CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

HC Deb 18 April 1879 vol 245 cc617-66

(1.) £29,540, to complete the sum for Royal Palaces.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he must again urge his annual objection to the mode in which the Royal Palaces were dealt with. He had no wish to interfere with the comforts of the Crown; but now that it had made its bargain with the country, it ought scrupulously to adhere to that bargain. What he complained of was that certain of the Palaces not used for occupation by the Crown were used by the Crown for purposes which had not been approved by Parliament. St. James's Palace, Kensington Palace, and Hampton Court Palace were all used for purposes different to those for which they were originally intended, and Parliament was called on to provide funds for keeping up these Palaces for purposes not sanctioned. And he objected to this very strongly, because he thought that while Parliament ought to respect the rights of the Crown, the Crown ought not less strongly to respect the rights of Parliament. He had no hesitation in saying that large expenses were incurred for these Palaces for the comfort and convenience of the persons who resided in these three Palaces which never ought to be charged on the public purse. He did not deny for a moment that they ought to provide in a fitting manner for those who, or whose relations, had served the country well, or for the relations of those who had done service to the State; but that could be done far better and far more economically than by giving them expensive apartments in a Palace. These persons would benefit far more by having an allowance to provide suitable houses than by having apartments in a Palace; and he considered that in many ways the arrangement was an objectionable one, both socially and economically. As a consequence of the occupation of these Palaces, they had nowhere to put Royal guests who visited this country, and they had to stay at hotels in London. These Palaces were intended for the occupation of the Crown itself, and he therefore objected to this occupation of them by other persons. The result was that these Estimates were growing greater every year, in a most unsatisfactory manner. This Class I., for Palaces and Buildings, in 1878–9, amounted to £1,333,620, while this year it had swelled to £1,426,898; and he had very little doubt that the Supplementary Estimates would bring it up to £1,500,000. This was a class of expenditure which ought rigidly to be kept down, and a class in which they would certainly expect to find economies practised at a period when the pressure of hard times upon the people of the country rendered reduction necessary in every possible way. Yet they found that the first thing proposed to be cut down was the Naval and Military Estimates, without caring a straw whether they could be safely reduced or not, or more economically managed as these two Services might be; while every effort was made to avoid cutting down the Civil Service Estimates. He must protest against the waste and extravagance shown in these Civil Service Estimates. In 12 years they had very largely increased at the rate of nearly 50 per cent, while there was no such waste or no such increase in the Naval and Military Estimates. He was aware of the plea urged that the late Government were mainly responsible for the increase in this expenditure by their education policy; but if they examined the Accounts they would find that, irrespective of that educational item, the present Government had very largely increased it, as also the Civil Service Expenditure generally. Especially, as regarded this particular Vote, he objected to this system of providing apartments in the Royal Palaces for certain persons, and thereby increasing the public outlay; for although they or their relatives had, undoubtedly, deserved well of their country, they had not deserved any better treatment than many other persons who were not so well provided for, and no arrangements ought to be made by the Crown which entailed expenditure independent of Parliament.

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman was altogether in error in supposing that these suites of apartments were a great cause of expense. In the case of Hampton Court Palace, for instance, there were there 43 or 44 different sets of residences, and their whole cost in the "Vote was £850, which was an average of less than £20 each. But if the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman were carried out, and lodgings elsewhere were provided for the occupants, the cost would be a great deal more. Houses would have to be taken for them which would cost, at least, £100 or £120 each; and, as a consequence, they would have an expenditure of £5,000 or £6,000 annually, instead of £850. Complaint had been made of the great increase in the amount of Class I.; but it must be remembered that the Embassies, the Customs, and the Inland Revenue Houses were now charged to this Vote, which formerly were charged to other Votes in the Estimates. Before bringing forward any complaints on this subject, the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to have made himself acquainted with the facts of the case.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

observed that, to show the entire inaccuracy of the right hon. Gentleman, he need only take one set of figures. The right hon. Gentleman said that Hampton Court Palace only cost £850. [Mr. GERARD NOEL: I beg your pardon. I said—He did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman when he was speaking, and he must let him have his say now. He said that Hampton Court only cost £850—["No, no!"]—he did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman—whereas the Estimate showed that the amount was £8,333. So much for the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman. He was also told that he did not understand the subject, and ought to make himself acquainted with the Estimates. He did try, as much as any man in the House, to do so; and he denied that the right hon. Gentleman had any right to come down there and teach him his duty. ["Agreed!"] He did not want to be "agreed" upon this subject. When the right hon. Gentleman chose to come down there and make such statements, he should resist the attempt at dictation to the utmost of his power. He was aware—and he had said so again and again—that certain new charges had been thrown upon Class I.; but that did not explain the whole increase in the expenditure in the Civil Service Estimates, which had been at the rate of 50 per cent within the last 15 years. It was no use for the Treasury to come there and twit him with incorrectness. It was for them to show how it was that these increases had been incurred. It was impossible for any Member of Parliament to discover from the public documents the way in which the Estimates were at present framed, how that increase had been incurred. He would defy any Member of the House of Commons to find it out without access to the official records. The Return that he himself moved for on this subject did not contain the information which, he sought to obtain. He objected also to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works had put this matter. He did not for a moment deny the merits of those who occupied these apartments. He did not deny that they or their relatives had served their country well; all he said was that other persons had done equally well, and that, therefore, it was invidious to select particular persons to occupy these Palaces in this way, and that it was far more costly to the State than it would be by granting a money allowance. He did not wish to restrict the benevolence of the Crown in any way, and he would not object to vote a sum to provide those apartments elsewhere; but he did object strongly to this occupation of the Palaces by private persons; and thereby throwing upon Parliament the business of voting sums over which little or no control or check could be exercised. He was perfectly well aware that it would be useless for him, looking at the state of the House at that moment, to oppose this Vote; but he should continue to protest against it, and next year, when there would, he hoped, be a new House of Commons, he should renew his protest, if he retained his seat.

MR. GERARD NOEL

complained that the hon. and gallant Gentleman misrepresented him. He distinctly said that £850 was the cost of the apartments, not the total cost of the Palace. He had all the other items in the charge for general repairs and maintenance, and be would give them to show that his statement was correct. Roofs and repairs, £700; defective wood-work, £150; cleaning furniture, £200; police, £150; restoration of carving, £200; general restoration—which had been going on during the last few years in different parts of the Palace, to keep them in respectable repair—£500; general repairs—including the drainage works—£1,750; Royal mews, £470; gas, £413; taxes, £415; contingencies and measuring, £197; private apartments, £850; making in all the total amount charged. No doubt the sum voted in Class I. was larger than in former years; but he had explained the reason why it was so—that expenses were now charged to it—for the Embassies, &c.—which were formerly borne by another part of the Votes.

MR. WHITWELL

was very glad the right hon. Gentleman had explained this matter so fully; and he had no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman had been in the House and had heard the first part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech, the little misunderstanding which had occurred would not have arisen. But besides the £850 charged for the apartments, there was the item of £350 for furniture, and another of £410 for gas, all of which went a long way towards making the total expenditure on these apartments £1,500.

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, of the £350 charged for furniture, £200 was charged for the pictures, and the rest was for furniture for other parts of the Palace used by the public, for blinds for the rooms, &c. No part of that furniture was for the private apartments.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

asked if the £200 outlay for the pictures was a salary?

MR. GERARD NOEL

replied that it was not.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, there was £350 spent for furniture, and it was so stated in the Account. Then what was the £200 for, to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred? Was it a salary?

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, it was for special cleaning and charge of the pictures.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

assumed, from the explanation, that a person was not paid a salary for the work.

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, that the assumption was correct.

MR. E. JENKINS

was inclined to believe that his hon. and gallant Friend had hit a blot in the Estimates, and the explanations given were by no means satisfactory. For instance, besides £5,846 spent in maintenance, there was £1,750 charged for drainage, and that amount, he supposed, would be scarcely so large if there were none of these apartments in the Palace. Hampton Court was not occupied in the way it should be as a show Palace; and this large expenditure of £5,846 was due, in a great degree, to the expenses of the apartments. The right hon. Gentleman said the apartments were tenanted by ladies; but anyone who went down there would see that a large number of long-legged males also enjoyed the advantages of the place. A very large part of this expenditure was, in fact, due to the occupation of the Palace by private persons. Anyone who went down there would see that very large sums were spent on the amenities of the place; and this private occupation did certainly very largely increase the expenses. For instance, there was a charge of £1,200 for a stationary steam fire engine, with vertical quick steam-raising boiler, and other things of that sort. Was there no other means of putting out a fire than this, and was this expenditure really necessary?

MR. GERARD NOEL

explained that the pumping station was three miles from Hampton Court Palace. Many years ago a main was laid down, but it was now very much out of order; and it was feared that it would burst if too much pressure were applied. Instead of putting down a fresh main, which would have been a very great expense, it was thought that the best way would be to take water from the ponds in the Palace by means of a steam fire engine.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) £2,475, to complete the sum for Marlborough House.

GENERAL SIR GEOEGE BALFOUR

said, he had no objection to make to this Vote for Marlborough House occupied by the Heir to the Crown. His only regret was that the Heir did not occupy Kensington Gardens Palace. At the same time, as the country had thought fit to lodge him where it had done, he should never think of grudging a substantial sum to provide for the comfort and convenience of the Heir to the Crown and his family.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £94,261, 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 1880, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.

MR. E. JENKINS

called attention to the very large sum put down for police, £20,459. To part of that there could, of course, be no objection. There must be police in the Parks; and it was, of course, only right that the nation should pay for them. But he observed that the very large sum of £10,661 was paid to the Metropolitan Police. Now, the Parks were used for Metropolitan amusements—and for Metropolitan politics also—and it did appear to him that it would be only right that the Metropolis should pay for the police who were employed on these services. He should like to know whether any communications had ever passed between the Office of the right hon. Gentleman and the Metropolitan Board of Works upon this question? Perhaps the view he had suggested had never occurred to the right hon. Gentleman before. It was well worthy of consideration whether this sum might not be fairly laid on the Metropolis, instead of being borne by the general funds of the country.

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, that view of the case never had occurred to him. In the year 1867, as the House would remember, there were disturbances in Hyde Park, with which the Park constables were quite unable to deal; and at that time the Park constables were removed, and the whole management of the Park was vested in the police, who were paid by the Office of Works, in lieu of the former constables.

MR. E. JENKINS

asked if none of the police were paid by the Board of Works?

MR. GERARD NOEL

replied, that the Board of Works did not pay for any of them.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the hon. Gentleman was under a slight misapprehension. The Board of Works did not pay any of the Metropolitan Police. They were paid partly by a rate levied on the Metropolis, and partly by a contribution from the Imperial Funds, and they were under the authority, not of the Board of Works, but of the Home Office.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

asked whether these were two separate sums?

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, the £20,000 was for the constables in the different Parks, while the £10,000 was for the Metropolitan Police in Hyde Park and Richmond Park, but was included in the £20,000.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

remarked that the total cost of the police, then, was upwards of £30,000. He should like to know who were the Ranger and Deputy Ranger?

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, the Ranger was the Duke of Cambridge; the Deputy Ranger, Colonel Clifton; and the Superintendent, General MacDonald.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, then about £400 was paid altogether for these Rangers and Deputy Rangers.

MR. GERARD NOEL

replied that that was so.

MR. DILLWYN

begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £185 for the expenses of the game in Richmond Park. The amount of the reduction was but small; but he moved the Amendment as the assertion of a principle. In the first place, he did not think the country ought to find game for the Park. If anyone had the right to sport there, the least that person could do was to find the food for the game. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge had the game; and the least he could do was to find food for it. The House also paid a very large sum for keepers—£250 for the first, and £150 for the second—and he did very strongly object to that House turning itself into a game preserver. His strong reason, however, for objecting to this preservation of game in Richmond Park was that it interfered with the enjoyment of the Park by the public, as was shown by the constant complaints on the subject. He also wished to know whether the restrictions about this public Park were so stringent that even Volunteer regiments were not allowed to pass through without special permission? Again, he had been informed that the people were not allowed to use the Park for cricket or football. The people paid for the maintenance of this Park, and he considered it a monstrous thing that all these restrictions should be imposed upon their use of it. Such a system ought not to be tolerated; and he thought the Committee ought to show its sense of the objectionable character of the restrictions referred to by refusing to vote the money. There was another evil to which he wished to call attention. Some of the finest trees in the Park had disappeared, and he had been informed that they had been removed to make way for new plantations. One of the finest rows of trees had, to his own knowledge, disappeared almost entirely; and, besides this, while the new plantations had taken the place of the old trees, the public were shut out from them. He believed that the game had, in consequence of these restrictions, very largely increased. As a protest against a principle which he believed to be absolutely vicious and wrong—namely, the preservation of game in the Park, which prevented the public from having their free user of it—he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £185.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £94,076, 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 1880, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, with respect to the amount expended for the preservation of game in Richmond Park, the amount was only £150, and not £185, as the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn) supposed. And when the very great extent of the Park—some 2,400 acres—was considered, he did not think that the sum in question was a very large one. He maintained that many of the people who visited Richmond Park went there for the purpose of seeing the game only, from which they derived the greatest possible amusement. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had stated that the people were not allowed to use the portion of the Park in course of plantation; but he replied that out of the whole of the 2,400 acres there were only 246 acres laid down for plantations. The Duke of Cambridge had nothing whatever to do with these plantations being made, for they were being carried out entirely upon the responsibility of the Office of Works. He (Mr. Gerard Noel) had visited the Park last year, and had found that although five or six acres had been taken out of the Park 14 acres had been thrown in; and that was the rule—as soon as the plantations were sufficiently forward they were immediately thrown into the Park. During the three years he had held Office no single complaint, anonymous or otherwise, had reached him as to the liberty of those who went to Richmond Park having been in any way curtailed. On the contrary, he maintained that the people could use the Park in any way they pleased, and do what they like there, as long as they did no damage. With regard to the old oak trees, he had only to say that the greatest possible care was taken of them, and that none were ever felled that it was not absolutely necessary to remove.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that not withstanding the Chief Commissioner of Works had stated that he had not received any complaint with regard to the exclusion of the public from certain portions of the Park, and other restrictions referred to by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), he could inform him that several hon. Members had their pockets full of letters of complaint upon that subject. And he could not help thinking that if the public had not complained to the right hon. Gentleman it was because they thought it would be of no use to do so. If hon. Members wanted to see the real state of feeling on the subject they could not do better than turn to the local newspapers. He ventured to say that those newspapers, published in the neighbourhood of the Park, were unanimous in their attacks upon the Government in relation to this question. They were all agreed upon it, and he had read complaints in those columns year after year. When the question was raised, three years ago, the House was informed that the public were delighted to see the game in Richmond Park, and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) believed that, the people did like to see the deer; but it ought also to be understood that while they were in favour of keeping up the deer they complained of a sum of money being included in the Estimates as food for rabbits. It was true that some pheasants were reared; but the food was chiefly for rabbits, the grass of the Park being insufficient for both rabbits and deer, so that if the stock was to be kept up it became necessary to bring in an enormous quantity of food. There was a statement in the Guide Book to Richmond Park which was most in use, and which might be called a semi-official publication, that if untrue it was perfectly scandalous to the country to leave uncontradicted. The Book stated that the food for these rabbits was bought from the property of the Duke of Cambridge immediately adjoining, and paid for by the country. Was it a right thing that the public money should be spent in order to provide shooting for the Duke of Cambridge? In his opinion, it was a monstrous thing that the charge should be placed upon the country. He was sorry to notice that the right hon. Gentleman had not alluded in his speech to the point which had been raised by the hon. Member for Swansea with regard to the Volunteer regiments which were said to be excluded, nor to the prohibition of cricket and football. But surely, if they kept up Parks of this extent near London, it was wise that they should be used for the purposes of amusement, as well as for Volunteer Reviews. That, however, it appeared could not be allowed, because of the shooting of the Duke of Cambridge. The statement of his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) was perfectly true, that no regiment of Volunteers was allowed to march through the Park without special permission; and that was only given on condition that they marched along the road, and did not play bands. That was the question raised by the hon. Member for Swansea; and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would make some reply to it.

MR. GERARD NOEL

was perfectly certain that if there had been complaints against his Department as to the management of the Park he should have heard of them, were they anonymous or otherwise; and he would be glad if the hon. Baronet would let him see one of those letters with which he said that his pockets were filled. As to the Volunteers, he really could not say whether they were allowed or not to march through the Park. He had never heard of anything of the kind alluded to by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea; and his own impression was that not only did some Volunteer regiments march through the Park, but that they actually drilled there. He was glad that his attention had been called to the statement contained in the Guide Book, that the Duke of Cambridge sold the food for the rabbits from his farm adjoining the Park, because he would have the opportunity of giving it the most distinct contradiction. It was the fact that his Royal Highness had no farm in the neighbourhood, and the country had not paid him one single sixpence in the way stated.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

was still obliged to consider the answer of the right hon. Gentleman unsatisfactory, inasmuch as he had not stated whether Volunteer regiments were allowed to pass through the Park without permission or not. He (Sir Julian Goldsmid) had been informed on good authority that no regiment was allowed to be marched through the Park without permission. He had always understood that Richmond Park was maintained in the same way as the other Parks, and hon. Members had just been told that it was intended for the purpose of public enjoyment. Now, the people had taken a very proper interest in the progress of the Volunteer movement, and nothing would affect the public mind more strongly than the exclusion of Volunteers from the Parks paid for out of the public purse. Another point had been raised by the hon. Member for Swansea, upon which he had received no reply, and that was with reference to the keepers. The hon. Member had inquired whether they received salaries beyond those usually paid to this class of servants, and had pointed out that the head-keeper in Richmond Park received £250 a-year. That sum, he was informed, was a most extravagant salary for a head-keeper. It appeared to him that, as the game was preserved by His Royal Highness, who did not care about it, the best plan would be to abolish both it and the keepers, and to allow the Park to be thrown open to the public in the same way as the others. That would be a satisfactory solution of the question, and would, moreover, have the effect of reducing the Estimates by the sum of £2,000. He considered that some more satisfactory explanation should be given by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to those matters referred to by the hon. Member for Swansea, particularly as to the Volunteers.

MR. DILLWYN

accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the amount of charge for rabbit food, and begged leave to withdraw his Amendment, with the object of proposing that the Vote be now reduced by the sum of £150.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. GERARD NOEL

pointed out that the sum in question was charged for food given to the pheasants, and that it had nothing whatever to do with the rabbits.

MR. DILLWYN

begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £150.

Motion made, and Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £94,111, 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 1880, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 56: Majority 23.—(Div. List, No. 05.)

MR. WHITWELL

inquired if the right hon. Gentleman could inform the Committee whether or not the bailiff for the Royal Parks had to administer the farming operations?

MR. GERARD NOEL

replied that the appointment was a new one. As a great deal of money had to be spent on the Parks for gravel and other materials, it was thought very desirable that this new appointment should be made for the purpose of checking expenditure, and the result had been most satisfactory.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

complained that in this Vote for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds the items were so lumped together as to be most confusing. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would see that the items making up the various lump sums were not confused in this manner, and that hon. Members were enabled to attend to the Public Business in a proper manner, without having to guard against mistakes in the Estimates. In the body of the Estimate one "high bailiff" was inserted, whereas in the abstract there were two bailiffs, and the pay larger than for that of the one bailiff in the body of the Estimate.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had asked him to do a very difficult thing, and that was to prevent Members making mistakes. He thought this Estimate was fairly explanatory of what was done under this particular Department. It was quite true that the items of the two bailiffs were put together in a way which might mislead hon. Members. He should take care that it did not occur again. The real history of the matter had been told to the Com- mittee. One bailiff was always required for the purposes of the farm, and the one recently appointed was really a superintendent of the workmen, although called a bailiff. He superintended small details, which it was impossible for the head of the Department to do.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

thanked the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury for the information he had given; but he had not been asked to prevent Members falling into mistakes. What was asked for was accurate information. The fact, then, seemed to be that they paid bailiffs for doing duties which the rangers ought to do. He complained of officers of high rank receiving large sums of public money, and then handing their duties over to petty officers, who were also paid by the public. He complained of the Duke of Cambridge and Colonel Clifton taking, this money, while poor people were ground down. It was disgraceful to see this money given away to Rangers and Deputy Rangers.

MR. WHITWELL

said, he observed, in reference to Battersea Park, an item for "the Wilderness Garden." He supposed by Wilderness Garden was meant a place out of the way; for he remembered in another case, where a steam fire engine was purchased, it was put in the Wilderness Garden. It was placed here to be out of the way as an eyesore. He concluded this place in Battersea Park was a corner which could not be seen—a secluded spot.

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, there was a portion of the Park which had been neglected for some time. It was now being planted with shrubs and thorns, and that was the explanation of the item.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £26,930, 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 1880, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament.

MR. MONK

said, there was one question he should like to ask on this Vote. He observed that, besides the item of £3,570 for lighting, £1,750 was put down for the supply of oil lamps. What was the meaning of that? It was a sum about half the amount paid for gas lighting throughout the whole Houses of Parliament. It was stated that the sum was for oil lamps in the Divison Lobby and Retiring Rooms. He had been round the Lobbies, and he could find no oil lamps there. He knew of no oil lamps in the Lobby and Retiring Rooms. Even if the lamps were used, this seemed an extraordinary sum. To charge half the cost of the gas lighting for oil lamps was perfectly absurd. He could only hope that the Secretary to the Treasury, who was responsible for this Vote, had no intention of spending the money on oil lamps.

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, it could not be for the supply of oil lamps in the Division Lobby, for there they had gas. The sum was large, and he would not say it was all spent; but some must be kept in reserve. Sometimes the House sat until 3 or 4, and sometimes even to 6 or 7 in the morning, and there must be a supply in reserve.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, it was clear there was a misunderstanding. There were no oil lamps in the Division Lobby; there had not been an oil lamp there for the last 10 years. What one wanted to know was, how this monstrous sum of £1,750 was charged for oil lamps, when there was not an oil lamp to be found? He wished the right hon. Gentleman would tell them where an oil lamp was to be found? What was the meaning of such a charge? There must be something wrong about it.

MR. GERARD NOEL

concluded there must be a mistake; but though the hon. Member did not seem to be aware of it, there were many oil lamps used in the kitchen ventilation department and elsewhere. But he would inquire into the matter.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would reduce the Vote by £1,750, and bring it up again. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,750 until an explanation was given.

Motion made, and Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £23,180, 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 1880, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Mundella.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 48: Majority 28.—(Div. List, No. 66.)

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, the matter on which they had divided required explanation, and he would afford it.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he was glad to hear that, and he should not have divided if it had not been to make some protest against the item. It was obvious that there was scarcely an oil lamp to be found. Evidently, this was a form of Vote put down year after year, without sense or moaning in it.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, he wished to call attention to a matter which affected the comfort of Members of that House, and which was not without interest to the public outside. There was in this Vote an item of £2,770 for the attendance of police at that House; and he observed, also, that in Class II. there was a further charge of £430 a-year for the police in attendance during the Session. He wished to point out that the attendance supplied to that House was imperfect. It was difficult to call attention to this matter without reflecting upon very worthy functionaries; but he had no wish to do so. If one went to the Chamber of Deputies at Versailles he found a number of liveried officials, a room provided for strangers, a table at which they could write their name on a card, and other arrangements for their convenience; and then they could find half-a-dozen very polite persons ready to take the card, and find out the Member to whom it was addressed. He thought the arrangements outside the House of Commons for strangers were disgraceful. He knew that many gentlemen who came there and desired to find Members, even on matters of business, political and otherwise, were very often kept waiting half-an-hour in the outer Lobby with no place to sit down in. The outer Lobby was a most uncomfortable place, and the treatment given to strangers was calculated to bring the House into discredit. There was a great difficulty in getting at Members; and the only way to meet this was to have a sufficient number of attendants. He found that the police were employed upon work on which they ought not to be employed. He wished to guard himself from reflecting on the conduct of the police about that House. Every Member must admit the police were always ready and polite, and willing to do everything that they could to facilitate the business of Members. But, on the other hand, there were many objections to the employment of the police as messengers and attendants in a House like that. He thought the First Commissioner might signalize his Office by endeavouring to put the arrangements of the House, in regard to this matter—in the accommodation of strangers and of attendance—on some better footing. It was perfectly well known what took place. A gentleman came up from the country, and, like most constituents, he was anxious to see his Member. It was a curious fact—but it was true—constituents liked to see their Members. When he arrived at the door of that House in the outer Lobby he was encountered by two policemen. They were anxious to do their duty. They were policemen; they could not help being-policemen; and they received the visitor as if he were anxious to enter the House upon some burglarious expedition. His card was sent in, and it reached the door. If the Member did not happen to be in the House there was delay. There was not sufficient attendance to go after the Members and find them out. The police were anxious to discharge their duties; but they certainly were over-worked in this matter. There was, as he had said, not sufficient attendants to look Members up in the various Lobbies, Dining Rooms, Reading Rooms, and so on. He would ask whether it was not possible to provide two or three pages—such as they had in the French Chamber—whose duty it would be to attend upon the door-keepers of the House, and also to place at the entrance from the Lobby a gentleman in attendance whoso duty it would be to see that these pages were sent and dispatched through the House for the purpose of enabling Members to see those who came to the door, and who had important business with Members? Only the other night, while sitting in one of the rooms of the House—in the Library—two gentlemen waited more than 35 minutes, and at last went away, in consequence of his not having been found. Other Members could say that they had suffered in the same way. The system was a mistake. It had been the habit to use the police in that House in a way in which they ought not to be used. There were certain parts of the House in which the police discharged their duties, and always would discharge them, to the accommodation and satisfaction of every Member of the House. On the other hand, there were duties of attendance which ought to be discharged by another class of persons; and there ought to be a sufficient number of that class of persons to discharge those duties in an efficient manner. He carefully guarded himself from reflecting on the police or other officials in the House. It was a defect in the system which led to the difficulties which at present arose. He raised the question on this Vote, because it seemed clear that £2,770 provided the Members with too many police and too few attendants. If there were attendants now where there were policemen, he thought the change would be a good one. There were policemen where attendants ought to be. For instance, at the door of the Library there was a policeman, where a policeman was not wanted. There was another at the door of Mr. Speaker's exit into the Lobby; there were police almost within the precincts of the House itself. That could scarcely be necessary; and, to his mind, it did not look well. The doors should be guarded by police; but for attendance on Members and visitors he held there should be regular attendants, and in sufficient number to meet the wants of Members. He called the attention of the hon. Member to this; and he hoped something would be done to place the matter on a more satisfactory footing.

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, the duties and the regulations to which the hon. Member had referred were in the hands of Mr. Speaker; and he should put himself in communication with the right hon. Gentleman, and see if some better arrangements, in conjunction with the Serjeant-at-Arms, could not be made.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(5.) £97,255, to complete the sum for Public Buildings.

In reply to MR. WHITWELL,

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, the Government had at present no intention of making any addition to the Government Offices, or making any large extension.

MR. WHITWELL

was understood, with reference to the Government Offices, to say that things as they were at present were very inconvenient, as well for the public as for the interior work of the Offices. There was one item in this Vote to which he wished to call attention briefly. The sum he referred to was £750, which it was proposed to take to enable alterations to be made in consequence of the admission of women to the examination in the London Universities

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he did not find any reduction in the large sum for the rents charged for the hire of many houses for Offices. He should like to know whether any difference had been made in this charge in consequence of the erection of the new buildings for the Home Secretary?

MR. GERARD NOEL

replied that the Offices formerly occupied by the Home Office were no longer required, and the payment for rents, consequently, must have been reduced, although he could not tell what the exact amount was.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

remarked that he asked for this amount of rents two Sessions ago; but he had not yet succeeded in getting an answer. He should like to know whether there had been any reduction in this large sum of £38,000 for rents since the new buildings for the Home Office had been erected? The right hon. Gentleman, at all events, could make himself acquainted with the exact state of the case, and give them the information on a future occasion.

MR. RAMSAY

asked if the details were anywhere given of the sum of £3,595 charged for the ordinary repairs and maintenance of public, ecclesiastical, and collegiate buildings in Scotland? He did not at all quarrel with the amount; but he would like to know how the details were made up.

MR. GERARD NOEL

explained that he had not the individual amounts with him; but they included the Glasgow University and Cathedral, the University of Aberdeen, and the Cathedral of St. Andrews. The Vote was for the maintenance and repair of these buildings.

MR. WHITWELL

wished to know whether the Estimates for these amounts had been scrutinized by the Government officials?

MR. GERARD NOEL

replied that they were, as a matter of course, like every other Estimate, submitted to the Treasury.

(6.) £13.285, to complete the sum for Furniture of Public Offices, agreed to.

(7.) £153,134, to complete the sum for Revenue Department Buildings, Great Britain.

MR. WHITWELL

wished to know whether there was any reason for the largo increase in the charge for the Customs "maintenance and repairs?" It had increased from £4,807 last year to £8,539 in the present Estimate.

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, the Custom Houses were handed over to his Department last year, and many of the buildings were found to be in a very unsatisfactory condition. A considerable sum of money had to be spent on them to put them in proper repair, and that was the reason for the large increase in the Vote.

Vote agreed to.

(8.) £38,750, to complete the sum for County Court Buildings.

MR. RAMSAY

asked whether the amount for those buildings was charged exclusively upon the Treasury, or whether the local rates bore any part of the expenditure?

MR. GERARD NOEL

answered, that no part of this charge was defrayed from the local rates. The whole amount was charged entirely upon the Public Revenue.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) £18,018, to complete the sum for Metropolitan Police Court Buildings.

MR. WHITWELL

hoped the Treasury would take up this subiect in the interests of the public at large. At present, not only were the central police courts charged on the general funds of the country, but every police court in London, from Hammersmith and Lambeth to Wandsworth and Greenwich, including, in fact, the whole of the Metropolitan district, were charged to the public funds. Considering the present serious depression in trade, and the way in which the taxes pressed heavily on the people in the country generally, he thought there was no reason for charging these police courts on the Public Revenues. All the Provincial police courts were charged upon the provincial rates, with the exception of this one instance, where £50,000 was charged on the rates. What, also, was the cause of the large increase in the Vote?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, this question was by no means raised for the first time. The principle followed, and it seemed to him a valid one, was that the police courts of the Metropolis should be treated as belonging to the whole country, rather than to a particular locality. A very large proportion of the population of London was of a migratory character, and was drawn from a very much larger area than the Metropolis itself covered. The people came from all parts of the Kingdom; and, that being so, it had been enacted by statute that the police courts of the Metropolis should be treated as a charge on the Imperial Revenues, rather than on the local revenues of the City itself. The large increase which, appeared in the Vote arose from the necessity of reconstructing the Bow Street Police Court. A new site had been obtained, and an entirely new building would be erected there, in consequence of the unfitness of the present court.

MR. RAMSAY

recognized the force of the reasons assigned for making some exceptional treatment of the police courts of the Metropolis; but, at the same time, he did not see how the full charge on the Revenue could be justified when in every other case the cost of the police courts of the particular locality were borne by the local rates. Instead of the whole amount being charged against the Imperial Revenue, the proper course to take, in his opinion, would be to charge a proportion of the amount expended in erecting new buildings, or in the maintenance of the existing ones, on the local Metropolitan rate, in the same way as was followed in other places. The migratory character of the population of the Metropolis was a characteristic of other places also—such as Dublin and Edinburgh. He could speak from his own knowledge of Edinburgh. There the people paid the full cost of the maintenance of their police courts, while the population was, to a very great extent, of the same character as that of London.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

reminded the Committee that the fees and fines from these courts, amounting in all to about £18,000, were paid into the Imperial Exchequer.

Vote agreed to.

(10.) £6,803, to complete the sum for Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland.

MR. RAMSAY

said, the question he put a few moments ago with reference to the charge for English County Courts had reference to this Vote. The practice in Scotland was to charge half the cost of making new buildings required for the administration of justice, or of maintaining the old ones, on the local rates; while in England, as they had been told, the whole of the cost was charged on the Imperial Revenue. He did not understand how such an anomaly could be justified. He did not ask that Scotland should get more than she did at present from the Imperial Revenues; but he did maintain that Scotland had a right to be placed in the same position as any other part of the Kingdom, and that she should have, at least, the same proportion of the Imperial Revenues allotted to her as was given to England. The people of Scotland were, undoubtedly, poorer as a nation than the people of England; and he could not conceive, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would maintain for a moment that his country should not only pay the same amount in taxes as the people of England, but should draw only half the amount drawn from the National Exchequer for the same purposes by the people of England. The fact that the people of Scotland contributed more to the Revenue per head than the people of England was in itself evidence that there was some defect in our present administration of the law. But he could not conceive how this anomaly could be justified, when the Sheriff Courts performed exactly the same work in Scotland that the County Courts did in England. He did not intend to move an Amendment, for it would be useless and a waste of time; but still he did think that the right hon. Gentleman opposite was bound to give them some explanation of the grounds upon which this practice was defended. The Scotch people were, in fact, treated worse than any other people in the United Kingdom, and it was not a way in which they should be treated. If he went to see the right hon. Gentleman on business he found himself treated with the same courtesy and respect that was paid to every, hon. Member; but, notwithstanding all this courteous treatment, they were very unfairly dealt with in the matter of taxa- tion. Scotland, in fact, paid more into the Public Treasury, and received less in return, than any other part of the Kingdom. If he could get the exact amount paid out of the Civil Service Estimates for each of the three Kingdoms, he believed the figures would show such a discrepancy that there would soon be a change. He was not an advocate for the relief of local taxation at the expense of the Imperial Exchequer, for he thought those who administered the local taxation were by far the best judges of what was wanted in the locality. He did wish, however, to see the same system in existence all over the Kingdom. For his part, he should not be sorry to see this grant withdrawn entirely, for he was convinced that the result of the Imperial grant was that many Sheriff's Court houses had been erected where they were not required. He could point out many instances where the Commissioners of Supply had obtained court houses, partly at the cost of the Imperial Exchequer, and had spent a far greater sum than was at all required. For instance, they were now asked to pay for the erection of a court house at Fort William, £3,480, and he did not believe the amount of fees received from the different cases which would be tried before the Sheriff at that court during the year would nearly cover the interest of that sum. He had not the actual figures with him; but he knew that the amount of business transacted there annually was very trifling indeed, and that instead of justifying such a large expenditure, the County of Inverness could of itself have provided all the accommodation that was necessary for one-half the present Estimate. He hoped the hon. Baronet would take these things into consideration, and would be able to afford some satisfactory explanation.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he should be the last person to wish to see Scotch Members treated other than any other Members of the Imperial Parliament. He understood the hon. Member to maintain that the Sheriff Court houses were treated differently from the English County Courts. The procedure with regard to these Sheriff Courts, as the hon. Gentleman was aware, was regulated by Act of Parliament—he thought the 23 & 24 Vict. These court houses were erected on representations from the locality to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He submitted the reasons stated by the locality to the Commissioners of Supply, and, if approved, plans and specifications were submitted to the Treasury for their approval. The main reason for the difference between the charge of the cost in Scotland and England was that the jurisdiction of the Courts in Scotland embraced not only the business done in the English County Courts, but the judicial business which in England was transacted at Quarter Sessions and Petty Sessions. This business in England was paid for from the local rates, while the County Courts, with their civil jurisdiction, were paid for out of the Imperial Exchequer. Also, the receipts from the English County Courts exceeded the amounts paid, which was not the case with the Scotch Courts. With regard to Fort William, the erection of the buildings was very strongly supported from the locality. The plans and estimates were resisted by his right hon. Friend and by the Treasury for a long time; but as the alterations they suggested were found to be utterly impracticable, they gave way. He understood that there had been some increase in the cost of building materials, which explained the revised Estimate.

MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH

said, he was disappointed at the remarks made by the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) with regard to the Court House at Fort William. The local authorities gave the matter their most careful consideration, and it was found necessary to apply to the Treasury in order to get a new Court House. It was thought that the county of Argyll, which would benefit by the work, would have come forward and taken a share of the expense, but they utterly refused to do so; and the end of it was that the county of Inverness had been saddled with half of the cost, although part of the business of the county of Argyll was carried on there. He did not think his hon. Friend (Mr. Ramsay), remembering the part he took in the matter, would have fired this last shot at the county of Inverness. He must say, on behalf of the Inverness authorities, that they had no wish whatever to go to the expense of building Court Houses which were not re- quired, and in this case it was undoubtedly a fact that the necessary accommodation did not exist. As to the £3,400, it was only half of that sum that the Government were called upon to pay; and with regard to the business of the Fort William Court, litigation in the Highlands was not so extensive as in the large towns further South; but, still, it was necessary that in a wide district like that there should be suitable provision for the conduct of civil and criminal business, and he maintained that the proposed buildings were not more than the circumstances required.

MR. RAMSAY

wished to say that it was not his intention to impugn the action of the Home Secretary or the Commissioners of Supply for the county of Inverness. The facts mentioned by his hon. Friend were quite correct. He did fight the battle of the county of Argyll, and he fought it successfully, against the erection of a useless building at Fort William. He called it useless, because it was useless as regarded the county of Argyll; and the truth of his remark was proved by the fact that that county was not held liable for any portion of the expense. He did not think the number of cases tried at Fort William justified the erection of that Court House, at the expense of either Inverness or Argyll. The judicial statistics and the return of business which came before the Court at that station showed that there was little or no business done. He had, however, no desire that Fort William should be denied the £1,750; but he did not think that the system of extending to England the payment of the full amount was justified by the fees being so great in the County Courts. Although a greater amount of fees was paid, the question was left in the same position, as he would be able to show if he had before him the necessary statistics.

Vote agreed to.

(11.) £99,300, to complete the sum for New Courts of Justice and Offices.

MR. MONK

thought it would be desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should inform the Committee whether the new Courts would be completed within the time specified? If he were unable to do this, perhaps he could state what part of the Courts would be occupied during the present year, and, if possible, when they were likely to be finally completed and ready for the transaction of public business?

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, that the Law Courts were divided into two parts, and that the eastern wing was finished and ready for occupation. With regard to the main body of the building, a work of great magnitude, the terms of the contract were that it should be completed within the year 1880; but he could not state whether that would be effected.

MR. WHITWELL

thought that the right hon. Gentleman, in giving information upon the subject of the new Law Courts, which it was most important that the country should receive, had omitted to say whether he could form any opinion as to when the west wing of the building would be completed, so as to enable the more important Courts o occupy their respective positions. The original Estimate of cost for the wing was two sums of £750,000, making a total of £1,500,000. On the other hand, the expenditure up to the present time had been £1,406,000, so that there remained something short of £100,000 to complete the whole work of the west wing. Did the right hon. Gentleman calculate that the whole original Estimate of £3,000,000 would be exceeded? Perhaps he would inform the Committee whether the original would be much increased, and when the west wing would be finished and opened for public business?

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, it was impossible to say at the moment when the west wing would be completed. Many things had occurred to retard the progress of the work—such as strikes and frosts—and it was, of course, possible that other circumstances might arise to prevent its completion within the contract time. He (Mr. Gerard Noel) did not look forward to its completion before the year 1881. It was true that the original Estimate for that part of the building was £750,000; but a second Estimate of £826,000 was subsequently made, and there was at present no sign that the latter sum would be exceeded.

Vote agreed to.

(12.) £111,100, to complete the sum for Surveys of the United Kingdom.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

desired to call attention to an old complaint of his with regard to the pay of four companies of Sappers employed upon the Survey of the United Kingdom. The regular military pay and allowances of these men was defrayed by the War Department; but their extra pay came from the Estimate then before the Committee. And instead of all the charges being paid for by the Estimate drawn out by the Board of Works, and all borne by the country generally, it was divided between the Army and Civil charges. He trusted that the Secretary to the Treasury would bear that fact in mind when he brought the subject—as he (Sir George Balfour) hoped he would—before that Department, in next year's Estimates. Again, he did not think that the annual Report of the Survey was presented in due time and in sufficient detail to satisfy the inquiries made about that Survey. The work was one of great value; and Members were constantly asking what progress was being made in the Survey of different parts of the country? It would, therefore, be well, in his opinion, to have a clear and distinct statement of the progress made included in an annual Statement, as also the future plans for work. The country had gone to a great expense in preparing admirable Surveys of the Kingdom, and they were constantly told that England was far in advance of other countries in the excellence of its Surveys; but having incurred the expense they took care, by high charges, to prevent the maps, and valuable information collected by the outlay of millions, from getting into use. If the Secretary to the Treasury desired a complete set of maps of his own county he would have to pay £18 or £20 for it. When the excellence of the maps was considered he agreed that £18 was not much to pay for them, but it was a large sum in itself; and he thought that every hon. Member should be encouraged to have a complete map of his county. At all events, the Government could afford to supply the maps for about one-eighth of that amount. By this means the issue of the maps would be very considerably enlarged; while the Government would be at no extra cost for carrying on the preparation of the other maps of the Survey. He trusted that the Secretary to the Treasury would attend to his suggestions.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that with regard to the first point, so long as the Sappers, and non-commissioned officers of Sappers, remained soldiers they were subject to the discipline of the Army, and could not be treated as belonging to the Civil Service as well. The result which the hon. and gallant Gentleman wished was that soldiers should become merely Civil servants of this particular Department. It was impossible to place them in that position so long as they remained in the Army; and they could not, therefore, be placed upon the Civil Service Votes. With respect to the reduction of the charge for the Survey, he might point out that the price was reduced, in 1866, from 5s. to 2s. 6d. per sheet; but that Sir Henry James, who had the management of the Department, was opposed to any further reduction; his opinion being that any further reduction would result in a great loss to the country. At the same time, the hon. and gallant Gentleman might rest assured that he would look into the case, with a view to seeing if any further reduction could be made in the price of the Survey.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

observed, that he could answer the objections of the Secretary to the Treasury by stating that there were two conditions under which it was said soldiers were subjected to military law, and these were simple; one being if they received pay, it was said they were subject to military law; and the other was that if they had been duly "listed," they were also subject. It did not depend on how they were employed. Both conditions were applicable to the Sappers employed in the Survey, so that their liability would be the same as if they did not receive pay. But he could see no objection to their pay being taken over by the Civil Service and refunded to the War Office. With respect to the other point about the cost of maps, he might say that he had had some discussion with Sir Henry James—whose death he much regretted, and whose valuable services to the Government he was anxious to acknowledge—and if the hon. Gentleman had known that lamented officer, he would not have been surprised at the objection taken by him against lowering the price. He might say that he had been into the question of the price, and the necessity of keeping it at 2s. 6d., and his opinion was that it might be very well reduced more than half. Moreover, if the Survey maps were wanted for one county, then the sale of maps of other counties would, if sold at cost price, keep the Department at Southampton in work; but there were many ways of economizing—for instance, a very large sum, indeed, had to be paid with regard to the laying out of money on account of stores for the Department. He hoped that an examination would be made into the amount of stores in hand, and that more care would be taken of them. At present, he did not know how they were examined; but formerly, when under the War Office, they were all looked at within every five years. In his opinion, it was of great importance to look after these things with exactness and regularity; for in that way money now largely invested in stores might be curtailed, so as to allow of maps being sold cheaper than at present.

MR. GERARD NOEL

was much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for his suggestions, which he would bear in mind.

Vote agreed to.

(13.) £17,386, to complete the sum for Science and Art Department Buildings.

MR. E. JENKINS

observed, that there was a great deal of confusion in the manner in which these accounts dealt with the Science and Art Museum at South Kensington. When examined, it would be found that the accounts were so dexterously arranged that it was altogether impossible to tell where money was being spent. They only dealt in that place with the Science and Art, apart from building. The Art Library was originally estimated to cost £80,000; but now it seemed it would cost the country £160,000. This Estimate was taken under the head of "New Buildings." As he understood, a part of that—namely, £16,000—was proposed to be taken towards the £80,000 which had been voted for the Art Library. The Art Library re-appeared in these Accounts, having been once before voted, and the money expended. Then there was the sketch, which for many years had been running through the accounts. He wished to ask whether there was any hope of getting rid of that item? It was to cost £3,000, and they had already paid £1,200, and it would be a satisfaction to know if there was any period at which the sketch now being made by Sir Frederick Leighton would be finished. With regard to the works of internal decoration, they found that students were employed on them, and that a grant of money was voted by the House for the decoration, painting walls, and so on. Towards that, £1,560 was voted; but later on appeared the item of £2,000 or £3,000 towards the work done by these students. He would like to know whether that work was internal decoration, or how the money was to be spent? Whether it was for the Science and Art Department or the Museum? If that information were furnished, it would serve to give them some sort of notion as to whether the money was being properly spent. The sum of £16,000 was asked for New Buildings, and £2,555 for maintenance; but there were other sums asked on account of works of internal decoration, in addition to the fatuous sketch of Sir Frederick Leighton. He should like the right hon. Gentleman to give some kind of promise that the works at South Kensington would be put into such order that they could understand more about them, and hon. Members might be enabled to appreciate the Estimates with less difficulty. He confessed, that after looking into the matter with some care, in order to determine what criticisms to offer, it was impossible to fully understand the accounts, by reason of the manner in which the items were stated. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether the £16,000 proposed to be used during the year 1879–80 would come under that head C, and also inform them when they might hope that the sketch of Sir Frederick Leighton, which had been going on for so many years, would come to an end?

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, that in 1876, as hon. Gentlemen were aware, an Estimate was placed before the House for £80,000 on account of the Art Library, and some portion of that was proposed to be voted that year. With regard to the item of £800 voted, it was for the enlargement of the sketch by Sir Frederick Leighton, which he was happy to say would be completed before the end of the year. With regard to the works of internal decoration, they were for the refreshment room and other parts of the building.

MR. E. JENKINS

inquired, whether it was not true that all the designs for internal decoration were made by pupils at South Kensington? A very heavy charge was made a year or two ago for those designs, and it seemed to him that they never came to an end. Sometimes they got it under that head, and sometimes under the head of Education at South Kensington, and not for Science and Art expenses at all. It would be satisfactory to know how these matters were paid for. Were those students paid under the head of Education, or that of Science and Art, or were they not paid at all?

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, that it was true that the designs for the Science and Art Museum Buildings were originated by students in that Department.

MR. WHITWELL

asked what was the nature of the sketch to which allusion had been made?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that he had seen the sketch on the occasion of an inspection he had made at South Kensington. It was an allegorical illustration of war, and was well worthy of the eminent artist by whom it was being executed, and of the position in which it would be placed.

MR. WHITWELL

had been anxious to know what it was from some hon. Member who had seen it; he understood now that it was a sketch for the purpose of decorating the walls of the Library, and was the work of Sir Frederick Leighton, P.R.A.

Vote agreed to.

(14.) £3,919, to complete the sum for British Museum Buildings, agreed to.

(15.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £39,476, tie 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 1880, for the Erection of a Natural History Museum.

MR. E. JENKINS

wished to resume the criticisms which he had been carrying on for some years on these buildings. He was very glad to see his hon. Friend in his place; for when he occupied the position of Assistant Secretary to the Privy Council he made a statement which had turned out not to be accurate. He stated that the Natural History Museum would cost the sum of£350,000, and no more. Two years ago, he (Mr. E. Jenkins) had called attention to the fact that that sum had been exceeded; for last year, in addition to the Estimate of £350,000, a further amount was voted, making the cost for the buildings alone amount to the sum of £395,000. Further than that, £177,750 was intended to be taken for the internal fittings, and the Committee would thus see that it had been deluded into spending £220,000 over and above the original Estimate. His hon. Friend did not seem to recollect what he said on a former occasion, to the effect that it was certain that the shell of the buildings would be finished at the revised Estimate of £395,000. Having himself examined the buildings on that occasion, he had expressed an opinion that they would not be finished for the sum in question; but the hon. Gentleman had assured the Committee that they would be finished for £395,000. Now they found that there was a revised Estimate for £47,476 for additional works. It seemed that these buildings had been made into a kind of home for lost dogs, or a cattle market, for there were sheds and a tall manufacturing chimney; in fact, it was one of the most extraordinary public buildings that had ever been seen in that or any other country. The point was this—the House had been led into expending, first, £350,000, and then, on a revised Estimate, were assured that £395,000 would complete the work, and now they had a further Estimate of £47,476 for more outside buildings, in addition to which there was a sum of £177,750 to be spent on internal fittings, besides the amount to be paid for the sketch of Sir Frederick Leighton. It was trifling to deal with the House in that way. If £1,000,000 was intended to be laid out upon the work, it would have been better to have informed the House at the outset. It was a part of the extraordinary way South Kensington had of conducting its affairs. First, the foundations were laid, and a sum of money was spent on them; and when people saw that nothing more was being done, a further sum was spent upon those foundations, and then other Votes were taken, and the House was gradually drawn on to an enormous expendi- ture. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £5,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £34,476, 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 1880, for the Erection of a Natural History Museum."—(Mr. Edward Jenkins.)

MR. GERARD NOEL

observed, that the hon. Member was quite right in saying that the Estimates had been revised; but it had been absolutely necessary that they should be. The original Estimate was only intended for the shell of the Natural History Museum; but circumstances had arisen which had caused the original sum to be greatly exceeded.

MR. WHITWELL

asked if the total expenditure would exceed £588,000? In his opinion, the hon. Member for Dundee was perfectly right in raising this question. When they came to a total of £588,000, the matter assumed serious proportions; and he wished to know whether that sum would cover the entire completion of the buildings?

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, that the revised Estimate for the buildings was £409,000, and they would be completed for that sum, and would be ready within six weeks from the present time.

MR WHITWELL

said, that the total sum spent was, therefore, £588,000.

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, that in addition to the £409,000 forming the revised Estimate, there would be a further sum to be provided for fittings.

MR. WHITWELL

inquired how much the amount to be spent on internal fittings would exceed £177,000?

MR. GREGORY

asked if the sums estimated included any allowance for removal of collections?

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, they would cover the cost of removal; but no provision had been made for the reception of the collections.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

drew attention to the comprehensive manner in which those Estimates were prepared, and the very superior plan adopted with regard to the Estimates for money spent on the Courts of Justice. The whole of the vast expenditure for the Natural History Museum was lumped together in large amounts, without any of the subsidiary details of those several lumps of money. The practice of Parliament required that each item should be broken up and the component parts detailed. He thought that information similar to that given with respect to the Courts of Justice, in at least as minute detail, should also be given with respect to this Museum outlay.

MR. E. JENKINS

wished to ask how much the towers would cost? These towers had been discarded by the hon. Gentleman's Predecessor; but it was now stated that they had been found necessary. Was it the case that a whale or a sea-serpent was to be hung up there? As so much had been added to the Estimates last year, he thought they should have further information as to the purpose for which the money was required. For his own part, he did not for one moment grudge money spent for making a home for those great collections; but he did object, and protest, against a system of gradually bringing the country into great expenses, which were never contemplated at the outset. It was now stated that £588,000 would complete the buildings; but he should like to know whether, if he moved for the Estimates, the original Estimates, and the various revised Estimates, his right hon. Friend would furnish them to the House?

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 10; Noes 57: Majority 47.—(Div. List, No. 67.)

MR. WHITWELL

explained that he should not have taken part in the last Division had his hon. Friend been able to obtain some information with regard to the large increase in this Vote. Even now he did not fully understand the position as to the towers, which it seemed were formerly rejected. It was a very unsatisfactory thing when plans were first adopted, then rejected, and then re-accepted. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would cause drawings of the Museum to be placed in the Library or the Tea Room of the House showing the towers, so that Members might judge of the effect of the restoration?

MR. GERARD NOEL

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not ask him to do this. To prepare the plans in the way indicated would cause some expense; while the hon. Gentleman would be able to see all that he understood him to want if he would visit the Museum now in course of erection.

MR. WHITWELL

asked whether the towers were in course of erection?

MR. GERARD NOEL

replied that they were now being built.

MR. WHITWELL

said, it would answer all he wanted, if he went and looked at them.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(16.) £16,800, to complete the sum for Edinburgh University Buildings.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, he did not at all wish to oppose this Vote. He only desired to make one or two comments on it, and to ask a question about it. He found it was an instalment of £20,000 out of a total grant of £80,000 for University buildings in Edinburgh. He entirely approved of the Vote. He thought it was a very proper thing for the Government to give money in aid of a Scotch University, particularly as he believed the University was in accordance with the wishes of the people of Scotland, and their desire, as expressed by the majority of the population. The only condition of this Vote of £80,000 was that not less than £92,000 should be raised by private subscription for the erection of the buildings. He wished the Government to point out where the distinction lay between Scotland and Ireland. In the latter country several sums had been raised for a University, not so large as £92,000, perhaps, but still very large subscriptions. As to the wishes of the people of Ireland, though, perhaps, they were not quite so unanimous in their washes as the people of Scotland, yet, practically, they were unanimous in desiring that their sons should be educated. He wished to know whether, if at any future time a similarly large sum were raised in Ireland towards University buildings, the Government would be as ready to aid the Irish people in erecting a University as they had been anxious to do in Scotland? He would also like to ask whether, if Irish Members were willing to agree that a certain sum of money from the Church Funds should be devoted to University buildings, the Government would be willing to give aid out of the Imperial Funds in the same proportion as that followed in the case of this grant? Supposing that Irish Members agreed that £92,000 should be voted out of the Church Funds, would Government give £80,000 out of the Imperial Funds? [Laughter.] Well, hon. Members might laugh; but this was a serious question. The Government helped the people in Scotland to build their University; and when they were asked to apply the same principle to Ireland, they only laughed—for the laughter, as he saw, began on the Government Bench. It seemed to him to be a case in point. They were voting large sums for University education in Scotland, and leaving the people of Ireland without any University education which they could accept.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he could assure the hon. and gallant Member that the only thing which had raised a smile on his part was the ingenious proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for devoting certain public funds to the purposes of a Catholic University. The case at present before the Committee was not a case in which public funds had been so appropriated; but it was one in which private enterprise had been met by a grant in aid from the Government. The real reason why this Vote was agreed to for Edinburgh University was that the University itself was built originally with public money. It was erected between 1812 and 1827 out of a grant of public money, and the present Vote was simply a grant in aid for the enlargement of the late building. He thought there was some distinction to be drawn between the enlargement of an existing building, originally founded with Government money, and the erection of an entirely new one. At the same time, it would, perhaps, be safer to wait until a large sum had been raised in Ireland for this particular purpose before the Government expressed an opinion on the course they would take; because he should not like to shut himself out from relieving the Irish people in the same way that the Scotch people had been relieved. At the same time, he must remark that the Irish people had not shown the same enthusiasm on the subject that had been exhibited in Scotland.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, this was far too serious a matter to be passed over in this way. He understood the reasoning of the hon. Gentleman to be that Scotland having once got a great deal, was there- fore to get a great deal more; but that, none having ever been given to Ireland, she must not expect to get any now. The second argument was that the Irish people had not shown the same enthusiasm as the Scotch for the cause of education by raising a large sum of money. The hon. Gentleman was wrong. A considerable sum of money had been raised in Ireland; and though, of course, it was not sufficient by itself to found a University, yet it was a considerable sum, and more would doubtless soon be collected if it were known that the Government would come forward with a grant of a corresponding sum, as was the case in Scotland. It would be very important, indeed, if the Government would tell them that they would treat Ireland in the same way that they had treated Scotland; and it would also be a very great encouragement towards private subscriptions in Ireland, where a great deal had been already done under every possible disadvantage. He did not really think the Government were treating the Irish people with fairness in this matter. At the same time, he would cheerfully vote this money for Scotland, because he believed the University teaching given in that country was in accordance with the wishes of the people.

MR. E. JENKINS

would not have risen but for the answer of the hon. Gentleman; but there was a fallacy underlying the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) which ought not to have escaped the notice of the Front Bench. He did not for a moment wish to throw cold water on the enthusiasm of the Irish people for University education; but he did wish to point out that the two cases were essentially different. The £92,000 raised towards the Edinburgh University had been subscribed by persons of all denominations—by persons of almost all denominations, in fact—for the purpose of providing a general University for the non-sectarian education of the Scotch youth. His hon. and gallant Friend, therefore, answered himself completely, when he proposed that a subscription for a Catholic University should be treated in the same manner. If he came to that House with a proposition for a subscription for a University for all Ireland, he was sure the House would listen to his proposal with respect; and, if necessary, no doubt, a very large sum would be granted to assist the general education of the people of Ireland. But his hon. and gallant Friend cut the ground from under his own feet the moment he asked for a subscription for a Catholic University. If that were granted, the Presbyterians of Ireland might ask the same thing, and the Churchmen; and, indeed, he did not see why the Plymouth Brethren should not have a University of their own. He was simply pointing out the distinction between the two cases; while he desired, at the same time, to guard himself very carefully from being supposed to take any hostile view against any proposition of a reasonable character which might be made to the House for the purpose of enabling the Roman Catholic youth of Ireland to obtain a University education. Any proposals of that sort of a reasonable character would receive his support.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, the whole proposition reduced itself to this—that Catholics were to be obliged to subscribe to Secular Universities because they were the best. He did not admit that they were the best; although, undoubtedly, they were the best for Secularists, just as Catholic Universities were the best for Catholics, and Protestant Universities for Protestants. It was another question of how far the Scotch Universities were strictly secular. His own opinion was that they were not. But, however that might be, he did maintain now, and always should, that while Secularists were entitled to have their Universities, they had no right to force them on other people, who did not like them, and would not use them, and yet have to support them.

Vote agreed to.

(17.) £14,062, to complete the sum for Harbours, &c., under the Board of Trade.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

said, £4,000 was estimated as the increase in the receipts at Holyhead Harbour above what was received last year. Did that arise from an expected increase in the amount of traffic, or from an increase in the charges made for the harbour?

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, the amount consisted, for the most part, of harbour dues.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, two Sessions ago he raised various objections to the expenditure on these harbours under the Board of Trade; and a promise was then given him that the money required for repairs to Dover Pier should not be expended until an opportunity had been given for ascertaining the cause of the great damage done to Dover Harbour by the storm on 1st January, 1877. He therefore moved for the Papers on the subject, those laid before Parliament not being complete; and, after considerable trouble, Lord Norton (who was then Sir Charles Adderley, and the head of the Board of Trade) gave him access to the official documents in the Office. He marked all the Papers likely to be of public use to the House of Commons on the subject, as it was agreed that he should disregard all those containing the reports of the petty quarrels which were to be found in them. His object in making the selection was not at all to object to the money being spent in repairing the damage done to the pier; for, after erecting the pier at an enormous cost, they were, of course, bound to repair it. His sole object was to ascertain the cause of a part of the parapet being washed away—whether owing to defective work, or to defects in the design—and to find out how this heavy expense could be avoided for the future. For this purpose he examined all the Office Reports on the subject, and marked the portions of public interest suitable for publication. They had not, however, been published; and he submitted that there had been a breach of faith in the Government going on spending this money without enabling Parliament to ascertain the real cause of the defects of that very costly work. He urged this complaint against the withholding of these Papers; because, knowing how important it was that the country should get more harbours constructed, he knew, also, that they could not expect to get them built until they got rid of the ignorance and inexperience, as shown in the many mistakes and blunders which the engineers had made in designing and constructing sea-coast harbours. He was so satisfied that the pier, as designed at Dover, was defective, that he offered, at the time, to accompany the President of the Board of Trade to that place, in order that he might see that the plan of the work was defective from the first. There was now no need to make a secret of this opinion. The engineer who designed the harbour had long since been dead, and his memory might, therefore, be left to take care of itself. But for his blunders in laying out the pier the damage done in January, 1877, would never have been committed. No one could go down to that pier without being struck by the way in which certain portions of the parapet had been swept away, while others had been preserved; the remarkable fact being that the outermost end, which was most exposed to the action of the waves, had been preserved; whereas that which was nearer to the land had not been preserved. The portion of the pier on the land end had not been affected—merely the part swept away between it and the further end which had escaped. The information which he had found collected in the records of the country about the harbours of England was very extensive, and they ought to turn it to account; and the defective design of the Dover Pier, as shown by the concealed records of the Board of Trade, would have added to that useful knowledge. If they did not benefit by the mistakes and blunders which they had made in the past, they should have a still greater expenditure to bear; and instead of £10,000,000, which the Returns he (Sir George Balfour) had moved for as the public expenditure wasted on harbours, they might have to pay £24,000,000 or £30,000,000 in attempting to make harbours which could not be constructed because of the want of practical experience as to how sea works ought to be laid out. He, therefore, objected to this Dover expenditure until the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Secretary to the Board of Trade, had examined the Office Papers. If he would look at them—and he would find his pencil marks still on them—he would then be able to judge whether this contention was unreasonable in asking for these Papers, and whether a grave lesson was not to be learnt from these defects in the works at Dover.

MR. GILES

remarked, that however much they might have spent on the original construction of Dover Harbour, there must also be an occasional expenditure for repairs. Remembering the tremendous storm which raged there in 1877, the only wonder in his mind was that a greater damage was not done to the pier. As it had to be repaired, he thought it would have been better economy to have spent the money at once, than to have spread the expenditure over two or three years. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had made some remarks about the great cost of harbours generally; but, for his part, he thought it was a pity the Government did not spend more money on harbours, as he believed their construction would greatly benefit the commerce of the country.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he would gladly go down to Dover with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southampton (Mr. Giles), and he would show him the badness of the design, so that he could see it with his own eyes. As to the suggestion that they ought to spend more money on their harbours, why there were already harbours on every part of the coast which had gone to wrack and ruin. Was not Dunbar Harbour a failure? Was not that going down as fast as over it could! Let them ask the late hon. Member for Haddington, who went down to that harbour itself and saw and admitted the ruin. Where was Port Patrick and Wick? He could bring before the House a statement of some 35 harbours in various parts of the country, of which he did not think there were two in good order. He was a warm supporter of harbours—the country needed many more. But could the House be surprised that he wished to see the money of the country properly applied in future, instead of being wasted as in the past; and then, that he rose to protest against any more money being wasted on this Dover Harbour for repairs, which were rendered necessary entirely by the fault in the design? As to the way in which the money was spent, he agreed that it would have been better to have done the work at once, instead of spreading it over a series of years; but the Treasury must decide that, and if they chose to take the latter course, they must bear the fault of it.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

was willing to admit that the hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken (Sir George Balfour) knew more than he did about Dover Harbour. He would, however, endeavour to answer one or two remarks which had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member. If there had been any want of courtesy since he (Mr. J. G. Talbot) had had the honour of a seat at the Board of Trade, it was quite unintentional on his part; and it was certainly not the case that from any such cause the Reports referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman had not been presented to the House. He would also apologize by anticipation if it should be considered that the information which he might be able to afford upon the question then under consideration, in the absence of the President of the Board of Trade, was not as satisfactory as it might have been. The damage done to the harbour at Dover had been occasioned by a storm of exceptional severity, which occurred on New Year's Day, 1872; and hon. Members would be aware that, whatever the science and skill of man might do, there were forces of Nature which they could never hope to resist; and that, consequently, however strong they might make their works, some of them must at times give way. It had been complained that they had not spent the whole sum of money needed at one time; but had Her Majesty's Government asked for the whole sum, they would have been charged with the greatest extravagance. The harbour, however, could not be repaired in a day; and it was thought useless to vote more money than could be spent in the course of the year. The Government were acting under the advice of one of the most experienced engineers of the day—Sir John Hawkshaw—and up to the 31st of March, 1878, £35,000 had been expended in restoring the structure.

MR. WHITWELL

was sure hon. Members would be thankful for the little information which had been given to the Committee on the subject of the repairs to Dover Harbour by the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. J. G. Talbot). He wished to ask, with reference to the amount included in the Estimates for repairs to the harbour at Holyhead, whether that large additional expenditure was on account of any special damage, or whether it was to make good the decay in the works which had been going on for so long? Hon. Members knew that the works at Holyhead had swallowed up an enormous sum of money, and naturally felt cautious when called upon to grant further sums for the same purpose.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, that the breach in the work sat Holy head had been made by a heavy storm during the late winter. He reminded the Committee that in moving for a Supplementary Vote for this harbour he had warned, them that there would be further expenditure in the coming year. It could not be allowed to remain unattended to, and had therefore been stopped.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

observed, that having already said so much about Dover Pier, it was useless to repeat the words in order to meet the remarks of the Secretary to the Board of Trade.

Vote agreed to.

(18.) £153,856, to complete the sum for Rates on Government Property, agreed to.

(19.) £7,500, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £122,644, 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 1880, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of the several Public Buildings under the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland.

MR. M. BROOKS

remarked, that this Vote had come on rather unexpectedly; and that, as there were very few Irish Members present, he thought it would be well if the Government were to consent to its consideration being postponed to another occasion.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

saw force in the appeal of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. M. Brooks), that the Vote should be postponed until a larger number of Irish Members should be present. He was, therefore, quite willing to accede to his proposal.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

(20.) £10,110, to complete the sum for Lighthouses abroad.

MR. D. JENKINS

remarked that there were two sums charged for the expenses of the lighthouse at Sombrero which required explanation. Again, there was a charge for the maintenance and repairs of a tender. He wished to know what were the expenses referred to? He was of opinion that it would be much more satisfactory if the charge for maintenance of the tender were kept perfectly separate from that of the repairs.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, he was not at the moment in a position to give much information on the subject. There were two light-keepers at Sombrero, both of whom were Natives of the West Indies. He would endeavour to furnish further information.

MR. D. JENKINS

said, he had not asked his question by way of a joke; and he repeated his opinion that the sum for maintenance and repairs of the tender being a large one—£2,000—it would be more satisfactory that they should be kept separate.

MR. RAMSAY

regretted that the Secretary to the Board of Trade was not in a position to give the desired information; and as the amount referred to by the hon. Member for Penrhyn (Mr. D. Jenkins) was, in his opinion, also a large sum to spend upon a small tender, he suggested that the consideration of the subject should be postponed, until the information could be furnished.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that the charge for the maintenance and repairs of the tender had always been placed in the Estimates in the form in which it then appeared. He agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. D. Jenkins) that it was quite right that the items should be kept distinct and separate. He had not understood the hon. Member to object to the manner in which the work was done.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, the tender Richmond made the round of the lighthouses once a-week to carry oil and other necessaries for the relief of the light-keepers. There was also a small schooner employed.

MR. D. JENKINS

repeated his request that the separate items of maintenance and repair of the tender should be furnished.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

promised that the specific items should be given on Report.

MR. RAMSAY

suggested that some account should be given at once.

MR. D. JENKINS

hoped that at the same time an explanation would be afforded of the charge for freight for the light-house in question.

Vote agreed to.

(21.) £19,216, to complete the sum for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

thought it quite time that the nation should have at Berlin, the capital of the first country in the world, a suitable house in which to lodge its Ambassador. He therefore asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposed to do anything in the matter? It would be remembered that in the case of Vienna, owing to the delay of the Government in accepting the advice of our former Ambassador, both the building and the site were much more costly than they would otherwise have been. He feared that the same result would follow with regard to Berlin. It was also to be remarked that we continued to spend very large sums at Constantinople upon the Embassy, and he would be glad to hear that it was now in a more satisfactory condition than heretofore. If he remembered rightly, about three years ago the Predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman sent out an Inspector to these works, and the result was that hon. Members were informed that a considerable economy would in future be effected in the repairs. The Palace at Constantinople had cost us much more than the Embassy House at Paris.

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, he had been asked a question two years ago about the house at Berlin. At that time a surveyor was sent out, and three houses were offered; but the price asked for them was so exorbitant that it was decided not to purchase them. The house at present occupied by our Ambassador at Berlin was rented for 10 years from 1876, so that there was time for considering the question of building a new Embassy. The hon. Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid) was rather in error as to the expense that was going on at Constantinople, for it would be seen that the cost of maintaining the Palace had decreased during the last two years; the expenditure of the present year being £1,416, as compared with that of 1878–9, which amounted to £1,617.

MR. RYLANDS

thought the right hon. Gentleman was thankful for small reductions; but he (Mr. Rylands) thought that the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid) was entitled to some further information than that which had been given. He was quite aware that it was true that there were some reductions in the cost of the Constantinople Embassy from last year, and had no intention of disputing that fact, as they all knew that the expenditure for a particular purpose was very much larger in some years than it was in others; but the fact remained that this Palace at Therapia had been for many years the most expensive and costly of all the buildings belonging to the British Crown. The cost of the building was fabulous; and it had been maintained every year by the expenditure of thousands. There had been appliances to protect it from fire; but when the Palace was in flames they were found to be entirely out of order—the building, which had cost £150,000, was burnt down, and we proceeded to erect another Palace. This was done at the expenditure of a large sum of money; and if the right hon. Gentleman would look at the Vote under consideration he would see that it was not for the re-building of the Palace, but simply for the maintenance of the new building, which ought to cost very little for repairs. It would be found that we paid for special work £150 a-year, and for the maintenance and repairs £600, so that for anew building we were asked to pay £750 since last year. In saying this, he was leaving out all the expenses of the Embassy, which also amounted to an enormous expenditure; but over and above all this, they were actually paying a Superintendent of Works £450 a-year. They were actually paying that sum to a person for superintending what had been only recently erected in place of that which had been burned, down through the carelessness and neglect of a staff that had become so numerous as to be a perfect scandal by itself. These facts were a remarkable commentary on the observations of the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid). It was a very remarkable fact that last year, when his hon. Friend called attention to the maintaining of that establishment, he was told that the Superintendent of Works was about to be withdrawn. Notwithstanding that, they were again asked to vote the salary. No doubt, it was supposed in former periods that the possession of an English Embassy in Turkey was a measure which had a great and important bearing on British interests; and it was then considered necessary to maintain a great establishment in order that the Sultan might look up to England as being the Power upon whose judgment and whose will the Sultan was to place his principal reliance. Now, that state of things had changed, and the Sultan had very little influence. No man to-day could suppose for a moment that anything could be done by the Sultan so as to interfere with the course of European politics. The Sultan was now a poor wretched Sovereign who had lost nearly all the influence which he formerly possessed. They could not even deal with him in reference to Egypt, yet they kept an Ambassador there with a salary for a Prince, and who was surrounded by a number of officials whose salaries and charges added very materially to the diplomatic expenditure. He (Mr. Rylands) really did think that the time had come when they ought to deal with that great sham of Constantinople Embassies, which cost the country so many thousands a-year, and he thought they ought to cut down, first of all, the expenditure of that Palace. He must say that he should be very glad to see that Palace sold; and he should be very glad to see a very large number of the officials, who were now kept at Constantinople at high salaries, disposed of in the meantime. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he considered the keeping up the salary of the Superintendent of Works there—a salary of £450 a-year, in order to look after the maintenance of that new building—was a thing that was scarcely creditable to the Office over which he presided. They were told, he thought last year, that the position of the Superintendent of Works was only temporary, and would probably be withdrawn at an early period; but now he found that the officer was still there, and, of course, so long as they gave a man £450 a-year to look after those works, he must find work to look after. He thought the best way to run up a bill for building repairs, architects' charges, and all sorts of charges, was to have a gentleman at a salary, whose duty consisted in finding out that extensions and improvements were wanted. He would strongly recommend the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the salary of the Superintendent of Works, and to cut down the expenditure of the Embassy as much as possible.

MR. GERARD NOEL

observed, that from the remarks of his hon. Friend it might be supposed that the cost of the Embassy at Constantinople had been increased. The contrary was the case. As compared with other Embassies, the expenses of the Palace at Constantinople was not exorbitant. If hon. Gentlemen would examine the accounts, it would be found that the expense at Paris, for instance, was much greater. The cost at Constantinople was between £400 or £500 a-year, and he did not think that that was much. The price of materials and labour at Constantinople were far higher than at Paris or London; therefore, more must be spent upon repairs at Constantinople than at the other Embassies. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in his recollection of what had occurred last year with regard to the Superintendent. He then told him that he would consider whether he was to be maintained at Constantinople. He had been maintained there for several years, because works had been going on which required a first-class person to superintend them. Those works were now completed, and the withdrawal of the official in question had been decided upon; and it had been further arranged to appoint a person, at a salary of about £150 a-year, to overlook the whole of the work at Constantinople.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

thought that the sum required for maintaining and keeping in good order the Palace at Constantinople was very considerable, and much greater than that spent at Paris. With regard to what had been said as to the cost of labour being greater at Constantinople than at Paris that was not correct, although it was true that the price of materials was greater. Then, again, in Paris, although the Embassy was a much older house than that at Constantinople, yet it was in a much more satisfactory condition. Since the right hon. Gentleman had expressed an intention of withdrawing the Superintendent, he could not understand how it was that the Committee was still asked to vote his salary.

MR. GERARD NOEL

observed, that the hon. Member for Rochester was incorrect in putting the cost of the Constanti- nople Embassy so high as he had. With regard to the salary of the Superintendent, it was true that he was to be removed from Constantinople; but he would still have to be maintained in some new appointment, and the other surveyor would also have to be paid. The Superintendent now at Constantinople would be put upon the establishment in another place at a reduced salary, for he was paid a large amount at Constantinople on account of the expense of living there.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

said, he would still like to know how it was that the Committee was asked to vote the salary of £450 for the Superintendent who was intended to be withdrawn? They were told that the gentleman at £450 a-year was to be removed, and someone else at £150 a-year was to be appointed. He did not think that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman as to the continuance of the sum of £450 in the Votes was at all satisfactory. Why was that sum continued in the Votes, when the person to whom it was paid was to be recalled and dismissed?

MR. GERARD NOEL

stated, that the Estimates were framed in November and December, and it had only within the last few weeks been decided to withdraw the Superintendent from Constantinople; and although he was to be removed, a certain reduced salary would still have to be paid to him in England, as he would be retained upon the establishment of the Office of Works.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

said, that the decision had therefore been come to before the Estimates had been moved. It was perfectly open to the right hon. Gentleman to move for a smaller sum, or to inform the Committee that it was asked to vote a salary which was not intended to be paid. He did not think that a business-like course had been adopted in the present case; and he thought it justified the observations which hon. Members had thought proper to make upon the matter.

MR. GERARD NOEL

re-iterated that the Estimates were decided upon and printed in November and December, and that the decision as to the removal of this gentleman had only been arrived at some few weeks since.

Vote agreed to.