afford an opportunity for defeating the intention of Parliament and the Government in throwing the Civil Service open to competition; because a man might say—"This is a duty which has not to be discharged by a clerk: a writer will do. My son or my nephew will do for the situation. I have to regulate his increment and he will gradually rise to a certain point." The only way to get rid of that was to make the writers who really did the work of clerks what they actually were. If they had given satisfaction to the heads of their Departments and were competent, they had been accordingly transferred from the position of writers to that of clerks. They were not put to the ordinary competitive examination, but went before the Civil Service Commissioners, and obtained a certificate of competency. Future vacancies, however, would be competed for in the ordinary way. As far as he was aware, it was only in the Departments of the Board of Trade and the Admiralty where a number of these writers were doing the work of clerks. He had not the necessary information to enable him to answer the question of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Macfie).

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

asked whether the promotion of writers who did the duty of clerks to the position of clerks had been made since last Session, when attention was called by himself and others to the subject? If so, he should consider it very satisfactory.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that was so. Whenever the heads of Departments thought the writers fit, they placed them in the position of clerks.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, that fault had lately been found with some of the officers of this Department, but he begged for himself to bear testimony to the admirable manner in which the business of the Board of Trade was conducted by its permanent officials.

MR. BOWRING

asked whether this great change in the position of the temporary clerks in the Board of Trade had been made throughout the whole service? That would be a serious matter, for all these clerks would have a right to superannuation, and the charge on the public would be very large, whilst the Estimates gave no information on the subject.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

replied that the Board of Trade and the Admiralty were the Departments to which he had referred. He was not aware that the change had been made in other Departments.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he saw there was a charge for Inspector of Oyster Fisheries of £500 a-year. Why was this? It was to be supposed that the owners of those fisheries would be able to pay for an Inspector.

MR. BAXTER

said, he was afraid there were some offices not actually necessary which were charged on the Estimates. This was an Inspector under an Act of Parliament.

MR. HEYGATE

suggested that the agricultural statistics, for collecting which Parliament allowed a certain sum of money every year, might be rendered more valuable if a column should be given, to be filled up by occupiers and owners of land, showing the number of animals which had been attacked by contagious diseases during the preceding year, the percentage of deaths, and, perhaps, also, an estimate of the loss sustained by those deaths. He instanced the counties of Hereford and Chester, where statistics of this character had been collected, as an indication of the value attached to the information. About two-thirds of the occupiers of the soil in those counties had made voluntary Returns, the necessary forms having been distributed by way wardens in the case of Herefordshire, and by the Chief Inspector in that of Cheshire. In Hereford, and during 1872, 27,061 head of cattle were attacked by disease, and of these about 5 per cent died; the proportion being about the same in Cheshire.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

wished to know whether the President of the Board Trade, after the experience of the last two years, was satisfied of the accuracy and value of the agricultural statistics? Letters had recently appeared in the public papers throwing great doubt on the value of these Returns; and unless some better system could be adopted, it would be a pity to spend so large a sum as £15,300 in carrying out the present one.

MR. F. S. POWELL

repeated his objection to the Board of Trade retaining control over the registration of designs, which was essentially a Patent Office matter, and pointed out that, although the agricultural statistics furnished by the Board gave ample information about the grain produce of European States, the information respecting the United Kingdom was meagre and inaccurate. He suggested that if the Board had not sufficient power to enable it to collect the information required, it should take steps to secure such powers.

MR. M'LAREN

moved the reduction of the Vote by £500 the salary of the Inspector of Oyster Fisheries. The Act under which he was appointed never contemplated that he should be a permanent officer, for it ordered that all the expenses attending the granting of Provisional Orders to proprietors of oyster beds should be borne by the promoters of such Orders.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £500, for the Salary of the Inspector of Oyster Fisheries, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. M'Laren.)

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, that modest £500 a-year was paid to a very efficient gentleman, who made able Reports to the Board of Trade on Oyster Fisheries from time to time. No objection had hitherto been made to the appointment of this officer, but beyond that the Board of Trade was unable to form an opinion upon some points, without being furnished with the result of an inquiry on the spot by a thoroughly competent person. He agreed with the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. F. S. Powell), that the registration of designs and the Patent Office should be under one head with regard to agricultural statistics. The duty of the Board of Trade, however, in the latter respect commenced with the receipt of the statistics, and had control only over their tabulation and publication. He would consider whether any change could be made in the mode of obtaining the Returns or in tabulating and publishing them.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

could not agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), that the proprietors of oyster beds alone benefited by the action of the Board of Trade. The public largely gained by the system of of which the Inspector formed a part; the public should therefore contribute to the cost. He thought the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Mr. F. S. Powell) as to the agricultural statistics was one deserving consideration.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he must again refer to the agricultural Returns, of the accuracy of which grave complaints were made. When a public department was paid £15,000 a-year for agricultural information it became a question whether it was worth while to go on furnishing it unless some improvement could be made in the matter. They should be either placed on a satisfactory footing or given up altogether.

MR. BAXTER

was induced to believe, from what he heard from leading agriculturists, that these statistics were of considerable value. The whole subject, however, would be considered by the Government, with a view, if possible, to insure greater accuracy.

MR. MONK

thought with the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), that the payment for the Inspectorship of Oyster Fisheries should not be borne by the public.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 87: Majority 64.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(15.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £16,385, 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 1874, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales.

MR. CUBITT

called attention to the increased work which had been thrown upon the Charity Commission by recent legislation, and which caused it in one branch of its duties to act as a Nonconformist Ecclesiastical Commission. He disclaimed any desire of attacking the endowments of Nonconformists believing that it would be advantageous both for them and the country if they spent more in the endowment, or at any rate the sustenance of their ministers, and less in bricks and mortar and agitation. As the Charity Commission was a department of the Government paid from the produces of taxation, Dissenters were in using it, directly benefitting by State assistance. He referred more especially to an Act of the present Parliament 32 & 33 Vict. c. 110, under which a very great additional amount of property belonging to Nonconformists had been brought under the cognizance of the Commissioners, and he quoted instances of schemes recently issued by them, one of which authorized raising money to furnish and finish a chapel belonging to the Particular Baptists. He instanced also the Charities Incorporation Act of last Session, under which the Calvinistic Methodists of Wales were appearing as suitors at a public office, and asking for schemes to be prepared at the expense of the taxpayers of the country. He did not wish in any way to complain of this legislation, but he charged the Nonconformists with inconsistency in obtaining the passage of small acts which placed their different sects in a position akin to establishment, and, on the other hand, in bringing in Resolutions here in favour of disestablishing the Church of England, and in going about the country denouncing the horrors of a State Church. He left it to hon. Members opposite to object to the Vote.

MR. MONK

wished to ask on a point of Order, whether Vote 9 for the Privy Seal Office, which had been passed over, should not have first been put to the Committee and postponed by consent.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, although, generally speaking it was not the practice to withdraw a Vote without some notice, yet there was no necessity for the Votes to be put from the Chair in the order in which they appeared in the Estimates.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

thought that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had good ground of complaint in reference to this matter, because, when particular Votes were passed over in this manner by private arrangement between those who sat on the Treasury bench and their immediate Friends, they were frequently brought on at inconvenient times, when hon. Members who were interested in them were unable to be present. Great dissatisfaction had been caused last year by the Government arranging with private Members who had given Notices of Motions on Votes not to bring on those particular Votes on particular days, and not giving the House any intimation of the arrangement.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, when an attempt was made to count out the House that evening the side on which the hon. Gentleman sat only contributed two Members to discuss Supply, and it was not considered desirable to discuss an important Motion in a very thin House.

MR. DILLWYN

(who had given Notice of a Motion to reduce Vote 9) confirmed the statement of the Prime Minister, and said he had assented to the suggestion when it was made to him.

MR. NEVILLE GRENVILLE

hoped to see the day when the Vote now before the Committee would be negatived, and the charities taxed to pay for their own management, in pursuance of a Resolution carried five years ago, but not yet carried into effect.

MR. BAXTER

said, that the hon. Member for Essex (Mr. A. Johnston) had already given Notice of his intention to move for a Select Committee to consider how best to give effect to the Resolution of five years ago, and a subsequent one to the same effect.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he observed from a foot-note attached to the estimate that the office of third Commissioner was to remain temporarily vacant. Now, he thought it was desirable the Committee should know definitely whether the office was or was not vacant, and in order to test the question, he should move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,200, the salary of the third Commissioner.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £15,185, 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 1874, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the circumstances of the case were these—when a vacancy occurred in the office the Government were anxious, in the interests of public economy, to effect a saving by reducing the number of the Charity Commissioners. The present arrangement had been consequently made, by which two Commissioners were discharging the work, but that work had considerably increased, and the arrangement must therefore be regarded as experimental. The Government were desirous of dispensing with the services of a third Commissioner if possible; but then they were also anxious not to be obliged to refer again to the House for his salary, if it should be found necessary to fill up the appointment.

MR. RYLANDS

hoped the hon. Gentleman opposite would persist in his intention to divide the Committee upon his Amendment. In that event, he should support him.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 76: Majority 9.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(16.) £17,421, to complete the sum for the Civil Service Commission.

MR. MONK

asked for an explanation of the item of £2,500, charged in this Vote as paid by the Civil Service Commission for writers' holidays.

MR. BAXTER

explained that the Government had been induced by the representations made both in and outside the House, to allow the Civil Service Commission to grant the writers employed in the various Departments a holiday without deducting it from their pay, and the item in question was the result.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

could not help thinking that altogether an improper function for the Civil Service Commission to discharge. He did not see why they should interfere at all in regulating the pay of any of the public Departments.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

observed that it was the duty of the Civil Service Commission to keep a list of writers, to examine them, and supply them as wanted to the different Departments. The writers were paid on a uniform scale by the Civil Service Commission, and not by the Departments.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

thought that the Civil Service Commission had no business to interfere in this way with the different Departments. It was altogether beyond their proper functions. He wished to know whether the Government meant to adhere to the system.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

promised to inquire into the matter, and unless they found some good reason for the practice they would be very glad to reconsider it.

Vote agreed to.

(17.) £15,354, to complete the sum for the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission.

(18.) £7,150, to complete the sum for Imprest Expenses under the Inclosure and Drainage Acts.

(19.) £36,476, to complete the sum for the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor General of the Exchequer.

(20.) £1,995, to complete the sum for Offices of Registrars of Friendly Societies.

(21.) £46,450, to complete the sum for the Department of the Registrar General of Births, &c. England.

In reply to Mr. F. S. POWELL,

MR. BAXTER

stated that the publication of the Census Returns would be completed this year, though the whole charge was not included in the Vote.

(22.) £339,803, to complete the sum for the Local Government Board.

MR. C. E. LEWIS

complained that the sum of £487 for the inspection of metropolitan vagrant wards was included in the Estimates.

MR. HIBBERT

explained that the charge was thrown on the Estimates by Act of Parliament. The Government had appointed special Inspectors to visit the vagrant wards of the metropolis, at the request of the Commissioners of Police, and the change had been beneficial, the police no longer visiting the wards. He was happy to say that there were at least a third less vagrants in the metropolitan wards now than at this time last year.

MR. M'LAREN

complained of a charge of £20,000, the expense of Parliamentary Returns.

MR. COLLINS

thought a good precedent had thus been established, and he hoped that in future years the system would be extended. He hoped that the expenses of the Inspectors of Health and Nuisances would be put on the Consolidated Fund.

MR. RYLANDS

said, the President of the Local Government Board some time ago gave the House a strong assurance that the expense of his Department would not be materially increased; but if hon. Gentlemen would look at the items of this Vote they would find that that expense had been very seriously increased. The item for Inspectors of Health and Nuisances had caused a very considerable increase of this Vote. He thought it was most undesirable to throw upon the Consolidated Fund local charges. If such charges were thrown upon the Consolidated Fund, he believed that in a very short time we should have all our towns superintended by Government officials.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, this Vote contained an item of £100,000 for Inspectors of Health and Inspectors of Nuisances. Who were these Inspectors? He had been informed that in many cases these appointments had not been sanctioned, and therefore the Government were too hasty in putting down so large a sum for the expenses of these Inspectors. There was a growing ten- dency on the part of the Home Office, and on the part of the Poor Law and Lunacy Inspectors who were not responsible to that House, and who had no interest in economy, to force an increased expenditure on the local districts, and the tendency to economy came from the local authorities. There was also in that Vote an item of £20,000 for obtaining a Return of the landowners of England, and he could not see how such a sum was necessary for finding out the landed proprietors in England. He should like to know whether it was true, as had been stated the other day, that in consequence of the Act passed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hardy), throwing the cost of the sick and lunatic poor over the whole metropolis, an expenditure of £500,000 had been brought upon the common funds of the metropolis. He himself thought that a large portion of that sum was due to the Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Admiralty, in which he threw upon the general funds a charge of 4s. per head for the maintenance of in-door poor in the workhouses of the metropolis.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he was not able to give a direct answer to the last question asked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth), but if he put it on another occasion he would be able to give him the information for which he asked. He had little doubt, however, that some of the increased expenditure on the establishments of the metropolis arose in consequence of the Act passed by his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman had found fault with two items in the Vote. The one was the item of £20,000 for obtaining a Return of the landowners in England. Now, the expenditure which it was proposed to incur in obtaining a now Domesday Book had originated in the House of Lords, for it had been suggested by the present Earl of Derby. He did not know if the Government could be held entirely responsible for that Vote, but he had no doubt that the money would be well laid out in obtaining the information which the Return would give. The other item to which the hon. Member took exception was the sum of £100,000 for Medical Officers and Inspectors of Nuisances. The estimate might be an excessive one for carrying out an Act like the Public Health Act; but he would remind the hon. Member that the the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said at Manchester that sanitas sanitatum was the great question of the day. He did not think, therefore, that the incurring of this great expense could be thrown upon the Government. The Sanitary Commission which was appointed some years ago made certain proposals, and the Act passed last year gave effect to some of these suggestions. The Government did not at first propose to give any aid to the local authority towards the payment of the Medical Officers of Health and Inspectors of Nuisances. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) proposed that the Government should agree to pay a certain proportion of the salaries of these officers, and that proposal was supported by a great number of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and accepted by the Government. The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) complained that the President of the Local Government Board had not carried on the great combination of the several departments under the Local Government Board at a smaller expenditure than before. He (Mr. Hibbert) wished to point out that of the increase of £138,000, £100,000 was due to Medical Officers of Health, and £20,000 was due to Returns, and that the remainder of the increase was caused by the appointment of 12 additional Inspectors to carry out the Public Health Act, and by an increase in the sum for Poor Law Medical men, over which the Government had no control. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Department had endeavoured to carry out the combination of the different departments under the Local Government Board not only with efficiency, but with economy.

MR. COLLINS

thought that all matters connected with health and sanitary improvement should be left to the local authorities. If, however, the Government imposed certain duties on the local authorities, it was quite fair that they should pay a part of the cost.

MR. DILLWYN

said, there was little use complaining, but as they had incurred the Bill they must pay it.

MR. CORRANCE

pointed out that in this item of £100,000, they had only half of the expense which had been occasioned by the public, allowed, and that the expense of these Medical Officers and Inspectors was not nearly what it would be when they were fully appointed. What hope or expectation did the hon. Gentleman entertain that the appointment would be completed? He would certainly ask for an explanation how it was that this large sum should be at present required, and upon what data he based it?

MR. CAWLEY

would be glad if the hon. Gentleman would state what proportion of Medical Officers who had been appointed had elected to take the contribution from the Government, and how much of the £100,000 would be required? He would also like to hear an explanation of the large increase in law expenses—from £700 to £3,675.

MR. HIBBERT,

in replying, said, that that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken would agree with him that it was impossible for him to carry in his head the Returns of the different local authorities in the country. He could not tell him how many authorities had refused to accept the Government aid; but from day to day there were from 50 to 60 different applications to deal with, and it was impossible, however much he tried to ascertain the number, to keep a correct note of them. The last time he had any Return showed that 150 authorities had appointed Officers of Health, and 145 authorities had appointed Inspectors of Nuisances; and, in addition to that, there were seven combinations of whole counties which had appointed Officers of Health. That, he thought, was a very satisfactory state of matters. He could not state the number of local authorities who had declined to accept the Government aid. It was the wish of the Government to make the system as elastic as possible, and by that means it had tended very greatly to carry out the intentions of the Act. With regard to the law charges, the increase was put down in consequence of the cases coming from local authorities on which daily consultation was required.

MR. STEPHEN CAVE,

as a member of the Sanitary Commission, was willing to share with the Government the responsibility of the increased cost in respect of medical officers. He wished to know on what data the £100,000 had been charged; whether it was merely an estimate, or whether it was based upon expenses which had been already ascertained from each locality? With respect, however, to the Inspectors of alkali, he asked what prospect there was of being free for the future from this Vote, and he expressed an opinion that the expenses under the Alkali Act should for the future be borne by the alkali manufacturers themselves.

MR. HIBBERT

replied, that the Local Act Inspectors were only transferred to the Board from the 1st of January, and the various questions arising in connection therewith had not been yet considered. The £100,000 was a more estimate.

(23.) £12,335, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission.

(24.) £43,850, to complete the sum for the Mint.

(25.) £14,795, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.

(26.) £23,456, to complete the sum for the Patent Office.

MR. HINDE PALMER

asked whether the salary given as compensation to the Law Officers of the Crown under the Act of 1852 was to be considered as attached to the offices of the Law Officers, or whether it was to be paid only to the gentlemen who held the offices when the salary was created? He thought that in the case of the Attorney General for Ireland, the Lord Advocate for Scotland, &c., the compensation should have merged in the salary of the appointment. So far as he could construe the Act, it was never intended to apply this compensation to the offices, but that the compensation should be given to gentlemen who at the time held the offices and lost the fees.

MR. MACFIE

trusted that the Government would carry out the recommendation of the Commissioners.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, a Bill to carry out certain reforms in the Patent-office was under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor, and would, no doubt, soon be presented to Parliament.

(27.) £21,506, to complete the sum for the Paymaster General's Office.

(28.) £19,081, to complete the sum for the Public Record Office.

(29.) £3,764, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan and West India Islands Relief Commissioners.

(30.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £365,703, 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 1874, for Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Public Departments in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for Stationery, Binding, Printing, and Paper for the two Houses of Parliament, including the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office.

MR. SCOURFIELD

suggested that the printing and stationery account might be reduced by issuing fewer Reports, and said there were so many at present that they wore never read.

MR. CALLAN

moved that the same account should be reduced by £13,000, being the amount of certain defalcations in parchments, vellums, and skins recently discovered in Ireland. His reason for doing so was that no satisfactory explanation had been given of how the defalcations had been allowed to escape previous detection.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £352,703, 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 1874, for Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Public Departments in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for Stationery, Binding, Printing, and Paper for the two Houses of Parliament, including the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office."—(Mr. Callan.)

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(31.) £20,381, to complete the sum for the Office of Woods, Forests, &c.

(32.) £35,072, to complete the sum for the Office of Works and Public Buildings.

(33.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, 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 1874, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services.

MR. RYLANDS

objected to the useless expenditure incurred under this Vote, and would therefore move its rejection. It belonged to an age gone past.

MR. MONK

complained of the magnitude of the Vote, although it was not so large as formerly.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD

said, he regretted that from the very nature of the Vote he was unable to offer any explanation. He thought, however, that valuable information was obtained by means of its expenditure.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, that the noble Lord's first reason was a very good one for the rejection of the Vote.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 22: Majority 61.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;

Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

House adjourned at One o'clock till Monday next.