Commons Sitting of 28 June 1869

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—New Law Courts; Seeds Adulteration, nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Class I.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Pensions Commutation.
Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Shipping Dues Exemption Act (1867) Amendment * [184].
Second Reading—Poor Law (Ireland) Amendment (No. 2) [173], debate adjourned.
Committee—Report—Civil Offices (Pensions) * (re-comm.) [133]; Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act (1868) Amendment * [182]; Court of Session Act (1868) Amendment * [145]; High Constables' Office Abolition * [183]; Special Bails * [162].
Considered as amended—Civil Offices (Pensions) * (re-comm.) [133]; Greenwich Hospital * [105]; Endowed Hospitals, &c. (Scotland) * [124].
Third Reading—Bankruptcy * [169]; Civil Offices (Pensions) * (re-comm.) [133]; Land Tax Commissioners' Names * [54]; Park Gate Chapel Marriages, &c. * [111]; Prisons (Scotland) Administration Act (1860) Amendment * [143], and passed.

"WRITERS" IN THE CUSTOMS.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN GROSVENORsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it would be incompatible with the interests of the public service to allow "Writers in the Department of Customs" fourteen days' leave annually without deduction of pay?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, in reply, that the persons to whom the Question referred were employed at daily wages, paid on a higher scale than formerly, on the understanding that they were to be paid only for the days that they worked; therefore it would be quite incompatible with the engagements they had entered into, for them to be paid for the days when they were not employed. It would be necessary for the Commissioners of Customs to employ other persons, and to give them the wages which would otherwise be earned by those persons. They were only allowed the holidays which were given by Royal command. He was sorry, therefore, the request could not be complied with.

ARMY—MEDAL FOR SERVICE IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for

  625
  India, Whether it is intended to grant a medal or clasp to the Troops engaged in the Umbeyla Campaign?
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, in reply, that the India medal of 1854 was to be given to the survivors of the troops engaged on the North West frontier from 1849 to 1863, a clasp being attached for the North West frontier generally, and a special clasp for the Umbeyla Campaign.

CHINA—AFFAIR AT PEKIN.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any account has been received at the Foreign Office in confirmation of statements published in the journals of Northern China, quoting letters from Pekin, that the French Chargé d'Affaires, M. Rochfort, had been grossly insulted in Pekin by a high functionary, and had demanded an apology, under the threat of hauling down the French flag, and that the other Foreign Ministers had concurred in the proceedings of M. Rochfort. Also, whether Prince Kung had resigned his seat as Chief of the Foreign Office, and that the Viceroy had been appointed to a seat in the Cabinet at Pekin?
  MR. OTWAYsaid, that no official information had been received at the Foreign Office of the circumstances alluded to; but he had seen them related in the China Mail of the 13th May, and at the risk of disappointing his hon. and gallant Friend, he must express an opinion that they were greatly exaggerated. In a St. Petersburgh letter in a Belgian newspaper of the 18th June there was an account of the transaction, and which stated that the matter had been completely and satisfactorily settled. The latest accounts received at the Foreign Office were dated to 16th April, and what his hon. and gallant Friend had been pleased to call a fracas occurred on the 18th, consequently after the last advices left China.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

AUDIT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he rose to call attention to the imperfect audit of the Public Accounts, and to the failure of the Departments to lay their accounts before the Auditor General. Before, however, adverting to that question, he wished for information with regard to two of the items in the accounts audited for the year ending the 31st of March, 1868. He regretted that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was absent, as the question would rather apply to the late Government than to the present. In the very first Vote of Class I. there was an excess of expenditure amounting to £6,474 over the sum voted by Parliament. Of this sum of £6,474 no less than £3,700 were expended for works on the Norman Tower and Grand Staircase of Windsor Palace. He wished to ask how it was that a sum had been spent on works which did not appear in the Estimates. He also desired to be informed how it was that in Vote 6 of the same Class, while only £1,576 was voted by Parliament for the Embassy House at Paris, the sum of £3,608 was in reality expended upon it? The reason assigned was the change of Ambassadors, but he did not think that a valid one. The great Departments of the State had failed to state their accounts to the Auditor General in pursuance of the Act of Parliament passed in 1866. Under that statute a huge Audit Department was constituted. It consisted of a Controller and Auditor General, with a salary of £ 2,000 a year; of an Assistant Controller, with £1,500 a year; of a Secretary, with £945 a year; of six inspectors of the first class and seven of the second, and of thirty-four examiners. Altogether there was a complete staff of 129 persons, whoso salaries and the expenses of the office amounted to £ 42,200 per annum. Now, from the Auditor General's Report on the Accounts of the year ending March 31, 1868, it appeared that only eighteen Votes were audited out of twenty-seven in the First Class. Six were submitted for audit in an imperfect form, and for three no accounts were submitted, and no audit took place. Of the sum, therefore, of £ 942,235 one-third never came under the cognizance of the auditor; and whether those sums had been expended properly and satis-

  627
  factorily there were no means of judging. The Department had failed to render accounts for the expenditure of £4,000 on the Embassy House at Constantinople, and of £76,700 for Harbours of Refuge; £74,837 had been expended on Public Buildings in Ireland; £21,000 on the Sheriff's Court Houses in Scotland, and £27,000 for Rates on Government property, without any accounts or vouchers being produced. He asked whether it was fitting that, in the matter of rates, for which receipts were always given, the Auditor General should have no power of checking the accounts? Bad as things were in Class I., they were worse in the next Class. In Class II., there were thirty-six different Votes for the salaries and expenses of Public Departments; and the House would be surprised to learn that of these only four had submitted their accounts to the Auditor General, and furnished a correct statement of the appropriation of the money which Parliament had placed in their hands. The list of defaulting offices comprised the Privy Seal Office, for which £2,938 was voted for the year ending March 31, 1868; the Paymaster General's Office, which had received £20,200, and rendered no accounts; the Public Records Office, which had received £21,383; the Poor Law Board, which had received £312,798 and rendered no accounts whatever; the Mint, which had received £44,158; the Inspectors of Fisheries, who had had £39,622; the Office of Public Works in Ireland, which had had £24,620; the Chief Secretary for Ireland's Office, which had had £15,735. In all these cases the Act of 1866 had been disregarded and ignored by the Executive Government which placed it on the statute book. There were, besides, the Copyhold, Tithe, and Inclosure Commissioners, who absorbed £20,101; the Inclosure and Drainage of Land Commissioners, £11,600; the General Register Office for England, Ireland, and Scotland, £69,025; the National Debt Office, £16,424; the Public Works Loan Commissioners, £3,449; the Lunacy Commissioners, £14,440; the Postage of Public Departments, £167,350; the whole amounting to £860,639. None of these had rendered accounts to the Auditor General such as he could audit, and they were therefore without certification. Some of these
  628
  had rendered cash statements, but those which followed had furnished no accounts or statements whatever:—the Houses of Parliament Offices, which had £73,491; the Treasury itself, £52,836; the Home Office, £27,308; the Foreign Office, £67,410; the Colonial Office, £33,250; the Privy Council Office, £30,423. In short, all the great Departments of State, with the exception of the Board of Trade, the Office of Works, the Woods and Forests, and another, had failed to render accounts to the Auditor General, the whole amount placed at their disposal being £1,199,819. The whole amount of money audited was £500,000, the remainder escaped audit altogether. The same neglect of duty was observable in the whole of the remaining five classes of the Civil Service Votes. The Courts of Law and Justice, with the offices attached, comprising Class No. III., had failed to render accounts in such a form that they could be audited, most of them furnishing none at all. Then there were the Colonial Consular Establishments, and other Foreign Services, comprising 229 distinct offices, and amounting to £1,800,000, which furnished no accounts whatever. The same was the case with the Education and Science Departments. In all £8,202,000 had been voted for the Civil Service charges in 163 Votes, on only twenty-four of which had accounts been furnished to the Auditor General and approved by him—eighty-eight had been submitted, in an imperfect form, and of fifty-one no account whatever had been rendered. Now, if a public auditor of accounts were a useless officer, and the work performed unnecessary and unprofitable, let them not throw contempt on their legislation by keeping the Act of 1866 on the statute book. But he held that an efficient auditor was of great use, and it rested with the House to see that the Executive Government secured for them the audit created by the Act. Carelessness in public accounts meant public extravagance, and public extravagance meant additional taxation, which made itself felt by capitalists in lessened means of employing labour, and by the labourer in less work on the one hand and higher-priced provisions on the other, as well as in less education and less moral strength to meet the duties and bear the burdens of life. The responsibility in

  629
  the matter of course lay with the late Government, not one of whose Members, he regretted to say, was in his place, although they were, he thought, bound to offer some explanation as to how it happened that they had so utterly disregarded the requirements of the law, and were guilty of what, he ventured to say, amounted to a gross neglect of duty.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he was sure the House must feel much indebted to his hon. Friend (Mr. Candlish) for having applied himself to the consideration of a subject which was by no means an agreeable one, and very obscure. He, too, regretted that there was no one present on the front Benches opposite to offer any explanation on the subject; but, in answer to the observations of his hon. Friend, he might be permitted to explain that this Audit Act came into operation only on the 1st of April, 1867, that it required a large re-arrangement of many public accounts to give effect to its provisions, and that great difficulties were found to lie in the way in making the necessary changes. To surmount those difficulties was a work of time; and the result was that many accounts for the year ending in March, 1868, could not be completed in the form required by the Act of 1866, and that when the year expired those accounts could not be presented for audit according to the provisions of that Act. They had, however, been referred to a Select Committee which was now proceeding with its investigations into the very question to which his hon. Friend had invited attention, and which had power of calling before it officers for the purpose of receiving from them explanations on all the points to which he had referred. It was not open to him, in accordance with the rules of the House, to enter into details as to the proceedings of that Committee, and he could not, therefore, give his hon. Friend that information which he hoped would be before long at the disposal of hon. Members generally. He could say, however, that, though it was found impossible to render the accounts for the first year, the difficulty would be entirely removed in future years, and there would be no recurrence of the shortcomings shown in the accounts now before the House. When the hon. Member saw the Report and read the evidence, he would find that his
  630
  own details had not escaped the attention of the Committee. He could assure his hon. Friend that this subject had also engaged the attention of the Government, and that every effort would be used to have the accounts audited strictly in accordance with the requirements of the Act.
  MR. J. WHITEsaid, that having brought this subject under the notice of the House last year, he was not surprised at the complaint now made by his hon. Friend (Mr. Candlish) at the utter failure of the Board of Audit for the purposes for which it was intended. Considering that the Treasury controlled the Controller, he was sceptical that the Board as now constituted would ever render the service expected of it, and he looked upon the £42,000 a year which this Board cost as a wasteful appropriation of the public money, because if the Treasury did its duty such costly supervision would not be required. If the Board were properly constituted the officials should not be appointed by the Treasury, but by Parliament; and the Board should report, not to the Treasury, but directly to Parliament, which voted the money. The only way of securing an independent and efficient audit, to which the country would look with confidence, was by dissociating it from the Treasury and making it exclusively responsible to Parliament.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he thought that the explanation of the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ayrton) was unsatisfactory. No doubt his hon. Friend was not in Office at the time referred to; but in this case the House had to deal with Departments, and not with men. How could the best auditors in the world audit accounts if none were laid before them? Yet that had happened in several instances here. For example, even the Treasury, spending £52,000, the Home Office spending £27,000, and the Foreign Office £67,000, had sent in no accounts; and in another class of cases the accounts sent in were imperfect. On the whole, the House had great reason to be dissatisfied, for the half-yearly accounts of any railway company—of the London and North-Western, amounting to £1,500,000, for example—were audited and a dividend paid within three months, after the books were closed, while the Treasury accounts for the year ending, March 31, 1868, showing an expenditure of only £52,000, had not yet

  631
  been audited. Any railway company would dismiss from its service men who, dealing with a trifling expenditure like that, could not make up their accounts ready for audit within a month; and if the head men in these Government offices were chosen, from their abilities, as those of any ordinary company were chosen, instead of from personal favouritism or aristocratic interest, there would be no difficulty. It was most discreditable to our finance that such things should continue, and he hoped that no time would be lost in putting matters on a better footing.
  MR. GLADSTONEjoined with his hon. Friend (Mr. Ayrton) in regretting that no one was present connected with the late Government to take part in the conversation on this most important subject. Probably, however, if they had been present they could hardly have been in possession of the kind of minute and technical knowledge which would be requisite in order to enable Members of this House to come to a perfectly just estimate of the merits. His hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) had rendered a public service in bringing this question forward, and he would not put himself in conflict with the arguments used by him or by the hon. Member who had just sat down; but there were special difficulties in the case of Government accounts, so that you could hardly draw any analogy between them and the accounts of railway companies. Where the Government Department was a pure spending department, and nothing else, it was probable that the analogy might to a great extent apply. But even then it must be taken into view that the operations of all the great Departments of the Government extended over the whole world, and also that there was not and could not be a discipline as efficient in the hands of the Executive Government for securing strictness and punctuality on the part of subordinates as private employers could secure. The geographical difficulty was especially to be remembered; for, if questions arose upon the accounts, instead of having like the London and North-Western Railway to send to a place within one day's post in order to obtain explanations, the Government Department might have to send to a place from which it could only obtain an answer within two or three,
  632
  or even four months. [Mr. CANDLISH: But that would not apply to the Civil Service Estimates.] It would apply to the accounts in general, and even a large portion of the Civil Service Estimates referred to accounts which involved transactions at a great distance, and might require distant references. In the main, however, it must be remembered that our system of accounts was still in some respects in its infancy. Until the Audit Act of 1866 was passed its condition was altogether unsatisfactory. Without presuming, therefore, to the knowledge which would enable him to give specific answers to the statements made, he would say that some degree of patience and indulgence was requisite until such time had elapsed as would justify hon. Members in expecting that the system should be brought to something like perfection. With regard to the remark of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. J. White) whom he understood to say that we might save altogether the establishment of the Board of Audit, and transact the business through the Treasury, he had to reply that, in the first place, the Government had used great efforts to effect a saving in the Board of Audit. That Board consisted years ago, within his recollection, of a large number of Commissioners; and they had now by degrees got rid of the whole of those Commissioners. The Board now cost much less, though the general establishment might not cost less; and it must be remembered that some years ago only a small part, comparatively, of the bublic expenditure came under the view of the auditors. He could not hold out the hope to the hon. Member for Brighton that the Board of Audit would be dispensed with, and the business transacted through the Treasury. He maintained, indeed, that the Board of Audit ought to be perfectly independent of the Treasury, and to make its Reports to Parliament. As a matter of fact, it did so make its Reports, though the Reports were transmitted to the Treasury. The Auditor General was a Parliamentary officer, appointed for the security of the State, and nothing would be more satisfactory to him (Mr. Gladstone) than any arrangement tending to place the Auditor General and his Department more closely and distinctly under the control of Parlialiament. It was undoubtedly the busi-

  633
  ness of that House to be responsible not only for the inception of all public expenditure, but also to follow the money raised by taxation until the last farthing was accounted for; and whatever could be done or suggested in furtherance of that principle would at all times commend itself to the acceptance of the Government.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, it was difficult to know where or how the money voted by that House went, and he trusted that the Government would endeavour to simplify the matter as much as possible.

SLAVE TRADE FROM THE SOUTH SEA ISLANDS.—QUESTION.
MR. P. A. TAYLOR: I rise for the purpose of calling attention to the manner in which the supply of labour to our great colony of Queensland is at present furnished through immigration from the South Sea Islands. My object is to prevent the idea of Queensland being associated with a revival of the slave trade. To show that the territory of Queensland is not an unimportant, but, on the contrary, one of the most extensive of the British colonies, I may mention that its area is nearly double that of Canada; that it is one-half larger than England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and France added together; and that gold, copper, and coal mines have been already discovered in several districts of Queensland. The climate is well fitted for the European constitution. In this magnificent country there has sprung up within the last seven or eight years a system of immigration from the neighbouring South Sea Islands, to supply the wants of labour in Queensland. The evils of that system were admitted on all sides, and upon the recommendation of the Colonial Office an Act was passed to regulate that immigration of barbarians. No Act could render that immigration a desirable or a moral one. Under that system of immigration the evils of the middle passage are repeated. I brought this question before the late Government and the present one, and the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight lately put a question to the Under Secretary to the Colonies. On this last occasion we were assured that the serious attention of the Government would be paid to the matter; but up to the present, as far as I can understand, no active steps have been taken to do away with this dis-
634
graceful traffic. I have nothing to say against the Act passed by the Colonial Legislature. I believe it contains some provisions against which nothing could be said. Probably it is as good an Act as could have been passed under the circumstances; but it wants that specific element by which alone a successful system of emigration can be realized—namely, the establishment of a Government depot in these islands, so as to secure to the emigrants every information necessary as regards the country to which they are to be brought, and as to the nature of the agreement into which they enter. The Duke of Newcastle, writing, in 1861, to Governor Sir George Bowen, having stated that the emigrants to the West Indies and Mauritius were collected in India, under the direction of agents appointed and paid by the respective colonies, were received into depots at the port of departure, were subjected before embarkation to a medical examination, were informed where they were going, and made to understand the nature of the agreement, and, above all, that it was required that every body of males should be accompanied by a certain proportion of females, fixed at that time at 25 per cent, went on to say—
"Wherever the emigration shall be set on foot, it will be your first duty to appoint an emigration agent for the colony at each port from which emigrants are to be obtained."
Now, in the despatch of the Duke of Buckingham to Governor Sir George Bowen, dated 9th November, 1867, suggesting the principal points for an Act, no mention is made of such a condition. The only protection in this respect consists in the clause that the master of the vessel must produce a certificate signed by a "consul, missionary, or other known person," or the agreement shall be overlooked, and that by the Government agent, to see that they understand the terms which they give, the wages they are to be paid, and all this was now supposed to be given. The Bishop of Sydney at the meeting, February 8th, 1869, read a letter from Dr. Pattison, the missionary Bishop of Milensia, in which he stated his unqualified opinion that the natives of the island were incapable of understanding the nature of a legal contract. Now, Sir, this trade as I have shown, wants that first element which would make it tolerable. I am far from saying that even if this

635
element was present that the trade would have been a tolerable one. Notwithstanding the admirable regulations under which it was managed, there were many who doubted whether it was not a great evil. I will read a memorial signed by John Small, Chief Justice of Hong Kong, and the Hon. James Whittall to Sir Richard Graves MacDonnell, Governor of Hong Kong. In regard to Coolie emigration, he says—
"We will give the Chinese Government credit for thoroughly good intentions, and we are anxious to admit that the letter of their legislation in connection with Coolie emigration is very near perfection. But we do not require to tell your Excellency that these very regulations, said to be designed to protect the Coolie against fraud and restraint, are with detestable ingenuity converted into meshes whereby to entrap him more securely. These regulations are of no utility whatever; they serve but to cast dust in the eyes of the world; they afford no protection to the Coolie. For the reputation of the Colony, therefore, for the sake of example, and for the honour, in so far as it is given by your Excellency and to ourselves to uphold the same, of the British Flag, we call upon you to solemnly condemn, by colonial legislation, this trade in human bodies, which, bearing the impress of misery wherever it is carried on, culminates at our very gates into the hideous form of slavery."
With respect to these Coolies, there is a Government depot at the place from which and to which they are sent, and this is how the Chief Justice of Hong Kong states that that trade has degenerated even under these circumstances. There is another charge I wish to make against this Bill. By the 6th clause the Government of Queensland seeks to legalize the traffic in coloured labourers by private persons, in a manner disallowed by the Home Government in the tropical dependencies of the Empire. That is enacted which is contrary to what is elsewhere allowed under British dominion; the only parallel instance is that in which the Mauritius planter is allowed to send his agent to recruit Coolies in India, but this is done under the complete control of the Government authorities both in India and the Mauritius. Now this is not a new question to us. We have felt it our duty, as a country, to interfere in more than one case where our country was obtaining labour for this purpose. When the French resorted to the system of conveying free black labourers from Africa to the French colonies, a Government officer was appointed to superintend the whole transaction, and see that the people were fairly treated. This was the
636
counterpart of the Queensland system. Notwithstanding all the precautions of the French Government, the traffic speedily developed into slavery, and the Emperor abolished it. There was another system to which the Queensland system might be compared. Natives of the South Sea Islands were transported to the cotton fields of Peru. The English and French Governments raised their hands against the traffic as being a slave trade. Now, Sir, to what has this traffic led? It has led to results which might have been anticipated. [The hon. Member then read a long series of extracts from Eastern journals and correspondence illustrative of the treachery used in kidnapping the natives of various islands, and the cruelties practised upon the victims as well on board ship as in the colony.] The Sydney Herald of October 9, 1868, stated that the condition of the natives of the South Sea Islands now in Queensland was most disheartening, and that it was one simply of slavery; that the evidence was too strong to leave doubt that many of them had been inveigled by the most false representations, and others actually stolen from their native land; that many had been induced to sign agreements as they supposed for one year, which when produced showed three, and that, their clothes having been worn out, many of them were to be seen working in the plantations in a state of nudity.
"If complaints arise, it is supposed that they are taken to a magistrate. In reality, on some even of the best estates, coercion is exercised by the overseer. Flogging, irons, threats of shooting—such is the fare."
"Our correspondent," says the Colonial Intelligencer, "humanely interested himself in a girl named Mary, who, it was alleged, was carried off from the island of Tanna by an armed crew, as a ransom for her father. The latter was a chief, and having been made a prisoner by the crew, they refused to release him except in exchange for another native. 'His daughter was then dragged through the water by men of her father's tribe, and thrown naked into the boat. On board she was given as a wife to one of the boat's crew, who is, I think, a bad fellow. This man is from a Christian island, but has been a sailor, and has another wife, to whom he has been married by the missionary in his own island, where bigamy is a legal crime.'"
The captain was afterwards charged with a criminal assault, of which he was acquitted, but her evidence was rejected as being a heathen. The Scotsman of December, 1868, said—
"The last Australian mail brings news that there seems no good reason for doubting. At

637
Mallicolo twenty-one natives were induced to lay down their war clubs, and go below to have a look at the hold. They were not allowed to come up again. Their canoes were sent adrift, and the Siren stood out to see; the wives of the kidnapped men swimming after her whilst their strength lasted, and when they could no longer chase her, still sending wild wails along her felonious wake. At Matlow a large haul was made, but all except two managed to slip ashore in the night. So the Siren cruized about until she had bagged more than 100 islanders. Six, whom she took out of a canoe, she was compelled to restore, because had she not done so their chief would have rescued them by force."
In last February a meeting was held at Sydney to protest against this traffic. The Mayor of Sydney presided, and the Bishop moved the first resolution. The right rev. speaker strongly denounced the traffic, and quoted the testimony of Bishop Pattison, who is now cruising among the islands, as to the misery it had occasioned. The Sydney correspondent of The Times says, writing on the 27th February—
"I believe I stated in my last something respecting the act of the supercargo of a vessel bound to Samoa, where that person had just established a plantation. By arrangement with the captain, sixty men and twenty or thirty young women were inveigled on board and forcibly detained at Samoa. A case has just come to the knowledge of the authorities here, and compelled them to put the law in force against the offenders. The captain of the Young Australia, and one of the crew, stand committed to take their trial for the murder of three natives of one of the New Hebrides group of islands. The supercargo, who is also implicated in the affair, has been caught at Melbourne, and is coming up. Briefly the particulars are as follows:—The vessel mentioned, chartered by a Sydney firm, sailed in September last, or thereabouts, with a cargo for Fijii. The cargo being discharged—so at present I understand the case—a raid was proposed among the New Hebrides Islands for 'Niggers,' as the Polynesians are called, to work on the newly established plantations at Fijii. The vessel was five weeks gone, and when it returned landed 235 natives, including six women, something like £1,200 having been cleared by the transaction. The vessel returned to Sydney. While here intelligence was received from Fijii, which was made known to the Government. It appears that during that voyage, off the island of Palma, three natives were forced on board, who, breaking open the hold in which they were confined, fought for their liberty, and were shot down and turned overboard, by command of the supercargo, and under the silent sanction of the captain. The vessel was just on the point of starting again for Sydney, on another expedition, when the captain was arrested."
Naturally such a wretched system provoked retaliation, and it was stated in a New York paper that eleven Europeans settled in the island of Tanna had been massacred by the natives. [The hon.
638
Member then read a report, from the Rev. J. P. Sunderland, who visited Queensland, and gave an account of what he saw. He visited sugar plantations, where some 3,000 or 4,000 Polynesian labourers were employed, who had been taken from their homes by fraud. Ships went to the New Hebrides to "catch blackbirds," and they caught them by utter deceit for three years' engagements. He went to some of the best sugar plantations in Queensland, and if ever there was anything like slavery that was. He asked the planters what they did when the labourers fell ill? The reply was—"They often gammon to be ill, but we take a whip and tickle them up a bit, and then they soon get well." One planter wrote to another and said—"What can you supply me 100 niggers for?" And no doubt, as long as it was found that £6 or £7 a head could be got for the natives, men would do anything to get them. He next read a letter addressed by the Rev. James McNair—a well-known missionary of the Scottish Reformed Presbyterian Church, of high character—and it was addressed to Commander Lambert, of the Australian Squadron, which detailed terrible acts of treachery, by which numerous natives had been entrapped. A small schooner, under pretext that a man known to be kind to the natives was on board, succeeded in decoying fifteen men at Mari and nine at Erromanga; no sooner had they come on board than they were clapped below hatches. A missionary succeeded in obtaining a promise from the captain that the men should be given up; but the next thing he saw was the vessel with all sails set and at full speed. The missionary concluded by warning Commander Lambert that he should look to him to find out these captives in Queensland, and see that they were returned to their native land, from which they had been so vilely snatched. But nothing more had been heard of them.] The hon. Member then proceeded—At the time when I first put a Question to the late Under Secretary I was called upon by a gentleman from the colony, one of the first who began the system of immigration, and he informed me that in his opinion the proposed Act was so stringent that it would put a stop to this traffic. Now, I believe that, if the Government insisted upon the establishment of a depôt under Government superintendence, at every

639
place from which the islanders were shipped, and a proper proportion of women likewise sent, that the expenses attendant upon these essential preliminaries would be sufficient to put a stop entirely to this unholy traffic. At the very time when the late Government was sanctioning this traffic there was issued from the Board of Admiralty of that Government the most masterly denunciation of the whole affair; and I trust our Colonial Office will follow the Board of Admiralty of the late Government. I will read a few extracts from the correspondence between Mr. Romaine and the Colonial Office. That gentleman, writing from the Admiralty, says—
"My Lords desire me to refer you to the correspondence which took place between the Colonial Office and this Department in 1863, relative to the kidnapping of Polynesians, to be employed on cotton plantations and other agricultural operations in Peru"—
And went on to say that "the trade of procuring labourers rapidly degenerated into slave hunting and slave trading," and that it was the belief of their Lordships that these South Sea Islanders were ''incapable of understanding the nature of a written contract with an employer," and that none of them would—
"Knowingly and willingly engage themselves to work far from their own country at all, or at any place even near their own home, for more than a few months. My Lords are also thoroughly impressed with the belief that whatever regulations may be made for the well-being and liberty of these people, on their being brought nominally within reach of the laws and tribunals of Queensland, yet that no proper and efficient control can ever be exercised over the manner in which these people are obtained and placed on board ship. The task of their collection and shipment is from the nature of the work likely to fall into the hands of an unscrupulous and mercenary set, who, under pretence of persuading the natives into making engagements as labourers for a term of years, would not hesitate to commit acts of kidnapping, piracy, and murder. Entertaining these views, my Lords are unable to concur in any recommendation with regard to framing an Act of the Colonial Legislature for the regulation of the introduction of these people into the colony."
Mr. Romaine wrote again to the Under Secretary of State, referring to the letter from which I have just quoted—
"With reference to the letter from this Department, dated the 7th Dec. last on the subject of the kidnapping of natives from the South Sea Islands by vessels under the Chilian and Peruvian Flags, I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you, for the information of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that, looking to the representations formerly made
640
by this country and France as to the importation of South Sea Islanders into Chili and Peru, and to the representations made by this country as to the importation of negroes from the West Coast of Africa to the West Indies, and looking also to the probability that representation will be made by France on the deportation of South Sea Islanders to serve as labourers in Queensland, their Lordships would suggest that, before the Colonial Office decide upon the question of Colonial legislation for the regulation of the traffic, the opinion of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should be taken on the subject."
I wish the opinion of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had not only been taken, but had been followed. The next thing that comes in these Papers is a remonstrance from the French Government, which is put off with a letter from the Colonial Office to the effect that Her Majesty's Government had had occasion to consider the mode of repressing such outrages as occurred—that they would be glad to be furnished with the details of any cases that had come to the knowledge of the French Government; concluding with the words—
"At the same time, his Grace desires to point out that proceedings of this kind must be distinguished from an emigration of labourers which appears to be going on to some extent from some of the islands in the South Seas to Queensland, and in regard to which regulations for the benefit of immigrants have been suggested to the Governor of Queensland, in which colony some of these immigrants have arrived."
I will trouble the House with but one extract more—from a letter of Mr. Murdoch, of the Emigration Board. He says—
"Whether it is right as a general principle to permit the introduction of an inferior and uncivilized race into a British colony, so strongly deprecated in the Queensland Memorial, is a question which I do not presume to discuss. As far as the emigrant is concerned it would be useless to deny that it may be attended with some disadvantages; but that, on the whole, a race of so low a type as natives of the New Hebrides must derive great benefit from being brought in contact with a purer morality, and a higher civilization cannot be questioned."
I am extremely loth to place myself in conflict with so great and distinguished an authority as this gentleman is. But I should think that the experience of history, as well as the theory is against him. If there was one thing better founded than another with regard to colonization of this kind, it is that nothing but demoralization can ensue under such circumstances. There is one other point in regard to the morality in the islands from which those savages are taken. A writer in the Colonial Intelli

641
gencer says—speaking of contracts for three years—
"This may be very well if all we have to consider is the development of Queensland. But are we to overlook the effect on the islands where civilization is making such satisfactory progress? As a rule they do not contain a surplus of population. If fifty or sixty natives are abstracted from these little communities they are the best—the workers; and what are left? Women, children, old men, and good-for-nothings. During the absence of these braves, their wives, where there are any, despairing of their return, become the wives of other men, and so the family tie is completely broken up. At home, Europe has taken thought for their religious and secular instruction. But this must all be relinquished in Queensland."
I would venture to impress one other consideration upon the House, and that is this—We consider ourselves a moral and practical people, and especially a colonizing people. Now, I say we do to our practical tendencies no justice to encourage such a system as this, and we have the means to make the dependency rich as well as morally healthy. We have a surplus population and pauperism rising and bubbling up to our very lips, and we have philanthropists declaring that our utmost power is unable to grapple with it. Can we not bring these two things together? Can we not send our surplus population to Queensland? Can we not do better than demoralize both? I call upon the country to put a stop to this most infamous traffic, which is dangerous to our international relations with foreign countries, which is sure in the long run to destroy the prosperity of the colony, which is ruining the prospects, and turning into slaves the wretched men who are sent there, and which is frustrating all the efforts made by our missionaries for the civilization of these islands. The hon. Gentleman in conclusion asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention had been called to the great dissatisfaction prevailing in Queensland in regard to the system of importation of South Sea Islanders into that colony; whether he was aware that this importation was described as practically no better than a legalized Slave Trade, that the natives were in many cases inveigled on board under false pretences; and, whether he would lay on the Table any Correspondence on the subject?
MR. MONSELLsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Taylor) had rendered a great public service by bringing forward this subject,
642
for it was undoubtedly a matter of the utmost importance that a country which had done so much to put an end to slavery in this hemisphere should carefully provide against any approach to it in the Polynesian Islands. His hon. Friend had very properly drawn a distinction between the conveyance of emigrants to Queensland and the traffic which was carried on between different Polynesian Islands and Samoa and Fijii. Indeed, with regard to the latter, he would admit the correctness of his hon. Friend's statements. In the case of the Young Australia, for example, the most horrible atrocities had been perpetrated; and other instances might be adduced in which, to say the least, there had been a tendency towards the revival of the slave trade in the islands of Samoa and Fijii. He would venture, however, to controvert his hon. Friend's assertions with regard to the emigration from Polynesia to Queensland. According to the law passed by the Legislature of that colony no one was allowed to go about the Polynesian Islands for the purpose of procuring emigrants without a license from the Government of Queensland. In the next place, masters of vessels were required to give security for the return within three years of such emigrants as desired to be sent back; and they were further compelled to give a bond against kidnapping, and to bring a certificate from the consul, missionary, or other known person, that the emigrants had engaged themselves voluntarily and understood the nature of their engagement. The emigration agent was required to ascertain that such a certificate had been procured before he allowed the emigrants to land. At the same time he (Mr. Monsell) admitted that in two particulars these regulations were insufficient, and to those two particulars his hon. Friend had referred. There were no regulations as to the introduction into Queensland of a proper proportion of the two sexes, and as to the attendance of an emigration agent on board the vessels before they were allowed to sail. Within the last four or five days, however, a despatch had been received from Queensland, stating that certain suggestions of the emigration agent there were about to be embodied in a Bill, and submitted to the Legislature; and, amongst these, were the two which he had just mentioned. If they secured

643
these alterations in the emigration law they would prevent the possibility of any deception being carried on, and there would then be nothing to complain of. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Taylor) had mainly taken his facts from statements made at a public meeting in Sydney, where four cases were relied on. One of these occurred before the passing of the Queensland Act. Two other cases referred not to Queensland, but to emigration to the Fijii Islands. In the fourth case, that of the Sprightly, the master was tried and acquitted. The fact that the case was sent to trial showed that the local government had its eye on this traffic. With regard to the case of the Latona, the captain of which was alleged to have carried off nine islanders, and to have committed great atrocities, a minute investigation had been set on foot, and the depositions of the captain and emigrants taken. The despatches just received stated that there was the sworn statement of the master, as well as of six of the natives themselves, who had returned from Queensland to their native island, and were returning again to Queensland, that the emigration was voluntary. It appeared that the captain had distinctly asked the clergyman, who preferred the charge, to come on board in order that he might satisfy himself that the emigrants were there of their own free will, and that the rev. gentleman had declined to do anything of the sort. The case of the Latona consequently broke down. As to the treatment of the inhabitants of the Polynesian Islands after their arrival in Queensland, he would simply refer to the words of the Governor, who, in the despatch, said they were even better protected than Coolies in the West Indies, and that he had seen them employed on several plantations, working amicably with Europeans and treated on an equality with them. The Attorney General of the colony likewise stated that no instances of cruelty or anything like slavery enforced on these labourers had ever been brought under his notice. Again, the accounts received at the Colonial Office respecting the condition of the Coolies in the West Indies were totally at variance with the statements of his hon. Friend, as they showed that the Coolies who returned took with them on the average £24 or £25 each, exclusive of jewellery and money which they
644
carried about them. He could assure his hon. Friend that the whole question was occupying the most serious attention of the Colonial Department, and that the strongest despatches had been forwarded to the Governors of colonies, warning them of their responsibility on the subject. Every step which the Government could take in that direction they had taken; but he believed, that, at the present moment, the emigration to Queensland was not unsatisfactory, and the House would, he thought, be of opinion that it would not be proper to adopt the course which his hon. Friend proposed, and entirely to prohibit the importation.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that the information which had been given him by the Secretary of the Missions of the United Presbyterian Church in Scotland respecting Queensland, corroborated what had fallen from his hon. Friend (Mr. Taylor), and therefore he could not accept the answer of the Under Secretary for the Colonies as satisfactory. Having had the honour of a seat in that House for many years, he was familiar with that kind of reply—it was the stereotyped answer to inquiries made of the Government in that House; but he was not in the least convinced by it that the traffic was not as bad as his hon. Friend had described it to be. He had read the evidence of one gentleman, who stated that there were 3,000 Polynesian labourers employed on sugar plantations who had been taken from their homes by fraud; and their condition differed widely from that described by his right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies. Those who knew the shameful traffic by which the labourers were brought to the colony, and the quasi slavery in which they were detained there, would not be satisfied with the answer just given. Neither had his right hon. Friend made any reply to the statement made as to the demoralizing effect which was produced on the islands themselves, which were not overpeopled, and yet had the most active of their population carried off by such vessels as the Young Australia.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he had admitted that the Young Australia had committed some irregularities.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, there could be no doubt of the fact that the poor people, when fishing, were torn off from the coral reefs, and taken to Australia.

645
If the case was one of voluntary emigration, then his right hon. Friend might be right in describing the system as satisfactory; but if it were one of kidnapping, the most stringent measures ought to be used to put a stop to the traffic, and he trusted his right hon. Friend, would not lose sight of the subject.
MR. R. FOWLERsaid, he thought the House was much indebted to the hon. Member for Leicester and to his hon. Friend the Member for Perth for having sought for this question the earnest attention of the Colonial Office and of the House. It was stated at meetings held at Sydney and at Brisbane that dreadful atrocities were committed in the trade. He had a letter from Brisbane, dated the 18th of March, 1869, which he was ready to show to the Government if they desired information on the subject. The writer, Mr. Alfred Davidson, of Brisbane, a Member of the Queensland Legislature, referring to a trial which had been held in Sydney for the murder of three Polynesians, said—
"The legal difficulties in these inquiries are great. The Government officers, including the magistrates, are partially under the control of influential men, some of whom are employers of coloured labour, and can be seriously affected in their appointment. The ships carry very few white men, but employ Polynesian sailors. The magistrates have practically rejected native evidence. A proof by native evidence only would therefore not be a legal proof, and any one could be, I take it, prosecuted for libel for exposing a crime. The conduct and expense and responsibility will have to he borne by private persons; the police and Crown lawyers cannot be obtained with facility. A strong feeling of hostility exists against those who advocate the claims of the Polynesians. My own opinion still is that very many come here not of their own free will; if any come truly willingly, I say that is all right. I have formed the opinion that, very often, if not always, it will be found that natives with many of the qualities of the savage are associated with the recruiting agent as coxswains in command of his boats, and, if speaking a little English, acting as interpreters, ready to tell any untruth that he requires."
He might also refer to a despatch of the late Board of Admiralty strongly condemning the traffic. He (Mr. E. Fowler) thought there were two points which specially deserved the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. The first was, as to the evidence that ought to be received; for, if the evidence of natives was to be excluded, it would be difficult to bring complaint home
646
to the guilty parties. The other point was the bringing of natives from islands of different degrees of civilization. Some of the emigrants were brought from islands where Christian missions had exercised a beneficial influence; but others were from islands that were still in a savage or barbarous state, and he believed the natives from these savage islands exercised a demoralizing influence on the colony into which they were introduced. He was quite aware that some persons contended that natives must be imported into the colony, because Europeans could not work, owing to the nature of the climate; but there was, he believed, abundant evidence to show that as soon as a European became acclimatized he was perfectly competent for any work required in the colony. Now, if that were so, then these islanders must stand in the way of European emigration. He hoped the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Taylor) would keep his eye on this question, and that, if necessary, he would bring it again before the House. The reports might be exaggerated, but it appeared to him that, if he had been correctly informed, he should be justified in applying to this traffic the words of one of the most illustrious men who ever adorned the House (Mr. Canning), in regard to the African slave trade—"Its infant lips were stained with blood; that its whole existence has been a series of rapacity, cruelty, and murder."
VICE ADMIRAL ERSKINEsaid, he was glad that the attention of the Government had been directed to this traffic. As early as 1842 natives had been employed by Europeans to cut down sandal wood, and more lately to grow cotton. It was not, perhaps, generally known that there was in the Fijii Islands a colony of about 1,000 persons, mostly Englishmen, but some Americans, who had brought into the colony in the Young Australia above 250 natives from Tanna, not only to work for them, but also to fight for them. A month or two ago he had received a letter from a gentleman of the highest character, who had resided twenty years in those islands, and who stated that two Europeans named Burke and Underwood, had employed the Tanna men to make war upon the mountain races, but they were beaten back and severely wounded. A number of the natives of the island attacked the plantations, and killed and

647
ate six or eight of these men from Tanna, and committed great devastations. Few people probably would have much sympathy for these Europeans, but it was quite clear that these 1,000 white men were not going to be driven from the islands without resistance; and it appeared that Burke had gone over to Sydney to raise 500 men there for the same purpose, tempting them with offers of 500 acres of mountain land a-piece. They would be armed and equipped as regular soldiers, and a war would at once exist between one of our colonies and an island over which we had no control whatever. If this went on it appeared to him that there was rising up in the Pacific another difficulty of the New Zealand type. It was true that the Governor of Sydney had issued a proclamation prohibiting this enlistment; but there was no law to prevent the colonists from quitting the colony and going to these islands. He hoped that this subject would receive the attention of the Government. With respect to the importation of islanders into Queensland, he thought the traffic did admit of such regulations as to make it useful both to the islanders and to the colonists, though the very strongest regulations were necessary.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) complained that they had got the usual official answer, implying that it was a fallacious answer. The fallacy was entirely with the hon. Member himself, for he had confused the kidnapping in the Fijii Islands, with the regular immigration of South Sea Islanders into Queensland, for the purpose of cotton cultivation. The outrages reported to have been committed were in the former quarter, and he knew of no means in our power of checking the system, for it was not carried on under our flag, nor had we any control. As to the immigration into Queensland, all he had heard led him to believe that it was properly conducted. It was perfectly well regulated, for the Queensland Legislature had passed regulations and made provisions stricter even than those made by the Indian Government for the protection of the Coolies sent to the West Indies. It was unfair therefore to the colonists to make such unfounded statements; and nothing could be more injurious both to the colonists and the South Sea Islanders themselves than to
648
raise a general cry against the service as if it were a revival of the slave trade, and enlist the influence of this country to stop legitimate immigration. This immigration was essential to the new industry of the colony, and the natives made use of for labour might become civilized and prosperous by their contact with a civilized race. Half the distress in the West Indies arose from the check given to legitimate immigration by a blind outcry against the revival of the slave trade. It was clear that if the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Taylor) had his will he would stop the immigration, for he asked that such restrictions should be placed upon it as would make it impossible. But he (Mr. Adderley) would ask the House to remember that the Queensland Legislature was as free as ours, and that we had no power or right whatever to interfere with their concerns. If, indeed, it could be proved that, under cover of this traffic, the slave trade were revived, that would be so contrary to the Imperial policy that it would give the House a right to interfere, but of this there was no shadow of proof.
MR. DENMANsaid, that when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) described this system of immigration as perfect, and denied that there was any evidence of wrong doing, he must surely have forgotten the letter quoted by the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. E. Fowler), which, if the statements in it were true, showed a state of things disgraceful to Queensland and to this country, so far as it was connected with Queensland. The subject was well worth the attention of that House.
MR. KINNAIRDexplained that he had spoken on the authority of the Rev. J. P. Sutherland, who was an eye-witness of all that he described.

IRELAND—SALMON PASSES ON THE SHANNON.—QUESTION.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the Board of Works have not made the fish passes in the weirs built by them across the River Shannon, which by the Act 5 and 6 Vic. c. 106, they are bound under a penalty of £25 a day to have done; and, what steps are in progress to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1866, to inquire

649
into the manner in which the drainage and navigation of the River Shannon have been carried out under the direction of Her Majesty's Government, and to report what steps should be taken to complete the works, for which £300,0000 has been levied on the adjoining counties? The Fishery Commissioners had sent Mr. Brady down to inquire into the matter of the fish passes, and he reported that the passes were not made, or were made in places where the salmon could not avail themselves of them, and that in consequence the salmon were shut out from many places which used to be their breeding grounds. He wished to know what had been done with the £600 which had been advanced to the Board for the purpose of making the passes fit for use? With regard to the other question he had raised, the House in Committee had declared that the Government were bound to execute the works according to the estimate given; but, according to the report of their own engineer, the works were so badly executed that an additional sum of £300,000 would be necessary to carry them out as proposed originally, though a smaller sum might suffice to secure sufficient depth for the navigation of the river. He thought he was justified in asking the Government whether they meant to carry out, in a modified way, the views of the Committee of 1866, and whether they meant to propose to grant any additional sum this year?
MR. AYRTONsaid, in answer to the first part of the Question, that the subject had been much considered two or three years ago, and the then Board of Works in Ireland advised the Government that it was essential to erect two fish passes, and no more, on the Shannon, and money was voted for that purpose. He was not aware that anything ad since happened to alter the judgment then arrived at, especially as since that period a contention had been going on as to whether the whole system of dams across the Shannon should not be altered, in order to improve the drainage. With regard to the second part of the Question, he could not discover any evidence of what the right hon. Gentleman appeared to assume, that the Government undertook an important obligation towards the landowners of the Shannon Valley, further than that which was clearly denned by Act of Parlia-
650
ment. What Parliament decided was that works should be undertaken for the improvement of the navigation of the Shannon, and the adjacent counties were to contribute to the expense in proportion to the benefit they received from that improvement, and for nothing else. At that time there were no railways in Ireland, and it was thought that very great benefits would be conferred upon the counties by opening up the navigation. Her Majesty's Government were not the first to go and offer to do these works; they were asked to make a contribution out of the public revenue in aid of the works; and, so far from the landowners having any claim upon Her Majesty's Government, it was rather the Government that ought to have demanded that the money they had advanced should be re-funded in the Treasury. There had been a provision to the effect that if improvements were effected in the lands of the riparian proprietors they should be called upon to contribute individually to the expense of those improvements. But this they had repudiated, and not a single proprietor had been called upon to pay in respect to the improvement of his land; and therefore no obligation had been undertaken by the Government towards any landed proprietors. The right hon. Gentleman was well aware that an Act had been passed to enable districts in Ireland to form themselves into Drainage Boards, and facilities were given in the shape of loans to enable them to carry out their operations. One might naturally ask why had not the proprietors on the banks of the Shannon constituted themselves into Boards for the sake of carrying on those works? But, instead of that, there was a constant repetition of complaints which he ventured to assert were based on an entirely erroneous view of the statute. Her Majesty's Government would be most anxious to meet the communities of the valley of the Shannon if they were prepared to propose any scheme for the drainage of that valley similar to those which had been proposed for the drainage of other valleys. At the instance of the Committee of the House of Lords which investigated this subject, a competent engineer was appointed by Her Majesty's Government to examine carefully into the whole circumstances of the case, and the conclusion at which they had arrived

651
was this, that the gross estimated cost would be £290,000 or £300,000, and that the interest upon this sum would very considerably exceed the estimated annual value of the improvement to be effected, which was estimated to amount only to £6,113 a year. That was the only scheme brought before Her Majesty's Government, and what were they to do? Were they to expend £300,000 in order to produce an estimated return of £6,000 a year? That was an estimate of the improvement of the estates of the riparian owners. But if Her Majesty's Government had embarked in such a scheme, they would probably be afterwards met by the objection that as much injury had been done by taking away the water from the estates as benefit by relieving them from excessive floods, as had been said before. He hoped the House would not look with any favour upon the idea that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to take the initiative and to devise schemes for the improvement of the estates of the riparian owners.
MR. W. H. GREGORYsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ayrton) did not appear to be any better acquainted with the circumstances of the Shannon drainage than he was with the river itself. His hon. Friend spoke of the drainage of that great river as it were a little bit of arterial drainage, and asked why did not the country gentlemen form themselves into Boards and drain the Shannon? But how would persons on the lower part of the Shannon like that gentlemen on the upper portion should form themselves into Boards and send down floods into the lower parts? It was utterly impossible that the riparian owners could do what his hon. Friend suggested. It was the most arrant nonsense he had ever heard in the House of Commons. But suppose they did form themselves into Boards to drain it by sections, the Government would instantly step in and say they would not allow them to drain it because a certain depth of water must be kept up for summer navigation. The course that would be best for the interest of the country would be to reduce the depth of water to what was originally intended by the Act of Parliament. The whole tonnage which would be affected would be insignificant, and now that railroads ran alongside the river the navigation had not
652
the importance it formerly had. At this moment the depth of water kept up was over six feet; but nothing could, be more preposterous. Anybody who knew the great rivers of India or America must know perfectly well that it was the greatest mistake to keep up such a depth in the Shannon. A story was told of two American captains on the Mississippi, one of whom boasted that he could float his vessel in six inches of water, but his rival retorted that he could float his wherever there was a heavy dew. It was not true to assert that any liability had been repudiated. Every shilling which it had been agreed to pay in Ireland for the Shannon drainage had been contributed, but the advantages expected from that contribution had not been obtained.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £36,418, to complete the sum for Royal Palaces.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, there was an increase of £ 1,650 over the Vote of last year, and that Vote showed an increase over the previous one of £14,293 which, however, he admitted arose from exceptional causes. He must complain generally of the great increase which had taken place in this Vote during the last five years. The very large sum of £6,735 appeared to have been expended upon Hampton Court; yet that establishment was mainly remarkable in the present day for legal proceedings, which had been going on for three years, with the object of screening debtors resident within its precincts. The Crown had, perhaps, the strongest interest in maintaining the dignity of justice, and for a Royal palace to be turned into a sanctuary for those who would not submit to the law of the land like other subjects of Her Majesty, was, in point of fact, a public scandal. Who was it, he should like to know, who had been expending money for the last three years in employing Solicitor Generals and gentlemen of their class in the legal courts in the way that had been done? The Head of this Nation had not lived in Hampton Court for a couple of hundred years. He

653
would make a suggestion, if we did go to the expense of keeping up those old palaces, one of them, at least, might be in a condition to receive foreign princes, so that when they came to visit this country they would not have to go to an hotel to live.
MR. MELLORsaid, that including the keeping up of the grounds and pleasure gardens, Hampton Court cost no less than £16,000. He thought that was an excessive amount to be expended on the maintenance of a single palace, and wished for information.
MR. LAYARDsaid, that an item of over£6,500 was attributable to the precautions to be taken to protect Buckingham Palace against fire, a proceeding which was most desirable on account of the very large amount of valuable property which it contained. Captain Shaw had most kindly looked into the matter with him, and they had found it absolutely necessary that steps should be taken with this object in view. An item of apparent increase was explained by the fact that £4,500 not expended last year was re-voted for drainage of Windsor Castle; there had consequently been a considerable decrease, instead of an increase, in this Vote. As to St. James's and Hampton Court Palaces, he must remind the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk) that when the Crown surrendered its revenues, out of which those Palaces had been maintained, the country undertook to keep them up, as well as the gardens and grounds attached to them. He could not agree that the sum expended upon the maintenance of Hampton Court was extravagant; on the contrary, the Palace and grounds afforded a source of recreation and enjoyment to thousands of persons, as any person could not fail to see who visited the place on Sunday or any public holiday. As to what had been said about legal proceedings in connection with the sanctuary supposed to be afforded by Hampton Court Palace, he must remind his hon. Friend that the question was one depending upon the state of the law, which the First Commissioner of "Works had no power to alter. If the law was such as had been stated, the privilege would continue to exist until Parliament thought proper to alter it.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that he had raised the question last year as to the excessive amount proposed to be voted for divert-
654
ing the drainage at Windsor Castle from the Thames, and the Government promised that the matter should be inquired into. The money was not expended; and he hoped it would not be this year without some further inquiry. The cost of the work ought to fall mainly upon the owners, of whom the Crown was one.
MR. ALDERMAN J. LAWRENCEsaid, he did not object to the expenditure on Hampton Court Palace and Gardens, considering what healthy pleasure the public derived from visiting them. But he thought the Chief Commissioner's answer respecting the right of sanctuary was inadequate. If the law protected persons living in the Palace from pursuing creditors, the people would look to the Government to take steps to alter the law.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought it was not proper to press the Government to act in this matter at present, because, as he understood, the ultimate Court of Appeal had not yet decided how the law stood.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he thought if the law was as it had been stated to be, that it was a great scandal, and immediate steps should be taken to alter it.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he concurred in the view of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) that it was premature to raise the question of the Royal Palaces being a sanctuary for debtors until they knew what the state of the law really was. If it were ruled that they were a sanctuary, then he thought the House ought to refuse the Votes for them until the law was altered.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £84,877, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
MR. BOWRINGappealed to the Chief Commissioner of Works to distribute more equally the expenditure on embellishments of public Parks. On behalf of many of the residents in the neighbourhood of Kensington Gardens, he had to complain of the neglect shown to the north end of those Gardens, and

655
of the removal of Queen Anne's arbour from its original site, where it afforded an agreeable shelter from the heat of sun in summer and from rain. He would also call attention to the dreary and desolate appearance of the Gardens in the immediate neighbourhood of the site of Dr. Jenner's monument.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he rose to call attention to the great public convenience which would result by the construction of a carriage roadway from the Mall, across St. James's Park Bridge, to Queen's Square, Westminster. There was now an absolute necessity for some measure of this kind, in order to afford the required convenience to the public, and to relieve the traffic of the neighbourhood. He believed that the plan he suggested was first advocated by Sir Benjamin Hall, when Chief Commissioner of Public Works. Just before the time of the Great Exhibition, the privilege was conceded to the public of the drive through Marlborough House Gate to that by the side of Buckingham Palace. That accommodation, however, was found to be quite insufficient. In consequence of the construction of a new railway station, in Old Tothill Street, there was a proposition before the Government to open Queen's Square to Birdcage Walk, nearly fronting Marl-borough House. The whole roadway across the Park, exclusive of the bridge over the ornamental water, would not exceed 800 feet, and the saving from the south end of St. James's Street to Palace Yard would be no less than 500 yards, to say nothing of the relief to the traffic on the present route. The foot-bridge across the water was not of the most ornamental character. He apprehended that the cost of the proposed roadway might be from £20,000 to £25,000; and, having regard to the extent to which it would promote public convenience, it was very likely that the Board of Works might be induced to bear a large share of the cost. Any objection to the scheme on the ground of interference with the rights of the Crown was easily disposed of by the fact that public carriages had been permitted to use the road between Marlborough House and Buckingham Gate, and by the further fact that since the Great Exhibition public carriages had been allowed to pass through the west side of Hyde Park. It could not be pretended that the construction of the
656
road would be any interference with the rights of the public, for the present path would have to be made very little wider for a carriage-way; iron palisades protected the sides of the footpath, and on one side there was an enclosed space not dedicated to the public at all; and the additional ground required for the carriage-way could not be a serious abstraction from a total of twenty-seven acres on the eastern side of the Park. He would beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will grant an inquiry on the subject either by a Select Committee or otherwise, as they may think fit?
MR. DILLWYNrose to Order. If questions of that kind were to be introduced, it would be impossible for the Committee to make any progress.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he thought the hon. Member (Mr. Bentinck) was in Order, as the Vote related to the Royal Parks.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he should be satisfied if his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works would institute an inquiry.
MR. W. F. COWPERsaid, the hon. Member might be right in point of Order, but he was quite wrong in point of taste. It was a monstrous proposition that for the sake of the very few people who could want a short and direct cut to nowhere—for he hardly knew where the southern terminus of the road would be—they should interfere with the most agreeable and best laid-out walk in the neighbourhood. St. James's Park was a beautiful specimen of landscape gardening, and the driving of cabs and carriages right through the centre of it would spoil its effect and destroy its charm. The making of the roadway would be a piece of Vandalism of which he hoped they would not be guilty.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he quite agreed that the appearance of the foot bridge was not ornamental, because it cut in two the ornamental water; but he entertained great doubts whether its ornamental character would be improved by the alteration proposed. The bridge necessary for a carriage-way must be a considerable structure; and there was great difficulty in obtaining a satisfactory foundation even for the present footbridge. As the proposal would involve considerable cost, he advised the hon. Member to leave the matter in the hands

657
of the Chief Commissioner of Works at present.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he desired to call the Committee back to the consideration of the actual question before them—that of the proposed Vote for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens. He was glad to notice a diminution in the whole amount as compared with that of the previous year, but there were some items respecting which he thought some additional information should be given. Of the Vote for Hampton Court Palace the charge of £3,690 only had reference to that part of Hampton Court Palace and grounds from which the public enjoyed the benefit. No one grudged this; it was the large additional sum of £6,700 that this place cost from which the public derived no benefit, at which he grumbled. He wished to know how it was the Ranger's Department for Richmond Park cost upwards of £2,000, whilst the Ranger's Department for St. James's, Hyde, and Green Parks only cost £131? £2,017 had been expended on the extension of the horse rides in Hyde Park. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner would not curtail the area too much in making his improvements, or forget the poor people who wished to enjoy the Park as well as those who went there on horseback. He was against the surface of the Parks being encroached on much by making even rides and ornamental flower gardens. He next referred to the sum now being expended in making the Serpentine shallower; and, in reference to Victoria Park, he objected to a building within it being licensed for the sale of beer. He disputed the necessity for the sale of beer in any park. It was offensive to teetotallers and men who wished to promote temperance to set up a drunkery in the middle of a public park. He was not a teetotaller, but he sympathized with those who wished to forward their views, and he did not want needlessly to give offence to any class. It did not become Parliament to permit a beer-shop to be established in the middle of this Park—it dare not do so in Hyde Park—and, therefore, he protested against it. He wished further to know how it was the charge for the police force in the Parks had increased so much?
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the Vote for the Parks was one that must force itself on
658
the attention of the Committee as a question of principle. A few years ago this Vote amounted to between £50,000 and £60,000; and in 1867 it rose to £90,000, and now it reached £127,000. He did not think that the whole of this increase ought to be borne by the public. If the increase was to be defrayed out of the Estimates, they would find the other large towns in the country making demands for contributions for the same purpose and from the same source. In Liverpool, Manchester, and other large towns these parks were purchased and supported out of the municipal funds. He had just been to Liverpool, where he saw two large and beautiful parks, and heard that the town had purchased a piece of land for an ornamental garden, which would cost £400,000. Some portion of the cost arising from the improvements effected in the existing London Parks ought, at all events, to be borne by those who more immediately derived advantage from them. He would suggest that the Vote for the Metropolitan and Royal Parks should be fixed at some definite figure—say at £100,000 a year; and if that plan were adopted, the right hon. Gentleman (the Chief Commissioner of Works) would know what amount he had at his disposal, and would be obliged to refuse many demands which were made upon, him. ["Move."] For the purposes of the discussion he would presently move the reduction of the Vote by £27,000 a year.
MR. GUESTsaid, he rose to move the omission of the Vote for Clothing and Salary of the Gatekeeper at Clarence Gate, Roehampton. It was difficult to understand why the public funds should be called upon to defray the expense of a keeper who was placed at a gate for the purpose of preventing its being used by the public. There were many hon. Members who, like himself, had been disappointed by being repulsed from this gate, and having to go a considerable way round; and, as passage by this gate was invariably refused, it was unreasonable to charge the Estimates with this expense. The gate was maintained merely for the convenience of a private individual, the proprietor of Clarence Lane—the Royal Family using it only by courtesy.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, that he should have brought the proposition forward

659
himself if the hon. Member (Mr. Guest) had not done so. He had himself been a frequent sufferer from this man's refusal. When he saw the present Vote on the Estimates he took it for granted that everything had been settled; but, on going that way he found this Cerberus more surly than ever. He believed it was not too much to say that in the summer time as many as 100 parties were frequently turned away in the course of a single day from this gate. If the gate must be kept in its present state, he would suggest that it should be called "Dog-in-the-manger gate."
MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, he called attention to the subject last year, and from what was then stated had hoped that that was the last time the Vote would have appeared in the Estimates, unless the gate was open to the public. The restriction extended, not merely to persons entering, but to persons leaving the Park by the particular gate. The continued existence of a monstrosity of this kind affecting a Royal Park was only to be explained by its connection with, a Government Department. A simple plan of solving the difficulty would be to brick up the gate, pull down the lodge, discard the gatekeeper, and save, not only his salary, but the other incidental expenses. If that were done, there would soon be applications from persons resident in the vicinity and desirous of a nearer approach to the Park than a circuit of two or three miles.
MR. LAYARDsaid, it would be observed that he had departed from the usual course, and had put down the gatekeeper at Clarence Gate as a separate Vote, leaving the Committee to deal with it as it thought fit. What had been stated was perfectly true. This gate, leading into the public park was maintained at the public expense, and was the nearest access to the Park from the metropolis. Hundreds of thousands of persons would pass through that gate if they could do so, but it was approached by two private roads belonging to individuals or to a company, he really could not tell which. These roads were closed against all the public except the Royal Family and certain persons inhabiting Richmond Park to whom permission was given to use them; and so strictly was the privilege insisted upon, that having the Park
660
under his charge, and wishing the other day to see these roads, a bar was slammed to and he was told that he could not pass. He mentioned his name and official position, but was informed that a Mr. Rogers, secretary to the company had given special orders that the First Commissioner of Works was to be excluded. He thought this rather a strong step, but he found a notice posted up to the effect that no one but shareholders and the persons he had already mentioned were to be allowed to use these roads. That a gate maintained at the public expense should thus be made a source of profit to shareholders in a private undertaking was no doubt a monstrous thing. On the other hand this gate was certainly a great convenience to the members of the Royal Family inhabiting the White Lodge; the roads were undoubtedly private property, and a mistake seemed to have been made in disputing that point. He had been given to understand, on what he considered very good authority, that the owners of these roads were willing to take £2,000 for them, and he induced his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consent to what would have been in the public interest a very fair method of settling the question. But the owners of the roads having ascertained that the Government were willing to give £2,000 for the roads, immediately raised their terms to £4,000; or they offered to give one of the roads—that leading to Roehampton—for £2,000, retaining in their own hands the one which would have been most useful to the public—that leading to the main London road. The negotiations accordingly had fallen through; and it was now for the Committee to determine what course they would adopt.
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEasked whether, if the company had a right to go into the Park through the gate, the right hon. Gentleman could cause it to bricked up?
MR. LAYARD: Oh, yes.
Motion made, and Question,
"That the Item of £52, for the Gatekeeper at Clarence Gate, Roehampton, be omitted from the proposed Vote,"—(Mr. Arthur Guest)
—put, and agreed to.
Original Question, as amended, proposed,

661
"That a sum, not exceeding £84,825, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
MR. W. F. COWPERasked, what was proposed to be done with the trees in the Cambridge Enclosure in St James's Park; and, also, what arrangements had been made with the Dean and Chapter of Westminster?
MR. LAYARDsaid, that in replying he would commence with the matter to which attention had been drawn by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk.) His action with regard to Victoria Park had been altogether exaggerated and misrepresented, on the one hand by the teetotallers and on the other by the publicans. In parks constructed under' Act of Parliament and where cricket was played, such as Battersea Park and Victoria Park, the sale of beer had always been permitted, and was carried on when he acceded to Office, but the beer was sold in tents at a bar. Of the the system of drinking at a public bar, or what his hon. Friend called "a drunkery," he entirely disapproved; but to the system which existed in the best parks abroad, where a man could have his dinner at a restaurant, and a glass of beer with it, he by no means saw the same objection. He had accordingly sanctioned the opening of a restaurant, believing that this would be a great source of comfort to the working classes, who having come long distances with their wives and children, naturally wanted something to eat, and did not wish to go to the bar in the tents. At present they could get nothing but a few cakes and ginger beer, unless they went outside the Parks to pothouses, which had arisen in consequence of this state of things, where the scenes were not always such as he or his hon. Friend would desire, and from which persons often came back into the Park drunk, a state of things which certainly did not contribute to the maintenance of good order. Persons would now be able to obtain a plate of hot meat and potatoes, with a glass of beer, or tea if they liked, inside the Park, which ought to be a check upon, instead of an incentive to, drunkenness. During the Whitsuntide Recess he had gone to Paris, and had an opportunity of ascertaining
662
how cheap eating-houses in parks and public gardens were conducted. The attempt had succeeded very well in Glasgow, but there was nothing of the kind in London; and it would, he believed, be a very great been if such establishments could be opened in places of public resort. The person who had taken the eating-house in Victoria Park appeared to be a thoroughly respectable man, and the tariff was nearly the same as that which had been fixed for the refreshment rooms in the South Kensington Museum, where all kinds of persons obtained a very good repast at a small cost. The place was under supervision, and if he heard of a single case of bar drinking or drunkenness, the permission under which the business was now carried on would be withdrawn. He should add that no spirituous liquors were sold on the premises. The publicans round looked about with considerable alarm on this attempt; they did not like to see a working man contented with his dinner and a single glass of beer with it. They wished him to have his beer with something in it which would make him thirsty and want to drink more, and thereby lead him on to drunkenness. The clergyman of the district, the Rev. S. Hansard—a most excellent man, who took a deep interest in the welfare of the working classes—was at first led by misrepresentations to oppose the opening of the restaurant, but since the matter had been explained to him, he had come completely round. In reply to the question of his hon. Friend. (Mr. W. F. Cowper), he must admit that the Cambridge Enclosure was in a bad state, and he would try and put it in some kind of order, but he should not interfere with the trees. With regard to the item for a stone and inscription in Hyde Park, the explanation was there was formerly a convent on the spot which belonged to the Dean and Chapter. It was pulled down, but they had stipulated that a stone should be put up to show that the buildings once belonged to them. He would admit that the gravel walks and the drainage of the north side of Kensington Gardens were not good, but next year he would see what could be done to improve them. The arbour of which complaints had been made was formerly in a dirty corner, but it was now a rather ornamental object, and, though, he did not place it where it was, he did

663
not think it was worth the expense of removing it. The ride in Rotten Row, the extension of which had been complained of, had, he thought, added to the amusement and pleasure of the pedestrians as well as of the riders. With regard to Hampton Court, it contained not only gardens and grounds, but an interesting historical collection of pictures and tapestries, and on Sundays and holidays there were thousands of visitors to see the Palace as well as the grounds. London had now two new and fine Parks—Victoria and Battersea—but the principle laid down by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Goldney) had been recognized in the two Parks latest constructed—Finsbury and Southwark—which were made by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and paid for out of the metropolitan rates. He did not think it would be advisable to reduce the expenditure for the Parks by any considerable sum. Many of the items would not occur again, and it would be a pity to limit the Vote to a particular sum, and that the works already undertaken should be abandoned.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, that the Police Vote had increased from £15,000 to £17,000, although there had been no increase of park space during the past year. Unless some satisfactory explanation were given it would be his duty to move the reduction of this Vote.
MR. GILPINsaid, he should oppose any such reduction. If the hon. Member had to go across the Parks as frequently as himself he would have known that one of the great complaints was that they were so inadequately protected.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that when he last filled the office of First Commissioner of Works his attention was called to the complaints of want of due protection in the Parks. On going into the question he satisfied himself that this arose from no fault on the part of the old soldiers who were park constables, but that a change in the system was rendered necessary by the vast numbers of people and the valuable property now in the Parks. He determined not to dismiss all the park constables, but gradually to substitute the metropolitan police force for them. The change had been attended with the happiest effects and had given the greatest possible satisfaction.
MR. LAYARDsaid, that the increased
664
charge was rendered necessary by the large number of police now employed in the preservation of order and of public property in the Parks, Hyde Park being now open during a greater part of the night. The charge was as low as it could safely be. As a proof he might mention that there was only one policeman at night in the Victoria Park.
MR. CARTERsaid, it was rather hard upon the great towns to have to pay for the construction and maintenance of parks which were almost exclusively used for the benefit of the people of the metropolis. The London Parks should be paid for in their localities, as were those at Leeds.
MR. LATARDsaid, that no park in the metropolis was more frequented than St. James's Park, but it would utterly destroy its beauty to carry a public road across it. It was, however, deserving of inquiry whether the road could not be shortened between Marlborough Gate and Queen's Square, and he would consider the subject. There was after all, some difference between the metropolis and the large towns in regard to public parks. The three capitals—London, Edinburgh, and Dublin—were a source of national pride, and thousands of persons came up every year from the country who took a pleasure in visiting the London Parks
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that in respect to local funds the unfortunate metropolis was not one whit in a better position than the town of Leeds. The Board of Works had no property except that raised by the different parishes. No new parks were allowed to be placed on the Votes. The sum asked was what would meet the requirements of the year in the customary form; and the present system he thought would be found more convenient than to fix a sum beforehand—say £100,000,—as now proposed, which would always be spent. Whatever the necessities of the case, that would be the minimum. There would be no hope of keeping the expenditure under £100,000. He thought the hold which the Committee now had over the different Estimates and items greatly preferable. If any Vote was improper or excessive it was competent to any Member to move its reduction or omission.
MR. ANDERSONsaid, he quite admitted that considerable difference should

665
be made in favour of London as the Imperial city. But, when it was said that people from the country came up to the metropolis occasionally, it should be remembered that they were made to pay pretty sweetly for their visits, and the Londoners might very well be made to keep up the Parks for them in return. Some arrangement should certainly be made by which at least one-half the charge of the Parks should be borne by the local taxation of London. It was not enough that localities should pay for new parks. That rule should apply to the old as well.
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he was obliged to his hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) for bringing this subject forward. Every one must admire the taste displayed in the metropolitan Parks, but the charge was an increasing one, and there was great temptation to lay out very large sums in making beautiful borders and additions to the Parks. He did not wish to overlook the agreement with the Sovereign that Parliament should keep up the Royal Parks; but if the Vote were limited to a specific sum improvements would be carried out with greater economy. Some check ought to be placed on the taste of the Chief Commissioner, be he who he might, for the temptation to lay out money in beautiful borders at other people's expense was almost too great for human nature to withstand. £2,017 was a very large sum for the new ride in Hyde Park, as was £355 for the flower border.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that the ratepayers of the metropolis were already taxed to the utmost extent of their means; the lower class of shopkeepers being barely able to meet the taxation which was laid upon them, and all for the public improvements going on in London. The rate-payers were, in fact, made victims for the benefit of future generations. The Metropolitan Board of Works already owed about £6,000,000, and there was a further loan of £380,000 asked for. He did not think his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) could have considered the real state of the taxation in London, or he would not have made the proposal he had done.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he would at once move the reduction in the Vote to which he before referred. The Chief
666
Commissioner stated that the Vote had been increased by a number of expenses which would not occur again; but it was to these exceptional sums that he objected, and unless some check were imposed they would next year still further augment the amount. If the sum were limited, it would be found sufficient to the requirements of the case. He knew of a remarkable instance in which a gentleman had seventy or eighty men employed in his garden grounds. He died, his heir made a reduction in the number of gardeners employed, and during the last fifteen years the same grounds had been kept in equally good condition by eleven men. No doubt the Chief Commissioner had loads of letters from different parties, each asking for his own locality to be beautified, and he was obliged to give way; but with only a certain limited sum at his disposal he would lay it out economically and to the best advantage. He moved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £28,825.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £56,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."—(Mr. Goldney.)
MR. CAWLEYsaid, he believed the country was quite willing to bear a fair proportion of what might be deemed the legitimate charge for the Royal and ancient Parks of London, which were enjoyed by all who came to the capital. But that expenditure was increasing on them from year to year; and it was perfectly clear that there were heavy items included in the Vote in which the country at large was not in the slightest degree interested. There was, for example an item of £13,000—part of £26,000—for reducing the depth of the Serpentine to prevent the danger to skaters. That expenditure might be a very proper one, but it did not seem one for which the whole country should be asked to pay. Then as to the police he entirely agreed in the importance of having the Parks well watched if they were thrown open during the night; but certainly people did not come up from the country to enjoy the Parks of London during the night. Again, Victoria Park and Battersea Park were not Royal Parks,

667
or places in which people from the country took any interest. It was, in his opinion, high time to put a limit on that expenditure.
SIR PATEICK O'BRIENsaid, as an illustration of the manner in which the details of the Parks were administered he might mention that a private person who objected to the position of an alcove house situated near his residence in the neighbourhood of Princes Gate, was allowed by the Office of Works, on his undertaking to pay the expense of its removal—£400—to have it removed to the opposite side of the park, without consulting the convenience of the residents in that neighbourhood, whose view of the ornamental water it totally intercepted. He wished to know whether, if there, were any complaint of this, the alcove would be re-placed on its original site?
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn. Instead of arbitrarily suggesting that a lump sum should be taken from the Vote hon. Gentlemen who objected to it should point out the particular items which they thought required reduction. That, he submitted, was the logical way of treating the subject. They might as well ask the people of London to maintain Buckingham Palace as to maintain the Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds. They were national institutions for the benefit of strangers coming to London as well as for that of the permanent inhabitants. There was a large sum voted for Holy-rood Park, Edinburgh, and Phœnix Park, Dublin.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the alcove house to which reference had been made was found in its old position to be extremely inconvenient inside of Kensington Gardens, as well as a most unsightly object outside of them, as it projected on to a public road. The Office of Works, over which he had the honour to preside at the time, thought the proposal that it should be removed was a good one, and in sanctioning its removal their object was not the benefit of a few people who lived near it. As to the particular spot to which it was to be removed, the private persons spoken of had nothing whatever to say. That spot was adopted on the ground of convenience, and the Committee should remember that between the alcove and the houses opposite there were a number of
668
well-grown trees. If it now obstructed the view of anybody in the neighbourhood he regretted it. But during the whole time that he held Office he heard of only one gentleman having made such a complaint. The change was a very beneficial one; and it ought not to be alleged against it that it did not entail a halfpenny of expense on the public.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked whether the residents in the houses opposite the new site of the alcove house had been consulted before it was placed there?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, certainly not. He never thought there could be any reason why it should not be put there.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he wished to explain that the real annual cost of the Parks was not so great as it appeared to be in this Vote, because, when Victoria and Battersea Parks were formed, some portions of building land were reserved for sale and lease towards the expense of them, but the profit rents of these lands—which were considerable—came into the Imperial Exchequer under the head of the Woods and Forests, and did not appear in these accounts. If this deduction was taken into account, the hon. Gentleman opposite would find that the Vote did not much exceed £100,000, and it was less this year than last by £10,000. He had done and would continue to do his utmost to keep down the expenditure on the public Parks, but if £28,000 were to be struck off the Vote, after all the arrangements for the year had been made, he really could not be responsible for the result.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Goldney) would not divide the Committee. At the same time he thought the tendency to increased expenditure on the Parks had of late been rather aggravated, and he was therefore not at all surprised that hon. Members were disposed to be critical respecting it. It was obvious that the gardening expenses in Hyde Park had been increased at a tremendous rate during the last few years, and it was a question how far that increase ought to be continued. He was always for a judiciously liberal expenditure on these places of public resort and amusement, but some limit would really have to be put on horticultural extravagance. He should like to know what was the exact nature of the improvements which

669
the right hon. Gentleman proposed to carry out at a cost of £26,000 or £27,000 with regard to the Serpentine? From time to time controversies had arisen in the newspapers as to whether the condition of the Serpentine was such as to be productive of disease. For his own part he had never discovered that malaria arose from it, while he had frequently admired the clean and wholesome appearance of its banks, and the freedom of the water from noxious weeds. However this might be, the expense of £26,000, which was apparently intended to be incurred on the purification of the Serpentine, was a matter requiring special attention on the part of the Chief Commissioner. An analogous case occurred a year or two ago in regard to the Regent's Park; but the public mind was then excited in consequence of the frightful accident which had recently occurred through the breaking of the ice. In his opinion, however, the inhabitants of London might be fairly expected to take into consideration the fact that they incurred a certain amount of risk when they skated on so large a piece of water as the Serpentine. He was not aware that reducing the depth of an ornamental sheet of water was at all conducive to its healthy character. Indeed, his experience, especially in regard to the ornamental water in St. James's Park, which had been reduced to a depth of four feet was quite the other way.
MR. LAYARDsaid, that the cleansing and purification of the Serpentine had been under consideration for a very long time, and it had been postponed so often that it now became a matter of necessity. The hon. Gentleman opposite was probably unaware that for a very long time all the drainage of that part of London emptied itself into the Serpentine, and that the depth of the mud and filth was very considerable. The bottom was, besides, full of holes, which were the source of frequent accidents to bathers and others. In point of fact it was absolutely necessary that the Serpentine should be cleansed and the bottom reduced to one uniform depth, although he by no means insisted that the depth should be four feet.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was unable to support the Amendment, because looking at the increasing population of the metropolis and the accommodation
670
they required, he did not think the Vote excessive.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it seemed to him that the sort of economy suggested by this Amendment was the very worst that could be possibly conceived. It proposed that hon. Gentlemen should give up their function of estimating as reasonable beings each different item of expenditure, and should take the whole sum of £128,000 saying—"Our sense of symmetry and of propriety will be satisfied by granting a round sum of £100,000; we will therefore cut off £28,000 and leave the remainder to the Minister, who must make it do." Now, these Estimates ought to be framed by reason and judged by reason, and if the course proposed by the hon. Gentleman were to be followed the Government might as well come forward and say—"As far as we can see £128,000 is all we shall want, but as £150,000 agrees with our sense of symmetry and propriety, we may as well ask for that sum." The present Government, though they had not been long in Office, had already given proofs of its desire to economize, and he did not think they ought to be met with a Vote of this kind, which was one of the most difficult for a Government to endure, because it raised no objection to any item in regard to which any Minister might be in error, but simply told the Government that they were guilty of extravagance and unable of themselves to correct it. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had spoken of the increase of the expenditure on the Parks, but he would remind the Committee that when the hon. Gentleman was in Office that expenditure was £10,000 more than it was at the present time. As his right hon. Friend (the Chief Commissioner of Works) had explained, a further considerable reduction ought to be made from the Vote in consideration of the rents received from the surplus building lands of Victoria and Battersea Parks, and the cry which was raised seemed to him to arise very much from the circumstance of the Commissioners of Works having been separated from the Commissioners of Woods with regard to this matter. The Queen, in consideration of the Civil List, had surrendered her forests and domains to the nation, who derived a large revenue from them; although, of course they

671
were bound in return to maintain the Parks as being part of Her Majesty's Royal domain. Indeed, that bargain had been always regarded as one by which the Grown lost heavily and the nation gained largely. Under these circumstances it was the duty of the nation to maintain the Parks in a manner suitable to the Royal dignity, for they could not doubt that, if the Parks were in the possession of the Crown, they would be suitably maintained. He maintained that the Parks did not exist solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of London and its neighbourhood, as they were largely used by thousands of people whose permanent residence was in the country, but who spent several months during the season in the metropolis, and contributed nothing to its taxation. ["Oh! oh!"] He should like to know what a person who lived for a few months every year at an hotel in London contributed to its local rates? About the beginning of April in each year London was visited by so great an incursion of ladies and gentlemen that we could hardly cross the streets without being run over, while Rotten Row was blocked up by riders; and was it unreasonable when London was over-run in that way that they should ask for some public contributions towards the maintenance of its Parks. He was no advocate for extravagance; but the Serpentine was in a most noxious state, and if we were living in a warmer climate it would be a source of constant fever, pestilence, and death. As it was it was most injurious to the health of those who lived in its neighbourhood. No gentleman would allow a sheet of water in his private grounds to remain in so unwholesome a condition, and it ought to be properly cleaned and purified without further delay for the sake of those who lived around it, and for the sake of those who came up from the country. For these reasons he believed the Committee would do well to reject the Amendment.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that that Vote was lower by £10,000 than it had been last year; and undoubtedly in the mere item of works there had been a reduction to that amount. But no one could visit Hyde Park without seeing that there was a tendency to increase the expenditure upon it, and it appeared to
672
him to be very desirable that the House should carefully look after that increased expenditure. He was entirely at issue with the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the state of the Serpentine. He had lived in London for the last twelve or fourteen years, and he was not aware that the Serpentine was a cause of disease or death. He believed the water would purify itself. The right hon. Gentleman contended that the Government had given such evidence of a desire for economy that they ought to receive credit for wisdom and good intentions when they advocated an expenditure of that description upon its merits. But he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) should observe that the Civil Service Estimates had not diminished but had increased since last year. He did not make any particular complaint with regard to the Estimates for the Parks; but he repeated that, in his opinion, they ought to be subjected to very careful examination.
MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, he should vote, and for some of the reasons stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney). They were intending to vote for the question on its merits when the right hon. Gentleman rose and sought to turn the question into one of confidence or no confidence in the Government; but if that was the spirit in which the Estimates were to be discussed the Committee might as well take them at once in toto. He had not the opportunity of paying very frequent visits to the Park, but the general account given of it by ladies who visited it, was that it was "something too lovely." Now he believed it was too lovely, regard being had to the fact that the country was taxed to keep it up; and he maintained that the hon. Member for Chippenham had done good service in trying to put a bridle on that tasteful but wasteful expenditure. He would beg to remind his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works that when he (Mr. W. M. Torrens) asked him, at the beginning of the Session to do an act of justice by aiding the inhabitants of the East of London in obtaining and preserving a park for that quarter of the town, though they were perfectly willing to be taxed for the purpose, he could obtain from him no further help than the assurance of his sympathy, which, valuable though it might be, would not furnish

673
playgrounds for the children of those poor people.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that the practical result of the rejection of the Vote by the Committee would be that works which were already in progress would be put a stop to, and it would be rendered impossible that the Parks could be maintained. The vast labouring population of the metropolis which dwelt at the East-end had no greater interest in having these Parks at the West-end kept up than the inhabitants of Liverpool or Dublin. The fact was, they contributed to the enjoyment of but a small portion of the inhabitants of London. During the months of autumn and winter they were almost deserted; and of the numbers who at this season of the year occupied seats in the vicinity of the Ride, nine out of ten were not regular residents in the metropolis. He would state of his knowledge that the taxation in London for local purposes had increased enormously within the last ten years—in the case of his own house, 50 per cent—and he altogether objected to having it further increased to maintain parks for the nation at large.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he had no objection to see the Parks maintained; but then there were four items of expenditure which he regarded as unnecessary—that of £3,000 for new gates, £3,000 for new roads, £4,000 for a new hothouse, and £13,000 for the purification of the Serpentine.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 98: Majority 56.
Original Question, as amended, again proposed.
MR. CAWLEYmoved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £13,125, being the amount asked for alterations in the Serpentine. He thought the account given of the state of the Serpentine by the Chancellor of the Exchequer exaggerated, and that more information was needed before the Committee could well sanction the Vote. He had no confidence that the estimate of £26,000 would cover the improvements proposed. Apart from the general question whether the nation at large ought to be called on to contribute to this expenditure, he thought the outlay itself was for a work of questionable utility. Shallow water
674
would produce confervæ and while the mud at the bottom would do no harm where it was, the attempt to move it would liberate its noxious gases. As to the alleged enjoyment derived from these Parks by country visitors, that was an argument which, if carried to its legitimate extent, would come to this—that the country should contribute to all public parks, wherever situate; because in all the large towns where they existed parks were not in that sense made for the inhabitants of those towns alone, but for all the inhabitants of the locality who chose to go there.
Motion made, and Question,
"That a sum, not exceeding £71,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens,"—(Mr. Cawley,)
—put, and negatived.
Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £82,479, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for the Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings; for providing the necessary supply of Water for the same; for Rents of Houses for the temporary accommodation of Public Departments, and Charges attendant thereon."
MR. BOWRINGsaid, that when it was resolved to convert the neighbourhood of Whitehall into a grand suite of public offices it was expected that there would be a considerable saving in the item of rent of hired offices. The new Foreign Office was now completed, and they had some experience of the result. The Board of Trade had entered the old Foreign Office, and the total saving on the Vote of £31,000 was £500; and inasmuch as the cost of the Foreign Office was £260,000, the total saving was less than one-fifth of 1 per cent.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he hoped that the Government would use some endeavours to reduce the expenses in connection with Chelsea Hospital, which were quite out of proportion to the number of pensioners maintained in that institution.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the hon. Member was somewhat ungrateful in complaining of the expense of Chelsea

675
Hospital, and omitting to mention that, owing to the exertions of the past and present Chief Commissioners of Works, the cost of keeping up the Chelsea Gardens had been altogether removed from the Estimates, and transferred to the fund of the Hospital.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he wished to know why there was an increase in the present Vote over the amount voted last year for fuel and light. Coals were cheaper at present than they had been for a long time, and gas also was in course of reduction in price. The amount under this head in last year's Estimates was £18,900, and in the present Estimates it was £20,220. He moved that the item of £20,220 for fuel and light be reduced by the sum of £1,320.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the item of £20,220, for Fuel and Light, be reduced by the sum of £1,320,"—(Mr. Candlish,)
MR. LAYARDsaid, that the amount for lighting appeared large, but the fact was that the way in which that House had been constructed made it necessary to burn gas in some of the apartments during the daytime. He hoped that in the course of the present year improvements would be made so as to allow daylight to enter more freely, and he trusted that the present item would consequently be reduced next year.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, that the increase in the item for gas was not caused by the House of Commons, but by other public buildings.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was true that not only that House seemed to have been built in the dark ages, but that the new Foreign Office also was so constructed that some of the rooms required to be lighted by gas in the daytime?
MR. OTWAYsaid, that was the case with regard to one or two passages; but it was hoped that in time the defect in that building would also be remedied.
MR. BROGDENsaid, he thought the increase of £1,300 on the item under discussion was perfectly indefensible, because there had been no extension of Public Offices great enough to account for such an additional outlay.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he believed that the Chief Commissioner had misapprehended the Vote he had moved;
676
it had been pointed out that the lighting had nothing to do with the House. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give some further explanation.
MR. LAYARDadmitted his error, but was not quite sure whether the cost of the gas in the courtyard was not defrayed by this Vote. The gas lighting in the new Foreign Office, however, would account for some of the increase.
MR. MONKpointed out that the total increase amounted to the sum of £3,000.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he wished to know why the items for rates for the Government property were not put under one head?
MR. AYRTON: The item of £1,150 is a charge made under Act of Parliament. The item of £9,252 is a sum paid in aid of, or a contribution in lieu of rates—the Crown not recognizing the right to make a legal demand for them. The arrangement has not been carried out completely; when the arrangement is complete the Departments of the Army and Navy will each account for the sum it disburses in respect of the property it occupies, but will do so, of course, under the sanction of the Treasury.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he would like to know why £2,000 had been put down for increased accommodation for the Charity Commissioners?
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that the rents paid for various public offices were enormously high for the accommodation provided, and that the matter was worth investigation.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3l8t day of March 1870, for the Supply and Repair of Furniture in the Public Departments."
MR. BROGDENsaid, the expenditure for furniture for the last eight years amounted to £20,898. He wished the other Departments would imitate the economy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the demand for furniture in his office only amounted to £8. Among the items were these:—Office of the Great Seal, £329; the National Debt

677
Office—almost a superfluity—£235; the Poor Law Board, £423; the Public Works Loan Office, £453; the Record Repository, £313; the Treasury, £364; and the great item of all was £2,687 for the War Office. He admitted that the Government deserved credit for having reduced the Estimate by £1,000 from last year; but as similar sums had been voted, in past years for furniture for most of these offices, and the same remark applied to nearly all, he felt it his duty to move that the proposed vote of £10,000 should be reduced by £4,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £6,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 81st day of March 1870, for the Supply and Repair of Furniture in the Public Departments."—(Mr. Brogden.)
MR. LAYARDsaid, the Estimates showed what was expended last year, and that expenditure was the only guide to the probable expenditure of the present year. The total sum had been £15,000 a year; this year the Estimates were reduced by £1,000; and it would be his duty, in the course of the year, to cut the expenditure down as much as possible, and to see that the officers did not ask for more than they ought to have.
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, surely the cost of the War Office could be reduced now that they were blessed with a new War Lord of the Treasury.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that according to an arrangement with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the item of £184 on account of their offices ought not to have appeared in the Estimates.
MR. ANDERSONsaid, that the Chief Commissioner of Works seemed to think that because so much was spent last year the same would be required this year; but he (Mr. Anderson) arrived at an opposite conclusion, seeing that furniture did not wear out in a year.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, the yearly expenditure upon furniture for the Public Offices was simply inexplicable. He should like to know the system pursued in the renewal of furniture. Did each office order its own furniture, and then send in the bill?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that within his recollection the vote was £20,000 a year, and the reduction to
678
£14,000 was satisfactory, considering the increase in the number of offices. The pains that were taken at the Office of Works to check and reduce the demands which were made by other offices were most creditable; and he could not let the opportunity pass without mentioning the name of Mr. Austin, the late Secretary, who looked sharply after these demands. Whereas £15,000 was voted last year, owing to the care taken only £13,200 was expended, and there was reason to hope that the expenditure this year would be less than the Estimate.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, it appeared that there was no Estimate before the Committee, and that they were asked to vote money in a manner which had been condemned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was just as easy to estimate the furniture as it was to estimate anything else that might be required. Practically, they were asked to vote a sum of money to be spent upon those who would ask for it.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he could confirm what had been said as to the efforts made to keep down this expenditure.
MR. MONKsaid, this was no Estimate whatever, and he should support the Amendment.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, at all events there ought to be no entry for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
MR. LAYARDsaid, the Estimate was as fair as could be given. You could not tell at the beginning of the year what the offices would require.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, a note ought to have been appended to the item for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, stating that it would not appear again; otherwise there was no security that arrangements which were entered into would be carried out.
MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he could not understand, to take one item, how the Master of the Bolls could require such an expenditure in furniture for his chambers. The only principle seemed to be that if furniture was not wanted in one office it might be wanted in another.
Question put,
The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 112: Majority 60.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(5.) £17,000, to complete the sum for acquisition of Lands for the New Palace of Westminster.
MR. GOLDNEYasked for an explanation of the Vote. As far as he could trace it, its history was this—Five or six years ago an estimate was made for the purchase of the land that lay to the west of the House, and the proposal was to make it an ornamental garden. The estimate was £108,000, but only about £30,000 had yet been voted, and meanwhile the remaining property had increased in value, the tenants' claims for compensation increased, the original estimate had been increased to £150,000, and before the plan was completed it would very likely rise to £200,000. Now, in such a case it seemed to him that either the Government ought to go boldly with the money in their hands and buy the whole of the property at once, or they should give the whole thing up. Independent Members ought to make a stand here, and it was clear that they were fighting both front Benches on these questions of expenditure.
MR. LAYARDsaid, the original Estimate stood at £150,000, and still remained at that amount. The ground to be purchased lay to the south-west of the Houses of Parliament, and upon it there were a great many old houses which, it was represented, would be exceedingly dangerous to the Palace in case of fire.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the estimate of which he had spoken was that of Mr. Pownall, adopted some four or five years ago. If danger did really exist, it would be better to buy all the land needed at once than to wait for a rise in value.
ALDERMAN LUSKagreed with the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney). He thought the land should be bought up at once.
Vote agreed, to.
(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £34,026, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament."
MR. MONKsaid, he must draw attention to the enormous increase of £1,221 upon the item for fuel and gas, which
680
last year was under £6,000. He moved that the Vote be reduced by £1,221.
MR. PEASEasked for explanation of the cost of warming and ventilation. The supply of three steam boilers could not account for a difference of £3,000.
MR. J. WHITEobserved a charge of £2,000 as an estimate of the cost of increasing light round the central hall and in the halls and corridors. He entirely sympathized with the object, but wished to know by what means it was to be attained.
MR. LAYARDsaid, the remedy was very simple. When only a ceiling intervened between the passage and the sky, he proposed to remove the ceiling and put out the gas. This had been already done with good effect in some cases, and he hoped to do it in a good many rooms throughout the building. His attention had been called to the large expenditure upon gas, and a short time ago he sent a circular to the various officers having apartments in the Houses of Parliament, urging that economy in its use should, as far as possible, be observed. The Committee need not be told that a good deal of gas was used in cooking.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had just given a very good reason for the reduction of the Vote as proposed.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked for some explanation as to the estimate of £8,000 proposed to be expended on the improvement of the central hall between the Houses of Lords and Commons.
MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, that the crypt was another dark place requiring a good deal of light. He wished to know by whose authority the large sums already expended had been spent, with what object furniture had been placed in the crypt, whether it was intended to perform Divine service there, and if so, by whom the cost was to be defrayed?
MR. LAYARDsaid, that the central hall, one of the most important chambers in the building, was very dark, and altogether unsuited for its purpose. He wished to alter it, by raising the lantern and doing away with the artificial light sometimes required on a summer's day. Parts of the walls also had never been finished, but were covered with paper, which was going to decay. He proposed to re-place this with suitable decorations. As regarded the crypt, the

681
works there were undertaken by his predecessors, and the sum of £500 included in the Estimates would finish the outlay both upon the crypt and baptistery. As regarded future expenditure, it was for the House to say whether they wished Divine service to be performed there.
MR. KINNAIRDhoped his right hon. Friend did not adopt the expenditure on the crypt. Anything more monstrous or lavish it was impossible to conceive.
MR. MONKsaid, that giving his right hon. Friend full credit for his efforts to economize fuel, he would not press his Amendment on that point, especially as this had been a cold summer, but he felt bound to seek a reduction in the amount of the Vote for gas.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £32,805, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Monk.)
MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, that part of the £500 was to be laid out on a baptistry, What could the House possibly want with that?
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he thought his right hon. Friend ought to be a little more explicit about these decorations in the central hall, which were to cost £8,000. The Commission of Fine Arts, which formerly existed, ran into all sorts of useless expenditure, and came deservedly to an end some five or six years ago. It was supposed that no new statues would be erected without a Vote of that House; but eight new ones had made their appearance in the north wing of the building, in the passage leading to the Speaker's Court. One was a statue of Henry VIII., who was represented as a very thin man, and was squeezed into a niche where he seemed very uncomfortable. Opposite to him was William III., who was known to be a short man, but who was represented as very tall. The other six statues were equally extraordinary. They represented early Christian kings, but were not inscribed with any names. Still they all professed to be works of art, and therefore he trembled when he heard the right hon. Gentleman talk of "some decoration."
MR. MORLEYsaid, he wished to
682
know whether the right hon. Gentleman could not provide two or three rooms where Members could have interviews with their constituents? ["No, no!"] It was quite conceivable that an intelligent citizen should now and then wish to have intercourse with his Member.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he would call attention to the item of £1,000 for a picture of the "Judgment of Daniel," by Mr. Herbert, which was to be put in the Peers' robing room. He wished to know when that picture would be finished?
MR. MILLERsaid, he thought the sum of £4,410, just put down for the subway from the House to the railway station, was very large for so small a work. He wished to know whether it had been contracted for?
MR. LAYARDsaid, there was a great want of accommodation in the House for purposes suggested by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley), and he was unable to suggest a remedy. One proposal was to make a private lobby of the lobby nearest the House, and to confine strangers to the central hall. With regard to the picture to be placed in the same chamber as the fresco of "Moses with the Tables of the Law," Mr. Herbert was working at it, but he was unable to name a time for its completion by the artist. It was determined to execute the subway beneath Bridge Street by contract, and tenders were sent in. It was expected to be ready early this Session, but the parish interfered in consequence of the water pipes being removed, and other difficulties arose. With respect to the central hall he had thought it desirable to remove the windows and lighten the glass, as had been done in the Lords' corridor. The present windows darkened the hall and almost made it necessary to have gas there in the daytime. By raising the roof, however, and making a kind of lantern, he hoped to make the hall lighter. The Royal Commissioners had recommended that certain frescoes should be placed in this hall; but, after the experience they had had, he should not attempt to put frescoes there. He had been informed by Dr. Percy that no preparation of lime would stand the smoke of London; but he was going to try mosaic, and he had asked Mr. Poynter and Mr. Moore to prepare designs for cartoons for this purpose.
MR. R. FOWLERsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether the Members' reading room could not be enlarged. It was now much too small.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 129: Majority 78.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. J. WHITEmoved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £2,500. He was induced to do so by the ominous intimation of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner that part of the Vote was to be applied to the decoration of the walls of Parliament. Now, after the sad experience they had had as to decorations, there was every reason to fear that the original estimate would be largely exceeded when once they had embarked in such a dilettante matter as this, and it was better to put a stop to it in limine.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £31,526, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament,"—(Mr. White,)
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought it probable the Committee might desire some further explanation on this subject before coming to a vote; because, although the sum was not a large one, it was undoubtedly the first attempt at any considerable works of decoration since the termination of the Royal Commission. The right hon. Gentleman had confined his observations to the central hall, where he proposed to make structural alterations, to fill the panels with mosaics, and to introduce glass for the purpose of giving a better light. He should be glad to have some further information on the subject. Was the architect, Mr. Barry, satisfied with the alterations proposed in the roof of the central hall? Would the alterations be in entire accordance with the architecture—and would the drawings of the two artists who had been called in be submitted to the inspection of Members of the House? It was proposed to take £5,500 for this special service, but that was only the commencement of what might prove a very serious affair.
MR. LAYARDsaid, the noble Lord
684
(Lord John Manners) was quite correct in what he had stated. What he was about to do was undertaken at the suggestion of the architect himself. The hall was exceedingly dark for the greater part of the year, and even during the day it was necessary to burn gas. The lantern would be altered so as to admit more light. The panels were merely rough brick, covered with paper, which was peeling off. The alterations would be done at a very moderate expense. The architect suggested that a mosaic surface, which would reflect light, might be applied to the panels; and the two artists selected for preparing cartoons for this work were well known for their ability. Another part of the expenditure was for a change in the windows—such as had been advantageously effected in the gallery between the Queen's robing room and the House of Lords, when the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) was in Office. He hoped the Committee would have confidence in him to see that these alterations were properly made.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he would certainly support his hon. Friend (Mr. J. White) in the reduction proposed. This Vote was opening a very large question, and it was difficult to see the end of it. He entered his protest against the beginning of these alterations. They were proposing still further to decorate a building which was already, in his opinion, over decorated.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to know who was responsible for the Kings in Westminster Hall?
MR. LAYARDsaid, he had nothing to do with the Kings. They were placed there before he came into Office.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. LOCKE KINGmoved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £500 for the crypt of St. Stephen's.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £33,526, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Locke King.)
MR. LAYARDsaid, the noble Lord on the other side (Lord. John Manners) would be better able to explain the matter than he could.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that last year the House of Commons had been pleased to vote a sum of £3,520 for the decoration of St. Stephen's crypt among other things. The work had been notoriously going on—for year after year a sum had been voted towards its complete restoration and decoration, and the crypt was a very beautiful ecclesiastical national work. He apprehended this would be the last Vote for the purpose, and he did not think the House of Commons would grudge it.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, this was the way money was lavished. It was a matter of principle, and he would oppose the Vote.
MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, this Vote was not for money expended; it was an estimate for money to be expended. Antiquarians were of opinion that the crypt had been spoilt by these lavish decorations.
MR. GUILDFORD ONSLOWsaid, he hoped the House would not refuse the Vote. Two Catholic priests, friends of his, had seen the crypt, and said it was very beautiful.
Question put
The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 121: Majority 79.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

SHIPPING DUES EXEMPTION ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill for the amendment of "The Shipping Dues Exemption Act, 1867."
Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY and Mr. WILLIAM COWPER.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 184.]

SEEDS ADULTERATION BILL.
Select Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. HENRY BRAND, Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, Mr. CLARE SEWELL READ, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. CROSS, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. M'LAGAN, Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Mr. MORRISON, Mr. COGAN, Mr. BACKHOUSE, and Mr. WELBY:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.