CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS. (Hansard, 24 July 1882)

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would agree with him, having regard to the length of time hon. Members were now called on to spend within the four walls of this House, that every arrangement, within reasonable limits, should be made for their comfort and convenience inside the building. But the arrangements were open to great improvement. Last year £1,200 was voted for rooms to be given up to the House of Commons by the House of Lords, and there was another Vote of £400 for the same object this year. The result of the alterations had been that hon. Members who were smokers had had an elegant, convenient, and comfortable Smoking Boom provided for them; but he was anxious to know what arrangements were to be carried out for the convenience of Members who did not smoke? Those hon. Members who were more interested in the Tea Boom than the Smoking Boom were told last year that this Session additional accommodation would be provided for them. There was a room which had been devoted to judicial purposes which was to be given up to them; but he understood that owing to the delay in the completion of the New Courts of Justice, the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to place that room at their disposal this Session. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) wished to get a distinct statement from the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the appropriation of the room to Members next Session. He should also like the First Commissioner of Works to inform the Committee whether the new Tea Boom, like the new 1620 Smoking Boom, was to be for the exclusive and private accommodation of Members? There were many reasons, which it was unnecessary for him to point out, but which everyone must appreciate, why hon. Members should have a room to which strangers wore not admitted. With regard to another matter to which the right hon. Gentleman had promised his attention should be given this year, but which, no doubt, had escaped him, was anything going to be done to improve the conveniences in the News Boom? At present, if hon. Members went into the room in anything like numbers—if there were more than 20 present—great difficulty was experienced in getting a newspaper or obtaining a seat.

§ MR. FIRTH
said, that with regard to the external repairs to the stone work of the building, he should like to know whether they were to go on steadily for the future, and whether they were not mainly necessary in consequence of the imperfect stone which had been used by the original contractors? He believed the imperfect stone came from the same place as the perfect stone, but from a different bed. How was it that during the, comparatively speaking, short life of this building such extensive continuous repairs were necessary? Then, as to lighting, he should like to know whether it was intended to adopt any of the now perfected systems of electric lighting in the House, and whether it was intended to replace the gas in the Tower by electricity '? The hon. Member who had last spoken had referred to newspapers in the News Boom. He (Mr. Firth) endorsed the hon. Member's observations. He had found 10 copies of The Daily Telegraph—no doubt, a very interesting journal—in the room, but not a single copy of The Standard, which some hon. Members might prefer to read. How was that?

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
said, that all would agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that there was insufficient accommodation in the House for hon. Members who did not smoke. But, in his view, even the accommodation for Members who did smoke was not so good as it might be. All hon. Members who smoked—or the majority of them—were aware of the advantage of the St. Stephen's Cloister for their accommodation. On more than one occasion Me- 1621 morials had been placed before the Predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works requesting them to make inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining whether it would not be a satisfactory arrangement to glaze over a portion or the whole of the Cloister. Inquiries had been made as to the cost of glazing over the centre of the Cloister, because if the cost of glazing over the whole would be too much, all hon. Members would desire would be, that part should be covered in, and that the bay windows should be opened down to the ground. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any information in his Office on the subject, and whether he would give it his attention between this and next Session? There was another point to which he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. He had noticed that in the Estimates for the present Session there was no reference whatever made to the decoration of the Houses of Parliament. Well, since they last met, a large picture painted by Mr. Herbert had been put up in what was formerly intended to be a Court of Appeal, but which was now the Court of the noble Lord who presided over Railway Committees in the House of Lords. The subject of the picture was "The Judgment of Daniel." He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any intention on the part of the Government to proceed with the decoration of the Houses in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission which sat many years ago to consider the subject? In the room he had mentioned there were several blank spaces that might be very properly filled; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Mr. Herbert was to be intrusted with the work, or whether it was intended now, or at some future time, to submit proposals for filling the spaces with pictures by the best living artists? He had taken interest in this matter for a long course of years, but had never been anxious to see public money spent in this way; but in the present instance, as the work had been begun, it would be quite as well that they should finish it. As two spaces had been filled in Lord Redesdale's room with pictures, steps might be taken to fill the vacant places. Probably they might do what was done, or suggested, when the decoration of the Houses was 1622 in contemplation—namely, obtain prize pictures. Some of the pictures in the building were very much in want of varnish and some attention; and he would, therefore, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should take into his counsel those who had the care of the pictures in the National Gallery or South Kensington Museum. With the knowledge and under the direction of these gentlemen the pictures might be put into a proper condition.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he agreed with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that, looking at the length of time hon. Members had to spend in the House now-a-days, they were entitled to have their comfort attended to, and he thought it would be admitted that since he had occupied his present Office, he had not been neglectful of that comfort. After making the needful inquiries he had been successful in obtaining from the House of Lords three additional rooms for the convenience of hon. Members. One of these was now the new Smoking Boom, another was the new Dining Room, and the third was to be a Tea Room. The last named was now used as a Court of Appeal; but it would cease to be used as such in the course of the coming autumn, and the room would then be handed over to the House of Commons. He had said this apartment was to be used as a Tea Room; but that might not be literally correct. It might be found to be convenient to devote the room to other purposes; but if that were done, another room would be given up for the purposes of a new Tea Room. Questions had been put to him with reference to the supply of newspapers in the News Room. He was afraid the subject had, since he promised to consider it, escaped his attention; but he would undertake that the same thing should not occur next year. He would bear in mind what had been said, and see what could be done for the convenience of hon. Members. As to the external repairs to the stonework of the building, he was sorry not to be able to hold out any hope to the hon. Member that the expenditure on this work would be less in the future than it had been in the past. The stonework would be perpetually requiring repair, a fact which was due to the stone used in the building having been taken from a quarry that turned out to be not so good as was expected, and to the 1623 bad atmosphere of London which had an injurious effect upon the very best stone. As to the subject of lighting the House by electricity, experiments in that direction had already been made; but they had not been so satisfactory as to induce the Government to adopt that method of lighting, and no further experiments would be attempted until it was believed, from what was experienced elsewhere, that the electric lighting had been brought to such a condition that it would be advantageous to adopt it in the Houses of Parliament. It would be acknowledged by everyone that the lighting arrangements of this House were about as perfect as they could be under the system of lighting by gas. This, in fact, might be described as about the best sample of gas-lighting in London. It had been determined to light the New Law Courts by electricity, and that would give them an opportunity of forming an opinion of the character of that light, and of the advisability of adopting it in the Houses of Parliament. If the experiment was successful in the Now Law Courts, he would introduce the electric light into the outside chambers and corridors of this building, leaving this room—the House of Commons—the last to have the gas taken from it. As to additional smoking accommodation, he had given considerable attention to the question of the practicability of covering in the Cloister. Great objection had been taken to the proposal from structural reasons; but he had discarded the idea on giving hon. Members the extra Smoking Room to which he had referred. That room was a substitute for the Cloister, the cost of covering which would be very considerable.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
But not the cost of covering in a part?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, the cost would be £5,000 or £6,000, and that would be an expenditure which he did not think he should be justified in incurring, seeing that he had such a very short time ago provided additional accommodation for hon. Members who were smokers. He had been asked whether he was prepared to continue the decoration of the Peers' Room, where there were already two pictures by Mr. Herbert. The two pictures had been obtained at considerable cost. Originally, when it was intended to decorate the whole of the room, the outlay 1624 was put down at £10,000 for four pictures. That sum was subsequently considered too little, and Mr. Herbert, he thought, had received £9,000 for the two pictures. It was not intended to continue this expenditure, at any rate, at present. The first of the two pictures by Mr. Herbert had given universal satisfaction. The second picture had only been recently placed in its present position, and it was, perhaps, too soon yet to express an opinion with regard to it. It was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government, so far as he was aware, nor did he think it would be fair to Mr. Herbert, to give an order to anyone else for the completion of the decoration of the chamber in question.

CAPTAIN AYLMER
said, he had seen a Question on the Notice Paper to-day which was similar to one he should have liked himself to have put to the Government. There had lately been great complaints of the objectionable smells experienced by persons passing the entrance to the Speaker's Court, and at other parts of the building. An hon. Member had put on the Paper a Question with regard to it.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, that was so, and he had asked the hon. Member to postpone it so that he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) might make the necessary inquiries into the matter. He did not think there was anything to apprehend from the drains which came into the building; but, at the same time, he knew there had been complaints as to the bad atmosphere outside some parts of the building. This arose, he believed, from the bad air which came out of the building, and if he were right in that supposition, it would be a thing over which he would have no control. It appeared, also, that certain foundries and manufactories on the other side of the river at certain times discharged a large quantity of smoke which affected the atmosphere surrounding the Houses of Parliament.

CAPTAIN AYLMER
said, that if the right hon. Gentleman would allow him he would take him to a place on the land side of the House where he could smell the drains at all times of the day and night.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
said, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his Question. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would cost £6,000 or £7,000 to glaze over the whole of the 1625 Cloister; but that was not his (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) point. He had suggested that one or two bay windows might be covered in, and if that suggestion were adopted, it would not be at all necessary to interfere with the structural character of the House. The stonework need not be touched, and it would be quite sufficient to do what he proposed. If his recommendation were carried out it would be a source of great satisfaction to a great many hon. Members who were fond of their cigars or tobacco. When the House was at all full it would surprise people to see how crowded that part of the building to which he was referring became. When the Memorial, signed by a large number of hon. Members, was presented to the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessor (Mr. Adam), the reply given to it was that the question would be taken into consideration in all its bearings, not only as to the advisability of covering in the whole of the Cloister, but a portion of it—one or two bays, perhaps, not quite up to the side door. He would recommend the right hon. Gentleman to take the matter into his serious consideration and place it before the surveyors, who were officials of his Department. If these gentlemen were of opinion that the improvement would be injurious to the building, that opinion could be circulated through the House, and the matter would drop. If he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) were alive next year, he would repeat the Question.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he found items in the Estimates for gas, oil, and so on; but he found nothing for ice. It was no use mincing the matter; the House had been insufferably hot during the last few nights. Something had been said about it a night or two ago, and almost immediately a paragraph appeared in The Daily News on the subject; and those who had charge of the building were so extravagant as to use a ton of ice in one day. But let them take to-night, or even the night of a Scotch debate, hon. Members could not remain in the Chamber for any length of time without becoming sleepy from the condition of the atmosphere. He was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman obtained the opinion of the Committee, he would find there was a general belief that the arrangements for cooling the House were not so good as 1626 they used to be. There was a time when this apartment used to be the best ventilated in the building; but now, if a person wanted to get cool, instead of coming into this Chamber, he would have to go outside on the terrace. An over-heated atmosphere had an effect on the temper, and for that reason, as well as many others, the right hon. Gentleman should issue orders for there to be no stint in the supply of ice.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he did not think there had been any stint of ice, and hon. Members would agree that the atmosphere of the House was fairly cool.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he should like to get an expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the means of communication between this Chamber and other parts of the House. The right hon. Gentleman would be surprised to hear that in the newspaper offices they had a better knowledge of what was going on in the House than hon. Members had in such parts of the building so little removed from this Chamber as the Dining Room or Smoking Room. There were several telegraphic instruments which could be used to acquaint hon. Members in other parts of the building with what was going on in this Assembly. Telephones could be used, and it would be very easy to have an official at one end of the wire whose duty it should be to answer all inquiries from various parts of the building as to what was going on in the Chamber. There was another point to which he wished to draw attention. He did not know exactly how much of the Ladies' Gallery was at the disposal of Mr. Speaker; but, although he did not wish unnecessarily to interfere with any of the right hon. Gentleman's privileges, he thought, from what he had heard, and seeing the limited extent of the Gallery, that it would be as well that the right hon. Gentleman should not have exclusive rights over such an amount as one-third of the Gallery. Mr. Speaker's Ladies' Gallery, he supposed, was rarely more than half filled; therefore, the right hon. Gentleman had privileges of which, although they really interfered with the rights of private Members, he was unable to make fair use himself. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had considered the subject of the removal of the grating from 1627 the Ladies' Gallery. Some months ago he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was in the House of Representatives of America, and he observed that there they managed these things much bettor than they did in England. Anyone was at liberty to enter any of the Galleries in the House, except one or two reserved for diplomatists. During the two or three days he had attended, he had seen in the Galleries a large number of ladies, who, apparently, took the liveliest interest in what was going on. The American Legislators did not seem afraid of beholding the ladies, and the ladies, on their part, did not seem anxious to conceal themselves behind a veil of iron. The practice of hiding the females from the gaze of the other sex seemed to him to be an objectionable recognition of an Oriental custom in this country.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, with regard to communicating from that Chamber what was going on in other parts of the House, he would make inquiries into the matter, and ascertain if it would be convenient to adopt any of the electric inventions to which the hon. Member had referred. With regard, also, to the Ladies' Gallery, he would consider the point, and see whether the existing arrangements could be altered. He could not say more than that.

§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON
said, he could not help saying that he thought this the most appropriate Vote that could have been brought forward at this time. He believed there was to be an inscription on the Monument recording the services that the late Earl of Beacons-field had rendered to his country, and he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would suggest that to that should be added a line commemorating the faithful imitation of the noble Lord's policy by Her Majesty's Government.

§ MR. DILLWYN
asked for some explanation of the Vote for repairs of Admiralty Buildings, &c.

§ MR. FIRTH
said, he should like to have some information with regard, to the Orange Street Waterworks; and, with regard to Westminster Bridge, he noticed that there was a charge made upon the Imperial Revenues for its repairs, and he should like to be informed whether it would not be possible to put that charge on the local rates?

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, he should be glad to have some explanation, of this Vote of £3,200 for repairs to existing Admiralty Buildings; and, perhaps, at the same time as the right hon. Gentleman gave him some explanation, he would tell them whether he intended to bring forward a Supplementary Estimate in regard to the construction of the new War Office?

MR. HINDE PALMER
said, he noticed that there was a sum of £835 to be devoted to the repairing of Whitehall Chapel, and this was £755 more than was voted in 1881–2. He did not think it was at all too soon for a large sum to be spent upon the building, and he was glad to see that this amount was to be devoted to the purpose But what he wished to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman was this—he did not know whether there had been any plan prepared for the repair of the Chapel, but at present he noticed all around the Chapel what appeared to be a number of festoons of cloth that at one time had been of a crimson colour, but which were now completely covered with dust. It would be a great advantage if these decorations were removed, because they did not seem to have any sort of congruity with an ecclesiastical building. There was also another item in the Estimates to which he should like to draw attention. He saw there was a sum of £198 to be voted for Lincoln's Inn Appellate Court. He wished to know whether it was necessary to retain that Appellate Court, and whether there was not sufficient accommodation in the New Law Courts?

MR. DICK-PEDDIE
complained of the drainage of some of the Government Buildings, and desired to know whether any steps had been taken to recover compensation from the contrac- 1629 tor or clerk of the works who had been guilty of neglect on this subject?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, that, with regard to the Admiralty Buildings, there had been a transfer of the grant from one Vote to another, and the total amount was £11,300, of which £3,600 was for repairs, and £6,400 for rents. Hon. Members wished to know why this largo sum was charged. It was true that a Bill had been passed for the acquisition of a new site for the War Office and Admiralty Buildings, but he apprehended that some considerable time must elapse before the work would be completed. It would be necessary to retain an architect, and competition of some kind would be invited. This would involve some considerable time, and it would be obvious that it would be necessary to go on repairing the existing buildings during the interval, and that the Votes in question were necessary. With regard to Westminster Bridge, no doubt, when there was a Municipal Government all over London, the desirability of putting the cost of maintaining the Bridge on the rates would come under consideration. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had already written a Memorial on this subject; but in the meanwhile he did not think it worth while to raise the question. With regard to Whitehall Chapel, it was, no doubt, true that for a long time the interior of the building had been in a very discreditable and disreputable state. The hon. Member who had offered criticism upon the condition of the Chapel would, no doubt, be glad to hear that they had provided for repairs and improvements in the Chapel. Whether the antique festoons would be removed or cleaned he could not say, but he could promise, at any rate, that something would be done. With regard to the Appellate Court, he had every confidence that there would be room in the new building; and as for the sanitary arrangements of the Public Buildings, an adequate Estimate would be taken this year, it having been decided that altogether some £30,000 would be required for putting all the Public Offices in a sanitary condition. It was not very satisfactory that such a large amount should be required for such a purpose; but, after all, it was not to be wondered at, seeing that all these buildings were very old, and that when they were constructed our knowledge of sanitary matters was much less than at the present 1630 time. A considerable sum of money had already been spent upon putting the Public Offices in a satisfactory sanitary state, and he thought he was correct in saying that £6,000 or £7,000 would have to be spent immediately for that purpose. The remainder of the Vote was required for Somerset House and other buildings. On the subject of Orange Waterworks, the Return would shortly be presented to the House. He believed that the costs of the works there would be £1,400.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
criticized the mode of preparing 'the Estimates, and objected to the repeated changes in the classification of the outlays on buildings and other public works. One of the most useful checks on such kinds of outlay was secured by uniformity of charging for works. A change in the arrangement of items destroyed the continuity which was so essential for comparing one year's outlay with that of other years. Then, besides maintaining this uniformity, it was also necessary to separate the distinct kinds of outlay. Instead of this being practised, they found new works, repairs, rents, and furniture, new and old, thrown higgledy-piggledy into one Estimate.

CAPTAIN AYLMER
remarked upon the item of £40,000 for Rents and Assurance. He should like to know what sum in the shape of rent would be saved in future years after the buildings for which Parliamentary sanction had been obtained were completed; and he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was going to be done with that property in the hands of the Government between Downing Streeet, Great George Street, and the Houses of Parliament, and which spoilt the finest street in Europe? Further, he should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman was going to do with the buildings adjoining Westminster Hall when the legal business was transferred from them to the New Law Courts.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, that the total saving in rents from the erection of the New Government Offices was £16,000 a-year. As to the property belonging to the Government in Parliament Street, that was no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was acquired, as a new site had been determined upon for the erection of a War Office and Admiralty. They had bought the property, the removal of which would enable Par- 1631 liament Street to be widened, on very reasonable terms, and any public body which in the future might take it off the hands of the Government at the price they had paid for it, by selling or renting a portion of it at a fair price, would be able to carry out the improvement in question without any loss. He would make a suggestion of this kind to the Metropolitan Board, and see if they would carry it out.

§ LORD ELCHO
said, he should like to know whether the plans for the construction of the New War Office and Admiralty would be obtained from a limited competition or an open one? He said this, because recently there had been a competition at Glasgow, open to the whole world, for plans for new Municipal Buildings, and the gentleman who had been successful out of 125 competitors—a friend of his own—was not a person well enough known to have been selected in a limited competition.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, he was going to give a practical turn to the discussion by moving' a reduction of the Vote. He was not satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's statement as to the expenditure on Westminster Bridge. It was no use telling them that the expenditure would be avoided when a measure was passed dealing with the Municipal Government of the Metropolis. There was no reason in the world why they should be called upon to pay nearly £3,000 a-year from the National Exchequer for the repair of the Bridge any more than they should be called upon to pay for the repairs of Pall Mall, or any other street in London. He would move that the Vote be reduced by £2,790, the amount proposed for the repairs of Westminster Bridge.

§ MR SHAW LEFEVRE
said, that before he dealt with the question raised by his hon. Friend, he would say a word as to the point referred to by the noble Lord. He had not yet decided what form of competition should be invited. 1632 There was some objection to open competition on the part of the great architects, who would decline on the score of expense to enter if there were too many competitors. He was thinking of having a double competition—first, a sketch design competition; and then selecting the authors of five or six of those sketches to compete for the complete design. In that way, he thought, it would be possible to overcome the objection of the great architects. All he could say was that it was his desire to have a competition, but the exact nature of it had not yet been determined on. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), he was bound to say he did not think the cost of repairing the Bridge could be thrown on the locality by a decision of this Committee. There was an estate vested in the Government for the purpose of maintaining the Bridge. There were several houses in Parliament Street, the rents of which went to the maintenance of the Bridge. The question, therefore, was not so easy to dispose of as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think. It would be decided, whenever the subject of the Government of London was finally dealt with; but he did not think it would be desirable to attempt to settle it by a vote of the Committee.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
said, he feared that the amount which was paid in the shape of rents for Government Offices would remain the same in future years in spite of the fact that a New War Office and Admiralty would be in existence. If hon. Members had studied the expenditure for rents for a series of years, they would find, as he (Sir George Balfour) had found, that in spite of the erection of new Colonial, Home, and Local Government Board Offices, the rents for the other years had not diminished. Then, the objectionable practice of having "rents" estimated for in separate Estimates was open to great objection. Either the rents for separate Departments should be presented to the House, or the rents for buildings for all Departments put into one Estimate. But neither course was followed.

§ SIR HENRY HOLLAND
said, that special police were charged for in connection with the Record Office. Were those Metropolitan police? If so, they should be charged for under the Metro- 1633 politan Police Vote. It was extremely inconvenient, as they found on the Public Accounts Committee, to have these separate police charges under different heads.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he could not answer the question. If they were not Metropolitan police they should be charged under this Vote; but if they wore it would seem desirable that they should be charged under the other Vote.

§ MR. THOROLD ROGERS
said, he should like to know what was the precise sum derived from the Westminster Bridge Estate, which was never stated as a set-off against the charge put on the public?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he could not state at this moment what the exact amount was; but he thought about £5,000 a-year. The rents were considerable, he knew.

§ MR. DILLWYN
agreed in supporting the objections urged.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, he should support the hon. Member on a division, because the point raised was the principle whether the ratepayers in London were to bear burdens to which those in other boroughs throughout the country had to submit. A penny in the pound rate in London represented £100,000 per annum. The explanations of the First Commissioner of Works almost made the thing worse, for it appeared from that that Parliament had acquired an estate which did not bring in sufficient to pay the interest on the money advanced. He hoped the question would be raised again and again whether the wealthiest city in the world should have a part of the burden of its local expenditure defrayed out of the general Exchequer.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
rose to a point of Order. He believed the Government had already taken part of the Vote on a Vote on Account. Was it not necessary to move the reduction on the balance left? Such had been the ruling of the Chair previously.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, it was not usual to apportion the sum among these smaller amounts.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, hon. Members would see, if they looked at the Vote on page 24, that this Estimate provided only for the furniture of certain Public Offices in London and Edinburgh, and that further charges for certain specified Departments were made in the Votes for those Departments in Class I., and then, again, that there was a third series of charges for War Office, Admiralty, and Science and Art Departments. It was perfectly impossible to find out what was really spent in furniture. He should like to ask the First Commissioner of Works what was the actual expense of furniture throughout the Service; and, again, he should like to know how this furniture was procured? He had heard all sorts of rumours of gigantic jobs in connection with the supply of furniture. Was it supplied by contract, and, if so, by limited tender or otherwise; and, further, where the furniture was stored, and what became of the condemned furniture?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he could not say what was the aggregate cost of furniture, and in regard to this Vote some of it was obtained by contract and part by running accounts. He did not think there were any such "jobs" as the hon. Member spoke of in connection with the supply.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he did not say that there were jobs, but only that he had heard rumours of such. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would not mind laying on the Table a statement of the amount expended in furniture, the details of running contracts, and the amount spent under each?

§ MR. HEALY
said, this was a Vote for the Offices in Great Britain, and in reference to that he would mention that for years and years furniture to the amount of £500,000 in Colonel M'Kerlie's Department, and others had been allowed to go unregistered, and anyone might have stolen the property without the Board of Works in Ireland having cognizance of it. Would the Secretary to the Treasury state whether he would assent to some stock being taken of the furniture attached to the Office of Board of Works (Ireland)?

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he must remind the hon. Member that he was raising a point of detail that was not included in the Vote.

§ MR. HEALY
said, the Vote was for Offices in Great Britain; was not Ireland in Great Britain?

§ MR. WARTON
No.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, Ireland was not included in the Vote.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
said, that, ever since the transfer of the buildings of the Revenue Department, now four or five years ago, to the Commissioners of Works, the outlay had been largely on the increase, as a comparison of the Estimates for the several years clearly showed, for the last Estimate showed an increase, in comparison with 1880–1, of £30,000, and now this Vote showed an increase over last year by no less than £75,000, so that there had been an advance in the two years of £105,000, and the increase was much larger, if contrasted with the Estimates of the first year of the transfer. He was sorry to see this vast increase in the expenditure of public money on buildings. It seemed to be no use for Members of that House trying to be economical. He attributed the increase to the fact that no control was exercised by the Department over this outlay. There also was another marked feature in the accounting system—that repairs were mixed up with new buildings in a way that prevented proper knowledge being arrived at in regard to the amounts used for new works, separately from the charge for current expenditure. (He (Sir George Balfour) had, year after year, urged the strongest objections to this vicious practice. The outlay on new works or additions was the investment of money in permanent works, and practically increased the property of the Kingdom, and should be kept separate from the outlay on repairs, which maintained the public property, and, like salaries, became current charges of the year. If the noble Lord, whose loss they all deplored, had lived, that bad syetem would have been remedied. Then, the mode for accounting for furniture was objectionable. In four or five places the Votes for furniture were 1636 distributed. An hon. Member said there was neglect under the Irish Board of Works; but here there seemed quite as much mismanagement and want of system. The first and foremost consideration was to separate the charges for new works, for repairs, and furniture under distinct and separate heads, so as to improve the power of check.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, that a large sum had been set down for new buildings for electric telegraph purposes. Now, he could understand that the Post Office might be put to some increase of expenditure on that account; but £25,000 was a large increase for the Service. Had there been any exceptional or new development of the telegraph system calling for that largo expenditure? He was under the impression there had been nothing of the kind.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, the item in the increase of the Telegraph Department was caused by an addition to the new Post Office buildings in London. That increase was entirely due to the enormous increase in telegraph business. After a good deal of consideration, it was intended to put an additional storey to the building, at a cost of £30,000, and that was an alternative to erecting a new building, which would have cost £500,000. As to the complaint that no control was exercised, this was an illustration to the contrary, for by careful inquiry it was found possible to add this new storey instead of erecting a new building.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
asked, had not the Government recently received urgent representations from the Inland Revenue Department as to the insufficiency of office accommodation, and did they propose any steps to remedy this?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, no; he had heard nothing about that.

MR. HEALT
wished to say a word in reference to postal pillar-boxes. He observed in certain parts of London the boxes contained an arrangement showing when the box would be next cleared. It would be a great convenience to the inhabitants of London, and, indeed, generally in the country, if this reform were generally adopted. It very frequently happened that, in the night collections from the boxes that the postman was a quarter of an hour late; and it would be a great convenience to those who had 1637 occasion to despatch late correspondence to know, when they came to a pillar, whether the postman had passed or not. In some places this information was given; but could the plan be generally adopted, as it was in France and Belgium? Could not the Department carry it out in all parts of London—he would not say all over the country; but in London, with its 4,000,000 of inhabitants, a little slab indicating whether the box had or had not been cleared would be a great convenience.

§ MR. THOROLD ROGERS
said, this practice had been carried out in some parts of the country; he had noticed it in the town he visited every year.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, it was a matter for the Postmaster General, who, no doubt, would give the information if a Question were put to him.

§ MR. FIRTH
said, £40 were paid for Hammersmith, and £50 for Wands worth; was there any intention to provide these two Police Courts with proper habitations? The Home Office did intend to make a new division of the districts.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he could not answer the question. He did not think there was any idea of a new building until the question of local government for London was settled.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, he was glad the question had been again raised as to charges upon the Exchequer for local matters, and some satisfactory answer would, he hoped, be ultimately obtained. But there had been frequent promises given by the Government, and he would be very glad to hear what practical steps were to be taken by the Government in the matter. It was certainly a most objectionable Vote, this continual charge from year to year; and he did not understand on what ground the Government could justify it, when similar buildings in other towns were entirely paid by the local rates. What practical 1638 steps would be taken to relieve the Exchequer from the charge?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, this was one of many items now paid from Imperial funds which would more properly fall on the ratepayers. But he thought, whenever the question came under consideration, there was another item on the other side to be considered—namely, that the City of London paid for its own police. When a Municipality was provided for the whole of London, no doubt the Government would contribute in the same proportion to the City Police as to the cost of the Metropolitan Police. But these were all parts of the larger question.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he would not enter into the question whether the charge should, or should not, be borne by the Exchequer; but what he wished to call attention to was the objectionable state of the Police Court at Wandsworth. Whether it was to be paid for by the Exchequer, or by a Municipality, to be formed hereafter, he did not care to inquire; but he must call attention to this point, for hitherto no information had been given. Had the Chief Commissioner ever been to the Wandsworth Court? He (Mr. Warton) had had occasion to attend there to defend a man from an outrageous charge, and he was never in a more disgraceful Court House. It was about 20 feet long and 12 wide, and into this space were stuffed the magistrate and his clerk, half-a-dozen policemen, prisoners, witnesses, counsel, and the public. £50 a-year was far too much for such a miserable cottage; it was not worth more than £30, and it was disgraceful accommodation at that. If nothing were done to remedy the disgraceful condition of Wandsworth Police Court he should call attention to it by Motion. It was a filthy den, and not a fit place for any policeman.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, he was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works that he intended to deal with this matter. He (Mr. Dillwyn) should certainly propose a reduction of the Vote, because he thought it time that they should protest, in the name of the taxpayers of the country, against payments out of the Imperial Exchequer for local purposes.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, that before they went to a division he would ask the hon. Member (Mr. 1639 Courtney) if he could explain the new item in the Vote—that was, extra receipts, £3,560. He found it stated thus— Estimated extra receipts (including for 1882–3 £3,032 12s. 8d. payable by the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police in respect of the new Bow Street Police Station) £356, 1882–83; £300, 1881–2. What was the meaning of this? He was not disposed to vote with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) with regard to the Westminster Bridge Estate; but he thought the taxpayers throughout the country had reason to complain of the relief given to the Metropolitan rates out of the Imperial funds; therefore he would support the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn).

§ MR. WARTON
said, that Hammersmith and Wandsworth formed part of the same district; but money had been spent on the Hammersmith Station, whilst that at Wandsworth was left without anything at all, and the Wandsworth Station was a wretched place, intolerable beyond all hon. Members could think of. Why, if the same principle was involved at Hammersmith and Wandsworth, was £2,700 spent on the former and nothing on the latter, which was in a most disgraceful condition?

§ MR. COURTNEY
was understood to say that the reason was that it was intended to remove the Wandsworth Police Station nearer Clapham Junction.

§ MR. WARTON
said, that if £100 was given to a builder he would be able to effect a great deal of improvement.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he would make inquiries into the matter and see what could be done.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he merely wanted to refer the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to an answer he had given him some time ago, to the effect that the New Courts of Justice would be open before the Long Vacation. He understood that could not now be done, owing 1640 to the death of the architect. It would be an advantage to the public and the Legal Profession if they could be informed about when the Courts were likely to be opened.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he had given an answer on the subject some months ago; but since that some delay had been rendered necessary, owing to the unfortunate death of Mr. Street, the architect. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), however, had great confidence that the buildings would be thoroughly complete, and the Judges would be able to enter them on the first day of term after the Long Vacation.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, he was glad these Courts, which had been so long building, were now about to be opened. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give them some information as to whether the old Courts would be pulled down when the legal business was removed from them, so that Westminster Hall might be seen in its original proportions.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he had not consulted the Government in the matter; but it was his hope that the course indicated by the right hon. Gentleman would be pursued. The Government were under a kind of obligation when the new Courts were finished to pull down the old ones. It was believed that there were some flying buttresses to the hall built up into the brickwork of the Courts, and it would be an extremely interesting operation to lay those bare. What would be the general effect when the brickwork was removed he could not say; but, according to Sir Charles Barry, it would not be good. He could only hope that the eminent architect he had quoted was wrong in the view he took of the matter, and that the effect would turn out to be much better than was expected.

§ SIR HENRY HOLLAND
said, a question had been before the Public Accounts Committee with reference to the Survey Accounts in Ireland. The balance had gone on increasing, and nearly £11,000 was now due. The Treasury had passed certain regulations in November, 1881, which it was hoped would tend to a reduction of the balance; 1641 and he would like to hear from the Secretary to the Treasury that he (Mr. Courtney) would closely watch the working of those regulations.

§ MR. PUGH
said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to give the Committee an assurance that some progress had been made with the Survey. The Committee were concerned to know in what number of years the work would be completed. It occurred to him to be a very strange thing that the headquarters of the Survey should be South Africa.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, there was a very large increase of this Vote last year. That increase was agreed to upon the understanding that the Survey would be completed by the year 1890. They were, therefore, within a measurable distance of the completion of this great work. General Cook had made some improvements, which would greatly facilitate the issue of the maps; and he wished to take this opportunity of expressing the thanks of the Government to General Cook for these improvements, which would cause a saving of £100,000, and, at the same time, facilitate the issue of some of the maps by some years.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
said, it was all very well to say the work would be finished in 1890; but the Committee would like to know what was really being done. How many counties, for instance, had been surveyed? This was a matter of great importance to the landed interest of the country, and the Committee would like more detailed information than they had yet received. Could the Government state, even approximately, the number of maps sold and the amount realized by the sale?

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, that if he might supplement the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), he would do so by suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman might present a Return to the House, in continuance of the Return presented last year, showing what progress had been made and indicating when the survey of the different counties would be completed.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he was not able to give any specific account of the progress made. From General Cook's Report the Committee would see exactly what part of the country had 1642 been surveyed during the past year, and how far the work had been accelerated during the last 12 months by the increased Vote of the House. Of course, the present increased Vote would have its effect in the coming year. He could assure the Committee that General Cook was desirous of hastening on the Survey in every possible way.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, be could hardly agree that the year 1890 was within a measurable distance of the present time. He did not think they ought to wait eight years for the completion of this work. Some time ago a very strong opinion was expressed on both sides of the House as to the delay in completing the Ordnance Survey, and there was a general feeling that no public money could be better spent than in accelerating this work. The Prime Minister, in introducing the Budget last year, expressed himself strongly in favour of additional expenditure on this ground; and he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would urge the right hon. Gentleman to endeavour to increase the number of men employed upon the work. It was desirable, too, that when the Survey was commenced in one county, the work in that county should be completed before any other was undertaken.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, there was one point on which he should like a little information to be afforded to the Committee. If he recollected rightly, when, on a previous occasion, the Committee pressed on the Government the necessity of accelerating the Survey, the answer given was that the Government had not got the men at their disposal, and that it was impossible to get them at once; that men were required to be specially educated to make the Survey. What he wanted to ask was, what steps had been taken by the Government to provide engineers to make the Survey, or to provide for the education which the Committee were told, in previous years, was absolutely necessary men should receive before they could take part in the work. It was perfectly clear the work could not be pushed on with the rapidity the Committee desired, unless there was a large increase of the men employed.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, the Report of General Cook for the present year would give the information the hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. H. Paget) desired.

CAPTAIN AYLMER
said, it was most unsatisfactory to notice the way in which all questions asked were answered by the right hon. Gentleman, considering that last year the Committee voted £50,000 extra, with the object of facilitating the progress of the Survey. The right hon. Gentleman might have expected some questions as to the rate of progress, as compared with previous years. No information, however, had been afforded to the Committee on the point; but still a further increased Vote was not proposed. The right hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw the Vote until he could afford the information the Committee desired.

§ MR. PUGH
suggested that General Cook should, next year, issue his Report before this Vote was taken. Such an arrangement would be very satisfactory.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, there was no wish on his part to keep the Committee in ignorance. With reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler)—namely, the desirability of completing the Survey of a county when once it was commenced, the Government had received many complaints; but he had always felt great hesitation in interfering with the work of the Survey in this respect. General Cook laid down a scheme for general survey, having regard to economy and the acceleration of the work; and he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) thought that, on the whole, it was not wise to interfere with the arrangements made by the gentlemen in charge of the work. He must ask hon. Members not to press him further on the point.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he was glad the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Pugh) had asked the Government to lay the Report respecting the Survey, and other Reports, on the Table, when they would be of practical use. A good many weeks ago the Secretary to the Treasury was pressed to say when the Financial Accounts for the last year would be placed on the Table, and the hon. Gentleman gave the assurance that every effort would be made to push on the work. It was now the end of July, and the Committee had not yet received the Financial Accounts, which ought to have been issued in May. Might he ask the Secretary to the Treasury how the mat- 1644 ter stood at present, and whether the Committee might expect, in the course of the next few days, to receive the Financial Accounts promised so long ago?

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, the Financial Accounts would be published without delay.

§ SIR HENRY HOLLAND
said, he had only one question to ask in regard to this Vote. In page 43, under the head B, there was a charge for— Rent of rooms at No. 103, Victoria Street, Westminster, for the temporary continuance there of the collection of Antiquities and Ethnographical Objects presented to the British Museum by the Trustees under the will of the late Mr. Henry Christy. The collection was brought to Victoria Street last year, and a promise was then made that it was to be removed to the British Museum and South Kensington, and that this charge would cease. He would like to know if this had been done?

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, he would like to receive some information about the Natural History Museum; for instance, he would like to know what steps had been taken in the past year, and what might be expected in future years, towards the completion of the work?

THE CHAIRMAN
The Natural History Museum Vote will be taken next.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, that when the collection of antiquities and ethnographical objects was removed the Christy portion would be removed.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
said, there was a magnificent building at South Kensington intended for the Natural History Museum. That building had been erected at a very large cost, and at the present time it was practically empty, and for the very reason that certain money was required in order to provide cases in which to put the objects of interest. If the Secretary to the Treasury would look at the Estimates, he would see that, so far as buildings were concerned, the Estimates were satisfactory enough, but not so with regard 1645 to the Estimates for internal fittings. For internal fittings the original Estimate was £177,570; the revised Estimate, £136,203; total amount of previous Votes and re-Votes, £97,337; total expenditure up to the 30th of September, 1882, £32,996; Vote required for year 1882–3, £37,336; voted 1881–2, £37,337; further amount required for completing the work, nil. There was an item of £4,356 under the heading "further amount required for completing the work," and with regard to that item he would like some explanation. The learned professor who was in charge of the Natural History part of the British Museum at the present moment was a gentleman who was getting into years, and he was extremely anxious to see the new arrangements completed in his lifetime. It was very necessary the Natural History Collection should be removed, and if the only difficulty in the matter was one of money he was persuaded it could soon be overcome.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, the Vote for internal fittings amounted to £37,000, and for that sum nearly the whole of the internal fittings of the building would be completed. Certainly not more than £4,000 or £5,000 more would be required.

§ MR. G. HOWARD
asked whether the building containing the collection of objects in spirits had been separated from the Natural History Museum, owing to the inflammable character of the contents of the former building; and whether it adjoined the building which was now used for the National Portrait Gallery, which building was not fire-proof, and the contents of which were of a far more inflammable nature than the objects in spirits?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, there was a considerable space between the building for objects in spirits and the National Portrait Gallery. The danger which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Howard) seem to fear need not be apprehended.

§ MR. STORY-MASKELYNE
said, that at present the spirit collection was placed underneath the Library of the British Museum. He agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. G. Howard) that it 1646 was to be regretted that the spirit collection should be kept so near the National Portrait Gallery.

§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK
said, the Trustees of the Museum had been for a long time anxious to separate the spirit collection from the other portions of the building.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he did not wish it to be supposed there was any real danger to the National Portrait Gallery by the proximity of the spirit collection. The two buildings were separated by such a distance that there was no real danger to be feared.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
noticed that £2,982 of this Vote was in respect of the Dover Harbour. A Bill authorizing the construction of a new harbour at Dover was read a second time only the other day, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade distinctly stated that the promoters of the Bill were to be answerable for all the expense. He understood from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman that any expenditure on the part of the Board of Trade in regard to the harbour would cease, that the new Bill was not to affect the Admiralty Pier, and that the cost of maintaining Dover Harbour was to be undertaken by those who entered upon the work. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he had correctly interpreted his observations? He would also ask the right hon. Gentleman if it was not being carefully considered whether it would not be worth the Government's while to ask for a sum of money to be expended on Dover Harbour, so as to make the harbour one of real value to the country? The right hon. Gentleman had said the harbour when constructed would not be large enough for the accommodation of ships of war. It was to be regretted if, by the new works, the harbour was not made a really useful one.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
I did not intend to convey, in what I said upon a Private Bill that was before the House the other day, that if that Bill passed into law ail charge upon the public funds in reference to the harbour would 1647 cease. That was not in question, and was beside the point raised by the Private Bill. Of course, if the Government should at a later period repeat the proposals of previous Governments and propose to hand over the Admiralty Pier to the Harbour Board, the expense upon the Admiralty Pier would, of course, in future be defrayed by the Harbour Board; but so long as the Government retain possession of property vested in them at Dover, so long, of course, there will be an annual charge for it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman takes the opportunity of asking whether we do not think the time has come for making some proposals to the House for the extension of Dover Harbour for military and other purposes. The position at present is this. We have appointed a small Departmental Committee to consider the question of convict labour. That Committee has not yet reported; but, no doubt, it Las under consideration the propriety of employing convicts upon some harbour works, and I know that it has specially and seriously considered the desirability of employing such labour at Dover. But until we get the Report of the Committee, we shall not be in a position to advise the House upon the subject. Under these circumstances, it would, perhaps, be as well if further observations on the subject were postponed until we get that Report.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
wished to know whether the case of Galway had been brought under the attention of the Departmental Committee of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke? The right hon. Gentleman might imagine that he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had a particular interest in this matter; but the reason why he had risen to bring it to the right hon. Gentleman's attention was that Spike Island, the great convict establishment of Ireland, had been disestablished. Several Chief Secretaries for Ireland had given an undertaking that they would favourably regard the employment of convict labour at Galway to construct a breakwater, which would be useful, not only in connection with Galway Harbour, but for the safety of all the vessels on the West Coast. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the case of Galway Harbour as well as that of Dover.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
If I may be permitted, I will answer this point at 1648 once. We have under consideration the employment of convicts in Ireland as well as in Scotland and England. It appears that it is the opinion of the Irish Government that a very considerable number of Irish convicts can be profitably and advantageously employed in building, chiefly in connection with convict prisons. I am informed that a large number of them will be so employed, and that only a few will remain; and, of course, with only a few, it is not likely that they will be employed in any great work of harbour construction. How these few may be employed I do not know at present; but that is a matter which is still under consideration.

§ MR. O'KELLY
wished to know whether, in view of the necessity felt for harbours in the West Coast of Ireland, it would not be well for the Government to employ convict labour in the construction of breakwaters there rather than in the erection of prisons.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he would raise the question on the Vote for Convict Prisons.

§ MR. ROUND
said, he wished to ask a question with regard to Harwich Harbour. It was the duty of the Harbour Board to keep up the harbour, and to keep the navigation in proper order. That Board had existed for many years past, and consisted of members elected by the different localities in the neighbourhood. Some of the members were the nominees of different Government Departments—the Board of Trade, the Treasury, the Admiralty, and other Government Departments nominated some of them. At the beginning of each year the members elected a Chairman, and the question which he now wished to put to the Government was this. The Chairman who was elected at the beginning of the year 1881 was a Member of this House, and was greatly interested in the locality. His appointment, as was the case with all these appointments, might come to an end in five years. When his appointment as Chairman came to an end, at the end of last year, he was not re-elected, notwithstanding the fact that it was the almost invariable rule that the Chairman should be re-elected. He (Mr. Round) wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the reason why such an unusual course was taken, and why the late Chairman was not re-elected. He was not aware that 1649 there was any case on record since the commencement of the Harbour Board of any Chairman not being re-elected. The late Chairman was a man in whom the members of the Board had full confidence, or they would not have placed him in the position he had occupied. He had all the responsibility and work of the Board in his hands; and it was very unfair, unless there were some good grounds for it, that when his term of office came to an end he should not be re-elected. He (Mr. Round) hardly conceived that there could be any fault to be found with the hon. Gentleman he referred to, unless it was that he did not sit on the same side of the House as the present Government. He was quite sure that hon. Members on both sides would agree with him that that should not be a reason why a gentleman who enjoyed the confidence of the Board should not be re-appointed. He would like to say that he had no objection whatever to the gentleman whom the Government had put in that hon. Member's place, because that gentleman also formerly sat in this House, and was a gentleman who certainly ought to be on the Board for that district. The new Chairman was in every way a proper person to fill the vacancy. But he would ask the right hon. Gentleman what grounds there were for dispensing with the previous Chairman's services; and whether there was any case on record of a similar course having been taken before with regard to any former Chairman of the Board?

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he was glad the hon. Member had raised the question of Harwich Harbour, because it was one which was well worthy of the consideration of the House, with the view of seeing whether or not the charge for it ought to be continued at all. It seemed to him that if the Government had it in their power to nominate members of the Board, and to select the Chairman, it was a pity that they did not continue the Chairman in a position where those who knew him could recognize the value of his services. But what he wanted to know was whether it was worth while to continue the Conservancy Board at Harwich at all? If they were brought into liquidation now, their available assets would be about Is. 6d. They had had to do with a Railway Company on one side, and with the War 1650 Department on the other; and though, between the three Bodies, the town of Harwich had been greatly benefited, the Conservators did not seem to have done anything to justify their existence, and the result was that they owed a considerable amount of money to the Public Exchequer. There were entries of this sort in last year's accounts—Repayment of principal and interest of loan advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, £430; expended on works, £1,000; and other items of expenditure, £550. This year the amount expended on works was £350; and as the total receipts from dues, &c, were only £1,180 altogether, the result was that the deficiency last year was £820, and this year £150. The deficiency last year had to be made good by a Vote in these Estimates, and this year, similarly, £150 had to be paid. It appeared to him to be absurd to continue to keep on the books of the nation this liability of the Harwich Harbour Commissioners to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, which was never met except by the assistance of a Vote in the Estimates. He thought this item of loan should be knocked out of the Estimates altogether, and the balance duo from the Harbour authorities to the Public Works Loans Commissioners should be wiped off, just in the same way that a loan to a Scotch Board was wiped off last year.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
The hon. Member seems to have curious notions of the way in which the public purse should be saved, because his proposition is this—that the repayment, principal and interest, of loan, amounting to £430 per annum, should be dispensed with, and that in return we should gain an annual charge on the Votes of £150.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
Yes; but last year it was £800.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
Yes; owing to an expenditure upon exceptional works. The result of such an arrangement would be a distinct loss to the public Revenue. But the whole question depends upon the peculiar circumstances of the case. Harwich is one of those harbours which is supported, to a considerable extent, out of the public money, because it is a harbour of refuge, the cost of which ought not properly to fall entirely upon the locality. The hon. Member says the Con- 1651 servancy Board is useless; but I do not see that at all. They have managed the affairs they had to deal with with very considerable still. Before the harbour was made they raised from dues an annual income of £1,500. So far as that is concerned, probably the amount received balances the expenditure, so far as the local harbour goes. But over and above that, we have an expenditure for a national work—for the harbour as a harbour of refuge. At the present time the charge is very small, and it has been considerably reduced of late years.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, he did not know anything of the circumstances of the case which had been referred to by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Round). He quite agreed with him that politics should not alone be a consideration for public service; but he would inquire into the circumstances, for he thought there must be some explanation forthcoming.

§ MR. ROUND
said, he had not meant to suggest that politics alone had been considered. As to what had been said by the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) about the Harwich Harbour Board, he thought that hon. Member was labouring under some misapprehension. To his (Mr. Bound's) knowledge, the harbour was being silted up years ago, when the Board was established. It was a most important harbour of refuge for vessels on the East Coast; and if the Harbour Board had not been established, and the work they had done carried out, the harbour would have been silted up, and there would be no Harwich Harbour at all now. The expenditure referred to, as having taken place last year, had been incurred over special works which were very much needed, and which had been very properly carried out. The results had been most beneficial.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
asked how it was that the estimated receipts at Holyhead were now only£2,600, as against £2,770 last year, while those at Dover showed an increase?

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
The estimated receipts at Holyhead show a decrease, because, under a recent decision of one of the Law Courts, ships have to be re-measured for tonnage; and they will pay smaller dues in future than they have done in the past. I suppose the 1652 increase at Dover arises from the regular increase of traffic.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
wished to know whether the House was to be furnished with any Report as to the Minister Model Farm, referred to on page 51 of the Estimate? A considerable sum was put down for the annual expenditure on that farm, and he thought a Report ought to be furnished to the House to show the way in which the money was distributed, because he did not see why such an expenditure should be provided out of the public purse for farming in Ireland, while there was no similar expenditure in England. He hoped the time would arrive when the State would possess a regular Agricultural Department, and when they might have a right to an agricultural model farm here in England as well as in Ireland.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, he was afraid he could not give the hon. Gentleman any information on the subject; but he would inquire, and, on Report or privately, he would give him such information as was to be obtained.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
asked whether the hon. Gentleman could give any information as to the item for fishery piers? He wished to know whether the money, which was now to be voted, would actually be expended on the piers for which Parliament was asked to vote the money, because he believed there had not been a single year in which the money voted by Parliament for those piers had actually been spent upon them. Year after year the money which Parliament had voted for the benefit of the starving population on the West Coast of Ireland was paid back into the Exchequer. Some time ago there was a special Vote passed for the purpose of establishing fishery piers and harbours on the West Coast of Ireland, and they were assured that every effort would be made by the Government to push on works of such great utility at a time when a large portion of the population was in a starving condition. The employment was of the first importance 1653 to those unfortunate people; but, as a matter of fact, the works were never pushed forward as they ought to have been, and many of them were still in almost the earliest stage of commencement when the period of distress passed by. The Board of Works did not appear to have made any efforts to call upon the contractors, who were months in arrear with their work, to do their duty; and those contractors, who should have given employment to the starving people, were allowed to go scot free. There was not one instance in which any forfeiture was exacted, and the benefit which Parliament intended to bestow on the district was, of course, all the time entirely lost to the people. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman what was the present condition of the piers set forth on page 53, and whether they would be completed this year?

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, it was impossible for him to say. The hon. Gentleman himself must be aware that work of this kind was liable to be interrupted. There had been no case made out for forfeiture in connection with these works, and, therefore, no forfeiture could be enforced.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
was very much obliged for the answer which the hon. Gentleman had given him; but he could not say that he had gathered any information from it. Possibly that was because the hon. Gentleman had not any to impart. As to the forfeitures which were incurred or not incurred by the contractors, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that, in many instances, the contractors had either incurred forfeiture, or that the contracts on which the works were let out were of such a nature that it would not have mattered if they had gone on for several years without the contractors doing what they had undertaken to do. Would the hon. Gentleman lay on the Table of the House copies of the contracts under which these different works were undertaken, in order that the House might know the exact position of things? If the hon. Gentleman would do that, he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would be very glad, as it would be very useful in future cases of this kind.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, it was obviously impossible to do this where there were large contracts. If the hon. Gentleman knew of any special work which 1654 was being neglected, and would bring it under his notice, he would have the contract examined, and would see how the matter stood.

§ MR. HEALY
wished to know whether it was true, as had been recently stated in the newspapers, that the Government were going to erect some new buildings, either in the Phœnix Park or in the Curragh of Kildare, for the purposes of the new Irish police? Was that the case or not, and, if it was the case, on what year would the work be charged—this year or next? He wished also to ask in what place was the scheme of the Government with regard to the Irish potato experiments to be carried out? Was it to be in Glasnevin, or where, and what had so far been done in the matter?

§ MR. COURTNEY
was afraid he could give no information in reply to the last question. It was intended to make an increase in the Constabulary Force in Ireland, and for that purpose he believed there would be some huts erected in the Curragh of Kildare. The Estimates would be laid before the House in due course.

§ MR. HEALY
What is the estimated amount of the Vote?

§ MR. COURTNEY
It is not yet settled. It is not included in these Votes at all.

§ MR. HEALY
said, the Lord Mayor of Dublin had requested him to ask a question as to this Vote. These questions were usually answered by the Vice President of the Committee of Council; and he would ask that right hon. Gentleman whether he could give any information as to the scheme which had been so often pressed upon him?

§ MR. MUNDELLA
was not aware that he had any information to give on the point.

§ MR. HEALY
As to the creation of a Science and Art Museum in Dublin?

§ DR. LYONS
asked what was the state of preparation, and what kind of buildings would be erected? He believed the plans were obtained by a system of limited competition.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said, the matter was now entirely out of the hands of the Science and Art Department, and in those of the Board of Works. This was their Vote.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, there was a general competition, out of which five competitors had been selected to work out their plans, and a final decision had not yet been come to.

§ DR. LYONS
said, it was very well to know that the final decision had not yet been arrived at, as there was much feeling in Dublin on this subject, and a strong desire existed to see erected a building of suitable proportions as the centre of a great National Museum for Ireland; and, so far as he knew, neither the Members for the City of Dublin nor any persons of public position had been consulted on the subject. He trusted that ample opportunities for inspection of the plans would be afforded before the work was finally decided on.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
wished to know whether the sum of £3,500 had already been expended? That seemed to be so from the figures given on page 61.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, the plan adopted in England was this—an Estimate, say of £ 100,000, was made for certain work. Then there was a revised Estimate made, which would go up to £150,000, or even £250,000. The money required was always voted—indeed, in many cases, a great deal more. In Ireland, however, the plan was reversed, for the original Estimates were cut down. The House voted a considerable sum; but the money was not expended, a large portion was paid back into the Exchequer to be voted and re-voted year after year, and none of the piers and harbours of Ireland were properly attended to. He would move that the Chairman should report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. The reason he did so was that the next Vote was one of very considerable importance to Ireland at this moment. The Vote related to the Shannon Navigation, and he was afraid the hon. Member who represented the Board of Works in that House was not at present in complete possession of the facts of the case. He 1656 doubted whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that there were very serious floods on account of the recent heavy rains.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, he could not consent to report Progress upon this Vote, because the next Vote might be of a controversial character. He would like to get through the Votes in Class I.; at all events, let them see what they had to say about the Shannon Navigation.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he would suggest that his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) should withdraw his Motion if the Government would postpone the Vote for the Shannon Navigation It would be well to finish the Estimates of this class, with the exception of the one relating to the Shannon Navigation.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, he did not see there was any necessity to postpone the Vote. Of course, if a case was made out winch would justify a postponement, he would consent; but at present he could not consent to a postponement.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, this was a debateable matter upon which he felt a good deal of interest. He received so many notifications of the amount of laud under water that, in the earlier portion of the year, he ventured to address a question to the Government in regard to it. He was told everything was going on satisfactorily, that the works were nearly completed, and they would prove of a most admirable character. At Whitsuntide he went over the works at Meelick, and, although he did not pretend to be any authority on engineering, he must say it seemed to him there was a very cardinal mistake made in the whole character of the works. The Shannon in this neighbourhood used to run a course which it did not run now. It was a very devious course—there were a number of islands and a great number of channels. The 1657 water was very shallow, and there was, amongst other channels, the Victoria Canal, which carried off almost as much water as the proper course of the river itself. It was found that the bed of the river was altogether insufficient to carry off anything like the flood water which from time to time flowed there. The engineers determined to cut, at the entrance to the Victoria Canal, two outlet channels, one of which was CO feet wide and the other 100 feet wide. Having made these channels, they made six sluices, and then constructed weirs, which robbed the river of eight feet on each side—in fact, the water-way had been reduced to 108 feet. The consequence was that all the water which ought to be carried off was not carried off. There was another matter deserving attention, and that was the constant inundation of all the low-lying land above Meelick. Some time ago one of the officers of the Government declared there had been no complaints made with regard to flooding in that part of the country, and that, if any flooding did take place, the proper course to take was to make representations to the Board of Works. It was all very well to say this in the House of Commons; but it was exceedingly difficult for the small farmers along the banks of the Shannon to make them heard. Unless the landlords would take the matter in hand, things would stand very little chance of being remedied. Inundations caused by the overflow of the River Brosna were a source of constant danger to all the low-lying lands above Meelick; and he was convinced that unless something was done a very largo amount of property must needs be destroyed along the whole of the Shannon between Athlone and Killaloe. He did not know whether the Secretary to the Treasury was able to give the Committee any detailed information either as to the state of the district or as to the steps which the Board of Works had resolved to take in the matter.

§ MR. T. A. DICKSON
said, that, so far as he understood this Vote, it was one to complete works already commenced and now in course of construction. Last summer he had an opportunity of going over the Shannon from Killaloe to Athlone, and he was able to see the public works which were being carried out to relieve the flooding of the Shannon. The evidence of some of the 1658 best engineers of the day was to the effect that the only way to relieve the flooding of the Shannon was by means of weirs and sluices. The work was being rapidly completed, and he understood from the engineers who accompanied the Commission with which he was connected that the flooding of the Shannon would shortly be a thing of the past. The water-way would be increased, and by opening the sluices the water would be kept at summer level. The sum now asked for was simply to complete the work already in progress.

§ MR. HEALY
said, the first engineers of the world did not seem to be able to stop the floods. It was only on Saturday he received a letter in which the writer complained of the flooding. He confessed he knew little about engineering; but it was all very well for the engineers to tell the people that the floods would stop, when they continued as bad as ever. What the engineers were now doing was like a doctor feeling a man's pulse and telling him he was all right, when, at the same time, the man felt in a thundering bad way. The engineers ought to be able to do so, and public money ought not to be wasted. The flooding still continued; in fact, from the letter he received on Saturday, he learned that for six miles on the Brosna there was now flooding. He would suggest that if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) was not afraid of being shot, he should endeavour to spare a few days in which to visit the banks of the Shannon, and see the havoc created by the floods.

§ MR. T. A. DICKSON
said, the works in connection with the Shannon navigation were not completed, nor were the sluices in operation. The works which he saw in progress last summer would be completed by August or September next; so there could be no results at the present time. The flooding must go on until the sluices were in operation. If the flooding continued next autumn and next summer the matter ought to be brought forward.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, what had been stated by the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) was quite correct. The works were not yet completed, and it was not considered wise to open one sluice before the rest. It was confidently believed the works would be efficacious,

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, what he was particularly concerned in were the works mentioned in the Estimate—namely, those at Meelick. The whole of the drainage of the Shannon was being sacrificed for the bugbear of navigation. The navigation of the Shannon did not pay for the maintenance of the lock-keepers; yet, for the sake of this trumpery interest, the whole of the agricultural and drainage interests in the centre of Ireland were being wickedly sacrificed. At Meelick there was a large weir, called the Meelick Weir, which kept up the water and threw it into the Victoria Canal, which was part of the navigation system. In order to draw off the flood water from a point above Meelick Weir, there had been two channels cut, one 60 feet wide and the other 100 feet. This width of water-way was not maintained, however; but, by the construction of sluices and weirs, it had been decreased to 108 feet, and the flow of water had been greatly slackened. That appeared to him to be the act of a fool. The consequence was that the floods, which might have been abated to a very considerable extent, would still lie over land which otherwise might be expected to yield good crops.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, he would like some explanation of the item of £1,500 for the purchase of furniture, &c. for the State rooms at Lisbon. It seemed a very large sum. In view of recent circumstances, he would also like some explanation of the sum of £450— For rent, maintenance, and repair of Consular Buildings, including £36 for water rate, at Alexandria. It was possible the sum would have to be increased.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, the gentleman who was recently appointed at Lisbon was not likely to remain there more than two years. He complained that the cost of providing furniture for the State rooms would be very heavy; and, under the circumstances of the case, it was thought proper that the rooms should be furnished at the public expense.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
asked, if £1,500 was a reasonable amount to be voted for State rooms of what, after all, was not a very first-rate appointment?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, there was no absolute rule laid down in regard to furnishing. With regard to the Consular buildings at Alexandria, it was impossible to say whether the present Vote would be sufficient.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, he knew that certain Embassies were supplied with houses of furniture; but he never yet heard of a Minister having State rooms. There was an allowance for a Minister's house at Madrid; but no furniture was allowed, and no furniture was allowed to any Legation except that of Paris. He was informed that there was one room fitted at Madrid which was converted into a chapel, and it had not been furnished for any other purpose. His recollection of his connection with the Consular Service was that he had to provide his own furniture, and he had never heard any explanation of the State room at Lisbon; and he did not see why, because Sir Charles White remained there for two years, he should have £1,500 above any other Minister. If Sir Charles White had been going to stay there for five years he might have had this £1,500, but not for two years. He hoped the Government would give some more satisfactory account of this matter.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, there were a considerable number of Embassies of which the State rooms were furnished by the State, and small allowances were made on account of furniture. When Sir Charles White was appointed, inasmuch as he was not likely to remain at Lisbon long, it was represented that the furnishing of the State rooms would fall heavily upon him. He thought the hon. Member-was wrong in regard to the Embassy at Madrid.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
asked whether the right hon. Gentleman wished to lay it down as a precedent that, when a Minister was appointed to a post, in regard to which it was usual to give an annual allowance for furniture, if he said he was going to stay for two years he could ask for £1,500 for furniture?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
did not wish it to be altogether considered as a precedent. This was regarded as an excep- 1661 tional case, and no strict rule or principle could be laid down.