SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 20 April 1868)

§ MR. MONK
called attention to the proposed expenditure of £9,920 for British Consulate and Embassy houses at Constantinople. A new Embassy house was proposed to be built at Therapia. A most extravagant system was being pursued with respect to the Embassy house at Constantinople; and it was the duty of Parliament to take steps for the reduction of the sums charged upon the country for the purpose of maintaining that establishment. He would quote the following figures to prove how the expenditure had gone on increasing, and to show the enormous sums which had been voted for our Ambassador's houses at Constantinople during the last few years. In 1863–4 the estimate was £4,352, subsequently reduced by a sum of £400; in 1864–5, £3,200; in 1865–6, £3,455; in 1866–7, £3,000; in 1867–8, £4,000; and in 1868–9 it has reached the grand sum of £9,920. He pointed out that last year Parliament had voted a sum of £350 for iron shutters for the building at Therapia, which, if the present proposal were carried out, would be money thrown away. Twenty years ago upwards of £80,000 had been expended in building an Ambassador's palace at Pera, and since that thousands of pounds had been spent in keeping it in repair. He had been at the palace at Therapia, which was very pleasantly situated on the Bosphorus. He thought it was quite unnecessary to spend so large a sum for a new palace, and he hoped the Committee would not sanction the proposal. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £6,000, the sum proposed for the new Embassy house at Therapia.

COLONEL SYKES
said, that the reduction now proposed was microscopic. There 984 was an enormous increase in the Civil Service Estimates this year. They were divided into seven classes, and there was an increase in every class except two. In the first class there was an increase of £198,000.

THE CHAIRMAN
called the hon. and gallant Member to order. The Motion before the Committee is to omit an item from Vote 1, and the discussion must be confined to that item.

COLONEL SYKES
said, he had expected an explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury in introducing the Estimates. Failing that, he had asked the Speaker whether he (Colonel Sykes) could make his comments when the first Vote was moved, and the right hon. Gentleman had told him that the Chairman of Committees would decide. There was an increase in the Estimates this year of upwards of £1,200,000, and the country should be made aware of the fact.

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order!

COLONEL SYKES
Then, Sir, I shall not speak at all.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
feared that the matter was not fully understood by the Committee. Not only at the Embassy house at Constantinople and Therapia, but at the Consulate houses, everything was in an exceedingly bad state of repair, and the real reason why Parliament was so often asked for money was that we had not adopted the best and cheapest course by pulling down the old houses and building new ones. His hon. Friend near him had spoken of the "summer palace" at Therapia. He (Mr. Labouchere) had had the misfortune to live in that palace; and the fact was that so far from being in reality a palace the buildings in question were simply three sheds, nothing better than an old farmhouse, and in exceedingly bad repair. When he resided there he could hardly sleep in consequence of the number of scorpions with which the house was infested. Those who had been much in Turkey knew that when houses became old and full of holes the scorpions multiplied with great rapidity. He believed, in fact, that the thin sheds at Therapia were by this time quite uninhabitable, and that instead of a few hundreds to buy shutters, it was far cheaper to spend £10,000 in one sum, not to build palaces, but a habitable house for the Ambassador's residence in summer. He would, however, ask the Secretary to the Treasury to defer the vote until after some communication with Contantinople, 985 because he (Mr. Labouchere) thought he could show how the necessary house could be built without cost to this country. The Sultan had given to this country a tract of land, on which the present dilapidated sheds stood, with a large frontage to the Bosphorus. Now a frontage on the European side of the Bosphorus resembled in comparative value a frontage in a fashionable London street, and this particular frontage was a quarter of a mile in length. No Turk ever thought of occupying so large a frontage as this by his garden; he would place his villa on the borders of the Bosphorus, and let his garden extend in the rear. He thought he was not wrong in stating that when Sir Henry Bulwer was Ambassador at Constantinople, he proposed to sell a small portion of this frontage, which he estimated would fetch £10,000, and with that sum to build a new house. The only feasible objection urged against that plan was that the land was the gift of the Sultan; but he had consulted many Turks as to what their habit was when the Sultan presented them with estates, a thing which frequently occurred, as the Sultan, being heir to all who died intestate within his dominions, had annually a good many estates on his hands. They told him that they sold these presents; that it was the custom of the country, and that there was nothing in the act derogatory to the Sultan. On the contrary, they thought it would be complimentary to the Sultan to replace the three sheds by a handsome building, reared at the cost of a small portion of the outlying grounds. In fact it would be more complimentary to the Sultan to build the Ambassador's house out of funds so obtained than out of money sent from this country. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would not press his Motion, but that the Secretary to the Treasury would defer the Vote until he had had the means of communicating with Constantinople.

MR. KARSLAKE
said, that as one who had spent much time in Constantinople, he knew of no Vote which the Committee should more readily sanction than this. If the Turks had been left to judge of England's power by what they saw among themselves before the Crimean War, their estimate would have been very low. England had nothing in the country to compare with the handsome buildings of the Russians; and though England's prestige had been lately re-established in the East, he thought it would be only prudent to 986 make a little display in the shape of a respectable dwelling for an Ambassador.

LORD STANLEY
said, that the sum spent on the iron shutters would not be thrown away, as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) complained, because they would be used in the new building. Touching the question generally, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Labouchere), that the buildings referred to could not be called a palace; they simply formed a country residence of most unpretending character for the British Embassy; and, in answer to the question why they were not pulled down, and replaced by an entirely new and substantial building, he answered that this was precisely what the Government proposed to do, although the operations might extend over two years. At this distance from the locality, which was from personal experience quite unknown to him, he was prepared neither to accept nor reject the proposal referred to by the hon. Member for Middlesex; but he pointed out that, however worthy of attention the suggestion might be, it had no material bearing on the question at issue, because if, on inquiry, it was found prudent to sell surplus land and devote the proceeds to building the houses required, the sale could be effected at any time hereafter, and the Treasury could then recoup itself from the sum realized; the building must be paid for out of a Vote, and then credit might be given for the proceeds of the surplus lands in the Estimates next year. The question before the Committee naturally divided itself into three branches—Was a house at Therapia necessary? Was the present house in a proper state of repair? And, presuming these questions to be answered in the affirmative, was the proposed mode of dealing with the question sufficiently economical? Respecting the first point, he believed there could be no doubt. We had always had a house at Therapia; because Pera was very unhealthy during the summer, and because it would be extremely inconvenient if our Embassy remained at Constantinople during the summer, when the Government of the country and all the other embassies had removed to Therapia. On the second point—a Report received last autumn from the English Ambassador at Constantinople, stated that it would be hardly possible for the gentlemen of the Embassy to continue to inhabit the buildings unless something was done to them; and, as regarded the servants' portion of 987 the building, it was simply unfit for human habitation. A recent Report, by Colonel Gordon, clearly showed the present house at Therapia was past all repair. With regard to the manner in which those repairs were to be executed, all he could say was that a gentleman had been sent out from the Treasury, especially charged with the duty of investigating them and other kindred matters, and the Government had simply abided by his Report.

§ MR. POWELL
said, that if the ordinary repairs were on so large a scale as £2,600, it was evident that the buildings must be in such a condition as to render their total re-construction not only wise but economical. Having visited the Bosphorus during the past autumn he could testify that the houses were worn out, and that their condition was such as to render them a byword among the native population. The buildings had been handed over by a former Sultan; and the Ambassadors had suffered some inconvenience with regard to them on account of their possessing certain features of antiquarian interest.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSK
objected to the building of a palace for a country house. He feared that if the Committee voted £10,000 for the purpose this year, they would be called upon for further Votes for decoration and furniture next year or the year after. They had much better give the Ambassador a proper sum and let him provide his own house.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
thought it desirable that the Vote should be postponed until the noble Lord had inquired whether the statement made by the hon. Member for Middlesex, to the effect that a sufficient sum could be obtained, without calling upon the House at all, by the sale of part of the land at Therapia, was well founded.

LORD STANLEY
said, even if it were determined that a portion of the land at Therapia ought to be sold with a view of recouping the nation for the expenses incurred in building, it would not the less have been the duty of the Executive to submit this Vote, in order to bring the expenditure under the notice of the House.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
But will the noble Lord undertake to enquire whether we can recoup ourselves in the manner suggested?

LORD STANLEY
I have no objection to make the inquiry.

§ MR. AYTOUN
asked, by whom the plan for the new palace had been drawn, and whether it was by an officer in the Royal 988 Engineers, his opinion being that officers in the Royal Engineers were incompetent to erect buildings of this character; also, whether an opportunity would be afforded to Members of acquainting themselves with the details?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the plan had been sent home by Colonel Gordon, an Engineer officer appointed by the late Government to superintend the Consular buildings and other works belonging to this country at Constantinople. The total estimate was £10,000, and, as it was supposed that the building would occupy a year and a half, it was proposed to take a Vote of £6,000 this year, with the intention of following it up next year with a Vote of £4,000.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, nobody would suppose for a moment that the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs would waste the money of the country, but there could be no objection, he thought, to postponing the Vote. He believed that if the Embassy at Constantinople were made to understand that the building of the new house would be contingent upon their finding the money, there would be a much better prospect of the money being provided in the way he had suggested than if the House of Commons voted it ill the first instance. Part of the land is now used as a kitchen garden. People in their senses did not think of having kitchen gardens on the Bosphorus. The surplus land might be sold for the full amount of £10,000. As to the suggestion that a Minister should hire a house at Therapia, there must first be a house to hire. Those Ministers for whom houses had not been built at Therapia were obliged, at great inconvenience, to go to Prince's Island.

§ MR. MONK
said, he wished to know whether the plans had been drawn by Colonel Gordon himself, and whether the specifications were at the Treasury? Last year the House was informed that the Government had given this matter their careful consideration, and had come to the conclusion, that as the Ambassador was at Therapia only a short time in the year, a new building for a summer residence was; not necessary. He asked the House to pause before giving its sanction to a proposal nominally to expend £10,000, but really to commit itself to an unforeseen expenditure.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the plan sent home by Colonel 989 Gordon he presumed was his own drawings; at all events, he was responsible for it. He did not think there were any specifications at the Treasury; but an estimate had been sent home by Colonel Gordon, and they were acting on his advice in the matter.

§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEE
contended that a large expenditure of this nature ought not to be sanctioned before the assembling of the new Parliament. He despaired of the present Parliament doing anything really practical or useful with respect to the Estimates.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, that the House having, in 1863, negatived the Vote for the employment of a civil architect at Constantinople, the buildings there were practically not under the charge of anybody with professional experience. When he came to the Treasury in 1865 he found that very large estimates of work to be done had been sent home, yet there was nobody to whom application could be made for information, the clerk of the works having of necessity been brought home and pensioned off, at considerable cost, in accordance with the Vote of the House. After careful inquiry Colonel Gordon, then Major Gordon, an officer of Engineers, who had other employment at Constantinople, and who was certified to be perfectly competent to superintend these buildings, was appointed with a salary of £300 a year, and was instructed to go thoroughly into all questions of repairs, and see whether it was proper to preserve the old palace at Therapia or not. Having made that appointment, be left the Treasury long before Colonel Gordon's Report was received, and knew nothing of what had happened since; but, knowing that if Colonel Gordon had not been appointed there would have been no one to do the work at all, and presuming that the Government had acted upon his Report to the best of their discretion, he could not oppose the present Vote.

§ MR. MONK
asked, whether the noble Lord would not postpone the item till plans and specifications were before them?

LORD STANLEY
said, he was anxious to consult the convenience of the House, but he did not think this was a case for postponement. The feeling of the Committee seemed to be that the preservation of the house at Therapia was desirable. It was admitted that the premises were tumbling to pieces, and it followed that some part of the expense of re-building ought at once to be voted.

§ MR. AYRTON
suggested, that perhaps his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) would be satisfied if the Government engaged not to embark in this expenditure till they knew its extent. The history of those buildings at Constantinople was a somewhat curious one. Some years ago a statement was made to the effect that it was necessary to take some means to secure the Ambassador against the danger of being burnt in the conflagrations which sometimes took place in that city. Upon that a house was begun at a sum of £14,000—enough to build a fine mansion; but the work went on until the Government had spent £80,000 and upwards. Then there was £10,000 for furnishing, and finally the expenditure reached £100,000. The amount spent annually in keeping the house in decorative repair was as much as the salary paid to some of our diplomatic agents at minor Courts. We had appealed to the eye of the Turks by providing the largest Embassy house in Constantinople, fine Consular buildings, a prison, and a hospital, and if in addition to all this the Ambassador was to have a country house rivalling the other palaces on the Bosphorus let Parliament first be satisfied that the estimated cost would not be exceeded.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, they could not have an estimate without a specification. An officer of Engineers had sent in a plan, and, according to his idea, the house would cost £10,000; but another man might have quite another idea—might think the house should be finished and decorated in quite a different way, and the house might cost three or four times the amount now talked of. Without a specification the estimate was a sham.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he presumed that the estimate of Colonel Gordon was made upon certain data, though the specifications might not be in the Treasury; and it would be a most unusual thing for a Committee of Supply to require a specification to be made out in detail for any public buildings. The Government had no intention of exceeding Colonel Gordon's estimate.

MR. OTWAY
said, that although it was not usual to ask for specifications, it was the duty of the Minister before proposing a Vote to ascertain that the charge was a proper one. Officers of Engineers were the most expensive gentlemen to be found for the construction of any work, and their employment had cost the country millions. When a Royal Engineer was appointed to 991 superintend a work another person had to accompany him to take out the quantities. They had no reason to suppose there was any specification in this case, and from the experience at Constantinople they might look for an expenditure of £40,000 instead of £10,000. He should recommend the hon. Gentlemen to divide against the item.

COLONEL SYKES
wished to have some explanation of the item respecting Consular buildings in China.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSK
also wished to hear some explanation respecting the sums asked for Consular buildings abroad, especially in China and Japan. He objected to the present arrangement of the Estimate, which was very puzzling and prevented hon. Members from knowing precisely what they were asked to vote. He doubted the propriety of laying out the money which was asked for Consular buildings in Japan, and as an illustration of the necessity for mature consideration in regard to expending money in the country he referred to a paragraph in The Times' City Article of that morning, which mentioned that there was a town near Yohokama which was magnificent for a settlement, and was on the shores of a lake as large as the Lake of Geneva. Unless details were forthcoming he should divide the Committee on the item respecting Japan.

§ MR. CHILDERS
observed, in reference to a remark of the last speaker, that the Estimates were now arranged in accordance with the provisions of an Act of Parliament passed a few years ago, and in accordance with the advice of the Public Accounts Committee. As to this particular Vote, in 1865 the Treasury, finding that large demands were made from the Foreign Office for Consular buildings in China and Japan, determined not to sanction at that time any additional expenditure; but merely took a Vote to finish the works then in hand, and sent out an officer to visit the different stations and report as to the requirements of each. That being so, it was much to be regretted that the old fault had now been again made of not giving distinct details in the Estimates of the sums required in each case. He might add that when the consular Vote came before the Committee he should take the opportunity 992 of criticizing it. He believed they were retaining Consular establishments in Japan which were outrageously extravagant. With respect to this Vote he thought the House ought to have further information before it voted so large a sum. It was almost impossible to express an opinion upon a lump Vote of £179,000.

§ SIR HARRY VERNEY
said, that the Government ought to be prepared to furnish some information as to the places where and the objects for which the expenditure was to be incurred. There was one source of expenditure of which the Committee ought to be made aware. We had succeeded in getting China thrown open to foreigners, and some of the most disorderly characters from Europe had gone there. It was absolutely necessary that there should be some British authority to control these persons. If by admitting them we destroyed the authority of the Native Government, we ought in some degree to replace it, at least to the extent of keeping our own countrymen in order.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, he held in his hand a list of thirteen places in China and three in Japan at which the money would be expended. Of the total of £179,000, £50,000 was the estimated cost of new buildings at Shanghai alone. In addition new buildings were required at Canton, Foochow, Ningpo, and other places. The principle of this expenditure had been already sanctioned by the Treasury and by previous Votes of the Committee; and the total Vote was submitted this year on the principle that if the expenditure was to be incurred, the sooner the money was spent the better, for then the Government could dispense with the services of the gentleman who was superintending the outlay — Major Grossman, who had proved himself to be a useful public servant, had been sent out to Canton, and was responsible for the way in which this money was spent in China and Japan. There was every reason to suppose that he would conduct the business with due regard to economy. He might remind the Committee that large sums had been realized by the re-sales of land at Shanghai, at prices beyond its original cost; the aggregate gain would perhaps be £50,000 or £60,000, and therefore this outlay was not altogether one of money out of pocket.

§ MR. CHILDERS
thought the Secretary to the Treasury was mistaken in one respect; for he did not believe that the House was committed to this expenditure. On 993 the contrary, his impression was that no sum had previously been named as the total required, and this was the first year that that total appeared in the Estimates. Certainly it did not appear in the Estimates for which he was responsible; for he refused to adopt any sum until he received the Report of the officer sent out to visit nil the stations in China and Japan, and report upon their requirements. Upon that the Treasury and the Foreign Office were to be responsible for the expenditure recommended in each case. The officer selected, Major Crossman, had, he believed, made very considerable reductions upon the schemes of the Consular authorities, sometimes to the extent of one-half of what they proposed. More distinct information ought to be given as to the intended expenditure at each place.

§ COLONEL FRENCH
asked, if any Report had been made with reference to the matter under discussion?

COLONEL SYKES
said, that the Chinese Government had never parted with the freehold of the land required by the English Government; they had simply let it to us at a rent. It was hardly credible that such large sums could be necessary.

MR. OTWAY
said, that an Engineer officer had been sent out on a roving commission, who said they would require to expend £179,000, but did not inform them on what they were to lay it out. The Secretary to the Treasury had said that the Committee were pledged to the Vote by what had taken place last year on the subject. Now, he was informed that there was no Estimate of this kind last year. Would they commit themselves to sanction a Vote of £179,000, by voting a portion of it now?

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that the Vote furnished an illustration of the way in which the House drifted into expenditure of this kind. Several years ago a distinct understanding was come to that the Government should never incur expenditure on public works in excess of the amount of the Vote proposed unless the full extent of the intended expenditure was stated. In this matter, last Session, the Government simply proposed a Vote of £20,000 for Consular buildings in China and Japan, and there was no suggestion that they were embarking in further expenditure; and yet it was now said that the Vote of £20,000 was a mere Vote on account, and that they were committed to an expenditure of £179,000.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the alteration in the form of the Estimates this year, in consequence of the passing of the Exchequer Audit Act, made it difficult for hon. Members to follow the Vote from last year to this. From the Estimates of last year it appeared that in the year 1866–7 a Vote was taken of £20,000 under the heading "Buildings at several Consular Stations." A similar Vote of £20,000 was taken last year under the same heading. On that occasion the Committee did not require a list of the stations at which these buildings were to be erected. He was willing to admit it would have been better if they had been given. The omission had now been supplied by the Secretary to the Treasury. It appeared that they included Canton, Foochow, Ningpo, Tien-tsin, and other places, the names of which, however, would not afford much information to hon. Members unacquainted with the country. Major Crossman was sent out to China and Japan expressly to control the expenditure on these Consular buildings; for it had been found by the late Government that the Consular authorities were more anxious to study their own convenience than economy, and were proposing works regardless of their cost. To put an end to this, his hon. Friend opposite sent out a person in whom he had confidence, to report what was really necessary. Reports had been sent home of the requirements of the different stations, and the expenditure necessary was estimated at £179,000. Of this, £50,000 was required for the Supreme Court at Shangai, leaving £129,000 for the twelve other stations. When an officer was at that distance it was difficult to specify at which stations the building should be begun; and he was therefore instructed to begin building at such stations as it would be most convenient for him to superintend. It was difficult also to find out at such a distance where the money would be spent during the current year. The Government, therefore, could only act generally, and they came to the conclusion that it would be best to leave the control to Major Crossman.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, that this expenditure had been going on for several years, and although on the face of these Estimates, the House was supposed to have voted only £40,000, it had really voted much more. Having regard to the small number of Europeans at Chinkiang and another place, he thought it would be unwise 995 to have these expensive Consular buildings there. He had great confidence in Major Crossman, and it would be well that his Report respecting past and future buildings should be placed on the table.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
asked the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, whether it was contemplated to build at Pekin?

§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSK
said, that some details should be given of the expenditure at Japan, and meanwhile moved that the Vote should be reduced by £15,000, the proposed expenditure there.

COLONEL SYKES
said, that the Committee was left in the dark as to the mode in which this expenditure was to be distributed, as regarded the several Chinese ports. He would suggest that the Papers supplied to the House should state the number of European subjects residing at the places where these Consular buildings were required.

LORD STANLEY
said, he must point out that in Japan you could hardly hire houses; for you could not hire the houses of the Daimios, and there were hardly any others that were fit for the residence of Europeans. Moreover, the system of hiring instead of building was exceedingly expensive. As the Committee were aware, two new ports were opened at Japan, and when new ports were opened it was necessary to have Consuls and Consular residences. In China we were at present paying £8,000 a year for buildings occupied for Consular purposes, and even then complaints were frequent respecting the accommodation. £8,000 capitalized represented a sum of £200,000, and the expenditure on buildings must not therefore be regarded as wasted, but rather as a reproductive investment.

§ COLONEL FRENCH
asked, if there was any objection to produce the Report of Major Crossman?

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, there would be no objection to produce Major Crossman's Report. At all events a statement should be made showing the distribution of the money which it was proposed to spend.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSK
inquired, whether it was intended to build an Embassy house at Pekin?

LORD STANLEY
said, that there was a very extensive, and he believed a very good Embassy house at Pekin. He did not undertake to say that it might not want repair, nor that some additional buildings might not be required; but there was no intention to undertake building on a large scale there.

§ MR. WATKIN
complained that they had no information as to the total amount which had been voted from the beginning in reference to Constantinople and other places.

LORD STANLEY
observed that a Return had been moved for which would give the information.

MR. OTWAY
said, he wished to know whether £15,000 was all that would be required with respect to Consular residences in Japan? Last year the House voted £20,000 for Consular residences in China; and this year the House was told that, because it voted that amount, it bound itself to vote £179,000 for Consular residences in China, for the purpose of completing the business. He wished to know whether the £15,000 now asked for Consular residences in Japan was only a portion of a greater sum, as in the case of the Consular residences in China?

§ MR. CANDLISH
said, the Committee need not expect that by granting, money for the building of Consular residences, they would get rid of annual charges with regard to the residences of our Consuls abroad. He observed that there was an item of £2,000 for ordinary repairs of the Consular residence at Constantinople. The buildings at distant stations seemed always to want repairing, and he thought that in such places it would be better to hire than to purchase houses. He hoped the hon. Member would insist on a division.

§ MR. CHILDERS
hoped the Government would give some further explanations.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the House had voted last year the sum of £10,000 for these Services under the head of buildings required at certain stations, and £7,000 the year before that, and besides this there was last year £5,000 for building in Japan. Major Crossman had sent over a Report with respect to the buildings which would be required in Japan, and he believed the sum of £15,000 would have to be spent upon them. The detailed Report, however, had not been sent home as yet. Unless the Committee would trust the Government 997 in this matter the consequence might be they would have no money to go on with, and that, owing to the distance. Major Crossman's time might be, to a great extent, thrown away. The Committee must be aware that, in dealing with matters of this sort at so great a distance, it was impossible to have the same particulars and details as might be had in the case of buildings nearer home. A great deal must be left to the discretion of Major Crossman, who was on the spot, and it was therefore wholly impossible to give the Committee all the information they might desire. The late Government had acted very judiciously in sending out Major Crossman, and he trusted that the Committee would not, by its Vote on this occasion, render that officer's mission of no avail.

§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEE
inquired, whether Major Crossman was not at this moment in England?

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, he was not; he was abroad superintending these works. He had recommended that expenditure should be incurred at thirteen places.

§ MR. NEATE
urged that the Committee should trust the Government. The amount was not a very large one, and as they knew they had not a very flourishing Budget, it was the interest of the Government to be as economical as possible. His experience was that there was an excessive cutting down of the Estimates at the Treasury.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSK
said, he decidedly objected to this new Vote; because if it were agreed to, no doubt it would be followed in future years by larger Votes. Next year they would be told that the Committee had voted so much this year, and so the thing would go on. He wanted to nip the matter in the bud, and therefore he moved that the Vote be disallowed.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, he had always been under the impression that there was a very good house at Teheran. He agreed with those who thought it far better to build than to hire a house; but he thought that the Committee ought to have some definite information as to how much money it would be necessary to expend upon it. Were they, for instance, going to send out European furniture? If they were it might cost as much as the house itself.

COLONEL SYKES
wished to know, if it was proposed to erect a new mission-house in Teheran, this never having been considered necessary before? We had had a mission to Teheran for half a century, and our Chargé d'affaires used to find a house for himself.

LORD STANLEY
said, this was a great mistake, as there was a mission-house which had been built in the early part of the present century, and the land on which it stood was British property. Of course, it was very unfortunate that houses should tumble down and fall into such a state that they could no longer be inhabited, but so it was. The matter had been inquired into by two engineers on the spot, who reported that the mission premises were partly uninhabitable and partly in need of extensive repairs, and that the site was unhealthy. On these representations it was thought desirable to remove the residence to a somewhat healthier quarter. The old house and land would be sold, and the sum obtained by the sale would defray a considerable part of the expense of the new buildings, which were not intended to be in any way superior.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
had the same objection to this Vote that he had had to that respecting Constantinople. It was for the purchase of land for the new house; and before the Committee was asked to grant £20,000 for that purpose, he really thought that it should be told what was the price that the old site was likely to fetch. He believed that the present house was unhealthy, and he desired to know, what superiority the new site would possess over it in that respect?

LORD STANLEY
said, a conjectural estimate might, no doubt, be furnished of what the land would sell for, but this would be of no practical value, as the price of land at Teheran could not be estimated beforehand, as it might be in London. The old site could not be disposed of till the new house was built.

§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEE
said, he considered that the House was sitting to no good purpose, after the Vote of the other night. He thought they ought to finish up their concerns, garnish their house, and set it in order for the new Parliament, which he hoped would be more economical than any Parliament they had ever seen. It was very wrong of the Government, when they hardly knew that they were any Government at all, except on suffrance, to insist on pressing new Votes. The best thing they could do was to complete the Votes already partly taken, and shut up shop as fast as they could.

§ MR. CHILDERS
suggested to the noble Lord, as a large deficit in the Revenue was unavoidable this year, it would be better to postpone this Vote to another year.

LORD STANLEY
said, no doubt it might be possible to keep the present buildings in repair for two or three years longer; but the price of land in Teheran, both for letting and selling, was rising every year. Ten years ago that which it was now proposed to do might have been done much more cheaply. He did not put this as a matter of extreme urgency; but from all the information he had, and the best judgment he could form, he believed the expense would be greater the longer it was delayed.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
thought they ought to pass this Vote, after the explanations given by the noble Lord.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, that if the price of land at Teheran was rising, the value of the old site might be expected to rise in proportion.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the Treasury had accepted the proposition to build a new house at Teheran with very great reluctance, and only on the ground that it was by far the most economical step that could be taken. It was extremely undesirable that the Vote should be withdrawn; because they would have to spend a great deal of money in keeping the old house in repair.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, that in that case he hoped the Vote would be agreed to. If it was intended to build a new house in two or three years' time it would be mere folly to spend £2,000 or £3,000 in tinkering up the old buildings.

§ MR. GREENE
thought it bad taste for the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) to remind people who were going to die of the fate that was 1000 before them. He supported the Vote on economical principles.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSK
called the attention of the Government to the fact that in the case of Alderney there was some discrepancy to be explained. Of the total amount of £1,274,000 voted, £1,226,861 had been expended, leaving a balance of £47,000 of which £9,000, excess of former Votes, was to be surrendered; whereas it was now proposed to vote £56,000, which would exceed the total.

§ MR. GRAVES
said, the sum asked this year for Alderney was £56,000, or an increase of £13,800 upon the amount voted last year. He confessed he had great doubts as to the propriety of any large expenditure upon Alderney. He had visited the place recently, and was quite unable to ascertain what we shall gain from the large and increasing outlay which went on there. The impression he had derived from his inspection was that they might as well throw the money into the sea as go on with the construction of that harbour, further than the most simple and speediest completion.. It could not contain more than four or five first-class ships, and it would take a garrison of 10,000 men to defend it. It was desirable to bring the expenditure upon these works to an end.

§ MR. CANDLISH
pointed out that the sum proposed this year for Holyhead Harbour, together with the amount previously taken for it, would exceed the estimated cost of the works there. The Estimate had also been exceeded at Dover. He wished to inquire of the Government, whether any idea could be given of the total expenditure which would be required to complete the works at those Harbours?

§ MR. STEPHEN CAVE
was not going to defend what had been done at Alderney. For the works at that place £1,300,000 had long ago been estimated as the sum necessary. When they had gone so far with those works it was requisite to go a certain length further, and not leave them in an unfinished state, which would be really dangerous to shipping. Whether the works would be advantageous to shipping under any circumstances was a point 1001 on which he was not called on to express any opinion; but the increased Estimate this year for Alderney was simply owing to the works being pushed on with greater rapidity, and not to any proposed extension of them beyond the point to which the original Estimate had been cut down. There was no intention of going beyond that; but it was of great importance, in an economical point of view, to have the works finished as soon as possible. He hoped the Estimate of £1,300,000 would not be exceeded. If it were exceeded, the Government would have to explain the cause of it; and if any fresh works should be proposed they could not be carried out without the previous sanction of Parliament. There was, however, no prospect of anything of the kind, and he trusted that the works at Alderney would shortly be brought to a close. At Dover there had certainly been some excess over the Estimate, because it had been found necessary to extend the pier and build a new pier-head, and to provide protection for the rest of the work. As to Holyhead, considerable expenses had to be incurred in consequence of a breach made by a heavy storm last year at that important harbour. It was necessary to repair the breach at once, and it had been done as economically as possible,

§ COLONEL FRENCH
confirmed the statement of the right hon. Member (Mr. Cave) with respect to the breach at Holyhead, and said it was absolutely necessary to expend the money in repairing it.

§ MR. CHILDERS
asked, whether, in consideration of the accommodation provided for the mail packets at Holyhead Harbour, by the expenditure of the sum of £6,500 mentioned in the Vote, the Post Office and Treasury had agreed with the mail contractors as to certain conditions with respect to time, which had been the subject of much correspondence; and, if not, what was required to be done before the Post Office would be in a position to impose fines upon the mail contractors for not keeping time?

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, it was necessary to expend the sum asked for at Holyhead. He would make inquiries relative to the question of the hon. Member for Pontefract.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSK
complained of this continual outlay upon the harbour of Holyhead, which was simply used for a few steam packets.

§ MR. GRAVES
said, he could tell the 1002 hon. Member for Finsbury that it was not an unusual thing to have as many as 300 vessels in Holyhead Harbour at one time. He wished the expenditure upon all their harbours was as profitably laid out as that upon Holyhead. He found that a sum of £496 was asked for Portpatrick Harbour. A very large outlay had been made on that harbour, with a view to make it a packet harbour, but he understood that idea had been abandoned; and if that were the case, why should the harbour be kept up?

§ MR. BONHAM-CARTER
said, that it was greatly to the interest of Ireland that they should obtain the best means of communication between Portpatrick and Ireland; and when the necessary amount had been expended it would ensure accuracy of service.

§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN
asked, if the reason why the penalties had not been enforced against the packet company at Holyhead was because that company alleged that the contract for the execution of the necessary works had not been completed in a proper manner?

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
believed that there had been a long dispute respecting this matter, and he would take care to inquire into it. He believed there was also some point of dispute as to time. It appeared that a sum of £9,000 would be surrendered to the Exchequer, but that sum had not yet been surrendered.

§ MR. CANDLISH
remarked, that no answer had yet been given with regard to the item which appeared in the Vote respecting Portpatrick.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
hoped that this was the last time an item in connection with Portpatrick would appear in the Estimates; for he was glad to say that it had been decided to abandon that place as a port of departure for the mail packets. The difficulty had arisen in consequence of a Treasury Minute of 1856, in which the Government of that day undertook to make a harbour suitable for packet services. On the faith of that Minute the railway company spent a large sum of money, and the object of the Government had since been to come to some arrangement with the company on the subject. It had at last been arranged that the Government should lend the County Down Railway Company the debenture capital at a lower rate of interest than that which they were now paying, and that Portpatrick should then be finally abandoned 1003 as a mail-packet station. As regarded the Portpatrick Railway Company, although the proposition which they lately made was still under consideration, yet they had at last agreed to give up Portpatrick as a point of departure. They still asked, however, that the spirit of the Treasury Minute should be carried out, and that they should retain the privilege of conveying the mails from some other point. He believed that the whole sum asked for in the Vote for Portpatrick would not be required, inasmuch as it was likely that the staff would be got rid of in the course of the year, although it might be necessary to continue the salary of the superintendent until the repair of a breach which had been made in the pier in January was completed.

§ MR. CHILDERS
desired some explanation respecting a sum of £11,650, which was put in the Vote for the Little Basses Rocks (at Ceylon) spare lightship. Was it the case that this lightship had answered?

§ MR. STEPHEN CAVE
was afraid he could not give any more definite answer to this question than that which had been given by previous Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the Board of Trade. After careful consideration, they had come to the conclusion that it would not be justifiable, in the interests of navigation, to take away these lights, and that was all he could say about the matter. The advantage of a light was, of course, negative; and it was impossibly to say how many shipwrecks had been prevented by it.

§ MR. CHILDERS
repeated his inquiry as to whether the existing arrangement had been found satisfactory or not? Three or four changes of mind on the part of the Department had occurred, but the House had as yet no information that the light was satisfactory.

§ MR. STEPHEN CAVE
believed that a lightship had been considered to be the best and must economical plan, though proposals had been made for a permanent construction. The spare ship was necessary in case the other broke adrift.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSK
doubted very much whether they knew what they were doing. He did not know why they should take money unless they wanted it. He could not understand why they should take 1004 money away from one Department, and give it back through another.

§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN
wished to know whose duty it was to report to the Board of Trade as to the advisability of these lights? Was it the Admiral on the station, or any other responsible person?

§ MR. STEPHEN CAVE
said, that the report was made by the agent to the Trinity House. In the case of a colony, by the Colonial Government.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSK
said, this Vote was increasing year by year, and some explanation was necessary with regard to it. There was this year an increase of £14,293 over the amount of last year's Vote. He considered the expenditure enormous. He also noticed that the money spent on palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty was very large. £8,000 was charged for Windsor Castle, and the sum asked for Hampton Court Palace stables and outbuildings, including orangery and vinery, amounted to nearly £8,000. He believed that a certain class of persons were lodged in that place who did not wish to pay their debts; and an action had been brought in the Court of Exchequer against a sheriff for putting the law in force in the case of one of the inmates. He should like to know at whose expense that action was brought. He did not think it was creditable to ask the taxpayers of the country to pay such large sums to keep up these palaces.

§ MR. CHILDERS
asked for some explanation respecting the item for the expense of the re-construction of Romney Lock and Weir, and for the removal of Old Windsor Lock. He believed that in consequence of Romney Lock falling into ruins, some of the water arrangements connected with Windsor Castle were interfered with, and it was originally intended that the expense of the repair of the lock should be only advanced by the Treasury, and repaid from the funds of the Conservancy raised under a Bill before Parliament; but it now appeared that it was to be defrayed by the present Vote.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, when the Conservancy Bill was passed £5,000 was given up to carry out certain drainage improvements, and power was given to impose a certain rate upon the owners of property, for the purpose of diverting the drainage. They were now asked to vote a sum of £15,000 to accomplish the same object, and they ought to see that it was not paid twice over. It ought also to be seen whether they were not in this Vote dealing with the drainage of the whole town.

§ MR. BENTINCK
drew attention to the item of £500 for cleansing and restoring pictures in Hampton Court Palace. They were not, it appeared, the property of the nation, but of the Crown, and the Crown ought to pay the expenses connected with them.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, he could state that no part of the sum asked for in respect of Royal Palaces was devoted to the drainage of the town of Windsor. He thought we had a great deal too many palaces. The palaces which were not in the occupation of the Crown cost about £50,000 a year. The orangery, vinery, stables, and outbuildings of Hampton Court Palace cost £7,313. Now, those who resided in that palace were, from early association, lather reckless in their habits, and in order to point out to them the excellence of economy, he should move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £5,000. £2,313 was quite sufficient for Hampton Court Palace.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
explained that, under the Act of 1866, the Conservators of the Thames gave notice that the drainage of Windsor Castle should no longer find its way to the Thames; it was necessary to divert it at a cost of £8,000, and there was every reason to believe that the plan suggested for the purpose would be found to work well. With respect to the sum necessary for the removal of the lock and other works connected with it, the Conservators had applied to the Government for a contribution towards defraying the expense of the works. Their request was that one-half the sum to be expended should be re-paid by Government, in consequence of the importance of the works for the water supply of Windsor Castle. The expenditure was estimated at £11,000, but the Government only proposed to contribute a sum not exceeding £2,500. In addition to that, the Government had been called upon to divert the drainage of Hampton Court Palace from 1006 the River Thames, and be hoped the plan under consideration would effect that in a satisfactory manner; it would cost £4,500. Under the head of Buckingham Palace there was also an item of £2,150 for cleansing the ornamental water. This explained how the excess on the present Vote had arisen. It would be found that all these additional items together amounted to £17,152, while the excess of the Vote over that of last year was only £14,293. With respect to the pictures at Hampton Court Palace, there had always been a small Vote for cleansing and restoring them. The collection was increasing from year to year; and was under the management of a very competent person, who bestowed great care and attention upon them; and when the hon. Member for Finsbury said these palaces were of no advantage to the public, he could only say that Hampton Court Palace was open to all the world, and the pictures were arranged in such a manner as to render a visit to Hampton Court not only extremely agreeable, but instructive. As to the gardens, they too were open to and much enjoyed by the public. A great portion of the inhabitants of the metropolis habitually derived the greatest possible pleasure from visiting the palace.

§ MR. CHILDERS
remarked that there was no claim on the Government for the lock referred to. There was only a claim for the machinery which sent the water up to Windsor Castle; and it could not cost £2,500 to put the machinery in order.

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, the Vote contained many objectionable items, but there was one he considered particularly objectionable—namely, that of upwards of £7,000 for St. James's Palace. He could not understand the use of this palace. Her Majesty did not reside there or hold Her Courts there. Recently Her Majesty's Courts had been held at Buckingham Palace; and if Buckingham Palace was not large enough for the purpose, he should be in favour of additional expenditure in order to make it sufficiently large. He could not conceive why they should sanction the extravagance of keeping up St. James's Palace, when at most it could be used only two or three days in the year, and when there was another palace in the neighbourhood. Everybody who had ever been at a Court at St. James's Palace agreed that it was a most uncomfortable palace for the purpose. He believed that the state of the finances, as it was to be described next 1007 Thursday, would be most disastrous; and he therefore gave notice that, after the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex (Mr. Labonchere), he should move that the vote for St. James's Palace be reduced by £5,636.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
quite agreed with the noble Lord that great pleasure was derived by the people of the metropolis from visits made to Hampton Court Gardens, and that money could not be better expended than in their maintenance. But he found that under Vote 9, ample provision was made for that purpose, and the Vote of £7,000 odd, which he proposed to reduce by £5,000, was spent, not in the maintenance of those gardens, but upon the stables, vinery, &c. He should like to know who used the stables of Hampton Court Palace. The Court never visited there. He must therefore press his Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN
informed the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Faweett) that if he intended to make his Motion, he must do so before the hon. Member for Middlesex moved his Amendment, as the item to which his Motion refers comes first in the Votes.

§ MR. FAWCETT
then moved that the sum of £5,636 for Palaces partly in the occupation of Her Majesty, be omitted from the proposed Vote.

§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEE
complained of the annual increase in the amount of these Votes. It was said the people went to Hampton Court Gardens; so they did, but they had to pay to see the vinery. They went to Kensington Gardens; but that was no reason for spending so much on Kensington Palace. Then there was a vote of £200 for incidental expenses, which was never there before; he should like to know what that was for. He would support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton.

MR. OTWAY
wished to call attention to two inconveniences which attended the visits of the people to Hampton Court Gardens. The first was the small number of seats in the gardens and in Bustier Park. He must say he knew no man who was more disposed to attend to the convenience of the public than the noble Lord, and he hoped he would take this matter 1008 into consideration. The next was a matter that especially degraded us in the eyes of foreigners — he meant the meanness of charging a penny for permission to enter the vinery. He hoped the noble Lord would take this matter into his own hands, and make such arrangements as would remove this paltry toll so offensive to the visitors of the vinery by next Sunday.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
thought that the number of seats in Bushey Park might be advantageously increased; but he must remind hon. Members that additional seats could not be supplied without an expenditure of money. He hoped, if there was a slight increase in the Votes next year to supply this want, no hon. Gentleman would get up and complain of the extravagance of the Government in reference to it. With respect to the observation of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Guilders), he had been informed that it had been found utterly impossible to throw the whole expense of repairing the lock upon the Conservators, and therefore the Crown had been compelled to contribute its quota proportionately to the benefit it derived from the water supply at Windsor being kept up. With regard to the penny toll on entering the vinery at Hampton Court, he was not ashamed to say that he was not aware of its existence; but now that his attention had been drawn to it he would make inquiries upon the subject.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, the House never complained of any increase in the Votes that were intended for the comfort of Her Majesty, or the convenience of the public, but they did object to expenditure that was entirely useless. There was no justification whatever for the expense now incurred for St. James's Palace. There were few levees held there which could not be held as well in Buckingham Palace, where Her Majesty now held her drawing rooms.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
moved that from the sum of £7,313 for Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty, the sum of £5,000 be disallowed.

§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEE
understood that, as he wished to move a still larger reduction, he must do so before the Amendment of the hon. Member for Middlesex was put. He therefore moved the reduction of the whole Vote by £15,000.

THE CHAIRMAN
stated that he Amendment could not be put, inasmuch as it had been proposed to reduce certain items in the Vote. After such proposals had been decided, it was not in the power of any hon. Member to move a reduction Of the Vote itself.

§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEE
had taken care to propose his Amendment in time; and was disappointed to find that his submission to the ruling of the Chairman had rendered the proposal of his Amendment irregular.

THE CHAIRMAN
reminded the hon. Member for Portsmouth that his Amendment could not, in any case, have been put, inasmuch as it had been previously proposed to reduce an item in the Vole, and the House had divided on that proposal.

§ MR. AYRTON
had always understood that the rules by which the deliberations of the Committees were guided precluded any Member, after any particular item had been decided, to move any reduction in an antecedent item. He had, however, never heard that, after the Committee had decided on particular items, it was incompetent for any hon. Member to move a reduction in the entire Vote, and, as he did not see how their proceedings could be carried on under the rule just laid down, he should take the liberty of moving that the Committee report Progress.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that he had acted under no rule of his own framing, as the following Resolution, agreed to by the House on the 9th of February, 1858, would show— That where it has been proposed to omit or reduce items in a Vote, the Question shall afterwards be put on the Original Vote, or the reduced Vote, as the case may be, without Amendment.

§ MR. BENTINCK
asked, whether the pictures at Hampton Court were the property of the Crown, or of the nation. Were they not maintained by sums voted from the Consolidated Fund?

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, he wished to ask, whether in the opinion of the Government, it would be possible to adapt Buckingham Palace for the holding of drawing-rooms and levees, so that the cost 1010 at present incurred in the maintenance of St. James's Palace might be saved, and the site of that building might be turned to some useful public purpose? If he were not satisfied on this point, he should bring the matter before the House on a future day, and move for a Select Committee.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, that the Question of the hon. Member for Brighton was one to which it would be imsible to give an off-hand answer. It was only after the most minute and careful inquiry that the possibility of adapting Buckingham Palace for the holding of drawing-rooms and levees, and the cost of such an undertaking, could be ascertained; and he was not, therefore, then prepared to give the hon. Gentleman the information for which he asked. In answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck), with respect to the pictures at Hampton Court, he apprehended there could be no doubt that the pictures were the property of the Crown.

§ MR. FAWCETT
hoped that the noble Lord would make the necessary inquiries respecting the point upon which he had asked for information.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he felt it his duty again to advert to the question of Order already raised. If the rule laid down by the Chairman were permitted to stand, it would amount to a complete estopping of their privileges, as it would make it impossible to move anything but the reduction or omission of particular items. This was a question of such importance that the sooner it was brought under the consideration of the House the better, with a view to its being cleared up. In former times, there were no explanatory items; but now these were so numerous that the effect of the rule might be to cause their whole proceedings to be stopped by the most trivial Motion. For instance, if a Member chose to move a trifling reduction, say of £5, on an Estimate and divide the House upon it, no other Member would thereafter be permitted to move the reduction of the Vote, however weighty might be his reasons for so doing. The question was so grave in its nature that he begged the Committee not to proceed further until an explanatory Resolution had been come to by the House.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
fully concurred in the view of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets. It was most important that the Committee of Supply should have the fullest liberty 1011 in dealing with the Estimates. They should be able to discuss the Votes in the gross, as well as in their items, with a view to the proper control of the expenditure.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the Resolution read by the Chairman was founded on a very distinct principle—namely, that the House should not divide twice on the same question. If the wish of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) were complied with, a very unsatisfactory state of things might occasionally arise. One Member might move a reduction of £5,000 in an item and, though he might be unsuccessful, another Member might immediately afterwards move that the whole Vote be reduced by £5,000, which would be virtually seeking a decision twice over. Then, another case might arise. One Member might unsuccessfully move a reduction of £5,000 on one item, a second might move a reduction of £10,000 on another item and be in a minority, and a third might propose a reduction of £7,000 and be in a minority also; yet, the three sections of the Committee who had supported these several Motions might combine, to reduce the whole Vote by the three sums taken together. That state of things would cause great confusion, and prevent the Government from ascertaining with clearness what was the opinion of the House upon the question involved. For these reasons, he thought the Resolution of the House should be adhered to.

§ Mr. AYRTON
repeated his belief that the rule would place an unreasonable restraint upon the action of Members in Committee of Supply. He insisted on the light of every hon. Member to question the expediency of any vote as a whole. In a Vote of £175,000, there might be, as as in ibis case, an item of £1,219 for "Albert Road." According to the ruling, if one hon. Member who objected to the odd £19 made a motion to that effect, another hon. Member who wished the total amount reduced by £25,000 would be precluded from what was his undoubted right. To object to particular items was unwise, and generally useless; the constitutional policy was to move a general reduction of the amount, leaving it to the Government to reapportion the smaller sum among the different items. The construction now put upon the Resolutions must deprive the Committee of one of its most important powers, and rendered it absolutely necessary that a supplementary 1012 Resolution should be passed upon the subject.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
said, he would ask the Committee to suppose a case where one Member wished to reduce a Vote of £200,000 by one-half, while another Member wished to move the total omission of the Vote. If the Member in favour of the omission of the Vote moved first, the other Member could not be heard; and if on the other hand the Member in favour of the reduction of the Vote by £100,000 moved first, the other would, according to the ruling of the Chairman, be precluded from bringing forward his Motion.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he might answer the hypothetical difficulty raised by the hon. Baronet by saying that it would be his duty to decide such a question when it arose. Of course if the whole Vote were affirmed it would be too late to move any reduction; but the hon. Baronet had fallen into on error in supposing that any one could move the omission of an entire Vote. There was no such Motion. It would be a mere negation of the Motion that the sum of £200,000 be granted to her Majesty.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
That is no answer to my objection. When once an Amendment has been moved to any item of a Vote the Vote must be put, it is now stated, without Amendment. This pre eludes any Member who wishes to move that the whole Vote be omitted from doing so.

THE CHAIRMAN
If a Motion be made for reducing a Vote, and that be negatived, any other number of Motions may be made afterwards. The hon. Baronet talks of a Motion for the omission of a whole Vote. I say that no such question is put from the Chair. The question is put from the Chair that the whole Vote be granted, and the Member who desires to see it omitted says "No." But the rule is that when once a Motion has been put from the Chair for omitting or reducing an item forming part of a Vote, after that the reduction of the Vote itself cannot be moved. That is the Resolution of February, 1868, and it is in plain and express terms.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
thought the position of the question was this. A Vote might be proposed in its total amount which any Member might move to reduce. If that Motion were negatived it would still be open to him to move the reduction of any item. The ruling of the Chair seemed to him perfectly 1013 clear. Supposing a Vote of £70,000 was proposed. It was competent for any hon. Gentleman to move its reduction by £30,000, and if this were negatived Members might move Amendments on the ten separate items of £7,000 of which the Vote was made up. But after these items had all been disposed of it was not competent to go back upon the whole Vote, and move a reduction upon it. The Amendment might be taken in the first instance against the total amount of the Vote, or against any portion of it, and if it were negatived it was still open to move a reduction in a particular item; but after the items were passed a Member could not move a reduction upon the whole Vote.

§ COLONEL FRENCH
held that the ruling of the Chairman was correct.

MR. HEADLAM
said, the practice of setting forth a great number of items in a Vote had grown up since the Resolutions were adopted, and therefore it might be wise for the House to consider whether some alteration might not be made in the Resolutions. But he did not see what good could be gained by prolonging the present discussion, since they had no power in Committee to alter the Resolutions.

§ MR. SANDFORD
said, he had never listened to a more monstrous argument than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Different sections of the House might be defeated in turn upon special Motions, and yet they might concur in thinking that the Estimates as a whole had not been framed with a due regard to economy. He thought some alteration of the rule was necessary.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that when the House next went into Committee of Supply he should move a Resolution to amend the Resolution read from the Chair, and to the effect that any hon. Member should have the power of moving the reduction of the whole Vote, notwithstanding that a Member might previously have moved the reduction of a particular item.

§ MR. SERGEANT GASELEE
entered his strong protest against the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Since he had had the honour of a seat in the House he had never heard from a Member of the Government such astounding language.

§ MR. AYRTON
moved that the Chairman report Progress.