Commons Sitting of 9 June 1881

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Customs (Outdoor Officers at the Outports), nominated; Artizans and Labourers' Dwellings, nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act (1855) Amendment* [184].
Second Reading—Reformatory Institutions (Ireland) [18]; Summary Jurisdiction (Process) [179].
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Cottingham, &c.) * [162]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Ballymena, &c.) * [173]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Birmingham, Tame, and Rea, &c.) * [160], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS—THE RETURNS.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will endeavour to publish the results of the Agricultural Returns, which are filled up by occupiers of land on 4th June, at an earlier date than has hitherto been done?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said that he thought it might be possible to obtain the Returns in time to publish them at an earlier date than usual, and "he was now endeavouring with the officers of the Department to arrange the matter.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT—NEWSPAPER COMMENTS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, taking into consideration the condemnation of recent publications reflecting upon the conduct and motives of Members of Parliament, he intends to move for the punishment of the persons responsible for the publication in the "Standard" of to-day, and in certain other prints, of statements reflecting on the Parliamentary action of Members of the Irish Party? The hon. Member explained that the Question was altered from the form in which he had at first framed it. He did not complain of statements "reflecting on Parliamentary action," but of "statements of a very gross kind, attributing dishonourable motives," and so forth.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I can only say, Sir, that my attention has not been called to any statement in particular, and that we have formed no intention of taking any proceedings in this matter. I must say I think it would require a very strong case indeed to justify our taking action.

  THE LAND LEAGUE—GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to retain in the service of the Crown, and receiving salaries paid for out of the taxes of the Country, officials holding office under the Land League?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In regard to this Question, Sir, I do not believe that there are persons strictly falling, so far as I am aware, within the designation of officials in Ireland, who are members of the Land League. The only case that I can find to which that description could possibly apply are one of a Roman Catholic priest, who receives simply an allowance for occasional duty, and the other of a collector of Income Tax, who, perhaps, may be described as an official, and who, perhaps, hardly would be a suitable object of penalty. The matter is one of considerable difficulty. I do not think the Question of the hon. Gentleman entirely without ground, because it should be borne in mind that we are not able to say that, according to the actual law of the land as it stands, the Land League is an illegal association. Illegal acts may grow out of its proceedings; but we are not able to say that it is an illegal association. It might be a nice matter, perhaps, even if we were able to say that, to take any proceedings, especially in cases such as are referred to.

  TREATY OF WASHINGTON—FISHERY TREATIES BETWEEN BRITISH COLONIES AND THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If, seeing that the Fishery Treaties between our Colonies and the United States lead to frequent collisions between the fishermen, and are a source of difficulties to both Governments, Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration the desirability of withdrawing from all Treaties, leaving to each Country the exclusive possession of its own waters?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The provisions of the Treaty of Washington, under which the United States fishermen derive their privileges of fishing in British Colonial waters, cannot at the earliest expire until the 1st of July, 1885,
  112
  and then only in case notice of termination shall have been given two years previously by either party. Her Majesty's Government are not, therefore, at present in a position to consider the expediency of terminating that Treaty so far as it relates to fishery questions.

  PARLIAMENT—RULES AND ORDERS OF THIS HOUSE—ALTERATION OF QUESTIONS.
  MR. O'DONNELLcomplained of the form in which a Question which stood in his name with reference to Father Sheehy had been put on the Paper. Three-fourths of the Question had been omitted, including by far the most important part of it. He had asked, If the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been called to the emphatic testimony of the ecclesiastical superior of the Rev. Father Sheehy as to his culture, patriotism, and conduct, and his continued exertions on behalf of the preservation of the public peace? He had then asked, Whether the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would communicate to the House any information as to the character and respectability of the persons whose allegations had given the Government grounds which had led to the arrest and imprisonment without trial of Father Sheehy? He would ask leave to put the original Question on the Notice Paper for to-morrow.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not at liberty to do that, because already the Question which he put on the Notice Paper has been revised in accordance with the Rules of the House, and he cannot put the Question in an irregular form.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would seek counsel of the Speaker on the subject, and hoped that he would not be obliged to call attention to the matter on going into Committee of Supply.

  RAILWAYS—EXCESSIVE RATES—THE SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been directed to the excessive rates habitually charged by the South Western Railroad during the races at Ascot; and, whether he will state what is the maximum rate which that Company has a right to charge for

  113
  a return ticket between London and Ascot?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, he had examined the Acts of Parliament which laid down the rates which might be charged by the London and South-Western Railway Company, and he found that the maximum rate chargeable was 2½d. a mile for first class and ¾d. a mile for second class; and as there was no mention of return fares, and as the distance to Ascot was 29 miles, the maximum rate chargeable would be 12 s. 1d. first class and 8 s. 6 d. second class—that was the return fare. He had no official information on the subject; but he was informed that those rates were generally exceeded on the occasion of the Ascot races. There appeared, however, to be a provision in the Company's Act of Parliament the exact terms of which would be rather a matter for legal interpretation—namely, that the regulations with regard to maximum fares should not apply to fares charged by any special or express trains.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
    NOTICE OF QUESTION.
    MR. O'KELLYgave Notice that on Friday he would ask, Whether the Government intended to demand Urgency for the Land Bill in order to shorten the period that must elapse before remedial measures for Ireland could come into operation?

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—LIGHTING OF THIS HOUSE.
  MR. DILLWYNasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether arrangements had been made for lighting the House by the electric light; and, if so, when the experiment would be made?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in reply, said, that arrangements had been made for lighting the House experimentally with the electric light on the Brush system. He proposed to give hon. Members an opportunity of seeing the effect of the experiment between the Morning and Evening Sitting to-morrow. The light would be turned on at about 8 o'clock. If a general approval was expressed the light would be continued.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked whether there was to be a Morning
  114
  Sitting to-morrow? He would also inquire when it was proposed to begin Business at a quarter past 4 instead of half-past, as at present?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought it had been stated before the Recess that there would be a Morning Sitting to-morrow. With regard to the proposal to commence Business at a quarter past 4, he must await an intimation from the official authorities of the House.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the state of Private Business was now so advanced that if the House should think fit Public Business for the future might be commenced at a quarter past 4.

  STATE OF IRELAND.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he did not know whether, in the absence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he might ask the Home Secretary whether there was any truth in the accounts of a very alarming, but, perhaps, exaggerated, character which appeared in the newspapers with regard to the condition of Ireland?
  MR. SEXTONasked whether the Home Secretary could make any communication to the House which would have the effect of allaying the anxiety in West Cork with reference to the intended arrest of Father Murphy?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: With reference to the Question of the noble Lord, I have received two telegrams from the Irish Executive—one dated yesterday, and the other to-day. The one of yesterday had reference to the alarming rumours—most of which appear to have been unfounded—as to the condition of things in Ireland. The telegram of yesterday was to the following effect:—
  "Newspaper reports of the riot at Schull, Skibbereen, and Ballydehob, much exaggerated. District now quiet."
  The telegram of to-day from Dublin, dated 2 o'clock, is as follows:—
  "Nothing of significance has occurred since yesterday in County Cork. Two lengths of rails were displaced yesterday near Drimo-league, but have been replaced, and trains run as usual. The wire near Ballydehob has been again broken. Latest reports represent all quiet. No serious outrages reported."
  With reference to the Question of the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton), I have a letter from the Chief Secretary, in which he says—

  115
  "The riots in West Cork were owing to a perfectly unfounded rumour that we intended arresting a priest. "We had no such intention; but these rumours are tricks to excite the people."
  That is all that refers to the circumstance to which the hon. Member has alluded. From these two telegrams the House will gather that a great number of those reports which have appeared in the newspapers are, as regards their details, exaggerated—are reports of a highly sensational character; and I only hope that hon. Members will not assume, because they see them in print, that they are founded on fact.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked whether it was true that General Hamilton, commanding in the district, had asked for a large additional force of Cavalry?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I cannot say; but I hope that in saying that it will not be assumed that we are without information. The hon. Member, and others, the other day blamed the Government for not knowing all the circumstances about Lord Dunsandle's son. It is rather hard upon the Government, and, if the lion. Member will excuse me for saying it, rather an Irish proceeding to expect that the Government should be acquainted with all the circumstances of attacks which never occurred. I have stated to the House fully all the information which I have received, and the words of the last telegram which I read show that nothing of serious consequence had occurred in the course of the preceding 24 hours. The noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) seems very anxious that we should know all the circumstances of supposed acts which have not occurred. We assume, when the Government in Ireland informs us that there is nothing serious, that these reports are exaggerated and unfounded.
  MR. CARBUTTsaid, the Home Secretary had read a telegram intimating that two rails had been pulled up; but it was stated in the morning papers that no rails had been pulled up, and that only some ballast had fallen on to the line and caused an obstruction.

  CYPRUS—THE PAPERS.
  MR. RYLANDSasked when the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies would be able to lay upon the Table a statement of the Revenue and Expenditure of the Island of Cyprus; and, whe-
  116
  ther he would be able to accompany it with Papers showing the present financial and administrative condition of that Island?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: I shall be able to lay on the Table Papers relating to Cyprus very soon, and before the Motion relating to the affairs of that Island comes on.

  PARLIAMENT—ABSENCE OF MINISTERS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked when the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would be in his place in the House; and, whether the Secretary of State for War ought not to be present to answer Questions referring to the disposition of troops in Ireland? Such a Question had just been put by the hon. Member for Leitrim.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Secretary of State for War will be in his place to-night, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland will, I hope, be in his on Monday. The hon. Member for Leitrim only repeated a report, and did not bring forward any verifying circumstances whatever; and I am not at all sure that the Secretary of State for War or for any other Department would be prepared to answer a Question of that kind at a moment's notice.

  BRIDGES (IRELAND)—BANDON RIVER BRIDGE.
  MR. E. COLLINSasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he will take into consideration a memorial addressed by one hundred and fifty ratepayers of the baronies of Kinsale and Courcies, on the 7th May, to the Lord Lieutenant, praying that he may direct such measures to be taken as the Grand Jury Laws admit of to expedite the completion of the bridge across the Bandon River near Kinsale, the construction of which has been delayed long beyond the period allowed to the contractor by the original terms of his contract; whether the Act 6 and 7 Will. 4, c. 116, does not provide that, in a case of urgent public necessity, the Commissioners of Public Works may, on application of the Postmaster General, and with the consent of the Lord Lieutenant, cause the bridge in question to be made available for traffic; whether, in view of the loss of one-half the trade of Kinsale, as alleged

  117
  by the memorialists, caused by delay in construction of the bridge, this is a case for the intervention of His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, under the stipulations of the Act 6 and 7 Will. 4, c. 116; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances, to remedy, if it be practicable, the mischief complained of?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): The Memorial referred to in the Question of the hon. Member has already received full consideration at the hands of His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, and a reply has been sent to the Memorialists informing them that the matter was not one in which His Excellency could properly interfere. I may add. with regard to the work generally that I have seen a Report from the County Surveyor, from which it appears that the time allowed by the contract for the completion of the work only expired on the 1st of April last; and that the work was delayed by the extreme severity of the last two winters, coupled with the fact that several of the screw piles upon which the bridge is to rest were carried away by a passing schooner. The Grand Jury, taking these circumstances into consideration, have not considered it fair or expedient to prosecute the contractor; but have directed him to use every effort to complete the bridge as soon as possible. This he is doing, employing as many men as can be usefully employed upon the work, and I am informed that it is progressing rapidly. Meanwhile there is no delay in the transmission of the mails, as they are carried across the river by another route.

  STATE OF IRELAND—EVICTIONS ON LORD ANNALY'S ESTATE.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that evictions upon a large scale have been and still are taking place on the Rathcline Estate of Lord Annaly in the county of Longford; whether these tenants suffered severely during the late seasons of distress; whether it is a fact that the house of one of the evicted tenants, Mrs. M'Dermott, of Gurteen, was burnt down by those acting on behalf of Lord Annaly; and, whether Mrs. M'Dermott is now an inmate of the Mullingar Lunatic Asylum?
  MR. TOTTENHAMwished, before the right hon and learned Gentleman answered the Question, to ask whether the agent on the estate of Lord Annaly had not repudiated all knowledge of the house of Mrs. M'Dermott having been burned down; whether she had not been several times in a lunatic asylum, and discharged each time as cured; whether the eviction was not undertaken in the interests of the poor woman herself, who was being ill-treated by her family; and, whether she was not now in the enjoyment of a pension from Lord Annaly?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): It is not a fact that evictions on a large scale have been, and still are, taking place on the Rathcline estate of Lord Annaly, in the county of Longford. From the beginning of 1880 up to the present time—that is to say, during the last 18 months—there have been only four cases in which those evicted were not re-admitted as tenants; and in two of these the evictions were from farms held by tenants who held also and lived on other farms which they still retain. At present there are but two evictions pending. In one of these cases, the father of a tenant, evicted last July, has hitherto been allowed to occupy the holding pending redemption by the son. Now, both are to be turned out, as the farm has not been redeemed. In the other case the tenant has two farms; from one of these, on which there is no dwelling-house, he is to be evicted, and I understand he is quite satisfied to give it up. The tenants on this estate no doubt suffered some distress during the bad season of 1879–80, in common with many others in the county of Longford; but not more than the tenants on the surrounding estates, and not so much as some of them. The Mrs. M'Dermott referred to is not an evicted tenant. The farm had been let to her son, Michael, for six months, pending redemption by the original tenant, and she lived with him. Michael M'Dermott was ultimately evicted in March, 1880, with a view to having the farm divided between himself and his elder brother, John; but he would not agree to this arrangement, and thus, while John got and holds the part given to him, the part intended for Michael remains still vacant. Lord Annaly's agent states that he knows nothing of the dwelling-house being

  119
  burnt, and that he does not believe anything of the kind took place. Mrs. M'Dermott had become insane long before the eviction. In fact, the poor woman had been several times deranged. She was placed in the Mullingar Asylum at the commencement of the present year, and I understand was there treated so successfully that she was discharged, cured, on the 6th instant. Lord Annaly has settled a pension of £10 a-year upon her, and provided her with free lodgings for her life.

  IRELAND—THE ROYAL CONSTABULARY—REGISTER OF SUSPECTED PERSONS.
  MR. O'KELLYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether there was any foundation for the statements published that a strict and confidential Circular had been issued to the superior officers of the Irish Constabulary, enforcing the necessity of their entering on a register the names of persons suspected of committing crimes and of the crimes they were likely to commit?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW), in reply, said, the supposed discovery of this Circular was a mistake. No such Circular had been issued, and the words referred to were a portion of the ordinary Code of the Constabulary, which had to act as a detective force, as well as for the protection of the peace.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

  THE COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE (NEGOTIATIONS)—THE NEW FRENCH GENERAL TARIFF.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. MONKrose to call attention to the new Commercial Tariff promulgated by the French Government on the 8th day of May. He made no apology in taking the earliest opportunity of bringing the question before the House, and he could not imagine a more legitimate subject for discussion before going into
    120
    Supply, as it was a matter which intimately concerned the great commercial interests of the country. It might be objected that a Commission was sitting at the Foreign Office to consider the question of renewing the Treaty, and it was popularly supposed that this Commission was already engaged in negotiations on the subject; but certainly 24 hours ago the bases of a Treaty had not been agreed upon by the French Government, and negotiations were confined to the preliminary inquiries necessary before the negotiations for the Treaty could be commenced. Therefore this was the best time for ascertaining the views of the Government on this subject, and what were the demands and necessities of the great manufacturing communities of this country. It was unfortunate that so much uncertainty should exist with regard to the views and intentions of the French Government. They thought they knew what those intentions were last year, when M. Léon Say, then the Representative of the French Government at the Court of St. James's, proposed certain bases for negotiations, that were, on the whole, well received in this country. If the negotiations now being commenced could be conducted on those bases, nothing could be more satisfactory to our commercial community. He begged to remind the House that the Government of this country had not complained of existing Treaties, though he must admit that the Yorkshire and other manufacturers had on various occasions demanded a further progress towards Free Trade than it seemed possible under the existing Treaties. Nor did such a concession on the part of France seem improbable; for, when M. Léon Say made proposals last year for a renewal of the Treaties of Commerce with certain modifications, one of the bases of his proposals was "the development of commercial relations by a further reduction of Custom duties." But it was not too much to say that at the time when the debates were going on in the French Chambers with regard to the new Commercial Tariff, various sinister rumours prevailed as to the intentions of the French Government, and nothing which had occurred during the last 20 years had done so much to disturb the feelings which happily existed between England and France as the promulgation of that new

    121
    Tariff. The new Tariff was not based on those principles which were approved by the French Government through the mouth of M. Léon Say last year, and it was at variance with the principles of the Cobden Treaty, which was concluded in 1860. Not only had the mode of levying the duties been altered, but in many cases there had been a great increase in the duties themselves. He believed that no hint of the coming reaction had been given to the British Foreign Office. It was at first a matter of congratulation to us that so ardent a Free Trader as M. Tirard had been appointed Minister of Commerce, and that M. Challemel-Lacour, another disciple of Mr. Cobden, had been sent as Ambassador to this country. What, then, were the changes which were to come into operation, when the Treaties of 1860, 1873, and 1874 expired? The ad valorem duties had been converted into specific duties. That was a change which would be very injurious to commerce generally, and especially to the commerce of this country. He did not know that they had any right, perhaps, to raise any strong objections to that change if this country was not in other respects to be prejudiced by it. If duties by weight could be assimilated to those charged according to value, he did not think the country would have any reason to complain; but he was afraid that if they looked a little into the new Tariff they would find that this change had a seriously prejudicial effect—that not less that 50, 100, and even, in some cases, 250 per cent increase had been placed on articles of British manufacture. Naturally, the surprise felt in this country was very great at the promulgation of the new Tariff, so soon as our Chambers of Commerce had had time to examine it, and had found how greatly the interests of this country were prejudiced. What did they find? Not only had the ad valorem duties been converted into specific duties which pressed on the inferior description of goods, upon woollen fabrics and carpets, and upon most of the Yorkshire industries, but the rich were benefited at the expense of the poor, inasmuch as a higher duty relatively was charged upon inferior and heavier articles than upon the lighter and more costly fabrics. The French Legislature had largely increased the duties upon some classes of goods; upon some of the
    122
    classes of linen yarns to the extent of 50 to 100 per cent; upon some woollen yarns 90 percent; upon unbleached linens from 24 to 50 per cent; upon silk tissues 24 per cent; and on cotton tissues, with regard to the lighter fabrics, 100 per cent; while the duty upon iron and steel had been so largely increased as to make it almost impossible for this country under the new Tariff to export them. The duties of 2f. per 100 kilos, upon pig iron and of 6f. per 100 kilos, on iron and steel rails were almost, if not quite, prohibitive. The duty also upon scented soap had been doubled, and upon starch it had been almost quadrupled. He had quoted enough to show that a considerable increase had been made. It was true that in same few instances the duty had been diminished, while in others it had remained unchanged; but those were details for the consideration of the Commission now sitting at the Foreign Office. The general character of the new Tariff to which he wished to call the attention of the House he thought, it must be admitted, was scarcely such as they had reason to expect from the friendly assurances they had received from the late and the present French Ambassadors. He saw no reason to complain of the manner in which the Government had hitherto acted. The letter written by Lord Granville to M. Challemel-Lacour on the 10th of May last suggested the very least that the country had a right to expect—namely, that the status quo would be continued. He had received many communications, and he knew that the Foreign Office had received many communications, from the Chambers of Commerce in Yorkshire and other parts of the country, expressing an earnest hope that the Government would not be satisfied with the status quo, that it would demand some progress in the direction of Free Trade, and that this country should not be placed in a worse position than it had hitherto been in under the existing Treaties. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs might say that the Chambers of Commerce in this country were not quite agreed as to what the Government ought to demand; but, at all events, his hon. Friend would not deny that the Government had a right to demand and insist upon what Lord Granville asked for—namely, information as to the intentions of the French Go-

    123
    vernment, and an early reply to the inquiry as to how far they intended to meet us, or whether they intended to meet us at all or not. Some of the Chambers of Commerce had memorialized the Government in favour of a further advance in the direction of Free Trade, having based their expectations of such an advance on the declarations of the French Ambassador a year ago. Others had raised objections to the negotiation of any Treaty that did not go far beyond that negotiated by Mr. Cobden; while others had suggested that future Treaties should be determinable after 12 months' notice at the option of either party. The Government, however, had declined to act upon that latter suggestion, on the very intelligible ground that its effect would be to keep trade in a constant state of uncertainty. Still, the feeling existed that there might, perhaps, be no advance on Mr. Cobden's Treaty, and that after 20 years it was not unreasonable to desire something more favourable to our own interests. For his part, he desired nothing better than a Treaty negotiated upon the basis of that proposed by M. Léon Say last year; but he feared that the French Government had not arrived at any such basis—in fact, he should be surprised to hear that they had arrived at any basis whatever—as he feared that the coming elections in France had had something to do with the reactionary character of the new Tariff. Although there were some Free Traders in the French Ministry, he feared their constituents were not. France was not yet alive to the advantages it would derive from Free Trade; and, in consequence of the step taken by France, doubts had been raised in this country from quarters where one would least have expected them as to the advantage of Free Trade. Considering all the circumstances under which the new Treaty was being negotiated, he would suggest that the Government, in order to avoid some of their difficulties, should urge upon the French Government a renewal of the existing Treaty for another 12 months, so as to secure ample time for dealing with the question. He was aware that the Government had already taken steps to ascertain the wishes and the necessities of the various commercial interests. But in a matter of this kind, where there were some 600 articles to be examined, it was impossible that that could
    124
    be done satisfactorily in a few days or a few weeks. Therefore, though the French Government had refused to renew the Treaties for a limited time, he thought that, under the circumstances, our Government had a right to demand that that course should be adopted, as he felt sure it was one which would be generally acceptable to the country. It was almost impossible to ascertain exactly what the equivalent in specific duties would be to the existing ad valorem duties; but in every case where the duties were imposed under the specific system they must press more heavily upon the cheaper articles, and make their exportation to France absolutely prohibitory. Whatever might be the intention of France, this country could afford to wait. If France were anxious to conclude a Treaty with this country before entering into negotiations with other countries, that was her affair; it did not rest with us to complain. But we should complain if France was not ready and willing to meet what we considered to be our just demands. He begged to move—
    "That this House views with regret the reactionary character of the New French General Tariff, and is of opinion that no Commercial Treaty between Great Britain and France will be satisfactory which does not tend to the development of Commercial relations between the two Countries by a further reduction of duties."
    Those were almost the identical words used in the letter of Lord Granville to the French Ambassador on the 10th of May. He did not think there was a Member of the House who would object to the terms of the Resolution; and it was one which he recommended heartily to the acceptance of the House and of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMON, in seconding the Resolution, said, that the subject with which it dealt was of great concern to that part of the country with which he was connected. When the late Government was in Office he attended a large deputation on the question. It was then said that what the French Government demanded was some revision of the Wine Duties, and that if we admitted French wines at lower duties a satisfactory arrangement would be assured. Matters, however, had taken a different turn; but even at the time

    125
    of which he spoke the deputation to which he referred pointed out to Lord Derby the fatal effect the change from an ad valorem duty to a specific duty would have upon the trade, of certain portions of Yorkshire. They had had also deputations to the present Government. He attended one representing 11 Chambers of Commerce from Yorkshire, and the whole subject was gone into in detail. The staple manufacture of the district he represented was heavy woollens, and a large and important portion of that trade was the class of goods called "shoddy," and which was more particularly identified with the borough he represented. This class of goods was of a low description, and could bear only a small profit. The effect of imposing a specific duty upon this class of goods would be to annihilate the trade altogether. Miles upon miles of villages and towns were engaged in the heavy woollen manufacture, including these particular goods, and it supported a population of hundreds of thousands. In fact, from the time you crossed the border from Lancashire into Yorkshire until you got to Leeds, you travelled through a succession of villages and towns and townships all engaged, more or less, in that manufacture. The deputation placed these facts before the Minister, and showed in detail how fatal the new Tariff would be to the trade of the district. Things had come to such a pass that he had heard it stated in his own district that the manufacturers would rather have no Treaty at all than the Treaty now proposed. In fact, he was sorry to say that a strong feeling was growing up in favour of what was called Reciprocity. With that view he did not agree; but nothing had tended to stimulate the feeling so much as the new Tariff proposed by France. It had disappointed them all. It had been supposed that the Treaty of 1860 would develop the principles of Free Trade; but they found the Trench, under a free and Constitutional Government, receding from that position, and going back to the old Protectionist policy. Under these circumstances, he hoped that the Government would never agree to a Treaty which would seriously affect, if not destroy, the industries of a very considerable portion of the country by changing the ad valorem for specific duties.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House views with regret the reactionary character of the New French General Tariff, and is of opinion that no Commercial Treaty between Great Britain and France will he satisfactory which does not tend to the development of Commercial relations between the two Countries by a further reduction of duties."—(Mr. Monk,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I must congratulate my hon. Friend (Mr Monk) upon the tone and temper in which he has brought forward the subject, representing, as he does, the commercial bodies through the United Chambers of Commerce, with which he is associated at present, and representing, therefore, gentlemen who are not all agreed among themselves, and many of whom have used very strong language indeed with reference to the Treaty. If it is the intention of the Government to vote for going into Supply, and not to support the Amendment, it is not to be understood that they do not almost entirely agree in the terms of the Amendment. I cannot but think that it would hardly be a dignified position for the House, at a moment when negotiations in which two of its Members are taking an active part, to pass a Resolution dealing with the subject of the negotiations; therefore I would ask the House not to pass the Amendment of my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend had said he could not believe that we are actually in negotiations, and that we are rather dealing with the preliminary questions. That is not the case. We are actually engaged in negotiations, but on a basis which is not in the possession of the House, and which cannot be put in the possession of the House at present. The basis of the present negotiations is a draft Conventional Tariff which has only been confidentially communicated to us by the French Government; and that being so, we cannot place the House in possession of the latest form of the proposal of the French Government. We have already in the sittings of the Commission dealt, not finally but in much detail, with the subjects of iron

    127
    and steel, chemicals, pottery, and also certain articles, such as varnish, perfumery, salt fish, and a large number of miscellaneous items. My hon. Friend assumes, and my hon. and learned Friend who seconded the Amendment also assumes, that the House is already in possession of the basis upon which the negotiations are taking place. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury spoke of a Treaty such as that -which is now proposed; but I repeat that the House cannot yet be put in possession of the communications or of the Treaty which it will be for us ultimately either to accept or reject. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester has spoken as if we were face to face with a proposal of reverting to the status quo, which would give us a worse state of things than now exists. One of the great difficulties of the matter in which we are engaged is, that while the proposals before us are worse upon a large number of items, they are better also on a large number of items than the actual status quo; and it will be our duty to carefully consider which are the articles on which British trade will chiefly lose, and which are the items on which it would be to our advantage that we should sign a Treaty or not. It cannot be assumed that the proposals of the French Government are formal proposals for making the state of things worse than they are at the present time. My hon. Friend assured me that the duties on iron and steel will be increased. That is not the case, upon the facts in possession of the House. Taking iron and steel as one whole class, there is a considerable reduction of duties proposed, although it is quite true that owing to the lowering of the price of iron and steel since the Treaty of 1860, which was thoroughly carried out in 1864, the effect of the duties now proposed will not be so favourable to British trade as the effect of the duties of 1864 at the time when they came into operation. The price of steel has so greatly fallen since 1864 that a very considerable reduction of duties will be far from being an improvement upon the state of things which existed in 1864; but as compared with that which existed at this moment it would be a very considerable improvement indeed. I understood my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Simon) to denounce
    128
    the change from ad valorem to specific duties. [Mr. Serjeant SIMON: On woollen, goods.] My hon. and learned Friend is quite right in making a strong protest on behalf of the woollen goods in the district which he represents. There is no doubt that that important manufacture, "shoddy," or, as the French call it, renaissance, is very heavily hit by almost any conceivable change from ad valorem to specific duties. It is so cheap that it is difficult to adopt classification at a rate which will admit the cheapest of these articles on any fair terms; but it seems to me there is a general strong case to be made out on the side of those nations which are adopting specific instead of ad valorem duties, and that is the prevalence of fraud under the ad valorem system. There is no doubt that the question of fraud has been greatly exaggerated. Statements are put forward by foreign Governments which are not borne out by the facts; but no one is prepared to deny that there is a good deal of fraud, and great difficulty has been experienced by this country in suggesting means of preventing fraud, which would be consistent with the retention of ad valorem duties. Therefore it is that we have asked all interests in this country who would be affected by a change from ad valorem duties to specific to try and see whether it is not possible to adopt a classification of goods, rates, and duties by which trade might continue to exist, and allow trade to be done in these cheap goods of which the bulk of the trade of this country now consists. It is, perhaps, to be regretted that we should be so greatly excluded as we have during recent years from the trade in the dearer articles; but we must bear in mind that the trade for some time has been in those cheaper goods, and it is on these cheaper articles that the specific duties will press most heavily, and it is to our interest to look around and see if we cannot get a scheme by which the trade in these cheaper goods will exist. I admit that if there is such a classification as to exclude our goods, it would be the duty of the Government of this country not to conclude Treaties which would practically extinguish the existence of certain trades. Therefore, I must ask my hon. Friend and those who think with him to trust Her Majesty's Government, and to believe that we are thoroughly aware of

    129
    the importance to this country of the trade in cheap goods, and that we shall insist on the trade in these goods continuing. I may point out that when my hon. Friend talks about the enormous increase of duties under the new French Tariff he is guilty of some slight exaggeration. For instance, with regard to linens, he spoke of 80 or 100 percent increase; but, on an average, the increase would not be more than 32 or 33 per cent.
    MR. MONK: I did not speak of the average, but of a certain class; and I took the figures from the Returns of the Board of Trade.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: When my hon. Friend spoke of an increase of 250 per cent he was not speaking of linens. There is no doubt that in any adoption of specific instead of ad valorem duties you must have a considerable increase. What we have to look to is that the duty shall be a real average duty, and not a pretence. Although there must be an increase of duty on some goods—and it is exactly on that point that we have received enormous assistance from visits to London of those who are in a position to know the facts—we are unable at the present moment to state what are the intentions of the French Government. My hon. Friend said it was necessary we should know their intentions: but that is exactly what we are engaged in finding out. At the present moment we know their intentions upon the Tariff on iron and steel, and with regard to the chemical trade; but we do not yet know their intentions with regard to the most important trades of this country, the textile trades—linen, cotton, and wool. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury that there is no subject which will be more carefully handled than that of the woollen trade, which he represents. Probably the strongest case in this country as against both the new French Tariff, and as against the draft Conventional Tariff, lies in the woollen industry; and it is upon that head probably, much as we shall have to say with regard to linen and cotton, that we shall found our strongest case. I have only to say one word with regard to the prolongation of the Treaty. Of course, it is necessary that we should have plenty of time for our negotiations, and that we should
    130
    hear the deputations of various trades; but, at the same time, we have not yet found ourselves actually driven into a corner. We have been enabled to keep pace with the discussions of the French Commissioners in the argument of our own case. We have found ourselves able to satisfy the Commissioners on the general discussion, and also in another portion of the day to meet the English manufacturers and to hear their views on the points which we are discussing. Up to the present time we have not got a stronger case for prolongation than that which we had when we made the demand which the French Government refused. But I can assure my hon. Friend that as the time goes on, if the strength of our case should increase and the negotiations continue, there is a chance of a Treaty being signed. Then, undoubtedly, we would feel it our duty to ask for a prolongation. I can assure my hon. Friend that the facts he has brought before the House will be borne in mind.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, it was clear from what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that they could hardly be in a position to carry the question to a division, although he must say he did not think the Government or the country would lose anything by adopting the Resolution of the hon. Member for Gloucester. It was a Resolution they could agree with generally, and the Government themselves were not really opposed to it. It was quite clear that until they knew what was the Tariff proposed by the French Government, it was impossible to form an opinion upon the Treaty. He warned the Government as to changing the present system of ad valorem duties. He was not at all surprised at the House and the country being disappointed at the course events had taken; because they were last year led to suppose that great changes for the better in the Wine Duty and other things were about to take place, and the commercial relations between France and England were to be ameliorated. The House would remember the Questions he asked at the time, and that he had no great faith in the prospects held out to the country. He hoped, however, that the Tariff would be one which the House could adopt. It was said that no Treaty would be de-

    131
    sirable unless it were very favourable. Gentlemen throughout the country who made that remark did not, lie thought, follow all its consequences. In the commercial position that this country was in, half a loaf was better than no bread; and nothing would be more unfortunate to the commerce of this country than to be thrown back upon the general Tariff of the French Commission.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought that the remarks of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs afforded, at all events, some gleam of hope to the House. They pointed to the possibility of a better state of things occurring with regard to the Commercial Treaty than they had had reason lately to fear. The issues were of far greater magnitude than those which, were involved in mere trade considerations between this country and France, though he was the last person to underrate the importance of the commercial relations between the two countries. He was convinced that unless the Government could put before the House a Treaty which would, on the whole, satisfy the great manufacturing industries of the country, and not least, the woollen industry, in which both agriculturists and manufacturers were deeply and immediately interested, a great controversy would arise on our general commercial policy. If the Treaty were carried out as at present suggested, there would be a powerful feeling though-out this country that our commercial policy had been based on a mistake. What had that policy been? We had taken into consideration nothing but our own Revenue. We had so simplified our system of taxation that our whole Revenue came from one or two sources. We had nothing to offer to foreign countries in exchange for Commercial Treaties. It would be difficult to contend that we had anything to offer to the French Government to induce them to make arrangements favourable to our trade. If Her Majesty's Government, in consequence of this state of things, could not bring their negotiations to a successful issue, undoubtedly a feeling would arise in this country that Free Trade was a mistake, He did not believe that Free Trade, properly understood, was a mistake; but he wished to point out that retaliatory Duties, whether good or bad, were not inconsistent with Free Trade if they induced foreign countries to adopt Free
    132
    Trade principles. There was a meaning of the term "reciprocity" which was not inconsistent with Free Trade. He did not say they ought to adopt reciprocity. He knew there were grave objections to it, and there was a fear lest any Government who should wish to adopt that policy would not be able to resist pressure in favour of Duties not purely retaliatory, but protective. He foresaw the possibility of grave difficulties in the future; but he trusted that these would be prevented by the ratification of a Commercial Treaty with France, which would be for the benefit of the commerce of both countries.
    MR. SLAGGsaid, he would not follow the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) in his arguments on the question of reciprocity. The theory of reciprocity would not receive acceptance from any Government in this country. He could not for a moment deny that the indignation of the people at the treatment they received from foreign countries might press them into the unreasonable course of urging the Government to recur to retaliatory Duties; but that the course would ever be adopted by responsible economists in this year of grace 1881 he found it impossible to believe. He was glad to hear that the basis of the negotiations with the French Government was of a more favourable nature than that indicated in the proposed French Tariff. He hoped it was not only more favourable, but of a wholly different character from what had previously been set before the country, for it must be apparent to anyone who had the slightest knowledge of the matter that the original proposals were not only wholly unfit to form a basis of negotiations, but were deliberately designed to prohibit trade between the two countries so far as our exports were concerned. In regard to his own district, the proposals of the French Government were ingeniously designed to blot out every possibility of trade in connection with the textile industries. In the case of plain cotton goods, which already paid from 17 to 23 per cent, there was an addition proposed of 75 per cent; and in the case of print goods there was not only an addition proposed of about 150 per cent, but anew classification was introduced of a most difficult and complicated character, designed not I only to increase enormously the inci-

    133
    dence of the Duty, but calculated to produce Custom House difficulties of a very onerous description. He thought a great deal too much had been said by the French as to the question of frauds. He would not admit that the frauds which had taken place justified in the slightest degree a resort to the barbarous system of classification. It would be perfectly easy, by arrangements at the different centres of export, to prevent any possibility of fraud under the ad valorem system. He was very sorry indeed to find, after 20 years' experience of the benefits of a modified application of Free Trade principles, the French in their present attitude. It was to be deplored that a country which had made such marked progress in many other respects was not only stationary, but to some extent even back-sliding, on economical matters. Those gentleman who had been sent over to this country as French Commissioners, and who were supposed, in theory at least, to be charged with the mission of extending the commercial relations between the two countries, were themselves the framers of this barbarous and protective Tariff. What could they hope from gentlemen who had exercised all their ingenuity to cancel the possibility of exports from this country? What could they hope from them, as negotiators of a new Treaty, to extend our commerce? He agreed that if it were possible to delay the negotiations till the new French Chamber was elected, they would have a much better chance of obtaining a good Treaty; and it seemed eventually that the Treaty would have to be submitted and approved by the new Chamber. His standpoint was that no protection was needed by the French, for the time had really arrived when we should have perfectly free exports from this country to France. He was convinced that in regard to all the industries in which France stood in a position of rivalry with this country, the French manufacturers were nearly abreast of us; and when it was proposed to put a large increase of duty, on fine yarns, for instance, he had to point out that the French were already quite our equals in that industry, French yarns of best quality being at this moment sold in the Nottingham market in competition with English produce. Then, with regard to the protective duty on plate glass, he noted
    134
    that the French manufacturers of that article were largely exporting it to England, and under-selling us, not only in foreign markets, but in our own English markets. He did not think we should attempt either to beg of, to cajole, or to threaten the French Government. If the French had not learned the value of Free Trade principles, even in a modified form, he was afraid no Treaty would teach them. We must ask not only for a reduction, but a very substantial reduction, of the present Tariff duties; and if we failed to obtain that, the Government had only one course to pursue—namely, to throw up the Treaty altogether, leaving the French to learn by bitter experience the value of what they would thus lose. He should be very sorry indeed to see a large portion of our trade swept away; but rather than make a sham Treaty, imposing duties which were wholly unnecessary in the present situation, he would abandon the Treaty system altogether. He would let principle take the place of expediency; and leave the French to find out, as they assuredly would, not only the value of our trade to them, but the enormous and far greater value of their trade in exports to us.
    MR. ECROYDsaid, he wished to express the very strong feeling which he entertained in regard to the important question now under negotiation between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France. He had always highly valued the influence of Commercial Treaties in promoting good feeling between nations; and whatever might be the result of the present negotiations, they must look back with extreme satisfaction upon the results of the friendly intercourse between this country and France, which had followed the Treaty negotiated by Mr. Cobden. But Commercial Treaties could only conduce to mutual good feeling between nations when they resulted in a disposition to continue to progress in the way of increasing the interchange of productions; and if at the end of 20 years' experience the state of things in France was such that there was not a disposition to value an increased interchange of productions with England, then one of the great objects of Commercial Treaties had in that case failed, and he should be indisposed to attach much value to the negotiation of a new Treaty under such

    135
    circumstances. But progress in friendly relations and towards the enlargement of the area of Free Trade were great things in the granting of Commercial Treaties; and he was not without hope that they might yet, by the exertions of Her Majesty's Government, be attained in the present instance. But it must be remembered that if such Treaties were only accepted by France, or any other nation, as encouraging their Protectionist course of action by freeing them for a term of years from retaliatory duties, they were distinctly doing harm, and retarding the progress of Free Trade in the world. He therefore hoped that, rather than negotiate a Treaty with that country which might have the effect either of narrowing the trade of the exports of English manufactures to France, or of manifesting to the world the fact that the Commercial Treaty negotiated 20 years ago had failed to produce a disposition to go further, the Government would withdraw from the negotiations, and leave manufacturers to transact their business with France as best they might without a new Treaty. In the meantime, he had the best reasons for believing that very large numbers of those engaged in the chief centres of our manufacturing industries were looking with great alarm upon the continual contraction of the markets for their manufactures; and the contraction was at present of a two-fold character, arising from our recent course of commercial policy. In the first place, the area of our foreign trade was being constantly contracted, not only by the increased pressure of Tariffs, which imposed heavier burdens on our goods, but also by the results of those Tariffs in producing that which in many cases they were intended to produce—the establishment of an increasing capacity to manufacture in those Protectionist countries. In consequence, our home trade was being greatly restricted by the successful and increasing competition of foreign countries, and notably by the United States in respect to agriculture. Vast sums of money, which in former times were paid by the industrial masses of this country to the agricultural populations of Great Britain and Ireland, and which came back again through the shopkeepers and tradesmen in the form of increased home trade, were now increasingly paid to foreign nations, who
    136
    would not take back our goods in exchange. He believed that unless a very efficient remedy could be found for this condition of things, it would in the long run produce a large amount of discontent, which might lead our industrial population to demand distinctly protective measures—measures, perhaps, of a highly and rashly injurious character. He therefore entertained a strong hope that the result of the negotiations between the Governments of England and France would be to give a ray of encouragement to our manufacturing population, and to inspire a hope that Free Trade might yet grow on its present lines, and that the French would, in some form or other, consent to give us a Treaty which would manifestly be a progressive step towards increasing trade with England.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, the question was whether we were to abandon a Treaty in order to bring foreign Governments into better commercial relations with our own. As the Representative of a large industrial community, he supported the views which had been put before the House by the hon. Member for Manchester and the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury. He did not think it would be to the interests of Free Trade either in France or in England that England should accept a Treaty with France which was at all retrograde in its character. It was, no doubt, true, as the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had urged, that manufacturers must not fix their attention on a few articles, but must look at the general range of the Treaty; and, speaking generally, he believed that the simplest course for the Government would be to say to France that if the terms on which the Treaty was to be negotiated were not substantially as good as the present conditions they would prefer that no Treaty should be entered into. The difficulty with regard to these high foreign Tariffs was not that the people on the Continent or of America were enamoured of the principles of Protection. It was their financial necessities which obliged their Governments to get money in the most objectionable and unscientific fashion they could indulge in. ["No, no!"] He would ask hon. Members who seemed to dissent how it was that of late years those foreign Tariffs had been so much raised? At

    137
    one time they had a comparatively moderate Tariff with the United States. It was in a great and disastrous war that America found herself under the necessity of obtaining money to carry on that war. And it was obvious that there was no way of raising the taxes which could so easily delude the people and be so easily adopted as by a system of increasing Customs rates. That was true also of Germany and France. It was no doubt the war system all over the world which caused nations to fly to high Tariffs. France and Germany had a much heavier Debt now than before the Franco-German War, and the Protectionists of those countries had taken advantage of it, and played upon the ignorance of the people and brought pressure on the Governments in order that the Duties might be raised whereby it was supposed their own special and sectional interests were benefited. He confessed he despaired of reaching Free Frade through a system of Treaties; and, further, that he was afraid our working classes must be told that it was impossible for them to escape from their share of practical sympathy with the sufferings of other nations. He believed that Providence designed it that distress in one part of the world was not to be escaped by other parts, so long as the war system was kept up. He still believed that Free Trade principles would progress. But when the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) and others urged that it was to be regretted that France had not made more progress in enlightenment of views on the Free Trade system, they must not forget the circumstances under which the original Treaty was carried. It was, on the part of France, more the mind of an individual than the mind of the people that was embodied in the Treaty. The late Emperor of the French was looking to dynastic as well as to commercial reasons, and therefore he was easily induced to enter into friendly relations with this country. It was not to be wondered at that we found the French in their present mood. It could not be forgotten that there were bad harvests in France as well as in this country, and that France had been importing food while the farmers at the present moment were suffering from competition with America and low prices. The difference between France and England was that we were the only
    138
    country that normally was under the necessity of importing a very large share of the food of the people. We required annually one-third or one-half of the food of the country from foreign sources. That was not the case in America, nor was it the case in France or Germany, except on the occurrence of bad harvests. He was afraid it would be assumed that as he belonged to the commercial classes he had not a very strong sympathy with the agricultural interests of this country. On the contrary, he was most anxious that the land of this country should grow more of the food of the population. That was the first and only weapon by which they could fight foreign countries, and make progress towards universal Free Trade; and he hoped that this Parliment would not separate without giving relief to the agricultural interest in the following direction. He wished to see such a change in the system of land-owning and land-holding in this country as would give the farmer some chance in competition with America. Reference had been made to the decline in the worsted manufactures in this country, and it had been urged that they must look to retaliation as a means of recovering the lost position. But it should be understood that the cause of the decline was that there had been such a change in fashion as had not been known for half a century; and he should be sorry, therefore, if the working classes were led to look to remedies which would be altogether ineffectual and misleading. They could not enter upon a policy of Protection without adopting it all round, and he admitted that the agricultural interest could present the strongest case for it. What they had to do was to set an example of peace and fair dealing in the world, and then urge that policy upon their neighbours. In conclusion, he hoped the Government would not unduly concern itself at the possibility of the miscarriage of the negotiations, for good would probably come out of the abandonment of the Treaty.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, that although representing the agricultural interest, he had the strongest sympathy with those to whom this Motion related, and he would therefore give it his support. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) said that the remedy for agricultural distress must be found in greater production, and he stated that

    139
    we imported from one-third to one-half of the whole of the food that we consumed. Why was this? Was the hon. Member not aware that, under the stress of foreign competition, within a comparatively small number of years 1,000,000 of acres of land in England had ceased to grow wheat which used to grow it before? And under the system of Protection France continued to grow at present the same quantity that it had grown in former years. He (Mr. Chaplin) was in favour of Free Trade, and not of the sham trade which now existed. He was not, however, going into the question of Protection and Free Trade; but he might point out that some of the greatest admirers of Free Trade, including the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, had stated that the number of bad harvests was one of the chief causes why trade was so bad in England at the present time. The value of a harvest, however, depended not altogether on the bulk of the corn that was grown, but on the price it realized. It would be impossible for us to compete with America, even if the land in this country was held rent-free. He was sorry to hear that the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could not accept the Motion of the hon. Member for Gloucester, because he agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke) that it appeared to be one which both the Government and the House might accept without any difficulty. It contained nothing objectionable, but it reflected the growing feeling of the country in many districts. A distinct expression of opinion on the part of the House of Commons might have a favourable effect on the conduct of the French Government, and would also tend to strengthen the hands of Her Majesty's Government in the dealings in which they were engaged.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, he believed in the general desirability of Free Trade if it could be obtained; but the present system was not Free Trade. He asked the House whether the system of receiving foreign produce free of duty, while our manufactures were taxed in foreign lands, was not unjust? By that system we were protecting foreign manufactures to the injury of our own. The reason we could not get from France what was apparently expected by some Members of the House was because the
    140
    French people were not the fools some of our political economists seemed to think they were. Hon. Members opposite claimed a superior wisdom, and thought that they were the sole repositories of sound principles of political economy, and that all who differed from them were lunatics. He would remind the House that no country in the world was making such rapid strides as America, which was a country that understood its own interests, and where the people were certainly not lunatics, although they happened to hold views in regard to political economy which were not those of hon. Members opposite.
    MR. MONKsaid, the discussion had been of so satisfactory a nature that he would appeal to the House to allow him to withdraw the Motion. ["No!"] He believed it represented the feelings of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and he could hardly doubt that it would be accepted without a division if the House were unwilling to allow it to be withdrawn.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 77: Majority 28.

    AYES.

    Ashley, hon. E. M.

    James, Sir H.

    Balfour, Sir G.

    Johnson, W. M.

    Bass, H.

    Law, rt. hon. H.

    Brassey, H. A.

    Leatham, W. H.

    Brinton, J.

    Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

    Causton, R. K.

    Cavendish, Lord F. C.

    Lloyd, M.

    Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

    M'Intyre, Æneas J.

    Childers,rt.hn.H.C.E.

    M'Minnies, J. G.

    Chitty, J. W.

    Martin, R. B.

    Cohen, A.

    Matheson, A.

    Collings, J.

    Morley, A.

    Colthurst, Col. D. la T.

    O'Shea, W. H.

    Cotes, C. C.

    Paget, T. T.

    Davey, H.

    Playfair, rt. hon. L.

    Dilke, Sir C. W.

    Roberts, J.

    Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

    Shield, H.

    Edwards, H.

    Vivian, A. P.

    Edwards, P.

    Waugh, E.

    Farquharson, Dr. R.

    Whitbread, S.

    Findlater, W.

    Willis, W.

    Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

    Wilson, Sir M.

    Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

    Wodehouse, E. R.

    Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.

    TELLERS.

    Hayter, Sir A. D.

    Grosvenor, Lord R.

    Herschell, Sir F.

    Kensington, Lord

    Hopwood, C. H.

    NOES.

    Alexander, Colonel

    Balfour, A. J.

    Amherst, W. A. T.

    Barran, J.

    Anderson, G.

    Beach, W. W. B.

    141

    Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

    Leighton, Sir B.

    Biggar, J. G.

    Mac Iver, D.

    Birkbeck, E.

    Mackintosh, C. F.

    Blackburne, Col. J. I.

    M'Laren, C. B. B.

    Bourke, right hon. R.

    Moore, A.

    Briggs, W. E.

    Noel, E.

    Broadhurst, H.

    Noel, rt. hon. G. J.

    Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

    Norwood, C. M.

    Onslow, D.

    Cameron, C.

    Patrick, R. W. C.

    Campbell, J. A.

    Peddie, J. D.

    Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

    Power, J. O' C.

    Chaplin, H.

    Pugh, L. P.

    Churchill, Lord R.

    Ross, C. C.

    Coope, O. E.

    Rothschild.SirN.M. de

    Crichton, Viscount

    Round, J.

    Cross, J. K.

    Rylands, P.

    Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

    Sclater-Booth,rt.hn.G.

    Crum, A.

    Scott, M. D.

    Dalrymple, C.

    Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

    De Worms, Baron H.

    Slagg, J.

    Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

    Stanhope, hon. E.

    Eaton, H. W.

    Stanley, hon. E. L.

    Ecroyd, W. F.

    Taylor, rt.hn. Col. T.E.

    Fletcher, Sir H.

    Tennant, C.

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Tillett, J. H.

    Fort, E.

    Tottenham, A. L.

    Fremantle, hon. T. F.

    Williams, B. T.

    Gorst, J. E.

    Williams, S. C. E.

    Halsey, T. F.

    Wills, W. H.

    Hamilton, Lord C. J.

    Wilmot, Sir J. E.

    Heneage, E.

    Wolff, Sir H. D.

    Illingworth, A.

    Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

    James, W. H.

    Wyndham, hon. P.

    Lalor, R.

    Lawson, Sir W.

    TELLERS.

    Lee, H.

    Monk, C. J.

    Legh, W. J.

    Simon, Serjeant J.

    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    Resolved, That this House views with regret the reactionary character of the New French General Tariff, and is of opinion that no Commercial Treaty between Great Britain and France will be satisfactory which, does not tend to the development of Commercial relations between the two Countries by a further reduction of duties.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE,
  Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee of Supply.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. COOPEmoved the following Resolution:—
    " That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that immediate steps be taken to carry out extensions to the National Gallery, so as to afford sufficient accommodation for the present collection, and for probable future additions."
    142
    The work of extension, he remarked, was absolutely necessary, and could be carried out at comparatively little expense. There was at the disposal of the Government space at the rear of the National Gallery; and as it was only the first floor that required enlargement, the new building could be erected on iron columns, so as not to interfere with the present use of the space as an exercise ground for the soldiers in the neighbouring barracks Owing to the present want of accommodation, the Trustees of the Gallery were not able to expend to the best possible advantage the sum of £10,000 placed at their disposal for the purchase of works of art which would enrich the National Collection. There was also an observation that might be made as far as their choice was concerned. The most recent purchase was the "Viergel and Rochers," by Leonardo da Vinci, which, in the opinion of those well qualified to judge, was in a very different condition to that in which it left the easel of that master—a replica of which picture was now in the Louvre—and the sum given by the Trustees was £9,000. About 10 years since a painting, supposed to be by Rembrandt, of "Christ and the little Children," was purchased for the large sum of £7,000, which had turned out to be spurious, and was described in the Gallery as "of the School of Rembrandt," and was a very inferior production. Some years ago a painting by Mr. Ward was presented to the National Gallery by Lord Ribblesdale, but the Trustees came to the conclusion that it would occupy too large a space, and it was handed over to the British Museum, by the officials of which it was relegated to a vault, in which it remained for some years. On the representation of Mr. Ward that his first picture ought to have been placed in the National Gallery, it was decided to return the picture to the representatives of Lord Ribblesdale. And what happened? The Trustees of the National Gallery afterwards purchased that same picture, which had been presented to the nation and returned, for a sum of £1,500. In point of economy he appealed to the Government to extend the Gallery, as he believed that, however it might he extended, it would soon be filled by bequests from those who were possessed of rare works of art. On former occasions he had brought the subject before the

    143
    House, and acknowledged that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury fell in with his views, though not to the full extent, by admitting the public to the Gallery on the two students' days. He thought that the fee charged on those days for admission ought to be abolished, and that the public should be admitted, not at 12 o'clock, but at 10 o'clock. He believed that the more the public had the advantage of seeing such works of art as the building contained, the more their taste would be raised. A great deal was said at the present moment of the necessity for technical education; but he contended that by encouraging the people, especially the working classes, to see the glorious works of art in the possession of the country, they would raise their powers of design and enable them to compete more effectually with the work of foreign countries. He would further suggest that during the winter months the National Gallery should not be closed at 4 o'clock, but that it should be lighted by electricity—as that House was about to be—on certain days of the week; a step which would be the means of affording recreation and improvement to the large class on whose behalf he brought the subject forward. He had not met with as much support in this matter from the authorities as he had hoped for, and, probably, the fact was owing to the constitution of the Trustees. That Body consisted of six noblemen and gentleman, two of whom were engaged in diplomatic service abroad; a third was incapacitated from acting by ill-health for the last two or three years; so that, in fact, the management of the Gallery was left to three Trustees and the Director. The extension for which he now ventured to ask should recommend itself in an economic point of view, because the Government might withdraw the present grant of £10,000 a-year, and, by affording the necessary space, secure bequests of works of the highest merit from private owners and collectors. The English School of Art was rapidly gaining ground abroad; the taste for art was increasing in this country; the growing interest in the National Gallery was shown by the greatly increased and increasing number of visitors; and he therefore hoped, for the reasons he had given, that Her Majesty's Government would accept his Motion, and thus con-
    144
    fer a great benefit, not only on the Metropolis, but upon the people at large.
    MR. M. SCOTTseconded the Motion.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that immediate steps be taken to carry out extensions to the National Gallery, so as to afford sufficient accommodation for the present collection, and for probable future additions,"—(Mr. Coope,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the success which had attended the experiment suggested by his hon. Friend, of admitting the public to the Gallery simultaneously with the students when copying the pictures, entitled his hon. Friend to speak with authority on this matter; but he should be sorry to follow him into the Lobby with this Motion, because he did not think that the extension of the National Gallery was a question upon which the House ought to be divided as against the Motion for Supply. He trusted, however, that the Government would give the House an assurance that it was one which engaged their attention, for there could be no doubt that an extension of the Gallery, if not now needed, would very soon become absolutely necessary. With reference to the pictures in the National Gallery—a collection of the greatest interest, the more so, perhaps, because of its limited size—he should not be in favour of an undue or rapid accumulation of them. On the contrary, he should not be afraid of weeding out some of them in order to give room for others of a more representative character. He would only express a hope that the Motion of his hon. Friend would receive the favourable consideration of the Government.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREquite admitted the importance and interest of this question; but the hon. Member who brought it forward was mistaken if he supposed that nothing had been done for the extension of the National Gallery within the last few years. Very considerable sums had been voted, not only for the purchase of land, but for buildings to be erected upon it. Between

    145
    1868 and 1876, £64,000 was paid for land, in addition to £97,000 for buildings on the land. Within a few weeks a representation had been received from the Trustees of the National Gallery that the time was approaching when it would be desirable to consider whether further extensions should not take place. The matter would receive the attention of the Government; but he could not at present pledge them as to the course which would, be taken. Other demands, in respect of new buildings for Public Departments, involving a serious expenditure, must, at the same time, be considered. Considerable additions must be made to the accommodation of the Post Office in London, the War Office, the Admiralty, the Patent Office, and the National Portrait Gallery. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Member would not expect the Government at the present moment to give a decided answer to his proposal. He did not think it necessary to follow the hon. Member in his comments on the administration of the National Gallery, which he thought hardly consistent with the Motion he had made. If the Trustees were spending the annual grant in buying pictures which were unworthy of the National Gallery, there would be little use in its extension; but he thought the hon. Member was mistaken in some of the cases to which he alluded. He was not aware of the Ribblesdale picture—it was the first time he had heard of it; but with regard to the picture of Leonardo da Vinci, bought from Lord Suffolk, he believed the universal opinion was that it was an extremely valuable one, and had been a most desirable addition to the National Gallery. For a picture of such rare quality, of course, a considerable sum must be paid. If valuable pictures came into the market, it was most desirable that the Trustees of the National Gallery should be in a condition to purchase them. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. SclaterBooth) that quality rather than quantity should be considered; and whether it might not be desirable to weed out a few might be worthy of consideration. But, if so, would it be necessary for a short time to make considerable additions to the National Gallery? That was a point on which he should be sorry to express any definite opinion. In the circumstances, he hoped the hon. Gentle-
    146
    man would be satisfied with the answer he had given.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKthought the pictures in the National Gallery were a great credit to the nation. They were of the utmost value. He only wished the public could derive greater advantage from their exhibition. There was an increasing demand for art, and all the people in our great cities were crying out for it; but in London, at all events, we did not seem to make the best of the opportunities we had for instructing the people in it. He, therefore, thought the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Coope) had done well to bring the subject forward. There had been no progress with the Gallery during the last 15 years.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS
    (1.) £12,980, to complete the sum for Furniture of Public Offices, Great Britain.
    (2.) £158,515, to complete the sum for Revenue Department Buildings.
    (3.) £40,496, to complete the sum for County Court Buildings.
    (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £6,513, 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 1882, for the Metropolitan Police Court Buildings."
    MR. RYLANDSrose for the purpose of moving a reduction of the Vote. The subject of the remarks he was about to make was one which he thought had not received sufficient attention. In the country districts a very large expense was thrown upon the local rates for the purpose of erecting and maintaining public buildings; but the custom in London was to make considerable charges upon the Exchequer for the cost of erecting police courts. Last year the sum of £19,800 was voted towards the erec-

    147
    tion of a new police court and station in lieu of the court and station then existing in Bow Street. That Vote was the subject of considerable attention on the part of the Committee, and led to a discussion in which a good deal of opinion was expressed as to the country at large being called upon to pay additional taxes for purposes which specially belonged to the Metropolis. Upon that Occasion an argument was made use of, which he did not think had sufficient force to justify the proposal—namely, that inasmuch as a very largo number of persons came to the Metropolis from different parts of the country, increased police court accommodation was thereby rendered necessary for the due administration of justice in the Metropolis, and it was only reasonable that the cost so incurred should be borne by the country at large. He had, however, always held the opinion, that the Metropolis being the centre towards which so large a number of persons from the Provinces tended, a considerable amount of money was spent there in consequence, by which the Metropolis benefited, and that, therefore, any additional police court accommodation rendered necessary by the presence of strangers should be defrayed by the Metropolis itself. But by the present Estimate the Committee were asked to vote the sum of £2,200 for alterations and additions to the Hammersmith Police Court; and as it appeared to him that the argument made use of in the case of Metropolitan Police Courts had scarcely any force whatever in connection with the Police Court at Hammersmith, lie should move that the Vote be reduced by the amount named. He contended that the authorities at Hammersmith should apply to the local ratepayers to meet the cost of increased police court accommodation.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,313, 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 1882, for the Metropolitan Police Court Buildings."—(Mr. Rylands.)
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he was able to sympathize with the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, and thought it was a question well deserving the consideration not only of the Government, but also of the
    148
    House itself, how far some of the distinctive charges on account of public buildings in the Metropolis should not fall upon the local rates. But it was necessary to deal with facts as they were; and at present there were no legal powers for repairing and improving the Metropolitan Police Courts except by payments out of the Exchequer. The cost of this had hitherto always been borne by the public funds; and until the whole question of Metropolitan Government was dealt with, and he trusted the day was not distant when it would be taken in hand, he could see no way of imposing this charge upon the Metropolis. It was clear when that time arrived, that this and similar charges would have to be dealt with by Parliament. With regard to the particular objection urged by the hon. Member for Burnley in connection with this Vote, he had been informed that the state of Hammersmith Police Court was such that it was absolutely necessary on the grounds of decency and public justice that the improvements, for which the sum of £2,200 was now asked, should be carried out; and as there were no other funds out of which the cost could be defrayed, it was his duty to propose the present Estimate. With respect to the large expenditure in connection with the new police station at Bow Street, as distinguished from the police court, although his lion. Friend had referred to this as being paid out of the public funds, ho might mention for the information of the Committee and his hon. Friend, that a portion of the amount would be repaid to the Exchequer by means of an annual charge upon the police rate.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, it appeared to him that there were no actual limits to the Metropolitan area. The question, "What is the Metropolis?" was always arising in connection with matters of this kind—parks, public buildings, and other institutions—and they were continually going beyond the line that, in his opinion, ought to constitute the Metropolitan boundary. He had always held the view that for these purposes the Metropolitan area ought not to be considered to extend beyond those parts of London which were used by persons coming from the Provinces. Therefore, he contended that Hammersmith being a suburb, and not part of the Metropolis,

    149
    the expenditure of £2,200 now asked for alterations and additions at the police court in that district ought not to be allowed. The Committee had, however, heard the explanation of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury, who seemed to agree with the view taken of this matter by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), while at the same time he explained that there was no other means than a payment out of the Exchequer by which the necessary expenditure could be met. He trusted that the general principle which the hon. Member laid down would induce him to take into consideration the propriety of confining the expenditure from the public funds on account of the Metropolis to that which he (Mr. Dillwyn) had indicated as constituting its actual area for purposes of this kind. Although he never had the least wish to cut down public expenditure upon the Metropolis proper, he had always contended it was unfair that the country at large should be called upon to contribute to the necessary expenditure of the suburban districts. The full concurrence of the noble Lord with the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Burnley had given him great satisfaction, and, taking the noble Lord at his word, which he felt he could do with complete confidence, because he had never known him to assert a principle that he was not ready and anxious to carry out, he would ask the hon. Member not to press his Motion.
    SIR ANDEEW LUSKsaid, when it was recollected that there were 4,000,000 of people in the Metropolitan area, forming perhaps the greatest community the world had ever seen, it would be admitted that the police and magistracy of the Metropolis should be under the superintendence of the Government. In his opinion, this was both necessary and desirable, because the arguments which might justly be applied to questions of this kind relating to the Provinces, had no force or bearing whatever when used in connection with the administration of justice in the Metropolis. The two cases were entirely different. There were 10,000 police in the Metropolis, and the Committee would readily understand that to manage so large a number of men and generally to keep the administration of justice working smoothly and in order, required no little care and attention. Therefore, he thought the
    150
    Government were right in taking this matter into their own hands; and, at the same time, he could not but feel that his hon. Friend who had spoken on this question of the Hammersmith Police Court had been rather hard, so to speak, upon the Metropolis. For the reasons he had given, he thought the Vote should pass without reduction.
    MR. DUCKHAMthought the short discussion which had taken place on the Motion of the hon. Member for Burnley had shown the necessity for inquiring into the whole subject. The point which had been discussed formed a small part only of a very great question. He was unable to support the Motion of the hon. Member, because he felt that in the present state of things the grant ought to be made; but he hoped that the day was rapidly approaching when the whole question of the incidence of local taxation would be fully and comprehensively dealt with. He had repeatedly given Notice of a Motion for a Select Committee to make a searching inquiry into the whole subject, with the hope that such an inquiry might result in a more equitable adjustment being established. The inhabitants of the country districts had to provide their own police stations, and he thought that the Goverment ought to hesitate before adopting one law for the country and another for this wealthy Metropolis.
    MR. BIGGARremarked that the particular portion of the Vote which was the subject of the Motion of the hon. Member for Burnley had no one to defend it, the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury having admitted the principle contended for by the hon. Member. When the Vote was before the Committee last year, it was argued that cases of great national interest were sometimes brought into the Metropolitan Police Courts, and that therefore it was desirable to charge the cost of building and maintaining those courts, not upon the local rates, but upon the funds of the public. But that argument could not possibly be applied to the Hammersmith Police Court, and he certainly could see no reason why the inhabitants of that suburb should have a police court built for them. The system was indefensible; and, to his mind, there could not be a more proper time than the present to make an attack upon it. It was well known that the Board of

    151
    Works had Acts of Parliament which empowered them to do a great many things; but he failed to see why they should build a police court any more for the use of one suburb of the Metropolis than another. It might be argued that the Law Courts existed for the benefit of the whole Kingdom—that their jurisdiction extended to the whole of the country, and that, therefore, their cost should be borne by the people at large. But this could not be said of the Hammersmith Police Court, which had only a local jurisdiction. He gathered from the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury that it was in excess of the powers of the local bodies to go to the expense of building police courts for the accommodation of their districts; still it must be remembered that it was entirely for the convenience of the inhabitants that the police court at Hammersmith was held there at all. Under these circumstances, he was disposed to support the Motion before the Committee, whether the hon. Member for Burnley was prepared to withdraw it or not, because it was quite clear that they were discussing an expenditure which the Minister in charge of the Estimates agreed ought not to be allowed, and it was, he thought, quite time that the Committee should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion in favour of that view. So far from the Motion being withdrawn, he was of opinion that it should be carried to a division, and he did not see how the noble Lord opposite could do otherwise than support it after the statement he had made. He urged upon the Committee that this was clearly a case in which the whole argument was on the side of a reduction of the Vote.
    MR. RYLANDSthought the statement of the noble Lord was, on the whole, highly satisfactory; but, at the same time, he could not help feeling an objection to this system going on from year to year. The noble Lord, however, had said that the police court at Hammersmith was in such a state that it must be attended to, and that there was no source but the Public Exchequer from which the necessary expenditure could be supplied. He agreed with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that it was desirable to bring the question to an issue; but, in presence of the great difficulties which existed with re-
    152
    gard to Public Business, and with the intimation of the noble Lord that the whole question of Metropolitan Government would receive the attention of Her Majesty's Government, he did not think he should put the Committee to the trouble of a division.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, as far as he had been able to ascertain, Hammersmith was one of several outlying villages until recently, and, as a matter of fact, did not form part of the Metropolis at all. London had, however, spread out until it joined the village of Hammersmith, and the inhabitants appeared to be setting up a claim for the first time that the Government should pay the expense of building a new police court for them. For his own part, he did not see why the court which had existed for many years should not continue for another year, during which the question would be under consideration. The noble Lord had spoken very fairly, and had stated his belief that in a short time a Bill would be introduced which would make provision for the Government of the Metropolis; but, at the same time, no provision was made for getting rid of this objectionable charge upon the public funds. Looking at all the circumstances of the case, he did not think the Motion ought to be withdrawn.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (5.) £4,195, to complete the sum for Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland.
    (6.) £75,200, to complete the sum for New Courts of Justice and Offices.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURdid not understand why the charge for new furniture was made in this Vote. In all other cases of expenditure for furniture the sums needed were put into one Vote. There ought to be an uniform system in these cases of money needed for furniture. If this charge for the New Courts of Justice appeared in this Vote, the like charge in connection with the other Public Offices ought to be shown also.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHagreed generally with the observations of his hon. and gallant Friend; but the reason why the expenditure for the New Courts of Justice had been brought under this Vote appeared to him to be good. It was considered desirable that

    153
    the entire cost of the Courts should appear under one head, and hence it was that the cost of all the furniture required would be shown in this Vote.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, the greatest interest was felt by all classes of the people in the New Law Courts, which it was expected would have been finished long before the present time. He would be glad to know when they were likely to be completed, and when hon. Members would have an opportunity of knowing what the total cost of these Courts would be? They had already gone far beyond the original Estimate, and the Committee would see that the total of the various items for architects' commission, clerks' salaries, and other matters, amounted to an almost fabulous sum. He trusted the money was being well laid out, and that the First Commissioner of Works would be able to say something with reference to the completion of the building, which was a very different matter from the suburban police court that had just occupied the attention of the Committee. An enormous sum of money was being sunk every year in the erection of the New Courts of Justice; and he hoped to hear both that some progress was being made, and that the money was being judiciously expended.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, as he had stated some time ago, he had every reason to hope that the New Courts of Justice would be finished by Easter next year. Hon. Members might rely that everything in his power would be done to hasten their completion. With regard to the cost of the building, he believed the Vote asked for next year would not exceed in amount the present Estimate.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKagain urged the importance of looking into the various items of charge in connection with the Courts of Justice. The charges for vendor's costs, £38,987; legal expenses, £29,729; surveyor's charges, £9,390; surveyor's and accountant's clerks, £3,448; and preliminary expenses, £1,775, appeared to him to be enormous, and to demand the most careful examination.
    Vote agreed to.
    (7.) £125,000, to complete the sum for Survey of the United Kingdom.
    MR. RYLANDSremarked, that there was a very large increase in this Vote,
    154
    which was, no doubt, due to the desire expressed by the House that the Survey should be accelerated; but, seeing that a large increase had to be voted, he thought it desirable that the First Commissioner of Works should give some information as to the progress of the Survey consequent upon the plan which had been adopted—whether that plan had secured the probability of much greater progress being made than was the case during recent years.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he had, in former years, called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Chief Commissioner of Works under the late Government (Mr. Gerald Noel) to the want of an improved annual Report from the Survey Department. The Report now furnished was of the most meagre and insufficient description, whereas, besides many other things, it ought to have contained the information now asked for by the hon. Member for Burnley. He considered the Report should state the cost of the survey of each county, the areas surveyed, and the expected progress, as well as the mode in which the additional funds were being applied; and he trusted the First Commissioner of Works would give this matter of a full and sufficient Report his careful attention with the view to an improved statement being furnished.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, directions had been given for the preparation of a Report showing the progress of the Survey, and he trusted this Report would contain the information which his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) wished for. The amount of the present Vote would, he thought, denote the greater progress of the Survey. While the Votes themselves had only increased at the rate of 25 per cent, the amount of work done last year exceeded that of the preceding year by as much as 80 per cent. It was, therefore, obvious that the new arrangement was an economical one. It was hoped that the Survey would be completed by the end of the year 1890, and there was a possibility of its being completed sooner. It might be that they would have to ask the House, in the course of the next two or three years, for further funds to meet the additional work taken in hand; and, in view of the strong desire on the part of hon. Members that the Survey should be finished as soon as possible, he had no

    155
    doubt that those funds would be readily granted.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked for an assurance that the Treasury would take into consideration the question of the large sum due for the maps provided for the use of the Land Commission in Ireland in the course of their proceedings. He was aware that there was some difference of opinion between the Treasury and the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland as to the manner in which this sum of £10,000 could best be recovered, and the expenses dealt with in the future; but he hoped the matter would not be lost sight of.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that the question to which the hon. Baronet had referred was receiving the attention of the Department; but he was unable to say at that moment whether the steps taken for the recovery of the amount due would be successful.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURagain objected to the military pay of the men of the Royal Engineer Companies still engaged on the Survey being thrown upon the Army Estimates. He had during the last Session, as also in former Sessions, expressed his disapproval of this, and a promise was then made to him that the sum in question should be erased from the Military Estimates and placed on the Survey Branch Estimate. The question was one which the noble Lord would see should be taken up fairly.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the question raised by his hon. and gallant Friend was one that was worthy the consideration claimed for it, and should not be lost sight of. It was, however, a serious matter to say that the pay of a portion of the Army should be transferred from the Army Estimates to the Civil Service Estimates.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, this Vote had come before him for 15 years, and it had always appeared to him that progress was made very slowly. However, he trusted that the Survey was now proceeding more rapidly; and he wished to impress on the Government that if it was not finished soon it would be of very little use when it was completed, because the face of the country, owing to the construction of railways and roads, was continually changing, and portions of it that were accurately laid down now would be unrecognizable in a compa-
    156
    tively short period. An enormous time had been occupied already in making the Survey, and it was diffiult to understand why the work had not been pushed on with greater energy. He had seen persons engaged upon the Survey in his part of the country who, after working for a short time, went away and were not seen again for 12 months.
    Vote agreed to.
    (8.) £17,641, to complete the sum for Science and Art Department Buildings.
    MR.DILLWYNsaid, he should like to have some assurance from the Government that they would one day put down their foot and stop all further expenditure on the South Kensington establishment. The expenditure was going on unceasingly from year to year, and it was impossible to see where it would end. He remembered that 25 years ago, when he first entered that House, they were asked for £25,000 for the erection of a merely temporary building. Since that time the expenditure had gone on increasing yearly, and Parliament had been asked for sums which amounted altogether to £1,000,000 for the cost of this establishment. There was no satisfying the authorities at South Kensington; they seemed to him to be always crying "Give, give!" He appealed to Her Majesty's Government not to encourage any further expenditure upon this overgrown and, as he considered, useless establishment, which, although it might be popular, was neither very scientific nor artistic. That, however, was a matter of taste. They had now arrived at the erection of an Art Library, with an architect's and draftsman's salary of £720 and £1,100 respectively; and although he trusted this would be the last expenditure, he was afraid it would not be so, and that, in asking for this Vote, the Government were only contemplating some further demand. Again, there was an increase in the Vote of £1,000 for the rent of the Gallery at South Kensington, which was formerly the India Museum. He was very much interested to know what the Management were going to do with that Gallery. He had no doubt that, having taken up the India Museum, the authorities would find that the Gallery was not fitted for the purpose for which they wanted it, and then there would be a demand for a further outlay. Why, he asked, had

    157
    the Government taken this Gallery, and thereby put the country to the additional liability of £1,000 a-year rent? He trusted that the Government would not allow themselves to be squeezed into paying a large sum for this building; and that, as there was at last an economical Ministry in Office, the extravagant expenditure which had been going on for so long in connection with the South Kensington establishment would be put an end to.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDdesired to enter his protest against the views expressed by the hon. Member for Swansea. He hoped the Government would not be pressed or squeezed by the arguments of the hon. Member to refuse funds to Institutions which were of the greatest public benefit. He pointed out to the hon. Member that the South Kensington Museum was not merely a place of amusement; it was a school in which persons acquired that technical knowledge which became more necessary every day, if we were to hold our own with foreign countries. By night as well as by day the hon. Member would see that the place was filled by persons engaged upon those objects of art which he thought fit to decry, but which gave such great satisfaction to the public. From an economical point of view, he thought the money voted had been well spent, and that Parliament would be acting wrongly in not proceeding on the course of improving the South Kensington Museum in every way.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that all the assurance he could give the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) was that there was not at present any intention of asking for a larger sum. The South Kensington Museum was extremely popular; and, if they were to judge by the numbers which visited it, there was no Institution in the Metropolis more appreciated. As to the £1,000 a-year for rent, the Gallery belonged to the Trustees of the Exhibition of 1851, and the Government thought £1,000 a-year was very much less than the value.
    MR. DILLWYN: Have the Trustees ever rendered an account of their trust?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I believe they have.
    MR. RYLANDSpointed out that in consequence of the points raised by him in Committee, in connection with this
    158
    Vote last year, the Department had caused an explanatory note to be appended to this Estimate. He was, however, bound to say that the arrangement of the items was still not perfectly satisfactory, because it was quite clear that the salaries of the architect, £720, and the draftsmen, £1,100, ought to be placed under a special sub-head, instead of subhead A; that was to say, they ought to appear under the head of Salaries, instead of New Buildings at South Kensington. It was due entirely to the great attention paid by the late First Commissioner of Works to the arguments in Committee last year that the salaries in question ought not to be included in the Vote for New Buildings, that the Estimate had been rectified so far by the addition of an explanatory note. But there were other points to which he desired to call the attention of the First Commissioner of Works. And, in the first place, he desired to know whether there was anything in the duties of the Director of New Buildings at South Kensington which could not be fulfilled by the Department of the Board of Works—whether, in fact, it was necessary that there should be a sort of extra Board of Works to superintend the carrying out of extensions at South Kensington? With regard to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), he was bound to say that he had the highest appreciation of the value of the South Kensington Museum, for the information, amusement, and advantage in every way of the people both of the Metropolis and of the Provinces. He ventured to say that all his hon. Friend desired was that the expenditure in connection with the buildings at South Kensington should not be greater than was absolutely necessary. But there was a grave suspicion that the large expenditure upon these buildings was not altogether necessary; and, for his own part, he was quite certain that if a special Department in the form of a Directorate was to be permanently established, there would be a greater and more constant tendency to spend money on the buildings than if they were under the control of the Board of Works. Looking back over the last few years on the expenditure, the items of charge paid for salaries to architects and assistants reached a much larger sum than he thought they ought reasonably to amount

    159
    to, and a very much larger sum than was charged in the case of other public buildings in the Department over which the First Commissioner of Works presided. He believed his information was correct when he said that the cases constructed under the Director of the New Buildings had cost twice as much as those which were constructed for the British Museum under the Office of Works; and he should be glad to know whether the First Commissioner could give any information upon that subject, and whether, also, there was any reason whatever why, seeing that the Department over which he presided had the superintendence of every other building connected with Government property, it was necessary to have a separate establishment at South Kensington to superintend the buildings there?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH, as a general principle, agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley that all the Government buildings should be under the control of the Board of Works. The architect at South Kensington had been retained to complete certain works which were in hand. That gentleman had been at South Kensington for many years, he believed since the year 1860. In 1875 it was proposed that the office should be abolished; but, after much consideration, it was determined that it should be continued until the building was completed. It was not considered desirable to transfer the superintendence of the buildings at South Kensington from one Office to another at present; but as soon as they were completed the change would be made.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he found a charge for upwards of £2,000 under this Vote for rents, and a like charge for £5,000 under the Public Buildings Vote, both being for the same Department. The separation of these amounts was very inconvenient, and he trusted that in future the whole of the sums paid for rents would appear under one Vote.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, there was an item of £2,040 charged on account of the Industrial Museum at Edinburgh, which, as far as he could ascertain, there was no reason for at all. To spend this sum upon the Museum in question, was very much like throwing away the money. The building was in an unfinished state, and was by no moans supplied with ex-
    160
    amples of what it was intended to illustrate. In his opinion, either more money should be spent on the Museum, in order to make it efficient, or it should be given up entirely.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Museum was considered to be of much use for industrial purposes; and the increased sum asked for this year was for the purpose of effecting internal repairs.
    MR. BIGGARremarked, that the explanation afforded by the First Commissioner of Works was rather meagre, and unless some further information was forthcoming, he should be disposed to move a reduction of the Vote. He had himself visited the Museum on Sunday last, and was, therefore, able to speak with knowledge of the circumstances. That something like an expenditure of £2,000 should be applied to internal repairs to a building which had only been in existence a few years, seemed to him very extraordinary. It would seem, however, from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, that he knew very little about the matter. His contention was, that if an Industrial Museum was necessary in Edinburgh, it should be made of such value to the people that the money spent upon it from year to year out of the public funds should not, as in the present case, be thrown away. As he had before pointed out, the building was neither finished, nor by any means supplied with examples of what it was intended to illustrate; and therefore he hoped some further explanation would be afforded, which would justify him in giving his sanction to the Vote.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it appeared to him that the system under which the buildings at South Kensington were being conducted was calculated to prolong the charges upon the public funds. They were at present employing an architect at a considerable salary per annum. Anyone who had been accustomed to the delay which had taken place in connection with the South Kensington buildings must have been struck by the marvellous contrast presented by the building of Knightsbridge Barracks. He could not see any reason why the Government should prolong the charge for the services of the architect at South Kensington, and he could not see why the work should not be completed and the architect dispensed with. It appeared that an enormous amount of

    161
    money was being laid out from year to year on new buildings at South Kensington; and, of course, the longer the work was prolonged the better it was for the architect. He wished to ask the noble Lord if he could not come to some arrangement by which the architect in future would be paid by the job, and not by the time during which he was engaged? He thought that some such arrangement would tend very much to economize the Public Expenditure. There was another subject in regard to the Vote on which he would offer a suggestion. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether, in regard to all the details which appeared in the Vote and in a great many other Votes, in reference to rent, furniture, fuel, and light, it would not conduce to a clearer understanding of the Estimates if the Government would give under each Vote a statement of the sums expended, for these particular Services, by each Department? At present, it was perfectly impossible to deal with the amounts charged for such things as rent, fuel, light, and other matters.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH, with respect to the last suggestion of the hon. Member, said, the hon. Member would obtain accurate information if he would refer to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. In regard to the new buildings at South Kensington the reason why they had not been executed more rapidly was not owing to any want of zeal on the part of the architect, but because the Treasury had not been anxious to promote the expenditure of public money at South Kensington. Therefore, the expenditure had been cut down as far as possible. He thought that was really the cause, and there was no blame attributable to the architect for the work not having been pushed forward more rapidly.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, the expense of building in connection with the South Kensington Museum had been very great; and he was sorry that his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works had given no assurance that further building would not be contemplated or brought forward upon the site of the Museum. It would almost appear that the erection of buildings on this site was to become a standing charge upon the country. He, for one, desired to put a stop to the expenditure at South
    162
    Kensington, and he would feel inclined to stop it very peremptorily. He certainly hoped that if the Government had any further scheme in hand it would be laid before the House before it was carried out, so that the House might have a full opportunity of discussing it. He should strongly protest against any further increase of expenditure in connection with this so-called popular and useful establishment.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he need hardly state that nothing further would be done at South Kensington without coming to Parliament for a Vote for the purpose.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought that the expenditure on buildings ought to be conducted in a more straightforward manner, by being clearly and fully detailed under suitable heads in one statement, so that they should be able to see at a glance what the total expenditure in connection with any particular Vote was, as well as the total of all expenditure on buildings. At present the Estimates were presented in such a manner that it was impossible for any Member to ascertain the exact cost on buildings of any one Department. Before they could get at the actual cost it was necessary to put together a variety of sums that were scattered through the Estimates under different heads, and then the whole outlay on all buildings was unknown.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHremarked that full information respecting the entire cost of any particular Service was given in a complete form in the Comptroller General's Report. If the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour) would refer to page 282 of the Appropriation Accounts of this year he would see that the entire cost of this Department was fully given.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the account of the expenditure for fuel and light was not given on page 282; but there was some reference to it on page 31 of the Appropriation Accounts.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he would inquire whether further information could be given; but, at the same time, he thought that it was not desirable to encumber the Estimates too much. There were great complaints that they were already far too voluminous,
    Vote agreed to.
    (9.) £4,523, to complete the sum for British Museum Buildings.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that he found from the Appropriation Accounts of last year that there was a saving in sub-head A of this Vote, on account of the non-execution of certain sanitary works for which provision had been made in the Estimate. Now, considering the amount of sanitary talk they had last year, it did appear to be an extraordinary thing that, having regard to the revelations as to the condition of many of the Public Offices, the sanitary works decided upon could not be executed. It was hardly satisfactory, when the House had voted money for the' purpose, to find that works of so important a character, and so much required, had not been carried out. He wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury whether the sanitary works in question had been finished? There was another point in regard to sub-head B, on page 40, upon which he should like to receive information. It appeared that a sum of £230 was charged every year for the rent of 103 Victoria Street, Westminster, for a collection of antiquities under the will of the late Henry Christie. It seemed to him that the rent of this Christie Collection was getting beyond all bounds of reason. It was costing year after year this sum of £230 for rent alone, and he thought it would be much cheaper in the end to buy subjects and put them in some of the existing buildings rather than to pay this annually recurring charge.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHreplied, with respect to the second question, that he was informed that when the removal of the Natural History Collections to South Kensington was completed there would be ample room for Chistie's Collection, which would be removed there.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if that would be done this year?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHbelieved that all the Collections would not be moved this year; but he could assure the hon. Member that the Treasury was carefully watching the matter, and would see that no unnecessary delay occurred, and that the expenditure upon these Collections was kept down as far as possible. With regard to the sanitary
    164
    works referred to by the hon. Member, the Appropriation Accounts, to which, attention had been called, was that of the year 1879–80; and it must be borne in mind that they had reference to the state of affairs that existed before his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works and himself became responsible for the affairs of the country.
    Vote agreed to.
    (10.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £27,858, 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 1882, for the Erection of a Natural History Museum, including Fittings, &c."
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, that this was one of the cases in which they had a new building proposed. The original Estimate for the Natural History Museum was £350,000, and the revised Estimate was £409,466, showing a pretty large increase. They always found, however, that the revised Estimate exceeded the original Estimate. But now they found they were to have a new hobby; and they were asked to vote, without any explanation whatever upon it, the matter of a sum of £17,043 for—
    "The Erection of a building to contain the Collection of Objects preserved in Spirits, and for certain additional works not included in the Revised Estimate of £409,466."
    He should have thought the original Estimate was quite sufficient for all the works required. South Kensington was always increasing and growing; something was wanted there every year, and the authorities were never satisfied with what they had got. This, however, was the first time the House of Commons had been asked to vote a sum of money for the erection of a building to contain a Collection of objects preserved in spirits, and unless some notice of it was taken at once they would be told next year that they had already had their chance, and had lost it, and that this year was the year in which they should have objected to the Vote, when it was first asked for. It was on this ground that he objected to the item for this particular outlay; and he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £17,043, being the sum required for the erection of this particular building.

    165
    Certainly, unless he received a very satisfactory explanation in regard to the item, he should divide the Committee upon it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £10,815, 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 1882, for the Erection of a Natural History Museum, including Fittings, &c."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the new building was an essential part of the Museum. It was found unadvisable and dangerous to put the Spirit Collection under the same roof as the other Collections in the Natural History Museum, and it had been considered desirable that it should be contained in a separate building, entirely detached from the other Natural History Collections. The cost would be about £17,000, and it was proposed to complete the work this year. When his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) called attention to the excess of the revised Estimate over the original Estimate, he ought also to have called attention to the fact that there was a saving this year of no less than £41,000 in the total sum required for buildings and fittings. The sum of £17,000 was, undoubtedly, a new item; but after a careful inquiry into the matter the Government had come to the conclusion that it was absolutely necessary, not only for the extension of the Museum, but also to insure the safety of the entire building.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked if there were any objects preserved in spirits in the British Museum; and, if so, whether they were in a separate building? His own impression was that they were not, and it was somewhat difficult to understand why the simple fact of removing them to the South Kensington Museum should make them so much more dangerous.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Collection preserved in spirits at the British Museum was not in a separate building, but it was considered unsafe; and in erecting a new Natural History Museum, having regard to the safety of the other Collections, it was considered desirable that the Collection of objects preserved in spirits should be placed in a building altogether detached from the main building.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKwished to know what these "spiritual" objects were? It was a peculiar Estimate altogether—£17,000 for "Objects preserved in Spirits." He wanted to know whether there was any local option in the matter? Of course, a large number of hon. Members would naturally object to a large sum of public money being employed in this way, particularly when they did not know what it was for. What were the objects that were preserved in spirits? He thought the Committee was entitled to know, and seeing, as the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Holland) had stated, that they had not been kept in a separate place hitherto, why should a different course be pursued now with reference to South Kensington? He did not find fault with scientific inquiries being made; but he thought that some limit should be put upon them, notwithstanding the fact that they were undertaken in the interests of science. Her Majesty's Government ought not to throw away the money of the people needlessly; and he, therefore, asked again what "objects" there were that it was necessary to preserve in spirits?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the objects in question were reptiles and various anatomical specimens illustrating all the lower classes of animal life. The spirits were frequently changed, and great insecurity and danger were created. A very large quantity of spirits was used, and the Committee would be surprised to hear the large sum of money that was required for this purpose.
    MR. RYLANDSthought that before they passed the Vote the Committee should have some further information in regard to this Estimate from the First Commissioner of Works. He must say that he thought the matter was brought before the Committee in a very loose and irregular manner. This sum of £17,043 was asked for for two reasons—first, for the erection of a new building for containing a Collection of objects preserved in spirits, and then for "certain additional works not included in the Revised Estimate of £409,000." Now, he thought the Committee ought to be informed what was the exact amount required for this building. It was an entirely new work, which Parliament at present was not committed to, and over and above this work the Govern-

    167
    ment were asking for a sum for "additional works not included in the Revised Estimate." The Vote was asked for under very suspicious circumstances. The original Estimate of the cost of the Natural History Museum was £350,000; but it had been increased by the revised Estimate to £409,466, and now there was to be an additional sum of £17,043. He thought that all the extra expenditure ought to have been included in the original Estimate. He would therefore ask his right hon. Friend, first of all, to tell the Committee what would be the entire cost of the new building; secondly, whether the new building was to be fitted into the present large building, or did it form a necessary part of the scheme; and, thirdly, what was the amount asked for additional works, and what the additional works consisted of? Unless the Committee received information upon these heads he thought they would do well not to pass the proposed Estimate.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREwas not aware that there were any important new works contemplated except this building, which was required for the Collections preserved in spirits. If there should be anything more, he would mention the fact when the Report was brought up.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that as far as he could make out, from the Estimates presented to the House, the original building was not yet completed. There had been an Estimate prepared for it, and then a revised Estimate was submitted which considerably increased the expense. He believed that most of the money had been voted for the building; but, so far, he gathered that no steps had been taken to carry out the objects for which the money had. been voted.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREremarked that the building was already finished.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that fact certainly did not appear before the Committee. The total expenditure for the year 1880 was left blank, and the sum voted for 1880–1 was put into italics; and, therefore, he presumed, without having the knowledge that a member of the Department possessed, that nothing had yet been done to give effect to the Vote. [A laugh. ] The noble Lord laughed; but he thought the noble Lord should understand that when the whole of the sum voted had been spent it was just as well to state
    168
    the fact that it had been expended in the Estimate presented to Parliament. He wished to know what was the nature of the Estimate which had been made for this separate building—a building which he understood had been found necessary, subsequent to the original Estimate, in consequence of the dangerous character of the Collection preserved in spirits? He should like to know whether the £17,000 really represented the full cost of the building, and whether it would include the internal fittings, because he found that in excess of the original sum for building purposes a very large sum had been required for internal fittings? In the present Estimate he found no amount taken for internal fittings; and he wished, therefore, to know if any Estimate had been made as to the cost of the internal fittings, or whether it was likely that next year they would be told that as the internal fittings had been left out of the calculations of the Treasury it had become necessary to ask for a considerable sum in addition?
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he observed that in the columns headed "Amount of Previous Votes, Total Expenditure up to 30th September, 1880, &c," no sums were entered in connection with this building; and he wished to ask why this information was not given? It was given in the Estimates for the Courts of Justice, and for the buildings in connection with the new University at Edinburgh, and he thought it desirable that it should be given in every case.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the reason why the information asked for by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie) was not given in the present instance was that the building was completed and paid for, and that nothing whatever was required for the main building. The building had been completed, in point of fact, for some months, and he believed that some portion of it had been thrown open to the public. Under these circumstances the Committee ought not to be surprised to find that no money was asked for on account of the main building, and the columns for detailed information which appeared in the Estimates referred to by the hon. Member had, in the case of the Natural History Museum, been entirely filled up and closed. [Mr. GORST: Not entirely.] Yes, entirely; and this sum of £17,000 was required altogether for the Spirit

    169
    Collection. He believed that this Spirit Collection was the only item of any importance in the Estimate; but he would inquire if there was anything else, and whether the whole of the money was to be spent on the Spirit Collection. The internal fittings had been provided for in the other Votes, and he believed that the sum of £17,000 would be spent upon the building alone.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDpresumed that what the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) really meant was to reduce the Vote for the year. The hon. Member proposed to reduce the whole Estimate by the sum of £17,043. It would be more correct to propose a reduction of the Vote by the sum of £8,051.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) was quite correct. The amount by which he intended to reduce the Vote was only £8,000. His right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works was, however, in error in saying that the fittings were provided for in the Estimate. It was a new work entirely, and there was no sum for internal fittings added to the original Estimate. In asking the Committee to reduce the Vote, he did so, not so much from any objection to the amount asked for, but in the hope that something would be done to try and stop expenditure of this kind; and, secondly, in order that they might lay down the principle that they would not sanction expenditure which was placed upon the Estimates in this way. He thought that when expenditure was asked for de novo, it ought not to appear first in the Estimates with the current expenditure of the year; but that it should appear in a separate form, and be brought fairly before the House, so that the House might be fully informed as to the object for which the Vote was asked, and the sum that was necessary to carry it out. He had no wish to say anything offensive; but he believed it was a fact that, if he had not happened to see this item in the Vote, it would have been passed without notice. In one minute more it would have been passed, and next year they would be told that they were committed to the expenditure. He protested against the practice of forcing the House into Votes in this irregular way, and then telling hon. Members that they were committed
    170
    to the expenditure. They ought to have full notice of every new Vote and every new expenditure of this sort; and whenever an item was brought in in this manner, he, for one, would feel inclined to divide the Committee against it if only by way of protest.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREreally did not see how the notice of the Committee could have been more distinctly called to the fact that this was a new building than it had been. No money whatever was taken for the old building; but there was a sum asked for for a new building to contain the Collections preserved in spirits. It was distinctly brought under the notice of the Committee that the sum of £17,000 was required for a distinctly new building. With regard to the question of internal fittings, he would remind his hon. Friend that the original Estimate for Works at South Kensington had been very much higher than the sum actually expended, and that a saving amounting to £177,000 had been effected in the contracts for building. It had, consequently, been found possible to provide for a separate building for the Collections preserved in spirits, and to pay for internal fittings out of the sums saved in the building expenses.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member for Swansea withdraw the original Amendment and substitute the second one?
    MR. DILLWYN: I propose to take that course.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £19,337, 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 1882, for the Erection of a Natural History Museum, including Fittings, &c."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether, having regard to the fact that Votes had been taken on account of these Estimates, it was competent for the hon. Member to move a reduction from the whole of this Vote? If it were an entirely new work, it might be competent; but if any portion of it had already been taken in hand, he apprehended that the course proposed to be taken by the hon. Member would be irregular.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHstated that it was an entirely new work, and that no portion of it had as yet been commenced.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the only reason assigned why this Vote was necessary was that it was considered unsafe to deposit the Collections preserved in spirituous preparations in the same building where there was other valuable property. If it was a question of insurance, that would be a very reasonable excuse; but he wished to know if it was proposed to detach the new building altogether from the main building, or to have the two in communication with each other? He also wanted to know if any portion of the work had been done?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the new building would be entirely detached, and would be some yards distant from the main building. The site was settled some time ago; but the building contracts had not yet been entered into.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKunderstood the First Commissioner of Works to say that the spirits in which these objects were preserved were constantly changed. He was afraid that a constant change might become a very expensive matter, and that there would be a large Vote required year by year. The building itself was to cost more than £17,000, and if further expenses were to be incurred every year, he thought the time had arrived for putting a stop to the expenditure altogether.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDremarked that, before the division was taken, he wished to point out to his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works that he had not quite understood the principle for which the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) was contending. The contention of his hon. Friend was that, when an entirely new expenditure was about to be entered into in a Vote of this sort, it should be brought before the Committee as a new expenditure, and that the Minister in charge of the Estimate should make the Committee acquainted with the fact that there was a wholly new expenditure brought into the Vote. That course had not been taken on the present occasion, and his hon. Friend wished to enter a protest. If his hon. Friend went to a division, he (Mr. Arnold) should certainly support him.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 66: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 231.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (11.) £20,000, Edinburgh University Buildings.
    MR. FINIGANwas very glad to find that Edinburgh was to have this money for educational purposes. But, if Scotland was to receive aid of this kind from the State, he wished to see similar aid extended to Ireland; and, therefore, he would ask the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury if the Government were prepared to do anything for Ireland similar to that which they were generously and justly doing for Scotland? The people of Ireland had raised very large sums for educational and University purposes; but he was not aware that they had received any very considerable assistance from the State, if, indeed, they had received any whatever. When this question was raised two years ago by the hon. Member for Galway, (Mr. Mitchell Henry) the Government said, if Ireland would subscribe a large sum of money, the Government then might consider some proposal for giving funds for an Irish University. He was not sure that the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland were ready to do exactly what was done in Scotland; but the people of Ireland had given an equally large sum of money with the people of Scotland, and he thought the Government ought, therefore, to consider seriously whether they could help to establish a Catholic University in Ireland.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that, except by way of illustration, the hon. Member cannot under this Vote discuss the question of a Catholic University in Ireland.
    MR. FINIGANasked the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury whether he had any compromise to offer or any hope to hold out to the Irish people that something would be done to place them on an equal basis with their Scotch brethren?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, if the hon. Member would cast back his recollection to the University Act of 1879, he would remember that that Act provided for buildings for a new University in Ireland. The scheme for the new Royal University in

    173
    Ireland was not settled; but when it was the Government would consider what might be done in regard to the matter raised by the hon. Member.
    Vote agreed to.
    (12.) £7,109, to complete the sum for Harbours, &c, under the Board of Trade.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked whether the large amount estimated for a few years ago for the purpose of repairs to the Dover Pier had all been expended; and whether there were likely to be further demands for Votes for work to these harbours?
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYmentioned that a storm had caused much damage to the Dover Harbour this last winter, and necessitated a further demand being made; but of the £1,600 required £1,000 had been provided by savings on last year's Vote.
    MR. FINIGANwished to know why there had been only one visit made to the Irish coast with regard to the lights since December, 1879?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman speaking of the present Estimate?
    MR. FINIGANreplied that he was, and said he wished to know why, when the different lights on the English coast were properly examined, those on the Irish coast were not?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question of lighthouses will soon come on; but it does not come under this Vote.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORmentioned that this Estimate included a sum of £820 on account of Harwich Harbour, as against £200 asked for last year. It appeared to him that it was a mistake to grant these sums of money, and the sooner the item was knocked out of the Estimates and Harwich Harbour put on a different footing the better. The condition of the Harwich Conservancy Board was a very extraordinary one. Last year it owed to the Treasury for advances £32,372 and £7,400 to the Public Works Loan Commissioners. The amount expended on works was, up to that date, £21,000; the engineering cost £2,300 extra; salaries, £6,000 more; land, £2,217, and, besides that, miscellaneous expenses, £1,300. He did not know for how many years the total revenue of the Board had been only £19,000; but there did not seem to
    174
    be any prospect of the Board paying its way and getting out of debt. Prom a statement by the Board in 1880, it appeared that their assets consisted of a boat and stores with £22 4 s., and some ballast of the value of £10 12 s. 6 d.; so that, without taking into account all their liabilities, the Board was in an exceedingly bad way. At Harwich there were three authorities—the Harbour Board, the "War Department, and the Great Eastern Railway Company. The Great Eastern Railway Company some time ago had a mishap with some of their works, and they asked the Conservancy to be allowed to dredge near a jetty, which was under the control of the War Department, for shingle. The Board communicated with the War Department; but a year elapsed before the letter was acknowledged. That being the condition of the Harbour Board, their revenue being very slight and their liabilities immense, it would be much better for Parliament to follow, in their case, the example set by Parliament in 1879 with regard to the Isle of Mau Harbour Commissioners, and, by taking a composition for the debt, get rid of this annually recurring and unsatisfactory charge in the Estimates. A similar course was adopted in regard to the old harbour of Anstruther, in respect to a loan of £16,500 advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners in 1865 and in 1877. There was no reason why Parliament should go on continually subsidizing this harbour; and the Great Eastern Railway Company would, if left to themselves, probably do all that was necessary for the place in co-operation with the local authorities. He would advise the Government to bring in a Bill to relieve the Harbour Board from their liability for interest on the loans they had obtained, and so discontinue this annual Vote.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he wished the hon. Member could be with him when it was his duty to receive deputations asking for grants for constructing new harbours. It was very well to keep in mind the results which too often followed on the expenditure of large sums of money. This harbour was constructed on the representation of several bodies of authority, and with the approval of a Select Committee in 1862. It was perfectly true that the harbour had not been profitable; but

    175
    he saw no reason why the Government and the country should forego the interest for loans they had granted. The interest in this case only amounted to £800 a-year; but, from time to time, it was necessary to take steps to protect the existing works. As long as they were asked to incur a large expenditure for making harbours, it was well to have before them the results which followed upon such expenditure.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURexpressed the opinion that so long as the Government proceeded in the manner they had in the past done with regard to harbours they would have in the future like ruinous works going on as in the past. He attributed that result, in a great degree, to mismanagement at the Board of Trade. Twenty years ago the Useful Harbour Department of the Admiralty was abolished, and it was made the duty of that Board to look after all the harbours of the Kingdom; but, instead of doing that, they confined their attention to three or four harbours only, and paid but little or no attention to the works going on in the other harbours. In spite of that neglect and great failures in our sea harbours, the noble Lord approved of the advances being continued to be given for carrying on sea harbour works of the same defective character. The advances of public money already made amounted to a very large sum; but almost every harbour to which the Government had given grants or loans of money had been a failure, because the Government had not taken the necessary steps to ascertain how to construct the harbours. They had spent £800,000 on the Dover Harbour; but so defective was the work that it was unable to withstand the force of the waves, and considerable expenditure had to be incurred owing to damage that should not have occurred. Many other harbours had also failed, and yet no effort was made by the Government to investigate the causes of failure, except as to one harbour proposed to be constructed at Dover. There a Select Committee, of which he was a Member, had advised that a plan for this work, amounting to upwards of £1,000,000, was so defective as not to be trusted, by which Report £2,000,000 had been saved. If the Government had pursued inquiries, as that Committee did, they could have ascertained how harbours ought to be constructed. He
    176
    thought the noble Lord could not do better than to take in hand all the harbours in the country, and trust to his own judgment rather than to engineers who were interested in bringing forward claims for advances of money, and to make harbours inefficient.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I wish to correct a misapprehension which I gave to the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan), that under Vote 23 he might discuss the question of lighthouses. That Vote is for lighthouses abroad; but there is nothing in this Vote upon which lighthouses can be discussed.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTwas glad to find that the subject of harbours was receiving the attention of the Government, and he observed that there was no part of the coast which required more harbour accommodation than the East Coast. Between Hull and Harwich there was not a single harbour into which even small craft could run for shelter; and he would appeal to the noble Lord to consider the case of Filey Harbour, which he brought before the notice of the House by Resolution in 1876, but without success.
    MR. GORSTwished to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) for an explanation of an observation of his which had puzzled several hon. Members. There was a sum of £600, part of £1,600 necessary for repairs of damage to the Dover Pier, caused by the storm on the 18th of January last. What they understood him to say was that £1,000 of that sum had been already provided out of savings in the Votes of last year. That must have been spent between the 18th of January and the 31st of March; and he wished to know in what Vote that amount had been saved, for it was difficult to see what item could, without the authority of Parliament, have been properly appropriated to the payment of expenses caused by the storm in January. He also wished to know whether it was the fact that the £1,600 did not include the whole expense?
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, the Dover Harbour Vote applied to the Dover Harbour.
    MR. GORSTasked whether that Harbour Vote was like the Military Vote; whether the Government were entitled to appropriate the savings on one item to another; and whether the Govern-

    177
    ment recognized any control by Parliament?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHpointed out that under sub-head A a full explanation was given. The money had been spent in accordance with the usual practice in such cases; and he asked the hon. and learned Member to consider what would have happened if that course had not been pursued. Either the damage would have been left unrepaired, and would have gone on increasing, or a Supplementary Vote would have been necessary in March, when no such sum was really wanted. He did not think either course would have commended itself to the Government. If any of the money saved was not rightly applied, attention could be called to it next year, and it could be dealt with by the Committee on Public Accounts, who would make a Report upon it.
    MR. GORSTthought it very likely that the Comptroller General would take notice of the matter if no better explanation was given. The money voted by Parliament for Dover Harbour was appropriated to specific objects, and if it was not wanted for those specific objects the Government had no right to apply it to others. They must apply it to the purposes provided for by Parliament, and if Parliament did not vote any money which was applicable to the repairing of the damage caused by the storm, then there must be a Supplementary Vote. It was illegal for the Government to apply the money to purposes other than those specifically provided for.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH, with all respect to the hon. and learned Member, thought it possible he was not absolutely correct. Sums voted by Parliament for harbours were not voted for specific items, but for harbours generally, and there was nothing illegal in applying the savings on one item to another.
    MR. BIGGARasked whether or not money had been voted for the sea wall and other works at Dover Harbour in the Army Estimates? As to the question which had been raised on this Vote, it seemed to him that the harbour at Harwich was principally for the accommodation of the Great Eastern Railway Company; and he thought it would be desirable to bring about a compromise by which the Government should cease
    178
    to have any responsibility with regard to Harwich Harbour, and to allow the Great Eastern Railway Company to take charge of the details connected with the harbour. After all, it was a very small undertaking; but it seemed to him rather beneath the notice of the Government, this giving of grants some years less than was received, and at other times more than was received from the Harbour Commissioners.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he had not the Army Estimates before him; but he was not aware that there was any sum for works at Dover Harbour included in those Estimates. The hon. Member probably referred to an item for fortifications there.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORremarked that, under the Vote for Harbours under the Board of Trade, the Public Accounts Committee of 1879 put a question to a Member of the Department, and the same question was also raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General, as to the Supplementary Vote to repair the damage done by a storm at Dover Harbour on January 1, 1877. This money was taken by the Board of Trade, £3,000 for re-building the sea wall, and £2,000 for recovering the stone washed away. A much less sum, however, was used for recovering the stone, and a much larger sum for re-building the wall; and, from the manner in which the Comptroller and Auditor General raised the question, it would seem that the contention of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was correct. The answer was, that a smaller sum was expended on the recovery of débris than was anticipated, and a considerably larger balance was left for the construction of the wall, and in that manner the Vote was exhausted. Then the question was asked, he believed by the noble Lord himself, whether the presumption was that sooner or later more money would have to be expended on the recovery of stone? and the answer was—Yes; but not so much as was anticipated. It was clear, then, the money was not expended for the purpose for which it was voted, and the Committee was asked to supplement that Vote, thus being called upon to expend a larger sum than was intended, owing to this misappropriation. The Comptroller and Auditor General did not make any objection; but lie did draw

    179
    attention, seeing that the explanation did not fully meet the point, to the fact that money voted for one purpose was expended on another, by which, means an expenditure greater than was originally contemplated was incurred.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, this exactly confirmed what he had said, that when items of a Vote were expended under sub-heads different to the manner proposed, then this must be fully explained in the Appropriation Accounts. It was admitted that further expenditure was required to make good the damage caused by the storm of 1881; but he was informed that no more money would be asked for on this account by the Board of Trade. The works would be absolutely completed, and no Supplementary Vote would be required.
    MR. GORSTexpressed alarm at the financial doctrine laid down by the noble Lord; and he felt sure that in 1877 the noble Lord would have been the first to find fault with it. The precedent of 1877 condemned it. In that case there was a Supplementary Estimate to repair the damage done by the storm, and the amount was divided under two heads, part for the recovery of stone washed away and part for rebuilding. All that was done on that occasion was, that money intended for the recovery of stone was appropriated to the new wall; but it all went for the great object, the repair of Dover Pier. But on that occasion the noble Lord seemed to think it was somewhat irregular and required explanation. But now what was the doctrine laid down? It was that money saved in any part of Dover Harbour might be expended to make good unexpected damage done by a storm. For instance, there were, say, four gatekeepers, receiving £1 2 s. a week; and the Government, according to that doctrine, might, if they saw fit, discharge those four gatekeepers and save £250, which it was open to them to use to repair damage done by a storm to Dover Pier. The noble Lord could not mean that? If that was really the financial doctrine of the Treasury, what was the good of putting this number of items before the Committee of Supply? What was the good of amusing Members with a number of particulars of the purposes for which money was to be voted, and then tell them that it was open to the Treasury to devote the
    180
    money thus voted to an utterly strange purpose. In the case of 1877 it was simply the application of money to the building of the wall instead of the recovery of the lost stone.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the only difference in the two cases was, that in 1877, there being no money that could be applied to the purpose, a Supplementary Vote was taken; while in the present instance there was, and, therefore, a Supplementary Vote was not taken. The doctrine of the lion, and learned Member for Chatham would lead to the utmost extravagance, and whenever an unforeseen demand arose a Supplementary Vote would be always taken and no saving effected, for there would be no inducement to effect savings. Supplementary Estimates were now far too large; but under such a system they must become much larger. That doctrine, he thought, would be approved by his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—namely, that the Treasury had authority to authorize the application of savings under the Vote to other heads of that Vote; but it was their bounden duty to see that that application was fully explained in the Appropriation Accounts, so that the Committee of Accounts could call attention to any irregularity by the Auditor General, and subsequent action could be taken by the House if necessary.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, there was no doubt this was the proper course, and the hon. and learned Member for Chatham had rather found a mare's nest in calling attention to these circumstances. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member, however, so far as he expressed an opinion that this was a practice that required narrowly watching. In this particular case there was no objection, but on the contrary an advantage, to the country in the course taken by the officials; yet he had seen cases in which Votes had been taken for objects which had not been carried out by the Government, and the money so taken had been, with the sanction of the Treasury, devoted to objects not contemplated by Parliament at the time of the passing of the Vote. But in every case the utmost care should be taken by the Treasury; and he was sure the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (Sir Henry Holland) watched with great care the transfer by Departments of money from one item to

    181
    another, and the application of money to purposes upon which Parliament was not called upon to vote.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked if the construction of the turret at the extreme end of the Admiralty Pier, and the expense of raising an enormous gun there, now being incurred, was included in the Army Estimates, or those now under consideration?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHreplied, no expenditure with reference to turrets or guns was included in this Vote; expenditure of that character would come under the Army Estimates.
    Vote agreed, to.
    (13.) £100,633, to complete the sum for Bates on Government Property.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked upon what principle the rating of the property was calculated, and if on the principle usually adopted by the local authorities, was it not true that there were payments of salaries and expenses in addition?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, these contributions had been considerably enlarged of recent years, as had been stated in the House by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. The local authorities had no power to value Government property, and settle the rates by an Assessment Committee; but an agreement was arrived at between the local authority and the Government officer, whose pay was included in the Vote, and who conducted his work most efficiently, as was shown by the fact that the Vote did not show a rapid tendency to increase in anyone year. He believed that officer was most efficient in his duty; he said the various local authorities, and in all questions that arose effected a most satisfactory settlement.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he should prefer that the rates should be paid as all other rates were. That would be more fair and satisfactory than to allow the Government to settle arbitrarily what amount should be paid. If Government property were rated as other property was, the Government would have. a direct interest in seeing that property was properly assessed in the parish.
    MR. RYLANDSreferred to the particulars given of this Vote, and the last but one item, in which police courts were included. He would like to know whether, in addition to building the police courts, the State should pay the
    182
    rates upon them, or contribute a certain amount towards those rates? And in reference also to the Parks, which certainly were maintained at considerable expense, it seemed to him that the Metropolis ought to have some share in the maintenance of those places within the Metropolitan area.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that contributions were made on account of the police courts which were vested in the Board of Works, and had to contribute like any other property. With regard to the arrangement in respect to the Parks, he would inquire what were the variations from the general principle.
    MR. DUCKHAMagreed with the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) that all Government property should be generally assessed upon the same principle as all other properties; and he thought the Committee should be in possession of some information as to the quantity and extent of Crown Lands and other Government property they were asked to contribute for. He had not seen any statement putting forward any information of the kind. A question of this kind arose in connection with the Crown property in the Forest of Dean, lately the subject of a deputation, of which he was a member. They waited upon the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury, when a member of the deputation stated that there were upwards of 22,000 acres of Crown Lands in that forest. The noble Lord said there were only some 7,000 or 8,000 acres. Upon referring to Domesday, he (Mr. Duck-ham) found 9,500 acres given as the quantity; but upon further inquiry he had ascertained that there was upwards of 20,000 acres. He really thought the Committee should be in possession of some further knowledge on the subject.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the question in regard to the Forest of Dean was now in process of settlement. He was unable just then to give the number of acres.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked why there was an item in the Vote for the maintenance of the Richmond and Hampton Court Road, in addition to the contribution for rates on account of the Parks?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he did not think the Royal Parks paid rates, and the obligation of maintaining this road fell upon Parliament,

    183
    until, by a recent arrangement, the maintenance of the road was transferred to the local authority on condition of certain payments.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he did not think, with respect to this Vote, that the Committee should be too hard upon the Government. He recollected some 30 years ago that the Government did not pay rates on Government Offices. It was then said it was a shameful thing, and unjust to the parish that this should continue. After a time the Government gave way to this objection, and now they had Votes asked for on account of rates for the Inland Revenue Department, the Excise, the Customs, and all the Government Offices. And now there was a disposition to find fault with this manner of dealing with the subject. It was certainly rather a peculiar way of returning thanks for a good done.
    MR. GORSTsaid, it would be satisfactory if the noble Lord would explain how the Inspector arrived at the amount of the rates to be paid for Government establishments. In some places, and particularly in his own constituency, Government establishments formed a very considerable portion of the rateable property of the town; and, so far as he had been able to arrive at any knowledge of the local circumstances, the payments depended upon the will of the Inspector, without control from the local authority or the House; he determined from his own will the amount the Government ought to pay. In fact, the Government assessed themselves in an arbitrary manner, without reference to or hearing the local authority. He (Mr. Gorst) thought that the local authority should, be heard in the matter before the Government contribution was arrived at. He hoped he might be mistaken, but he believed that the amount was arrived at in the most arbitrary way, without any consultation with the local authority, or reference to the overseers, or anybody else.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the sum was fixed after negotiations personally carried on between the Inspector and the local authority.
    MR. FINIGANasked for explanations with regard to sub-heads C, D, and E. How was it that the Vote for Ireland for this current year was some £40,000, or £6,000 less than last year; while he
    184
    found that, as regarded Scotland and England, there was an increase in the amounts granted, except in one instance. He wished to know in what particular item this decrease of £6,000 was effected?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he had the particulars of Vote 18 before him, and he observed that, as regarded Ireland, the sum was identically the same as last year; while, in the case of England, there was a decrease of £1,200.
    MR. PUGHwished to ask whether the Crown Lands in Wales paid contributions towards the rates?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, in those instances the contributions proceeded on the same principle as that of private property. He was not certain whether the Crown owned any land in Wales. He thought that the property consisted of manorial rights; and, if he was right, those did not pay rates. In the case of Government mines, those would be rated just as private property was.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORthought the noble Lord had not quite understood the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan). He wished to refer to the bottom of page 45, sub-heads C, D, and E, where it would be observed that for Admiralty Property, Board of Trade Property, Inland Revenue, Post Office, Prisons and Criminal Lunatic Asylums, in rates and contributions, in lieu of rates, there was an increase in all the English Departments except in one instance, where it was the same as last year. What he wanted to know was how it came about, and by what arrangement with the local authority it was by which the £46,452 of last year, as shown on the same page for Public Buildings, Law Courts, Constabulary Barracks (Ireland), Police Courts, &c., was reduced to £40,000, whereas in all other items under subheads C, D, and E, there was an increase? In the case of England and Scotland, the expenditure was maintained at less than the sum given. There was a saving. But in the case of Ireland the grant was exceeded by £965. Therefore, it appeared there was some change of circumstances or some arrangement of a novel character.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHexplained that the word "Ireland"

    185
    only referred to the item "Constabulary Barracks," and all the other charges had reference to the United Kingdom.
    Vote agreed to.
    (14.) £5,000, to complete the sum for Metropolitan Fire Brigade.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, in connection with this Vote, referred to the Report of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and he found that, though £10,000 was voted last year, the Board of Works only admitted the receipt of £7,500; and, looking back through a number of years, he found that in other instances they only admitted £5,000, and he was unable to find one year in which the whole amount was accounted for.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHcould only account for the discrepancy by supposing that the Metropolitan financial year differed from the Parliamentary financial year. It was very possible that the sums voted in one year came into the Metropolitan accounts under another year.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, in that case one year ought to balance another.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHobserved, that in the year 1879–80 £10,000 was expended, and he had no doubt the same thing would be found in respect to last year.
    Vote agreed to.
    (15.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £148,926, 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 1882, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of the several Public Works and Buildings under the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and for the erection of Fishery Piers, and the Maintenance of certain Parks, Harbours, and Navigations."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked as to the charge of £47 4s. 8d. made for the expenses of the civil engineer in surveying Galway Harbour?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHhoped there would be no similar expenditure this year. That sum was, no doubt, paid out of the grant for the last financial year.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, there was another subject that arose in connection with this Vote, and that was
    186
    the building belonging to the Registry of Deeds Commission in Ireland, with regard to which very strong representations had been made from Dublin. In connection with the matter he wished to call attention to the last Report—the second Report of Her Majesty's Commission to inquire into the law relating to the registry of deeds in Ireland for 1881. Complaints had been made by the clerks employed in the searching room. The rooms had been examined, and the result of the inspection showed that the accommodation afforded was wholly inadequate for the due performance of the business of the Office. The accommodation ought to be at least three times what it was at present, and the public were not provided with the accommodation they were entitled to. The Report went on to say that it was absolutely necessary to provide a further space for the future wants of the Office. It had been suggested that a new set of rooms should be built for the probate business, and that further accommodation should be provided for the registry of deeds, suitable accommodation being provided for probate in a building adjoining the Probate Court, the present offices being a mile distant. It was recommended that the expense of making this fresh provision should be defrayed out of the sum transferred to Her Majesty's. Treasury from, the surplus sums received from the registry of deeds. The late Sir Dominic Corrigan made an inspection of the building in 1860, more than 20 years ago, and prepared a very strong Report. Some attempt had been made to remedy the defects pointed out by Sir Dominic Corrigan; but they were altogether inadequate for the purpose. Now, after that representation, he hoped to hear from the noble Lord that the matter would be at once taken in hand, especially as it. appeared that the large sum of £30,000 was carried to the Treasury account from the Registry of Deeds Office, from which the public of Ireland received no corresponding advantage. It was only reasonable to provide that that money should be expended in work that was really necessary instead of being transferred to the Treasury.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANthought that a very little inquiry would show that the location of the registry of deeds required careful investigation on the part of some of the authorities of the

    187
    Crown in Dublin; and, as he saw the Solicitor General for Ireland in his place, he thought his hon. and learned Friend would corroborate what he said. The present position of Henrietta Street presented a very favourable opportunity for the Government taking action in the matter, owing to the deterioration of property there. There were very magnificent houses at one time in that street, and plenty of room might be found for the Registry of Deeds Office and for other Offices in connection with public affairs in Dublin, which he thought ought to be concentrated, and Henrietta Street would afford very excellent advantages for that purpose. He hoped the Government would not wait until the value of property went up, when they might have to pay twice as much for it as they would now. He had heard it suggested that Henrietta Street should be closed at the bottom, and the whole of the street devoted to Law Offices, which would be convenient for the Law Officers and the Irish Executive.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the Report to which the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) called attention had been presented since this Estimate had been prepared. It was now undergoing careful consideration, and when it had been fully considered he would be prepared to state what the Government would do in the matter.
    MAJOR NOLANcomplained of the Vote of £4,462 for the model schools. He thought that, as these schools were strongly objected to by the bulk of the population, it was a great pity that Parliament should be voting large sums of money against the wish of the majority of the Irish Members in order to keep them up. The Government often said they were anxious to meet the views of the Irish Members; but that case of the model schools was an instance in which English prejudices and English feeling had been entirely consulted, while Irish feeling had been entirely set at nought. £4,462 was a large sum of money, and he did not think it should be expended in forcing a system which the bulk of the population greatly disliked. The schools were not of much use to the people, because a very small proportion of the Roman Catholics availed themselves of them, and he thought the Government ought to inquire into the matter. The Roman Catholics had no
    188
    objection to the Protestants having their own schools, but they objected to the mixed schools.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I wish to point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this is only a question of buildings, and that the general question of education cannot be raised on this Vote.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he strongly objected to the buildings which were used for this purpose. He considered that in paying money for them, without entering a protest against the payment, he would be a consenting party to what he looked upon as an iniquitous system; and, as he had already said, he thought the wishes of the Irish Members were entirely set at defiance. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £4,462 less the money voted on account.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £144,464, 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 1882, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of the several Public Works and Buildings under the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and for the erection of Fishery Piers, and the Maintenance of certain Parks, Harbours, and Navigations."—(Major Nolan.)
    MR. BIGGARsupported the Amendment for this reason—that the system of education carried on in Ireland was an unfair one, and placed the Roman Catholics at a considerable disadvantage. They had at their own expense to provide for their own pupil teachers; and this was practically a grant for the really non-Catholic population. The Irish Catholics were entirely opposed to it. He would, however, ask his hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw the Motion, because he found that he (Mr. Biggar) would be unable to move a Motion for the reduction of this Vote by a still larger sum, including the sum charged for Constabulary buildings in Ireland generally, and for the Queen's Colleges at Belfast and Galway.
    MR. GORSTwished to ask a question upon a point of Order. He understood the Chairman to say that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) was not in Order in discussing anything except the buildings; but under sub-head B there was an item for the pay of servants in the Appendix at page 53. The list of servants whose salaries

    189
    were charged was a long one, and he wished to know whether it would be in Order to discuss the salaries of the servants?
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that a strong feeling existed in the county he represented upon the question of model schools. In King's County a very handsome building had been erected, upon which a sum of £5,000 or £6,000 had been expended. That expenditure would have been altogether unnecessary if the model schools had been satisfactory. Therefore, in that particular instance his constituents were affected, not only in regard to the question of principle, but also in reference to the actual money voted. It was a matter that excited great attention in all parts of Ireland, and he knew that it was creating much difference of opinion and very great annoyance. He did not imagine that his hon. and gallant Friend would carry his Motion; but as the Motion was in accordance with the strong feeling entertained in Ireland, he should support his hon. and gallant Friend if he went to a division.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHwould submit to the hon. and gallant Member for Galway that the item he proposed to strike out was mixed up with the question of Irish education, and that it was necessary, in order to keep the existing buildings in decent order and repair. He thought that it would be better to raise the discussion on the Vote for Irish Education.
    MAJOR
    NOLANsaid, the question was a very important one, and he thought it was one on which the Committee should pronounce an opinion. It was not a question of religious equality, but an attempt to force upon a large class of the population a system which they totally disliked. They would rather see the whole of these houses pulled down than that they should be conducted as they were now. He should be very sorry to see them pulled down; but he should prefer that to having them continued on their present basis, which, in effect, was spoiling a large part of the education in Ireland, because the consequence of the existing bad system of training1 was that a great part of Ireland was without training at all. Therefore, if he got any support from the Irish Members, he should certainly divide the Committee.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and other Members had complained of the Metropolitan Police Courts. He asked why they did not raise similar objections to the sums that were proposed to be voted for the police stations in Dublin? He found no fault with the Vote himself; but he felt bound, as the Representative of a Metropolitan constituency, to draw attention to the incongruous conduct of hon. Members who disapproved of money being voted for certain purposes in London, but refrained from objecting to the voting of money for identical purposes in Dublin.
    MR. BIGGARthought that the position taken up by the Government was altogether indefensible, because it was in favour of one particular religion at the expense of another. Personally, he was very much in favour of a good system of elementary education all over Ireland; but these model schools gave a special advantage to a particular class.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the general subject of education cannot be discussed on this Vote.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 130: Majority 115.—(Div. List, No. 232.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORcalled attention to a charge for £700 in page 49 of the Estimates, which was made up of the following items:—Cost of Laying on Vartry Water to the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, £400; increasing Shelter Shed, Male Yard, £50; and Building Cottage for Head Attendant, £250. He would remind the Committee that over and over again there had been remonstrances in the Commissioner's Report addressed to the Executive with regard to the condition of the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, and that comparisons had been frequently made in respect of that building with other Institutions, and with the arrangements made at the public expense at the Broad-moor Criminal Lunatic Asylum. The difference between the two Institutions was very remarkable; and with regard to the Asylum at Dundrum the last Report was to the effect that the accommodation did not increase from year to year,

    191
    pari passu, with the number of residents; that there were sometimes as many as 14 inmates beyond the normal accommodation of the building; that the dining room, which contained an area of only 800 square feet, was overcrowded to a most miserable degree; that there was no dining room for the female patients, who had always to take their meals in the rooms where they were habitually employed; and, finally, that if another dining room were erected for the females at the end of the kitchen good results would follow. The Commissioners went on to express their concurrence in the opinion that the Asylum was much overcrowded, and that increased dining room accommodation and water supply were necessary. That being the case, one would have supposed that the Government would at least have done something for the accommodation of the overcrowded staff and inmates of the Asylum; but absolutely nothing had been done except the building of a cottage for the head attendant, which the resident officer and the Commissioners never proposed at all. Under the circumstances, he asked whether it was intended to carry out any further works at the Asylum in question?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, if the hon. Member for Queen's County would look at the Irish Votes he would see that a larger expenditure than usual had been made on Irish public buildings during the present year. He believed the rest of the work at Dun-drum Asylum would soon be undertaken; but up to the present time the most urgent alterations only had been carried out. Any further sums that were required would be included in the Supplementary Estimates.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that no doubt a larger sum of money was asked for this year than last year for Ireland; but it did not at all follow that the money asked for would be spent. It was well known that money was often voted by Parliament for works which were not carried out; and if hon. Members would turn to page 48 of the Estimates they would find there three re-Votes for additions, alterations, and improvements at sundry stations. It was, therefore, no answer to his question to say that more money was asked for this year than for last
    192
    year. But supposing the statement to be correct, what had it to do with the works at Dundrum? The medical officer stated that there was no place for the inmates to take their meals in; that the men were overcrowded in the only dining room which existed in the building, and that the women had to take their meals in the rooms where they were habitually employed out of meal times. The consequence of this was a very unfair strain upon the staff of attendants—one of the greatest disadvantages being that to get the work done at all it was necessary to tax the energies of the staff far beyond what was right. The cottage that had been built for the head attendant had neither been asked for by the Commissioners nor the resident officer; it was a matter of secondary consideration, and had been left out of the scheme of alterations which were represented by the officials as of primary importance. He asked the noble Lord to give some assurance that he would inquire whether due consideration had been given to the representations which had been made over and over again with reference to the deficient accommodation at Dundrum.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, if the hon. Member wished it, he would inquire the exact reason why the cottage for the head attendant had been built. The hon. Member had stated that money was frequently asked for that was not expended. It was true that this had sometimes necessarily been the case; but if he would look to the last Appropriation Accounts he would see that the Estimates were equalled by the amount actually expended. Upon examination he would also see that the estimated expenditure on work in Ireland was nearly £40,000 more this year than last.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him that the noble Lord advanced an entirely new kind of argument in saying that a larger sum was asked for in the present Estimates than in those of the previous year for the purpose of buildings in Ireland. The contention of his hon. Friend, however, was not that the sum asked was too small, but that the money was wrongly spent. His hon. Friend asked for an assurance that the noble Lord would make inquiry as to whether or not the money was spent on a certain public building; and. in doing so, he

    193
    pointed out that according to the Report of the resident officer and the Commissioners, improvements were required which had not been made. He (Mr. Biggar) also complained that there were sums of money asked for in this Vote which should not be there at all. Under the Estimate for new stations, for instance, there was something like an increase of £1,000 over the Estimate of last year; and, again, on page 48, there was a large item for converting buildings for the use of the Constabulary. He asked the noble Lord to afford an explanation as to how these charges had arisen? If the replies of the noble Lord were inadequate to the questions asked, he might feel himself called upon to move a reduction of the Vote.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the main part of the expenditure referred to by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had been incurred in the conversion of bridewells, which were no longer required, into barracks. Another item of £3,000 was for improved accommodation in connection with Dublin Castle. He had himself carefully examined the expenditure in connection with this item, and it had been the subject of like examination on the part of the Board of Works. Small sums were also required for improvements at Queen's College.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORpointed out that when money was voted two years ago for improvements at Ardglass Harbour, it was said that the money would be used as much as possible in giving employment to a number of poor people in the neighbourhood. Since that time, however, practically no work had been done at all. This was a case where money had been voted, and re-voted by the House, and where, the works not having been proceeded with, the money had been returned to the Treasury. In 1879–80, the House voted for repairs and improvements at Ardglass Harbour, £7,0"00, but only £3,900 of that sum was spent. In 1880–1, the sum of £10,000 was voted, and had that amount been expended the Committee would now only be asked for a further sum of £1,100. But as they were asked for £5,800, it was perfectly clear that £4,900 must have been returned to the Treasury. It appeared to him a perfect farce for the Government to apply to the House year
    194
    after year for this money, on the ground that it was wanted for the purpose of making a port for fishing vessels to run into, and in order to give employment to hundreds of men, who were nearly starving, in the neighbourhood. An assurance was given last year that the works at Ardglass should be energetically taken in hand. But the money was never spent. What assurance, then, had the Committee that the works would be proceeded with and the money expended now? He wished, also, to call the attention of the noble Lord to the very substantial increase in the amount asked this year for the Dublin Castle residencies, not only for maintenance and repairs, but for furniture, fittings, and utensils.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that the Board of Works in Ireland were most anxious to push on the works at Ardglass as quickly as possible. If the hon. Member had any experience of harbour works, he would know that it was not always possible to calculate the exact time at which they would be completed. With respect to the furniture of Dublin Castle, it was only right that it should be re-placed from time to time when necessary, and it was for this purpose that the money was asked.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, there were two items in this Estimate relating to works of which he had some personal knowledge—namely, Donaghadee Harbour, £685, and the Ulster Canal, £1,286. The harbour at Donaghadee was at one time a packet station for the Scotch mail running between Ireland and the North of Scotland. It had now become simply a harbour for coasting vessels, and had. no connection with Government affairs, and any money which was spent upon it appeared to him to be thrown away. It was, moreover, of very small importance, either as a place for coasting or fishing vessels. The harbour was, no doubt, substantially built; but the annual sum asked for the purpose of repairs was much more than it ought to be. With regard to the item of £1,286 for the Ulster Canal, the money was simply a gift to the proprietors, who charged heavy tolls on the traffic. He was unable to see why the Committee should subsidize this Company.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHwas understood to say that the repairs to the Donaghadee Canal were the

    195
    result of a survey which had taken place, and which had been considered by the Commissioners of the Board of Works. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was entirely mistaken in his opinion that the payment on account of the Ulster Canal was in the nature of a subsidy to the proprietors. A loan had been contracted, and as there was no possibility of the Company being able to repay either the loan or the interest upon it, the Canal had been transferred to the Board of Works.
    MAJOR NOLANwished to draw the attention of the noble Lord to the charge of £ 112 for the canteen at the Ordnance Survey Office, Mountjoy Barracks. He believed this was the first time the Vote had appeared on the Civil Service Estimates. As a general rule he thought canteens might be regarded as interfering very much with the trade of licensed victuallers, although they were, undoubtedly, at times, great conveniences. He objected to them in connection with the Civil Service on the ground not only that they interfered with the trade of persons who paid large sums of money for licences, but because, if the practice were allowed, all the Departments of the Civil Service would soon be having canteens kept up at the Government expense.
    MR. BIGGARmentioned that in the year 1861 a large further sum was spent on this place, the real fact being that there was great competition between the different localities and the Railway Companies as to which should carry the mails to England. After a great deal of public money had been spent in engineers' fees and on actual work, it was finally decided that Portpatrick was not a suitable place. He would advise the Government to cease making grants to Donaghadee, for it was only throwing money away. Donaghadee was a small place, and if it did not suit those who used it to keep it in repair, he did not see why the Government, who got no advantage from it, should advance money. The argument was that because a great quantity of money had been thrown away, more should be thrown away; but that was a very weak argument. He thought the system of lending money to public companies in Ireland a very bad one. Lending money was good in some cases; but so far as lie could remember, he never derived
    196
    any advantage from it, and thought he never should. With regard to this Vote there was one very objectionable item, and that was the increase for the Constabulary. There was an increase for the Constabulary depôt in Phœnix Park of £501, and an increase for the Constabulary in Ireland of £1,090. That represented the total increase; but it did not, he supposed, represent the whole sum the Government would propose. That was in addition to the large sum already referred to for making bridewells and Constabulary barracks, so that the increase for buildings was something enormous. He begged to move to reduce the Vote by the sums by which it was proposed to increase the Vote of last year—£501 in one case, and £1,090 in the other.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £147,335, 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 1882, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of the several Public Works and Buildings under the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and for the Erection of Fishery Piers, and the Maintenance of certain Parks, Harbours, and Navigations."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the hon. Member to withdraw the Motion to enable him to move an Amendment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the item he proposed to reduce was that under Sub-head B, for Constabulary Buildings. He wished first, however, to say, with regard to the Ulster Canal and the Donaghadee Harbour, that he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). As to the latter, of the £770 voted, £400 went in pay; and, as a matter of fact, all that was done last year was to remove certain stones from the entrance to repair a portion of the sea wall, which probably did not cost more than £70 or £80 of the £770. With regard to the Ulster Canal, the total amount of the tolls last year was only £86, and the total in the previous year only £56; so that the Government were spending £1,200 or more to get back £50 or £60. Anything more ridiculous could not be imagined,

    197
    and he thought the Government would be justified in bringing in a Bill to put an end to that expenditure. Then, with regard to the public buildings, there was first of all an item for building new cells at Tralee. Those cells, if intended for ordinary prisoners, ought to have been made a long time ago; but the reason why they were now wanted was that the Government had taken it into their heads to arrest on what they called reasonable suspicion some of the most high-minded and best conducted men in Kerry. There was an item of £98 which he proposed to knock out of the Vote on that account. Then there was another item for the conversion of certain bridewells into barracks for the Constabulary. The total was £6,413, of which it was proposed to take £2,413 now. Then there was an item of £3,000 for converting certain military barracks into Constabulary barracks. He proposed to reduce this Vote by £5,501 on account of Constabulary Buildings
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £143,425, 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 1882, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of the several Public Works and Buildings under the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and for the Erection of Fishery Piers, and the Maintenance of certain Parks, Harbours, and Navigations."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he should be obliged to any local authority that would take charge of Donaghadee Harbour; and with regard to the Ulster Canal, that had been found so unsatisfactory that a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into it, and they were still pursuing their investigation. As to the Constabulary barracks item., a very large portion of that was for the conversion of barracks in lieu of barracks now existing; and the conversion would give good accommodation for the Constabulary. With respect to the Tralee cells, and their supposed object, he could assure the hon. Member that his explanation was not correct. The expenditure on those cells was decided upon long before the Act referred to was passed, and was simply for an ordinary improvement.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 6; Noes 149: Majority 143.—(Div. List, No. 233.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. BIGGARwas glad to find that the attention of the noble Lord had been drawn to the Donaghadee Harbour and the Ulster Canal, and repeated his opinion that the money voted was thrown away. He had intended to move to reduce the Vote with regard to Constabulary buildings in different parts of Ireland, and in Phœnix Park; but, seeing that the same principle was involved in the item upon which a Division had just been taken, he would not move his Amendment.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (16.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for Expenses preparatory to and of the erection of the Museum of Science and Art in Dublin, and of additions to the School of Art in Dublin."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORMasked the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury for some information as to the condition in which these buildings were, and the amount that had been advanced this year for this purpose? The noble Lord had said four times over that he was personally exceedingly anxious to push on these works; but the anxiety of the noble Lord was not altogether satisfactory, because it was not fruitful. There were £5,000 voted in 1879–80 for this purpose, but only £3,164 were expended, and £1,800, or more, were returned to the Exchequer. In 1880 £20,000 were voted, and that, if expended, would have made £23,000 out of the £25,000 voted. But that progress had not been made which might reasonably have been expected.
    MR. GORSTwished to call attention to what, he thought, was a most objectionable practice in regard to this Vote. A Vote was taken for a new building, the site and cost of which were still uncertain. The Committee was asked to vote £3,500 to commence a building, when the Government had not ascertained either where the building was to

    199
    be constructed, or what the total cost would be. Before Easter he supported the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in protesting against an example of this kind in England, and he hoped he should now have the support of those hon. Members in protesting against Parliament being asked to grant expenditure before they had an Estimate of the total amount.
    MR. RYLANDSobserved, that the hon. Member did not move the reduction of the Vote. The House had again and again laid down the principle that it should not commit itself to a first Vote upon any new expenditure without having before it a full and detailed statement of the entire expenditure it was intended to incur. He might remind the noble Lord that a few years ago there was an item put down in the Votes for expenditure contemplated for buildings adjoining the present Houses of Parliament. He ventured to question this charge; and, on the ground that the Government were unable to give this full information, the Vote was withdrawn, and the building had never been erected. There a large expenditure was contemplated, and an expenditure which was admitted was not justified. Under the circumstances, unless the Committee had a full explanation of the total cost proposed to be incurred by this Vote, if his hon. Friend moved the reduction of the Vote, he should support him.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSwas gratified to hear the voice of the hon. Member once more raised, after it had been long silent, and the more so that, in this instance, he entirely agreed with him. He thought it had long ago been agreed that no Vote should be taken on account of any new work without Parliament knowing the estimated cost of the whole. Otherwise, they must get into the extraordinary position of committing themselves to a part of a building, and then, perhaps, be compelled to admit that, after all, that money was wasted. He trusted the noble Lord would be able to give the information desired, and would be prepared to show the cost of the whole. He really thought it was a matter never disputed, that before voting money for a new building, they should know the cost of the whole. Unless the Committee had that explanation, he thought the Vote should be withdrawn.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHagreed with the general doctrine thus laid down; but the circumstances of the present case were peculiar, and arose partly out of the action of the late Government. The Kildare Street site was purchased by the late Government on the understanding that new Science and Art Buildings were to be erected. A long controversy arose as to the site best adapted for the buildings, and hon. Members from Ireland began to express doubts whether the Government had the intention of fulfilling the pledge they had given, and it was felt that though the building had not been definitely settled as to site, a sum should be asked for in order that the work might be commenced when a decision was arrived at without delay. He was not prepared to state the exact site, or the entire cost, for until the site was settled they were unable to get out the plans upon which to base an Estimate. As soon as the site was settled, and he was informed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) it was settled, the Board of Works would invite competition for plans, and he would be in a fair way to give full information before the Session was over. If, meantime, the Government had not placed this sum on the Estimates, they would have been open to the charge that they had no earnest intention of fulfilling the undertaking they had given.
    MR. BIGGAR, with regard to the item under A, the grant to the Royal Irish Society, thought it was a peculiar grant to make in aid of a cattle show, and he was not aware that any English Society received any such grant.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHexplained that this was in accordance with an agreement by which the late Government purchased the land. It was not a grant to the Society, it was simply purchase money which had to be paid for the land and buildings, and this was the final instalment.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked, was the site now settled, and the price arranged?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the price was arranged, but not the plans.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked, could not the noble Lord arrive at an Estimate for the completion of the work?
    MR. GORST, in order to raise this question in a definite form, moved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £3,500, the amount proposed towards the erection of the new building.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £6,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for "Expenses preparatory to and of the erection of the Museum of Science and Art in Dublin, and of additions to the School of Art in Dublin."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    MAJOR NOLANwas quite astonished at Representatives of the late Government getting up and threatening this Vote. It was frequently brought before the late Government that an unjust state of things existed in Dublin in connection with the matter, while enormous sums were being voted for Science and Art in England, and the late Government professed anxiety to do something to remedy this grievance. Now, it appeared that the buildings were only delayed pending the preparation of specific plans. Let hon. Members look back to an earlier page and see the vast sums voted for buildings in London, for the Science and Art Department, the British Museum, and the Natural History Museum. These, together, formed a counterpart to this proposal for Dublin, because this Science and Art building took in Natural History and many things done by the British Museum; and if they would make the comparison, it would be found that London got 15 or 20 times as much as Dublin. In fact, in proportion to population, London got a very much larger sum than Ireland had been in the habit of receiving. He attached considerable importance to this object—Science and Art—and, in view of the necessity of encouraging Irish manufacture, it was of the utmost importance to develope the means of Art education. On this account he was surprised that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) should attack this comparatively small sum, after allowing the large English Votes to pass unchallenged. He hoped the opposition to the Vote would not be persisted in. It was a Vote of the greatest consequence to Dublin. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was mistaken in his view of the matter. The Science and Art Department would gain by the transfer of the Agricultural
    202
    Department to the outskirts of the town. Up to this, Irish Members had criticized the Votes in favour of economy, which was an argument in favour of the view that this was a useful expenditure.
    MR. MUNDELLAwas aware of the circumstances under which this sum of £3,500 was asked for. The first outlay arose under the late Government, in 1876, for the purchase of land for a Science and Art Museum to be erected in Dublin. The whole question was where was the site to be. The Board of Works and others proposed the Kildare Street site, and undertook to get out plans. But this was opposed by various parties who declared in favour of the Leinster Lawn site, and up to January or February it was not certain that the latter site could not be obtained. But this having been ascertained, the Government were obliged to fall back upon the Kildare Street site; but certain Irish Members came to the Government and requested them not to press on the Kildare Street proposal until they had made another attempt in the Easter Recess to obtain the Leinster Lawn site. They reported that they had failed to do this, and the Government immediately sent to the Board of Works to get out plans for the Kildare Street site. It was only within the last few weeks that this site was finally decided upon. It had been arranged to put out the plans for competition, and not a day would be lost in pressing the work forward. As to the sum of £3,500, it was matter of complaint last year that the Government had not shown their intention of prosecuting the work by placing a sum on the Estimates; and, therefore, a sum had been placed on the Votes this year. It would be necessary, by the time the plans were ready, that there should be the means of excavating the foundations and putting them in before the winter came on. That was the whole raison d'etre of the £3,500, and before any further demand was made the Government would be able to state to the House what would be the full cost of the whole of the buildings. He thought the Committee would see that the least they could do to redeem the pledge given to Irish Members was to ask for a sum sufficient to begin the foundations.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORdid not see why Irish Members should not be in favour of economy simply because the

    203
    Vote was one to be expended in Dublin. If an Irish Parliament were sitting in Dublin they would be bound to look over the expenditure of public money, and they must equally do so now; therefore, he did not see much objection to the discussion of this Vote. He would remind hon. Members that the total amount of this Vote was £25,000, or, at any rate, there was a sum of £25,000 which was to be given to enable the Royal Dublin Society to make certain arrangements.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, this was an engagement four years old, and made by the late Government. The greater part of it had been paid. This was no re-Vote at all.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORunderstood exactly. This was the third and final instalmentofthesumof£25,000. The first instalment was for £10,000; the second, last year, was for another £10,000; and there only remained the £5,000 to be voted this year. But, as the Estimate stood, one would imagine, looking at it cursorily, that in the £10,000 voted last year, and the £10,000 asked for now, there was no alteration in the Vote, whereas, in reality, there was an increase of £5,000. According to the arrangement there should remain but £5,000 of the £25,000 to vote this year, and the amount was £10,000 on this Vote. The contention of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was that this £5,000 was a new sum, which even, if necessary, ought not to be insisted upon for new buildings until the Committee had some definite Estimate of what the entire cost would prove. Here they would be launched upon an expense the end of which could not be possibly seen, and the amount which they would be hereafter called upon to vote was a matter of mere speculation. He agreed that this was not the way in which the Estimates ought to be submitted. It was no answer to be told that somebody last year asked for something more definite, to show the sincerity of the Government. This was not definite; for they did not know what it meant. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham had grounds for his objection, though he presumed he did not intend to push it to a division.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that the matter came outside his Department in the late Government; but he was present during its discussion. So far as his recollec-
    204
    tion carried him, the matter was one that was pressed upon the late Government by every section of Irish Members, and the arrangements were arrived at as stated by the noble Lord and the Vice President of the Council. He remembered that for the last three Sessions it was urged against the Government that nothing was done to carry out the pledge to erect a Museum of Science and Art. The late Government were not to blame for the delay which was caused by the long controversy and negotiations with respect to the site. But this item in the Votes could be taken as a guarantee of absolute good faith, to show that the Government were prepared to begin the moment they were able, whatever site might be selected. It was desirable to begin as soon as possible, and for that object the £3,500 was asked. In an ordinary way, perhaps, that would be open to objection; but he sincerely hoped the Committee would see their way to passing this Vote.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he did not dispute the argument that this was for a useful object; the building itself he did not argue against, or doubt the anxiety of the Government to carry it through. The only objection was this—though they had given a pledge to do certain work, they had no right to ask the House to commit an irregularity in Committee of Supply, and take a new Vote in utter ignorance of what the full sum to be demanded would be. Judging by the experience of the past, and the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) presided, buildings of this kind more than any other had been in excess of the Estimate, and involved a much larger expenditure than was anticipated. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who last spoke as representing the late Government, did not know more than anyone else whether the cost of this new building was to be £100,000 or £150,000. There was no one to say what the expenditure was likely to be under this Vote. Let the Government give full information of the total sum they intended to spend, and the Committee would be prepared to consider it and to grant it if it proved not extravagant. The proper course, it seemed to him, was to withdraw this Vote, and he should say the same thing had it been an English Vote; and within the next few weeks, and possibly before the House

    205
    rose, a Supplementary Vote could be asked for. If the Government were not prepared to give an account of the expenditure contemplated, he was not prepared to be a party to a breach of what he thought a most valuable Rule of Committee of Supply, and if carried to a division he should support the Amendment.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, they had reached a critical hour of the evening, and, in the interest of the second Order of the Day, which had been on the Paper 25 times, and which he hoped might be proceeded with, he moved that Progress be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
    MR. OALLANsaid, the subject occupying the attention of the Committee was just as important as the Order that had been down 25 times, and he did not think the discussion should be postponed because an English question happened to crop up. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) professing ignorance of the amount proposed to be expended. He had an impression that the lion. Gentleman had the reputation of being a very glutton at reading Blue Books, and if he would refer to Reports of the last half-dozen years, he would find full statements of what was contemplated. He might promise him that the cost of the building would not exceed the Estimate; but it might do that, and still be one-tenth of the amount that the South Kensington buildings had cost. The Government had shown an earnest of fulfilling their pledge; it was desirable to take the Vote, so that they might be free to proceed in what all parties in Ireland were united upon.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question again proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £6,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for Expenses preparatory to and of the erection of the Museum of Science and Art in Dublin, and of additions to the School of Art in Dublin."
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, Ireland had now waited for eight years for this new build-
    206
    ing, and it was only now determined upon. All that was now asked for was a sum to sweep away the existing buildings and lay the foundations. If within the next 12 months the sum of £3,500 was not expended, then there would be another year's delay, and he thought Ireland had waited long enough, and if this Vote were stopped he should certainly oppose every other Science and Art Vote.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, it seemed to him that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Nolan) had mistaken the position of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). First, it was understood that a site had not been fixed upon; and now the Government said it had been decided upon; and then all that the hon. Member for Burnley desired was that the Vote should be postponed for a year, or until the Government had prepared their plans, and to that he (Mr. Balfour) could see no objection. What difficulty would there be in bringing forward this Vote as a Supplementary Estimate? It would inspire the confidence of the Irish Members equally well, while it would enable the House to see to what it was committing itself, and would not be voting in the dark.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, if such a course were adopted—if the Vote were postponed—he could hold out no hope of submitting the Vote in a Supplementary Estimate this Session. And for this reason—the plans of the building were to be competed for in Ireland, and it was idle to suppose that that could be done within the present Session, if that Session lasted only for a reasonable time.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, if there was to be unlimited competition amongst Irish architects and builders, the House would be in doubt as to what the cost of the building would be. It was, he thought, clearly the duty of the Government to lay down some line as to the maximum of cost. It was too frequently the case, when ambitious architects were invited to compete, that the man who put forward the most showy designs was most likely to have his plan selected. As they could form no idea of the probable expenditure, he should support the Amendment before the Committee.
    MR. ANDERSON, even as an economist, could not support the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). He

    207
    should consider it a great mistake to do so, because, in his opinion, there ought to be no further delay in the formation of a Science and Art Museum for Ireland. For his own part, in sanctioning this Vote, he did not understand that they were entering upon a large and indefinite expenditure. The amount was only enough to get out the plans and put the ground in order; but it would save a year's delay, and give Ireland the assurance that the work was to be done.
    MR. DILLWYNvery much wished to know how his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) knew that the Committee was not about to enter upon a large expenditure in connection with this Museum? For his own part, he was inclined to think quite differently. All that he and his hon. Friends desired was that the sound principle should be adopted of not entering upon any expenditure of this kind without knowing where it was to end. It was well known that the country had been landed already in a very heavy expenditure by the Education Department, and the Committee ought to be especially on its guard with respect to any expenditure relating to the Department of the Vice President of the Council. As the matter stood, the Committee had nothing before them which would enable them to form a judgment. He trusted Irish Members would not think he was objecting to the expenditure of the money. The objection was to entering upon a Vote without having the means of forming an opinion as to the extent of the expenditure which would follow.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) seemed to think that the Committee by sanctioning this Vote would be launched upon an indefinite expenditure. There was, however, no reason to fear anything of the kind. The architect to the Irish Board of Works had been sent for and had been made acquainted with the ground plan which was to guide him. The Committee might also rely that the work would be carried out by the Board of Works for Ireland, and not by the Department over which he had the honour to preside. He was, above all things, surprised at the opposition to this Vote on the part of Irish Members. He had been so pressed with reference to this matter that he had besought the
    208
    Treasury to put a Vote upon the Paper in order to show their earnestness, and it seemed to him astonishing that the first complaint on the subject should come from the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), ho would simply express his wish that all the money expended by Government was as well laid out as that at South Kensington.
    MR. GORSTwas anxious, if possible, to save the Committee the necessity of dividing. All that was desired was that the Government should name a limit beyond which they would not go. When the right hon. Gentleman rose to address the Committee he understood him to say he was going to fix a definite limit; but, although he had made use of a number of well-rounded phrases, a definite limit had not been named. He therefore concluded that the Government were unable to name a sum which the expense of this new building would not exceed. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the architect had been called in, and that the building would cover a certain space of ground; and he (Mr. Gorst) now made the suggestion that Progress be reported, in order that, when the Committee resumed at 2 o'clock, the Vice President of the Council, after consultation with the architect, might be able to say in round numbers whether the building wouldcost£10,000, £20,000, or £50,000. If, however, the Government would not give the Committee this idea, and ridiculed the notion that those who voted for the expenditure of the country ought to know the probable cost of this Museum, he should certainly divide the Committee.
    MR. MAGNIAChoped the Government would not agree to report Progress. A pledge had been given to the Irish Members that the Irish people should have the same facilities for instruction in Art as the people of England, and therefore he had been astonished at an Irish Member objecting to this Vote. It appeared to him that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman had been perfectly plain, notwithstanding the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) to the contrary, because it was very clear that if there was to be a building at all the foundations and pre-

    209
    liminary works must be carried out, whatever the limit of expenditure might be. There was no question upon that point. Whether £100,000 or £200,000 were to be spent—and he believed the Committee would not grudge any necessary expenditure—the expenditure for the foundations might be safely granted without infringing any rule of political economy. He maintained that the question before the Committee was definite and distinct—namely, that, without any delay, instruction in Art should be provided for Ireland. If the Vote were not agreed to, this would be deferred for another year, and therefore he appealed to hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the proposal of Her Majesty's Government. He felt certain that every step taken in this direction would be appreciated in Ireland, and, if not, it would be appreciated on this side of the water. He said that the Motion before the Committee was an Obstructive Motion, and one which, if carried to a division, would be supported by a minority so small as to be absolutely contemptible.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, that, as an architect, he could state that the difficulty in preparing an Estimate which had been suggested by the noble Lord was entirely imaginary. One of the first things that must be done before competing plans from architects were asked for was to fix the amount to be expended; and, in order to do that, all that was necessary was to know the area to be covered by the building, and the amount of accommodation to be provided in it. Furnished with these data, a surveyor or architect could in a very short time, certainly within two weeks, furnish an approximate estimate of the cost of the building which might be relied on as being within a very small percentage of the actual expenditure required. He thought, therefore, that the request of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was a very reasonable one.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) had argued that the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) ought not to be put, because he said it was Obstructive. It was intended to be an Obstructive Motion, and it was a very sound one too, its object being to prevent this expenditure for the time
    210
    being. He did not see why there should be one rule for Ireland and another for England. If the proposal were made with regard to England, it would be certain to meet with opposition from many Members of the House, and there was not the slightest reason why the Vote should pass because it was intended for Dublin. The City of Dublin had gone on very well until the year 1881 without a Museum of Science and Art, or, at any rate, had contrived to get on, if not very well. He was perfectly horrified at the statement made by the Vice President of the Council that this Institution was to be managed in precisely the same way as the South Kensington Museum. He considered that the South Kensington Museum was very badly managed. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) said that a promise had been made to establish a Museum of Science and Art in Dublin. As he supposed the House would be in existence in 1882, he proposed that the Vote should be included in the Estimates for that year, and then, when they had learned the amount to be paid for the Museum—if they did not think it too much—they would be most happy to vote the money.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEmoved to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Viscount Folkestone.)
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHhoped the Committee would come to a decision upon this Vote, which had been fully discussed, and that the noble Lord would not press his Motion.
    MR. BIGGARagreed with the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury to the extent that the merits of the case had been well discussed. The case, however, involved a general principle; and he thought that the Government might, with the resources at their disposal and their facilities for communication with architects and other skilled persons, prepare an Estimate by the time the Committee resumed on Friday which would be satisfactory to all parties. Of course, it was perfectly well understood that no one asked that the Museum should not be built in Dublin; but, seeing that the question was to be raised again, he did not think the Mo-

    211
    tion for reporting Progress was so very unreasonable.
    MAJOR NOLANhoped the Motion to report Progress would not be pressed. He pointed out to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that his argument that Dublin had got on hitherto without a Museum of Science and Art proved too much. That was exactly the objection made to railways and other improvements.
    MR. BIGGARsuggested as a compromise that the Government should pledge themselves not to undertake any expense in connection with the proposed works beyond simply examining the plans and selecting a design until they obtained a further Vote. It would, he thought, be quite sufficient for the present to pay for the preliminary plans of the works, which would allow an Estimate to be made of the total cost of the building. This could then be submitted to the House, either before the adjournment or early next Session. The Vice President of the Council had spoken of digging the foundations of the building; but that need not be considered, because he had good reason to believe that the ground would require to be piled for a large building of this kind. No time would, therefore, be lost by consenting to the suggestion he had made.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question put,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £6,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for Expenses preparatory to and of the erection of the Museum of Science and Art in Dublin, and of additions to the School of Art in Dublin."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 97: Majority 67.—(Div. List, No. 234.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he understood that in his absence the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) had represented that he opposed this Motion. He did nothing of the kind; he merely objected to the way in which the Government proposed the Vote to the Committee, and upon that he thought the Committee had a perfect right to express an opinion.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (17.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £16,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for Works to regulate the Flood Waters of the River Shannon."
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEmoved to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Viscount Folkestone.)
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHhoped the Committee would proceed.
    MAJOR NOLANthought the Committee might well go on with the Votes.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORthought the appeal of the noble Lord a reasonable one, as it would not take long to get through the Vote.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 105: Majority 97.—(Div. List, No. 235.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, this was a matter upon which Irish Members had year after year made representations to the Government as to the rate at which the works had progressed; and year after year they had had assurances from the Government that they were exceedingly anxious that the works should be proceeded with with all possible expedition. He wished to know what was now the state of the works? and mentioned that the House of Commons had frequently voted considerable sums for these works; but either the Board of Works or some other authority had failed to carry them out. He hoped the noble Lord would give some assurance that there was some prospect of the money voted being actually expended.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHexplained, in reference to the hon. Member's statement that repeated representations had been made to the Government, that the first Vote for this work was a Supplementary Vote for 1880, so that the time during which these works had been in progress was not very great. There had been considerable difficulties in connection with

    213
    the work, but they had been pushed on I as much as possible, partly by contract J and partly by the Board of Works. The work was greater than it had been expected to be by the late Government; but he had every reason to expect that it would be completed by next November.
    MR. TOTTENHAMwished to know in what state the works now was; and whether work had been commenced on the upper weirs of the river?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHcould not at the moment inform the hon. Member what weirs were in hand.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether it was the fact that of the sum of £5,000 voted in 1880, £800 were returned to the Treasury?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHthought it exceedingly probable that that was the fact. Difficulties had arisen of every sort, and bad caused delay, but the Board of Works were very anxious to proceed as fast as possible.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (18.) £7,650, to complete the sum for Lighthouses Abroad.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORcalled attention to an instance, at the bottom of page 61, of carelessness in setting out the items, £1,700 being put down instead of £1,800. He wished to ask the noble Lord a question with regard to oil. That was, whether there were any repayments for oil issued to Colonial Lighthouses; if so, what was done with the money?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHreplied, that, if any repayments were made, the natural course would be to return the amount to the Exchequer.
    Vote agreed, to.
    (19.) £15,484, to complete the sum for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there was a time when Ministers were given certain allowances for hiring houses. But then it was thought economical to purchase houses, and £20,000, £30,000, and even £40,000 were given for houses. The consequence had been that the maintenance and repair of those houses had cost as much as the whole allowances for rent used to be. He hoped the First Commissioner of Works would look into the matter. The Embassy and Consular Buildings at Constantinople were
    214
    set down this year for £3,025, as against £2,267 last year; and of that, £888 were for maintenance and repairs of the Embassy House at Therapia. There were formerly two very good houses, one for the Ambassador and one for the Attachés; but the Ambassador thought he would like to have a new house, and £30,000 were spent in purchasing one. But now £888 were required in one year for repairs and maintenance. That was one instance of the waste that went on. He would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman where he got his Estimate for this work from? Was it from the Minister himself (Sir Henry Layard), or was it from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen)? As far as he knew there was no official who could state whether the work was necessary or not. Then, for the Embassy House at Berlin £3,000 were put down, which was a great deal too much to pay for rent. If houses were as dear in Berlin as they were in London—which they were not—£3,000 was an excessive sum to pay per annum. In Rome, £1,150 had been spent in the year. They had built a house at Rome; but they saw a few days ago a letter in The Standard, from. Mr. Alfred Austen, suggesting that they should spend £20,000 in doubling the size of the garden. That led him to suppose that the garden was worth £20,000; and, if that was the case, he would suggest that when next the Minister asked for a Vote for repairs he should be told to sell a section of his garden, and take it out of that; £850 were put down for a renewal of the old portion of the building, and £100 for window frames and shutters in the old portion of the building; and those he thought were pretty fair instances of what took place. He did not wish to propose a reduction of the Estimate; but he wanted some sort of pledge from the right hon. Gentleman and from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that an attempt would be made to reduce the amount spent on these buildings.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he agreed very much in principle with the hon. Member; but the thing had been done. With regard to Constantinople he did not get his information from the Minister, but from a special Surveyor, whose duty it was to look after the Embassy at Constantinople and all the Consular Houses in the Levant. Therefore,

    215
    the Government had accurate information on the subject. The house at Therapia was a wooden house, built some few years ago, and the maintenance and repair were, no doubt, expensive. The expense in the third year was £800. With regard to the Embassy at Berlin, rents were at the present time very high in that city. The house was hired on a 10 years' lease in 1876, and it would be impossible to make a change in that respect at present. As to Rome, the greater part of the Minister's house was rebuilt, or, rather, an addition was made to it three or four years ago at considerable expense, and the older part required this year £888. With regard to the suggestion that £20,000 should be spent in adding to the garden, there was no intention of doing anything of the sort; but he did not think it well to sell the existing garden.
    MR. RYLANDSwas glad this subject had been mentioned; but he was not quite satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. No practical means seemed to be used by the Office of Works to prevent this extraordinary expenditure on the Embassies. He could not understand why, because a large house was occupied by an Ambassador, it should get out at elbows at such a rapid rate. His hon. Friend had not alluded to Paris; but Paris and Constantinople invariably stood at the highest point of expense. Although they had a large Palace in Paris for the Ambassador, last year it was proposed to vote £500 for casual and ordinary repairs, £200 for furniture and repairs, and £450 for painting, decorating, and gilding the staircase. He did not think there was sufficient control exercised over the gentlemen who represented to the Government the necessity of these expenses, and he hoped the Office of Works would check expenditure of this character. It seemed to him that the large increase this year was scarcely justifiable, and ho was not sure it would not be right to move to reduce the Vote. He would, however, only call attention to the question, so that the First Commissioner of Works might consider it, and prevent such substantial increases.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTremarked, that the Embassy at Constantinople, while costly, had not been of
    216
    much value, and had nearly been the cause of embroiling two friendly nations in a war. He noticed in the Vote an item of £5 for the cemetery at Tunis. Would it not be well, now that the French Government had assumed authority at Tunis, that they should take upon themselves this cost?
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
    Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOODS PREVENTION BILL.— [Lords]— [BILL 120.]
  (Mr. Dodson.)
  RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOODS PREVENTION BILL.— [Lords]— [BILL 120.]

    NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Nomination of Select Committee [4th May].
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be further adjourned until To-morrow."
    MR. BRODRICKcalled attention to the course the Government were pursuing with regard to this Bill. The Bill which the Government now proposed to postpone had been on the Paper 25 times—ever since the 4th of May—and on each occasion the 10 different Members who had Motions on the subject were brought down; but there seemed no intention on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to proceed with the measure. Considering the importance of the Bill, and of matters connected with it, he expressed his surprise that the right hon. Gentleman, or some other Member of the Government, did not state what the intentions of the Government were with regard to this Committee. He thought the least they could do was to give the House the earliest opportunity of considering a question which they had had on the Paper ever since the Easter Recess. He had ventured to refer to this a little earlier in the evening, when the House was in Committee of Supply, with a suggestion that this Bill should be proceeded with; but the Government showed no disposition to accede to that suggestion, and the time for doing so passed, away. The Bill was being put aside in favour of things of less

    217
    importance. It had been said earlier that the Government had put a Vote down to show they were in earnest; but this Motion seemed to be put on the Paper to show the Government had no intention of seriously taking it up. The time had come when the Government might be fairly asked to state on what day they proposed to take the measure, and not to put it down continually on days when they knew there would be no chance of proceeding with it. Meanwhile, people having important interests concerned were left in a state of uncertainty, and meetings on the subject were being held all over the country. He did not wish to say more in the absence of the right lion. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board; but he must say that the Government had neglected the opportunity they had of bringing on the debate this evening, when so many Members were present and prepared to take part in it. He begged to move formally that the debate be adjourned to this day fortnight.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "To-morrow," and insert the words "Thursday 23rd June."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'To-morrow' stand part of the Question."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, if the hon. Member was really anxious to expedite the discussion of this Bill, he showed a curious method of accomplishing his wish by proposing to postpone it for a fortnight. The hon. Member complained that the Bill did not come on; but he was one of the 10 Members who had put down Notices against the Bill being committed. He was one of those who had taken the most effectual means of preventing that which he declared he most desired. He (Sir William Harcourt) could testify from communication with his right hon. Friend, that he was very anxious to bring the Bill on, and had great hope that that opportunity would have offered itself to-night before half-past 12; and, certainly, had it not been for Motions the Government had very little right to expect—Motions from hon. Members who divided in a minority of 8 against the progress of Business—Committee of Supply might have been got through in time to bring on this Bill before half-past 12.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, it was at that time 1 o'clock.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, resuming, said, then in that case he was incorrect. They had, however, a right to expect that progress in Supply would have been more rapid, and the President of the Local Government Board was prepared to go on with the Bill. At this time of the Session everything, in a certain degree, must yield to Supply, and for no other reason would the Land Law (Ireland) Bill have been suspended for these two days. The urgency of Supply was paramount. It was hoped, however, that Supply would have been disposed of earlier that it was; but the hon. Member, with others, having blocked the Bill by their Notices, it could not be brought on after half-past 12. Under the circumstances, he thought the Government could not in fairness be charged with not having done their best to bring forward the debate. As to the present Motion, substantially it would tend to defeat the measure altogether, as it would not allow the opportunities that might accidentally offer of bringing it forward.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was a mistake to say that his hon. Friend had blocked the Order. His Motion was for after the Committee had been nominated, and the Motion made was for the nomination of the Committee, so that the Notice of his hon. Friend in no way brought the Order within the half-past 12 Rule.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he might be wrong; but he was informed it was not so.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that it was a mistake the Notice Paper would show. Now, as to putting off the Bill for a fortnight, he agreed that would be a mistake; but he hoped that at the next Sitting the Government would endeavour to bring on the Bill if it could possibly be done. It was really a very pressing matter, and the Government could not know how strongly people felt about it.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, the President of the Local Government Board was as anxious as anyone in the House that the Bill should be brought on. It had been arranged to report Progress in Supply at 12 or soon after. When the Motion to report Progress was made at a quarter to 12, it was rather too early,

    219
    and, unfortunately, the Vote upon which the Committee were engaged occupied more than three-quarters of an hour, and prevented his right hon. Friend carrying out his intention. He trusted that the Bill would be proceeded with either at the Morning or Evening Sitting following.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the Home Secretary had been unfortunate in his two statements, in saying that his hon. Friend who opened the discussion had blocked the Bill, which he had not done, and that he (Mr. Balfour) had made a Motion in Committee causing delay and preventing this Bill from coming on. Now, he made no Motion, and he seconded none, and, as a matter of fact, the Motion to report Progress was made a few minutes after 1 o'clock. But, apart from that, the right hon. Gentleman entirely misapprehended the object of his hon. Friend in calling the attention of the House to this subject. He was not complaining of the Bill not being brought on, but of its being down night after night under the pretext of being brought on, which it never was. He desired that the Government should finally say what night this Motion should be taken, and then that the Government should take the steps they had it in their power to take to ensure its being considered on that night.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, as he had made the Motion for reporting Progress which had been referred to, he might be permitted to say that he did it with no obstructive purpose, but simply because it was a late hour—past 1 o'clock—when he thought it was high time to report Progress, and not to continue voting the money of the country at that hour. He hoped now that his hon. Friend would withdraw the Motion he had made, for if the Government really intended to go on with the Bill tomorrow—a Bill which was of great importance to agricultural constituencies—then, perhaps, they might arrive at a satisfactory conclusion regarding a Bill which, as it stood, he could not help thinking was a very bad one.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was misinformed as to his facts. The hon. Member opposite tried to report Progress in order to expedite this Bill. And when he spoke of the blocking Motions on the Paper, he seemed to be in entire ignorance of the fact that the President of the Local Government Board had come
    220
    to an arrangement with, all those who had Notices on the Paper. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury, however, insisted upon going on with Supply after a time when there was a distinct understanding that the second Order should be brought on, and after hon. Members had been brought down to the House at the express wish of the President of the Local Government Board. He (Mr. Heneage) had a Motion to add to the Members of the Committee, which had been accepted by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, and he was told to be present at half-past 11, because Progress was to be reported in order that there might be no mistake in bringing on the Bill. He considered the Bill essentially bad, and did not care whether it came on or not; but he had entered into an engagement to expedite the discussion, as the Government had fairly met those who had objections, and he was quite prepared to go on. But they should not be asked to come down for the purpose night after night. He would like to ask, if there was anyone in authority on the Treasury Bench, at what hour, or after what hour, would or would not the Motion be brought on at the next Sitting, or whether a subordinate occupant of the Treasury Bench would be allowed to go on with Supply to within 10 or 15 minutes of the limit of time when, any Member could continue to talk and prevent the Bill coming on?
    MR. MUNDELLAthought the hon. Gentleman could hardly be aware of what took place at a quarter to 12. The President of the Local Government Board sat by his side, and he was anxious that Progress should be reported when the hon. Member moved it shortly afterwards. But the Motion was objected to by Irish Members, and the discussion was continued beyond the half-hour, when the moment was lost for bringing on the Rivers Conservancy Bill. But there was a most anxious desire on the part of both the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) and the President of the Local Government Board that the Bill should come on.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERobserved, that the Government could hardly expect to bring on the Bill at the next Evening Sitting, because there was a very important Motion down that would be likely to occupy the whole time from 9 o'clock. Therefore, if taken to-morrow

    221
    at all, the Bill must be taken at the Morning Sitting.
    MR. BRODRICKdid not wish to persevere; but he explained that he moved to report Progress at 22 minutes past 12, and Irish Members spoke for but a few minutes, and the Government unanimously said "No" to reporting Progress. Under the circumstances, he must say he could not compliment the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues or their accuracy. He begged to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Debate further adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 18.]
  (Mr. O'Shaughnessy, Mr. Gabbett, Mr. Gray.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, briefly, its object was to assimilate the law on the subject in Ireland to that in England. It would give power to the authorities to raise money for improving the buildings and, on security, to receive loans from the Treasury. The Bill had been considered by the Treasury, and had, so far, been approved of.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. O'Shaughnessy.)
  Motion agreed to.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (PROCESS) BILL.— [BILL 179.]
  (Mr. Marjoribanks, Colonel Some, Sir Matthew Ridley, Mr. Arthur Elliot.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MARJORIBANKShoped the House would consent to the second reading of this Bill, which was not of a Party character, and would only affect the border counties of England and Scotland. It would remove inconveniences much felt, and would enable processes issued by an English Court of Summary Jurisdiction to be served in Scotland and Vice versà.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)
  Motion agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
    CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 3) BILL.
    Resolution [June 2] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. PLAYFAIR, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH.
MOTIONS.
  CUSTOMS (OUTDOOR OFFICERS AT THE OUTPORTS).

    NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERrose to call attention to the curious manner in which the Committee was nominated. Its object was to inquire into the grievances of Out-door Officers at Customs Out-ports, and, naturally, it would be supposed that the Members nominated would represent seaports, or boroughs, or counties touching the sea. But he found that out of the 14 names not more than three or four were those of Members representing counties or boroughs bordering on the sea. All the rest were inland Representatives. It might be supposed that those who made the selection were utterly ignorant of geography, and, perhaps, had the impression that such a place as Horsham bordered on the sea. He was always of the opinion that a Committee should be largely composed of Members interested in the subject of inquiry; but what interest could Horsham have in Outdoor Customs Officers? Then, again, he noticed that out of the 14 there was only one Scotch Representative. He had no objection to any particular names; but he should oppose the nomination of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and move, instead, the name of the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Stewart).
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is at liberty to oppose any name; but if he wishes to add another name, he cannot do so without Notice.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it could not be admitted that only those should be represented who had

    223
    the more direct interest. The interest of the officers was, of course, to have their salaries raised; but if the Committee were to consist of Representatives of this class, the interest of the taxpayer would be in danger of being overlooked.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERremarked, that there were only three names of Representatives of seaport towns.
    MR. ROBWOODmoved that the following be nominated Members of the Committee:—Mr. Bellingham, Mr. Wilbraham Egerton, and Sir Henry Fletcher.
    Motion agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Henry H. Fowler be one other Member of the said Committee."
    The House divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 6: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 236.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the following be Members of the Committee:—Mr. LEVESON GOWER, Mr. HENEAGE, Mr. JOHN HOLMS, Colonel MAKINS, Mr. SLAGG, Mr. STOKER, Mr. WATNEY, and Mr. NORWOOD."
    Motion agreed to.
    MR. WARTONreminded the Speaker that he had not called over the name of the right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter).
    MR. SPEAKER: The name was not moved by the hon. Member for Hull.
    Ordered, That Five be the quorum.

    ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS.
    Ordered, That the Select Committee on Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings do consist of Nineteen Members:—Mr. COURTNEY, Sir SYDNEY WATERLOW, Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, Mr. WILLIAM HOLMS, Mr. BRODRICK, Mr. TORRENS, Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Mr. BRYCE, Sir JAMES M'GAREL HOGG, Mr. CROPPER, Viscount EMLYN, Mr. FRANCIS BUXTON, Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR, Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. RANKIN, Mr. BRAND, Mr. LEAMY, The O'DONOGHUE, and Sir RICHARD Csoss:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.—(Sir Richard Cross.)

    BURIAL GROUNDS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1855) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HENDERSON, Bill to amend "The Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act, 1855," ordered to be brought in by Mr. HENDERSON, Dr. CAMERON, Mr. ANDREW GRANT, Mr. BAXTER, Mr. DONALD CAMERON, Dr. WEBSTER, and Mr. COCHRANE-PATRICK.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 184.]
    House adjourned at Two o'clock.