SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

HC Deb 28 April 1862 vol 166 cc992-1035

House in Committee.

MR. MASSEY in the chair.

(1.) £450, New Consular Offices, &c, Constantinople, agreed to.

(2.) £2,500, Westminster Bridge Approaches.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he was surprised that any further sum should be required, seeing that £173,000 had already been granted, and that a large balance remained unexpended.

MR. COWPER

said, that the balance had been reduced to £65,000, which would quickly be exhausted.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, he understood that the Vote of £173,000 passed last year was to include all charges for the approaches to the bridge. As the gross sum already expended upon the work up to the 31st of December, 1861, was £54,748, there ought to be a balance remaining of £118,252. He did not see why the additional Vote was necessary.

MR. COWPER

explained, that the term "approaches" last year referred to the roadway. The present Vote was required for the stairs and wing-walls, and other works not included in the original Estimate. As to the balance in hand, he could only say that it did not exceed £65,000; and that when all the demands of the householders had been satisfied, it would be reduced to nil.

MR. AYRTON

asked, whether it was intended to carry out a suggestion which had been made of carrying a subway under the existing road, for the convenience of Members of Parliament and others landing from the steamers. He understood that the opinion of the engineer of the bridge was favourable to the construction of such a subway.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he would remind the First Commissioner that hon. Members could not now get to the House without much inconvenience and even risk to their limbs.

MR. COWPER

said, that a tunnel under the existing road was not part of the original plan, and he feared it could not now be made without considerable expense. Perhaps the object of the hon. Member could be accomplished when the embankment should be constructed.

MR. AYRTON

said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the embankment of the river was not to extend beyond the east side of Westminster Bridge. He believed the subway could he constructed in a very simple manner.

MR. LOCKE

said, he would call attention to the fact that there was already a doorway in the structure of the bridge; and although he could not precisely tell what purpose it served, or where it led to, yet it was to be presumed from the fact that there was a hollow under the bridge. Well, if people could go in by that door under the bridge for one purpose, they could go in for another, and therefore a ready means was afforded of overcoming the difficulty and meeting the suggestions of his hon. Friend.

MR. CHILDERS

wished to know whether the present Vote would be wholly expended before the 31st of March next.

MR. COWPER

said, there was no doubt that the whole of the money voted by Parliament would be ultimately required, although it might not all be paid away before the 3lst of March next?

MR. CHILDERS

said, he must protest against that breach of the arrangement upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid such stress, that no money was to be voted on the Civil Service Estimates which was not required within the year.

MR. COWPER

said, that it was intended that the sum of £2,500 should be spent within the current financial year. There was a sum voted last year which might not be so expended, but he thought that it would be inexpedient to take from the Government the power of spending it if an opportunity were offered of settling with any of these leaseholders.

MR. CHILDERS

said, that after this explanation he should not oppose the Vote.

MR. HENNESSY

said, he wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman the exact amount the Government had in hand?

MR. COWPER

replied, that there was a sum of £65,000 in the Exchequer, but that might be diminished to morrow or next day.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to forget that the whole of the sums hitherto voted wore unexpended; and that the balances now in the Exchequer for the purpose were £118,000.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) £1,231 Westminster New Bridge, agreed to.

(4.) £15,000 New Foreign Office.

MR. AYRTON

asked, whether the sum of £200,000, at which the cost of erecting the Foreign Office was fixed in the Vote, was a guess estimate, or whether it was an amount which had been settled by careful and deliberate inquiry, and within which it was intended that the cost of this building should be kept; and also whether steps were being taken for carrying out any particular design.

COLONEL FRENCH

said, he wished to know what kind of stone was to he used. He trusted it would not be a stone which would turn into sand, like that of the Houses of Parliament?

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, that he intended on the following evening to call attention to the general question of our public buildings, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would postpone the Vote until after the discussion of that subject had taken place.

MR. COWPER

said, he did not see that the voting of the sum of £15,000, in addition to the £60,000 voted last year, would alter the position of the House towards the Motion of the hon. Member, and he could not consent to postpone the Vote. The estimate of £200,000 was made by Mr. Scott, the architect, deliberately, and upon his responsibility. The estimate which would be most satisfactory to the Government and to the House would be that for which contractors would tender to complete the work. Mr. Scott was preparing working drawings and specifications, and in order to secure the completion of the work for a certain sum he intended to make a definite contract without reserving to the architect power to make alterations which might increase the expense. The design according to which the building would be erected was that which was exhibited last year, and met with general favour. Regarding the stone to be used, he thought the report of the Commission which had examined the stone of the Houses of Parliament showed that it would not be wise to use that description of stone; and it was intended to employ Portland stone, the material of which St. Paul's Cathedral and many other of the public buildings were constructed.

SIR MORTON PETO

remarked, that the quarries in that part of the Island of Portland from which the stone for St. Paul's Cathedral was taken had been scarcely worked since that period, and there were at present various portions of stone intended for St. Paul's which had never been used. That stone was much harder than any other Stone in the island. In the time of Sir Christopher Wren the architects were good geologists, and care was then exercised, which had not been exercised since, in the selection of materials. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to have pledged himself that the plan should not be altered, and in that case a satisfactory result might be obtained. But unless the right hon. Gentleman set his face against any alterations he would be continually asked to change the plans according to the whims of the individuals for whom the offices were required.

SIR JERVOISE JERVOISE

said, he wished to know whether the architect was to be paid five per cent on the cost, or whether he was to receive a fixed sum?

MR. WHITE

remarked that he was not satisfied with a random estimate of a couple of hundred thousand pounds, and lie hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give a distinct and categorical statement that the probable expenditure on the Foreign Office would not exceed that sum. They ought not to imitate the example of despotic countries in lodging our public servants in public palaces.

MR. LOCKE

said, he wished to know upon what data Mr. Scott proceeded, in returning the estimate for the Foreign Office at £200,000. Unless the architect knew the material which would be used in the building, his estimate must be of, little worth. To work a hard stone like Portland must be very expensive, and that item must enter into any correct estimate.

COLONEL FRENCH

said, he held, that as the style of the building was to be Grecian, the point raised by the hon. Member was not of as great importance as it would have been had the style been mediœval, as there were only round columns to be worked, instead of statues and armorial bearings. Seeing how well Somerset House and St. Paul's Cathedral had stood, there ought to be little difficulty in selecting the proper stone.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, it was not his intention to convey that there would be any difficulty in obtaining suitable stone. His only object was to warn the First Commissioner of the necessity for proper precaution in the selection of the stone in the Island of Portland, the stone in one part of the island being of a very inferior description. He trusted that the House would agree with him that a hard stone ought to be used. In that, as in many other things, the first expense was the least.

MR. WHALLEY

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had taken into consideration the opinions of the Commission of scientific gentlemen appointed to investigate the qualities of stone fitted for the Foreign Office.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, he wished to remind the Committee of the opinion expressed by the Committee of which Mr. Laing was a member, against the system of balances which when, drawn into the Exchequer might be paid out again for any purpose foreign from that for which they had been originally voted. He should be glad to discover the purpose for which the Vote of £15,000 under consideration was demanded. It appeared from the Estimates that though the sum of £30,000 had been voted last year, and the sum of £20,000 the year before, for the Foreign Office, only £3,100 had been expended of the entire amount. For what object, then, could the additional sum be required?

MR. AYRTON

said, he wanted to ask whether the £200,000, when expended, would make the new Foreign Office fit for occupation, or whether that amount would merely cover the architectural work on the shell of the building? He condemned the system of presenting the Estimates by small instalments. The circumstances ought all to be fairly stated, and a sum taken that would enable the work to proceed energetically.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

observed, that he did not see why that money was required. Orders had been given to Mr. Scott to make the necessary preparations for the contract, but until the contract was entered into, the right hon. Gentleman could hare no need for the Vote. He also wished to know in what way the £3,100 said to have been already expended in connection with the building had been laid out?

MR. COWPER

said, it had been thought better to divide the contracts, and to intrust the foundation to one contractor and the superstructure to another. The former contract had already been entered into, and the work was in progress; but the difficulties in the way of laying the foundations were great. It was necessary to sink to a depth of eighteen feet, in order to get a solid basis, and that portion of the work would, therefore, cost about £20,000. Matters were nearly ready for entering into a contract with regard to the superstructure, and the sum proposed to be voted was as much as was likely to be required in the course of the financial year. He would remind the Committee that when a building of the kind was once commenced it was very desirable on economical and other grounds to push it forward rapidly. He did not remember the passage alluded to by the noblo Lord (Lord R. Montagu), but he believed balances in the Exchequer were at least as safe and well looked after as money anywhere else. Certainly, he had never heard of any instance where they had been improperly disposed of. The Committee was perfectly safe in voting the money now asked for, as it was appropriated to that particular purpose, and if not applied before the 31st March next, would then be returned to the general fund, and the department would cease to exercise any control over it. Mr. Scott's estimate was one made in the ordinary way for a building with fittings, but not with furniture, It had been made on plans very carefully prepared in reference to the amount of accommodation required; but of course he could not pledge himself that the amount of £200,000 would be adhered to exactly. An estimate differed from an account, and it depended on the price of the labour market, on the amount of competition for the contract, and on many other circumstances which it was impossible to foretell. But there was no reasonable ground for supposing that the estimate was erroneous, and he did not know that they could have a better authority to rely on than an architect of Mr. Gilbert Scott's ability and eminence. Happily there had been one good result of the long delay which had occurred; the plan had been so carefully gone into and examined that he did not think any alterations were likely to be required. An opportunity of expressing its opinion had been afforded to the department, and it had declared itself satisfied with the arrangements. He should consider it his duty to provide that the contract should be made in gross—a security which, if it had been adopted in the case of the Houses of Parliament, would have prevented much of the expenditure. There could not be a Jess effective control than that of Parliamentary Committees. If the architect had been responsible to any member of the Government, he would not have been able to make such arrangements as those which had led to the various alterations; but his masters were so numerous that, in reality, he had no master at all. When the Committee of the House of Commons expressed an opinion with respect to the works, the architect elicited from the Committee of the House of Lords another opinion. With regard to the stone, he thought they had so much light thrown on the subject by the Report of the Commission which was then on the table, that it was not probable they would fall into the same mistakes as had been made on former occasions. It was quite clear that no stone ought to be used which would be affected by the sulphurous acids in the atmosphere of London. Portland stone had stood the effects of this atmosphere; and it would be the duty of the architect of the new Foreign Office to take care that the best sort of stone for the purpose was taken out of the Portland Quarry. There might be other stones, such as silicious sandstone, which would have advantages as regarded durability; but the labour required in cutting them would greatly enhance the cost of the building. Mr. Scott, he might add, had prepared his estimate on the assumption that Portland stone would be used.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he wished to say one word on the subject of cash balances, not particularly with re- ference to the Vote under consideration only, but with reference to all the Votes; and, perhaps, the Secretary to the Treasury would tell them whether all the Votes were framed upon the same principle as the one before them. That was the first year of the new system. The previous practice had been to take Votes for the service of the year; and if any portion was not expended within the year, then the balance was in each case held over, as applicable to the same service in any future year; and that led to large balances in the Exchequer, and the system was open to abuse. Now, it was understood that Votes were taken for payments to be made in the course of the year, and if the money were not expended by the 31st of March next, then the balance remaining would certainly be surrendered. There was no doubt about that, but there was a doubt as to the surplus which existed on the 31st of March last; and it would certainly have been more convenient in many respects if the large surplus amounts in hand on the 31st of March last had been surrendered, and full Votes taken for all the money intended to be spent during the present year. That, however, had not been done; and whilst he supposed that it was intended to spend the whole £65,000 during the year, he wanted to know whether, if the whole of that sum were not spent, the balance upon that amount, and not that simply upon the sum voted this year, would be handed over? He wished to ask whether all the Votes were to be taken upon the same principle. He was afraid that one of the effects of the change was to make the Estimates for the year 1862–3 appear less than they really were. That, however, could not be helped, for it was very desirable to make such a change as that now introduced; but he thought the Estimates would appear much larger next year, in consequence of the new system.

MR. PEEL

said, that no doubt the balance to be handed over at the end of the financial year would be any sum which remained unexpended, whether it accrued from the sum voted in that or in previous years. That year the balances remaining in hand were very much smaller than they had been in previous years, and the whole sum deducted from the Estimates on that account was only 50,000. As to the particular Vote before the Committee, the Government had been informed, that though there was a large balance in hand, yet that the sum actually spent in the year would be more than the whole amount of the balance; and it was expected that it would be about equal to that and the amount now proposed to be voted.

MR. WHITE

said, he was not satisfied with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner. It was quite clear that the system of undefined expenditure was still being pursued with reference to the proposed new building. He believed that before the Foreign Office was completed the sum of £200,000 would be only about one-half of the total amount which would have to be expended. He should have been much better satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman had said that £200,000 and no more should be appropriated to this purpose. He did not think the answer of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of the stone satisfactory, or that there was any more guarantee for their obtaining the right quality than there had been in the case of the New Houses of Parliament. In that case a scientific commission had given an opinion as to the best stone for the purpose, but, either from parsimony or ignorance, the proper means had not been adopted for providing that only the best stone should be selected, although be believed a competent person might have been employed on the spot to watch the selection at an expense of not more than £300 a year.

Vote agreed to; as were the following:—

(5.) £1,250 Temporary Foreign Office.

(6.) £10,000 Industrial Museum, Edinburgh.

(7.) £903, Aberdeen University.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, there was a balance of £3,000 on the Vote of 1859–60, and of £6,870 on the Vote of 1861–2, both of which sums were unexpended and available for the present year. He wished to know why a Vote of £327 was required that year for Marischal College?

MR. COWPER

said, it was necessary to alter some of the class-rooms, and to provide further cases for the museum. The Moral Philosophy class-rooms were altered last year, and the present Vote was for the Botanical class-rooms.

Vote agreed to.

(8.) £10,000, Probate Court and Registries.

MR. CRAWFORD

said, that he had been requested about two years ago by some gentlemen who wished to take notes and extracts from wills for antiquarian purposes to obtain a renewal of the privilege formerly allowed in the case of wills of ancient date. He had, however, Lien told by Mr. Laing, who was then Secretary to the Treasury, that from want of room it was not in the power of the officers of the Court to grant the facilities asked for. Three or four months ago, however, he saw by a paragraph in the newspapers that the privilege of making extracts from such wills could now be conceded to the public, and he was anxious on behalf of the gentlemen to whom he had alluded to ask whether the privilege which they requested could be granted to them?

MR. PEEL

said, there was no unwillingness to grant the desired accommodation, the only difficulty having arisen from the want of sufficient room in the promises occupied by the Registry of the Probate Court. On the recent enlargement of the premises, however, the judge of the Probate Court had made a rule permitting the public to consult and take notes of ancient wills under due regulations, and in the Estimates provision had been made for the necessary staff to assist the public in the search.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, that a balance of £8,000 remained over from 1859–60, and a balance of £5,000 from 1860–1. He wished to know whether that balance had been all expended?

MR. COWPER

said, there was at present a balance of £12,000 unexpended. There were forty district registries in various parts of the country, the rents of which amounted to £1,800, and the repairs to £1,000. Considerable works and repairs were necessary for the offices of the Probate Court in London. A house had been taken on a lease in Knight Rider Street to enable one provision of the Probate Act to be carried out—namely, that persons not of the legal profession should be enabled to go before the registrars and prove wills. The whole arrangement of the Probate Court and its offices was, however, unsatisfactory; because the buildings were but temporary. It was intended by the Courts of Justice, Bill to have provided permanently for the Probate Registry elsewhere; but the present rather inferior accommodation must now be continued. No more money, however, would be spent on the buildings in Doctors' Commons than would be absolutely necessary.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, he wished to know what the entire expenditure during the present year would be?

MR. PEEL

said, that the sum available for the present year was £23,000. The cost of the Principal Registry of the Court of Probate and of the district registries in the country would be £7,800. The greater part of the district registries were leased by the. Government for five years, and these leases all contained a clause that the Government should have the power to purchase the premises at a certain sum. It was found by experience that in some of the towns it was advisable to build premises. It was proposed to purchase houses at Manchester, Chester, Lewes, Exeter, and Taunton, for which a sum of £5,600 would be wanted, and to build, during the coming year, registries at Manchester, Wakefield, and Oxford.

MR. NEWDKGATE

said, he wished to inquire in what manner the fees connected with the court and its registries were applied, and if they were not available for the purposes of the Vote?

MR. PEEL

said, that the Treasury had the power to levy the fees by stamps. Provision was made last year to pay the officers by salaries instead of fees, and all the fees were carried to the Exchequer.

MR. FREELAND

said, the Vote, as it appeared in the Estimates, was perfectly unintelligible; for the charges for rent, repairs, alterations, and a variety of other matters were lumped together without any detail whatever.

MR. COWPER

said, he agreed it was always desirable to give as much information in detail as possible, but in that instance the arrangement of the balances rendered it impossible to give more than was given.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) £1,705 National Gallery (Increased Accommodation).

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he wished to ask for some explanation. If he recollected rightly, the noble Lord at the head of the Government and the Chief Commissioner of Works had stated that the sum of £15,000, which had been voted two years ago for the alterations and repairs in the National Gallery, would have been amply sufficient; and now £1,705 more was asked for.

MR. SLANEY

said, he would suggest that upon one day of the week a trifling sum should be paid for admission in order to enable ladies to enjoy a visit to the National Gallery without suffering from the inconvenience arising from overcrowding. That plan was acted upon in the case of the Kensington Museum and of galleries abroad, and had been approved by the late Mr. Hume when it had been suggested some years ago.

MR. COWPER

said, he regretted very much that it should be necessary to ask the Committee for any money in addition to the original Vote. The fact was, Mr. Pennethorne's estimate had been made in February of last year, and the Vote was taken at the end of August. It was necessary that the work should be completed before the opening of the Academy Exhibition on the 1st of May, and very little time was consequently disposable for the alterations. According to the practice of the office, nothing could be done until after the Vote was passed, and when the Vote was passed it was too late to make such specification as was requisite for a contract in gross. In order that the work might be done in time, it was necessary to have it done by day-work, and not only that, but it was carried on by candle-light. A great increase of the cost had been caused in consequence of the long hours of work and the difficulties of the season, which was very inclement. Mr. Pennethorne had made several improvements in details as regarded the staircases and the entrance, and had thus obtained more space for hanging the pictures. He had also given satisfactory reasons why the actual cost had exceeded the estimate presented to the Government. If the Vote had passed at as early a period last year as the present, he believed that the excess might have been avoided. As it happened, however, the matter was beyond the control of the Government, for they did not know that there would be an excess until the work had been completed, and the expenditure already incurred. The estimate of £15,000 which Mr. Pennethorne had sent in was the closest that he could make at the time.

LORD HENRY LENNOX

said, he had not the slightest objection to the payment of those who had worked overtime, but he wished to point out that the Vote had been asked in 1860, at a time when only a section of the House, known as the "Janissaries" of the Government, remained behind. When the hon. Member for Surrey and himself objected that the Vote was an under-estimate, they were met by the Chief Commissioner of Works and by the noble Viscount with a jocose "Pooh, pooh!" They were told they knew nothing about the matter, and the Vote was passed in 1860; but in 1861 it was not known that the estimate was exceeded. He objected to its having been concealed from the public that the work should have cost nearly £2,000 more than had been originally asked. The sum was a trifling one, but the whole thing was an example of the manner in which the House was treated in such matters.

Vote agreed to.

(10.) £2,500 National Gallery, Dublin.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, they had been informed last year that the total estimate for the work was £24,000; £19,000 had been already voted, and £5,000 had been paid towards its erection out of the Dargan Fund. He should therefore like to know on what grounds they were now asked for £2,500 additional?

MR. PEEL

said, the building had been erected by trustees named under Act of Parliament, and they, not the Government, were responsible for an excess. It had been estimated that the building would be completed for £24,000, but in the beginning of the year a representation had been made to the Government that £26,500 would be required. He regretted that such was the case but he might add that the building was finished, and was admirably adapted for its purpose.

Vote agreed to.

(11.) £78,000 Harbours of Refuge.

MR. PEEL

said, as some hon. Gentleman might be taken by surprise if the Vote were taken that night, and one hon. Member who was not present had given notice of an Amendment, he, would if it were for the convenience of the Committee consent to the Vote being postponed.

MR. AYRTON

would suggest that before going on with the Vote the engineers' report should be before the Committee.

Vote postponed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum not exceeding £101,221, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for Works and Expenses at the New Packet Harbour and Harbour of Refuge at Holyhead, and Portpatrick Harbour.

MR. H. A. HERBERT

said, he wished for some information as to what was proposed to be done with the packet pier at Holyhead. A very large sum, it would be remembered, had been voted for the packet service between London and Dublin. Certain arrangements had been entered into. The Dublin Steam Packet Company and the London and North Western Railway had completed their part of the contract, and put on some very fine vessels at a great expense, but the Government had done nothing whatever. He believed that none of the improvements promised by the Government had been carried out, and he wished to know what was now proposed to be done.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that a most extraordinary deception had been practised on the House with regard to the Holyhead Harbour. The first estimate of Mr. Rendel amounted to little more than £800,000; and now the estimated cost of the works reached within a small amount of £2,000,000. He wished to know whether the last sum would be sufficient to complete the harbour, which, he was told, would never be a proper harbour of refuge after all?

MR. PEEL

observed that the subject of pier accomodation in Holyhead harbour had been a source of difficulty and embarrassment to the Government, who, though they might not appear to have proceeded with all the desired alacrity, nevertheless had done as much as it was: in their power to do. Some years ago it; was thought that the harbour would be used not only by vessels passing between England and Ireland, but by Transatlantic steamers, and permanent stone piers were proposed to be built in a position to allow vessels of any size to go alongside of thorn. A plan was accordingly prepared which I would have cost £500,000. It was approved by the House of Commons, a Vote on account was taken, and a contract was entered into, though within a month afterwards notice was given to the contractor not to proceed under it. Since then circumstances had altered. It was found that no Transatlantic steamers went to Holyhead harbour; the captains of nil the Dublin Steam Packet Company's steamers preferred the position of the temporary pier to that assigned for the permanent stone piers, and the professional officers of the Admiralty suggested that vessels lying alongside the latter might in certain states of weather be exposed to risk. Under those circumstances the Government came to the conclusion that it would not be desirable to complete the permanent stone piers, and turned their attention to see what might be done elsewhere for the convenience of the postal and passenger service to Ireland. With respect to the passengers, the complaint was that they were not provided with shelter in embarking in and disembarking from the steamboats; and, upon communicating with the engineer of the harbour, it was suggested that the temporary wooden pier should be so strengthened as to be able to support a roof, which would remove the objections made to the present arrangements, as far as concerned the convenience of the passengers. With regard to the contract with the North Western Railway Company and the Dublin Steam Packet Company, he wished to remind the Committee that that contract was entered into in 1859, and that under it a payment of £100,000 and upwards was to he made for the conveyance of the mails from London to Kingstown in eleven hours, a penalty of 36s. being provided for every minute of overtime. The penalty, however, was to be held in abeyance until the Government found then ecessary pier accommodation of the character, contemplated at that period. The packet company preferred the position of the present wooden pier; but as that pier was not sufficiently strong, it had been proposed to strengthen it, and also to give some shelter from the direction of the north, without providing a breakwater, which was thought to be immediately. It was anticipated that the strengthening of the pier [...] cost £10,000, and provision was made [...] Vote for that particular service. With respect to the railway company, what they complained of chiefly was the sharpness of the curve between their station at Holy-head and the pier; and the engineer of the harbour suggested that the curve might be reduced by filling in a portion of the harbour, and laying down a line in a straighter direction. The cost would be £20,000, and that expenditure was also included in the present Estimate; but the Government before incurring that additional outlay, thought it necessary to stipulate with the two companies that they should consent to the re-establishment of the penalties for overtime. The Dublin Steam Packet Company demurred, but he believed that upon full consideration of the matter there would be no difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory arrangement with respect to the sea part of the service. The North Western Railway Company made great objection to the exaction of any fine for overtime, and to the abandonment of the proposal for permanent stone piers, stating that their motive for entering into the contract was not so much for the sake of their portion of the subsidy, as because they anticipated an increase to their general traffic upon the completion of the permanent piers. Such was the present state of the question; but he did not think it would be necessary to deal with the companies conjointly. It would be necessary, however, to have further correspondence with them, and he trusted that it would result in their both agreeing to the arrangements proposed by the Government.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, that the Vote before the Committee was only another of the numerous instances of an enormous excess of expenditure over the original estimate. As the hon. Gentleman had truly said the Estimate for the harbour was at first only £800,000, whereas the cost, together with that of the extension works, was put down then at £1,198,000. Whenever such an objectionable proceeding occurred, the Government must be blameable. In a neighbouring country, where there was a responsible Minister of Public Works, nothing of the kind was known; and there would be no amendment in this country of the evil of which he complained until the House had appointed a really responsible Minister of Public Works. For the last sixteen years he had been in connection with that functionary; and he must say that nothing could exceed the searching and comprehensive manner in which the business of the department was transacted. In the present case, however, the work had been intrusted to the Admiralty; but he did not believe that that office had any suitable machinery for conducting works of this description. Unless they had a properly responsible department to undertake such matters, the House would never have the slightest guarantee that any Estimate presented to them would be really sufficient.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, that in point of fact the Admiralty never had any estimates of any kind submitted to it. The engineer on the spot repotted that so many hundred tons of stone had been thrown into the sea, and then the Controller of the Navy wrote a cheque for so much money. He might refer to the evidence of Colonel Greene to show that no sufficient check was exercised over the expenditure. It appeared to him that there was a clerical error in the Estimates, and he would therefore move to reduce the Vote by the amount—namely, £2,219.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £98,923, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for Works and Expenses at the New Packet Harbour and Harbour of Refuge at Holyhead, and Portpatrick Harbour.

MR. PEEL

explained, that the error pointed out by the noble Lord merely reduced the apparent balance, and that it had no bearing upon the actual Vote.

MR. H. A. HERBERT

remarked, that there were unforeseen circumstances connected with Holyhead, the very success of the scheme having led to the harbour being made a harbour of refuge, and an immense addition to the expense was thereby rendered necessary. He believed there was no manner in which money could be more humanely or more advantageously expended than in constructing harbours of refuge. He crossed the Channel eight or nine times a year, and he was able to bear testimony that in bad weather the harbour was literally crammed with vessels which had run in for refuge.

MR. BRADY

said, he was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman's statement, for he had always heard the harbour described as entirely useless. He would ask whether there was not some difficulty in taking anchor in the harbour, owing to the rocky nature of the bottom? He advised the Committee not to vote another farthing for Holyhead until further information was obtained.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he thought some misconceptions prevailed with regard to the circumstances of this harbour. He could undertake to say that the impression which appeared to have been formed by the hon. Member (Mr. Brady) was quite erroneous. There was excellent holding ground in the harbour, and that was almost the only merit it had. The only way in which he could account for the impression was, that in some parts of the harbour some shingly ballast had been thrown down, over which the anchors of ships sometimes slipped. But he was surprised to hear his right hon. Friend (Mr. Herbert) say that the harbour at Holyhead had been so useful that it was found necessary to add to it. The origin of the case was this. Some years ago it was admitted on all hands that a harbour of refuge at Holyhead was necessary; but in order to gratify the econo- mical freak of the moment, a very inadequate sum was asked for, and thus it was afterwards found necessary to grant a large additional sum to make the harbour some thing like what it ought to be. As originally constructed it was quite useless except for small coasting vessels, and the northern pier had to be extended in order to give shelter to large ships. Another noticeable point was, that while Parliament had spent about £1,000,000 in constructing a harbour of refuge at Holyhead, it was still found necessary to use the old harbour, which the new one was meant to supersede. The packets all used the old harbour, and, in fact, the Government ignored the existence of the now harbour altogether. When the Channel squadron was at Holyhead two years ago, the vessels could not go into the now harbour, but were obliged to bring up under the extended breakwater, outside the harbour as originally constructed. The amount of the first or cheap Vote was £800,000; and now, after £390,000 over and above the money originally expended had been voted, another sum of £102,000 was asked for. He hoped the Committee would learn from the case of the Holyhead harbour a lesson not to trust to Estimates as an index of the ultimate cost of any scheme proposed by the Government. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to carry out a plan to utilize the new harbour for the purposes for which it was originally intended; or whether they intended to go on voting sums, wholly ignoring the existence of the new harbour, merely for the purpose of keeping up the old harbour.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, he could not understand how hon. Gentlemen could have arrived at the conclusion that Holyhead was not a useful breakwater. He could assure the Committee that during the heavy gales of wind which took place in winter the harbour was, if anything, overcrowded with vessels. He therefore begged it to be understood that, as a refuge for the merchant service, Holyhead breakwater was a most useful work. He thought his lion. Friend (Mr, Bentinck) did not quite understand what the Government proposed to do with regard to the piers. The breakwater at Holyhead, which was planned some eighteen or twenty years ago, was originally intended to accommodate a much smaller class of vessels than those which now used it; and it was only when it was completed up to a certain point it was found that there were not sufficient capabilities for the wants of the public. Hence the extension of the pier, making breakwater behind which line-of-battle ships could ride with perfect safety, as was proved by several vessels of the Channel squadron some years ago. The Government were spending money on the old harbour because they wanted to complete the communication with Ireland within the shortest possible period. It had been suggested that the packets might use the breakwater, but the construction of a railroad along that work would cost more than to make the existing small harbour thoroughly available for the steampacket service. He had every reason to believe that the present Estimate would not be exceeded, and he hoped the House would agree to it. His right hon. Friend had stated with great clearness the facts precisely as they stood. The Government had given the whole subject mature consideration, and the manager of the Dublin Steam Packet Company and several of the captains of their steamboats had been called upon to attend at the Admiralty to give their opinion as to what was wanting. They all concurred in this—that the erection of a costly stone pier would be disadvantageous rather than advantageous to them; they preferred, infinitely, that the Admiralty should make the present a substantial pier, that they should be enabled to bring their steamers alongside at all times, that their vessels should have shelter within it, that it should he covered over, and that a refreshment room, with certain other conveniences, should be erected. With that accommodation they would be perfectly satisfied. His own belief was that at the present time the companies had no justification for not keeping their time; and he trusted, with his right hon. Friend, that the penalties would be enforced. Delays had occurred, not always in consequence of any defective arrangements at the pier, but because the companies had been saving their fuel. He therefore hoped the Irish Members would support the Government in forcing the companies to keep their time. There remained only the question with the London and North Western Railway Company. That company, it appeared, thought that the stone pier as originally intended to be constructed would be of great advantage to them. If they thought it would be of advantage to them, why did they not expend their money in erecting it? The public could not be expected to provide funds to make piers for the benefit of the London and North Western Railway Company. They only proposed to provide accommodation for passengers to and from Ireland, not to improve the circumstances of the London and North Western Company. The Government would be prepared to put the present pier to rights, make it convenient to passengers, and lessen the curve on the line, so as to enable the London and North Western to bring their trains down to the pier without stopping at Holyhead station to change their engine, &c; thus saving a certain amount of time now lost at the station at Holyhead; and if the companies did not keep their time, the penalty would, he trusted, be enforced, in order to procure that extent of accommodation which the Irish Members and the public had a right to require at their hands.

MR. BENTINCK

said, be did not wish it should be supposed that he had given an opinion to the effect that there was not good and secure anchorage in the outer harbour for ships of the line. On the contrary, he knew that six line-of-battle ships had brought up there. But when his noble Friend said that the necessity for. increased dimensions in the harbour arose from the increased dimensions of ships, he was fighting u most chivalrous battle for those who originally planned the works. The fact was, that the entrance was so small and so difficult of access in certain winds, that merchantmen, particularly crippled vessels, were unable to work into the harbour; so that it was virtually not a harbour of refuge at all. Hence the necessity of the greatly extended and most expensive works that had been projected since.

LORD FERMOY

said, he had no interest, direct or indirect, in the London and North Western Railway Company or in the Dublin Steam Packet Company, but he felt a great personal interest in the attainment of this object, that the passage from London to Ireland should be made in a moderate time, conveniently, and in safety. Now he confessed he did not think, if the Government were very particular in exacting penalties, that the journey would be performed in safety. What was the state of the case? Formerly a great loss of time took place in the course of the passage between London and Dublin. An arrangement, however, had been made between the companies, and things had been placed on a better footing than formerly. The journey had been shortened immensely and it was done with safety. The Dublin, Steam Packet Company had put a number of boats on the station, unrivalled for comfort, regularity, and reasonable speed. The Government, before enforcing penalties, should show clean hands and perform their own part of the contract. The noble Lord had made a feeling appeal to the Irish Members; but, if these penalties were imposed, the result would be some day that one of the Dublin Company's boats would be driven under the water altogether; and if the Irish Members should then be crossing the Channel in her, perhaps the Government would not suffer much. The subsidy paid to the company was not so excessively liberal that they should be always called upon to drive the last half-mile at the top of their speed. If the company in all cases kept to the letter of the law, he was sure there would be a great waste of human life.

MR. PEEL

said, that he would remind the noble Lord that no penalties could be exacted from the company for over-time caused by storms or fogs.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he must apologize for again recurring to the question of the balances, but he was not quite satisfied with the explanation that had been given on that important and vexed question. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury said that a sum of about £50,000 would be applied out of the balances to the expenditure of the current year. It would appear that there were balances of a much larger amount than that. By the Vote under consideration he saw that on the 28th February last there were balances of £31,000, and running through the whole of these accounts the aggregate balances were £700,000 on the 28th of February, one month before the close of the financial year. It was not to be supposed that the whole of that Bum had been spent between the 28th of February and the 31st of March. Was there any portion of the £31,000 in the Exchequer on the 31st of March. Alluding to the first four Votes in the class before the Committee, the Secretary of the Treasury spoke of the surpluses on former grants. Those surpluses amounted to £55,000; but if there were any surplus on other Votes, then there had been larger balances than £55,000, which would come in aid of the services of the present year; and by the amount of those balances the amount they were going to expend during the year exceeded the sum they were asked to vote. If they had surrendered the whole of these balances on the 31st of March, and then taken a re-vote for all that was wanted for the services of the year, they would, he supposed, have had to take a Vote for a much larger amount than they were now about to do. It was very important that year, when the revenue and expenditure ran so very close upon each other, that they should know how the matter really stood. And, perhaps, the Secretary of the Treasury would explain whether he adhered to the statement that only £50,000 of the balances of last year would be applied to the services of the current year.

MR. AYRTON

said, he hoped they would receive a clear explanation on the question of the balances. It ought to be brought up as a distinct question, and he hoped that at no distant day it would be placed on some definite footing. Sometimes these balances were taken as a reduction of subsequent Votes; at other times they were surrendered into the Treasury, but no uniform rule was observed. The Treasury used the balances on separate Votes at their own discretion. Were these balances, he would ask, to he surrendered, and dealt with entirely on the same principle as was followed in the case of the Army and Navy Estimates?

MR. PEEL

said, that, whatever the real difficulties of the question were, they would settle themselves by the change of system which had been adopted in the Estimates for the present year, those Estimates being voted not for the services of the year, but for the payments within the year. Therefore, on the 31st of March next, whatever sums wore not actually disbursed for the services of the year would have to be surrendered into the Exchequer, and the same principle as applied to the Naval and Military Estimates would he adopted. They had stated in each Estimate the amount of the balances remaining on the 28th of February, 1862. Those balances were altogether much less than those of previous years, because for a long time past the Government had been gradually reducing them. The hon. Baronet opposite seemed to suppose that in consequence of the introduction of a change of system they would spend in the current year not only all the Votes of the present year, but all the balances of previous years. He himself anticipated nothing of the sort where had always been balances from previous years, which, added to the Votes of the current year, gave an opportunity of spending more than the Estimates of such current year. But it never happened that the actual expenditure within the year exceeded the Estimates for the year, and there was no reason to suppose that the expenditure of 1862–3 would exceed the Estimates of the year, although, no doubt, in the case of certain Votes, there were some balances available for expenditure, supposing that expenditure should be incurred in the present year.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he understood that the objectionable system would still continue as regarded the balances of previous years. As to the balance on the Vote under consideration of £31,000 on the 28th of February, supposing £21,000 of that amount wore still in hand, was it to be spent in the course of the year, with the £100,000; or, if not spent, was it to he surrendered, or to be held in the hands of the Treasury, applicable to any services for which it had been voted in former years?

MR. AYRTON

said, he wanted to know whether it was intended to frame the Appropriation Act in such a manner as would put an end to the question. If the Appropriation Act were to he drawn in respect of the Civil Service supplies as for the military services, it would combine not only every balance, but each item would be surrendered at the end of the year. If all the balances, including old balances, were surrendered, the financial statement next year would present a better appearance by five millions.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, he thought the Government were entitled to credit for taking steps to correct the Estimates for the Civil Service. It was not an easy task, but the Government had undertaken it, and the consequence was that matters were now in a transition state. He understood it to be the intention of the Government that at the end of the financial year all surpluses remaining over should be carried into the Exchequer, and that next year these Estimates should be placed upon the same footing as the Army and Navy Estimates.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(12.) £96,342 Public Works (Ireland.)

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that he wished to call attention to the fact that seventeen items of the Vote, making in all £66,000 related to buildings for the purposes of education in Ireland, and he would ask why those items were not included in the Vote to which they properly belonged —the Vote for education in Ireland.

MR. PEEL

said, the sums only amounted to £26,000, and they appeared in the Estimates of the Board of Works because it was thought convenient that the expenses of all the buildings under the superintendence of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland should be included in one Estimate.

MR. H, A. HERBERT

said, he wished for some explanation of an item £376 for repairs at Howth Harbour, which he could not understand, as he believed that harbour had been given up.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, there was a sum £2,174 for furniture and fitments of Dublin Castle. As the abolition of the Lord-Lieutenancy had been once agreed to by the House, and would probably some day be carried out, he thought it unwise to expend money upon furniture.

MR. PEEL

explained that the Vote was rendered necessary, in consequence of certain fittings upon the occasion of Her Majesty's visit to Ireland.

MR. CHILDERS

could not understand the answer, as there was a balance of £38,000 applicable to the expenditure.

MR. PEEL

said, there was no authority to apply that balance.

Vote agreed to; as was also.

(13.) £5,000, New Record Buildings, Four Courts, Dublin.

(14.) £11,994, Light-houses Abroad.

MR. MOFFATT

said, the Vote comprised a charge of £4,000 for light-houses at Ceylon and in Australia. Those lighthouses were for the benefit of trade in those places, and he could not see why those charges should be borne by the revenue of this country.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, it was of great importance to British trade that these lights should be maintained; and unless a grant for that purpose were made from Imperial sources, there would be no light-houses.

MR. CHILDERS

said, he wanted to ask who was responsible for the lighthouse sent out for erection on the Basses Rocks near Ceylon? That light-house turned out a failure, and he did not know what had become of it. It had since been determined to send out a light-ship, to be moored close by; and he wished to know whether the Board of Trade were satisfied that the light-ship would be more successful than the light-house?

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, the Board of Trade were responsible for advising the Treasury to sanction this expenditure. He was afraid that the outlay upon the light-house had been wasted. The engineeer employed had under-rated he difficulties of erecting a fixed light, and after a considerable expenditure the project had been abandoned. A new plan of lighting had been adopted, and those who were competent to form an opinion had no doubt it would be successful. He alluded to the placing of a floating lightship near the rocks. That light-ship would give intimation of these rocks to the passing trade. He hoped that the unfortunate endeavour to erect a fixed structure upon the rocks would be a warning to engineers not to attempt so hazardous an experiment in future.

Vote agreed to.

(15.) £5,000 Highland Roads and Bridges.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, it was high time that the Vote should be put and end to, and he should divide the Committee against it. Those Highland roads and bridges had been maintained by the State for considerably more than 100 years, and though there might have been a period when such an expenditure was necessary, it was quite unnecessary now, and the country ought not to be called upon for a Vote which was really for the benefit of the Scotch landed proprietors.

MR. CAVE

regarded the Vote as a perfect anachronism, originating at a period when the Highlands were so unsafe that it was necessary to hold military possession of the district, and wondered that the Scotch Members themselves did not protest against it, as a libel upon their country. Nor was it really in the interest of the Highland proprietors, for one of these gentlemen had told him that the Government inspection was so costly a thing that they would rather not have the grant at all, as then they would be left to manage these roads themselves, which they would do at a much cheaper rate. This he could easily understand, as they had lately been informed that Government superintendence of roads in India cost 3d. for every shilling expended.

MR. PEEL

said, that all these roads had been constructed (wholly or partially) out of public money. The annual cost of maintaining them was £21,500, which was in part defrayed by the annual contribution, voted by the House, and in part by an assessment of equal amount upon the northern counties, the remainder being collected by tolls. Of course, it was quite open to the Committee to refuse their sanction to the Vote. Nothing would be lost, but the advantage of having these roads kept in order by a general Commission, instead of by the respective counties. But the Committee ought to know that the Government were not without some compensation for the grant. The mail carts were at present exempt, and he was informed that the tolls upon the Government conveyances would be,£2,500 a year. It should be borne in mind also that the Commissioners had power to increase the rate of toll. The saving, therefore, to be effected by rejecting the Vote would be very little. He hoped that the Committee would pass the Vote for the year. He would undertake that the subject should be fully inquired into, and would endeavour to effect some arrangement by which any future application would be unnecessary.

MR. WHITE

said, he rose to protest against the Vote, and express a hope that it would be withdrawn. The Vote might have been necessary when the Scotch were semi-nude savages, but there was no place where the value of property had been so enhanced as in the Highlands of Scotland; and the time had now arrived when the expenditure on the roads there should be thrown on the districts through which they ran. He regretted to find that when ever there was a Commission, something more than superhuman energy was necessary to get rid of it.

MR. BRADY

said, he thought the Vote ought not to have been proposed at all. The grant was one that would not be allowed in this country, and he should support the hon. Member if he divided the Committee upon it.

MAJOR HAMILTON

said, he believed the Vote was really a saving to the country. In consequence of the grant the mails were free from tolls. A better system of management or more perfect roads could not be found. They were well described in the words of, he presumed, the Irish Gentleman, who said — Had you seen these roads before they were made, You would hold up your hands and bless General Wade.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, he thought the Committee ought not to attempt to cut off the grant by a surprise, in the absence of almost every Scotch Member.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, the Secre- tary for the Treasury had given the strongest argument against the continuance of the Vote. Any district which could command £2,500 a year by mail tolls ought to be in a position to maintain its own roads, and not come begging to the doors of the House of Commons.

MR. CAVE

said, in reply to the Secretary of the Treasury, that mail carts were exempt from tolls in all Highways in England as well as Scotland, and that the opposition to the Vote could not be regarded as a surprise, since a similar discussion took place last year.

MR. BARROW

said, he thought, as the, mails were earned on the roads for the convenience of the inhabitants of the district, tolls ought to be charged on those roads, as in every county in England.

MR. COWPER

said, the expense of repairing these roads was formerly charged on the Consolidated Fund. That charge had by an Act of Parliament been transferred to the annual Estimates. A Commission was appointed to execute the repairs and administer the funds. That Commission would expire in 1865. He did not think the Committee would act wisely in suddenly withdrawing the grant. By doing so they might, perhaps, stop all communication, between different parts of the Highlands. It would certainly cause great inconvenience to the persons employed on the roads. He thought the Commission ought to be allowed to continue for the period allowed by law.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, that on the 28th February, a balance of £5,000 remained in hand from the sum voted last year, so that the inconvenience would not be as great as was contemplated, if the Commitee, on full consideration of the subject, thought fit to reject the Vote.

MR. CAIRD

said, speaking as a Scotchman, he thought a Vote of the kind did them little credit. Every year in a similar discussion the whole of Scotland was found fault with for asking an aid that was confined only to one district. A very large sum had been expended on these roads; so much the better for that part of the country; but surely it could now afford to undertake the expense itself. In no part of Great Britain had the rent of land more improved than in that district. After the very inadequate defence of the Vote they had heard, the sooner it was cancelled the better.

Motion made, and Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for the Grant to the Commissioners of Highland Roads and Bridges.

The Committee divided:— Ayes 24; Noes 48: Majority 24.

The following Votes were then agreed to:—

(15.) £20,000, Local Assessments, Government Property.

(16.) £69,646, Salaries, &c. Houses of Parliament.

(17.) £52,363, Treasury.

(18.) £25,856, Home Office.

(19.) £64,319, Foreign Office.

(20.) £30,748, Colonial Office.

(21.) £20,566, Privy Council Office.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

, said, he questioned the necessity of paying £1,500 a year for a medical adviser to the Privy Council.

MR. PEEL

said, the Privy Council had succeeded to the powers of the late Board of Health.

Vote agreed to; as was also.

(22.) £52,787, Board of Trade.

(23.) £2,760, Lord Privy Seal.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he should like to be informed what were the duties of the Lord Privy Seal.

MR. PEEL

said, that the Lord Privy Seal was a Member of the Cabinet, and it was of advantage to the Cabinet to have amongst their members a Minister whose time was not wholly employed with the duties of his own department. He did not think the sum proposed to be voted could be considered too much for the salary of a Cabinet Minister.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, the duties were defined to be those of a Member of the Cabinet. How then, could the services of a chief clerk and assistant clerk be necessary?

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, that some years ago he was Member of a Commission which inquired into the office of Lord Privy Seal, and one question which arose was whether it was desirable that the office should be maintained. It could only be defended upon the ground that in a body in which the duties were so various as those of the Cabinet it was an advantage to have a person whose time was not entirely engrossed by the duties of a laborious department. At one time the Privy Seal was a high constitutional office, and it was an historical fact that the Lord Privy Seal had been Prime Minister of this country. Lord Chatham was Prime Minister at the time he was Lord Privy Seal. Every patent passed through the Privy Seal Office in order to reach the Great Seal, and there were duties of examination which it was utterly impossible for the Lord Privy Seal himself to discharge. It was necessary, therefore, that he should have some small clerical assistance. Formerly there were one or two sinecure offices—Clerks of the Signet. Those offices were abolished, and the staff was now reduced to the lowest possible point consistent with a discharge of the duties which he had mentioned.

MR. BRADY

said, it appeared, then, that the Lord Privy Seal did little, and yet required clerks to assist him.

Vote agreed to; as were also.

(24.) £6,992, Civil Service Commission.

(25.) £19,800, Paymaster General's Office.

(26.) £6,565, Office of Comptroller General of the Exchequer.

(27.) £30,839, Office of Works and Public Buildings.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, he desired to know how far the First Commissioner held himself responsible for works carried on through Votes of the House.

MR. COWPER

replied, that he deemed himself responsible for the expenditure of all money which Parliament placed at his disposal. He was never disposed to shrink from that responsibility.

MR. WHITE

said, he wished to ask whether it was true, that notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) was at all times able to command the services of a most able solicitor as the regular permanent law agent of his department, he had found it necessary to call in the assistance of Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton, the solicitors of the Carlton Club, to aid him in passing the Thames Embankment Bill. A more respectable firm than that of these gentlemen did not exist; still it would be as well if it were made perfectly clear why it had become necessary to invoke such extra assistance.

MR. COWPER

said, that the business on which the firm was engaged did not properly belong to his department. They were simply employed as Parliamentary agents in procuring the passing of a private Bill. As time pressed, and as Messrs. Baxter and Co. possessed special knowledge and experience in regard to the subject, through having conducted a somewhat si- milar measure, it was found convenient to employ them.

MR. AYRTON

observed, that he believed the right hon. Gentleman had not satisfactorily explained the matter. The question really was why, having so expensive a staff attached to the office, it had been necessary to call in the assistance of those gentlemen. He had no doubt as to the perfect wisdom of enrolling the aid of the Parliamentary agents of the Carlton Club upon such an occasion. No selection could have been more judicious, although it might involve some reflection upon professional gentlemen addicted to Liberal opinions. Still the question stood thus— the right lion. Gentleman said he employed Messrs. Baxter and Co. because the Bill had nothing to do with his department. Well, but if the Bill had nothing to do with his department, what had he to do with the Bill? The position of matters was most extraordinary. Time did not press with reference to the Thames embankment, for it had already waited during twenty years, and that got rid of the right hon. Gentleman's first excuse; while with regard to the second, that Messrs. Baxter and Co. had been employed because in a previous Session they had been the promoters of a similar Bill, so far from that justifying the appointment, it operated directly the other way, as, according to the ordinary rule, they were thereby disqualified from undertaking the conduct of a Bill for the public.

MR. COWPER

explained, that he had only followed the custom of the department, The issue of notices and other arduous duties connected with the passage of a Bill through Parliament did not form part of the regular business of the solicitor to the office. The work had to be performed in a short time, and as Messrs. Baxter and Co. had a large staff and every appliance for conducting the Bill, it was very natural that their services should be secured. It was most convenient to employ these gentlemen to give the notices for a Bill which would cover nearly the same ground as that of which they had previously had charge.

MR. LOCKE

said, he was delighted to hear the eulogistic terms in which the Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton were spoken of. No doubt these gentlemen merited such a reference; but the right hon. Gentleman should recollect that they had introduced a Bill of an entirely different character from that introduced during the present Session with respect to the Thames embankment. In addition to being the agents of the Carlton Club, he believed Messrs. Baxter, Rose and Norton also enjoyed the confidence of the railway interest, and that their object was not to carry out an embankment scheme similar to that now before Parliament, but rather to form a Railway along the river from Westminster to Queenhithe. Now he did not wish to say anything harsh of Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton, but it had been suggested to him that they, having as it were surrendered their first line and taken to a second, had still a yearning after the first. That consideration had been pressed upon him by persons materially interested in the rejection of the plan. Certain sections of the Thames Embankment Bill were altogether inconsistent with the carrying out of such a scheme, although they were entirely consistent with the making of a railway in the vicinity of that House. His object was to put the right hon. Gentleman upon his guard, so that he might take care the Bill when it came out of Committee was practically the same as when it went into Committee. He must say the employment of these Gentlemen was very extraordinary. He had never heard of a solicitor objecting to carrying a Bill through Parliament, and no case had been made out for the employment of these Gentlemen as Parliamentary agents upon the present occasion. However, his main object was to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of seeing that Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton carried out his object, and not their own.

Vote agreed, to.

(28.) £26,138 Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues.

MR. CAIRD

said, he wished to draw attention to the large sums which were not shown in this Vote, but which were annually paid to Mr. Clutton, of Whitehall place, as poundage and commission. That Gentleman received last year from that source about £10,000, while he was convinced that the work would be better performed by a responsible officer, whose services might be obtained for a salary of £800 or £1,000 per annum. He also wished to have some explanation of the large charge for solicitor's expenses in Scotland, which amounted to no less a sum than £2,200, while in Ireland, from which a large revenue was derived, they were only £250.

MR. PEEL

said, that when the hon. Gentleman complained of the sum paid to Mr. Clutton, lie ought not to leave out of sight the advantage which the country had obtained from employing the services of that gentleman. During the last nine years, during which time the Office of Woods had been separated from that of Works, a great part of the Crown property had been re-let and great improvements had been made principally by concentrations; and nine-tenths of the property which had been purchased or sold had been bought or sold on the recommendation of Mr. Chit ton. Those sales and purchases involved about one million of money, and while the Crown had purchased at twenty-nine years' purchase it had sold at thirty-six. Mr. Clutton collected for twenty-six counties, from which he received about £80,000. His allowance was four per cent, which would amount to a sum of about £3,200; but out of that he had to pay his travelling expenses and keep up his office. The sum received by that gentleman on the 31st of March, 1861, was £5,200, but it was possible that in previous years, when larger transactions had taken place, his receipts might have reached the amount stated by the hon. Member. Some years ago the Crown revenues of Scotland fell into great disorder, and the property did not produce more than £15,000 a year. Since then, by great exertions, the larger portion of the arrears had been recovered, and the revenues now amounted to£26,000, notwithstanding that considerable portions of the property had been sold in the interval. It was, of course, a question whether the officer charged with the management of these funds ought to be paid by salary or by fees, but it was considered better to pay him by fees, as a proportion was thereby maintained between the amount of work and the amount of pay.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he thought that the Government ought to submit to the Committee a statement of the whole charge in respect of the Woods and Forests Department, which figures, however, they had always refused, because they would show an enormous expenditure. Here was £160,000 for management of property producing £400,000 a year. As for asking for the paltry Vote of £26,000 from the House when the real cost was £160,000, it was absurd. It was said that it was Crown property, and could not be submitted to the investigation of the House But the Crown had surrendered it by Ac of Parliament to the public, and it received in return a civil list. If the Crown property were properly managed, the Crown would cost the country very little, for the revenues of the property would be almost sufficient to defray the whole expenses of he Crown; but the enormous outlay in the management of the property threw a corresponding burden on the civil list.

MR. CAIRD

said, he did not dispute the ability with which these estates were managed, though on a former occasion he had alluded to the fact that the conversion of 1,900 acres of land in Essex involved an expenditure of £67,000. But, as the gentleman in question was employed not only by the Woods and Forests, but by the Treasury, the War Office, and almost every other Department as occasion arose, he thought it would be more economical to place him upon a salary, and to make him responsible for the advice which he gave. He believed that the true reason why the property had sold for thirty-six years' purchase was, because the public saw that it had been grossly underlet, and therefore that the rental was no criterion of its value.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, the matter was easily explained. The lands sold were small detached lots, lying in the immediate neighbourhood of larger estates, and every one knew that the desire to possess land contiguous to their own, frequently induced persons to give for it more than its real market value.

Vote agreed to.

The following Votes were also agreed to:

(29.) £20,042, Public Records.

(30.) £226,123, Poor Laws.

(31.) £62,734, Mint.

(32.) £26,025, Inspectors of Factories and Mines.

(33.) £6,315, Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer (Scotland).

(34.) £6,431, Lord Lieutenant's Household (Ireland).

(35.) £16,535, Offices of Chief Secretary for Ireland.

(36.) £3,587, Office of Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums (Ireland).

(37.) £24,301, Board of Public Works (Ireland).

(38.) £32,931, Audit Office.

(39.) £19,818 Copyhold Enclosure and Tithe Commission.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

observed, that he did not think there was business for three Commissioners. Two had been able to get through the Tithe Commutation work, and that was at an end long ago.

MR. PEEL

said, he was informed that the business of the Commission was on the increase. By an Act of last Session the duties of the Commissioners had been made more onerous.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that nevertheless he did not think that any case had been made for the employment of three Commissioners.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he would remind his hon. Friend that additional duties had been imposed on the Commissioners. They now, in fact, performed duties formerly done by five Commissioners. He did not believe less than three could do this duty.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

remarked, that when he filled the office of Home Secretary a vacancy occurred by the death of one of the Commissioners; and, on inquiry, he found it to be the opinion of the other two that it was necessary to have the vacancy filled up.

LORD HOTHAM

said, he could bear testimony to the satisfactory manner in which the Commissioners discharged their duties, and expressed his opinion that there was work enough for three.

Vote agreed to; as were also—

(40.) £12,090, Imprest Expenses under Inclosure and Drainage Acts.

(41.) £47,578, Departments of Registrars General of Births, &c.

(42.) £14,669, National Debt Office.

(43.) £4,120, Public Works Loan and West India Islands Relief Commissions.

(44.) £6,958, Office of Commissioners in Lunacy and Board of Lunacy in Scotland.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he had to complain that the Lunacy Commissioners did not work with the county magistrates. Owing to the way in which the Commissioners conducted business, a lunatic asylum in South Wales, which was decided on years ago, had not been opened yet.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that instead of matters in dispute between the Lunacy Commissioners and the county magistrates being discussed by correspondence, it was desirable they should be settled in a personal conference, and this course had been taken in some cases with good results. He believed that some delay had been caused in Wales by the difficulty of obtaining an agreement between the different counties. He believed that generally the Commissioners were disposed to act in concert with the magistrates and the ratepayers.

MR. DILLWYN

said, that nil the rate- payers were unanimously in favour of the erection of an asylum, but the Commissioners by their objections frustrated the ratepayers' intention.

Vote agreed to.

(45.) £1,223 Superintendent of County Roads, South Wales.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he could not understand why a charge of the kind should be made for South Wales, when it had been refused for Scotland. Recollecting that the toll-gates in South Wales had been abolished as the result of the "Rebecca Riots," he was at a loss to understand why the Government maintained a Superintendent of Roads.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that the office was created under an Act of Parliament, and his hon. Friend must repeal that if he objected to the Vote.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, when the Rebecca Act was passed, a Loan was granted by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, by which the debt on the counties was at once paid off, and the repayment of the debt was distributed over a number of years. An annuity was charged on the county rate, or revenue of the six counties, and the object of the appointment of the Superintendent was the audit of the accounts of the turnpike roads of South Wales, for the purpose of seeing that the debt was punctually discharged.

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

(46.) £2,294, Office of Registrars of Friendly Societies.

(47.) £17,743, Charity Commission.

(48.) £6,955, Office under Local Government Act and Inspection of Burial Grounds.

(49.) £3,232, Agricultural and Emigration Statistics (Ireland).

(50.) £2,268, Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments, &c.

(51.) £3,044, Quarantine Expenses.

(52.) £32,000, Secret Services.

(53.) £342,049 Printing and Stationery.

MR. CHILDERS

said, that there was an item of £2,200 for Stationery for the Irish Constabulary, and a Vote in another class of £3,400 fur Stationery for the same body.

MR. PEEL

said, he had explained last year that the item in the present Vote was for Stationery supplied by Her Majesty's Stationery Office for the Constabulary Office in Dublin, while the other item was to cover allowances in lieu of stationery made to the subordinate officers of Constabulary in the country.

Vote agreed to; as were the following Votes:—

(54.) £115,580, Postage (Public Departments).

(55.) £30,510, Law Charges.

(56.) £167,678, Prosecutions at Assizes and Quarter Sessions.

(57.) £228,475, Police (Counties and Boroughs), and in Scotland.

(58.) £3,098, Crown Office, Queen's Bench.

(59.) £11,540, Admiralty Court, Dublin.

(60.) £5,501, Insolvent Debtors' Court.

(61.) £78,330, Courts of Probate, &c.

(62.) £165,000, County Courts.

(63.) £21.430, Police Courts (Metropolis).

(64.) £140,443, Metropolitan Police.

(65.) £3,564 Queen's Prison.

In reply to a question from Mr. WILLIAMS,

SIR GEORGE GREY

was understood to say that he should, on an early day, bring in a Bill authorizing the removal of this prison.

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

(66.) £18,092, Revising Barristers (England and Wales).

(67.) £3,675, Divorce Court Compensations.

(68.) £24,237, Bankruptcy Court Compensations.

(69.) £3,342, Lord Advocate and Solicitor General (Scotland).

(70.) £18,200, Court of Session (Scotland).

(71.) £11,076, Court of Justiciary (Scotland).

(72.) £5,000, Criminal Prosecutions (Scotland).

(73.) £1,620, Exchequer (Scotland).

(74.) £38,231, Sheriffs and Procurators Fiscal, &c. (Scotland).

(75.) £23,475, Procurators Fiscal Salaries (Scotland).

(76.) £14,330, Sheriff Clerks (Scotland).

(77.) £2,300, Tithes, &c. (Scotland).

(78.) £15,941, General Register House (Edinburgh).

(79.) £1,305, Commissary Clerk's Office (Edinburgh).

(80.) £1,490, Accountant in Bankruptcy (Scotland).

(81.) £61,134, Law Charges (Ireland).

(82.) £5,536, Court of Chancery (Ireland).

(83.) £19,052, Courts of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer (Ireland).

(84.) £5,932, Registrars to Judges, &c. (Ireland).

(85.) £2,000, Manor Courts (Ireland).

(86.) £2,314, Registration of Judgments (Ireland).

(87.) £300, High Court of Delegates (Ireland).

(88.) £6,893, Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Ireland).

(89.) £10,330, Court of Probate (Ireland).

(90.) £11,472, Landed Estates Court (Ireland).

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, he understood that the Landed Estates Court was to have been self-supporting, and that there were even surplus funds belonging to it. He wanted to know, therefore, why a Vote of £11,472 was now asked?

MR. PEEL

said, the court was called self-supporting. Under a recent Act a certain duty was imposed upon sales effected in it; but that duty did not attach to any estates sold in the court at the time of the passing of the Act. The full amount, therefore, that would otherwise have been realized in the court had not accrued. The income of the court, however, had been diminished, for Parliament had thought proper to pass an Act last year which reduced the rate of duties chargeable in that court.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

inquired, whether the right hon. Gentleman could tell him what amount of duty had been received in the court. He understood that it had reached several thousand pounds.

MR. PEEL

said, the amount received during 1861 was £7,512, the whole of which had been taken into the Exchequer.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he must contend that it was unreasonable to ask for £4,000 to make up the deficiency. The court had done vast good to Ireland, and no money could be better laid out by the people of that country than in defraying the costs.

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

(91.) £1,150, Consolidated Office of Writs, Dublin.

(92.) £420, Revising Barristers, Dublin.

(93.) £50,600, Police Justices, Dublin.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £777,368, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for the Constabulary Force in Ireland.

COLONEL DICKSON

said, he rose to express a hope that the Vote would be postponed, He had given notice of a Motion in reference to the enormous increase which had taken place upon the Vote. In 1842, when Ireland was in a disturbed state, the whole expense of the police force was somewhere about £440,000, and in the present year, when they were told that everything was quiet, the Vote amounted to £777,000. He should be able to show that with this enormous increase of expenditure the efficiency of the police had greatly deteriorated. He did not mean to say anything against the police as a body of men. He was merely referring to the manner in which it was endeavoured to make them a military force instead of a police force. He relied, however, on a return which he had moved for two months ago, but had not yet received, and he therefore trusted that the Vote would be postponed.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, he trusted that the hon. and gallant Member would make his Motion at once, and not ask for the postponement of the Vote. The Irish constabulary, so far from being an expensive body, were cheaper than the police force in this country or Scotland.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he found that the charge for the year was £80,000 more than in last year.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

explained that that was principally owing to the alteration of the arm used by the constabulary.

COLONEL DICKSON

said, that that was the very reason why he found fault with the force. Formerly the men were supplied with a very useful weapon, but the Government had taken it away to give them the Enfield rifle. A policeman generally used his piece to knock down persons with the butt end of it; and it was therefore absurd to spend £40,000 in giving him a weapon so delicate, that the slighest touch would derange its sighting and render it useless. He also objected to the way the men were clothed—they were made, in fact, to resemble second-rate hussars.

SIR FREDERICK HEYGATE

said, that though differing in some degree from what had fallen from his gallant Friend, and bearing testimony to the good conduct of the Irish constabulary, he thought that they had had too military a character given them. Not only had they been supplied with Enfield rifles, but a number of them had actually been sent to Hythe and taught to make bull's-eyes at a thousand yards. He was of opinion that the time had arrived for considering whether, instead arming the police with Enfield rifles, it would not be advisable to have a body of men who would be more useful as detectives.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

remarked, that every Government had maintained the necessity of giving to the Irish constabulary a military training; and with regard to their efficiency, he believed it to be as great as ever.

COLONEL DICKSON

said, he was ready to admit that when the constabulary force was first instituted it was necessary to have a military man at the head to bring it to a certain degree of order and regularity; but the force was assuming a still greater military character, and he doubted the policy of making it keep up that character. He repeated that he did not mean to say that the constabulary as a body of men had deteriorated, but they had deteriorated in respect to the discovery of crime and the performance of police duties.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he understood the hon. and gallant Member objected to arming the constabulary with the Enfield rifle. Now, he could quite understand a person saying that they should not have firearms, but should be only armed like the police in London; but if they were to have firearms, surely they ought to have good ones. With respect to the general efficiency of the Irish constabulary, everybody seemed to be agreed. They constituted n most valuable force, performed their duties admirably, and not the loss so on account of the military instruction they received. If the hon. and gallant Member desired an opportunity of going at length into his objections, he would have one on the bringing up of the report.

COLONEL DICKSON

said, he would admit that to a certain extent the constabulary should be armed with firearms, but lie should like to see a certain portion of them armed with another sort of weapon which they might use more freely. At any rate, it was absurd, when they had an arm suitable fur them as a police, to incur increased expenditure for the purpose of giving them the Enfield rifle. With regard to the de- terioration of the force in the discovery of offenders, he noticed that the Irish Judges had made remarks on the great number of crimes lately committed in Ireland as to the perpetrators of which no clue had been obtained. In his own county (Limerick) a learned Judge had pointed out that in the last year forty-eight of such cases had occurred. The learned Judge said, that the fault must lie in the magistrates, in the people or in the police. He (Colonel Dickson) did not admit that it was in the magistrates, or, to more than a certain extent, in the people. He should, under the circumstances, move that the Vote he reduced by the sum of £80,000.

MR. BRADY

said, he was present when Baron Fitzgerald made similar remarks in the county of Leitrim to those the gallant Colonel had referred to. The truth was, an order had issued from the Castle at Dublin directing that every incident of a criminal nature should be reported by the police. The result had been the collection of a mass of crime which appeared to be perfectly horrible; but it turned out, on inquiry, that most of the things the police had set down were so trivial that they ought never to have been reported at all. It was generally considered in Ireland that the force had too military a character to be perfectly useful as police.

MR. M'MAHON

said, he was gratified at finding so many hon. Members express the opinions which he had always held, and which he had many years ago expressed. He confessed it shocked him to see the courts attended by men with guns and bayonets, for it appeared to him that that was the best way that could be devised of keeping up the idea amongst the people of Ireland, that their country was in the possession of a foreign power. Things had entirely changed since the constabulary was established, and the police might well now be armed as they were in England. The Irish constables lived together in their barracks, and seemed to consider themselves above their business as thief-takers.

MR. HENNESSY

said, he wished to take that occasion to call attention to the item of £2,000 for extra expenses on account of elections. The sum could have relation only to the Longford election. He must express his surprise at the largeness of the amount.

COLONEL DICKSON

said, that the sum might be accounted for by the attendance of bands at the elections. He con- demned the profligate increase which had taken place of late years in this Vote.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, the item had nothing to do with the bands, which were provided by the men themselves, nor had it any special reference to the Longford election. That election, no doubt, was a very expensive affair, but the sum of £2,000 was to cover contingencies at elections and other disturbances.

Motion made, and Question, That a sum, not exceeding £696,947, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for the Constabulary Force in Ireland, —put, and. negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

The two following Votes were then agreed to:—

(95.) £2,717, Four Courts, Marshalsea Prison, Dublin.

(96.) £17, 410, Inspection of Prisons.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £350,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for Government Prisons and Convict Establishments at Home.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that there were many items in the Vote, and one might have been overlooked by some who would object to it. He referred to the item of £550 for the provision of religious instruction for Roman Catholics in convict prisons. A similar Vote was proposed in 1854 and rejected; and he was happy now to find, that although the Vote had been some time in print, no one had given notice of an objection to this item. About 14 per cent of the convicts in prisons in England were Roman Catholics, but there was no power to expend a single shilling in providing religious instruction for them. Facilities were given for the admission of religious instruction; but it was impossible to secure the regular attendance of unpaid Roman Catholic chaplains. In some cases the prisons were twelve miles from the residence of the priests. Under these circumstances he had felt it his duty to submit the item, believing that if hon. Members were consistent in the professions they made of a desire to see all persons placed on an equality, they ought to make some provision for the religious instruction of Roman Catholic convicts. Since the item was previously brought under their notice the House had repeatedly sanctioned a similar provision in the case of military prisons. Under those circumstances, he hoped hon. Members would feel that the Vote was one which they could sanction. In view of the care taken in Ireland to instruct the Protestants, who were the minority, it was indefensible to allow Roman Catholic prisoners in this country to remain without religious instruction.

MR. WHALLEY

said, that he had not anticipated that the Vote would come on this evening, and therefore he had not given notice that he would call attention to it. The item to which attention had been called was small—only £550; hut it was one of others, which together formed a substantial endowment of the Roman Ca tholic system to the extent of £250,000 a year; and it involved a principle—namely, that if Roman Catholic Dissenters—for Roman Catholics were dissenters from the system of religion recognised by the Constitution of the country—were entitled to such provision, there was no reason win-other classes of Dissenters should not be similarly privileged. There was no other class of religionists of whom it could be said, as it was of the Roman Catholics, in the words of the Coronation Oath, that their religion was a system of idolatry and superstition. He did not use that term offensively; but it was a fact that under the Roman Catholic system in Ireland the cost of the police was increasing to an enormous extent. In 1846 it was little more than £400,000, and this year it was near £800,000. If £550 were given to Roman Catholics immured in prisons, how could the House resist the granting of a much larger sum to those Roman Catholics who had not violated the laws? No public advantage could be secured by en couraging the visits of priests to our prisons. He was prepared to prove that, as a general rule, the teaching of the Roman Catholic priests would be found at variance with the teaching of the laws. There was scarcely an offence for which a man could be imprisoned but that the priest could suggest such consolation as would encourage the prisoner to violate the law, and would defeat entirely the object of punishment. A priest who discharged his duty as a priest would tell a man that there were circumstances under which embezzlement or robbery from a master did not amount to criminal guilt, but were perfectly justifiable. [Question!] If questions arose as to appropriation of public monies for these purposes, they were bound to consider the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, and what it was the priests taught. Was the House willing to grant money to Roman Catholic priests to teach such a doctrine as this to prisoners?—"He does not steal who takes any just compensation if he cannot obtain what is due to him; for instance, if a servant cannot otherwise obtain his lawful wages, or is unjustly compelled to serve for an unjust remuneration." Here is another Roman Catholic doctrine— "An extremely poor man may steal what is necessary for the relief of his wants." That was not the common law of this country, for the vindication of which prisons were built. Here was another still more striking doctrine—" He who prevented another from stealing what he requires may be killed by such poor man." And, again—"If you are prepared to give false evidence against me by which I should receive sentence of death, and I have no other means of escape, it is lawful for me to kill you, since I should otherwise be killed myself." That very system was practically illustrated day after day in Italy and Spain, and they were called on to vote the means by which it should be inculcated among ourselves. In 1851 the Canon Law was introduced into this country, and the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was passed in order to repress it; yet the right hon. Baronet, who was connected with the Government who introduced that Bill, not content with its total failure, now came forward and asked £550 to assist the priests in giving effect to that Canon Law. His hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne) had given him emphatic warning not to indulge in those quotations, but there was one more he would offer to the House; it was this—" If you endeavour to ruin my reputation before men of dignified rank," such, he supposed, as Members of that House, "and I cannot avert that injury to my character unless I kill you, I may lawfully do so. Still, the calumniator should be first warned, that he may desist from his slanders "—as his hon. Friend had, no doubt, warned him— "and if lie will not desist he should be killed—not openly, on account of the slander, but secretly." Suppose, then, that having made these quotations, and received that warning, he went to Ireland and was shot; if his assailant was by mere chance secured, the priest might say he was undoubtedly justified in shooting his man; the only offence he committed was in not doing it secretly. There was no exaggeration in what he had stated. Such was the actual practical living doctrine inculcated by these priests to the full extent of their power, and he objected to giving it a Parliamentary imperial sanction by means of the Vote.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

wished to ask if any change had taken place in convict labour. The amount asked for transport service was twice what it was last year.

MR. CHILDERS

said, the Government were providing altogether for 11,060 prisoners this year, or for about 1,500 in excess of the actual number. There was a balance of £100,000 in the Exchequer on that account, and the Estimate appeared considerably more than could possibly be expended during the year.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he was sorry to say there had been some increase of crime during the last year, and the Estimate had been prepared after careful consideration. The prisons were inconveniently full, and it had been found impossible to remove many prisoners from the county gaols. No change had taken place with regard to convict labour.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he feared that the item of £1,820 for the maintenance of 100 Irish female convicts in refuges was only another means of encouraging establishments intended for exclusively Roman Catholic purposes. He should more that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £550, to which he had already referred.

Motion made, and Question, That the Item of £550, for Religious Instruction of Roman Catholic Prisoners in Convict Prisons in Great Britain, be omitted from the proposed Vote, —put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed, to.

(98.) £227,604, Maintenance of Prisoners in county gaols, &., agreed to.

(99.) £30,510, Transportation of Convicts.

In reply to a question from Mr. CHILDERS,

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that no convicts were sent to Bermuda last year, and none would be sent this year.

(100.) £142,683, Convict Establishment (Colonies), agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow;Committee to sit again on Wednesday.