SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.

HC Deb 22 June 1857 vol 146 cc149-92

House in Committee; Mr. FITZROY in the chair. (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed. "That a sum, not exceeding £102,861, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge for Works and Expenses at the New Houses of Parliament, to the 31st day of March 1858.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he was afraid that the expenses of the two Houses of Parliament would amount to an awful Bill. In March of last year he referred to the scheme of the late Sir William Molesworth, to the effect that £280,000 would finish the expenses of the Houses of Parliament. There were then looming in the distance new charges to the amount of £500,000, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works then gave a pledge that no expenditure should be entered into relating to that sum of £500,000 without a reference to that House. It appeared extremely doubtful whether that arrangement had not already been broken. He therefore wished to know in what position they stood with respect to the expenses of the Houses of Parliament. It seemed clear that the sum of £280,000 he had before mentioned had been already exceeded by £96,000, and seeing that the cost of the works which were originally estimated at £770,000 had already exceeded £2,000,000, he thought it was the duty of Parliament to ascertain when and where this drain was to stop. One cause of the enormous expenditure was the costly nature of the finishings of the Houses, and it had been stated by Mr. Hunt, a gentleman well qualified to form an opinion, that no less than £700,000 had been spent in what were called finishings. A sort of squabble, too, had taken place with the architect as to his commission. The position of the matter was, that Parliament had spent £2,000,000 and odd on the new Houses, and it was now going to spend £162,000 more, and therefore he wished to know whether the Commissioner of Works meant to deviate from the arrangement made by Sir William Molesworth. Were they to be set loose at sea again, and to have these constant demands for money? It was a disgrace to the House that it could not manage properly the expenditure for works going on close to it. He wished to know whether, in addition to the sum of £54,000 which had been paid to Sir Charles Barry, and with which he did not appear to be quite contented, there would be any additional charges for commission from other quarters. He also hoped the right hon. Baronet would inform the Committee what was the amount now outstanding which it would be necessary to pay, and whether any new works would be undertaken without the sanction of Parliament.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

observed, that he was appointed to the office he had the honour to hold on the 24th of July, 1855, and within a few days afterwards he was asked by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire what course he intended to pursue with regard to the works connected with the Houses of Parliament. He replied that he proposed simply to complete the works then in hand, which had been sanctioned by Parliament, and not to undertake any new works, and he had adhered most strictly to that declaration. He hoped the House of Commons would never on any future occasion fall into such an error as they had committed between 1834 and 1840. Instead of having a detailed plan and design before them, or appointing an officer who should be responsible for the execution of the work and the expenditure of the money, Parliament contented itself with obtaining a slight plan which merely shadowed out the general character of the structure to be erected. They appointed a Committee of taste, a Committee of fine arts, a Committee of supervision, a Committee of inquiry, and various similar Committees, without any one person being responsible to the House of Commons for the manner in which the work was executed or for the expenditure. The hon. Baronet had referred to the estimate of £280,000 for the completion of the works, which was given by Sir Charles Barry to Sir William Molesworth in 1854. He (Sir B. Hall) had been given to understand by Sir Charles Barry that the works would be completed for that amount; but when he found from the estimates sent in this year by Sir Charles Barry that a larger sum was demanded than had been proposed to his predecessor (Sir W. Molesworth), he thought it his duty to require some explanation on the subject. He (Sir B. Hall) was now referring only to the plans which had been sanctioned by Parliament, setting aside altogether the new buildings which Sir Charles Barry proposed to erect in New Palace Yard. Sir Charles Barry stated that he required an additional sum of £50,000, in consequence of the increase of contracts, and 34,000 for additional works. This reply was unsatisfactory, and he requested Sir Charles Barry to furnish him with a detailed statement of the purposes for which the outlay was required. He (Sir B. Hall) could assure the House that the pledge which he gave in 1855 and 1856 had been fully carried out, and that he had endeavoured to confine Sir Charles Barry to the plans which had been sanctioned by Parliament. He heard a few days ago that some alterations were in progress in the Speaker's house and court-yard, and he immediately wrote to Sir Charles Barry to inquire why a hoarding had been erected, and what alterations he was about to make. He mentioned this circumstance to show that he was deter- mined, to the utmost of his power, to confine Sir Charles Barry to the works which had received the sanction of Parliament.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

wished to have some explanation of the items, "Amount required to be provided in addition to the sums voted in previous years, for commission which has been paid to Sir Charles Barry to the 30th of June, 1856, £23,000," and the "Estimated amount which may be required for further payments to the architect, and for miscellaneous services from the 30th of June, 1856, to the 3lst of March, 1857, £5,000." He (Mr. Williams) observed another item in the Estimates of "£5,270 on account of superintendence and miscellaneous charges." He would be glad if the hon. Baronet could inform the Committee when it was probable that the expenditure for the Houses of Parliament would cease.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, the question just put by the hon. Gentleman was somewhat difficult to answer, and he was afraid he should only deceive the House if he attempted to give any definite reply to it. All he could say was that he was endeavouring to wind up the concern as quickly as possible by preventing any new works from being undertaken. With regard to the items to which the hon. Gentleman had called attention, if he read a paper which had been circulated a day or two ago, he would find that it contained a full explanation of the mode in which Sir Charles Barry was to be remunerated under the Treasury Minute.

MR. HENLEY

said, he had not gathered from the right hon. Baronet's statement how much the present Vote would be in excess of the £284,000. He regretted to hear the right hon. Gentleman talking, no doubt with perfect sincerity, of restraining Sir Charles "as far as he was able." That was a most unfortunate addendum to the right hon. Baronet's statement. As the right hon. Baronet was a member of the Government, it would be somewhat strange if he did not possess authority enough to prevent Sir Charles Barry from expending the public money at his own discretion. Surely he had only to refuse to place in the Estimates the cost of carrying out anything he disapproved of.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, as soon as he found that the estimate of 1854 was exceeded he wrote to Sir Charles Barry, desiring to be informed of the exact amount which would be required for the completion of the buildings, and Sir Charles, Barry replied that £50,000 would be the excess upon the contracts, and that £34,000 would be wanted for additional works which were necessary. He (Sir B. Hall) was not satisfied with that statement, and he asked for further explanations, but to that communication he had not yet received an answer.

MR. HENLEY

said, the Committee was now told that Sir Charles Barry asked the First Commissioner of Works for certain sums, partly for an excess arising on the contracts, and partly for other reasons, But it appeared the First Commissioner was not exactly aware what those reasons were. He (Mr. Henley) thought the Committee ought to take care that they were not by this Vote dragged into sanctioning works of which they at present knew nothing, for they were now asked to vote money on account, but were not told what it was for. There was also another matter to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee. In the plan attached to the Estimates there were buildings shown under the title of "proposed buildings," which had not only not received the sanction of the House, but had been disapproved of by the Board of Works; and he thought the Chief Commissioner ought to have seen that such plan, at all events in its present shape, should not have appeared along with the Estimates. A few years hence, when, perhaps, they might not have so careful a Chief Commissioner of Works as they had at present, Sir Charles Barry might erect these additional buildings; and if found fault with for so doing might say he had submitted his plan to the House of Commons, who had approved of them, and that he had consequently carried them out. He (Mr. Henley) thought, therefore, that unapproved plans having been submitted to Parliament along with the Estimates, they might be the means of causing a considerable additional expenditure.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that he had objected to the plan being attached to the Estimates last year, and it was entirely his fault that it had appeared this year; but he would take care it should not be construed into the sanction of the new works in question. The fact was, the plan was received just before the Estimates were sent to the printer.

MR. BALL

said, he was surprized to find an item of £20,000 and upwards in this Vote "on further account of the completion of the Victoria and Clock towers and the fittings and finishings thereof." When the Committee looked at the immense sums which had been expended on those towers and their appendages they would probably think the public was entitled to see a clock of corresponding use and beauty, but instead of that they had a clock which was ashamed to show its face. Again, they were told they were to have a bell of extraordinary power for the Clock Tower. That bell they had got, and a high-sounding name they had given to it, but the public did not know whether its tones were likely to realize the expectations held out respecting them, for the bell had not been raised to its position in the tower.

MR. PALK

said, his right hon. Friend (Sir B. Hall) seemed to speak with doubt as to his power over the expenditure of Sir Charles Barry. He (Mr. Palk) imagined that Sir Charles Barry was employed by that House; that the Government were answerable for the works undertaken by him and the expenditure upon those works, and that there could be no difficulty whatever in restraining him from any works which were not likely to be sanctioned by a vote of the House. He would also call attention to the fact, that while the first item in the estimate was £20,300 for the Victoria and Clock towers, further down there were two items—one of £300 and another of £6,000—on account of the Clock tower. He should, therefore, wish to know why one sum had been placed at the top and two other sums lower down?

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he could restrain Sir Charles Barry so far as regarded new works, though the difficulty of restraining an architect must have been practically felt by any Gentleman who had ever employed one. What he (Sir B. Hall) hoped was that if the House of Commons should hereafter sanction any new works in the shape of public offices or otherwise, they would make one man responsible for the whole, and have a clear and minute plan, the details of which had previously received the sanction of the House. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Ball) he (Sir B. Ball) might say the clock was going, but unfortunately some years ago a wrong course was taken with respect to it. The bells for the tower ought to have been cast before the clock was made, but it so happened that the clock was made before the bells were cast. One of those bells, as was well known, arrived in London some time ago; the other two had been cast, while two others remained to be cast; but it was thought useless to raise the large bell, which had arrived, to its place until they got the others to accompany it. He trusted that when the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ball) was called on to attend his place in Parliament next Session he would have frequent opportunities of hearing the chimes the absence of which he now lamented. As regarded the items alluded to by the hon. Member for Devonshire (Mr. Palk), he had to state that the Vote of £20,300 at the top of the Estimates was for work done under the direction of Sir C. Barry; while the other two Votes were for the finishing of the clock towers, over which he had no control.

MR. DRUMMOND

said, the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) had complained that the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) had not read a paper which had been circulated with the Estimates, explanatory of the Vote under consideration. He (Mr. Drummond) had read that document, and he found a very extraordinary item in it—namely, a charge made by Sir C. Barry of £1,393 for drawing the designs for the plate, linen, crockery, &c., for the refreshment rooms of the two Houses of Parliament. What on earth could they have been? It was true that the claim had been rejected by the Board of Works when it was first laid before it, and he (Mr. Drummond) had understood that it was the kitchen Committee which had ordered all these things; but was the kitchen Committee going to pay for it? The very mention of such an item was absurd. He saw a gentleman a few days ago to whom he mentioned that charge made by Sir Charles Barry of £1,393, and who thought it a most remarkable thing, for, said the gentleman in question, "I and another person made the drawings in question and got a guinea for our pains." He (Mr. Drummond) thought, however, that Sir Charles Barry had not been justly treated with regard to his remuneration. It appeared to him (Mr. Drummond) that many of the extraordinary bills of which the Committee complained were run up by Sir Charles Barry to eke out by extra charges for commission the remuneration which Parliament refused to allow him. Then there was another item of £14,000 for furniture for the Speaker's house, and his (Mr. Drummond's) apprehension was that that sum would not be sufficient for the purpose, and that they were likely to have the same sum in the Estimates next year. Some one ought to be answerable for this expenditure.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

found an item of £4,500 for the lease of a house in Spring Gardens for the Clerk of the Parliaments. He should have thought an official residence might have been found for Mr. Lefevre in the enormous pile of buildings in which they were assembled. At all events, the item was singularly misplaced in this Vote; it ought to have appeared in the Vote agreed to the other night for public offices.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that Mr. Lefevre had hitherto had a residence in Palace Yard, which was very inconvenient. He agreed with the noble Lord that if any one officer connected with the Houses of Parliament ought to be provided with an official residence in the New Palace at Westminster, it was the Clerk of the Parliaments. He had inquired how it was that no provision had been made for this officer, but he could get no very satisfactory answer. It therefore became necessary to provide an official residence for him elsewhere, and the Vote had been by his direction inserted in the present Estimate, in order that the Committee might see in one Vote everything relative to the expenditure of the two Houses of Parliament. With regard to the furniture for the Speaker's new residence, he had desired an officer of his own department to go over the house and make an estimate. He intended that this work should not be undertaken by Sir Charles Barry, but by his own department, and he would endeavour to carry it out for the estimate.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

recalled attention to the charge of £1,393 for the I designs for plate, linen, &c., for the refreshment rooms. There was an additional charge which made this sum amount to £4,327. On that amount Sir Charles Barry claimed a commission at the rate of four per cent, which came to £173. He (Mr. B. Hope) could not understand that matter.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, when the Board of Works received the claim in question they could not admit its validity, inasmuch as the first claim on that account was not ordered by that Board.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

then understood that the per centage was claimed by Sir Charles Barry for superintending the drawing of these designs.

MR. WILSON

said, the sum of £1,393 was not the cost of the designs, but the cost of the articles themselves; it was upon that Sir Charles Barry claimed his commission.

MR. BRISCOE

said, he must protest against the extravagant expenditure upon the new Houses of Parliament. The original sum proposed for building these Houses was £250,000. This estimate soon rose to £760,000, and then reached £1,000,000. There was even now no assurance that the sum of £50,000 to be voted this year would be the last expense. The original sum of £250,000 had risen until the money actually expended very much exceeded £2,000,000, and it was time to require a clear and distinct statement from Sir Charles Barry as to the future expenditure. At present Sir Charles seemed to set the House at defiance. After this experience he had viewed with no inconsiderable alarm the exhibition in Westminster Hall of designs for public offices, and he wished to know what expenditure they were likely to involve. The estimate of the proposed expenditure was £5,000.000, and if they were to judge by their experience of the outlay on the Houses of Parliament the actual cost would exceed £13,000,000. He, therefore, hoped that the House would be warned by the past, and not blindly give its confidence where it was not deserved.

MR. SPOONER

said, he wished for further explanation as to the sum of £1,393 already referred to—whether it was for designs or for the articles themselves?

MR. WILSON

said, that the item of £1,393 was not for designs at all, but for the whole of the articles themselves which are specified under this head.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he had been anxious on a previous occasion to learn how far the Estimate of £284,000 for completing the new palace was likely to be exceeded, and he now understood the excess on the present Vote to be about £20,000. He wished to strengthen the hands of the First Commissioner of Works, not to weaken them, and therefore he should move that this Vote be reduced to the sum of £20,000. His object was to require another Estimate to be submitted to the House for these works, which should be final.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he hoped the hon. Baronet would not press his Amendment. He (Sir B. Hall) had written to Sir Charles Barry, requesting to be furnished with all the particulars relating to the extra expenditure beyond the £284,000, which he stated in 1854 would be requisite to finish the new palace. Great inconvenience might arise if the sum were now reduced; but before the present Session terminated he certainly hoped he would be able to lay before the House a detailed Estimate of everything required to complete the works according to the plans which had been sanctioned. He could only repeat the assurance he had previously given that he would not, directly or indirectly, authorize any expenditure beyond that which had been sanctioned by Parliament.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON

said, he trusted, after what had fallen from the First Commissioner of Works, that the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) would not press his Amendment. Before that explanation was made, however, he (Lord C. Hamilton) had himself been inclined to support the Amendment, viewing it in the light of a vote of confidence in the First Commissioner of Works, who ought to be armed with the power of keeping Sir Charles Barry within some bounds. It was very difficult at any time to control an architect; but those who had watched Sir Charles Barry's career for the last eighteen years must have observed that he exceeded, in his ingenuity in devising extra charges, every other member of his profession. Some further explanation was needed as to the sum of £23,000 for Sir Charles Barry, and also as to the next item of £5,000. Last year the total sum stated to be due to that gentleman was £60,000, and it was therefore difficult to understand how this £23,000 had suddenly become payable to him. If that House had exercised a proper vigilance over this expenditure £500,000 might easily have been saved, and probably a far better building provided for the purposes of the nation. They ought to assist the First Commissioner of Works in his laudable determination to exact accurate estimates and specifications. Much of the money required for commission was composed by charges for works which were found unsuited for their object, and had to be pulled down again. No architect ought to be suffered to charge for his own mistakes and want of foresight. Hon. Members might not be aware of the many successive transformations that the chamber in which they now sat had undergone. In the first place, the floor had to be lengthened; then the benches had to be altered, as they had been placed so close that hon. Members could not sit down; next, the galleries for Members had to be changed, the strangers' gallery and the reporters' gallery had likewise to be remodelled; the long lancet-shaped windows at first introduced were also found ill-adapted to the character of the House, and had to be all altered; the arrangements for ventilation had been the subject of numerous changes; and, last of all, it being discovered that nobody could hear in the House, the roof had to be entirely altered. What private firm that carried on its affairs with anything like ordinary prudence would allow an architect to play this game with them, and not even require him to state the expense incurred by such innumerable changes? Before they removed to that House they had a chamber in which they could hear one another, and which was well ventilated. He (Lord C. Hamilton) had once asked Sir William Molesworth to exemplify the system in which Sir Charles Barry had been permitted to run riot, and produce accounts showing the cost of these alterations; but that lamented statesman replied that it was totally impossible to procure the required figures, so dire was the confusion in which the whole matter was involved. He (Lord C. Hamilton) wished to have some explanation of the item of £23,000 for Sir Charles Barry in this Vote.

MR. BARROW

said, he concurred in the opinion which had been expressed that the House itself was chiefly to blame for a great part of the expenditure. He doubted, moreover, whether the power of the First Commissioner of Works was sufficient to control the architect of the new Palace, and he thought the Committee would do wrong if it refused to accede to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) for stopping a portion of this Vote until they were furnished with better information.

MR. BRISCOE

said, he also hoped the Amendment would be persevered with. He should vote for it, not from any want of confidence in the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Board of Works, but in order to get the Estimate they wanted.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

would give an earnest support to the hon. Baronet's Amendment; but he desired at the same time to say that the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) was the only First Commissioner of Public Works who had attempted to put any sort of check upon the proceedings of Sir Charles Barry. Some steps ought to be taken to stop the extravagant expenditure which had been going on from year to year in the construction of the Houses of Parliament. As he presumed that the greater portion of the £4,000 which was now asked for, in addition to the £16,000 already voted for decorative works in the Palace at Westminster, would be expended in the erection of statues of men eminent in former days, he wished to be informed by the right hon. Baronet whether any provision had been made for bringing into public remembrance the most illustrious man this country ever produced—namely, the Protector Cromwell. Nothing had yet been done by this country in memory of his great character, but he would live in history. The time would come when his merits would be known. It would be a disgrace to the present generation if it did not produce something worthy of his great name.

MR. P. W. MARTIN

said, that while he admitted the necessity of some understanding being arrived at with respect to the subject alluded to by the hon. Member for Evesham, he deprecated any vote which would have the effect of placing hon. Members in the ridiculous position of having commenced the building of a house which they could not complete.

MR. WILSON

said, that after the question of Sir C. Barry's remuneration had been disputed for many years, Lord Besborough, the then First Commissioner of Works, fixed the remuneration at £25,000 upon an original expenditure of £750,000, which remuneration was £10,000 less than if it had been at the rate of 5 per cent on the expenditure. In the course of time, and under successive Governments, considerable additions were made to the original design as well as extensive alterations; and, from time to time, Sir C. Barry received advances on account of such additions and alterations. In 1853, however, when it was thought right to put an end to those payments on account, and to fix a definite principle upon which Sir C. Barry should be rewarded, it was determined that, in addition to the £25,000 on the original estimate, he should be paid at the rate of 3 per cent on the increased expenditure. Hon. Members were aware that Sir Charles Barry remonstrated against that decision, and still persisted in claiming 5 per cent, according to the usual scale of architects; but the Government resisted his claim, and they were supported by the House in that resistance. When his account came to be settled last year he put in a claim for a large outlay for the measurement of the works, not included in the charge for the building. It was ultimately agreed, with the advice of the Board of Works, that he should be paid at the rate of 4 per cent instead of 3 per cent, in order that the additional 1 per cent might remunerate him for those measurements. When the account came to be settled it was found that the claim of Sir Charles Barry was £23,000. This was the £23,000 now under discussion, and the other sum of £5,400 was for his services in the ventilation and lighting of both Houses and other matters.

MR. MALINS

wished to remind the Committee that Sir Charles Barry laboured under the disadvantage of not being permitted to reply to the attacks which had been made upon him with reference to the building of the Houses of Parliament. As there were two sides to every story, he had no doubt that Sir Charles Barry could show that not he, but the House itself, was answerable for most of the alterations that had been made in the original plan. Everybody knew that 5 per cent upon the outlay was the remuneration paid to an architect in the absence of a special contract, and as no contract had been entered into between Sir Charles Barry and the Government, he was entitled to 5 per cent upon the money expended in the construction of the Houses of Parliament. It was no doubt true that less than 5 per cent had been forced upon him, but he always protested against any reduction of his claim. As, then, there was a dispute between the Government and Sir Charles Barry, why should it not he referred to indifferent persons for settlement? The Reform Club had been erected by Sir Charles Barry; the same question arose as to his remuneration; it was referred to arbitration, and Mr. Justice Erle, then at the Bar, awarded him 5 per cent. Sir Charles Barry had received £58,000 for twenty years' services, and, considering the abilities of Sir Charles and his eminence as an architect, this was not a very astonishing sum. But he (Mr. Malins) had received an assurance from Sir Charles that out of this sum, contrary to the usage of architects, he had had to pay from his own pocket a large amount of money for expenses thrown upon him by this House. The committee would therefore see that Sir Charles Barry had not received perfect justice. He had made no contract; the Government sought to impose their own terms upon him; and because they were more powerful than he they expected him to submit. He (Mr. Malins) contended that the Government was no more justified than an individual would be in imposing their own terms on Sir Charles. The case ought to be submitted to some impartial tribunal—either to a court of law or to arbitrators.

MR. SPOONER

said, the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) had stated that great inconvenience would arise if these Estimates were cut down. Would the right hon. Gentleman state what particular form this inconvenience would assume, and whether it would leave any buildings unfinished?

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

replied, that no new work of any magnitude, and not sanctioned by Parliament, had been undertaken with his sanction; but inconvenience would, of course, result if the Amendment were carried as regarded those buildings now in course of completion.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that Sir Charles Barry agreed to build the Houses for a certain sum of money; he deviated from his plan, and then sought to charge 5 per cent upon all the extra work. Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £82,861, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge for Works and Expenses at the New Houses of Parliament, to the 31st day of March 1858.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 175: Majority 110.

MR. KIRK

said, he wished to direct the attention of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works to the decay which was apparent in the stones of the new Houses, and which was particularly to be remarked in the mouldings and ornamental front of the river terrace. Unless some means were adopted for preserving the stone the Houses would be in a great measure decayed before they were completed.

MR. HENLEY

said, that it was evident, even upon a casual inspection, that the stone was going to pieces in all directions. He had observed, also, something which appeared to him to be very like the rusting of iron in the roof. He hoped he was mistaken in these indications; but if he were not they did not argue much for the future permanence of the building.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he was sorry to say that the right hon. Gentleman was not mistaken in his view of the case; for he had made inquiries some months ago as to the state of the roof, and he found on examination that the galvanized process had ceased to act, and that the rust was coming through, as was almost invariably the case where galvanized iron had been used for structures which were not of a temporary character. All that they could do now would be to cover it over with some chemical preparation, with the view of preventing further mischief; but he was sorry to say that the rust certainly was showing itself in different parts of the roof. His attention had also been drawn to some of the stone, which was decaying in certain places, and some chemical processes had been tried for the purpose of preserving it; but it would be years before the full success of the experiments could be tested.

MR. HENLEY

asked whether something could not be done to prevent the rusting of the iron in those parts of the roof where it had not yet begun; because it would be much more difficult to stop it after, it had once shown itself than to prevent it in the first instance.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that he was in constant communication with persons upon the subject, but that it was very difficult to determine what measures would prevent the extension of the evil.

MR. KIRK

observed that it said very little for the state of architectural science in this country, if some means could not he devised for preventing the decay and defacement of the stones of the river terrace.

MR. WISE

asked if the First Commissioner of the Board of Works had any objection to lay upon the table an account of the whole sums expended for the Houses of Parliament. He really was not able to say whether it was £2,500,000 £3,000,000. A short return showing the gross amount and various items would be extremely useful?

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that he proposed to lay upon the table the estimate of Sir Charles Barry for the thorough completion of the Houses of Parliament and he should at the same time lay upon the table an account of the cost from the commencement to the present time.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

asked if it were intended to abandon the galvanized iron roof, and to substitute a lead roof for it.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that had not been determined on; for to remove the covering of the roof of that immense building would involve a frightful expenditure; but his impression was that galvanized iron ought never to have been employed as a roofing for the Houses of Parliament.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(2.) £443, Port Patrick Harbour.

MR. LIDDELL

asked whether a return of the estimated expenses of the large works necessary for the completion of the enormous harbour at Dovor, moved for by an hon. Member recently, would soon be laid on the table?

MR. WILSON

replied that the present Vote was for the keeping up of this harbour, and not for general works; the proper time to put the question was when the general Vote for harbours was under discussion.

MR. HENLEY

gave notice, that on that occasion he should call the attention of the Committee to the expenses of Dovor Harbour in reference to its basins.

Vote agreed to. (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £77,657, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of repairing and maintaining the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, to the 31st day of March 1858.

MR. COWAN

said, he wished to call attention to the item of £17,014 required for the execution of works recommended by the Commissioners at certain lunatic asylums in Ireland. He wished to know whether Scotland was to be put on the same footing as Ireland in this respect? Then, again, there was a large sum of money intended to be applied to the erection of a court for the Incumbered Estates Commission. He understood that the labours of the Commissioners were now nearly closed, therefore it was rather late in the day to propose such a Vote as this. Another item to which he objected was that of £1,102, required for alterations in the House of Industry in Dublin. Had Government, he asked, taken upon itself to become responsible for the support of charitable institutions in Dublin; and if so, were they about to be as liberal to Edinburgh, or any other town in Scotland?

MR. MOWBRAY

said, he was at a loss to know why 5 per cent upon the items in this Vote should be charged for contingencies. Why was it that these Irish Estimates could not be made out as clearly and regularly as any others? He should be glad also to know how much of the £1,000 to be expended in repairs of model agricultural schools was to be given to the Albert Training Institution at Glasnevin. He believed that the works there were most costly, and would absorb the greater part of the money, to the detriment of the other institutions.

MB. W. WILLIAMS

inquired why it was that the whole item of £10,500 for the erection, maintenance, and repairs of the offices and schools belonging to the Commissioners of National Education was not included in the Vote for education? He objected to these separate items, which all belonged to one class, being spread through the Votes in such a manner that it was almost impossible to tell to what department they belonged. He also objected to the large sums he saw put down for guard-houses and stables in connection with "the mock royalty" in Ireland; but, as a Motion to abolish the Viceroyalty was pending, he would not go into that at present further than to express his belief that, if there were no Viceroy, the Queen would, in all probability, visit Ireland oftener, and stay such a period as could not fail to be satisfactory to her Irish subjects. He also objected to the item for lunatic asylums. In England lunatic asylums were supported out of the county rate, and he did not see why Ireland should be exempted from discharging the same duty.

MR. BAGWELL

said, with respect to the lunatic asylums in Ireland, that the Irish people paid for them by repaying the money advanced by the Government.

MR. WILSON

said that, in consequence of a flaw in an Act of Parliament, the sum advanced by Government, amounting to nearly £200,000, for lunatic asylums in Ireland, was in considerable jeopardy. An Act of Parliament was brought in to correct that flaw; but several Irish Member objected, and said, "We do not object to pay our just debts, with regard to the erection of these buildings, but we have a claim in consequence of the bad manner in which these buildings have been erected." A Commission was therefore appointed to visit all the asylums, and that Commission reported that £17,000 should be expended by the Government in completing works which ought to have been completed before. The cost for the erection of the asylums was defrayed in the first instance by the Government, but was now being repaid by the counties in Ireland. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan) thought that if the charitable institutions of Dublin were supported by the Government, those of Edinburgh ought to be supported in the same way; but, with respect to the Dublin hospitals, it was the House, and not the Government that was responsible for the expenditure. The Government were overruled by the House, and were obliged to bow to the decision of the House; but the House had not determined that the same thing should take place in Edinburgh. With respect to the question which had been put respecting the item of 5 per cent for contingencies, he observed that the charge for preliminary expenses and remuneration of architects might have been included in the gross sum, but that the separation of it made no difference in the amount. With respect to the charge for building offices, and offices for the Board of National Education in Ireland, this was the first time it had appeared under the present head; and the reason why it was now included under this head was, that it was much more economical to have the works of different departments executed under the responsibility of the Board of Works for Ireland than by each separate department. There were further charges for the maintenance of fever hospitals in Ireland, and he would suggest that the whole cost of hospitals should be included in one Vote.

MR. COWAN

asked whether the estimate of £17,000 for works in connection with lunatic asylums, recommended by the special Commissioners of Inquiry, would complete the claim upon the Exchequer in respect of those asylums? He also wished to know why it was proposed to expend £10,000 in providing a court and offices for the Commissioners for the Sale of Incumbered Estates, when the labours of those gentlemen were approaching their termination. He should, therefore, move the reduction of the Vote by £1,102 10s., the sum required for repairs to the hospitals of the House of Industry, Dublin. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £76,455, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of repairing and maintaining the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, to the 31st day of March 1858.

MR. WILSON

stated that the estimate of £17,000 for lunatic asylums was the final charge that would be made upon the Government for works which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, ought to have been included in the original estimate. He was glad to inform the Committee that the outlay of £200,000 for these asylums was in course of regular repayment. With regard to the Vote for the erection of offices for the Incumbered Estates Commissioners, his hon. Friend must be aware, from the discussion which had taken place in that House, that the Commissioners did not at present possess even decent accommodation. His hon. Friend was mistaken if he supposed that the functions of those useful tribunals—the Incumbered Estates Courts—would cease, although the Commission itself might do so. The Government had pledged themselves last year to erect buildings for conducting the business of the Commission, in the immediate neighbourhood of the Four Courts at Dublin, and in pursuance of that pledge the Committee were asked to sanction this Vote. With regard to the repair of hospitals, the House had already committed itself to a certain extent to the maintenance of those establishments, and he thought they would not, by a side wind, avoid the responsibility they had undertaken, and reject this Vote.

MR. BAGWELL

was understood to say that the Vote of £17,000 for lunatic asylums was not regarded in Ireland as a final contribution for that object.

In reply to Mr. ADAMS,

MR. WILSON

said that the Vote of £1,102 for the hospitals of the House of Industry was for the purpose of completing the repairs necessary to give effect to the Act of last Session.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

The following Votes were then agreed to:—

• (4.) £15,100, Kingstown Harbour.
• (5.) £87,967, Houses of Parliament.
• (6.) £35,171, Treasury.
• (7.) £16,466, Home Department.
• (8.) £45,169, Foreign Office.
• (9.) £20,160, Colonial Office.
• (10.) £46,426, Privy Council, &c.
• (11.) £1,700, Lord Privy Seal.
• (12.) £11,510, Paymaster General.
168
• (13). £4,218, Exchequer.
• (14.) £18,614, Works and Buildings.

(15.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £15,145, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, to the 31st day of March 1858.

MR. CAIRD

said, that he rose pursuant to notice, to move that this Vote be reduced to the same amount as was granted last year. Although the actual amount of this vote was small the department for which it was taken was entrusted with the management of a revenue which represented a capital sum of not less than £12,000,000 sterling. The sum which was brought under the criticism of Parliament was only one fifth part of the money expended on the Woods and Forests; and it was a remarkable circumstance that while daring four years that portion of the expenditure which was annually brought under the criticism of Parliament had increased £1,000 a year, the part which was not brought under the criticism of Parliament had increased by £27,000 a year. The gross average receipts of the whole hereditary revenues of the Crown under the management of this department amounted to £390,000 a year, and during the last year the gross expenditure in the collection and management of that sum, including the usual expenditure on landed estates, such as that for buildings and improvements, was £130,000 or not less than 33 per cent on the total amount of revenue received. Now he believed that everybody who was acquainted with the business which devolved on the owner of landed property must perceive that that was an extravagant charge for its management. Since 1852 the gross hereditary revenues of the Crown had increased very considerably. From the sum of £376,800, to which they amounted in 1852, they had risen in 1856 to £404,500 showing an increase of upwards of £27,500, and yet there was actually paid over a balance to the credit of the Exchequer less by £2,000 than there was in 1853. This department included two branches of property. The more profitable to the public was that included in the Land Revenue Department, which embraced a description of property that during the last few years had greatly increased in value in this country, including land in several counties in England and building sites in the metropolis. Many building leases would soon expire and a great increase of revenue might reasonably be expected from that source, but he had to complain that there was no definite information accessible to Members of Parliament by which they could ascertain or criticise the gradual or probable advantages which this property might be supposed to realize under good management. He was therefore precluded from obtaining any information which could throw light on this subject, and therefore he should confine his attention to the second branch of the Woods and Forests. He found that last year the Forest Department realized £64,800, and that the cost of collection and management was £45,500, leaving, therefore, £19,300 as the revenue from 120,000 acres of land. He might be told that 20,000 of these were composed of land of a very inferior quality, but, taking the acreage at 100,000, as the total amount of profit was £19,300, those 100,000 acres might be said to have realized something less than 3s. 10d. an acre. Since the retirement from the chief office in that department of Mr. Kennedy, one of the most active and honourable men ever employed in the service of any country, inquiries had been instituted into this subject, and improvements had been contemplated which did not seem to have been yet carried into effect. The public had, in fact, never derived the advantages they might reasonably have expected from the Woods and Forests, and in the time of Nelson and ever since, complaints had been made of the small quantity of timber which they supplied for the Royal navy. For what was the extent to which the Royal Forests supplied our dockyards with timber? Why, of £550,000 worth of timber bought annually for use in our dockyards the Royal forests did not supply l–50th part. The fact was that our ships were not built of British oak. The best oak came from the Continent—from Italy, and from the forests of Central Europe. It was no longer held a matter of importance to make ourselves independent of a foreign supply of any article; but in a country like this, with a limited territory and an increasing population, it was impossible that a crop, which required 150 years to bring it to maturity, could ever be a profitable one. He had no hesitation in saying that, considering the facilities by land and sea which now existed for importing timber from abroad we might be wholly independent of our Royal forests for the necessary supply. In 1852 the office ceased to be an independent department of the Government, and an Act of Parliament was passed which placed it under the Treasury, so that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests could not even complete a lease without the sanction of the Treasury. There was therefore no occasion to keep up an expensive department, and there seemed no reason why the whole of the management of the Woods and Forests should not be carried on at an expense of £4,000 or £5,000 a year. When the change was made in 1852 the intention was that instead of two Commissioners one Commissioner should be appointed as Surveyor General, who should have under him a special officer in the nature of an inspector. He did not object to the appointment of a mineral inspector, but he did object to his salary of £800, in addition to the salaries of the two Commissioners, as this was the very officer whose appointment was contemplated by the arrangement to which he had referred. He also objected to the amount of the legal expenses of the department. The legal expenses were 1¾ per cent upon the gross revenue for England ¾ per cent for Ireland, and no less than 10 per cent for Scotland. He could not understand why so large a percentage should be incurred for law expenses in Scotland. The charges of the Scotch solicitor had gradually increased from £1,000 to £2,300 in the present year, which, with the addition of some other legal expenses, made a total of about £2,600 for law expenses in Scotland. His belief was that if the hereditary estates of the Crown were managed with the same prudence as private property, the net income of these estates would be equal to the amount of the Civil List. As guardians of the public purse, and trustees for the Queen, the House were bound to investigate this subject. The gross income derived from these sources was £410,000, and if the charge for management were reduced to 15 per cent, and if the income could be increased by 10 per cent, the clear net revenue would be quite equal to the whole amount paid over to Her Majesty in the Civil List. The Forest of Hainault in Essex four years ago yielded nothing, but by a new system of management, instituted by Mr. Kennedy, this forest now yielded a revenue of £2,500 a year. Some of the Crown estates were of very little value either for growing timber or as arable land, but there were purposes to which they might be applied, and he was surprised to hear the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), assert, in speaking of Aldershot the other night, that there were very few spaces of open land which could now be procured for the evolutions of troops and the purposes of a camp. Woolmer Forest, for example, offered a much larger space than Aldershot. It was within a few miles of that place, a royal forest containing 6,000 acres untimbered, and yielding almost nothing to the public, but which was traversed by the direct road from the metropolis to Portsmouth, and skirted by a railway. The ground was finely undulated, and from his own observation, he could state that it was better supplied with water than Aldershot, and was well adapted for a camp. The Government had given £14 an acre for Aldershot, and though they said they could now sell it for a higher price, he doubted whether they could get more than that money for it if the camp were withdrawn. Woolmer Forest was valued for sale not long ago by the Crown Surveyor at £3 or £4: an acre, so that if the Government had fixed upon this, their own property, as the site for the camp they would have saved a great deal of money and very much increased the value of the adjoining land. Again, the New Forest in Hampshire, another Crown property, contained 65,000 acres, of which 30,000 acres were open unoccupied land. It was traversed by a railway, and was within a short march from Portsmouth. If the Government had established their camp there they would have had many applications for leases, and would have raised the value of property which belonged to the nation. The noble Lord had chivalrously taken upon himself the responsibility for the purchase of Aldershot, but he could not have made choice of the ground, and the Crown surveyors ought to have known the capabilities of these Crown estates and the advantages which would have been derived from selecting them. He objected to any increase in the amount payable to this department, believing that the former charge was ample. He trusted that he should have the support, not only of hon. Members who sat around him, but of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford), who had taunted hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side with not performing the pledges of economy they had made on the hustings. He hoped he should also have the support of the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Wilson), who had blamed Parliament the other night for voting away the public money. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,481, being the excess over the Vote of last year.

MR. WILSON

said, he could not have supposed, from the notice given by the hon. Member, that he intended to raise so large a question upon a Vote for the civil expenses of an office in London. The subject was, no doubt, well deserving of consideration, and he only wished the hon. Gentleman had indicated by his notice that he intended to raise the question of the policy of the management of these estates; for then he would have been prepared to follow him into the details. He entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman in the high estimate he had formed of the qualifications of Mr. Kennedy. With regard to the gentleman appointed Chief Mineral Inspector, he would observe that he had been selected by Mr. Kennedy, although he had been appointed by that gentleman's successor. In the Forest of Dean, and upon other Crown estates, there was mineral property the value of which was undeveloped, and it would be the duty of the Chief Mineral Inspector to turn the mineral resources of the Crown estates to the best account. The Government thought it necessary to have a competent officer to advise them with regard to the mineral property of the Crown, and Mr. Smith was recommended to them as a person well qualified for the appointment. This was an extensive property, scattered over the whole kingdom, and the Government would hardly have been consulting the interests of the Crown, whose trustees they were, nor the advantage of the public, who were interested in as large a revenue as possible being obtained from this source, if they had not appointed a mineral agent to develope its riches. As far as their experience had gone, the exertions of Mr. Smith had fully borne out the expectations entertained from his selection. Therefore the Committee would scarcely be acting wisely in cutting off the salary of £800 a year paid to an able and efficient officer charged with all the delicate operations connected with ascertaining the value of, and letting, the whole mineral property of the Crown, consisting of coal, iron, and copper mines. It was manifestly impossible that the Treasury officers could discharge duties of so highly technical and purely professional a nature. Moreover, looking at the scale of remu- neration, paid by private proprietors for analogous services, the salary allowed to Mr. Smith was anything but extravagant. It was to be hoped, then, that the hon. Member would not divide the Committee against so obviously useful an expenditure. As to the largeness of the sum required for law charges, it was entirely owing to accidental circumstances. Several heavy cases involving the Royal prerogative had been taken to the House of Lords on appeal from the Scotch Courts, and were now on the point of being brought to a conclusion. Questions of principle affecting the right of the Crown to its whole property having been at issue in these actions, this litigation could not well have been avoided. This item, however, was merely an estimate for the liquidation of unusual charges. The hon. Gentleman had also animadverted on the great differences between the gross and the net income of the Crown property. With regard to the forests, no one knew better than the hon. Member that the cost of management of such property must bear a large proportion to the receipts. A large portion of the difference to which the hon. Member had referred was to be attributed to the necessity of incurring a large outlay in thinning the trees, and in other works connected with the improvement of the property. The case of the Forest of Hainault was a striking example of the reproductiveness of a judicious outlay of capital. Only four or five years ago, it was covered with timber of no value whatever, but now it was let for £2,500 a year to one of the most improving tenants in this country. A heavy expense had, however, to be first incurred in drainage and other works before such results could be realized. Hardly a year passed but it became his duty to introduce a Bill for the disafforestation of these Crown forests, and the expenditure required for bringing the land into a profitable condition accounted, to a great extent, for the large percentage of the income which was absorbed by the cost of management. This was all the explanation it was at that moment in his power to offer in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Dartmouth. As to the immediate object of this Motion, it resolved itself simply into a refusal of the salary of the mineral agent, together with the law charges for certain heavy suits now on the eve of settlement.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, he thought the Secretary for the Treasury had not dealt quite fairly with this Motion. The country was indebted to the hon. Member (Mr. Caird) for the able manner in which he had brought forward this subject. Other hon. Gentlemen who used to devote their attention to this department had gradually become absorbed into the bench below (the Ministry) and the House had consequently lost the advantage of their special knowledge. The hon. Member did not object to a mineral agent, but merely suggested that, by abolishing one of the other offices, the means of paying that gentleman might be found without necessitating additional expense. Therefore, the whole of the Secretary for the Treasury's elaborate argument fell to the ground. If only five years had been required to obtain so great a return from the Forest of Hainault, why was not so fruitful an outlay made long before? The Committee which had inquired into this department had proved that its affairs were greatly mismanaged.

MR. WILSON

explained that, without a Commissioner in London, the business of this department could not be satisfactorily conducted.

MR. WISE

said, that while he agreed in other respects with the hon. Member for Dartmouth (Mr. Caird), yet he differed entirely from him as to the item on which he proposed to take the sense of the House. As to the alleged efficiency of this department the documents on the table of the House failed to establish it. Having regard to the various inquiries which had been instituted on this subject, and to the alteration of system which took place in 1852 in the Board of Woods and Forests, much greater changes and improvements than any that had yet occurred might have been expected. He should be glad to see the two Commissioners succeeded by a surveyor and a deputy surveyor who thoroughly understood the deputies of their offices. This was a more important subject than at first sight it appeared to be, for if the Woods and Forests belonging to the Crown were properly managed he believed that they might be made to yield a rental of £600,000 a year, or £200,000 in excess of the civil list. He gave credit to the Board of Works for having effected a considerable reduction in the expenditure in respect of Crown lands, but in the Woods and Forests Department there was still that extravagant expenditure of which complaint had been so frequently made. Every one who knew any- thing thing of woods and forests would admit that the Crown woods and forests were the worst managed property to be found anywhere. In the department of the Board of Works, the revenue for four years ending in 1852 was £1,216,559, and the expenditure £364,977; the revenue of the same department for the four years ending in 1856 was £1,256,407, and the expenditure £244,762, showing a considerable reduction of expenditure. But what was the case when he turned to the department of Woods and Forests? The revenue there for the four years ending in 1852 was £186,517, and the expenditure £188,101. For the four years ending in 1856, the revenue was £307,487, and the expenditure £245,470. In fact, the revenue and expenditure accounts of the Woods and Forests beat everything which he had ever heard in that way. From the year 1803 to 1856 the receipts of the Woods and Forests were £2,326,546, and the expenditure £1,861,023, leaving a miserable balance on so large an income. The New Forest was valued by Mr. Webster, a competent man, at £2,334,507. Its receipts for five years were £121,963, and its expenditure £74,848. The receipts for one year from the Forest of Dean were £4,501, and the expenditure was £1,195. He had said that he did not object to the appointment of a mineral inspector, but he did object to a deputy gavaller for this forest at a salary of £400 a year; and what could they think too of an expenditure of £200 for gamekeepers in such a forest! He hoped that the Treasury, which had now a partial control over this Crown property, would exercise more vigilance in order to check extravagant expenditure. He wished that the Treasury had complete control over the woods and forests of the Crown, in order that the produce might be paid into the national Exchequer. As an instance of the present management he might mention the case of the forest of Whittle, the produce of which was only £41 1s. 9d. while the expenditure was £303 19s. 2d. He was afraid, too, that the exchange of lands was not always made for the benefit of the Crown, for if he was correctly informed they had given land in Downing Street worth £123,000, for land in New Oxford Street, worth £120,000—a part of the town which did not appear to be so valuable that the Crown should buy lands there. To use an expression of "old Arthur Young," the Crown woods and forests appeared to be maintained merely to afford excuses for paying salaries. They produced anything but oak.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, that he also thought the question one which it was important for the Committee to consider. Some years ago the present Duke of Somerset, then First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, consented to subject the accounts of the Board to an audit; but he (Sir H. Willoughby) thought the House ought not to be satisfied until the affairs of that department were submitted, like those of every other department of the State, in detailed estimates to the House. The receipts of Windsor Park last year were £5,000, the expenditure £16,000. He should not go through all the items of the Windsor Park expenditure, for the gross results were quite sufficient to show the necessity for a change in the present system. He also wished to inquire whether the accounts of the department had been audited up to the 31st March last, as it had been said that the Woods and Forests Commissioners were so contumacious, that it was difficult to get them to bring their accounts before the Audit Board. Were they so still? He trusted that the Government would give some information to the Committee on this matter, and also state what was the objection to these accounts being made matter of estimate.

MR BRISCOE

said, if it had been proposed to appoint a Committee of inquiry into the whole management of the Crown property he could not have refused his assent to such a Motion; but he could not give his vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Caird). It was admitted generally that the office of mineral inspector ought to be retained, and he did not therefore see upon what plea the Committee could be asked to vote for striking out the salary of £800.

MR. WILSON

stated, in answer to the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) that, as far as he knew, there was no question between the Audit Board and the office now under discussion; on the contrary, he believed the audit had been most satisfactory. As to the proposal of the hon. Baronet that the expenditure he referred to should come before the House of Commons in the shape of estimates, he could not say that the Government had come to any conclusion yet on this subject. No doubt some of the expenses might be estimated, but from the nature of the property it would be impossible to do this with other portions, or at all events they would be estimated in a very loose manner. The question, however, should receive further consideration.

MR. COWAN

said, he thought that the hon. Member for Dartmouth had done good service to the country in bringing this matter before the House, and that he trusted that the result of the discussion would be the institution of a searching inquiry into the whole management of the woods and forests. The Bill for legal expenses in Scotland was much too large. The privileges of the Crown were often used as a pretext for oppressing the subject; and, in his opinion, the system of giving a solicitor an unlimited power of drawing on the Treasury for money to carry on lawsuits was a direct encouragement to such oppression.

MR. CAIRD

said, in the remarks which he had made he had no intention whatever to find fault with the appointment of the mineral inspector, but he must say that the expenses of the whole department were far greater than was necessary. With regard to the legal expenses, he thought it would be much better to place the solicitor in Scotland on the same footing as the solicitor in England, and pay him by salary. In the time of James the Second, the forests yielded a larger supply of timber than they did at the present time. Crops that would not arrive at maturity in less than 150 years were not proper crops for cultivation in this country, particularly when timber could be obtained at a cheaper rate from other sources.

MR. STEUART

observed, that there was no doubt great mineral wealth in the possessions of the Crown, and that a mineral inspector therefore was an officer who might prove extremely useful. He Mr. Steuart, was well acquainted with some parts of the New Forest, and believed they might be let in small allotments, or sold with advantage to the public interests. Still, he hoped that the hon. Member for Dartmouth would be content with having brought the subject before the Committee, and that he would not press his Amendment.

Motion made, and Question— That a sum, not exceeding £13,664, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, to the 31st day of March 1858," put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to; as was also the next Vote—

• (16.) £13,876, Public Records.
• (17.) £217,240 Poor Law Commissions.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, that many years ago Lord Althorp promised that when the administration of the Poor Law should be brought into good working order the Commission would be abolished and the department would be attached to the Home Office. However ably the Poor Law Board was presided over at present, it was impossible to deny that it was very unpopular with the country. He wished to know, therefore, whether there was any hope now, after a lapse of nearly twenty-one years, of reducing the great expenditure of the present department, and of arriving at that happy state of things I when the Poor Law Commission might be dispensed with.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that since the period to which the hon. Baronet had referred the subject had been very fully considered by Parliament, and it bad been determined that the Poor Law Board should be represented in that House by a President. Under those circumstances the Act passed by which the present constitution of the Board was established, and he thought that every one must acknowledge that the result had been satisfactory. There had been since that time an officer in Parliament responsible for the management of the Poor Law, who was thoroughly acquainted with all the details of its administration, and who could at once give explanations and answer questions which might be addressed to him, without going to any other department to obtain the requisite information. He thought that the present arrangement afforded a much better administration of the Poor Law than the old system, and it was not proposed, therefore, to abandon it in order to recur to a less satisfactory mode of management.

SIR GEORGE PECHELL

insisted that it was considered, generally, that the action of the Poor Law Board was not satisfactory, but that there was great room for reform. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) was president of that Board the popular feeling which existed against it had become much modified; but the country could not be always sure of having so able a president at the head of that department. It appeared to him (Sir G. Pechell), that the work done by the Board generally was very small, while the salaries to its staff were very large. The Board commenced its Reports with the words "We, the Commissioners," but the Reports were signed by the President only, and they rarely contained anything which was worth knowing or that was not known already. For instance the main feature of the Report of 1856 was a statement that the Commissioners had settled a dispute between the University and the town of Cambridge; and yet for this Board the country was called upon to pay £36,000, just £400 more than last year. He also thought that these Reports ought to be addressed to that House, instead of Her Majesty, the Queen. The Board appeared to have been in hot water with half the unions of the country, the disputes arising out of the most trifling matters. Recently they applied to the guardians of Gateshead for the exact quantity of the suet used in that union to a pound of flour, and the answer of the guardians was a resolution to forward one of the dumplings referred to in the application, to enable the Commissioners to judge for themselves. Again, in another case, that of the guardians of Dudley, the Board held a correspondence and carried on a litigation, extending over many months, about some petty charge of £2 10s. for plum puddings used in the union. There was no end to these cases; but the great evil was the large amount of law charges involved in them, and the House of Commons could not apply its economical principles to a better purpose than reforming this Board.

MR. C. CLIVE

observed, that the law expenses under the old system were far greater than under the present Board. He wished to know what had been done with respect to the retiring allowance of Mr. Richard Hall, one of the Poor Law Inspectors, a most useful public servant, who was now broken in health, and consequently compelled to give up his appointment.

MR. P. W. MARTIN

said, he could not agree with those who condemned the Poor Law Board as extravagant. It might have its faults, as what or who had not, but he considered it to be the only guardian of the helpless poor, whom it protected from the tyranny of the local authorities, and especially in the metropolitan parishes, as the blue-books would show, with respect to the parishes of St. Mary-le-bone, and Pancras.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

observed, he was as anxious to protect the poor from tyranny as any man, but he wished to see it done in a constitutional manner, and by constitutional means. He did not complain of the principle of the Poor Law, but of the heavy expenses connected with its administration.

MR. WILSON

said, that with regard to the question of the hon. Member, he would remind the Committee that the Poor Law Board was originally an experiment, and the officers were appointed at salaries that did not contemplate any retiring allowance or payment to the superannuation fund. Consequently no deduction had been made on this latter account, and the Treasury, in dealing with Mr. Hall's case, had granted him a superannuation allowance subject to a deduction equivalent to what he would have paid had he contributed to the superannuation fund.

MR. C. CLIVE

contended that such an arrangement was not fair to Mr. Hall, who had passed twenty-four years in the service of the Board, and during that period had been one of its most efficient and useful officials. No difficulty could be got over without his assistance—indeed, much of the success of the Board was owing to his exertions, and of all the public servants, he, at least, was the one most entitled to a superannuation allowance beyond a paltry £150 year which appeared to have been granted to him.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that the Poor Law Board in Ireland was much more expensive than that of England. In England there was but one Commissioner, at a salary of £2,000 a year. In Ireland there was a chief Commissioner at a salary of £2,000, and two Commissioners at salaries of £1,200 each. In England there were but forty-four clerks, in Ireland forty-seven. The English Board dealt with upwards of 600 unions, the Irish with but 120 or 130; and the sums expended for the relief of the poor in Ireland were now much less than in England.

MR. KIRK

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that, with regard to Ireland, the Consolidated Fund only bore the expense of the Dublin office; all other expenditure being paid out of the local rates, which was not the case in England. For instance, this Vote included £28,000 for the salaries of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, and £100,000 for medical attendance in Eng- land and Scotland, both of which charges were in Ireland defrayed out of the poor-rates.

MR. HENLEY

said, he must remind the hon. Member of the charge for the constabulary in Ireland. Previous to 1846 I half the charge was paid by the localities, and the other half out of the Consolidated Fund; but, after that year, the whole was thrown upon the Consolidated Fund, Depend upon it, Ireland got her fair share out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

MR. KIRK

said, that the grant referred to was for the benefit of the Irish landlords, who paid but little of the poor-rates, and to whom the second half of the grant was given about the year 1846, as a compensation for the free-trade measures which it was thought would seriously injure them. Instead of being injured, however, they had benefited by these measures.

MR. HENLEY

Then let them show their gratitude for free trade by giving up half the Vote for the constabulary.

MR. GROGAN

said, that the plain fact was, that half the charge for the constabulary of Ireland was originally placed on the Consolidated Fund, because the Government appointed the whole of the officers, and had the entire control of it; but, when it was found a convenient policy to repeal the corn laws and establish free trade, the Minister of the day, Sir R. Peel, being aware that that policy would be injurious to Ireland, thought it right to place on the national Exchequer the remaining half of the charge. As the schoolmasters and half the expense of medical officers were paid in England, it was not just that the same payments were not allowed in Ireland.

Vote agreed to.

• (18.) £36,195, Mint.

MR. CROSS

said, he wished to advert to the Reports of the Commissioners on Decimal Coinage, and to ask whether, as the florin piece had been struck to pave the way to the establishment for a decimal coinage, the Government would take into consideration the expediency of now going one step further, and of introducing into the currency a coin of the value of the hundredth part of a pound sterling, which seemed on all hands to be fixed as the basis of the decimal system?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the Commission appointed to report on the subject of decimal coinage was composed of very able men, who had collected evidence which was embodied in a preliminary Report, and one of the Commissioners (Lord Overstone) had accompanied that Report by a paper, in which, in the form of questions, was set forth a number of matters deserving consideration by those who wished to see an immediate change in the denominations of the coinage. The Commissioners were still prosecuting their inquiries, and it was not the intention of the Government at present to make any alteration in the denominations of the coinage by introducing such coins as cent and mil, the 100th and 1,000th part of a pound sterling. The cent would amount in value to twopence and two-fifths of a penny, and he would answer the question of the hon. Member by asking him another. Would the hon. Member who desired to see the cent introduced have it in silver or in copper? If the coin were in silver, it would be inconveniently small, and if in copper, it would be inconveniently large. Now, the Government would wait the hon. Member's solution of that dilemma before undertaking to issue a cent.

MR. CROSS

said that, if the difficulty stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be considered insuperable, a decimal coinage never could be established, and the Commission might as well be abolished. He, however, did not see the great difficulty. There was already in circulation a threepenny piece, and the difference between that and a piece of the value of twopence and two-fifths of a penny was almost inappreciable. The new coin would not be so small, if the elaborate work which was put upon coins was dispensed with, and the metal beat out.

MR. HEADLAM

thought the course taken by the Commissioners very unsatisfactory, as they recommended neither one thing nor the other, so as to enable the House to deal with the matter. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, assuming the objections to a decimal coinage to be, as he suggested, insuperable, it was desirable to maintain the florin-piece in circulation? The florin-piece would be convenient if a decimal coinage were to be established; but, if not, there would be no advantage in retaining it side by side with the halfcrown.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

thought the course pursued by the Commission was, to a great extent, unsatisfactory to the country. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look to a late Report of one of the Inspectors of Schools, he would see how warmly a decimal system of calculation was advocated. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would again consider the matter, and see that some determination was come to; and he was sorry to perceive cold water thrown on a proposition which, if carried into effect, would be a great boon to the commercial community. He would suggest that the proposed coin should consist of an alloy, and then there would be no difficulties as to its size.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he wished not to be understood as expressing any definite opinion upon the question of decimal coinage generally, which he considered to be referred to the inquiry of a Commission. All that he did was, to answer a specific question put to him by an hon. Member, and after hearing that hon. Member's remarks in reply, he still retained his opinion that a coin of the value of twopence and two-fifths of a penny, of whatever metal composed, never could be a current coin of this country. But let him remark that the advocates of a decimal coinage were by no means unanimous. There were a variety of theories. One school of decimalists started from the pound sterling, as the unit of value, another from the penny. It by no means followed, that the coinage should be based on one coin being the 100th part of a pound. We might have a coin of 10d., and another coin of 100d., and so on, advancing from 1d., and discarding the pound altogether. That was one of the many schemes for the purpose of considering which the Commission had been appointed.

MR. CROSS

said, he had collected from the Reports of the various Committees and Commissions that the pound had really been fixed upon as the basis of the coinage. One step in that direction had been taken by the issue of the florin, and as that had been found to answer so well, his object in questioning the Government was to ascertain whether they had any intention of taking another preliminary step in the same direction, which might probably answer equally well.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

asked, whether any steps had been taken to call in the halfcrown?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that no steps had been taken for that purpose.

Vote agreed to; as was also

(19.) 14,995, Inspectors of Factories, &c.

(20.) 6,054, Queen's Remembrancer (Scotland).

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he wished to ask, what was the nature of the duties of the Queen's Remembrancer?

MR. WILSON

said, that the office of Queen's Remembrancer was one of very great importance, combining some of the duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Board of Inland Revenue in England. The whole of the Scotch payments to the revenue passed through his office.

Vote agreed to. (21.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £6,431, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Salaries for the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to the 31st day of March 1858.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, that this Vote would be one of the items in the bill of indictment which he meant to bring against the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. It was quite clear, from the details of the Estimate, that this was mere spending of money for spending's sake. For instance, there was a gentleman usher, a gentleman of the chambers, four aides-de-camp, and two gentlemen at large charged for. Anything more trumpery than the whole affair of the Viceroyalty of Ireland could scarcely be conceived, and he hoped that this was the last time the Vote would ever come before them.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he would move to reduce the Vote by £1,574, charge for Queen's Plates to be run for in Ireland.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

defended the item, on the ground that it was for a national purpose. All our legislation in this country had been unfavourable to the improvement of the breed of horses. We taxed horses and we taxed carriages, which was, in fact, another tax upon horses, and such plates as these were the only encouragement given to the breed of horses. In all countries which had not such a good breed of horses as ours, great national establishments were kept up at the public expense. Horses in this country had been at a scarcity price, and the foreign dealers got hold of all our best. It was to Ireland that we had to look for horses of all descriptions, and if it had not been for Irish horses in the late war, we should have been very hardly put to it. Looking, therefore, to the great necessity for encouraging the breed of horses, he hoped the Committee would not agree with the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite.

MR. ROEBUCK

remarked, he was astonished to hear from the hon. Baronet that these plates had anything whatever to do with keeping up the breed of horses. Surely, the scarcity price at which the foreign dealers were ready and willing to buy our horses was sufficient of itself for that purpose. This was, in truth, a little remnant of that system of protection which had been done away with in the rest of the empire; and he (Mr. Roebuck) must insist that Ireland had come to a pretty pass, if its prosperity at all depended on this Vote.

MR. MILES

was afraid that the hon. Members for Sheffield and Lambeth did not ride much, or they would know the advantage of having a horse of good blood and able to get through a long day's work. Nobody knew that better than an old fox-hunter like himself. He could assure the Committee that nothing had done more to encourage the breed of horses than plates of this sort, and from what he had heard from foreign dealers, he believed that such encouragement was much wanted abroad. He admitted that this was a remnant of protection, but it was for a good purpose; but the fact was, that owing to our superior breed of horses, we sold at the dearest price, and the Government by this Vote would assist this result as much as possible.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, the argument of the hon. Gentleman was a fox-hunter's argument. The Committee were told that foreigners gave such extravagant prices, that they bought our best horses, and that protection was therefore requisite. If the Vote depended upon that argument, he thought it was doomed.

MR. PALK

remarked that he could not admit that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield was not a good rider, for certainly no man rode his own hobby better or more perseveringly. The hon. and learned Gentleman was an avowed financial reformer, but if this Vote of £1,500 were expunged from the Estimates he would ask the hon. Member what fraction would go into the pocket of any individual in this country? He thought that if the grant of so small a sum tended to improve the breed of horses it was money well spent; but even if, without effecting that object, it kept up a good feeling between Ireland and this country, he considered that, sim- ply upon such a ground, it ought to be continued.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

suggested that if the hon. Member for Lambeth wished to maintain a character for consistency he ought not to divide the Committee upon this question, for some four months ago Parliament had, without a division, voted the sum required for two Queen's plates in Scotland, and he thought the hon. Gentleman would bring a hornet's nest about his ears if he robbed Ireland of a similar privilege.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that last year he divided against the Vote for Queen's plates in Scotland, and he intended now to take the sense of the Committee upon a similar Vote for Ireland. If he was defeated on this occasion, he would nest year divide upon the Vote for the Scotch plates. Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,857, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Salaries for the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to the 31st day of March 1858.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 202: Majority 147.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

The following Votes were also agreed to:—

• (22.) £15,358, Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
• (23.) £5,118, Paymaster of Civil Services in Ireland.
• (24.) £1,783, Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland.
• (25.) £15,997. Board of Public Works in Ireland.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

complained that the number of officers connected with this Board was altogether unnecessary. He especially referred to the number of Commissioners, and the fact that there were two deputy chairmen when one was sufficient.

MR. WILSON

said, the Board of Works in Ireland had very heavy duties to perform. The drainage works alone occupied the attention of two of the Commissioners.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes.

• (26.) £26,575, Auditing of Public Accounts.
• (27.) £11,753, Copyhold, Inclosure and Tithe Commission.
• (28.) £8,130, Inclosure, and Drainage Acts.
• (29.) £26,300, General Register Office.
187
• (30.) £2,432, General Register Office, Dublin.
• (31.) £4,085, Registrar General, Edinburgh.
• (32.) £8,921, National Debt Office.
• (33.) £1,805, Public Works Loan Commissioners.
• (34.) £1,170, West India Islands Relief Commissioners.
• (35.) £1,320, Commissioners in Lunacy.
• (36.) £684, County Roads, South Wales.
• (37.) £1,659, Registrars of Friendly Societies.
• (38.) £22,000, Secret Services.
• (39.) £300,745, Stationery, Printing,&c.

MR. W. EWART

said, he wished to make a suggestion with respect to the expense of printing incurred by the House. It was an indisputable fact that a great many Returns were ordered to be printed on the Motion of Members of the House, parts of which, and in some cases the whole, might already be found in Returns already granted. Some supervision over this department of the public expenditure was therefore highly necessary; and he would suggest that before an hon. Member moved for a Return he should confer with the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, which had been organized for the express purpose of collecting and arranging the statistics of the country, in order to see whether or not the Return he desired to have was one which could be furnished by that department.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, the expenditure for printing and stationery was enormous, and he was afraid it was one over which the House had at present very little check. The check must be applied by the Treasury. In 1848 the Treasury set to work and laid down certain checks, with a view to lessen this branch of the public expenditure, and in the course of four years they reduced it by about £80,000. The war came, however, and then the expenditure for printing and stationery was, of course, greatly augmented; and even now it was double what it was in 1852. He thought, now that there had been a return of peace, it was high time that effective measures were taken to reduce this department of the public expenditure, and he could wish to hear from his hon. Friend (Mr. Wilson) what the Treasury had done towards carrying out the recommendations made on this subject by the Controller of Stationery. When he (Sir F. Baring) was at the Admiralty he thought the expenditure for the library there was excessive, and that more expensive books were purchased than were necessary. He observed that the Controller of Stationery had made the same remark, not only as respecting the library of the Admiralty, but also those of every other public department. He (Sir F. Baring) submitted that there would never be an effectual control over this branch of expenditure until each department was rendered accountable for its own particular outlay for printing and stationery.

MR. WILSON

said, the Treasury had taken steps towards carrying out the whole of the recommendations of the Controller of Stationery, with one exception, and there would be laid before the House in a day or two a Return which would show in one view the expenditure in this respect of each public department, which, he trusted, would answer as a check to some extent such as his right hon. Friend (Sir F. Baring) desired to see imposed on this part of the public expenditure. With the same view the Treasury were about to cooperate with the Printing Committee appointed by the House. At the same time, he wished to remind his right hon. Friend and the Committee that some new items were added to this Vote which did not appear in the Estimate under this head in 1852, including, among others £40,000 for patents, and £30,000 connected with the transfer from the Inland Revenue Office; so that a very large proportion of the money now included in this Vote was formerly voted under different heads, and that the increase was therefore more apparent than real.

Vote agreed to.

• (40.) £88,045, Postage of Letters.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he thought that was an item which had better not appear on the Estimates at all, inasmuch as the result was only to play off one public department against another. Instead of having this annual charge for postage, he suggested it would be better that the public departments should return to the system of franking, and of receiving letters free of expense either to them or the writers.

MR. WILSON

said, there was no doubt it was a mere transfer from one department to another, and he did not think t there was much utility in it, except to show t the exact amount of the Post Office receipts and expenditure. When the Penny Post Act was passed, and the privilege of franking was given up, it was thought better that the Post Office should be credited for the business it did for the other public departments.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he was one of those who had always thought the Penny Post Act one of the greatest jobs ever perpetrated, and one of the greatest financial mistakes ever committed by the country. It was no use continuing the Estimate merely to test the working of the penny post.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

suggested that the hon. Gentleman should try to bring back the old rates of postage, and he would then see what was the feeling of the country with regard to the penny rate. It was thought that the accounts ought to show the amount of service performed by the Post Office, and the charge was brought into the Estimates in order to put a stop at once to the gross abuse of official franks. He was inclined to think that abuse was carried to an enormous extent, and he was afraid, if they gave the public offices the right of franking, the same abuse would recur.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he had never been in office, and did not know what abuses were practised by official men. The hon. Baronet was, no doubt, a better authority on that subject than himself. He did not admit the merits of an Act because it was difficult to rescind it.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, there were two objects in voting this money—to know what was expended, and to check persons spending more than necessary. The appearance of this item prevented any abuse of the Post Office machinery. The "Ambassadors' bag" in past times had been sadly weighted. Coats, lace, boots, and other articles, were sent by it, even a pianoforte, and not only a pianoforte, but a horse.

MR. BENTINCK

said, it seemed to be quite true that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not know much about horses, since he imagined a horse to be sent in an ambassador's bag.

MR. PEASE

thought it fair to show the amount of work done by the Post Office.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes—

• (41.) £24,130, Law Charges.
• (42.) £250,000, Prosecutions.
• (43.) £105,980, Police.
• (44.) £1,140, Crown Office, Chancery.
• (45.) £2,140, Crown Office, Queen's Bench.
190
• (46.) £16,319, Sheriffs.
• (47.) £6,480, Registrar of Admiralty.
• (48.) £7,226, Insolvent Debtors' Court.
• (49.) £109,062, County Courts.

MR. ROEBUCK

inquired whether the aggregate amount of the fees derived from the suitors in County Courts was printed in the public accounts?

MR. WILSON

replied that the statement of the fees in question was being prepared, and would be laid before Parliament as soon as possible.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, he was informed that the fees exceeded the expenses of the County Courts, which consequently paid themselves. As a contrary impression existed, he should like to know the sum which was actually reaped from the suitors in the shape of fees.

MR. WILSON

stated that before the fees were reduced last year they were inadequate to defray the expenses of the Courts. They were now, of course, still more inadequate, and the deficiency had still further increased by an increase in the salaries of the registrars. The item of £60,000 in the Vote was an estimate of the deficiency for the present year.

MR. ROEBUCK

remarked that he believed that the increased expenses of the County Courts had arisen from the fact of the salaries of the high bailiffs and registrars being raised. He wanted to know whether the Treasury had received letters from County Court Judges stating that high bailiffs were not required, and that reappointments would impose an unnecessary burden upon the country.

MR. WILSON

replied that communications to that effect had been received by the Treasury, and he quite agreed with the writers that high bailiffs were an unnecessary expenditure, and that in a short time the House would have to reconsider the constitution of the County Courts as far as high bailiffs were concerned.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, he would ask, as such was the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, whether the Treasury had received a letter from a County Court Judge, stating that a vacancy in the office of high bailiff was about to take place in his district, and requesting to be informed what he ought to do, and whether, in answer to that communication, the Treasury had left the whole responsibility upon the Judge, thus abdicating one of its most important functions, which was to guard the public purse.

MR. WILSON

replied that the hon. Gentleman had correctly stated the purport of a letter received by the Treasury, and the nature of the answer. The Treasury was not authorized by the Act to interfere in any way with the appointment of high bailiffs, which was left to the discretion of the Judges.

MR. HENLEY

suggested that in future the Estimates should be so framed as to enable the House to see what the actual expenses of the County Courts were, and also what was the entire amount received in the shape of fees. The House would then be able to ascertain whether the Courts paid themselves or not.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes—

• (50.) £19,625, Police Courts.
• (51.) £63,645, Metropolitan Police.
• (52.) £2,715, Queen's Prison.
• (53.) £2,342, Lord Advocate, &c.
• (54.) £11,767, Court of Session.
• (55.) £10,029, Court of Justiciary.
• (56.) £5,550, Criminal Prosecutions.
• (57.) £1,080, Exchequer (Scotland).
• (58.) £50,000, Sheriff Courts.
• (59.) £7,955, Procurators Fiscal.
• (60.) £6,553, Sheriff Clerks.
• (61.) £2,200, Solicitor of the Crown.
• (62.) £11,067, General Register House.
• (63.) £739, Commissary Clerk.
• (64.) £1,878, Bankruptcy.
• (65.) £51,470, Criminal Prosecutions in Ireland.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

would express his opinion that this portion of the Estimates required consideration. He had not expected such rapid progress to be made, and had left his copy of the Estimates with marginal annotations at home. He therefore moved that the Chairman do report progress.

MR. P. O'BRIEN

observed that he thought it exceedingly strange that directly a Vote for Ireland was proposed the hon. Member for Lambeth should offer a factious opposition.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Lambeth would not persist in his Motion. The Votes in this branch were not numerous, and it was desirable to proceed with them.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

would admit the Votes were not numerous, but their total amount was large—£762,000, and he was not prepared at that moment to point out several items, which required explanation.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

reminded the hon. Member that he could avail himself of the interleaved copy of the Estimates on the Report.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.

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

• (66.) £6,979, Officers of Court of Chancery.
• (67.) £1,778, Queen's Bench.
• (68.) £1,801, Common Pleas.
• (69.) £1,510, Exchequer.
• (70.) £100, Clerk to Taxing Officers.
• (71.) £3,232, Registrars.
• (72.) £1,788, Registration of Judgments.
• (73.) £200, Delegates.
• (74.) £1,866, Insolvent Debtors' Court.
• (75.) £167, Court of Errors.
• (76.) £1,100, Police Justices, Dublin.
• (77.) £24,500, Divisional Police Courts.
• (78.) £394,820, Constabulary.
• (79.) £1,479, Four Courts, Marshalsea.

House resumed; Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again on Wednesday.