SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

HC Deb 31 March 1856 vol 141 cc221-71

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee, Mr. FITZ-ROY in the Chair.

(1.) Motion made and Question proposed— That a sum not exceeding £195,141, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, to the 31st day of March, 1857, the Expense of Maintenance and Repairs of Royal Palaces and Public Buildings.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he wished to draw attention to the great increase in this Vote as compared with former years. He had to complain of the charge for maintaining the Royal parks and pleasure grounds, as being largely in excess of former years, and would instance, in particular, an increase of £18,700 for the Green and Hyde Parks, for which no explanation had been afforded. The charge for Hampton Court Palace this year was £10,792, and since the accession of Queen Victoria £165,000 had been expended on that palace, which was kept up not for the use of Her Majesty, for he doubted if she had ever seen it, but as a refuge for the poor and decayed members of the aristocracy. Since the accession of Her Majesty to the Throne more than £200,000 had been expended upon the repairs of Buckingham Palace, the purchase of land, and the extension of the building. He would be the last man to grudge any expenditure which would promote Her Majesty's comfort, but he thought some explanation should be afforded with reference to the expenditure now proposed.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that his hon. Friend was mistaken in supposing that there was a large increase in the present Votes over the average of previous years. In the first four items, Public Buildings, Buckingham Palace, Parks and Pleasure Grounds, and the new Houses of Parliament, there was, it was true, an apparent increase, of which, as those items fell within the control of his department, he believed he could give his hon. Friend a satisfactory explanation. Under the head of "Public Buildings and Royal Palaces," there was an increase of £40,189 in the present Estimates, as compared with those of last year; but a very small proportion of this expenditure—about £3,000—was connected with Royal palaces partly in the personal occupation of Her Majesty. The larger portion of this Vote was for public buildings and offices, including the War Department, £7,075; the Tower, £2,443; Chelsea Hospital, £2,020; and the distribution of the Crimean medals by Her Majesty in St. James's Park, £1,615. About £18,000 of the amount of this Vote was for works which had not previously been brought into the accounts of his department. Then there was £12,496, which was a mere transfer of expense from one department to another for the purpose of consolidating the Estimates, and was, in fact, no increase at all—and there was an increase of £12,200 for public works in Scotland, which made up the total increase of £40,189. With regard to the Royal parks and palaces, though the present Estimate was in excess of that of last year, it was below the average of previous years. Then, as to Hampton Court, his hon. Friend was wrong in imagining that it was maintained as a refuge for the aristocracy now, whatever it might have been in past times. The appointment to apartments in that palace rested with Her Majesty, and he would state how they had been appropriated last year. On the 4th of May, Mrs. Fox Strangways, the widow of General Fox Strangways, had apartments allotted to her. The next appropriation was on the 19th of June, to Mrs. Cureton, widow of General Cureton; the next on the 9th of July, to Mrs. Boxer, the widow of Admiral Boxer; the next in November, to Mrs. Shadforth, the widow of Colonel Shadforth, and the last, in December, to Lady Torrens. He thought nobody would find fault with the way in which Her Majesty had exercised the right to appoint to apartments in Hampton Court Palace in any of those instances.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, he thought no one could object to the bestowal of such appointments upon the ladies whose names had been mentioned by the right hon. Baronet. Those appointments, however, did not explain the necessity of expending upwards of £5,000 upon the repairs of Hampton Court Palace. There was an increase of £60,000 upon this one Vote over that of last year. Last year the Vote was £135,683, and now it was £195,141, or an increase of nearly 50 per cent. The sum of nearly £12,000 for furnishing the offices of the War Department was excessive. Those items, and the one of £10,000 for the alterations made at Chelsea Hospital, ought to be explained.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that the alterations in connection with Chelsea Hospital had been in contemplation for several years, and included the formation of footpaths and terraces, with the erection of flights of steps and iron railings.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS

said, he was not satisfied with the explanation given by the hon. Baronet relative to Hampton Court. He found that a sum of £5,288 was required for the stables and outbuildings connected with that palace. What advantage, he wished to know, would the widows of distinguished officers derive from that expenditure? Again, a sum of £496 was asked for a stud-house and other buildings appropriated to the stud establishment, and another of £873 for farm buildings at Hampton. How could those items contribute to the comfort of the ladies whose names had been mentioned to the Committee? It would have been far better to give the widows an annuity of £200 each, for the purpose of providing themselves with apartments. The country would have saved nearly £10,000 by that arrangement, and the ladies would not have been exposed to the insults which they might have to bear from the poor but haughty members of the aristocracy among whom they were placed at Hampton Court.

MR. ADDERLEY

said, that last year a sum of £1,750 was voted for the formation of a carriage entrance from Buckingham Gardens to Grosvenor Place. That entrance had since been opened, but he ventured to say that it did not cost above £400 or £500. He wished to know what had become of the balance?

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he wished to call attention to the circumstance that, last year, a sum of £19,000 was paid out of the revenue of the Woods and Forests for improvements in the park at Windsor Castle, while, in the present Estimates there was an item of £18,000 for the same purposes charged upon the department of Public works. He thought it was desirable that repairs and improvements upon the Royal palaces and parks should be paid out of one fund, and one only.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that, two or three years ago, the office of Public Works was separated from that of Woods and Forests. He knew nothing of the expenditure of the latter department at Windsor Castle, and held himself responsible only for the Vote of £18,000 included in the present Estimates.

MR. WISE

said, that no satisfactory answer had been given to the important question, what became of the balance of sums voted by Parliament for specific objects? Last year a Vote of £3,000 was taken for repairing the statue of Charles I. at Charing Cross. All the money was not spent, and he would like to ascertain how the surplus was disposed of. He begged also to call attention to that portion of the Vote now before the Committee which related to furniture for public departments. During the last six years the House had voted £156,000 for that article alone. For the last two years the Estimates for furniture had been £57,000. Now, he was not one of those who complained of expenditure for the departments, but when he found that upwards of £5,000 had been expended in converting the office occupied by the Copyhold Commission into a War Office, and more than £3,000 in furnishing another house for the Commission, he thought that some endeavour should be made to check lavish and unnecessary expenditure. He likewise must complain of the seemingly extravagant item of £19,000 for lamps, candles, and towels for the public departments.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that the difference between the sum voted for the repair of the statue of Charles I., and the actual cost, was not asked from the Treasury. With respect to furniture for the public departments, the Committee would see that there was a decrease in the expenditure this year of £8,600.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he would remind the Committee that upon a former occasion the Secretary of the Treasury stated that when a sum voted for a particular purpose was not required for that purpose, it might be devoted to some other object different from that for which it was originally intended. He did not believe that a single sixpence of the sum voted for the repair of the statue of Charles I. remained in the Exchequer.

MR. WILSON

said, he had great pleasure in assuring his hon. Friend that the money not expended on the statue was safe in the Treasury. It was true that he stated upon a former occasion that when a sum was voted for one purpose and not required it might be diverted by the Treasury to another. But there was a limit to that rule, for while money voted for a particular service—for example, the army or navy—might be applied to any branch of that service, it could not be diverted to any object out of the particular service for which it had been voted. With respect to the Civil Service Estimates, every item stood by itself, and, therefore, money voted for one purpose could not be applied to another. The answer to the question relative to the entrance from Buckingham Gardens to Grosvenor Place was a very simple one. A Vote of the House in Committee of Supply was a mere estimate of what the expense might be, and it was the duty of the department, in carrying out the wishes of the House, to make arrangements with tradesmen for performing the work. That done, the department asked for an issue from the Treasury to the amount required, and the difference, if any, between that amount and the sum voted never left the Exchequer.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he would therefore ask how it was, then, that there were three instances in which such transferences as he had alluded to had taken place—namely, of £3,015 in the Buckingham Palace Vote, £40 in the Vote for the statue of Charles I., and £14 in the Vote for the Indian Law Commission?

MR. WILSON

was not aware that any such transferences had taken place, but he would inquire into the matter, and would give an answer on a future day.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, that a sum had in fact been taken from the Vote made last year for the repair of the statue of Charles I., and applied to Buckingham Palace.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said,he wished to advert to the expenditure which was caused by the transfer of the offices of the Tithe and Enclosure Commission from Whitehall to St. James's Square? Not only was that expenditure large and wholly unnecessary, but the removal of the offices was quite against the wish of the Commissioners, and was inconvenient for the despatch of public business. He wished to know, now that it was arranged that the War Department should be settled in Pall Mall, whether it was intended to transfer the Tithe Commission to Pembroke House?

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he must vindicate the original removal of the Tithe and Enclosure Commission from Pembroke House, on the ground that it was necessary to provide accommodation for the War Department in the neighbourhood of Downing Street. It was impossible to give any promise as to the re-transfer of the Commission to Pembroke House, but he thought it probable that that would be done when the arrangements for the accommodation of the War Office in Pall Mall were complete.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he thought the War Department might very well have been located in St. James's Square, and thus the necessity of removing the Tithe and Enclosure Commissions would have been obviated.

MR. H. BAILLIE

said, he wished to know whether it was intended that the Senate of the London University should continue to occupy Burlington House, or how was it intended that it should be occupied?

MR. WILSON

said, that in the last eighteen months a number of plans had been considered for the rebuilding of Burlington House, but none had yet been decided on. With regard to the Senate of the University of London, it had been accommodated there in consequence of the apartments it occupied in Somerset House being required for the public ser- vice, and there was a plan proposed by which all the learned societies, which had hitherto been accommodated at Somerset House, should be brought together at Burlington House, the apartments at Somerset House being required for the public service.

LORD WILLIAM GRAHAM

said, there was a sum of £1,615 for the expense of cloth in the erections on the occasion of the distribution of the Crimean medals by Her Majesty. He wished to know if that was done by contract, and what became of the cloth, because he remembered after the Duke of Wellington's funeral there was a dispute as to whom the black cloth with which St. Paul's was hung, belonged as a perquisite. He hoped the cloth had not in this case fallen into the hands of an army contractor, as he might make it up into soldiers' coats.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, everything on that occasion was hired.

MR. WISE

said, there were some items in the Estimates relating to cathedrals in Scotland to which he did not object, such as £80 for keeping up the ruins of Dunfermline, and £40 for Arbroath Abbey, and so on; but he found an item of £1,053 for Glasgow Cathedral, for new ceiling the nave to correspond with that of the choir, also for removing the glass in the great eastern lancet window and substituting a new stained glass window. He thonght the Committee ought not to be called on to vote sums for the improvement and decoration of Scotch cathedrals when no such Votes were asked for English cathedrals.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, the cathedral in question was the property of the Crown; while in England the cathedrals were the property of the deans and chapters. The repairs in question were absolutely necessary.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he wished to ask a question on the subject of Glasgow Cathedral and the arrangements there. He had been accustomed to hear in that House severe censures uttered upon deans and chapters on account of fees being paid to enable any one to enter a cathedral in England, and he never recollected a Government that did not coincide in those opinions and hold that the entrance into cathedrals should be gratuitous. It happened that in the autumn of 1853, being then himself in office, he was travelling in Scotland, and, paying a visit to this cathedral, he was charged a fee of 6d. for him- self, and 4d. for each person that was with him. He referred the subject to his right hon. Friend the late Sir William Molesworth, who had promised to look into the matter. He hoped that the fees had been done away with.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he did know whether the fees were levied or not.

MR. GLADSTONE

Oh, I can speak to that.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he was going himself to Glasgow shortly, and he would inquire personally into the matter.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that that cathedral had been admirably restored. He went to visit it last year at a very early hour, and was received by a very civil gentleman who said the hour was earlier than that at which the public was generally admitted, but he nevertheless admitted him, and as the hour was unusual he of course paid a fee; but he did not know if it was generally charged.

CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNON

said, he must complain of the insufficient accommodation which was provided for the clerks at the War Office.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that the inconvenience arose from the public offices being not more concentrated. As soon as the Estimates were gone through, he intended to move for the appointment of a Committee to take the question into consideration, and before that Committee he should lay a plan for the concentration of the public offices in the neighbourhood of Downing Street.

Motion made That a sum, not exceeding £194,575, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, to the 31st day of March 1857, the Expense of Maintenance and Repairs of Royal Palaces and Public Buildings,

Question put and agreed to.

(2.) £7,868, Buckingham Palace.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, that from a Return which he held in his hand, it appeared that in March, 1855, there was a sum of £15,000 in hand, and he wished to know what had become of that money?

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that it was true that in March, 1855, there was a sum of £15,000 in hand, but that was more than a year ago, and the money had since been expended upon the purpose for which it had been voted.

Vote agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding £91,684, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, to the 31st day of March, 1857, the expense of maintaining and keeping in repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c., and other Charges connected therewith.

Mr. W. EWART

said, he desired to call attention to the assent given by the Government to his proposition, that the Louis Quatorze Fountain, at Bushy Park, should be repaired and put into play. He hoped that promise would be kept with the public.

COLONEL FRENCH

said, he hoped that some fences would be placed around the young trees in the parks to protect them from destruction by cattle browsing their tops.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he considered the Vote a very extravagant one. It showed an increase of £30,000 in two years. The Government were going to spend £10,000 on Hyde Park; but he thought with the Civil Service Estimates increased from £3,000,000 to £6,500,000 the Government ought to be cautious how they placed an additional burden upon the tax-payers of the country. He should move, therefore, that the Vote be reduced by £5,000.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding £86,684, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, to the 31st day of March, 1857, the expense of maintaining and keeping in repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c., and other Charges connected therewith.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that some fault had been found with the manner in which the Estimates had been framed, but he thought no fault could be found with the manner in which this particular Vote was brought forward, for every item of expenditure was set forth. He had made some improvements in Hyde Park, by widening the walks and adding some new ones, and he hoped still further to improve it. It should be remembered that labour was very dear in London; and when Gentlemen saw the new fence put up along Rotten Row and the drive in Hyde Park, they perhaps were not aware that it cost from 12s. to 18s. a yard, as the fencing which was required there must be of great strength. The sum to be expended on Rotten Row, for widening it, making the road and fencing it, was about £2,500, and no Gentleman who was in the habit of going to Hyde Park would, he was certain, object to it. Besides that, he was pledged to make a foot pavement along the Birdcage Walk, which would cost no less than £1,600; then there was to be a new pavement from Apsley House to Knightsbridge, the cost of which would be £500 or £600. All those were useful and substantial improvements, which he hoped it would not be necessary to do over again at any future time.

MR. BONHAM-CARTER

said, he wished to call attention to the following passage in Sir William Hooker's Report upon Kew Gardens:— I wish I could say, that what were once the pride of these gardens—I mean the numerous conifers, and the trees and shrubs from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Temperate Mexico, &c., which demand space (especially height) and greenhouse protection, were better provided for. Many of them are suffering beyond recovery for want of suitable winter shelter. The great need for other buildings to accommodate our increasing palms and other field plants of tropical countries has been the cause of deferring the erection of a green-house adopted for conifers, but I cannot on the present occasion urge too strongly on you, as First Commissioner (what, indeed, you must yourself see), the imperative necessity for such a structure, if the remnant of these splendid specimens is to be saved. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would take some means to prevent the destruction of these specimens, in accordance with the suggestion of Sir William Hooker.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

replied that the construction of this green house had been pressed strongly upon him, but he had felt that, owing to the large expenditure under the Vote now being discussed, the money could not be asked for before next year.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, it was very well to keep the London Parks in good order, but it was not fair to the rest of the country that there should be such a lavish expenditure upon them. There was an increase of £22,140 as compared with the expenditure under this head last year, and he certainly felt inclined to move that the Vote be reduced by that amount.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that all the inhabitants of London thinking they had a personal interest in the parks, it was natural for those of them who had access to the Chief Commissioner of Works to make suggestions for the improvement of them, and such plans were likewise frequently advocated in the newspapers, by which means a pressure was brought to bear upon the department, which occasioned the expenditure of such large sums for alterations and improvements of the metropolitan parks.

MR. BOWYER

said, the pavement of the path from Apsley House to Knightsbridge might be an improvement, but no one could say it was necessary. This was a period of time at which the Government should avoid every expense that was not absolutely necessary.

MR. SPOONER

said, that the remarks of his noble Friend (Lord J. Manners) made it absolutely necessary that the House should impose some restriction on the expenditure on account of these Royal parks and pleasure gardens, for his noble Friend had said that the pressure from without was so great that it was almost impossible for the Government to resist it. It was fitting, therefore, that the House should interpose and put an end to this external pressure. Let those who more particularly enjoyed the advantages of the parks pay for the expense of the alterations required for their convenience. By the system now pursued, they were taxing the whole community for the benefit of a few. He wished to ask whether the paving of the footpath from Hyde Park Corner towards Knightsbridge meant the footpath within the park or outside of the park? If outside the park, it ought to have been paved by the parish.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that a portion of the pathway belonged to the Government, and that the parishioners had called upon him to pave it, they being ready to repair that part of it which was within the parish.

MR. BOWYER

said, he should move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £22,140, being the amount of the increase of the Vote this year as compared with the Vote for 1855.

MR. SPOONER

said, he observed a charge of £1,454 for filling up the basin in the Green Park, opposite Devonshire House, and improving the adjacent ground. This appeared to have been done by an Order of the Treasury, without the sanction of Parliament.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, by the Act of 1852, it was enacted that there should be no reservoir within a certain distance of Buckingham Palace, it was therefore necessary that something should be done with respect to the reservoir in the Green Park. On his coming into office, he made arrangements with the Chelsea Water Company to obtain possession of the basin on the part of the Crown. Complaints having been made of the existence of that reservoir, and a strong desire expressed that it should be filled up, he ob- tained the assent of the Lords of the Treasury to incur the necessary expense for that purpose. The basin had been emptied, and it was intended to restore the locality to the state in which it was in the year 1726, when the Chelsea Water Company first obtained possession of it.

MR. HARCOURT VERNON

said, that in his opinion, the right hon. Baronet was carrying the wide footpaths to a very unnecessary extent.

MR. BARROW

said, with reference to the paving of the footpath from Hyde Park Corner to Knightsbridge, he did not think it a good reason why the country should be put to that expense, merely because the inhabitants of Knightsbridge preferred walking on a flag pavement rather than on a gravel walk. He did not object to improvements which were for the benefit of the whole of the metropolis, but he could not understand upon what principle it was that the public should be charged for works intended only for the advantage of a particular locality.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

Does the hon. Member wish the inhabitants of Knightsbridge to take legal proceedings to compel the Government to do that which they are bound to do?

MR. BARROW

I should like to ask the right hon. Baronet by what process of law the inhabitants of Knightsbridge could compel him to lay down a flag pavement where no flag pavement had previously existed?

Mr. W. WILLIAMS

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) that the pressure upon the right hon. Baronet was almost irresistible, and, unless the Government were backed up by the House of Commons, there would be no end to these extravagant Estimates. They were called upon to Vote large sums without any explanation whatever. He wished particularly to ask why the cost of Windsor Park was not included in these Estimates? For instance, the public were called upon to provide winter quarters for the deer, food for the birds, and powder and shot for the keepers, and even for fishing tackle. These were items which demanded inspection.

Mr. LLOYD DAVIES

said, he should like to know what legal obligation existed with respect to the pavement to which allusion had been made. He should do unwilling to Vote for a reduction of the grant if the Government were compelled by law to provide such a footway.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he did not believe that any party but the Government could be called upon to make the footway. It was not under the Metropolitan Commission, but under the Office of Works, and they were bound to keep it in order.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, there was a sum of £1,600 for paving the Birdcage Walk, which was now partly paved and partly gravelled. As far as his own observation extended, he thought persons preferred walking on gravel to pavement, and he could not understand on what principle they spent money to compel the public to walk upon pavement. He should vote against that item. He did not think the right hon. Baronet had given a satisfactory explanation as to the footpath at Knightsbridge. He considered, however, that what he bad done in Hyde Park he had done with good judgment and the best taste, and that the money he had laid out had been well expended. He thought he had also acted right in filling up the unsightly reservoir in the Green Park.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he considered that the right hon. Gentleman had not given any satisfactory explanation of the Knightsbridge paving affair, nor did he quite approve of the expenditure of £1,600 for paving Birdcage Walk. He approved of the filling up of the reservoir in the Green Park, and he should be glad to know what were the exact items which were objected to.

MR. DRUMMOND

said, if it was necessary for that House to endeavour to protect the Government from pressure from without, it was not less necessary to protect a metropolitan Member from pressure of that description. If the right hon. Baronet had only exhibited at the reservoir a board, bearing the words, "Rubbish may be shot here," the expense of filling up the basin would have been saved.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he believed that flag pavements were more economical than pavements of any other description, a proof of which might be seen in the fact that flags were almost invariably used by parish authorities.

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding £69,544, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, to the 31st day of March 1857, the expense of maintaining and keeping in repair the Royal parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c., and other Charges connected therewith.

The Committee divided:— Ayes 35, Noes 119: Majority 84.

Original Question and Amendment again proposed.

COLONEL FRENCH

said, he should now move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again. His object in doing so was to give Her Majesty's Ministers an opportunity of stating to the House whether or no peace had been concluded. It certainly was without precedent that the war should be concluded without Her Majesty's Government condescending to inform the House of the fact. It was true that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had entered the House after the House had gone into Committee of Supply, but if the noble Lord did not think it worth his while to make the announcement of the treaty of peace after the House had gone into Committee of Supply, it would only have been decent and respectful to the House if his colleagues had waited a few minutes until the noble Lord arrived. He might be told that the signing of the treaty of peace had been announced by the firing of guns, but the House would remember that the same guns had fired for Sebastopol, when, in fact, it had not been taken. A communication was made to the House when the war was commenced, and the Government were, he thought, bound to make a similar communication to the House if peace were concluded.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Sir, I was in the House not three minutes after the half-hour, which is usually the time for Notices of Motion being given and questions being put. There were Notices of Motion previous to going into Committee of Supply, and there were also notices of questions, and I was as much surprised as other Members could be to find the House in Committee of Supply at so unusually early an hour. If I had come down to the House three minutes sooner I should have made a statement which I am quite prepared now to make. It is a very short one, and will convey no information whatever to the hon. Member beyond that which be already possesses. If it be any satisfaction, however, to my hon. Friend to be informed officially of that which he already knows individually, I shall have very great pleasure in gratifying him. The House is perfectly aware from the Gazette that yesterday, at two o'clock, a treaty of peace was signed at Paris. The House will have seen by the announcement in the Gazette that it was determined by the Congress that the particular conditions of the treaty should not be made public until the ratifications had been exchanged. And that, indeed, is the usual course, for it is a mark of obvious deference to the Powers who are parties to the treaty. At the same time, without going into any details of the conditions, the main substance of which is already known to all the world, because it has been embodied in protocols and published in every country in Europe, I may say at least that my conviction is, that that treaty of peace will be deemed satisfactory by this country and by Europe. Sir, it will be found that the objects for which the war was undertaken have been fully accomplished. It will be found that by the stipulations of that treaty the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire will be secured, as far as human arrangements can effect that purpose. It will be found that that treaty is honourable to all the Powers who are contracting parties to it, and I trust that, while, on the one hand, it has put an end to a war which every friend to humanity must naturally have wished to see concluded, on the other hand it will lay the foundation of a peace which I trust, so far at least as regards the circumstances out of which the war began, will be lasting and enduring. Sir, during the negotiations which have led to this peace I am happy to say that the same cordiality which has prevailed among the allies in carrying on the war has also mainly contributed to the conclusion of peace, and that we shall leave off at the conclusion of this war in a stricter and closer alliance with them—and in a more extended alliance—than existed during the continuance of the war; and that, therefore, the future permanence not only of a good understanding but of an intimate connection between the great Powers of Europe will have been cemented and strengthened by the communications that have taken place during the negotiations. Sir, I have nothing more to say except this, that it must be gratifying to the country to know that nothing could exceed the ability with which the British negotiators have performed their arduous and difficult task during the negotiations, and that Lord Clarendon and Lord Cowley have not only maintained the honour, dignity, and interests of the country they represented, but by their conciliatory conduct have secured for themselves and their country the respect, esteem, and goodwill of those with whom they had to do. The ratifications are to be exchanged as soon as they can be received at Constantinople and St. Petersburg. The limitation of time has been four weeks, but I should hope that at least within three weeks the ratifications will be exchanged at Paris.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he very much objected to the public money being altogether withdrawn from Ireland and spent in embellishing the metropolis.

Question put— That a sum, not exceeding £86,684, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, to the 31st day of March 1857, the expense of maintaining and keeping in repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c. and other Charges connected therewith.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 28, Noes 97: Majority 69.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. BOWYER

said, he should move another Amendment, to reduce the Vote by £2,175, the sum required for paving the footpath of Birdcage Walk and the footpath between Hyde Park Corner and Knightsbridge.

MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERS

said, he had observed with great satisfaction the numerous improvements which had taken place in the parks, but many of those improvements, he regretted, could not be enjoyed by the multitude, and he therefore hoped that the Committee would not refuse to sanction this Vote, as it was intended for the benefit of the multitude. He wished, however, to know why the Crown, instead of the parish, was called upon to keep in repair the footpath between Hyde Park Corner and Knightsbridge, and also whether the existing pavement in Birdcage Walk was to be widened, or a new one was to be made?

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that Lord Carlisle had put down the small pavement now existing between Great George Street and Buckingham Gate, and it was now proposed to widen that pavement. The pavement between Hyde Park Corner and Knightsbridge had always been under the control of the Government, and they were called upon year by year to repair it.

MR. BARROW

said, he thought that the right hon. Baronet had not given a satisfactory explanation of the liability of the Crown to repair the footpath to Knightsbridge. He denied that the widening of the gravel walks and the erection of iron railings in the parks would be an accommodation to the million. They would prefer walking on grass to walking on gravel.

MR. BIGGS

said, that he, for one, had the same feeling with respect to the metropolis of Great Britain as a Frenchman had with respect to Paris, and should like to see it made the finest looking city in the world. He therefore had no objection to spend money for its adornment, and especially for such improvements as would be subsidiary to the health of the inhabitants.

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding £89,509, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, to the 31st day of March 1857, the Expense of maintaining and keeping in repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c., and other Charges connected therewith.

The Committee divided:— Ayes 19, Noes 83: Majority 64.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, he should now propose to reduce the Vote by the sum of £2,570, which was required for making a new road through Holyrood Park to Duddingstone. It might seem strange for him to object to a Vote of money for Scotland; but though he did not think the whole sum assigned to Scotland too much, yet he thought the proposed road not wanted at all, he was fearful it might spoil a portion of the park. At all events, if the Government insisted on spending this sum on a new road, a plan of the road ought, in the first instance, to be laid before the House.

SIR RICHARD BULKELEY

said, that, as they were voting large sums for beautifying the metropolis and altering the Parks for the convenience of the public, he should like to know what objection there could be to the pulling down of St. James's Palace? The question of affording to the public a convenient carriageroad to Belgravia had engrossed a great deal of the time of the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall), and had occasioned much public discussion, and the pulling down of St. James's Palace would be the means of providing the desired thoroughfare, would enable a beautiful approach to the Park to be made from St. James's Street, and would leave at the right hon. Baronet's disposal a vast space for the erection of public buildings more in accordance with the present style and taste. Historically there was nothing of interest in the Palace, and as a building it was most hideous.

MR. H. BAILLIE

said, he believed this Vote was a complete job, the object of which was to improve certain private pro- perty which at present did not possess any outlet. He was informed that the people of Edinburgh did not wish the road to be made, and that it could only be made by blasting through a portion of Arthur's Seat.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said that, from what he could learn from the communications which he had had with the Lord Provost of Edinburgh on the subject, there was a strong feeling in Edinburgh in favour of the making of this road, and he believed it would be a great improvement to the city.

MR. E. LOCKHART

said, the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last had not explained where the road was to go to. If it was to be carried between the loch and the rocks it would be a great disfigurement to the Park.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he must beg to explain that the proposed road was to connect Edinburgh with the village of Duddingstone, and that the Lord Provost and Town Council, and other authorities of the city, had expressed themselves strongly in favour of it. The Government, however, would not advance any money until the locality had provided the sum which would be required to complete the road.

MR. VANSITTART

said, he would recommend the Committee not to Vote the money upon any understanding with other parties, as they all knew how idle it was to recall the money when once it was voted. It struck him as somewhat strange that no hon. Member was present to say a single word in favour of the Vote.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

said, that, in his opinion, the Chief Commissioner of Public Works had given no substantial reasons to establish a ground for the proposed outlay. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to have sent a Government official to report upon the nature of the work, and unless he could show that something of the kind had been done, he (Sir W. Jolliffe) would withhold his consent to the Vote.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that had already been done. The proposition, when first made by the Lord Provost and town-council, was referred to the office of the Board of Works in Scotland, and their report to the department on the subject might be seen by any one who desired it.

MR. STIRLING

said, he wished to inquire whether it was true that the Commissioners of Public Works were only going to make a part of the road?

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, the arrangement was that the road would be made, so far as the property of the Crown was concerned, with the money now asked for, but that no expenditure would be commenced by the Board of Works until they saw that sufficient money was provided by the persons interested to complete the remainder of the road outside the Crown property.

MR. H. BAILLIE

said, he wished to inquire who were the parties who were to provide the other part of the funds to complete the communication?

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

replied, that he had written to the Lord Provost of Edinburgh to say that the Government would make their part of the road through Holyrood Park when the other parties had made theirs.

MR. BARROW

said, he thought it was quite time enough to ask for a Vote when the other parties had performed their part of the agreement.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he would suggest that it would be better to postpone the consideration of the Vote until plans and estimates were laid upon the table of the House showing the nature of the proposed work.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he would point out to the Committee the inconvenience of discussing this item in the absence of the Members for Edinburgh, who could answer for the feeling of that city on the subject and explain the facts of the case.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he would postpone the item.

Motion made— That a sum, not exceeding £89,114, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, to the 31st day of March, 1857, the Expense of maintaining and keeping in repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c., and other Charges connected therewith.

Question put, and agreed to.

(4.) £99,383. New Houses of Parliament.

MR. SPOONER

said, he wished to know why one of the courtyards had been already repaved?

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that this court was originally paved, as an experiment, with some preparation of indiarubber. The experiment had not been successful, and for the indiarubber a wooden pavement had therefore been substituted. It was not at the suggestion of Sir Charles Barry that this experiment was tried.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he wished to be informed what sum would suffice for the completion of the Houses of Parliament, and what was the present position of the question as to the commission to be paid to Sir Charles Barry, the architect?

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said that, in a Report dated the 9th of January, 1855, and laid on the table of the House by his predecessor in office, Sir William Molesworth, it was stated that a sum of £280,272 would be required for the purpose of completing the Houses of Parliament. Since then a sum of money had been taken on account of that amount, and it was now proposed to take a further sum of £52,540. Upon inquiring of Sir Charles Barry, he had been informed that the sum set down in the Report of the 9th of January, 1855, would be sufficient for the completion of the works.

MR. H. BAILLIE

said, he would beg to ask whether this Estimate was confined to the cost of the works now in progress, or whether it would also cover the expense of carrying out the additional plans laid upon the table by Sir William Molesworth, which included the removal of the Courts of Law? As a site for the new Courts, he would recommend to the consideration of the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) the ground occupied by Convet Garden Theatre.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

replied, that the sum of £280,272 was only for the completion of the works now in progress. Sir William Molesworth had laid upon the table some further plans, which had been suggested to him by Sir Charles Barry; but he (Sir B. Hall) would not sanction, or recommend the Government to sanction, any new plans until those which were in hand had been carried out. The sum required for the execution of the works proposed in the additional plans would be from £500,000 to £800,000.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he desired to call attention to the item of £5,269 "for casual internal repairs to those parts of the building delivered over to the Department of Works and Buildings, and for the repair of official houses and miscellaneous charges." Considering how recently these buildings had been erected this amount, he thought, was very large. When the whole palace was completed the cost of repairs would be prodigious. Surely the necessity for all those repairs must arise from some defect of construction.

MR. J. WILSON

said, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) as to the architect's commission, he begged to state that when it was estimated that the whole cost of erecting the Houses of Parliament would be about £700,000, Lord Besborough, then First Commissioner of Works, made an arrangement with Sir Charles Barry to perform all the duties of the architect for a sum of £25,000. In the course of time it became apparent that, instead of £700,000, the houses would cost about three times that sum. Sir Charles Barry meanwhile received payments on account. When the Treasury came to settle the rate at which he was to be paid, they looked to the principle on which Lord Besborough had originally fixed his remuneration, and, seeing that the sum agreed to be paid to the architect was at the rate of about 3 per cent on the outlay, they offered to pay Sir Charles Barry at that rate upon the whole cost of the buildings. That offer Sir Charles Barry had refused, and still refused to accept. There was also a question as to the measurement of the work. Sir Charles Barry had, partially with the officers of the Board of Works, performed a great portion of the measurement in a manner very unsatisfactory to the Board of Works and to the Treasury. Finding that a professional measurer would not have charged more than three quarters per cent on the outlay for the performance of this duty, he (Mr. Wilson) proposed to Sir Charles Barry to pay him, in consideration of his personal trouble, at the rate of 1 per cent. Up to the close of the year 1852 there had been paid to Sir Charles Barry a sum of £44,000, to which there must be added £15,000 for measurement, making a total of £59,000. There had been a great deal of negotiation and discussion upon this subject between Sir Charles Barry and the Treasury. His noble Friend at the head of the Government (Viscount Palmerston) had given his attention to the claims of Sir Charles Barry, and was satisfied that the proposal which had been made by the Treasury was a reasonable, and, indeed, liberal one; and under those circumstances the Lords of the Treasury had come to the decision, embodied in a Minute which had been laid upon the table of the House, that no further sums on account should be paid to Sir Charles Barry until he accepted this as a definite arrangement. Whether or not he would so accept it he (Mr. Wilson) of course could not say.

MR. LLOYD DAVIES

said, he wished to be informed how much of the sum of £280,272, referred to in the Report of the 9th of January, 1855, remained to be voted?

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that he believed that sum included £107,175 which had been voted before the Report was presented. It was now proposed to take £52,540. The sum remaining unvoted would be the difference between the total of these two items and the sum of £280,272.

MR. DRUMMOND

said, no one who knew anything about building would deny that the universal custom was to remunerate architects by a percentage—usually 5 per cent—upon the money expended. The Government of the day started upon the supposition that the new Houses of Parliament would cost £700,000, but if ever they really entertained a belief that the work could be done for such a sum, they were profoundly ignorant of everything relating to building. Finding themselves in a scrape—finding that the £700,000 would not cover a third of the cost—they turned round and tried to cheat Sir Charles Barry. It was a positive fraud upon Sir Charles Barry to deal with him as had been proposed. There had been a most lavish and profuse expenditure, no doubt, but that did not matter—it would be an act of positive dishonesty towards Sir Charles Barry if they did not give him his 5 per cent. He had known other cases where architects had been mistaken in their estimates, and where they had voluntarily come forward and offered to forego their percentage upon the additional outlay; but that was not the case here, and it was most improper, when two parties disputed, for one of them to say that he would give so much, and if the other would not take that, he should have nothing.

MR. J. WILSON

said, he must deny that the Government had ever entertained any such intention. They desired to act most fairly by Sir Charles Barry, and had proposed to allow him exactly the same commission, in proportion to the increased expenditure that Lord Besborough had agreed to pay him on the smaller amount. It was a mistake to suppose that 5 per cent on the outlay was the usual rate of remuneration to architects for national edifices. The architects of all the great public buildings erected during the last half-century had been paid at the rate only of 3 per cent.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he thought that the proposition made to Sir Charles Barry was a most generous one, and that that gentleman would do well to close with it at once.

MR. SPOONER

said, he also was of the same opinion. The offer made by the Treasury was large and liberal, and it was to be hoped that they would stand manfully by it.

MR. MALINS

said, that Sir Charles Barry was placed in this position; he could not sue the Government, but he had offered to refer his claims to arbitration, and he (Mr. Malins) put it to the Committee whether it would not be better to adopt that course than be continually reverting to these disputes. In the matter of Sir Charles Barry's claims for building the Reform Club, the question was referred to the arbitrement of a gentleman at the bar, and having been his counsel on that occasion, he happened to know that the whole dispute was settled in one morning sitting before Judge (then Mr.) Erle. Now, why could not the same course be taken in the present case?

MR. DRUMMOND

said, the commission of 5 per cent was so universally recognised in the profession, that he believed any member of the Society of Architects would be expelled if he were discovered accepting less. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury had let out a very important admission, for he said that the architects of public buildings did not charge 5 per cent. That was the reason why they had buildings the cost of which so very far exceeded the estimates. He contended that Sir Charles Barry was fully entitled to his 5 per cent. If the Government had quarrelled with him on another ground, let them meet him on that ground.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, the Reform Club having been referred to, he could inform the Committee that there was precisely the same difficulty there as had arisen in this case. Sir Charles Barry had put in a plan in competition with a great number of other architects; his plan was accepted, and an agreement was made that he was to receive a certain sum for carrying it out. But before a single step was taken in the building, Sir Charles Barry suggested alterations; those alterations were to a certain extent adopted; and, consequently, the contract was broken. He then went upon his right of commission. They also employed him to give his opinion about the furniture; and he did not do himself much credit by the selection of furniture, which came to a large amount. The Reform Club proposed to refer the matter in dispute; and they proposed the usual course, that they should name one arbitrator and Sir Charles Barry the other, and that if they differed an umpire should be called in. Sir Charles Barry would not agree to that proposal. Then they proposed to name three persons, from whom he should choose one. But he refused to refer to anybody but a barrister—a very respectable man, certainly—chosen by himself; and so it was settled. Sir Charles Barry had his own way in every respect, for they did not wish to go to law with him, and he therefore got all he asked.

MR. LLOYD DAVIES

said, that the case of the Reform Club could not, in his opinion, be put in comparison with that of the Houses of Parliament. What would be a fair remuneration at the rate of 5 per cent, upon an expenditure of £80,000, would be an extravagant charge upon an expenditure of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. The commission upon the expenditure incurred for the Houses of Parliament, at the rate of 5 per cent, would, he believed, amount to about £150,000. He hoped the Government would not refer this question, but would stand upon the high ground of justice.

MR. WILSON

said, he was ready to admit that Sir Charles Barry had repeatedly urged the Government to refer the dispute to arbitration, but he (Mr. Wilson) thought that, if it would be objectionable for the Executive Government to submit themselves to a trial at law, it would be still more objectionable to submit themselves to the decision of a professional man. The Government felt that the proposal they had made to Sir Charles Barry was fair, and even liberal. They knew that if they attempted to act unfairly that House would not tolerate such conduct, and it was the tribunal to which Sir Charles Barry could legitimately and safely appeal.

MR. MALINS

said, he must still maintain that Sir Charles Barry was unfairly treated. The Government would bring all their influence in that House to overpower him. It was most unfair to say, "Take that, or we will give you nothing." He did not think the noble Lord at the head of the Government would consent to deal with the question in that way. If they could not trust a lawyer, surely some man of intelligence might be found to settle the dispute. Was not all such questions settled in that way? What had they done even with regard to the terms of peace? He did not believe that Sir Charles Barry would refuse to go to arbitration. The question involved his income for twenty years, during which time he had been deprived of other professional employment. The dispute as to the Reform Club had been decided, as he had previously stated, by Mr. (now Justice) Erle. Both parties appeared before him by their counsel and solicitors, and the matter was fully gone into. Why should not the same course be pursued in this case? He hoped there would be no more discussion on the matter in that House.

MR. SPOONER

said, he wished for some explanation of an item for continuation of the embankment.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, it was the continuation towards Westminster Bridge, and had been included in former Estimates.

MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERS

said, he considered the question one of national importance. Plans were invited from various architects, it being understood that a certain amount should not be exceeded. Sir Charles Barry's plan attracted great attention, and was adopted by Government, though no one believed it could be carried out for the amount stated. The result was most deceiving, and almost heart-breaking to many men of talent who had been induced to send in plans. It constantly happened that architects, after sending in plans for private residences, introduced a number of extras, whereby the cost was perhaps doubled. He did not agree in the statement of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond), that the regular charge of an architect was 5 per cent, for those charges were constantly the subject of litigation. It might be a rule of the institute of architects that such should be the charge; but an architect had no right to engage that a building should only cost so much. If he made such an undertaking, and the estimate was far exceeded, an abatement of the charge ought to take place. Sir Charles Barry would do extremely well to reconsider the offer of the Government, and let the matter be amicably arranged. A report had been circulated that additional expense would have to be incurred in getting the clock into the clock tower. It was like Farmer Flamborough's picture, which was painted too large for his room.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, the clock was already finished, was going remarkably well, and would be placed in the tower without difficulty. He added, in correction of a rumour which had been extensively circulated, that the bells had not been cast, but that they would be so before the end of the year, and would be made of a convenient size.

MR. WISE

said, that two or three years ago some uneasiness was felt with respect to the character of a good deal of the stonework in the Houses of Parliament, large masses having peeled off on the side facing the river and in many of the courts. Under those circumstances, the late Sir William Molesworth ordered that a strict supervision should be exercised over the selection of stones, and it would be satisfactory to the Committee to know whether that supervision was continued. He wished also to ask, whether the sum of £1,600 in the Vote under discussion "on account of the clock for the clock-tower in New Palace-yard" included the total cost of the clock?

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

replied, that the total cost of the clock was £1,900, of which £1,600 had been paid on account, the remainder to be paid on delivery. The supervision ordered by Sir William Moles-worth was still going on, and he was glad to state, that since it had been instituted, there had been less destruction of stone than before.

MR. SPOONER

said, he wished to inquire whether the sum of £3,760 for the salaries of persons in charge of the maintenance and repair of the building included the salary of the gentleman in charge of the ventilating? Mr. Gurney was appointed upon the recommendation of a Committee of that House, and there seemed to be a difference of opinion between the Treasury and him as to the salary which he was to receive. He must also complain that the Government did not appear to be prepared to carry out the agreement made by Sir William Moles-worth.

MR. WILSON

said, the Vote did include the salary of Mr. Gurney. He could not say that Mr. Gurney was satisfied with the salary which the Treasury was disposed to give him, but, when the hon. Member for North Warwickshire saw the correspondence which had taken place on the subject, he would perceive that the sum which the Treasury was prepared to allow Mr. Gurney even exceeded that which the Select Committee and Sir William Molesworth recommended.

MR. BOWYER

said, he wished to obtain some information relative to the sum of £4,000 for "various works in the decoration of the Palace at Westminster and for the encouragement of fine arts." Did they intend to employ any artists except those who were subjects of Her Majesty? A notion seemed to prevail that great artists could be raised in England by merely spending a certain sum of money. He believed, however, that the giving of ever so much money to middling or inferior artists would not convert them into Raphaels and Michael Angelos. If we really desired to encourage art, we should not bind ourselves by geographical limits. In times when art was most flourishing, no distinction was made as to the country to which a man belonged; and to employ our own painters only, would be not to encourage art, but to distribute a certain sum of money among English tradesmen. The result of that system was to be seen in the pictures over the Throne in the House of Lords. One of these pictures was quite disagreeable to look at. It represented the baptism of King Ethelbert. The king was painted with a crown upon his head, but stark naked. What was the historical authority for that primitive costume? It could not be said that the King was to be baptised by immersion, because there was a font close by, and his Majesty was no more able to be placed in that font than in a teapot. Another of the pictures was intended to represent the Institution of the Order of the Garter; but it might be held to represent anything else just as well. There was a person kneeling, who was supposed to be fastening the garter upon the leg of another, who was standing up, but the two were at so great a distance from each other, that it was impossible the first could reach either of the legs of the second. Then, again, in that picture, the principal portion of the legs of some of the figures was completely left out, although one would have thought that, in a painting representing the Institution of the Order of the Garter, the legs of all the persons concerned ought to have been visible. As to the pictures in the lobby upstairs which represented the poets, every one who had seen the ancient frescoes in Italy and the modern ones in Germany must admit, that those in the lobby were very poor specimens of frescoes. They were confined in space, were wanting in breadth and colour, and were more like water or body colouring than fresco paintings. He maintained that we never should obtain any reputation as a nation which understood and encouraged art unless we took a comprehensive view of the subject, and regarded the republic of art as extending over the whole world. There was in England at this moment probably the first living sculptor, the Baron Marochetti, and yet he did not see the name of that gentleman included among those who were to be employed in the sculpture of that House. Fresco painting had arrived at very great perfection in Germany, and it would be a great misfortune if that great building should contain no specimen of German art. He trusted that the Government would give some assurance that they would not take a narrow and peddling view of this matter, but that art in in its true and broad sense should be fostered and represented.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) £207,305, Holyhead Harbour, &c.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he wished to know whether that item would be the last demand on account of those works. The Estimate and plans originally proposed by the architect, Mr. Rendall, appeared to have been doubled; was the present Vote intended to complete the works?

SIR CHARLES WOOD

in reply, said, that in this case the observations of the hon. Member for Lambeth were particularly unjust. The additional expenditure and departure from the original plan was the result of the recommendation of a Committee of the House of Commons, and quite independent of the architect. The sum to be voted was intended to complete the work, the amount of £207,305 having been left over last year. The great value which the port had proved as a harbour of refuge had fully justified the general plan and estimate recommended by that Committee.

Vote agreed to, as were also the two following Votes,

(6.) £233,000, Harbours of Refuge.

(7.) £384,000 Port Patrick Harbour.

(8.) £41,021, Public Buildings (Ireland).

MR. BLACKBURN

said, he must complain of several of the items as being much too high.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he objected to the large item in the Vote for Kilmainham Hospital. He had been under the impression that that establishment, instead of being extended, was to be reduced.

MR. WILSON,

in explanation of the Vote, said that a large increase had been found necessary in the expenditure in connection with the Royal Hibernian Military School, in consequence of the erection of a building, under the direction of the War Office, for the purpose of giving lectures upon military subjects. A considerable sum had also been laid out upon the lodge and other buildings in the Phoenix Park.

MR. WISE

said, he felt bound to protest against the expenditure of between £40,000 and £50,000 a year for keeping up that which appeared to him of no earthly benefit.

Mr. SPOONER

said, he objected to the portion of the Vote appropriated to the payment of Roman Catholic chaplains. He did not intend to divide the Committee upon the question, but he had been taunted the other night by the hon. Under Secretary for War that he had suffered a Vote of a similar character to pass. He did object most strongly to that particular Vote, but he knew that it would be of no use dividing the Committee on the matter, and he now wished it to be understood that he was strongly opposed to any sum of money being voted by that House for the support or maintenance of the Roman Catholic religion in whatever shape or form it might be brought before them. It must not be understood that because he did not think proper to divide the Committee that he gave his assent to the principle of the Vote.

Vote agreed to, as was also,

(9.) £19,350 Kingstown Harbour.

(10.) £83,680, Houses of Parliament.

MR. A. PELLATT

said, he wished to call attention to the exorbitant fees demanded of petitioners opposing private Bills. He observed that if a petitioner wished to be heard before the Committee, to which a private Bill might be referred, he must pay a fee of five guineas a day before he was permitted to open his lips, and if he employed counsel the fee was raised to ten guineas. He considered it most unjust that persens whose rights might be invaded by the proposed provisions of a private Bill should be put to such an expense in protecting them. He also wished to inquire whether those fees formed part of the Vote, and, if so, whether the Government would consent to reduce or altogether abolish them?

MR. WILSON

said, that the charge for the payment of witnesses was confined to defraying the costs of those who were examined before the Committees sitting on public matters; the shorthand writers' account spoke for itself, and with respect to the allowances to officers of the House, the charge arose principally out of compensation money granted to those who held offices under old patents, which would eventually expire, when it would of course be discontinued. His attention had not been before directed to the amount of the fees paid by persons opposing private Bills. Notwithstanding that those expenses had been moderated of late years by the operation of general Acts of Parliament, there could be no doubt that they were still very heavy, especially upon railway and other companies. The question, however, was one for the House of Commons itself rather than for the Government.

MR. HADFIELD

said, that great injustice was done to railway companies by requiring them to pay these heavy expenses. Hardly anything had effected so much social improvement as the falicity afforded by railways for rapid communication between distant parts of the country; and yet the companies promoting them had received nothing but obstruction at the hands of that House.

MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERS

said, he wished to direct attention to the item of £4,000 charged for shorthand writers' notes for the two Houses, and also to inquire whether any new arrangement had been made since the death of Mr. Gurney with reference to the conduct of that portion of the business of the House. He was informed that a given sum was charged by Mr. Gurney per day for attendance and taking notes before the Committees of the Houses of Parliament, and of that sum Mr. Gurney appropriated one-half, and the particular shorthand writer employed had the other, which seemed to him an exceedingly inequitable arrangement. It was all very well when the system of taking the evidence given in Committees in shorthand was first introduced, and when there was great difficulty in obtaining gentlemen competent to do the work, to place the monopoly in the hands of Mr. Gurney, who was then the principle shorthand writer, but the state of affairs was widely different now when there existed a dis- tinct class of gentlemen following the profession, and practising in the Courts of Law and equity, who felt that they had a claim to a portion of that business which was now vested in the hands of one firm.

MR. WILSON

in reply said, that upon Mr. Gurney's death a new arrangement was made under the sanction of the Speaker with Mr. Gurney, junior. No alteration, however, was made in respect to the terms. Mr. Gurney was engaged by the House, and he might engage other shorthand writers to assist him if he chose, but the terms must be a matter of arrangement between themselves.

MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERS

said, that he had been in communication with a great number of gentlemen of undoubted skill and talent, and very eminent in the profession. Those gentlemen considered that as a body they were extremely useful, not only to the House, but to the kingdom generally; and he thought that through the instrumentality of Mr. Gurney some arrangement might be made to ensure a more equitable distribution of the business, and a fairer rate of remuneration to the person who did the work.

Vote agreed to; as were also the two following Votes—

(11.) £52,095, Treasury.

(12.) £24,204, Home Office.

(13.) £68,241, Foreign Office.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, he desired to call attention to the large amount (£35,000) set down for messengers' bills and expenses of extra couriers.

MR. WILSON

said, the increased expenditure under that head was caused by the state of war, which of course led to the more frequent employment of couriers. The cost of all those communications was borne by the Foreign Office, not by the War Office.

Vote agreed to; as were also the five following Votes—

(14.) £28,452, Colonial Office.

(15.) £61,067, Privy Council.

(16.) £2,700, Privy Seal.

(17.) £24,594, Paymaster General.

(18.) £6,483, Comptroller of Exchequer.

(19.) £23,313, Works and Public Buildings,

MR. WISE

said, he must complain of the new appointments stated to have been made in that department without submitting them to the Lords of the Treasury.

MR. WILSON

said, he must deny that any such thing had taken place lately. Two years ago considerable alterations took place in the department, but all those alterations had the sanction of the Treasury.

MR. WISE

said, he could only say that he held in his hand a document, dated January, 1856, addressed to the Lords of the Treasury, and signed by Mr. Romilly, Mr. Ross, and Colonel Maberly, which stated decidedly that there were several cases of new appointments and increase of salaries which were not supported by their Lordships' authority; and the document alluded especially to the Board of Works and to the different departments under that Board.

Vote agreed to: as were also the two next Votes.

(20.) £21,664, Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues.

(21.) £16,447, Public Records.

(22.) £208,993, Poor Laws.

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

said, that though he believed reductions had taken place in the staff of the Poor Law Board in Ireland, the state of the country was so satisfactory that there was not sufficient work even for those at present employed. He hoped, therefore, to see further reductions effected under that head.

MR. HORSMAN

said, that the expense of the Irish Poor Law Board was now only one-half what it was four years ago.

Vote agreed to.

(23.) £48,829, Mint.

MR. A. PELLATT

said, he wanted to know in what way the increase of £10,000 for coinage had arisen?

MR. WILSON,

in reply, said, that the expense of the coinage depended entirely upon the amount coined. The Master of the Mint had reason to anticipate a much larger coinage than in the past year, and, therefore, the estimate was proportionately large.

MR. SPOONER

said, he would beg to inquire how the estimate was arrived at?

MR. WILSON

said, the Master of the Mint usually put himself in communication with the Bank on the subject. In the present case, the belief was that if gold came into this country in large quantities, as it was likely to do during the ensuing year, and, at the same time, there was no commensurate return of the money sent out to the East, it would be necessary considerably to increase the coinage.

Vote agreed to; as was also—

(24.) £23,145, Inspectors of Factories, &c.

(25.) £5,964, Rembrancer of Exchequer (Scotland).

MR. CRAUFURD

said, he wished to call attention to certain increases of salary which had been made, and to two now appointments. He also wished to know if the Report of a Commission upon the subject had been received, and if so, whether it would be laid upon the table?

MR. WILSON,

in reply, said, that no Commission had been appointed to inquire into the matter. He was bound to say that of all the establishments paid by the Treasury not one was more efficient than this.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that some of the items in the Estimate required explanation. He would say nothing about the salaries for the Bible Board, which, however, amounted to not less than £1,090; but when he read such charges as £97 for Her Majesty's limner, £16 13s. 4d. for Her Majesty's clock-maker, £184 for Her Majesty's historiographer (all in Scotland, it should be remembered), and of an allowance to a person having charge of the Regalia of £140 (£20 more than the Estimate for the same purpose last year); of the Queen's plate to be run for at Edinburgh, £98 16s. 6d; of ditto, for the Caledonian Hunt, £98 16s. 6d.; and of ditto, for the Royal Company of Scottish Archers, or Queen's Body Guard, £20; making a total (including the Bible Board) of £1,745 6s. 4d., he did think some explanation was required before the Committee would be justified in agreeing to such a Vote. He should like to know whether the offices included in this Vote, which were perfect sinecures, were to be continued or abolished?

MR. WILSON

said, he could not give his hon. Friend any promise on the subject. Those sums were formerly paid out of the revenue of the Crown, and when that revenue came under the control of Parliament, the items formed a portion of the annual Estimates, and he was unable to say that there was any intention to discontinue the payment of them.

MR. WISE

said, that the sums voted for the Queen's Plate for races in Scotland as well as in Ireland were no charge on the country, as they were formerly charged on the hereditary revenue. The sums required under this head for Scotland were £197 13s., whereas the sum annually voted for fifteen Queen's Plates to be run for in Ireland was £1,574 6s. 2d.

Vote agreed to.

(26.) £6,431 Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he could not conceive what was the use of these officers. The Lord Lieutenant was a private gentleman, and it very seldom occurred that he was a military man. He found that two of the persons charged for were termed "gentlemen at large," who received £257 17s. 4d. He should like to know what were their duties. Then there was a Master of the Horse; could anything be more farcical? To maintain the dignity of Royalty in this country was necessary, but to adopt the same system in reference to the mock Royalty in Ireland was in the highest degree absurd. Then there was a Court Herald. His salary was certainly small, for he received loss every year than his clothing amounted to.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, unless the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland were done away with, and he thought it ought, it was useless to complain of such petty items as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth had alluded to. He considered the post of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a most useless office.

Vote agreed to, as were also the three next Votes—

(27.) £15,164 Chief Secretary for Ireland.

(28.) 6,294, Paymaster of Civil Services (Ireland).

(29.) £2,555, Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums (Ireland).

(30.) £22,516, Public Works (Ireland).

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he must complain that the expenses of drainage works and the general valuation of Ireland were charged to the public instead of to the individuals who would be benefited.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

, said, the general valuation of Ireland was originally ordered with reference to the county cess; and, with respect to the drainage works, they were paid out of public grants, and were, therefore, executed under Government superintendence.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he must still contend that the county cess in Ireland was the same as the county rates in England, and that the expense of a valuation for that purpose ought to fall exclusively on the landed proprietors of Ireland, and not on the public.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, although the Government advanced the money, the Irish counties had to pay for the valuation.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, he thought it very extraordinary that public works in Ireland should cost as much as public works in England.

Vote agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding £30,361, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of the Commissioners for auditing the Public Accounts, to the 31st day of March 1857.

MR. BOWYER

said, that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire was Chancellor of the Exchequer he had announced the intention of the Government to take steps to introduce a uniform system of public accounts and audit; nothing, however, had since been done on the subject. In 1831 a Commission had been appointed to inquire into the system of public accounts, and Dr. (now Sir John) Bowring had been directed to inquire into the system adopted in France and Belgium; he recommended a uniform system of double entry. Since 1847 there had been no return of the state of business in the Audit Office, but at that period the office was greatly in arrear. Dr. Bowring reported that in France and Belgium there were no arrears, the accounts being audited in those countries by what were called Chambers of Accounts. The accounts in our own Audit Office had been two years in arrear, and the Commissioners complained that they had no means of remedying this state of things. The great evil was that the public accounts were brought to the Audit Office in a particular form, and that the Office had then to put them in the entirely altered form required by the Exchequer. If a uniform system of keeping the public accounts were adopted, they could be carried into the Board of Audit, and there audited without any alteration of form. The Commissioners of Audit had no power to compel any accountant to bring in his accounts for audit. They had no compulsory powers by which to expedite the process. All that they could do was to represent the matter to the Treasury, who might order the Attorney General to exchequer the accountant. But in the system adopted in France and Belgium this evil was obviated, for the Board of Audit had a contentious jurisdiction. They could make orders upon public accountants to bring in their accounts, and, if they did not, they were armed with proper powers to compel them to bring their accounts before them. If the accounts being brought in did not satisfy the contentious branch of the Court, it had the power of compelling the accountant duly to account before the Board. He should like to know whether anything had been done to fulfil the promise made on this subject by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) when he held office, and whether the Government were willing to consider the necessity of applying some remedy to the inconvenience?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the subject had already received his attention, and he had framed the outline of a measure for consolidating the Acts relating to the audit of the public accounts, and he hoped to lay before the House the details of the measure at an early opportunity.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, that thirty-six clerks in the Audit Office had been transferred to the War Department. Had that transfer anything to do with the intention said to be entertained, that the War Office was to audit its own accounts?

MR. WILSON

The War Office will audit its own accounts.

MR. MACARTNEY

That cannot be done without a Treasury Minute.

MR. WILSON

There is a Treasury Minute.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he should then take an early opportunity of moving that the Treasury Minute be laid on the table.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he thought the course which had been pursued in reference to this matter was not commendable. He was strongly of opinion that the war accounts should go to the Audit Office, and he hoped that whatever the opinion of the Treasury might be, the House of Commons would never sanction an opposite principle. If there was any security at all in reference to the disposal of the national funds, it was clearly through the Audit Office. The Committee had passed the War Office Vote, which he would have opposed if he had known of the fact which had just been elicited, and which certainly took him very much by surprise. It was a most improper thing to allow any public department to audit its own accounts. He trusted that the Commissioners' salaries would be from time to time subjected to the revision of that House.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he fully agreed with his hon. Friend that departments ought not to audit their own accounts, but his hon. Friend had overlooked the important fact, that the accounts audited by the War Office were accounts not of expenditure made by persons who conducted the audit, but, for the most part, of expenditure incurred upon foreign stations and in colonies and places remote from the department. Thus the persons who conducted the audit were quite unconnected with those who made the disbursements. It was a mere question of convenience, and in the consolidation of military departments which had recently taken place it was thought that certain details of military expenditure ought to be audited, not by the Audit Office, but by the central military department. He was prepared to lay upon the table the Treasury Minute by which the transfer was effected and in which the nature of the change was explained. The salaries of the Commissioners of Audit were charged on the Consolidated Fund, instead of being included in the Votes, upon the long established constitutional principle that the Audit Board should be placed upon the same footing as the Judges. They occupied an independent judicial position, they held their office not at the pleasure of the Crown but during good behaviour, and their salaries were excepted when the Act was passed transferring a number of charges from the Consolidated Fund to the Votes.

MR. HENLEY

said, the right hon. Baronet had not shown any sound reason why the auditing of these accounts should be taken out of the hands of a proper, judicial, and competent tribunal and placed in the hands of persons who might mismanage the business under their control. No reason had been given why the Committee should be deprived of the valuable security which they formerly possessed.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he would like to have an answer as to whether the expenditure of the army, which amounted to £35,000,000 for the various branches, was to be audited by the Audit Office or by another department.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, great misunderstanding seemed to prevail with regard to this matter. The expenditure of the army was the expenditure of the regimental officers; accounts of that expenditure were rendered by the paymasters, and those were the accounts audited at the War Office. They amounted to a very large sum, but they consisted of very minute items of expenditure, which had taken place in accordance with regulations made by the Commander in Chief and the Secretary for War, and it was quite impossible that they could be audited by auditors who were not cognisant of those regulations. They consisted of items relating to each separate soldier in the service according to his position, from time to time, in quarters, in the field, or in barracks, and they were not therefore accounts of the War Department.

MR. HENLEY

said, he wished to know whether the accounts now transferred to the War Department had heretofore been audited by the Audit Office? It was only reasonable that a Member of the Government should inform the Committee how this vast expenditure had been audited.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, his meaning was that the great bulk of expenditure being regimental expenditure, it could only be audited by the War Department, as it always had been audited from the earliest time by persons acting under the Secretary at War.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, what the Committee ought to know was the cost of the materials supplied to the War Departments, and the contracts made for food and clothing, and other things. Most extravagant expenditure was made for the Land Transport Corps, and for other matters, and the accounts relating to that expenditure ought not to be audited by the War Department.

MR. WILSON

said, he would endeavour to explain the matter as far as he understood it. In regard to the Commissariat accounts, it had been the practice for the commissariat officers abroad to send their accounts to the Audit Board without communicating with any department at home; but when the Commissariat department was separated from the Treasury and removed to the War Department, it was thought more proper that the latter should receive the whole of these minute accounts from their own officers and audit them in the first instance, but, finally, they would be audited by the Audit Board.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought the Committee should be perfectly satisfied on the point whether those accounts were to go to the Audit Board at all, for it seemed extraordinary that, at a time when more than ever a strict and proper audit was needed, about one-fourth of the staff of the Audit Board was transferred to another department. It was impossible, under those circumstances, but that the public should entertain the idea that something was going to be hushed up. He hoped the Committee would be furnished with more information on the matter than it possessed at present, and the best plan now to adopt would be to postpone the Vote.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he could assure the Committee that the change had been made to render the audit not less complete but more efficient; and it was in that spirit and belief that the alteration had been effected with the full concurrence of the Audit Board and the War Department. He was not sufficiently acquainted with the details of military expenditure to be able fully to explain the matter, perhaps, but it had been minutely investigated by persons competent to form a judgment on the subject, and he repeated that this transference from the Audit Board had been made, not with a view of hushing up or hiding anything, but to make the audit as efficient as possible. As the subject was so intimately connected with the Vote for the War Department, he hardly thought that there would be any advantage now in postponing the present Vote.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he should be very sorry to press the Government to postpone the Vote, but when they heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself say that he was unable to explain, there was, he thought, a primâ facie case why they should ask the Government not to be precipitate in the matter. He had himself given some consideration to the subject, and his impression was, that one of the greatest faults of our system of administration was the limited system of our audit, and he thought that, if any change were to be made, they ought to increase the power and independence of the Audit Board rather than impair them. An audit to be perfect, should be complete and independent. Now it was acknowledged that our present system of audit was faulty, in so much as it was incomplete; but what was the Vote for? Was it to increase the power of the Board? It was rather to diminish it. We were at present increasing our expenditure, and that was the time when the Committee was asked to diminish the power of the Audit Board. Now he put it to gentlemen on both sides of the House if that was good policy? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that he knew nothing of the nature of the arrangement, but said that persons of the greatest authority on such matters had given it as their opinion that the change was one which would be advantageous to the public service. It was not right in discussions like the present to refer to anonymous authorities, but he would refer to the opinion of a public servant of great experience in the Treasury, and which, if not identical with that relied on by the right hon. Gentleman, might, at least, be taken as its equivalent. The gentleman to whom he alluded did not actually approve of the transfer of the Commissariat from the Treasury to the War Department; but yet he did not oppose it. He did, however, say that, although he did not care if the transfer were to take place, he would yet advise them to take care that the auditing of the Commissariat accounts should not be also transferred to the War Department. Here then they were in this position—they not only had the Commissariat transferred to the War Department, but they had their audit also in the War Department, and that at a time when they were increasing their expenditure. Those were circumstances that should, he thought, make them pause in the matter. Hitherto their audit had never been complete, and scarcely independent; and it was never more feeble than at present. He could not approve of the Vote, and he therefore wished that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider it, especially as he was not at present in the position of being able to address the Committee with a full knowledge of the subject.

MR. WILSON

said, he would accede to the postponement of the Vote.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he thought that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Secretary of the Treasury had all three completely broken down in their attempts to explain the Vote, and they had therefore done wisely in acceding to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to postpone it for the present.

Motion by leave withdrawn.

(31.) £17,710, Copyhold Inclosure and Tithe Commission.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he thought it was quite time that this Commission was wound up; at any rate, there was no need, he thought, for three Commissioners. Their dealings were entirely with private property, and it was unjust that the public funds should be called upon to defray an expenditure which merely benefited private proprietors.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he might remind the Committee how frequent had been the complaints on account of the expensiveness of passing private bills. Now, one of the objects of this Commission was to render unnecessary the large outlay on one class of Private Bills—namely, "Inclosure Bills," and though, undoubtedly, Bills of that kind related to private property, nevertheless important public functions devolved upon the Commission in the discharge of their duties. The arguments of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Williams), if carried to its legitimate consequences, would render it inexpedient for Parliament to defray the expenses of the Courts of Justice. The enfranchisement of copyholds was a subject to which Parliament had directed its attention for many years, and was a measure recommended by public policy as altering the tenure of land, and rendering its cultivation more profitable. It could not, therefore, be stated that the functions of the Commission had reference merely to private objects. With reference to the Tithe Commission, it was required to wind up an immense mass of business, as well as to take charge of a vast number of plans and maps relating to every part of England, which were being constantly referred to by solicitors. He could assure the Committee that the several functions of the Commission occupied its entire time, whilst its services were of great public utility.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he wished to know what was the meaning of so large a Vote as £2,154 being required for the legal expenses of the Commission?

MR. WILSON

said, in reply, that it was occasioned by the Commissioners having to defray costs, amounting to that sum, in an action which they brought with the consent of the Treasury,

Vote agreed to.

The following Votes were then agreed to—

(32.) £17,710, Copyhold Expenses under Inclosure and Drainage Acts.

(33.) £38,234, General Register Office.

(34.) £3,388, General Register Office (Dublin).

(35.) £6,665, Registrar General of Births, &c. (Edinburgh).

(36.) £13,880, National Debt Office.

(37.) £2,840, Public Works Loan Commission.

(38.) £1,570, West India Islands Relief Commission.

(39.) £1,310, Commissioners in Lunacy.

(40.) £984, Superintendent of County Roads (South Wales).

(41.) £1,405, Registrar of Friendly Societies.

(42.) £32,000, Foreign and other Secret Services.

(43.) £458,275, Stationery, Printing, &c.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he wished to call attention to the very large amount of the Vote. Last year there was a deficiency of £50,000, which had to be provided for now; and the increase in the Vote, as compared with that of last year, including this deficiency, was £40,000. During the last Session there was a Committee appointed on the subject of printing, which reported that the contracts with the printers to the two Houses could not, without violating the understanding that they should continue as long as the patent of Mr. Spottiswoode, be altered until the year 1860. At the same time there was one portion of printing, that which included works printed by the public departments, and the Reports and appendices of Commissions and Committees, in which a very considerable saving might be effected. There were appendices which noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen in that House read which contained pages upon pages of figures and names, the general results of all which information were given in the Reports. When examined before the Committee, Mr. M'Culloch, who had carefully and attentively considered the question, suggested that either that House or the Printing Committee should exercise some control as to the occasions on which those appendices should be printed. The Chairman of the Committee might decide whether or not the appendices to the evidence should be published. It was most important that attention should be paid by the Government, or, failing that, by the House, to the revision of the three classes of printing to which he had referred, especially of that connected with Commissions. Almost all Commissions now reported to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and their Reports were then laid upon the tables of both Houses. All the evidence, let it be ever so voluminous and ever so immaterial, was appended to the Reports, and printed at the expense of the public. He (Mr. Walpole) thought that the Chairman of a Commission ought to communicate with the head of the department to which he reported as to the evidence which should be printed, and that his recommendation, subject to the control at the head of the department, should be acted upon. As to the Reports of Committees of that House, he thought that the recommendation of the Committee, that the Chairman should in every instance recommend in his Report how much of the appendices should be printed, might well be acted upon.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he was glad that his right hon. Friend had called attention to the large amount of this Vote, which equalled the entire income of a small German principality. There was, he thought, great reason why an attempt should be made to reduce it within moderate limits. As to the Reports of Commissions, an order was some years ago given by the Home Department that no Commission should insert any document in an appendix, or send it to the printer, without an express authority from the Secretary of State. He was not sure that that order had always been obeyed, but it was given five or six years ago, and had the effect of materially diminishing the bulk of the appendices to Reports. As to the Reports of Committees of that House, no such control had ever existed; and it would be a very delicate matter to interfere with the authority of Committees as to the insertion of such matter as they thought necessary in their reports. Nevertheless, he thought all Members would admit that many documents found their way into appendices which were not worth the expense of printing. It would be very useful if either the printing, or some other Committee, would exercise a control over the documents which were inserted in Reports. The great bulk of the Reports, both of Commissions and Committees, however, consisted of evidence, and he did not see how it would be possible to make a selection of evidence to be printed without leading to never-ending charges of partiality and unfairness. The expenses of printing in the public offices had of late years increased, owing to the habit of printing great numbers of forms of accounts. That had arisen from the great increase in the amount of statistical infor- mation called for by that House, and indicated a laudable desire to furnish to Parliament ample accounts of the expenditure of the country.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he would mention as instances of unnecessary expense the volumes issued by the Committee of Council on Education. The Reports contained in those books were very valuable, but the long lists of names appended to them were worth nothing at all. Yet the great expense arose from the printing of those lists. The Board of Health had also expended large sums upon printing. The present estimate for that department was £1,200; and he had been informed that there were of the books published by that Board 30,000 copies still unissued.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, he would remind the Committee that it was necessary for the convenience of Members that the evidence taken before a Committee should be printed during the progress of the inquiry; and that, therefore, the principal portion of the expense, that of setting up the type, must be incurred, whether or not the evidence were afterwards reprinted with the Report. A great evil of the present system was that no attempt was made to regulate the issue of the Parliamentary papers according to the intrinsic attraction of the topics to which they referred, papers of merely local interest being circulated as profusely as documents of historic importance. The papers relating to the capitulation of Kars were already out of print.

MR. VERNON SMITH

said, the Committee and the public were very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) for bringing this subject forward. At the same time he must assert that in most cases the real sinners were the Members themselves, who required all sorts of printed Returns. That was especially the case with respect to Select Committees, and also Commissions. He thought, if the House of Commons wished to take up the question, they should pass a Resolution to the effect that all matters intended to be printed should be sent to the Printing Committee, or some other tribunal, who should have the power of deciding what ought to be printed and what ought not, and the House should abide by the decision of that tribunal.

MR. HENLEY

said, that the Vote before the Committee was for the large sum of £458,272 for printing and stationery. As far as Parliamentary matter was concerned the Estimate was only £140,000, not quite a fourth part of the whole Vote. He thought it would be a great mistake to stop the printing of what was valuable. The War and Admiralty Departments cost upwards of £200,000, or more than the two Houses of Parliament. If any means could be struck out to lessen the expenditure of the printing he should be glad, but he should not like to lessen the printing of useful information.

MR. WILSON

said, he must explain that, with regard to the item for the War Department, it was not for stationery alone—a portion of it was for cartridge paper, necessary on account of the war, and also a part for special specifications of patents.

MR. DISRAELI

I am sure, Sir, that any suggestion coming from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) will be always listened to with attention. I should have been disposed to pass unnoticed his observations on the present occasion, though not exactly coinciding with them, but for the challenge thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the India Board, that my right hon. Friend should bring forward this question in the shape of a substantive Motion. Now, Sir, how did this discussion commence? We were told that nearly £500,000 was expended upon printing matters, the results of investigation by our Parliamentary Committees—an investigation whtch was, of course, necessary in order to enable us to form our opinions upon the particular subjects in question. Now, even though the expense attending the printing of such matters may amount to nearly £500,000, I confess I should hesitate before I became a party to any reduction of this Vote. So far as I could influence a Committee I certainly should not sanction any rash or sudden change in this Vote, by means of which we obtain such information as enables us to form our opinions upon any subject. In respect to the great questions that are usually submitted to Parliamentary Committees, it is of the highest importance to obtain the best and most accurate information. I need not, I am sure, remind the Committee, whatever may be the amount of expense necessary to obtain that information, that we ought to be cautious not to place any restrictions upon the printing of it, as we must all agree in the opinion that the diffusion of such informa- tion is the soul of good Government. But what are the facts we obtain when we investigate into this question? Why, not one-fifth of this expenditure is disbursed in the production of the great body of Parliamentary literature. Now, I think this expenditure is one of the most remarkable characteristics of the age in which we live, and the best evidence that could be given of the good system of Government under which this country flourishes. It must be admitted that it is most proper to print the Reports of our Committees; and if we print our Reports, we ought also, I think, to print the evidence upon which those Reports are founded. That evidence, I think, should be printed complete, whole, and unimpaired. The only cavil is as to the printing of what we call the appendices, or those documents which are subsequently added to our Reports. Well, but this is a question which I think should be left to the Committees themselves to decide. If we interfere in this matter I think we should be opening at once a great field of controversy and difficulty to an almost illimitable extent. My right hon. Friend said he believed that not two persons ever read an appendix to a Report of a Committee of the House of Commons. Well, Sir, I doubt the accuracy of that opinion. I do not think that that is the fact. On the contrary, I believe that a great many hon. Gentlemen consult these supplementary portions of the Report in order to make themselves thoroughly masters of the whole subject. This question has come suddenly upon us. It is not brought forward in the formal shape suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the India Board. It is said that a great mass of useless matter in the shape of appendices to Reports encumbers the shelves of our library, but I would show the Committee the importance of those volumes by reminding them of the frequent references that are made to them, and of the fact that the knowledge of the matters contained therein has often influenced our debates in this House and the decisions of the Ministers themselves. Now, I am of opinion it is of the utmost importance that we should have those documents printed in their entirety—documents upon which the Reports of Committees have been founded, and such as are illustrative of the evidence taken before them. Without these documents I am of opinion that your library will be deficient of that information which it is important for the House itself to possess. Comparatively but a small part of this expenditure is disbursed for the printing of those documents. I do not think that the expenditure of £100,000 a year is at all extravagant, when it is made for the purpose of enabling us to obtain such information upon important subjects as may influence the decision of Parliament. That we should be cavilling at this time with this item occasions me, I confess, some astonishment and some degree of alarm. I must impress on the Committee that in consequence of the information we obtain by a reference to these documents we are enabled to form those opinions upon important questions, the expression of which entitle us to the confidence of the country. If you reduce the importance of the documentary evidence adduced before Committees, and upon which the opinions of the House and the Committees themselves are framed, you may depend upon it you will in the same proportion reduce the influence of this House. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "Here is an annual expenditure greater than that of a German Prince, for the printing and publication of papers for the information of the House of Commons." Well, I answer, in the first place, that this printing is not for the House of Commons, but for the purpose of furnishing information to the country generally. That information, I consider, is absolutely necessary in order to obtain and to ensure the continuance of good government for the country. This expenditure is for Imperial purposes, and, I contend, is absolutely necessary, even though it should amount to the income of a German Prince. Are we to consider the expediency of an expenditure for Imperial purposes by a test of that kind? Why, if such an argument were to be admitted, it would be equally applicable to hundreds of other Votes which are passed in the course of the year. All we have to do is to ascertain whether this expenditure is for a suitable purpose or not. If it be for a suitable object, then I think it is our duty to see it disbursed in a complete and satisfactory manner. I have always supported the principle of a just economy; but I will not be a party to refuse a Vote, however large, winch I think absolutely essential for the interests of the public service. In my opinion there is no Vote to which the Committee has given its sanction which is more advantageous for the public service than the present one, which produces a body of information that guides the decisions of the Legislature, and influences, to a great degree, the ultimate prosperity of the country.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he hoped his right hon. Friend did not suppose that he, or any one who advocated a proper control over the expenditure incurred in printing, wished to deprive the House or the country of any information which it was necessary they should possess. All that he (Mr. Walpole) desired was, that some person should be made responsible for the mass of matter which was constantly printed, and which was as constantly unread. If any hon. Member wished to have an illustration of his meaning he could give one. It was stated by Mr. M'Culloch that in the appendix to the second volume of the Wine Duties Report there were tables occupying 234 pages, describing the vattings of wine in different docks; and Mr. M'Culloch observed, "There is not, I believe, a sane person in the Empire who ever read a line of it, or ever will." No less than 1,750 copies of this Report were, however, printed and circulated at the public expense.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he would remind his right hon. Friend that the Chairman of the Committee had practically the power of preventing an appendix of unreasonable bulk from being printed. No document could be printed without the sanction of the Printing Committee, and they were bound to assume that the Committee would not permit the publication of papers which they did not think necessary for the information of the House and of the country. Reference had been made to the publication of documents by the Board of Health, but the printing of such documents might at any time be checked by the Treasury. He thought, therefore, that sufficient means existed for preventing the abuse of a privilege which he regarded as of great public importance.

MR. WILSON

stated, in reply to Mr. PELLATT, that the specifications of patents were printed and sold to the public at a very low price, under the provisions of an Act of Parliament passed within the last three years.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he must express a hope that copies of those specifications would be furnished to Mechanics' Insti- tutes and public institutions in all the manufacturing towns of the country.

Vote agreed to.

The following Votes were then agreed to:—

(44.) £140,410, Postage of Letters.

(45.) £36,041, Solicitor of the Treasury.

(46.) £250,000, Prosecutions.

(47.) £1,100, Crown Office, Chancery.

(48.) £2,050, Crown Office, Queen's Bench.

(49.) £16,340, Sheriffs, &c.

(50.) £6,418, Registrar of the Admiralty.

(51.) £8,215, Insolvent Debtors Court.

(52.) £13,850, Treasurers of County Courts.

(53.) £29,348, Metropolis Police Courts.

(54.) £102,306, Metropolitan Police.

(55.) £3,615, Queen's Prison.

(56.) £3,342, Lord Advocate and Solicitor General (Scotland).

(57.) £17,551, Court of Session (Scotland).

(58.) £9,568, Court of Justiciary (Scotland).

(59.) £6,400, Criminal Prosecutions (Scotland).

(60.) 1,415, Remembrancer in Exchequer (Scotland).

(61.) £57,000, Sheriffs and Stewards (Scotland).

(62.) £12,167.), Procurators Fiscal.

(63.) £12,594, Sheriffs Clerks (Scotland).

(64.) £2,300, Solicitor of the Crown (Scotland).

(65.) £12,249, General Register House (Edinburgh).

(66.) £1,124, Commissary Clerk (Edinburgh).

(67.) £51,720, Criminal Prosecutions (Ireland).

(68.) £1,294, Court of Chancery (Ireland).

(69.) £1,338, Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland).

(70.) £1,421, Court of Common Pleas (Ireland).

(71.) £1,580, Court of Exchequer (Ireland).

(72.) £200, Taxing Officers (Ireland).

(73.) £5,232, Registrars to Judges (Ireland).

(74.) £1,766, Registration of Judgments (Ireland).

(75.) £300, Court of Delegates (Ireland).

(76.) £3,066, Insolvent Debtors Court, (Ireland).

(77.) £267, Court of Errors (Ireland).

(78.) £1,600, Police Justices of Dublin.

(79.) £35,000, Metropolitan Police, Dublin.

(80.) £639,100, Constabulary (Ireland).

(81.) £1,832, Four Courts, Marshalsea, Dublin.

On the Vote of £16,783 for charges for Inspectors and Superintendents of Prisons in the United Kingdom being proposed,

MR. HENLEY

said, he objected to proceed with the Vote at that late hour, on the ground that it must give rise to much discussion on the subject of the ticket-of-leave system.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he would consent that the Chairman should report progress.

On the CHAIRMAN

putting the question on Mr. HENLEY'S Motion,

MR. WALPOLE

said, that in reference to a notice of Motion on the paper for Friday night, with respect to the ticket-of-leave system, he thought it would be desirable that the Government should make known their intention with respect to that Motion. He was of opinion that the result of an inquiry into the effects of the system would go to show that the apprehension now existing in the public mind with reference to the alteration in the law relating to convicts was not altogether well founded—that there had been, at all events, great exaggeration on the subject. He believed that the general supposition as to the effect of the emancipation of those convicts who had obtained the benefit of the Act of 1853, was not borne out by facts; and for that reason he concluded that an inquiry into the matter would be very useful.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he also believed that there had been great exaggeration on the subject; and he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was desirable that there should be an inquiry into the operation of the Act that had abolished transportation. He believed that the result of such inquiry would be to show that the public laboured under a misapprehension on the subject. He, however, thought that the form of inquiry suggested by the notice of the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. F. Scott) was too wide and too vague; and supposing that to be the case, he had that evening placed on the paper an Amendment to that hon. Member's Motion which would limit the inquiry to the operation of the Act of 1853, which had abolished transportation, and had substituted for it the present system. If the House agreed to his Amendment, he thought that the object of eliciting the facts bearing on the matter would be effected.

House resumed.