§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £211,642, be granted to Her Majesty, for the Civil Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871.
[Then the Services are set forth at length.]
§ MR. RYLANDSobjected to the Vote, on the ground that it was contrary to the understanding come to last year that the sum should be taken in a lump.
§ MR. BAXTERsaid, he was not aware of any such understanding; but he would withdraw the Vote in its totality.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he wished to call attention to the large amount of Supplementary Estimates presented by the present Government. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had on several occasions laid great stress on the fact that the late Government had found it necessary to produce Supplementary Estimates. In 1868–9 a Supplementary Estimate for £171,000 had been brought forward, and when the present Government came into office they added to it £130,000, making the whole £300,000. The late Government were subjected to very severe strictures on this account; but the next year there was a Supplementary Estimate presented of nearly £200,000 in July, and in March last year another for £170,000. In July last there was another Supplementary Estimate of £50,000, and now there was another of £211,000. He hoped if hon. Gentlemen opposite ever crossed the floor of the House they would in Opposition remember what they had done when on the Treasury Bench.
§ MR. BOWRINGobserved that £50,200 of the sum to be voted was for the relief of Paris, in which they must all cordially concur.
- (1.) £5,800, Portland Harbour (Supplementary sum).
309 - (2.) £9,500, Public Record Repository, Acquisition of Lands (Supplementary sum).
- (3.) £3,819, British Consulate and Embassy Houses, Constantinople, &c. (Supplementary sum).
§ MR. RYLANDSexpressed a hope that the Government would continue to rent accommodation for the Embassy rather than incur the great expense of attempting to re-build what had been burnt down.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (4.) £1,254, National Debt Office (Supplementary sum).
§ (5.) £3,350, Office of Works (Supplementary sum).
§ (6.) £3,026, Poor Law Commission, Ireland (Supplementary sum).
§ (7.) £4,000, Law Charges (Supplementary sum).
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKobserved, that law charges were very heavy at all times. He did not know why, considering what was voted last year, these should be asked for.
§ MR. BAXTERsaid, these charges had been very carefully looked into. They had been occasioned by the prosecutions for bribery at Norwich, Beverley, and Bridgwater.
MR. WHITEcontended that where bribery was proved to have extensively prevailed, the municipality should be amerced in the amount which the investigation cost.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, the expense of the Commissions was already thrown on the locality; but these were expenses incurred by the Solicitor to the Treasury.
§ COLONEL SYKESheld it was time that a special Committee sat upon the question of diminishing these law charges, and of determining how they could do with less law.
§ Vote agreed, to.
§ (8.) £4,800, Bankruptcy Court (Supplementary sum).
§ (9.) £2,500, Miscellaneous Legal Charges, England (Supplementary sum).
§ (10.) £11,000, Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland (Supplementary sum).
310§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, these law charges were monstrous altogether. This year we were paying £2,000 more than last year, and no Fenian prosecutions had taken place in Ireland that he was aware of.
§ MR. BAXTERsaid, that the Vote included spring assizes that were unusually heavy and protracted, and that ought to have been included in the Estimate for the preceding year.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (11.) £75,000, National Gallery (Supplementary sum).
§ MR. BOWRINGsaid, he thought an explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting a recent purchase of pictures would be acceptable.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the money was asked for on account of the purchase for the National Gallery of a collection of pictures made by the late Sir Robert Peel 50 years ago. The collection consisted of 77 pictures and 18 drawings, by Rubens, Vandyck, and others; it included eight pictures by Sir Joshua Reynolds; but the majority of the works were the masterpieces of the most eminent artists of the Dutch school. Among the pictures were the celebrated one of John Knox preaching, and the equally celebrated "Chapeau de Paille." All the pictures had been originally chosen with great care, taste, and judgment; the collection was in excellent order; and it was unique and complete in itself as a representation of the Dutch school. The collection had been carefully examined by two competent gentlemen, Mr. Richmond and Mr. Boxall, who reported that it was well worth the money, and he hoped that it would be no further expense to the country. The Committee were aware that the Trustees of the National Gallery had been allowed £10,000 a-year to spend in pictures; but this year £8,000 was unexpended, as was £8,500 in the preceding year; in three or four years about £20,000 of these annual Votes had been re-paid into the Exchequer, and it was now intended to stop the annual Vote for the present until, by these savings, and the amount of the annual Vote, the present purchase had been paid for. He did not mean to say that the Trustees would wholly refuse to buy any work of great merit that was offered them; indeed, they 311 would take the responsibility of doing that if it were necessary, and of asking the House afterwards to approve their conduct; but they would endeavour to defray the cost of this collection by the annual subscription of £10,000, believing that, by this purchase, they had done better for the public than they could have done by the expenditure of an equal amount spread over a number of years.
§ MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of impugning the merits of the pictures, as he believed they were quite worth the money. But the House was on the eve of discussing increased Estimates; it was about to expend a large sum of money on very doubtful objects, and in the face of such an amount of pauperism as now existed he held they had no right to waste the public funds in this extravagant manner. It was a great mistake to spend money on such luxuries, seeing that we forgot that we had ceased to be either a great or a rich country. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might smile; but that was not far from the truth. It would be no consolation to those of our countrymen who feared invasion, or to a starving mechanic who could not find bread for his children, to say that we must have fine pictures. The whole proceeding was most unjustifiable, and if he could get any support from hon. Members opposite he should divide against this Vote.
§ MR. W. H. GREGORYsaid, he was confident, in spite of the diatribe they had just listened to, that the Vote would be supported with acclamation, not only by the House but by the country, as such Votes invariably had been. He had always found the greatest willingness on the part of the House to sanction any outlay recommended by the Ministry for the acquisition of those works of art which were a subject of pleasure to all who viewed them, and of improvement to all who studied them. There were many present who remembered the unanimity with which, the House applauded the purchase of the Due de Blacas collection for the British Museum, and by no section of the House was that transaction more approved of than by the Gentlemen below the Gangway, to whom the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck) had been appealing. The hon. Member said this 312 was not the moment to buy pictures; but were pictures to be bought like a hat or a coat, whenever you wanted them? He said this expenditure was waste. This was not waste. There was more waste in one year in building ships that would neither sail, steam, nor fight; more waste in one estimate, the result of panic and of nonsense, than in the estimates of 20 years for the purchase of works of art. These things remained to be a credit and a joy to the nation. They were not bought one year at great expense to be superseded and thrown aside as useless the next year. Every year added to their value, for every year fresh competitors entered the market for their acquisition. Every little town of Belgium, France, and Germany was forming its local museum and its picture gallery, and the advancement of taste and refinement in the products of those countries, was a proof of the good effect of these exhibitions. He hoped the same effects would, by the establishment of similar institutions in England, be produced, for we could not but acknowledge our shortcomings in those articles in which refinement of taste was the great requisite; and he trusted the time would shortly arrive when the representatives of large towns would insist on the superfluities from the central galleries and museums being spread throughout England whenever there was a fitting structure to receive them. It was impossible to overrate the value of the collection just purchased. The National Gallery had not been yet half a century in existence, and yet there were few, if any, collections in any country which embraced so wide, so select, and so fine a class of pictures of the various schools of Italian art, taking them altogether. The National Gallery owed its origin to the purchase of the Angerstein collection in the year 1823; but it could not be said that the systematic acquisition of pictures had commenced till the annual Vote of £10,000 was begun in the year 1855. The credit of this, in some respects, unrivalled collection as regards Italian art is due to the taste, learning, and activity of the late Sir Charles Eastlake, and his successor, Mr. Boxall, by the same high qualities, has added many magnificent specimens to the Gallery. Still, in regard to Dutch pictures there was a great deficiency, which was much regretted and com- 313 plained of by many persons who took a deep interest in this school of art. Now that deficiency was at an end, and we could enter the lists even with the Louvre, as regards our collection of Dutch masters. By this acquisition the gaps had been filled up, the possibility of doing which could hardly have been contemplated within any given period of time, if at all. They had obtained a Terburg of the finest quality, and in the finest condition. They had obtained noble specimens of Metzu, Mieris, Van der Heyden, Wouvermans, De Koning, Ostade, Carl du Jardin, Jan Steen, all of which had previously been wanting. They had also obtained admirable pictures by other masters, already represented. Besides the famous "Chapeau de Paille," by Rubens, alluded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, among the pictures bought was the chef d'œuvre of Hobbema, and two Peter de Hooghes, which would be a joy to all who saw them. Nor were our own English artists omitted. There was the Wilkie mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and several pictures by Reynolds, among which the portrait of Dr. Johnson would stand comparison with the finest works of the Italian pencil. There was an additional interest, too, connected with the collection, for it was the labour of love of one of our greatest English statesmen, and it was gratifying to see that the taste of the amateur was on a par with the sagacity of the Minister, for throughout this large collection there could hardly be named more than two or three pictures which were not of the very highest order of merit, a compliment which could be paid to few private galleries. The hon. Member for Norfolk spoke of lavishing money in making this purchase; but he (Mr. W. H. Gregory) could assure the House that the pictures were bought at a sum considerably below their value; and, apparently, by the arrangements made, the country would not be put to the additional expense of 1s.; and he would convince the House he was justified in making that assertion. When the National Gallery was re-organized—in fact, set on a complete new footing in 1855, a Treasury Minute was passed, defining the duties of all persons connected with the institution. Among other regulations were the following:— 314
My Lords propose, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee, to insert annually in the Estimate for the Gallery a sum expressly for the purchase of pictures. The sum need not be annually expended, but might accumulate, and thus enable the Trustees and Director to purchase a fine collection at once, if such an opportunity should offer.The Trustees and Director have acted on this recommendation; and, at this moment, when the opportunity did offer itself, they had surrendered to the Treasury, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a sum of £20,700, which, with the £10,000 which would have come to them in the present year, makes up nearly half of the purchase. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had also intimated his intention of not renewing the annual grant for the present, so that, as he (Mr. W. H. Gregory) had stated, the whole purchase would be made without taking an extra shilling out of the pocket of the nation. He confessed he should be sorry no longer to see the national Grant on the Estimates; but he was comforted by the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if any fine pictures presented themselves, he would purchase them on the recommendation of the Director. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) might rest assured that the Trustees and Director would continue to show the same desire to keep down expenditure as they had ever manifested, and would be as chary of the public money as if it were their own. Before sitting down, he wished to do an act of justice to his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel), who had sold these pictures to the nation. He (Mr. W. H. Gregory) had already stated that the collection had been bought on the most reasonable terms. A couple of years ago, Sir Robert Peel would have obtained an infinitely greater sum than they were now voting; and, even at the present moment, he would have got much more than he was willing to accept. But Sir Robert Peel acted with the greatest delicacy and public spirit. He said—"My object is that all these pictures should be kept together; they belonged to my father, and I wish the nation should have them. I have had these pictures valued roughly by a competent person at £80,000; but, taking off the percentage I should have to pay if they were sold by public auction, I offer them at £75,000." It was suggested by me that the Government valuation might not come up to 315 that amount, to which Sir Robert Peel replied that he would not stand out for some thousands, so long as the pictures were bought by the nation, and kept together. The circumstances of this sale were greatly to the credit of the public spirit and disinterestedness of the right hon. Baronet; and, while he congratulated the House and thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the acquisition, he could not refrain from noticing how much the country was indebted to Sir Robert Peel for the completion of this auspicious negotiation.
§ MR. HUNTsupported the Vote, believing that the money would be well spent. So far from the poor complaining, he thought these pictures would give the greatest delight to all classes, and would enrich the nation by improving its taste and refining its ideas.
§ MR. RYLANDSsupported the Vote, believing the collection would not only be advantageous to the National Gallery, but to a great number of the working classes, when they had an opportunity of seeing these paintings. He was glad to seethe first budding of economy in the hon. Member opposite (Mr. G. Bentinck). On Thursday evening he might be able to save the country a much larger sum by joining those who wished to reduce the Estimates.
§ MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he did not understand the last argument, because the Votes of Thursday evening would be spent on works of usefulness. He did not dispute the value of the pictures, but thought that when there was such an enormous demand for the public money, and such an enormous amount of pauperism, it was not a wise and just mode of expenditure. It was a new fact in natural history to say that they could feed a starving man by showing him pictures.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHobserved, that there was very little interest felt by the pauper classes of the country in an increase in the Army Estimates. There was a strong feeling in the country that any increase in these Estimates was not only unnecessary but mischievous.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsupported the Vote, and wished to see the national collection of pictures increased. It was poor compared with that of other countries.
§ Vote agreed to.
316§ (12.) £1,467, Commissions for Suppression of the Slave Trade (Supplementary sum).
§
(13.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £21,865, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay certain Miscellaneous Expenses, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKwished for some explanation of the item of £83 for the conveyance of distinguished persons.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHdrew attention to the item of £2,421 16s. 3d. for the preparation of a plan and model in connection with the proposed Thames Embankment site of the New Courts of Justice. It was rather hard that when the site definitely fixed upon for erecting those buildings was the one that had been originally chosen that the country should be put to this expense to satisfy the fancy of the right hon. Gentleman who had been the predecessor of the First Commissioner of Works in Office. The expense ought to come out of the fund which was appropriated towards the erection of the New Courts of Justice and not out of the public money.
§ MR. AYRTONobserved, that it would be impossible to take the course suggested, because the Act of Parliament decided that the Courts should be built on a particular site, and that the funds should be applied to the purchase of the land and the erection of the buildings. The funds thus appropriated could not be applied to anything relating to the construction of the Courts on another site. A Committee was appointed by the unanimous vote of the House to consider whether some more economical method could not be devised in order to get rid of the enormous expenditure which was threatened, and it became necessary to have an architect in attendance on the Committee and to have plans and models constructed. An inquiry of that nature was always extremely expensive, and this item represented the actual expenditure incurred in that investigation, which had at last resulted in the saving of £1,500,000 to the country.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he did not regard the right hon. Gentleman's explanation as satisfactory. The item was not incurred in order to prevent a greater expenditure, for the Committee 317 had nothing to do with cutting down the estimates for the Courts of Justice.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, that the cutting down of the estimates was no doubt a subsequent act of the Office of Works; but it was first deemed necessary to appoint the Committee to investigate the subject, and awaken the public mind to the propriety of the reduction.
§ MR. MONKcalled attention to the sum of £1,676 paid to Messrs. Freshfield and Co., solicitors, for costs connected with the preparation of the National Debt Bill, the Forgery Bill, and the Statute Law Revision Bill. He wished to know if it was the practice to employ private solicitors to draw up Government Bills when the Government had solicitors of their own to do the work? Unless a satisfactory explanation of this item were given, he should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,676.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that these Bills were prepared by agreement between the Government and the Bank of England as a codification of the law relating to the Bank. The Bank of England paid half the expense, and they were naturally anxious that their own solicitors should be employed in the drawing up of the Bills. The work had been excellently done, and the result was two very valuable pieces of consolidation.
§ MR. HERMONpointed out as matter which called for explanation, an item in connection with an inquest held in consequence of a boiler explosion at Portsmouth, and another in connection with the total eclipse of the sun in August, 1868, and asked whether the sum of £5,212 for the Clerks of Unions and others in Ireland for the preparation of the Return relative to Land Tenure had been paid for a Return moved for by a Member of that House, because if Returns involved such an enormous expenditure he should refrain from moving for the one for which he had given Notice To-morrow.
§ COLONEL WILSON PATTENcalled attention to the enormous expense incurred by the appointment of Select Committees on public questions, as evidenced by the item of £2,700 for the expenses attending the Committee for the site of the New Courts of Justice.
§ MAJOR WALKERcalled attention to the fact that Returns, &c., for the preparation of the Irish Land Bill had cost 318 the country £89,000, and that that item ought to have been provided for in the Estimates of last year.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked for an explanation of the item of £500 paid as compensation to General La Mothe on account of the Jamaica insurrection. He wished to know if General La Mothe had really any claim on the finances of this country for that compensation?
§ MR. BAXTERsaid, he was not in a position to answer that question now, but he would answer it on another day.
§ MR. CANDLISHcalled attention to the item of £858 16s. for the maintenance of the son of the late King of Abyssinia. Such an item ought to have been known to the Government when the Estimates were first submitted to Parliament, and ought then to have been included in them. In addition to that the amount was excessive, for the son of the late King Theodore was only 10 or 11 years old, and a lad of that age could be well provided for at a boarding school for £200 or £300 a-year.
§ MR. P. A. TAYLORasked for some explanation of an item of £14 10s. for the insignia of Prince Arthur as a Knight of St. Patrick.
SIR JOHN HAYasked how the sum of £856 for the education and maintenance of the son of the late King Theodore was arrived at, and contrasted the liberality thus shown to a Prince whose father, at least, had not deserved our gratitude, with the refusal of our Government to vote a single farthing to show proper respect to Prince Kassa, to whose friendship, they had it on the testimony of Lord Napier of Magdala, that the success of our expedition to Abyssinia was very greatly owing. Prince Kassa entertained our Envoys, protected our communications, and provided supplies of food for our troops. He now wished his Envoys to visit England for a political object connected with the civilization of his own country, and, like an Eastern Prince, he desired them to be received when they came here with a moderate amount of hospitality becoming their rank. That, however, was entirely declined, and a Prince to whom we were much indebted was treated with the greatest indignity.
§ COLONEL SYKESconfirmed what had just been said of the importance of Prince Kassa's services to the Abyssinian Expedition, and stated that that Prince 319 wished to send two Envoys to this country with a letter and a present to the Queen. The Envoys had been detained in Egypt since last October, and they were told that they might send the present, but that they could not come themselves, for we could not make them our guests, although it was said the Pasha of Egypt, with more generosity, had made them his guests during their detention in Egypt. The Prince had sent a message to him (Colonel Sykes), through Colonel Kirkman in his service, that he was willing to give free grants of land to European immigrants in his country for the cultivation of cotton, sugar, and indigo. We had a name and a dignity to maintain in the world, and would be made a by-word by refusing to defray the trifling cost of entertaining at the Clarendon or Claridge's Hotels, of Prince Kassa's two Envoys for a couple of months.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he could not concur in the view taken by the last speaker. After the costly and painful experience we had lately had, he thought we had every reason to look with great caution upon anything which might entangle us in transactions with Abyssinian Potentates and Princes. It was very undesirable that the Government should in any way recognize those Abyssinian Envoys, or should hold out the least inducement to Europeans to settle in those barbarous countries, except entirely at their own risk. Turning to another subject, if the Government draughtsmen were not fully employed, he was not convinced that the draughting of the Bills included in that Vote should not have been done by the legal officers of the Crown.
§ MR. CRAWFORDsaid, the Correspondence on the subject, which was accessible to any hon. Gentleman, fully explained why Messrs. Freshfield and Co. were employed. It was thought that no one was so competent to undertake the preparation of Bills involving so much detail and so much difficulty as the gentlemen who had been so many years employed in connection with the Bank.
§ MR. MONKsaid, he was not altogether satisfied with the explanation which had been given of the item for drawing the Bills with reference to the National Debt. No reason had been assigned why the Statute Law Revision 320 Bill should not have been drawn by the Government draughtsmen, and he would move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £800 in respect of that Bill.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proposed Vote be reduced by the sum of £800."—(Mr. Monk.)
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that this Bill also, although described as the Statute Law Revision Bill, formed a part of the work of consolidation of the laws relating to the National Debt.
§
Question,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £21,065, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay certain Miscellaneous Expenses, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871,
put, and negatived.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ LORD ELCHOinquired the meaning of an item of £46, an allowance for "a Congo pirate chief, and rations to him."
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that he would explain the matter on the Report.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked for the names of the distinguished persons conveyed by packet; he referred to the Vote for £83 5s. for that purpose.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proposed Vote be reduced by the sum of £83 5s."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
§
Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £21,781 15s., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay certain Miscellaneous Expenses, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871.
§ MR. BAXTERpromised to supply the names on bringing up the Report.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (14.) £6,031, Compensation to sufferers by fire at Pera.
§ MR. CANDLISHasked upon what grounds this Vote was asked for.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated that the officers lived in the Embassy house, and on the occasion of the fire they all exerted themselves most zealously to put it out, even at the risk of their lives; but, although they managed to save some of the public property, they lost all their own. Under 321 these circumstances, it would be cruel not to compensate them, in accordance with uniform precedent. It was proposed to grant to each officer some proportion of his estimated loss, but not the whole.
SIR JOHN HAYbelieved that in many cases the Government would be recouped from insurances had not those insurances been stopped from motives of economy. At Shanghai, for instance, the Consulate offices were burnt down only 15 days after the insurance, which was not renewed, had expired. He fully agreed that the officers were entitled to some compensation.
§ MR. MONKmentioned that last year it was stated that, before the Embassy house at Constantinople was rebuilt, estimates of the expense would be laid on the Table of the House; and he wished to know when those estimates would be in the hands of Members?
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, the estimate would form part of the Civil Service Estimates for the present year. With reference to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir John Hay), the Government had pursued the course adopted by all owners of large property, and had been their own insurers. In the case of Constantinople, the Treasury consented to make a contribution in aid of the sufferers. It was true that the Consulate offices at Shanghai were uninsured, and were burnt down; but he felt convinced that the premiums which they would have had to pay on property in China and Japan would have exceeded in amount their probable losses by fire.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (15.) £8,030, Compensation to Owners of "La Have."
§ (16.) £50,200, Relief of Paris.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Vote, which was incurred in what they all regarded as the performance of a duty on the part of the Government. He had only risen because the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baxter), in answering a Question on this subject on a former evening, after stating the quantity of provisions then in course of being sent, had added, that the fact of their being able to send such a quantity would be an answer to the criticisms made with regard to the very great re- 322 duction made in the Government stores. The amount of tons which the hon. Gentleman mentioned to the House as being in our possession amounted to about 17 days' provisions for a fleet of 50,000 men, and he therefore did not think the amount so large when the country expected that there should be at least a year's provisions in store.
§ MR. BAXTERsaid, he had stated that the Government with three days' notice had sent 2,500 tons of provisions and that 1,100 tons more were ready for the purpose, if necessary. He altogether disputed the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that there were only 17 days' provisions for 50,000 men in store; but during the Recess the hon. and gallant Gentleman and others had caused great apprehension in the country by charging the Government with having greatly reduced the stores, and he took the opportunity of showing that these statements were utterly unwarrantable.
§ MR. WHITWELLasked whether the amount mentioned was the total amount sent out?
§ MR. BAXTERreplied that £48,000 was the value of the naval store contributed by the Admiralty, and the whole was replaced by the purchase department in a week.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would be glad to learn how the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) had arrived at the estimate with which he had favoured the Committee—an estimate which credited each seaman with eating something like 7 lb of solid food per day.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he had not the figures by him; but he had given them on the strength of an accurate calculation made by Mr. Richards, the late Controller of Victualling. He had himself gone into the figures; but his calculation amounted to 21 days, while Mr. Richards' was 17.
§ MR. BAXTERobserved, that the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) had made a similar statement, one which he found had occasioned great merriment at the Treasury.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (17.) That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £148,265, be granted to Her Majesty, for the following Revenue and Post Office Packet Ser- 323 vices, which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March 1871, viz.:—
| £ | |
| Inland Revenue | 30,000 |
| Post Office Packet Service | 118,265 |
| £148,265 |
§ (18.) That a sum, not exceeding £63,973 9s. 11d., be granted to Her Majesty, to make good Excesses of Expenditure beyond the Grants for the following Civil Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March 1870, viz.:—
| Class I. | |||
| £ | s. | d. | |
| Portland Harbour | 4,411 | 18 | 11 |
| Embassy Houses, Paris and Madrid | 51 | 3 | 3 |
| Embassy Houses and Consular Buildings, Constantinople, China, Japan, and Tehran | 5,768 | 7 | 8 |
| Class II. | |||
| Registrars of Friendly Societies | 217 | 18 | 9 |
| Lord Lieutenant's Household, Ireland | 61 | 3 | 5 |
| Chief Secretary's Office, Ireland | 2,529 | 15 | 2 |
| Class III. | |||
| Criminal Prosecutions | 3,101 | 15 | 6 |
| Land Registry Office | 17 | 15 | 5 |
| Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland | 83 | 1 | 11 |
| Convict Establishments in the Colonies | 23,388 | 0 | 9 |
| Court of Chancery, England | 5,121 | 2 | 8 |
| Court of Bankruptcy, England | 9,843 | 15 | 8 |
| Class IV. | |||
| National Portrait Gallery, England | 308 | 18 | 1 |
| Public Education, Ireland | 6,584 | 1 | 5 |
| National Gallery, Ireland | 456 | 2 | 1 |
| Queen's University, Ireland | 277 | 9 | 6 |
| Belfast Theological Professors, &c. | 50 | 5 | 5 |
| Class V. | |||
| Coolie Emigration | 310 | 13 | 0 |
| Treasury Chest | 134 | 7 | 5 |
| Class VI. | |||
| Non-conforming Clergy, Ireland | 31 | 10 | 11 |
| Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland | 114 | 10 | 1 |
| Advances for New Courts of Justice | 1,109 | 12 | 11 |
| £63,973 | 9 | 11 |
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow.