§ (1.) £22,063, to complete the sum for the Houses of Parliament.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that if he were not afraid of alarming the Committee by the anticipation of a long speech, he would preface the remarks he was about to make by showing how the genius of folly seemed to have presided over the construction of the building in which they were assembled. Hon. Members who were condemned to spend a portion of their lives within those buildings were well acquainted with the insufficient accommodation provided inside the House itself. The only way in which a Member was able to secure a seat was by being present at prayers, at 10 minutes to 4 o'clock every day. Now, he did not propose to enter into any argument with the First Commissioner of 1543 Works as to the propriety of making the right of a Member to a seat depend upon his devotion. He would only point out, as a remarkable fact, that at prayer time the whole of the Treasury Bench and the Front Opposition Bench were empty. He was unable to give a reason for that circumstance; but he thought it was fair to assume that those who were charged with the destinies of a great Empire like this were even in greater need of devotion, than many others. Indeed, in the prayers which were daily read there was a distinct allusion to the Divine assistance which statesmen stood in need of. Nevertheless, the statesmen who sat on both sides of the House were uniformly absent when the assistance of the Deity was invoked in their behalf. Personally he thought it would be as well that this particular temptation should be removed from their path, and that they should be required to "turn up" in the House like anybody else, at the proper time, in order to secure a seat. The House of Commons had been described by those who were not acquainted with it as the best Club in London. Now, as far as he had any experience of it, the House of Commons was certainly the worst Club in London, and he wished to call the attention of the Chief Commissioner of Works to the extraordinary want of the means of intercommunication which, existed between the different parts of the House. Supposing, for example, that a Member wished to go from one part of the House to another that was at all separated from the body of the House, he was compelled to go at the risk of losing the opportunity of taking part in a Division, or of having to run back again at a break-neck pace, which was certainly not convenient to Members of advanced years or to those who were of somewhat robust form. Suppose a Member went up to the Ladies' Gallery and a Division was called; it took him, at the smallest calculation, two minutes to get from the Ladies' Gallery into the Division Lobby; and as the theory was that no Member of Parliament should vote in a Division unless he had listened carefully to everything that had passed in the debate, without desiring to make any suggestion as to the influence of the Whips or otherwise, it was quite plain that a Member who had to run down from the Ladies' 1544 Gallery into the Division Lobby in order to record his vote was bound to act upon the suggestion he received from the Whips as to the way in which he ought to vote. Then, again, supposing a Member was down in the lower Smoke Room, writing a letter or putting down a Notice or a Question, or writing out his own speech in order that he might not run the risk of being imperfectly reported by the gentlemen connected with the Gallery above—hon. Members belonging to that very numerous class, who were unable to collect their thoughts without the aid of previous preparation, and who might be engaged in writing at the furthest table in the Smoke Room when a Division was called found themselves in this position—that they had to proceed from that furthest table round by the back of the Speaker's Chair in order to communicate with the Reporter's Gallery, and it was necessary to undertake a walk which occupied at least two minutes. Was there any other Club in London where members had to run about from corner to corner in that way? Then, again, the atmosphere of the House was at times almost unbearable. He did not know what the experience of other Members was, but two or three hours' endurance of the atmosphere of the House of Commons was enough to paralyze the physical and intellectual energies of any Member. He was unable to explain the reason, but he fancied that it was the unequal atmosphere of the place. In fact, he could only describe the atmosphere of the House of Commons as a torrid zone tempered by arctic blasts. In one part of the building it was extremely warm, while in another part it was icily cold. He would suggest to the First Commissioner of Works that some of the evils he had pointed out might be very easily remedied. For instance, with regard to intercommunication between different parts of the House, it might easily be arranged to have messages carried from one part to another. That was a matter which it could not be difficult for the First Commissioner of Works to make provision for by making an addition of two or three to the existing staff of attendants in the House, whose duty it would be to deliver messages in the furthest parts of the House. He did not think that the small amount of money that it would be necessary to 1545 expend in order to carry out these purposes would be grudged. With regard to other points, he thought he might fairly leave them to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he did not know whether the Committee would expect him to make any reply to the observations of the hon. Gentleman in reference to the attendance of Members upon that Bench and upon the Front Opposition Bench at prayer time. He did not think the remarks of the hon. Member were intended to be serious, and it was obvious that Members of the Government had other and important duties to perform which kept them away from the House until the last moment. With regard to the other matters which had been brought under the notice of the House by the hon. Gentleman—such as the want of intercommunication between different parts of the House, that was a subject to which attention had been directed from time to time, and perhaps some means might be devised in future for saving time and trouble to hon. Members. He would carefully consider the suggestions which had fallen from the hon. Member in order to see whether he could do anything in the matter. With regard to the atmosphere of the House, the hon. Member had made a complaint which he thought was hardly well-founded. As far as he himself had observed, he thought the atmosphere of the House for the most part was extremely equable, and that, as a whole, the House was as well ventilated as it possibly could be. He had given great attention to the subject, and had been in constant communication with Dr. Percy in reference to it whenever any complaints were made. In point of fact, whenever he heard a complaint he made it his business to institute inquiries; and although he found that there were occasional changes of temperature in different parts of the House, yet it was admitted that the ventilation was, on the whole, very well carried out.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked if the right hon. Gentleman would state what was intended to be done in reference to the proposed restoration of the West Front of Westminster Hall?
MR. J. LOWTHERremarked, that before the Committee went into that point, which was no doubt a very im- 1546 portant one, he would like to say a word or two upon the matters which had been raised by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), and especially in regard to Members on the two Front Benches having precedence over other Members of the House in regard to seats. The hon. Member had omitted to note that if any persons had a right to complain of the arrangement which was made for the accommodation of Members of the House, it was the occupiers of the two Front Benches themselves. If the hon. Member would count the number of seats on each of those Benches, he would find that each Bench was capable of accommodating about 16 persons, whereas the Members of the Administration in that House were about 34 in number. Altogether, there were something like 40 Members of the Administration, which caused them to be known by a familiar term he would not repeat now; but, at any rate, the Members of the Administration of the House of Commons largely exceeded the amount of accommodation provided for them. To a considerable extent the same remark applied to what was called the Front Opposition Bench. The Committee would be aware that that Bench was apportioned not only to Members of the out-going Administration, who ordinarily occupied it, but also to Privy Councillors, who might not have been recently in Office. He only referred to that fact with a view of calling the attention of the First Commissioner of Works to the very serious want of accommodation which existed in all parts of the House. They talked about obtaining what was popularly called "a seat" in Parliament. That was, however, a designation which was more or less questionable, because it frequently happened that although it was extremely difficult, as many of them had found out, to obtain or retain what was commonly called "a seat" in Parliament, their difficulties did not end there. When he (Mr. Lowther) first succeeded, now some 20 years ago, in obtaining a seat in Parliament, he quickly realized the fact that there was often considerable difficulty in obtaining even standing room in the House itself. He knew that many objections were entertained to the adoption of any plan for providing a seat to be permanently appropriated by each Member of the House; but, short 1547 of adopting that extreme plan, he thought some means might be devised whereby Members of the House would be able to obtain a scat with the view, if the occasion arose, of being able to rise from it for the purpose of addressing the House. Even on the two Front Benches it was frequently only by the courtesy which fortunately prevailed among Members themselves, that it was possible for any Member who desired to address the House to obtain facilities for doing so. He thought the First Commissioner of Works must be fully aware of the great inconvenience which was occasioned to any Member of the House, whatever his opinions might be, if he found himself entirely dependent on the courtesy of a Friend for obtaining momentarily a so-called "seat" in the House. The hon. Member for Galway had also referred to what were usually known as the precincts of the House—the Chambers in which they smoked, and which they used for other purposes. He was unable quite to endorse the hon. Member's complaint in regard to the particular Galleries and parts of the House to which the hon. Member had referred. He thought the Ladies' Gallery, and what was known as "the Reporters' Gallery," were not parts of the House which Members were called upon very frequently to visit, and he did not think that any general inconvenience was experienced from the few minutes which might elapse if an hon. Member found it necessary to ascend to or descend from either of those Galleries. At the same time, he thought that a very great deal remained to be done with repard to providing adequate accommodation for the personal convenience of Members of the House. The hon. Member for Galway talked about the House of Commons being a very bad Club. He knew that in former days it was known by the designation alluded to by the hon. Member, of "the best Club in London," not physically, but socially, and in various other ways. It was not for him to say how far the same state of things actually prevailed now; but be far as physical matters were concerned, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would not be so wholly absorbed by the political questions in which he took so great an interest as not to be able to devote some of his time and his emi- 1548 nent ability to providing adequate accommodation for Members who attended the Sittings of the House in the discharge of their public duties.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, that he was sorry to differ from his right hon. Friend who had just sat down, and who seemed to advocate that the House should be enlarged. Now, he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) had noticed that at the beginning of every Parliament — in the first Session of every new Parliament—some hon. Member invariably put down a Motion, and raised a discussion, as to the desirability of increasing the size of the House. He recollected on one occasion an hon. Member putting a Question of that kind to Her Majesty's Ministers from one of the side Galleries, because, he said, that he was unable to find any other seat from which to put it. But he had also noticed that, although this question was always raised in the first year of a new Parliament, it soon died out, and however long a complaining Member continued to retain his seat, he never said anything further about that particular grievance. It was true that the House might be inconveniently full on an occasion when some important Division was expected, or when some great orator was addressing the House; but on ordinary occasions, not only was the House large enough for the business transacted within it, but it was a great deal too large for those who usually attended in order to take part in the discussion of important questions. On such occasions there was plenty of room for any Member who desired to be present, and even a good deal to spare; and although on certain occasions the House might be inconveniently crowded, as an ordinary rule, it was quite adequate for the accommodation of those who had real business to transact. Perhaps there might be one exception to the rule—namely, the Question time, when the House was invariably full, and when occasionally the attendance was so large as to be inconvenient. He frequently read of hon. Members going down to address their constituents and talking about the time taken up in the House in asking Questions; but if the constituents throughout the country only knew what really happened in the House itself, they would find that no part of the Business of the House was more popular with hon. Members than 1549 that which was taken up in hearing Her Majesty's Ministers answer the Questions which were put to them. Under these circumstances, he could not agree with his right hon. Friend that it was desirable to enlarge the size of the House. On the contrary, it seemed to him to be more important that the House should be comfortable for those who really came there to transact the Business of the country. It was not necessary to make more adequate provision for hon. Members who merely used the House as a Club, and only came down to hear Questions asked and answered, to listen to some great orator, or to take part in a great Division. Those who ought to be considered were those who spent a great deal of their time in the House, and who really did the work of the House; and for them the House was as comfortable as it could be. There was one other remark he should like to make, and it had reference to the complaint made by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), which had been answered by the First Commissioner of Works, in regard to the temperature of the House. He was certainly disposed to agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and he had been somewhat surprised to hear the statement of the hon. Member for Galway. Considering the difficulties under which those who were entrusted with the ventilation of the House must labour, he thought the gentlemen who discharged that duty deserved the greatest credit for what they had done.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he only wished to make one observation in confirmation of what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. N. Fowler) had said. He was quite prepared to admit that the atmosphere of the House was equable, but, at the same time, it was extremely depressing. It had no vitality in it, and it was utterly impossible to sit in it for any length of time without being subjected to a feeling of great depression. Personally he was not acquainted with any attendance anywhere which took so much out of him as his attendance in that House. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works if it was not possible to introduce some little—he would not say ozone, but something like ozone, into the atmosphere of the House? No doubt they got an equable atmosphere, but it was a very depressing one, and he was 1550 anxious to know if something could not be done to improve it?
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he was disposed very much to concur in the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) in regard to the atmosphere of the House of Commons, and as to its quality, or rather want of quality, on many occasions. He was sure that if high medical and scientific opinion were taken upon the subject of the ventilation of the House, as it was at present arranged, it would not be carried on very long in the way in which it was ventilated now. For example, at that moment an extremely cold and rarefied current of air was passing up from the floor of the House, owing, he presumed, to the introduction of the iced atmosphere from below. Perhaps a little later the atmosphere might be a little more equable. It was not, however, the atmosphere that hon. Members complained of as much as of a certain peculiar quality, or as he had said want of quality, in the air, which, he was bound to say, was extremely trying, and was not to be found in other public buildings. If he might make a suggestion, he thought a better mode of ventilation might be devised by the adoption of the system known as the Tobins' Tube System of Ventilation. He was not disposed to follow the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in his complaint as to the difficulty of approaching the Reporters' and Ladies' Galleries. He did not know whether those gentlemen in the Reporters' Gallery, who assisted the House in making known their views to the country, would desire to have a more easy means of communication between Members of the House and themselves, nor did he know whether the ladies who visited the Ladies' Gallery desired any better means of access to it for Members. As to the convenience provided for hon. Members in the House itself, he would make two suggestions in regard to particular details in which he thought better accommodation might be provided. At present one of the most conspicuous deficiencies of the House was the absence of a room or rooms for enabling Members to see persons who had business to transact with them. He was quite aware that the argument urged against this was that increased accommodation for interview- 1551 ing their friends and constituents would tend to increase that most obnoxious custom of "Lobbying." He was quite aware that that was the traditional reason which had been given against increasing the accommodation; but he did not think there was much in the argument. He thought that several private rooms might be secured in which Members could receive their friends without any risk of increasing the practice of "Lobbying." In the second place, he objected to the condition of the Tea Room. The present provision for the Tea Room was most unsatisfactory. he did not say anything as to the quality of the tea, although it was certainly not i what it might be; but the room itself I was very hot and badly ventilated, Indeed, he thought it was the worst ventilated room in the House, and when there were many Members in it it was almost unbearable. He was of opinion that these were points upon which the First Commissioner of Works might do something to increase the comfort of Members. He concurred with one observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in reference to the absence of Ministers at the time of prayers. He quite agreed with the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Ministers stood more in need of those devotional exercises with which it was the custom of the House to commence its proceedings than any other Members of the House; and he would venture to point out to Her Majesty's Government that probably the serious misfortunes and misadventures which had befallen them in their Ministerial career might be due to their constant absence from the Front Bench at the time of prayers.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had put a question to him in regard to the restoration of the West Front of Westminster Hall. He was sorry to say that he was unable to give any more definite answer at present than he had given a few days ago. He was daily expecting from Mr. Pearson, the architect, the plans for its restoration, and until he received them he would not be able to make any statement to the House. He hoped, however, to be able to do so before the close of the Session. He only wished to say, in explanation, that the work which was thrown upon the archi- 1552 tect was of an extremely difficult and responsible nature, involving careful examination of the foundations and other details, together with an examination of all the old prints and plans of the Hall. Therefore, the work was one of the utmost responsibility, and he was not at all surprised to find that it had been found necessary to devote a considerable time to the subject. He thought that the House, when the plans were laid before them, would become aware that no time had been really wasted. He did not think the House would expect him to enter at any length into the discussion which had just taken place. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. N. Fowler) in most of the observations he had made. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had alluded to the state of the Tea Room. He thought there was some foundation for the complaints of the hon. Member, and there could be no doubt that the room was much hotter than it ought to be. He did not know whether that defect might not be remedied by extending the room, and he would consider whether that could be done. Of course, he should be glad to increase the accommodation and convenience of Members in every other way, as far as it was possible. On the whole, he thought that he had, during his tenancy of the Office of First Commissioner of Works, succeeded in doing a good deal for the Members of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, he had been limited to a certain number of rooms; but he had succeeded in obtaining no less than three rooms from the service of the other House, and altogether he thought he had been extremely successful; but beyond what he had already done he certainly could not see his way to doing very much more.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he thought that in what had been mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) about the Ladies' Gallery, the difficulty seemed to be not in getting to it, but in getting away from it. As to the question of ventilation, he quite agreed with the remarks which had been made by his hon. Friend in reference to the condition of the atmosphere of the House. He had frequently suffered great inconvenience from it; but he did not think that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead- 1553 Bartlett) as to the adoption of the open tube system would meet the difficulty, because, although it would admit the outside air, it would entail a great deal of trouble and would not be altogether successful, if the air itself was sometimes impure, as he often believed it to be. He thought this was possibly occasioned to some extent by the dust collected in the air after the process of cleaning and purifying was carried out. A considerable amount of dust must be caught up by the air when the mats were removed; and he found in the Estimate now before the Committee an item of £650 for taking up hair-cloth, mats, &c., and cleaning the dust from the floors of the House. Mixed up with that item was also the supply of mats and hair-cloth. Now, he had only had the honour of a seat in that House for seven years; but during that period he did not remember any new mats or haircloth being supplied, and therefore he could only presume that the major part of this sum of £650 was spent in taking up the old mats and hair-cloth. As that was a very substantial sum to pay for beating mats, he thought they might be kept a little cleaner than they were. Some time ago the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works suggested a further introduction into the House of the electric light. He found an item of £1,950 in the present Vote for a supply of oil lamps for the Committee Rooms, Lobbies, Reporters' Rooms, Residences, &c. "Residences, &c.," was an exceedingly vague phrase, and he supposed it meant the private residences connected with the House. He found that the sum for these oil lamps amounted to within £1,000 of the entire sum spent for gas. Surely it was not necessary that so large a sum as £1,900 should be expended in oil lamps. He should like the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to say whether he was satisfied, on the part of the Government, with the introduction of the electric light into the building? He thought that Members generally were satisfied with it; and if that was really the case, he would suggest the desirability of considering whether the electric light might not be extended, and a corresponding economy produced in the supply of oil lamps. He was certainly astonished to find that so large a sum was spent upon oil lamps. 1554 He would also invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the inconvenient way in which the item to which lie had referred for taking up haircloth, mats, &c., was divided. He thought all the items ought to be properly divided, and the Committee ought to know how much was spent for new material, and how much for maintenance. It was absolutely impossible to obtain that information from the Estimates as they were now laid before the House, and the consequence was that no Members were able to judge whether the expenditure was a reasonable one or not. It might be reasonable to expend £3,000 or £4,000 in buying new material, whereas it would be altogether unreasonable to spend £650 in beating old mats. There was an item of £390 for the supply of fuel, light, and household articles to the officers of the House of Lords. He should like to know what the household articles were that were supplied to the officers of the House of Lords? It seemed to him to be a strange mixture, and although it was perhaps a small matter he should like to know something more about it. There was a similar item in regard to the House of Commons; but the expense in that case was very much larger, amounting to £1,100. What were these household articles, and were they supplied for the use of the officers of the House? These were points upon which he thought it was desirable that the Committee should have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the question of the further introduction of the electric light was now under consideration, and the experiments in that direction, so far as they had been proceeded with, were considered to have been satisfactory. Hon. Members would recollect that some three years ago an attempt was made to light that Chamber with the electric light; but it did not give satisfaction, and as the gas-lighting was as perfect as it could be, probably that would be the last part of the House to which the electric light would be applied. But there were a large number of other parts of the House where the electric light might be applied advantageously. He had now before him an estimate for applying it to every part of the House, except to that Chamber, and 1555 also to the House of Lords; but it would involve the expenditure of a considerable sum of money, and at present he was weighing the matter carefully, and considering whether he ought to ask the Treasury for the sum of money that would be necessary or not.
§ MR. RITCHIEasked if there would be competition?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he did not think there could be competition. The present electric light was supplied by the Edison Company, which had been recently amalgamated with the Swarm Company, and he did not think that it could be possible to introduce another independent system side by side with that which had already been established. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) had asked a question about an item which appeared in the Vote for oil lamps. It would be found that oil lamps were supplied to all the residences in the House, and that they were used in the Lobbies and in most of the Chambers. There were a very large number of residences under the roof of that House, and in all of them oil lamps were used down even to kitchen lamps, and they all were supplied under that Vote. No doubt, the charge appeared to be a very large one; but there was a very large number of persons who used the lamps, including residents in the House of Lords, and they must continue to be used, notwithstanding the introduction of electric lighting, because moveable lamps could not be dispensed with. As to the beating of carpets and mats, it would be inconvenient to separate the expenditure incurred in cleansing and beating, and in providing new ones. All he could say, in regard to the cost of beating carpets and mats, was that large as it was it was very necessary. Every week the carpets in the House were taken up and beaten. Recently he had made a contract with the convict prisons, by which the mats were to be beaten in future, and he thought some economy would be obtained from the new arrangement.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHunderstood from his right hon. Friend that he contemplated the possibility of producing a Supplementary Estimate by-and-bye with the view of extending the system of electric lighting at present partially applied in the House. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he intended to introduce also a Supplementary Esti- 1556 mate for the reconstruction of the West Front of Westminster Hall? He had understood his right hon. Friend to say that he was not in a position to give any information on the subject at present, and, therefore, that it would be more prudent to leave out the item in regard to the estimated cost; but the right hon. Gentleman would see in the Estimate an item fixing £6,000 as an approximate cost of the service, of which £1,500 had already been obtained. [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: Yes, last year.] That Estimate still held good, and the expenditure for the restoration of the West Front still appeared in the Votes as £6,000. He did not think that anybody complained of the amount; but he thought the public ought to have complete information, and he should like to have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the matter would not stand over in the shape in which it now stood. The subject was exciting much public interest, and any information in regard to it would be welcomed. He hoped it was not contemplated to keep up the hoarding which had been temporarily put up for the whole of the winter without some attempt being made to proceed with the work of restoration.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he should like to say a word before the right hon. Gentleman answered the question which had been put to him. He was glad to see that no definite sum had been put down for restoring the West Front of Westminster Hall, and he, for one, hoped that the Government would altogether give up the idea of restoring the West Front. He trusted that they would reserve the vacant piece of ground for the enlargement of the House itself, and especially in view of the possible necessity of providing accommodation for the Grand Committees. If the system of Grand Committees was to be enlarged in the way the Prime Minister contemplated, it would be absolutely impossible to provide the enlarged accommodation without taking this vacant space. If, however, it were utilized, they would not only be able to secure first-rate Committee Rooms, but also to make some use of Westminster Hall itself, instead of allowing it to remain, as at present, totally useless. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would seriously consider that matter before introducing a scheme for the restoration 1557 of a sham ancient Front. He was by no means satisfied that in the end they would succed in turning out anything like a work of high art. No doubt, Westminster Hall inside was splendid; but they could not by any process produce the same effect with regard to the exterior. As to the ventilation of the House, it seemed to him that the long and short of the matter was that they had too much of the air which a learned doctor chose to give them of his own rather than that God's air which was to be found under the canopy of Heaven. All that he could say was, that they were sometimes obliged to open the windows, and, personally, he wished they had them opened more frequently.
MR. MACARTNEYwished to ask, as the Government were considering what was to be done with the West Front of Westminster Hall, whether it was intended to continue the disfigurement of the inside of the Hall with the existing paltry inartistic plaster statues mounted upon the most mean-looking pedestals ever set up? He should be glad, so far as he was concerned, to see the whole of them removed.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he hoped to be able to lay an Estimate on the Table of the House before the close of the Session in reference to the West Front of Westminster Hall. The item which appeared in the Votes, and which had been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth), was voted last year, and did not commit the House or the Government in any way whatever. There was no expectation that the item would be larger than the sum mentioned. In regard to what had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), it would be altogether impossible to leave the West Front of Westminster Hall in its present condition. Something must be done in the matter. As to the statues in Westminster Hall, he certainly did not regard them as works of Art; but he did not feel inclined to take any responsibility upon himself in connection with their removal. He had lately found how extremely difficult it was to deal with the removal of one statue, and he did not know what might happen if ha were now called upon bodily to remove seven— consisting of the statues of six Kings and a Queen.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFcomplained of the system of drainage in the House, and expressed a fear that there must be something radically wrong with regard to it. He asked the First Commissioner of Works to make some in-inquiry into the matter, because anything wrong with the drainage was calculated to affect seriously the health of hon. Members.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he would be glad if the Secretary to the Treasury would explain to the Committee an item in the Vote which must either be a mistake or a misprint, or the Vote itself must be of an objectionable character. They were told that the not decrease in the Estimates they were now asked to pass, as compared with the Estimates of last year, was £7,132; and, to account for that decrease, they were told in a foot-note that the original Estimates for 1883–4 were £40,115, to which they were to add a sum of £80, which was stated to be a transfer from Class II. — "House of Lords Offices"—and which increased the original Estimate to £40,195. But the Estimates last year amounted to £35,220, or £2,159 more than the sum stated; and the decrease, therefore, was only £4,975, and not £7,132. The difference arose from a practice which he regarded as highly objectionable—of including as an original Estimate the Supplementary Estimates voted in the past year. If a fire took place, or an earthquake, or anything else that was unexpected, and it happened to involve an expenditure of money which was not originally anticipated, that sum was added to the original Estimates, and the increase or decrease was calculated on that sum, and not upon the original Estimate itself. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his speech in introducing the Budget, he spoke of several Estimates as the original Estimates of the year, and of the Supplementary Estimates separately; but it would be found that the item in the Vote of £40,195, which was put down as the original Estimate of 1883–4, in reality included the Supplementary Estimates passed last year. Therefore, a statement showing the increase or decrease of the Vote was altogether fallacious. If the Committee were to have any control over the Expenditure of the Government, they ought to have placed before them the 1559 difference between the original Estimates of one year and the original Estimates of another, leaving the Supplementary Estimates to be accounted for in another way, as was done with perfect lucidity in the Navy Estimates. Of course, when the Estimates were passed in Committee of Supply, sometimes at 1, 2, or 3 o'clock in the morning, it was impossible to make the intricate calculations that were necessary in order to arrive at the true state of the facts. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to explain how the original Estimates for last year came to include the Supplementary Estimate passed since those original Estimates were voted?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that his hon. and gallant Friend was quite right in stating that the £40,195 included Supplementary Estimates to the amount of about £5,000, which were taken last year. That should have been shown in a foot-note, so that there could have been no mistake, and he could not explain why it had not been done. His hon. and gallant Friend, however, would see that if they deducted that amount from the sum which was given as a decrease of the original Estimates themselves, or as compared with those of last year, it would still be found that there was an actual decrease of over £2,000, which he did not think was altogether an unsatisfactory state of things.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten to mention that £2,000 had already been taken for the restoration of the West Front of Westminster Hall. He wished to call attention to a practice which he regarded as most objectionable, but which this was the first opportunity he had had of challenging, as it was only within the last few years the Auditor General had entered the transaction in the accounts. He found that in the year 1882–3, in the Vote for the Houses of Parliament, the deficiency in Vote 4, for services belonging to that Vote, had been supplied by contributions from five other Votes to the amount of £1,097. If the Estimates of the Department were insufficient, an application ought to be made for Supplementary Estimates in order to meet the deficiency; but he found that in 1882–3 that course was not taken; and if there was one thing more dangerous than another, it was to 1560 allow a public authority to take money from one Vote for which it had been specifically passed, and apply it to another with which it had no connection whatever. Nevertheless, that was the course which appeared to have been followed in this instance, although, as far as he could make out, it was taken for the first time. It arose from the adoption of a moat objectionable system which he had on a previous occasion brought under the notice of the House. There were two modes of bringing forward the Estimates. One was to make each Estimate complete in itself, so that all the charges connected with a particular Department should be shown under one head. That was the system that was practised both in regard to the Army and the Navy Votes. In regard to the Civil Service Estimates, all the expenditure on account of new works should appear in the Estimates as expended for new works, under that head in Vote 5, in order to bring the items under one Department, and under one head. But here, in Vote 4, they would find charges for new works, repairs, alterations, furniture, and various other things which were also asked for in other Votes. He hoped that something might be done to prevent a similar practice in the future, and he should be glad to learn by what right money had been taken from other Votes and applied to the Houses of Parliament, for which provision was made under the present Vote? He certainly thought it was a practice that was liable to be greatly abused.
§ MR. SALTsaid, that before the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works replied, he wished to call attention to two small items in the present Vote. But although they were only small items, it was of the utmost importance, for the purpose of securing economy, that all the items should be carefully examined by the House in detail. There was one item mentioned under Sub-head B, which related to the maintenance of buildings—for external repairs of stone work. Now, that was a rather important item, because it was impossible to know, without further explanation, what such expenditure might lead to. Was it part of the ordinary expenditure, or was it the completion of an expenditure? What was the condition of the stone work? He thought it would be well to have the matter 1561 fully explained. Then, again, under Sub-head C.—for the maintenance of approaches and gardens—there was an item of £540 for horticultural works for gardens. In addition to a charge for the maintenance of gardens, he found that the item for horticultural works included the maintenance of a constable. Now, the gardens about the Houses of Parliament were not very large, and it was somewhat difficult to know or understand how these horticultural works could involve an expenditure of more than £500 a-year. These two matters might appear to be of small moment; but he thought that as the Civil Service Estimates were constantly increasing, they ought to be carefully examined when they came before the House. He was much obliged for the promise which had been made to publish the accounts in another year in such a form as would enable the actual Estimates to be compared with those of a previous year. The question which had been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) was of considerable importance, because, although, of course, it was quite unintentional on the part of those who prepared the Estimates, it might be possible to show an apparent decrease, where, in reality, there had been an increase. He hoped the course which had been taken in regard to the present Estimates would be rectified in future. He also thought that some explanation ought to be given of the fact that Votes voted for one purpose had been applied to another.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that in reply to his hon. and gallant Friend the the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour), he might say that his hon. and gallant Friend was labouring under a complete misapprehension. There was no transfer of charges from one Vote to another. The items to which the hon. and gallant Member referred were charges connected with the Houses of Parliament; but they were more immediately connected with other Departments, and the Controller General had brought all the various charges together which were strictly expended upon the Houses of Parliament, so that hon. Members should be made acquainted not only with the expenditure connected with the present Vote, but with all the other items of expenditure 1562 upon the Houses of Parliament which appeared in other parts of the Estimates. In the first place, there was the expenditure under the present Vote; in the next, there was the expenditure for the supply of water, there being a constant supply of water to all public buildings; and then Vote 18 had reference to the rates upon Government property, such rates being contributions to the various parishes in the locality in which the public buildings were situated. But in making out an account of the expenditure upon the Houses of Parliament, the total expenditure was given for the information of the House. There was, however, no transfer from Vote 18, for instance, for the purposes of Vote 4, or from Vote 4 for the purposes of Vote 18. Vote 4 paid for itself, and Vote 18 paid for itself. The same thing would be seen with regard to other heads of expenditure—for instance, in the case of County Courts, under Class III., where the expenditure was very much greater than that which appeared under the present Vote. The salaries of the County Court Judges were provided out of the Consolidated Fund, while Class VI. and other Votes made provision for superannuation allowances and other expenditure. They were, however, all brought together in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, in the Appropriation Accounts, Vote 1, in order to show what the total amount expended upon the County Courts was. That, however, did not imply the transfer of one Vote to anther, but simply the bringing together of the total expenditure incurred for the purpose of supplying the House with information. Precisely what was done in the case of the County Courts on a very large scale was done in this case with regard to three or four items of expenditure which were not provided for in the present Vote, but were in reality provided for under other Votes.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) had asked a question as to the expenditure of £2,000 for repairing the stone work of the Houses of Parliament. His hon. Friend would be aware that the exterior stone work had for some years been in a very bad state, and that it had been necessary to repair it at considerable cost from time to time. This was owing to the surrounding atmosphere 1563 and to the bad selection of stone at the time the building was originally constructed. Three years ago the same Vote amounted to £3,000; it was £2,500 last year; and now the sum asked for had been reduced to £2,000. He believed it would be found that not so much would be required in future; but, at the same time, it would be necessary from time to time to spend money in that direction. As to the horticultural works, the hon. Member would be aware that there were three gardens attached to the Houses of Parliament, and they cost about £480 a-year to maintain.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he congratulated himself upon having initiated a very interesting discussion. He had complained of the ventilation of the House, and every Member who had spoken since, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. N. Fowler), had agreed with the description he had given of its character. Of course, he did not count that right hon. Gentle-man, because anyone who was able to indulge daily in turtle soup and Madeira would care very little about the surrounding atmosphere. He thought, however, that he was entitled to a more distinct answer from the First Commissioner of Works. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had passed over a certain portion of the remarks he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had made, because he did not look upon them as serious; but the right hon. Gentleman had not answered another question which was of great importance—namely, the necessity of providing better means of intercommunication between the different parts of the House. The right hon. Gentleman did not make a single remark upon that point; but he had raised another question altogether. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman would look into any newspaper office in Fleet Street—take The Standard or The Daily News, for instance —he would be able to find out more readily there what was taking place in the House of Commons than if he went into the Tea Boom or any other room of the House except the House itself. He thought that was perfectly monstrous. If he went into a newspaper office, and asked the editor who was speaking in the House of Commons, what the subject was, and what side the hon. Member who was speaking was 1564 taking, the editor could by his electric appliances inform him immediately who the speaker was, what the subject was, and what side he was speaking upon. In fact, the means of communication now established between the newspaper offices and the House of Commons were so complete, that whereas formerly the leader writer had to attend the debates of the House, he was now able to write his leaders with much more facility at his own newspaper office in Fleet Street. He might allude to the experience of an hon. Gentleman now sitting on the Treasury Bench. He presumed that it would not be a violation of confidence if he stated that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had distinguished himself, before he entered the House and obtained his present position, as a brilliant contributor to the newspaper Press of the country. Now, supposing that the hon. Gentleman was a smoker, and was to go down to the lower Smoke Room in order to write a newspaper article, it was very probable that he would not be able to write it until 11 or 12 o'clock at night, because he would want to know how the debate was going to turn. He did not mean to say that the hon. Member would suit his opinions to the fortunes of the debate, but he would certainly accommodate his remarks to those fortunes. If the hon. Gentleman began to write his article at 11 or 12 o'clock at night, he would probably have to write against time, and then what would he be required to do? If he desired to send his newspaper article by instalments, he would have to trot up from the Smoke Room to the back of the Speaker's Chair, at a time I when every single moment was precious to him, in order to convey the article from the place where he was writing it to the Reporters' Gallery. Now, if the hon. Member had been a member of the Reform Club, or of the Carlton Club, and had been writing in one of the rooms of either of those Clubs, and wished to have his letter sent away, all that it would have been necessary for him to do would have been to place his finger upon the electric bell, when a page would at once attend upon him and convey his message to any part of the building. Why could not that be done in the House of Commons? Could I the right hon. Gentleman point out any 1565 objection to having two or throe additional messengers for the purpose of performing that duty?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREThere are attendants already.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked if he was to understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that such attendants already existed? It was impossible to ask the waiters down in the Smoke Room, because they were obviously too busily engaged. With regard to the question of intercommunication, he wished to know also if it would not be easy to establish telephonic communication between various parts of the House? He did not see any reason why Members should not be able to find out in different parts of the building what was going on in the House, just as readily as a newspaper editor sitting in his office in Fleet Street. The right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) had found fault with him for making complaints in regard to the want of intercommunication with the Ladies' and Reporters' Galleries. Now, he had said nothing about the Reporters' Gallery; but with regard to the Ladies' Gallery, where he certainly appeared much less than many other Members, he did not see any harm in being called upon to visit a lady who might have obtained admission under his own auspices. He apprehended that even the proverbially austere nature of the right hon. Gentleman himself would unbend on such an occasion; and why should the right hon. Gentleman find himself compelled to run a race for three minutes in order to get down to the Division Lobby, or to take a written communication up to the Reporters' Gallery? He thought that all the improvements he suggested might be carried out for an annual expenditure of £200.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the question of providing additional messengers in the House had not been raised before.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had raised it last year.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had no recollection of the fact. The hon. Gentleman now said that there ought to be messengers in every part of the House ready to obey the command of any hon. Member who chose to ring for him to inform him of what was going on in the House.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that was not what he had suggested. He had proposed that there should be attendants to carry notes to different parts of the House, as there were in every fourth or fifth rate Club in London; but as to communicating what was going on in the House, that was a different and independent matter altogether.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had never heard any complaint with regard to a want of messengers; but, even if the question had been raised before, it could not come upon the present Vote, which was for new works. If it were found necessary to increase the staff of messengers, it would come more properly on the Vote for the payment of the staff of the House of Commons. It would not fall under his duty to make any provision for it. He should be glad to confer with the hon. Member privately in order that he might place the hon. Member's views before the proper authorities, and see whether some arrangement could not be made to meet them.
§ MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he thought there was a great deal of force in what the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had stated. The hon. Member had spoken of the conveniences supplied by Clubs in comparison with those provided by the House of Commons. Now, he did not make use of the rooms provided for the comfort of Members in various parts of the House to any large extent, nor was he in the habit of writing leading articles such as those of which his hon. Friend had spoken. But before he came into the House he was often told that it was the best Club in London. That was probably because the Members paid the largest entrance fee. It could not have obtained that distinction in any other way, because for any other purpose it was, if not absolutely the worst, very nearly the worst Club in the Metropolis. If a Member wished to find out whether there was any news from Khartoum, or Berber, or any other place, he had to hunt about after it, taking his chance of finding a telegram in the entrance room to the Library or some other part of the House. Now, he did not see why there should not be a public intelligence board in the Lobby, such as The Central News, or any other News Agency, would provide. In regard to the Ladies' Gallery, he had 1567 sometimes occasion to go there, and lie had always found it a matter of great inconvenience to go all the way round from the back of the Speaker's Chair; and if he wanted to go there he generally waited until some Member passed through, and then asked him for leave to pass.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought that his meaning had been misunderstood by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). He did not wish the House or the Committee to understand that he attached no importance to providing the readiest moans of access from all parts of the building to the body of the House itself. The hon. Member who had just sat clown had reminded him of a point which he had forgotten. When he spoke previously he had been under the impression that any Member who desired to go to the Ladies' Gallery could use the means of egress and ingress which was provided behind the Speaker's Chair. The suggestion he would make to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, who had always shown himself most anxious to meet the personal convenience of Members, without prejudice to Party, on both sides of the House, was whether it might not be possible to make some provision, by some rearrangement of door - keepers, which would give Members the means of going out by the door at the back of the Speaker's Chair, and thereby save them the necessity of passing through the somewhat large crowd of persons who crowded the Lobby, many of whom, he thought, might very reasonably be excluded from the immediate purlieus of the House. Hon. Members would then be able to get into the Lobby and other parts of the House without being corn-compelled to pass through what he could only describe as the crowd of Lobby loungers who surrounded the door. The hon. Member who had just spoken had referred to the desirability of having some means of reference to news telegrams; and, personally, as they altogether failed to obtain any news whatever from Her Majesty's Government upon matters of great moment respecting occurrences in various parts of the world, he thought it was most desirable that there should be some means of supplying Members with the latest news without requiring them to give Notice of a Ques- 1568 tion. Even that afternoon it would have been most convenient if they could have had some independent source of information. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would consider the suggestions which had now been offered, and which, if adopted, would remove many of the complaints which had been made.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he thought the suggestion which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman was of considerable importance. He did not know why every hon. Member should not be allowed to pass through the door behind the Speaker's Chair as well as certain privileged classes of the House, such as the occupants of the Treasury Bench. The inconvenience of rushing down at break-neck speed when the Division Bell was rung was now very great, and it would be considerably obviated if hon. Members were allowed to pass in and out of the magical door behind the Speaker's Chair. He wished to ask, further, whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works proposed to do anything in regard to the removal of the railings which now formed a screen in front of the Ladies' Gallery? Hon. Members would recollect that the genie mentioned in the Arabian Nights used to carry his wife about with him in a glass box. He had often wondered whether it was in imitation of that mythical personage that the House of Commons had always locked its ladies up in an iron cage. He hoped it would be found convenient to abolish the present absurd and useless system. He did not know that the presence of ladies at their debates would do much harm. Surely they were not so much more timid or susceptible than noble Lords in "another place," and were quite as able to sustain the presence of ladies in the open Gallery. An intelligent Eastern lady—in fact, an Eastern Princess—had spoken to him, among other things, about the Ladies' Gallery of the House of Commons, and had asked him why hon. Members had their ladies screened away from the public view? He reminded her that she was herself going every night to the opera, where she was much more entirely screened; but she pointed out that there was this difference. In the first place, it was one of the usages of Mahomedan countries; and, in the next, she 1569 said that her ladies found it very pleasant, upon a hot summer's evening, to go into the opera-box in their night-dresses. Of course, that was a substantial reason in favour of a screen; but he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works would take measures for removing the present absurd and unnecessary grille in the House of Commons.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, that with reference to the question of giving facilities to Members for becoming acquainted with the news of the day, there was a little instrument supplied to every first-rate hotel and club in the Metropolis by a Company called the Exchange Telegraph Company, or some such name. That Company provided a continuous printed slip giving all the news of the day, and it cost a very small sum—something like £30 or £40 a-year. If the right hon. Gentleman would consider that it would be a matter of great convenience to Members to be supplied with this news, and that the expense would be so very small, he would probably consent to post up the news in question in the Reading Room, or some other convenient place, where hon. Members would be able, among other things, to see a continuous summary of the debates. It was no new experiment; but, as he had stated, news of this kind was already supplied to almost every hotel and club in London.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would take the matter into consideration.
MR. MAC IVERasked the First Commissioner of Works, if he intended to present any Supplementary Estimate for the completion of the Mosaics in the Central Hall, which had been frequently referred to by the late Mr. Schreiber?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREreplied in the negative.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTwished to say a word in regard to the important question of access to different parts of the House, which had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther). He thought that something might be done to allow private Members of the House to pass through the doorway behind the Speaker's Chair. He did not see that it would lead to any increase of the danger Ministers were supposed to 1570 be surrounded with in the approaches to the House. But, if so, another and a separate entrance might be made at the corner of the right-hand Lobby. He wished to make a protest against the views enunciated by the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) in regard to the remarkable views of some Oriental Princess as to what ought to be done to render the Ladies' Gallery more comfortable. Apart from that particular suggestion, he was not at all prepared to say that something might not be done to increase the accommodation for ladies in that House. Hon. Members must often experience a difficulty in gratifying the desire of friends who were anxious to visit the House on certain occasions. The number of seats provided was entirely inadequate to the demands made by those who might almost be said to have a right to visit the House. It must have occurred to hon. Members that, except on very rare occasions, the two Galleries on either side of the House were by no means occupied. At present, a great amount of space was wasted in these Galleries. The existence of some kind of screen in front of the Ladies' Gallery might be an advantage to the House itself, and even to the ladies visiting it. At the same time, he did not see why a portion of the side Galleries might not be fitted up for the accommodation of ladies who wished to be present, and even one or two of the rooms adjoining the Galleries might be placed at their disposal. In addition, a certain amount of wire-work or screen might be put up. With regard to the ventilation of the Ladies' Gallery, it was highly defective, and he had heard many complaints with regard to it. The ventilation of the existing Ladies' Gallery, especially late at night, was simply abominable, and could not be described in language too strong. He would not say that the screen in front of the Ladies' Gallery was not more substantial than was absolutely necessary, not, perhaps, for the sake of Members of the House, but for the comfort of the ladies who sat in the second and third rows, and experienced the difficulty of trying to see through the wire-work. He threw out these suggestions to the First Commissioner of Works; and, although he would not advocate the entire withdrawal of the screen, he thought that much might be done to increase the 1571 accommodation for lady visitors to the Gallery.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had raised a question as to the opening of the door behind the Speaker's Chair. That was a matter which had often been under consideration; and if the door were opened for the use of Members desiring to go to the Ladies' Gallery, the services of extra doorkeepers would be required. With regard to the Ladies' Gallery itself, the objection to the want of ventilation was not a new one; and he was prepared to admit that the ventilation was not satisfactory. The evil, however, would be remedied, to a great extent, by the use of the electric light there. As to the grill in front of the Ladies' Gallery, he was certainly opposed to it; but great difference of opinion existed upon the subject, and he was bound to act in accordance with the general opinion of the House. When he found that the general opinion of the House was in favour of the removal of the grill, he would willingly have it removed.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out certain objections against throwing open the door behind the Speaker's Chair; but he wished the right hon. Gentleman to direct his attention to another matter— namely, the state of the Lobby outside. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might use his influence in order to improve the existing state of things. He fully recognized the importance of the Press, and that the duties of the representatives of the Press, and of some other persons, required them to be there, and he did not propose to refer to them. They had a right to see hon. Members; but he was afraid that a number of other persons who had no business there whatever, and who simply went there to amuse themselves and see a few Members they happened to know, found access to the Lobby; and if, in their case, a more efficient supervision were 'exercised by the officers of the House, a great amount of advantage would be derived.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would communicate with the authorities of the House upon the subject.
§ MR. COURTNEYtrusted that the Committee would now consent to pass the Vote.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would modify his zeal for the rapid despatch of Public Business. It often happened that the more haste the less speed. With regard to keeping the Lobby clear, there had been very loud complaints of the manner in which it was allowed to be crowded. He had drawn attention to the matter 16 or 17 years ago, and an order was given by the then Serjeant-at-Arms (Lord Charles Russell) to keep the Lobby clear, and for some time the nuisance was, to a great extent, abated. Things had now relapsed very much into their former condition, and he thought the attention of the Chief Commissioner of Works ought to be directed to the subject. Something must be done soon. Either the Lobby must be kept clear of strangers altogether, or means must be taken to enable Members who wished to get from the House itself to the Library and the adjoining rooms to pass to and fro without having to force their way through a crowd of loungers. That was a practical question, and he thought the Committee were justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman to direct his attention to it.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would give the matter his best attention. Of course, it was not one that was under his immediate control; but he would call the attention of the authorities of the House to the complaint that had been made, and he had no doubt that it would be attended to.
§ MR. MONTAGUE GUESTexpressed a hope that the First Commissioner of Works would also direct his attention to the suggestions which had been made by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), in regard to providing news telegrams in the House. He had himself asked a Question upon that subject two years ago, in the hope of having some instrument like Mac Mahon's provided for supplying the news of the day. The objection at that time was that it would necessitate the cutting about of the building. Since that day, however, a telephone had been provided downstairs. Certainly, at the present moment, the House of Commons was the worst place in London in which to obtain information. He really thought they ought to be able in the House to know what was going on outside; and he would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the de- 1573 sirability of providing some means by which news could be supplied. Hon. Members who did not go down stairs knew nothing of what was going on at all. Very important news was received, of which they had no knowledge until they were going away from the House.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREintimated that if the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), and the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would explain their views to him upon the subject privately, he would do all that he could to give effect to their wishes.
§ MR. BIGGARdesired to say one word in regard to the state of the Lobby outside. It was all very well for hon. Members to say that the Lobby was over, crowded. One cause was this—persons who were constituents of hon. Members went to the outside Hall, and sent in their cards. Hon. Members were called out, and arranged to bring these visitors into the Lobby, in the hope of being able to find them a seat in one of the Galleries. It was very difficult to refuse an appeal of that sort, as hon. Members very well knew; and he did not see how any remedy that had been proposed would really cure the evil. No doubt the Serjeant-at-Arms, from time to time, might clear the Lobby; but people outside the House took great interest in the proceedings that went on within it, and induced hon. Members to bring them into the Lobby on the chance of being able to obtain a seat. If Members could not find a seat for them, it would certainly be very hard to turn them out of the Lobby altogether. He thought the only legitimate means of curing the evil would be to provide another means of egress and ingress to the House, by the use of which hon. Members would be able to avoid coming in contact with the persons who went to the Lobby. On a recent occasion the Irish Members had a meeting in the Conference Room to decide what course they ought to take in regard to a particular Division. When the Irish Members entered the Lobby, after the meeting, there was at once a rush of newspaper correspondents, Members of Parliament and others, asking them, to divulge what had taken place at the meeting. If hon. Members had been able to get into the House by some private way, all that trouble and confusion would have been saved; and, after all, he thought the 1574 only real cure for the evil would be to provide a private entrance for Members.
§ MR. GRAYremarked that a suggestion had now been made to the First Commissioner of Works in favour of the introduction of one of the Exchange instruments into the House. He wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman that about two years ago a suggestion was made in regard to the introduction of the telephone. After considering the matter for about two years the instrument was introduced. An ordinary individual would have decided the matter in five minutes; and what he was now apprehensive of was that if the right hon. Gentleman took the same length of time to consider the introduction of one of these news instruments, some of those who were at present sitting upon those Benches might not happen to be there when the instrument was provided. What was asked for was for the use of the Members of the present Parliament, and not for those who might happen to come after them.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (2.) £106,555, to complete the sum for Public Buildings, Great Britain.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he wished to call attention to the sum of £1,300 for rent of the office of the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy. Business for the last quarter of a century had probably never been so bad as at the present time; there had never been so large a number of people suffering from the commercial distress which prevailed, and yet there were, perhaps, fewer bankruptcies than there had ever been before. Looked at in one sense, that was not a matter for congratulation; because there was no doubt that a large number of arrangements were entered into behind the back of the creditors, which were not always of a satisfactory kind. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade were in his place, he would ask him for an explanation as to the working of the Bankruptcy Act of last year so far as it had gone; because it appeared to him that although the number of adjudications were less, that was not the case with regard to bankruptcy itself. How far the arrangements he had spoken of were binding upon the parties interested in the estates of bankrupts he knew not; 1575 but it was a matter that seriously affected the large commercial constituency he had the honour to represent (Newcastle), and in which there was much commercial depression.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he also wished to draw attention to the subject which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Newcastle. He believed that he should be perfectly in Order in dealing with this subject in the manner which he proposed. The question of the working of the Bankruptcy Act was scarcely a topic which, in his judgment, could be relevantly introduced in connection with the present Vote; but he thought the Committee had the right of asking the President of the Board of Trade for an explanation of the charge made against the public funds for Works, Buildings, Bent, &c., in connection with the working of that Act. Now, the hon. Member for Eves-ham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland), who, unfortunately, was not in his place, had given Notice of a Motion to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,098 for rent of offices, which Motion, in his absence, would, he feared, hardly have justice done to it. The House had been given to understand, when the Bankruptcy Bill was passing through Parliament, that all charges arising under the Act would be defrayed, not by a Vote on the Estimates, but from a totally different source. He had made such hasty reference as he could to the debates which took place during last Session in connection with this point, and especially to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, and he found that the right hon. Gentleman, in dealing with the question of new officials—High Bailiffs and others, who would be appointed under the Act—said that the new appointments would probably be few in number; that the cost would be met from several sources. In the first place, the fees in the case of every bankruptcy petition would be the same as would be levied in cases of bankruptcy in future. The right hon. Gentleman would not pledge himself to the exact figures; but he said his belief was that the requirements of the case would be satisfied by a fractional addition to the then charge. In addition to that source of revenue, the right hon. Gentleman said he expected to be paid, in 1576 the shape of interest, on the aggregate balance of something like £1,000,000 in the hands of the Government, £25,000 or £30,000 per annum, and that these various sources of income would amply provide for the expenditure contemplated under the Bill. After that statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the House believed naturally that there would be no charges in connection with the new Act. But here was a charge of £1,300 for the rent of a house in Carey Street for the Chief Official Receiver, £605 8s. 4d. for the rent of No. 31 Great George Street, Westminster, for the offices of Inspector in Bankruptcy, and on the next page there were a number of items amounting in all to £1,098 for rents of offices of Official Receivers in various towns throughout England. It was to be regretted that the hon. Member for Evesham was not present to move the reduction of the Vote of which he had given Notice; but, in his absence, he thought the Committee might ask the President of the Board of Trade why it was that, after the assurance given by him to the House last year, the charges he had specified were upon the Estimates.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, in answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen), he was unable to supply further information as to the working of the Bankruptcy Act than was already in the possession of hon. Members. With regard to the second complaint, that of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor), he thought the hon. Member was in error in supposing that the expense of working the Act would come upon the Consolidated Fund and be charged to the taxpayers. It was quite true that he had stated he did not expect that any expense would fall upon the taxpayers, and that he believed the fees and other sources of income would provide for the whole expenditure. He did not like to commit himself to an estimate of cost at so early a period; but so far as he had gone into the matter, he had every reason to believe that there would be a balance upon the sums receivable, and that balance would go against this Vote in relief of the taxpayer.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it might be his fault; but the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was, to his mind, not altogether clear. He had 1577 understood that all the expenses would be met from the estates in bankruptcy, the interest which the Government expected to realize from that source being £25,000 or £30,000 a-year. The right hon. Gentleman now said they would be met by some kind of set-off against the money voted by the taxpayer, which would come from the source mentioned. But there was nothing in the Estimates to show that anything was to be received by the Treasury in connection with this Vote which would serve as a set-off; there was nothing documentary, therefore, to tell the Committee that this charge would not be an annually recurring charge against the taxpayer; and they had, therefore, no guarantee whatever that the bankruptcy estate account would really be drawn upon to meet the new charges which the right hon. Gentleman said would be defrayed from that source.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, there was no other guarantee than his statement that there would be no charge on the taxpayer. If the fees at present levied were found to be insufficient, and a balance remained against the taxpayer, that balance would have to be made good by increasing the fees. As far as he had gone at present, he believed that the fees would be amply sufficient. That was his present opinion. He believed there would be a balance quite sufficient to meet these charges, which, in subsequent years, would be returned as extra receipts. The hon. Member said he found nothing in the Estimates to that effect. That was quite true, because these were Estimates put down for the purpose of promoting discussion on the subjects they related to; but next year, when they had settled the mode of accounting, there would be an alteration. Until they knew the number of bankruptcies, they could not, of course, put down the exact figures in the Estimates. The amount in the Estimate was an assumed one for the purpose of the Estimates; but it was not placed there with any understanding on the part of the Government that the sum put down would be the actual amount required.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he understood that this subject was to be discussed on a Vote in Class II. He should be glad to know what guarantee there was that the items specified in the Esti- 1578 mate were all the charges which would come forward for the country districts. Was it likely that there would be an increased charge on account of other towns than those named?
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had stated on a former occasion that he had authority to make 50 or 60 appointments of Official Receivers for life, at a fixed salary, and to give them offices. But he had made only six life appointments, the rest being annual only. Under the circumstances, the latter appointees would have to find their own offices. It might possibly be that some alteration of the arrangement might be necessary hereafter; but he saw no need of it at present.
§ MR. GREGORYasked if, in the case of the life appointments, the houses were merely hired for the present year, or did the items represent a permanent charge on account of these offices?
MR. MAC IVERsaid, nothing could exceed the candour or the explicit character of the right hon. Gentleman's replies; but it happened, unfortunately, that sometimes when he was most explicit he was inaccurate. Now, the portion of the Vote under discussion very much affected his constituents, who thought that this money about to be given practically by way of increased salaries to gentlemen appointed by the President of the Board of Trade—
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the question upon which the hon. Member was entering should be raised on another Vote.
MR. MAC IVERsaid, he would leave the question of salaries. It seemed to his constituents in Birkenhead that it was giving rather a Party aspect to this business to confer offices rent free upon a number of gentlemen who were the political opponents of hon. Members on those Benches. That was why his constituents did not agree with the views of the right hon. Gentleman; and there were many who thought that these rents should not be cast upon the public, but that they should be paid out of the salaries of the Official Receivers appointed by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the hon. Member having alluded to a subject that he thought was disposed of by a vote of the House, he would take the opportunity of saying that the majority, or at least a large proportion, of the ap- 1579 pointees to the offices in question turned out to belong to the Party of the hon. Member.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, he observed in the Estimate charges for the offices of the District Registry in various places. He had no objection to raise to those charges, which were, no doubt, right and proper; but he would like to know whether the offices were fire-proof, or were provided with fire-proof depositories, because that question was of considerable importance, having regard to the documents sent to the office. They were original wills, and they ought to be as safe at the District Registries as they were in London. He thought it a fair question to ask what were the arrangements for providing for the safety of the documents deposited?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Member had certainly raised an important question. He doubted not that the safety of documents had been provided for; but as he did not know exactly what the arrangements were he would inquire into the matter, and let the hon. Member know the result.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked for information as to the amount expended on sanitary improvements in Public Offices. The estimated cost of these was £30,000, and it was stated in the Estimate that £16,000 would probably be expended up to the 31st of March, 1884. It would appear that sufficient money had not been asked for, but that more than the amount in the Vote had already been expended.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, it was not contemplated to spend more than £5,000 this year — the nature of the work being such that it could only be done when the offices were not fully occupied. The £5,000 voted last year had not all been expended.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, the Committee were indebted to the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) for calling attention to the items of rent in connection with the Bankruptcy Act. He thought that a note ought to have been appended to the Estimate to show that the charge was but a temporary one, especially as it appeared there for the first time, and in view of the fact that the appointments to which it related had been called in question by a vote in that House. Although he thought there was ground for further inquiry on 1580 the subject of the appointments, he would not urge it then; but he wished to know what was the exact amount they were at present liable for—whatever might be the case with regard to the future—in respect of the items for rent of offices? Did the aggregate sum of £1,098 for offices in the towns mentioned, and the sum of £605 8s. 4d. at Great George Street, Westminster, represent all the new charge or not? The latter item seemed to differ from the charge of £1,300 for the Chief Official Receiver's Office in Carey Street, in that it occurred last year as well as this— the £1,300 being for this year only. He wanted to know whether the charge of £605 8s. 4d. was a temporary charge or not, in addition to the £1,300? The President of the Board of Trade was very clear last year when he was passing the Bill as to the expense of administering the Act; but the right hon. Gentleman now said he could not speak with exactness. He hoped it was not intended to pooh-pooh inquiries until these charges became permanent. There were foot notes to the Estimates relating to such trifling items as 2s. 2d, and it was absolutely scandalous that no information was given with regard to charges which involved the whole question of Bankruptcy expenditure.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it would be absurd to put a note in the Estimate to say that this charge was temporary, because it was undoubtedly a permanent charge. The fact was they had appropriated to the use of the Inspector in Bankruptcy a building which belonged to the Crown. The charge was made, in the first instance, upon the Vote; but the money would ultimately come out of the Bankruptcy Estates Account. He could not say whether the charge would hereafter be diminished or increased, because that depended upon the amount of business to be transacted at the office. If that business increased more room would have to be placed at the disposal of the Inspector; but at present the premises seemed to be ample for the work to be done.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEasked whether the sum of £200 for the protection of Ancient Monuments related to those which had already been inspected, and as to the protection of which it was intended that some action should take place?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the sum in question was not on account of any distinct monuments. The hon. Gentleman would be glad to hear that a considerable number of the owners of monuments had placed them under the protection of the Act. Personally, he was rather against the expenditure of money upon the monuments; but if it was absolutely necessary it would have to be incurred. He believed that up to the present time 14 monuments had been put under the protection of the Act.
§ MR. MONKasked, whether the lease of Dover House had not fallen in during the last year, and if it was to be renewed?
§ MR. COURTNEYwas understood to say that the lease had expired, and the tenancy would be determined whenever the house was wanted.
§ MR. WESTremarked that there was a great deal of expenditure on account of the various legal offices in the great towns. He ventured to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind that a considerable saving might be affected by a combination of these different offices. In many towns the District Registries and Courts of Justice might be combined, and that for the sake of economy the offices of Official Receivers might be united with them under one roof. He hoped that the Treasury would exercise a general supervision over the acquisition of new buildings for legal purposes, particularly as his experience had shown that in former times much unnecessary expenditure had been incurred under that head.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he saw on page 19 a Vote of £10,000 for the National Gallery—or rather, altogether, £10,300, there being a second item of £300 "For folding doors at the entrance." Last year the total Vote was only £5,000, so that there had been an increase of £5,300; and it seemed to him they ought to have an explanation of this increase, seeing that the building was an old one, and was not in course of construction. On what grounds could such a sum as £10,300 be asked for this year? He himself was at a loss to imagine the grounds. There was another item, a new one, on page 21—the last item but one—namely, "Spring Gardens, No. 30, Parliamentary Counsel." Why should they spend £200 on rent for Parliamentary Counsel? He should like to have an explanation of that. Then 1582 there was a further item of £1,910 for Westminster Bridge. Last year this Vote was £4,700. What was the reason of the decrease, and why were they not getting rid of this item altogether? No doubt it was right that there should be proper means of communication between one part of London and another; but he was at a loss to know why the local taxpayer, who was benefited by it, should not bear the expense. It appeared to him that the item for Westminster Bridge should be struck out.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREreplied that the care of Westminster Bridge was one of those things which would be transferred to the new government of London, when the Bill for the reform of the municipal government of the Metropolis, which was now before the House, became law. The measure would probably be passed during the present Session. As the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) had pointed out, the item for the Bridge was much less this year than it was last year. This was to be accounted for by the fact that last year the Bridge was repainted at a cost of £2,500. As to the Vote for the National Gallery, the matter was fully explained last year when the plans of the Government were generally approved of. Although the front and major part of the building was old, there was a large part of the rear which was very recent, having only been built within the past three or four years. It was now considered necessary to add to that new portion, and to extend the building further back. A part of the barrack yard would be taken for the purpose. There was some further land at the back which was devoted to other uses, and this the Metropolitan Board of Works wished to acquire. They would pay a sum of money for it which would recoup the Government for the expenditure they proposed to incur. With regard to the item for rent of offices of Parliamentary Counsel it was necessary to employ Parliamentary Counsel, and for such counsel it was necessary to have offices. £200 a-year did not seem a very large item for this purpose.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (3.) £65,000, to complete the sum for Public Offices Site.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that before this Vote was agreed to 1583 he should like the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to tell the Committee in what position they were in regard to the contemplated new Government buildings? The subject was a very interesting one to the public; and the Committee should be informed as to how far the arrangements had gone, and whether or not the plans were completed?
§ MR. GREGORYwished to know whether the purchases would come within the estimate?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREreplied that the purchases effected had only been of freeholds, and they had been within the estimate. The purchases had tallied in a remarkable manner with the estimates of Sir Henry Hunt, which was a testimony to the value of his services in the matter. The competition, as the Committee was aware, was of a double character—that was to say, there was first an open competition, which was entered into on the understanding that nine or ten selected competitors would compete again with more finished designs. The first competition had already taken place; 128 designs were sent in, and out of these the judges had selected nine competitors, who were now at work elaborating their plans and designs. By the 21st of this month, he hoped, the finished proposals would be sent in, and then the judges would meet again, and would advise the Government as to which of the designs should be finally selected. He trusted that before the end of the Session they would be able to lay the selection before the House and to take a small Vote on Account, with the view of determining the selection made.
§ MR. RYLANDSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would inform the Committee of the names of the judges? He understood that the plans and designs were sent in by a small number of architects, who had been applied to for the purpose. If that were so, some of them must have sent in more than one each; and he, therefore, wished to know what was the original number of competitors, which was now reduced to nine?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREThe number of competitors was 128.
§ MR. RYLANDSThen do I understand that the 128 competitors sent in each a single design?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREYes.
§ MR. RYLANDSAnd that out of the 128 designs nine have been selected?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREYes, by the judges.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would inform the Committee of the names of the judges. As one who had taken a great interest in this question, and had had the honour of serving on the Committee which sat to consider it, he might say that it was a strong point urged by the witnesses examined before the Committee, that a dwelling should be provided for the First Lord of the Admiralty within the new building. He had been surprised to hear, from a statement made a short time ago on behalf of the Government, that that part of the scheme had been omitted. Witnesses had declared that the First Lord should have this residence, for the reason that in time of war it was essential that he should be always on the spot, and within the reach of the permanent officials when important telegrams were received at critical periods. There had been no reason given for the alteration of the plans originally determined on by the Committee, which was appointed at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre)
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRErepeated that the competitors were 128 in number, and that they had each sent in several drawings of the same building, showing the different storeys, and giving different views, but without being elaborated as to details. The designs in the first competition were reduced to a certain scale, in order to induce the best architects to compete — and the Government had reason to believe that several of the best architects had competed. Out of the total number of designs sent in nine had been selected, and the authors of these nine had now been invited to compete with very much more accurate and elaborate designs. The judges in the matter were Mr. Philip H. Hardwicke and Mr. Ewan Christian, the eminent architects, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) and himself. With regard to the dwelling of the First Lord of the Admiralty, many people thought that it should be within the new building; but there was a difference of opinion on the subject. The Admiralty had considered the proposal, and were 1585 against it. But it would still be possible, if it should be thought that the First Lord should reside in the neighbourhood of the Admiralty, to erect a house immediately adjoining the new Offices. Thus the residence, though not under the same roof as the Admiralty Offices, would be contiguous to them. It was very possible that that would be the plan eventually decided upon. The designs had been ordered to be prepared on the understanding that the First Lord of the Admiralty should not have a residence within the new building.
MR. J. LOWTHERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman meant that it would be possible to build a residence for the First Lord of the Admiralty on land already acquired?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREOn land that can be acquired under the Public Offices Site Act, 1882.
MR. J. LOWTHERwished to know what would be done with that land in the meantime? Would it be left vacant, or would it be applied to another purpose, so that, when required, it could be put to the use referred to? No difference of opinion on this matter had been manifest in the House, notwithstanding the fact of the presence amongst them of such a rigid economist as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). The difference of opinion had been found to prevail within the sacred circle of Her Majesty's Advisers. They had had the Secretary to the Admiralty defending what the hon. Gentleman had supposed to be the determination of the Government to arrange for a residence for the First Lord of the Admiralty in the new building; and they had subsequently ascertained that the Treasury had applied the pruning knife to the scheme as originally recommended by the Admiralty, and that the Vote had been reduced. He (Mr. J. Lowther) did not know whether, without divulging official confidences, the Secretary to the Treasury could state on what grounds the Government had receded from the position they originally assumed in the matter. There might be a good deal to be said as to the desirability of uniting private residences with Public Offices; but he should have thought it would have been easy for a capable architect to devise means by which a dwelling-house could be connected with a new 1586 Public Office. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) could state what his own opinion in the matter was; but, without asking him for his personal view, he would ask him if he could inform the Committee on what ground the Government had set aside the distinct expression of personal opinion tendered to the Committee in favour of having the residence of the First Lord within the Admiralty building?
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTwished to point out the extreme inconvenience, architecturally, which might result from the course the Government were pursuing in regard to this official residence of the First Lord of the Admiralty. If the new building was to be a handsome structure, and not an eyesore, as so many public buildings in London were, it should be made symmetrical from the commencement. If, however, the architects who were submitting plans for the approval of the authorities were forbidden to make provision for the residence in their designs, the result would either be that a very unsightly and imperfect structure would have to be added, or else great expense would have to be incurred. It appeared to him that the best course to take would be to have provision made in the new designs for a dwelling for the First Lord of the Admiralty. It could afterwards be built or not as was thought best.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, he should be glad to have some information either from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) or the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) upon a point to which they had both alluded. It was said that it would be very important, in the event of a war, that the First Lord of the Admiralty should have a dwelling under the roof of the new Admiralty. If that was the case with the First Lord of the Admiralty, he should like to know whether it would not also be the case with the Secretary of State for War—should not he have a dwelling under the roof of the War Office? The two positions seemed to him to be very similar—one being head of the Navy and the other head of the Army. If it was important that the First Lord of the Admiralty should reside in or near his Office, why was it not equally important that the Secretary of State for War should do the same? He should like to have 1587 his ignorance enlightened on this matter.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. N. Fowler) had raised a very pertinent question— namely, why if the First Lord of the Admiralty had a residence under the roof of the Admiralty building the Secretary of State for War should not also have a residence under the roof of the War Office? But that argument cut both ways; if it was not necessary for the Secretary of State for War or the Commander-in-Chief to have dwellings in the new building, why was it necessary for the First Lord of the Admiralty and the First Naval Lord to have dwellings? No one had contended for a moment that it was necessary that the Secretary of State for War or the Commander-in-Chief of the Army should have official residences; and it had, therefore, been considered unnecessary to provide them for the First Lord or the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty. It had been thought unnecessary to have residences in the new building for these four officials; but, at the same time, though it had been decided that the First Lord and the First Naval Lord should not be provided with residences under the roof of the new building, if it should hereafter be deemed desirable it would be possible to provide dwellings for them immediately contiguous to the Office. Hon. Gentlemen would see the plans before the building was erected; and, no doubt, would be satisfied that it would be possible to erect an official residence adjacent to the new Public Offices without interfering with the architectural beauty of the design. It was difficult to explain the matter; but he should be able to show the plans to any hon. Member who wished to see them.
§ MR. RYLANDScould not say he was satisfied with the statement of his right hon. Friend in having lost sight of the recommendations which were made to the Committee of which he had been a Member. It was shown in evidence that it was most important to make this great improvement; and he had the clearest recollection that it was considered by the witnesses a most essential point that the First Lord of the Admiralty should have a residence beneath the roof of the new building. He could not altogether answer the question put by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. N. Fowler), as 1588 to why it was more necessary to have a residence for the First Lord of the Admiralty and the First Naval Lord than for the Secretary of State for War or the Commander-in-Chief; but he believed the fact was that the First Lord of the Admiralty at present had a residence within the Admiralty building, and he presumed it had been found such a convenient arrangement that it was not thought desirable to alter it in the new Offices. What did the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works now say? He evidently was not so satisfied that it was not desirable to have this arrangement effected; and he wished them to accept the present proposal because, as he had said, there was plenty of room to build a suitable mansion for the First Lord of the Admiralty adjacent to the new Offices later on, if it should be thought necessary. He (Mr. Rylands) held a very strong opinion on this subject. He did not know of his own knowledge whether or not it was necessary for the First Lord of the Admiralty to have an official residence in the Admiralty building; but he remembered the evidence of the experts who had been called before the Committee. He certainly was of opinion that if they went on with the present plans, excluding a residence for the First Lord, then, changing their views —as, he was sorry to say, they were too often in the habit of doing—arranged for a residence for him contiguous to the new Offices, they would be spending a great deal more than it would have cost them in the first place to include the residence in the original plan. No doubt the Secretary to the Treasury, if he thought himself justified in divulging the secrets of the Department with which he was connected, could show that pressure had been put on the Admiralty. He (Mr. Rylands) sympathized with the Secretary to the Treasury in his desire to stop extravagance; but this he did say—that if they put the Vote down and established this expenditure, it should be once for all. There should be no addition allowed to be made to the building hereafter. He remembered the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther) alluded to, when the Secretary to the Admiralty got up and argued in favour of the First Lord of the Admiralty having an official residence in the new building. On the 1589 following night, in reply to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay), the hon. Gentleman, in a most sheepish manner, had to get up and declare that there was to be no dwelling provided for the First Lord of the Admiralty. The hon. Member had not been aware of the fact that this had been made a Cabinet question, and that it had been solemnly decided that there was to be no official residence. If a dwelling was to be erected, it should be done at once as a part of the new Offices, and should not be left to be constructed until after the completion of the contemplated building. If a residence was built as an afterthought, they would find themselves spending an unnecessarily large amount of money on a palatial structure for the enjoyment of the First Lord of the Admiralty.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Member was quite right in saying this matter was considered by the Committee of which he had been a Member. The hon. Member, however, would recollect that in the ground plan he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had laid before the Committee the residences of the First Lord and the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty had not been under the same roof as the Offices, but on an adjoining piece of land.
§ MR. RYLANDSThere was no communication.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the buildings were not actually adjoining each other, but were in close contiguity, and communication would be effected by a subway. In the plan discussed by the Committee, residences on a vacant plot of ground were certainly shown for the First Lord and the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty. He himself was of opinion that these residences should not be immediately under the roof of the new building, but should be detached and on a separate plot of ground. The question as to the erection of these residences was not yet finally determined, and could well be allowed to stand over. Inasmuch as some years must elapse before the new Offices would be erected, and as, during the interval, the First Lord and the First Naval Lord would probably be supplied with residences elsewhere, it might turn out, especially if telephonic apparatus were made more perfect, that 1590 it would not be necessary or desirable to build official residences.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, he should like to know whether the judges were finally to decide on the designs to be selected, or whether the Representatives of the people were to have an opportunity of studying them?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that point was not yet decided. He need hardly say that nothing could be done until a Vote of the House had been taken; and that, therefore, whatever was done would come under the review of the House. If the hon. Member would put a Question to him later on as to how far the Government proposed to submit the plans to the House, he would be able to give him a more definite answer.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, there was a new item in this year's Estimate of £10,000 for preliminary expenses, and he should like to know what that meant, seeing that the Government had taken no money for building yet? This was a new item of which he was at a loss to discover the meaning. The time had come when these unexpected charges should be viewed with attention. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works could give a satisfactory explanation; but, at any rate, they should not be called on to vote away a lump sum of this kind without some notion as to what it was for.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREexplained that it was intended to give £600 each for the best designs, which would make £6,000. The remaining £4,000 of the item the hon. and gallant Member referred to was to be expended during the present financial year on temporary buildings and offices.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he thought these 10 £600 premiums had been very properly given; but he doubted whether the £4,000, forming the other part of the item of £10,000, properly came under this Vote.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that now that the question as to the site on which the new Admiralty and War Office were to be erected had been decided upon, he should like to know what the Government proposed to do with the site which used to belong to the India Office, lying between Delahay Street and Parliament Street, 1591 but which had been purchased by the Government? At one time it was thought likely that it would be chosen for Public Offices; but now that the other scheme had been decided upon, he should like to know what it was proposed to do with this piece of ground?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had proposed to give it to the Parks Railway Company; but, inasmuch as the scheme of the Company had been disallowed by Parliament, he did not know what would be done with it. The question would have to be allowed to rest until it was definitely decided how Parliament Street was to be widened, and at whose cost the work was to be carried out. At the present moment the Local Government of London declined to entertain the idea of carrying-out the improvement; and whether or not the new Government of the Metropolis—to be established under the Bill now before Parliament—would undertake it he could not say.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRENo.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he was glad attention had been called to the vague item for "preliminary expenses" in connection with the new buildings. Why could not the Treasury say, "Premiums for plans, £6,000," and so on? But, whilst there were 10 premiums, how came it that there were only nine plans?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that nothing would be done with the new building without first submitting the plans to Parliament. The item of £4,000, to which he had referred, was for altering the existing Offices pending the erection of the new buildings.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that did not answer his question as to why only nine designs had been chosen seeing that there were 10 premiums?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREreplied that the judges, after a very careful selection, decided on recommending only nine designs for fresh competition.
§ MR. WARTONWere not 10 entitled to premiums?
§ MR. COURTNEYProvision was made for 10 some months ago; but the judges decided only to recommend nine. The remaining £600, or the tenth 1592 premium, will not be spent, but will be paid back into the Treasury.
§ MR. BIGGARwished to know what would be done with the premises now occupied by the Government in Pall Mall? Had the Government a lease of the War Office buildings, or were they tenants from year to year?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREreplied that the premises at present occupied by the War Office belonged to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, who would let them in the ordinary way when the War Department gave them up.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (4.) £11,240, to complete the sum for the Furniture of Public Offices, Great Britain.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) a short time ago complained that the Votes did not show the expenditure in connection with the Services they were intended to cover. It seemed to him (Mr. A. O'Connor) that the present Vote was singularly apposite for the purpose of showing the truth of the complaint of the hon. and gallant Gentleman; because, whilst the total sum voted under this Vote for Furniture amounted to £16,740, as a matter of fact that formed a very small portion of the total sum which went to defray the cost of furniture in the Public Offices. For instance, there was £2,000 voted for furniture for the Royal Palaces, over £4,000 for the Houses of Parliament, £1,500 for the Customs, £3,000 for the Inland Revenue, £3,370 for the Post Office and Telegraph Offices, over £1,000 for the County Courts, and other sums for the Metropolitan Police Courts, the Sheriff Court in Scotland, the Science and Art Department of Edinburgh, &c., making, altogether, £34,000 or £35,000 expended on furniture by the Works Department alone. That did not exhaust the expenditure in connection with the Office of Works. The British Museum supplied its own furniture out of its own Vote, which it administered independently of the Office of Works, as did the Science and Art Department, the Convict Establishment, and the Prisons. The Admiralty and the War Office had their furniture supplied from two sources. For the 1593 Offices in London they looked to the Board of Works; but for all the stations outside London they provided furniture themselves out of their own Votes. In respect of having head-quarters in London with branch establishments in the Provinces, the Admiralty and War Office did not stand alone, because the Revenue Department, the Customs, the Post Office, all alike had head-quarters in London, with branch establishments and stations in the Provinces. But these Departments did not adopt the same plan as was adopted by the Naval and Military Departments, so far as the supply of furniture was concerned, so that there was absolutely nothing like uniformity of system in the Public Service in regard to that supply. There was nothing at all to secure the proper protection of the public purse in this matter. There was nothing to secure that a particular Department supplying furniture to an Office was not actually buying articles of which there were several of the same kind lying unused in another Office. He had very good reason to believe that, even as between Departments which were catered for with respect to furniture by the Board of Works, it had happened, and was happening at that very moment, that new furniture was supplied to one Office in spite of the fact that there were articles of the same kind lying unused in other Offices—articles which had been lying idle for years. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to investigate this matter. If he would do so, he might be able to ascertain where the furniture was lying, and probably he would have his eyes opened to a good many other things. He had brought this question of the needless expenditure of public money on furniture before the House in successive years, but always in vain. He had always been put off with some flimsy excuse as to the dignity of the House, or of the Minister who had to explain the matter; but now the right ton. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works must feel that something more was necessary than had been done in connection with this matter during the past few years. During the past few months the curtain had been, to some extent, lifted; and the right hon. Gentleman had been enabled to discover, in connection with one small article alone —namely, linoleum, the kind of admi- 1594 nistration which had been going on. When the peculation became known to him the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries, which resulted in the dismissal of certain officials. According to an article he had read on the subject three lower clerks were to take the place of the highly-paid officials who had been dismissed, and were to receive small additions to their salaries. The article went on to say that when the inquiry into the operations of these Departments was instituted, there would be a great many revolutions effected. He did not know on what authority this was written; but it bore out a great deal he had read about the Board of Works. It seemed to him very strange that re-organization of the Furniture Department already effected had only gone the length of replacing three highly-paid officials by three lower division clerks with £15 a-piece added to their salaries. That, to his mind, was not the way to avoid, peculation and jobbery. The way to prevent that was to employ officials of a superior quality, and to pay them good salaries, so as to put them above temptation. Then, as to the purchase of furniture, there was nothing like open competition if they wished to secure the best articles at the lowest price. At present, he believed, the furniture was supplied by manufacturers who were on the good books of the Board of Works, and these manufacturers, he had no doubt, made a very good thing of it. Furthermore, as to what became of the old furniture, he should like to know whether the official concerned in the condemnation of old furniture as obsolete and useless was also the officer who accounted for its value? If he was anyone who knew anything about the Department, he must be aware that the system was a very faulty one. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman could say, on the spur of the moment, whether the official who condemned was the same as sold the old furniture. He had referred, he thought, to a sufficient number of points to indicate the ground an investigation ought to cover. Probably the right hon. Gentleman could give the Committee some satisfactory information as to the results of his late inquiry, the nature of the re-organization he had brought about, and the nature of the precautions he proposed to take in the future to pre- 1595 vent such peculation as had been brought to light and to protect the public purse.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Gentleman had begun by pointing out that the expenditure on furniture was not in the hands of one Department. That was the case; and it was a question whether it was preferable, as a means of checking the furniture supplied to the various Departments, that the coat of all the furniture supplied at the public expense should be classed under one head, or whether, as under the present system, the separate cost of certain Departments, such as the Royal Palaces and the Diplomatic Department, should not be shown at a glance, including the amount expended for furniture on each building. Was it not more likely to conduce to economy in connection with the Bo3'al Palaces and the Diplomatic Buildings that the furniture for them should be voted under the separate heads, so as to show the aggregate cost of each, rather than that it should be voted under one head? On the whole, he thought it better that the House should see what was the total expenditure on the Royal Palaces and the Diplomatic Buildings, including their furniture, rather than that the cost of furniture should be limited to the present Vote. He believed that if all these Services were included in one Vote the country would be called on to pay a larger amount than at present. However, the point was a most important one. The tendency had been rather to concentrate the expenditure under the Vote now under discussion; but he thought they had gone far enough in that direction, and that they should now endeavour, as much as possible, to have it shown under separate heads. The hon. Gentleman said he had called attention to this Vote more than once, and had always done so in vain. That was not the case. It was in consequence of the hon. Member's remarks that lie (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had not felt satisfied with what was going on, and that the inquiries had been made which had led to the result the hon. Gentleman had alluded to. He trusted, therefore, the hon. Member would not think he had made his remarks in vain. When the hon. Member referred to cases of furniture being supplied for one Department under this Vote when there was furniture of the same description as that supplied lying unused in another De- 1596 partment, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) could only say that if the hon. Gentleman would supply him, privately, with the information on which his remarks appeared to be based, he would be much obliged to him. The hon. Gentleman had referred to re-organization of the Department. It was in course of reorganization, and its ultimate condition had not yet been finally determined. One of the Heads of the Department was looking closely into the matter, and had already brought to light certain circumstances which showed that this particular branch of the Department was not in a satisfactory condition. It was hoped that great good would result from the investigation. The hon. Member had said there was no competition for the sale of furniture to the Government. Well, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had, on previous occasions, had to inform the House, on the statements of the Heads of the several Departments, that there was competition in almost every case of the purchase of furniture.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORNot open competition.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRENo; he did not think he had stated that there was open competition; but there was limited competition in every case. He was sorry to say that the investigations of the official to whom he had adverted had brought out the fact that there was competition to a much less degree than he had been informed of, and had stated to the House. He had now directed that there should be competition in every case; not always open competition, because there were certain kinds of furniture which could not be supplied in that way. He had, however, given instructions that wherever it was possible there should be open competition; and that, under any circumstances, the competition should be more extensive than it had been hitherto.
§ MR. SALTsaid, he was glad to hear that this matter had the right hon. Gentleman's attention. It was one of those things which, in itself, seemed very small compared with the enormous expenditure of this country in other directions; but it was in these matters of detail that they must endeavour to exercise economy. Therefore, he was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had had his attention specially drawn to the subject in that 1597 House. Economy must be pressed on the public Departments in all matters of detail. He, as many other hon. Members were, was most anxious that economy in the expenditure of the country should be brought about, being alarmed at the constant growth of the Civil Service Estimates. He was satisfied that the only way to reduce the Estimates was by exercising the strictest economy in detail. What was necessary for the efficient conduct of the Public Service should not be omitted; but, on the other hand, it was necessary to press on every one connected with the Public Departments, whatever his position— whether it was one of great influence or one of a subordinate character—that the country, through that House, required that some economy should be exercised in regard to the Public Service, and exercised in every detail, however minute, just as it would be exercised in connection with a well-managed private enterprize. He wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one point in connection with this matter of furniture, and that was that an inventory of the furniture should be prepared stating the places where the furniture was used or stored. Every article should be carefully recorded in it. He did not know whether such an inventory was kept by the Board of Works; but he was quite sure that, looking at the vast amount of detail to be considered in connection with, the Department, the Service could not be properly and economically carried on unless some competent person had charge of an inventory and was responsible for entering in it every article either supplied to a Department, or taken from a Department, or transferred from one Department to another, or destroyed as worn out. He could only say he was glad the matter had the careful attention of the right hon. Gentleman, than whom no one could form, a better opinion of what was required for the Public Service.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he had not understood, from the interesting speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. O'Connor), that he had argued that there should be a change of system undertaken by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was very important that under the heads "Royal Palaces" 1598 and "Diplomatic Buildings" these Services should be shown, and that the amount for furniture should appear in the Vote. What he had understood the hon. Member (Mr. A. O'Connor) to contend was, that if they had any system, at all it should be a uniform one; and that if there was any important body of officials connected with the Board of Works to superintend the supply of furniture to the public Departments, there was no reason why they should not undertake to overlook all the furniture supplied to all the Departments. What he had understood the hon. Member to argue for was that there should be a uniform system, and that they should have this Department of the Office of Works conducted in such a business-like way that the right hon. Gentleman should control the whole of the furniture required by the different Departments of the State — that he should not simply supply a certain limited number of Departments, but supply all the Departments requiring furniture.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREThe Board of Works does supply all Departments, except the Admiralty and the War Office.
§ MR. RYLANDSExcept the Admiralty and the War Office. Those were great exceptions, and meant the buying of a considerable amount of furniture outside the Board of Works. It appeared to him that, so far as possible, the furniture should be supplied under one Department. The point he wished further to refer to was this—what was required was that there should be such a system of administration of the Furniture Department as would secure two things—first, that furniture should not be bought unless it was absolutely required; and, secondly, that old stores should not be disposed of before they were actually worn out. In order to secure that, it was quite clear that there should be an inventory—that was to say, that the Board of Works, or the Furniture Department, should have a means of knowing, from time to time, what articles of furniture there were in stock in the Departments they supplied with furniture. He did not think there should be any difficulty at all in having such an inventory as that kept. If there was a lot of furniture unused in one Department, whilst furniture of a similar description was required in another De- 1599 partment, there was no reason why the operation of transferring it should not be performed by the Board of Works. He did not gather that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works gave any information to the Committee as to what was done with worn-out furniture—whether an officer of the Board of Works was placed in a position to decide whether or not furniture should be got rid of as worn-out when, in point of fact, there might be a great deal of wear loft in it. He must say that, looking at these Votes, it had always struck him that there was a most extraordinary capacity for wearing out furniture on the part of the various public Offices. The expenditure in respect of furniture was increasing in a manner which was scarcely credible. In the Royal Palaces, and in the different Departments of the State, the furniture seemed to waste away in a marvellous manner, and large sums of money were to be voted every year to replace it. It was quite true, as stated by an hon. Gentleman (Mr. Salt), that this was a trifling Vote; yet, when they took into account the charges for furniture in other Votes, the expenditure on furniture was very large. He had no doubt they would be told that a new and improved system had been adopted, with the view of obtaining greater economy and efficiency in the Furniture Department. They might very properly ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works that, when this Vote came before the Committee next year, he would be prepared to lay before them some statement as to the reform he had secured in the administration of the Vote—as to the means he had taken to prevent the throwing aside of furniture before it was valueless, and as to the changes he had made to prevent a recurrence of the frauds which had been already detected.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, no one was better qualified to criticize this Vote than the hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor), and there was one point the hon. Gentleman had raised which the First Commissioner of Works had not noticed. The hon. Gentleman reminded the Committee that, although a large amount was put down for furniture for Royal Palaces, the Houses of Parliament, Customs, and Post Offices, yet the furniture item for each of those 1600 Departments was not specified. It was curious that the Secretary to the Treasury, with his great acuteness, should allow such an omission to take place. Generally speaking, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) took care that whenever an item was charged against any particular Department it was duly enumerated under the Vote for that Department; but in this instance, for some reason or other, he had not followed his usual practice. In the absence of details which ought to have been furnished by the Chief Commissioner of Works and the Secretary to the Treasury, the Auditor General had been obliged to try and report upon the charge for furniture as a whole by bringing together the sums charged under many Votes, but only with partial success, though it had been very properly pointed out that the Auditor General ought to be able to bring the charges incurred by each Department under one head, so as to show the total charge. It was only here and there that any mention was made of furniture; hence it was necessary so to arrange the charges as to make the liabilities under each Department complete for all purposes, or else to make special Votes to cover particular charges, such as furniture, and thereby enable the Auditor General to be able to report to the House whether the Estimates for the different Departments had been exceeded. As to the general question, whether they ought to have the whole of the furniture brought under one head, or left, as the First Commissioner of Works suggested, uncertain, and scattered over many Votes, that was the point; but he (Sir George Balfour) considered it was absurd to have 10 or 12 different Departments supplying themselves with furniture. They ought either to have the furniture brought under one Vote, or, if it were brought under different Votes, to call upon the Auditor General to state the exact amounts expended on furniture in the different Departments.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he was persuaded the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works desired to reduce expenditure; but what he (Mr. Warton) complained of was, that the right hon. Gentleman did not make up his mind as to the plan he would adopt —whether he meant to have only one Vote for furniture, or to keep up the present mongrel system, One would 1601 imagine, upon the first glance at this Vote, that the sum of £16,000 odd represented the charge for furniture for all Departments; but that, however, was by no means the case. He had read the note at the bottom of the page, to which the Secretary to the Treasury so kindly referred him; but he thought that note only showed the inconsistency of the present system—it showed how some Departments were supplied by this Vote, and how some were not. There was one point which had not yet been brought before the Committee. He saw there was an account in respect of their new friends, the Official Receivers. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) had left the House; but perhaps one or other of the present occupants of the Treasury Bench would be able to say to what Official Receivers furniture, on account of which the sum of £1,400 was charged, was supplied. It would have been as well, too, if the furniture supplied had been specified. Again, there ought to have been a note to the Vote to carry out the theory of the President of the Board of Trade that these charges on account of Official Receivers were to be recouped from the fees charged in bankruptcy. He (Mr. Warton) hoped a strict account was kept of this furniture, and that sufficient would be got out of the unhappy bankrupts to recoup the State for this expenditure. He would also like to be informed whether furniture was to be supplied to Official Receivers in future, or whether this was the first and last time that this charge would appear in the Votes?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the furniture was required for those residences which had already been provided for in Vote 5. He could not exactly say in what proportion furniture had been supplied to the various Offices.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he was of opinion that the Committee ought to be able to see at a glance what was spent by each Department upon furniture. On one point the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had not given a complete reply to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). As he understood, the hon. Gentleman raised the question whether the persons who condemned the old furniture and superintended the sale of it were the same. It 1602 was very necessary they should not be the same, because in that case opportunity would not be afforded for peculations.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the point referred to was under consideration. At present the old furniture was condemned by the same person who ordered the new furniture. Whether it would be desirable to make some change in that respect, he would consider.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would explain the mode in which he proposed that his Department should be recouped from bankrupt estates. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), who unfortunately was not at that moment in his place, told them, in connection with the previous Vote, that the expenditure voted on these Estimates would hereafter be repaid from the bankrupt estates' account. He could not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman at the moment, and he had failed to make out since how that could be effected; it seemed to him altogether an innovation in their system of public accounts. The system now in force was that, after Ways and Means had been voted as a reservoir from which to draw, they in Committee of Supply voted certain amounts for certain specific purposes, and, once voted, the amounts were spent. How the Board of Works in this particular case was to be recouped from the bankrupt estates' account, or from the profit arising from it, he did not understand; and as the matter concerned the Department of the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps he would explain how, when the cream had been skimmed off the milk of the bankrupt estates by the President of the Board of Trade, he proposed to get his share. Was it proposed that in future years the interest derived from the bankrupt estates' account should be taken in aid of the Civil Service Votes, just as the Exchequer extra receipts were now taken in aid of the Army and Navy Votes? If that was the plan which was to be adopted, a serious change was in contemplation which it would be well hon. Members should understand before committing themselves to it. If the right hon. Gentleman was not in a position to explain the matter, perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury could do so.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) had evidently misunderstood what the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) stated. What was hoped and expected was that in future years—not in the present year—the receipts from fees and the interest on money lying at the bank would more than, pay the costs of the Bankruptcy Court, and would recoup the rental and other charges which had been made in respect of the new bankruptcy machinery.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if in future years there would be stated under each particular Vote the amount which was derived from the bankrupt estates' account, and which was taken as a set-off for the charges under the particular Votes?
§ MR. COURTNEYCertainly not. There would be no such statement; but there would be a Vote taken, pro formâ at any rate, under which the matter would be brought under the notice of the Committee. The Vote would be for the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade, and every information would be given as to the receipts anticipated.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked whether it was to be understood that in next year's Estimates there would be a more detailed statement of the furniture supplied to the different Departments? He had asked the question over and over again, and bethought the time had now arrived when an answer ought to be given.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was not prepared to give any pledge to that effect. The matter was considered a good many years ago, and it was thought to be undesirable to enter into details. The matter, however, should be reconsidered.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the Secretary to the Treasury knew perfectly well that he (Sir George Balfour) was simply urging that which was but fair and reasonable. It was just as easy to give details as to present a lump sum.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £184,116, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum
1604
necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Customs, Inland Revenue, Post Office, and Post Office Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, including Furniture, Fuel, and sundry Miscellaneous Services.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURpointed out that this Vote was increased by £100,000, and that the augmentation was in respect of the new buildings for the Telegraph Department. He protested against charging the outlay for new works, thereby increasing the expenditure of the country in a way which deceived the public. He objected to the erection of buildings, and debiting the amount to the current Revenue in the way done for current salaries. He considered that the Post Office and Telegraph Departments ought to have a capital account given to them, all new buildings, and machinery shown as capital outlay, being, on the face of the accounts, a charge for interest on the capital. The Committee were deceiving themselves as to what the Post Office and Telegraph Departments were doing. He had always held that a capital account ought to be supplied to the manufacturing departments of the Arsenal— gunpowder factory, small arms, carriage, and laboratory—so that the exact amount of work done could be seen at a glance. He was of opinion that the same principle could, and ought to be, applied to the Post Office and Telegraph Departments.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, this Vote required some explanation both from the Treasury and the Post Office authorities. It had very greatly increased during the last few years—at all events, since the accession to Office of the present Government; and some hon. Members had maintained, and might maintain again, that although this Government had effected very large decreases in some Departments of the Public Expenditure, it certainly had effected very large increases in other Departments of the Public Expenditure. In 1878, two years before the last Government went out of Office, this Vote amounted to only £151,000. In the year 1879 it amounted to £168,000, and in 1880, when the late Government left Office, it amounted to £164,000, and now this year they were called upon to vote £274,000, and tin's was practically an increase of £101,000 over the expendi- 1605 ture which the present Government found when they came into Office, and the bulk of the increased expenditure arose in the Department of Post Office Buildings. he did not, in any way, propose to challenge the administration of his right hon. Friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett); but there were departments of the Post Office which the right hon. Gentleman could not himself criticize and examine; and he (Mr. Fowler) was satisfied, from an examination of the accounts of the last two or three years, that a very large amount of public money was unnecessarily expended in the erection and alteration of Post Offices. The expenditure under this head was mounting up year by year—this year it stood at £125,000—until in a very short period something like £1,000,000 would have been expended in this branch of the Public Service. As his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) had just pointed out, there was no capital account kept of the expenditure; neither was the expenditure charged to the Post Office account. It ought to be charged as against the Post Office, not as against the Civil Service Estimates. There was also another fact in regard to which he was sure the Postmaster General would feel some compunction. This year they were surprised, and grievously disappointed, at the non-fulfilment of the pledge which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave last year to reduce the minimum charge for telegrams to 6d; and the ground on which that pledge was broken, or rather on which it was not fulfilled, was that the revenue of the Post Office did not permit of such a change. That was all the more reason why there should be vigorous economy observed in respect to Post Office erections. If hon. Members would turn to page 31 of the account they would see what sums were expended upon Post Offices. For instance, the expenditure upon the General Post Office, West, was £50,000; Bedford Street, £15,000; Bradford, new office, £28,000. He did not find fault with those items, because he had no doubt they were carefully scrutinized; but it was when he came to such items as £5,500 for new office at Folkestone, £3,900 for new office at Kidderminster, £8,000 for enlargement at Leicester, £3,450 for enlargement at Nottingham, £2,000 for enlargement at 1606 Peckham, £4,000 for new office and fittings at Richmond, £2,500 for new office at St. Albans, £3,300 for new office at Stroud, £5,000 for new office at Wigan, £3,000 for enlargement at Yarmouth, and £3,200 for new office at Wisbech, that he was satisfied that if the sums were subjected to a vigorous supervision it would be found that the works could be done at considerably less cost. There was a tendency in all Public Departments, especially Departments which were concerned in the erection of buildings, to indulge in large and facile expenditure. He was sorry he was not in the House when the last Vote was taken, in order that he could have raised his protest against the expenditure of the present Government under the head of furniture. Besides, the large expenditure for new works and additions, £53,000 was required for alterations, maintenance, and repairs; and in addition to the Vote of £16,000 for furniture, which the Committee had just disposed of, they were asked to vote £3,300 for furniture for Post Offices. Although £125,000 was required for Post Office Buildings as much as £69,000 was asked for in respect of buildings connected with the Telegraph Service. As a protest against this expenditure upon Post Office Buildings, and in order to give those hon. Members of the House who were in earnest in reference to this expenditure an opportunity of entering their protest against it, he moved that the. Vote be reduced by £10,000.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £174,116, 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 1885, for the Customs, Inland Revenue, Post Office, and Post Office Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, including Furniture, Fuel, and Sundry Miscellaneous Services."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid, he was afraid that he was unable to support the proposal of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler); and he did not see how the Committee could be in in a position to form an opinion upon these matters unless they had a Return before them of the expenditure to which the hon. Member had referred. He desired to call attention to the inadequate Post Office accommodation in Liverpool, 1607 He had often urged upon the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury the necessity of incurring even a considerable expenditure of money in connection with Liverpool; and he had done so on grounds which, in his opinion, were of very great public importance. To his mind, the most expensive course that could possibly be pursued was in constantly trying to accommodate old buildings to present necessities. That was exactly the course Her Majesty's Government had adopted in regard to Liverpool. For a very long period the attention of the Postmaster General had been called to the exceedingly bad accommodation provided for the people of Liverpool, and to the fact that the Post Office in that city was altogether inadequate for the requirements of the place. He was bound to admit that the right hon. Gentleman the present Postmaster General had always displayed the greatest courtesy and consideration when this question had been brought before him, not only by those who were connected with the Post Office, but by the great mercantile community connected with Liverpool. Indeed, it was thought that they had converted the right hon. Gentleman to a very great extent to their views. Last year the Secretary to the Treasury informed him that the Government intended to make certain alterations in the existing building which they thought would meet the requirements of the case. He (Mr. Whitley) entertained a very different opinion; and he thought it was impossible to turn the old building, now used as a Post Office, into anything that was likely to meet the necessities of the public. The original Estimate of the proposed alteration was something like £5,000. That Estimate had since been revised, and the new one amounted to £16,850; but even when that money was expended he was satisfied that it would fail to provide the accommodation which a great port like Liverpool demanded. No doubt the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would say that the outlay which would be involved in the erection of a new building must be unnecessary, when the Post Office authorities themselves were of opinion that the requirements of the Port of Liverpool would be met by an additional expenditure of £5,000 or £16,000 in attempting to alter the ex- 1608 isting building. In his (Mr. Whitley's) opinion, however, it would be much wiser to face the larger expenditure at once, and to give the inhabitants of a great city like Liverpool all that they demanded. He was quite satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works and the Postmaster General knew very well what folly it was to go on altering an old building and spending money year after year in trying to make it adequate to the requirements of the town. He therefore hoped that it would not again be found necessary to bring before the Government the case of Liverpool. The people of Manchester had experienced similar difficulties with regard to Post Office accommodation; but although they had moved in the matter much later than the people of Liverpool they had succeeded in getting a handsome Post Office erected at a cost of £120,000, which he believed would give an adequate return for the outlay. Now, Liverpool was a more important and more populous commercial city than Manchester, and its requirements in the shape of Post Office accommodation were much greater. He therefore ventured to think that it was not worthy of the Government to propose year after year to alter this old building, and not provide that full and complete accommodation which the requirements of the port imperatively demanded. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would go down to Liverpool and inquire into the matter himself. The hon. Gentleman gave a sort of promise last year that he would do so. He wished the hon. Gentleman would redeem that promise. He was satisfied that the hon. Gentleman, after a personal visit to the existing building, and after hearing on all sides what the people of Liverpool thought of it, would be enabled to come back with the conviction that a very strong case indeed was made out for a new Post Office altogether. He had not the slightest doubt whatever that the expenditure, however large it might be, would meet with a very satisfactory return for the outlay.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDdisputed the accuracy of the assertions of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley). The hon. Member said that Manchester had obtained a Post Office. Now, it 1609 had not obtained a new Post Office at all. There was a new Post Office in the course of erection; but the progress made with it was extremely slow; and he should like to hear from the Postmaster General why it was that the building of the Manchester Post Office had not progressed with greater rapidity? The hon. Member for Liverpool had made another mistake. He had stated that Liverpool was a more important place than Manchester, and that it contained a larger population. He thought the hon. Member ought to have remembered that there were certain boroughs in the neighbourhood of Manchester—of which Salford was one—in regard to which Manchester was, to a certain extent, the post town. In reference to the Motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), he should certainly feel inclined to vote with his hon. Friend if he found that the Postmaster General was unable to give a satisfactory explanation of the different items which had been referred to, and especially the item of £50,000 for the erection of an additional storey to the General Post Office, West. That certainly did appear to be a very large sum of money for the erection of an additional storey to a Metropolitan Post Office.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Sir George Balfour) had appealed to him to institute a capital as well as a revenue account on behalf of the Post Office; and it was not impossible that a suggestion of that kind would meet with much favour from his right hon. Friend the Postmaster General; but he must frankly say that the feeling of the Treasury was not likely to be favourable to it. Certainly, such a proposal had hitherto been 'viewed with the utmost repugnance; and if there had been one thing pressed upon him more than another it was the necessity of meeting every charge of revenue, and of not opening a capital account. If any expenditure were to be included in the capital account, he did not at once see in what way it could be brought before the House. At the present moment the expenditure of every Department of the Public Service was defrayed out of the annual Revenue of the State, and underwent a full examination at the hands of Parliament; and there was ample security that the 1610 utmost possible economy would be insisted upon in keeping down the demands of every Department. In regard to the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), he might say that every proposal in connection with the Post Office underwent the most careful consideration and examination before it received the sanction of the Treasury. His hon. Friend was labouring under a mistake in supposing that the execution of these works was under the control of the Post Office. It was nothing of the kind. The expenditure was controlled by the Treasury; and, therefore, his hon. Friend committed a mistake in supposing that this expenditure could be made part of the Post Office Vote. The schemes for these alterations and new works were originally recommended by the Post Office authorities, and were inquired into by the Office of Works; and it was to the Office of Works that they must look for any economy that could possibly be effected in making provision for the Post Office requirements. He knew that his hon. Friend was animated by a genuine spirit of zeal for economy as well as efficiency, and he admired and sympathized very much with the feelings of his hon. Friend; but he thought that on this occasion they had led him astray, and induced him to indulge in generalities which were not warranted by the circumstances of the case. As a matter of fact, the Treasury never allowed any proposal that was made to them to take effect without insisting, in the first instance, upon a strict Report in regard to the growth of the work and the growth of the staff of the particular Post Office affected. They insisted upon being supplied with a statement showing the manner in which the work had increased, the number of letters posted, the number of letters received, the number of parcels forwarded, and every item connected with the work of the particular Post Office for which an additional expenditure was asked. The Treasury also required full information in regard to the staff showing the comparative increase of the Post Office since the last Act was taken in reference to it— probably some six or eight years previously. In that way the detail of every case which was pressed upon the Government, whether it was for an addition to an existing Office or the erection 1611 of a new Office, was reviewed not only by the Office of Works, but by the Treasury. After examining all the possible sites, making the fullest inquiry as to the cost, and sometimes, although not always, after a personal inspection, the Office of Works sent in Estimates to the Treasury, which Estimates were thoroughly revised and considered, and it was only with the concurrence of the two Departments that the work was sanctioned. Every evidence as to the necessity for the expenditure was taken before the sanction of either Department was given, and resistance to expenditure was always applied in those cases where resistance was deemed necessary. His hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had gone through certain items which appeared in the Vote, and asked for an explanation of them. The best answer he could give to his hon. Friend was the answer which had already been given by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley), who showed that in the case of Liverpool the most powerful appeals which had been made to the Government had been resisted. He could assure his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton that the same resistance was made in every case, unless good and sufficient grounds for incurring the expense were made manifest. He remembered very well, with respect to the case of Yarmouth, that a most careful scrutiny was made as to the possibility of erecting the Post Office required there for a less sum than that which was asked for. As to the additional storey for the General Post Office, West, his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works had made a personal inquiry into the whole matter. The same thin g was done in every instance. Over and over again the most careful examination was made with an anxious desire to cut down the expenditure as far as possible; and it was found absolutely impossible to bring it down below the amount which was fixed upon by the Departments concerned. Upon these considerations, he hoped his hon. Friend would see that his zeal for economy had, upon this occasion, led him somewhat beyond what the real facts of the case justified.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he quite agreed with the Secretary to the Treasury that his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) had given a most 1612 admirable illustration of the manner in which the Public Service was charged with an increased expenditure in order to gratify the desire of particular localities, and owing to the pressure put upon the Government by the Representatives of important constituencies. In fact, his hon. Friend was not only Member for a large and important constituency, but he was a man of such persuasive eloquence that he had induced the Post Office authorities to increase the Estimate? for the Liverpool Post Office from £5;000 to £17,000, and also to provide an Estimate for another Post Office in the Eastern District of Liverpool, which was to cost £7,700. Consequently, the persuasiveness of his 'hon. Friend had obtained for the City of Liverpool nearly £20,000 more than the sum originally estimated by the Department to be amply sufficient. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) did not for a moment deny that, in order to carry on the extensive business of the Post Office, the Government must be prepared to incur a certain amount of expenditure on capital account; and upon this point he thought that his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had entirely misunderstood the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire. The hon. and gallant Member had not suggested that the Post Office should have the right to open a capital account, and charge it at their own will and pleasure. He could assure his hon. Friend that the hon. and gallant Member never meant that at all.
§ MR. COURTNEYI never accused him of it.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he had understood the Secretary to the Treasury to say that if the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire were adopted, then the Post Office would have the power of making these additions to capital account without any check, and that they would be able to open a capital account without any control. The suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member was this—Her Majesty's Government paraded before the public from year to year that the receipts from the Post Office and Telegraph Department amounted to a very large sum—in point of fact, to many millions a-year. What his hon. and gallant Friend said was that against 1613 this there was put a certain amount of expenditure, and the public were led to believe that the difference between the two sums was the profit earned by the Department. All his hon. and gallant Friend's desire was that the public should be so far informed as to know that in order to get this result, so far as the profit of a certain number of millions was concerned, it was necessary to add largely to the capital account every year, and the total sum expended in that way in former years amounted to some millions of money, which, however, did not appear on the face of the accounts. It was the intention of his hon. and gallant Friend to point out that, in matters in regard to which a profit arose, there was very likely to be a certain amount of carelessness in the expenditure. People were apt to say—"The Government can very well afford to spend money on the Post Office and Telegraph Services." It ought, however, to be pointed out that every year the margin between the cost and the profit was getting less—that was to say, that while it was perfectly true that they were doing a large business and receiving a large sum of money for the Post Office and Telegraph Services, they were spending, year by year, a larger sum in proportion, without reference to the capital account, which was entirely separate. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire was of opinion that they ought to treat this account like business men—that they should try to make as much profit on behalf of the public as possible; and that in order to make that profit they should exercise some control over the expenditure of the capital account. That was what a man would do in connection with his own private business; but he did not believe that the same control was exercised by the Government Department. He did not wish his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury to suppose that he doubted his hon. Friend's zeal for economy. He was certain that, to the best of his ability, his hon. Friend had done everything in his power. He entertained the highest opinion, as he was sure all of them did, of the Secretary to the Treasury. He had great and good reason to know, from the position he (Mr. Rylands) occupied upon the Public Accounts Committee, that his hon. Friend and the Treasury 1614 did their duty, as far as they were able to do it, in checking the Public Expenditure, He should, however, like to know a little more from his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works as to the course taken by his Department, because it would appear that the system, as it had been explained by the Secretary to the Treasury, was a somewhat involved one. His right hon. Friend the Postmaster General—one of the best Postmasters General who had ever filled the Office—was most anxious —and it was to be said to his honour— to develop the Post Office system, and facilitate in every way the convenience of the public. It was not, therefore, likely that his right hon. Friend would come down to the degrading consideration of pounds, shillings, and pence. Nor did his right hon. Friend do that. His right hon. Friend smiled his approval. He wished, very properly, that his Department should be administered in the best possible way regardless of expense. [Mr. FAWCETT: Oh, dear, no. At any rate, his right hon. Friend desired that the Department should be administered in the way best calculated to meet the public requirements. Accordingly, he went to the First Commissioner of Works, and stated what he wished to have done. The First Commissioner of Works, he (Mr. Rylands) presumed, consulted some of the officials under him. He hardly knew what that meant. Did the right hon. Gentleman send one of his officials down to Manchester, or Yarmouth, or Liverpool, or Nottingham, or any of the places mentioned by the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler)? Who was it who settled the plans or decided upon the character of the building required? No doubt the local postmaster, in the first instance, had certain plans made, and then an official was sent down from the Board of Works to determine the plans prepared or the suggestions of the local postmaster. What was the next step taken? Was there any competition? If not, what was done to protect the interests of the public? He (Mr. Rylands) knew perfectly well that if he were going to erect a building for purposes of his own, he should like to get it constructed as cheaply as he possibly could, and he would not care about doing very much in the way of ornament for the glorification of the town, 1615 or with the view of gratifying the Representative of a large and important constituency. He should like to have some information from the First Commissioner of Works as to what it was he did in order to check and prevent unnecessary expenditure? Was there anything in regard to any officials connected with the Government to impose a check on the expenditure, or was there any inducement, in the shape of commission, which enabled anyone to derive a positive advantage from spending as much money as possible upon these buildings? He should certainly like to know that, because he did not know whether that was so or not. He thought his right hon. Friend the Postmaster General might fairly consider this point—that while he was increasing the business of the Post Office very much, indeed, and doing a roaring trade, yet the expense of the business was increasing much more largely in proportion than the amount of the business lie was doing. [Mr. FAWCETT: No.] He believed he was correct in stating that if they took the gross receipts and gross charge they would find that the charge was increasing rather more rapidly than the receipts. [Mr. FAWCETT: No; that is not so.] It certainly was the case up to a very recent period, and he thought that hon. Members generally would confirm his recollection. What, however, he wanted to press upon the Postmaster General was this—that while the Post Office did an increased business and knew that it could not be obtained without an increased expenditure, some attempt should be made to prevent the expenditure of the Department from going on in so rapid a ratio or in a more rapid ratio than the returns from the Department. He did not, however, look to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General as altogether responsible for the expenditure. He looked upon him as being the originator of all these schemes for the public advantage; and with regard to the expenditure itself, he looked, first of all, to the First Commissioner of Works, who, he trusted, would be able to give a good account of himself; and, in the next place, to the Treasury. One thing further; he wished to express a hope that his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury would, in the future, be still more hard-hearted than he had been in the past, and that he 1616 would turn a deaf ear to the persuasive language of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley), and refuse, unless it was absolutely necessary to gratify a natural disposition on the part of various large towns, to have a considerable amount of money spent upon them, in order that such towns might be adorned and beautified at the public expense.
§ MR. ROUNDsaid, he desired to avail himself of the opportunity of protesting against the expenditure of Her Majesty's Government at the present moment. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had already pointed out that this particular Vote showed an increase of expenditure to the extent of £100,000. That seemed to him to be a very large sum indeed for a single year. If the country were in a prosperous state as regarded trade and agriculture, he would be the last man to object to such an expenditure; and he knew that the Postmaster General would not recommend it to the Treasury if he did not consider it to be absolutely necessary and justifiable; but, knowing what the present state of the country was so far as the agricultural districts were concerned, and judging especially from his own constituency, he felt bound to avail himself of this opportunity in order to object to so large an increase of expenditure upon one particular Vote. If the expenditure was spread over two or three years it would be a different thing; but if they were to have an increase of £100,000 upon one Vote in a single year, how were they to feel secure that next year they might not be asked to consent to a further increase of another £100,000?
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Member was under a misapprehension. Instead of there being an increase upon the Vote for the year, there was really a decrease of £53,496 as compared with last year.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the increase of £100,000 which he had referred to was an increase in the Vote for the present year as compared with the expenditure of the last year of the Conservative Government. It was quite true that there was an enormous extra expenditure last year for the Parcel Post, and, therefore, there was a reduction this year; but what he wished to point out was that there was really an 1617 increase in the present Vote, as between the expenditure of a Liberal and Conservative Government, of £100,000.
§ MR. ROUNDsaid, he did not put the matter as one of comparison between the economical administration of a Conservative and a Liberal Government; but at this moment the Committee must be well aware that the agricultural districts were suffering from severe depression; and, as a Member for an agricultural constituency, he protested against the increase in this Vote as shown by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and also against a large expenditure being incurred in one year which ought to have been spread over at least two or three years.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, it was necessary that he should say a few words in reply to the observations which had been made. He had been asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in what relation his Department stood with regard to the Post Office. His hon. Friend was right in saying that the demand for increased accommodation in connection with the Post Office originated with the Postmaster General. His right hon. Friend the Postmaster General, if he desired to make some addition to the Post Office accommodation, applied in the first instance to the Department of the Office of Works. The Office of Works sent down one of their Surveyors to inquire thoroughly into the matter and report upon it; and then, after having ascertained what the cost would be, the Office of Works made an application to the Treasury for the amount that would be necessary to give effect to the wishes of the Post Office. He need scarcely say that the Office of Works was not interested in increasing the expenditure; on the contrary, they desired to do everything in their power to keep down the public expenditure. The Committee must recollect that the business of the Post Office was constantly growing, and that it would require a continual expenditure of money to meet its increased requirements. He thought it was stated by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Financial Statement, that the increased receipts from the Post Office now amounted to £2,000,000 a-year. So large an additional Revenue must necessarily demand the alteration 1618 of existing Offices and the construction of new ones. It was only natural to expect that constant demands would be made upon the Government for additional expenditure. He would give as an illustration the case of Liverpool, which had been opportunely brought before the Committee by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Whitley). Now, the people of Liverpool had made loud complaints of the existing Post Office, and the postal authorities in Liverpool had themselves made certain demands upon the Office of Works, in order to provide improved accommodation. The Surveyor of the Office of Works was sent down to Liverpool, and inspected the existing Post Office. Further than that, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) went down himself not long afterwards; and he came to the conclusion that, although the building at Liverpool was not what might altogether be desired, and was not such a building as would be erected now at the present moment, yet, on the whole, it would be better to alter that existing building than to undertake the enormous expenditure which was pressed upon the Government by the people of Liverpool and by the hon. Member for that City (Mr. Whitley)—an expenditure that would amount to more than £300,000. It certainly seemed that it would be better to expend a few thousand pounds in altering the present Offices rather than to undertake the enormous expenditure that would be necessary in order to procure a new site at great cost for the erection of a new building. In regard to the extension of the General Post Office, West, constant representations had been made as to the necessity of providing increased Post Office accommodation for the West End of London. It was proposed that they should remove the whole of the telegraph work from the existing buildings in the Post Office, and erect a new building in another part of the City of London. He had examined into the matter carefully, in concurrence with the Surveyor of his Department, and he had come to the conclusion that it would be far better to add to the existing Post Office, if it were possible; and, on making inquiry, he found that it was possible to add a new storey to that building. No doubt, £50,000 appeared to be a large sum of money to be expended in adding a new storey to an existing building; but it 1619 must be recollected that the building itself covered nearly an acre of land, and hon. Members must also bear in mind what the expense of obtaining a new site in the City would have been, taking into account the value of land where the Post Office now stood.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked where the Post Office, West, was?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Post Office, West, immediately adjoined the General Post Office, and under the arrangement which had been made it had been found possible to provide accommodation for the Telegraph Office without erecting a new building. He thought that was a far more economical arrangement than any other that could be devised, and he was perfectly prepared to justify it in every possible way. He believed that the actual cost of the erection of the new storey would be nothing like £50,000. As a matter of fact, it would not cost more than £30,000 or £35,000; but it had been considered possible that the work might interfere with the light and air enjoyed by the owners of the adjoining property, and therefore an estimate of £50,000 was originally made, so as to cover all liabilities in that respect. Even if they should be called upon to expend, in reference to the claims which might be made upon them for light and air, the full sum of £50,000, he contended that it would be a far more economical arrangement than to purchase from the City of London a new area in which to provide the necessary accommodation. Therefore he had had no hesitation whatever in recommending the enlargement of the existing Post Office, and that enlargement was now being carried out. He felt bound to say—and he had no doubt that his right hon. Friend the Postmaster General would agree with him in the statement—that it was impossible to look for any largely decreased expenditure in future in connection with the Post Office accommodation of London. After enlarging the present building the accommodation afforded at the Post Office, West, would not be sufficient for the Post Office requirements. As a matter of fact, they were spending now no less a sum than £13,000 a-year in London for the rent of outside buildings, many of them inconveniently situated, so that the staff were not able to be properly supervised; and in His opinion it would 1620 be absolutely necessary in a short time to provide increased accommodation in some buildings more immediately adjoining the Post Office.
§ MR. WHITLEYasked if he correctly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the sum expended in this way was £13,000 a-year?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREreplied in the affirmative. That sum was expended in rents in the City of London for buildings spread about outside the Post Office in making provision for clerks who ought to be brought together under one roof. Before long it would be absolutely necessary—and as a matter of fact it was under consideration now— to spend a much larger sum of money than that which was asked for by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Whitley) for Liverpool in order to provide accommodation immediately adjoining the present Post Office in London for the staff, for whom at present no provision was made in the existing buildings, and for the increased staff which it would be necessary to employ in the course of a few years.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he could not understand the figure mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, as the item in the Vote itself was only £4,700.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the sum of £13,000 which he referred to came under some other head, and did not appear in the present Vote. Probably it would be found in the Post Office Vote in the shape of an item for rents under that Vote. At any rate, as a matter of fact, the Government were at that moment spending £13,000 a-year in that way. His hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had alluded to several other items of expenditure, and had mentioned Folkestone, Richmond, and St. Alban's. Those cases were illustrations of the claims made upon the Post Office for new buildings; and he was bound to say that when a town reached any importance it was better that the Post Office should have a building for itself rather than hire or lease a building and pay rent, especially when it was almost impossible to obtain a building altogether suited to the Post Office requirements. Nothing could be more inconvenient for the Post Office purposes than such an arrangement as that, involving, as it did, all kinds of difficulties in the way of arranging with owners; and altogether it 1621 was far better that a Post Office should be supplied by the Government in towns which, had reached a certain position of importance. Now, the town of Richmond was certainly not a small one, and £4,000 was by no moans a large sum to pay for the erection of a new Post Office in such a town. Then again, in Folkestone it was proposed to erect a new Office at a cost of £4,500, and another in St. Alban's at a cost of £2,500. He did not think that those sums were excessive. All that he could say was that the plans had been carefully considered by the Surveyor of his Department, and that the matter had been fully gone into by the Office of Works. Application was then made to the Treasury, who also inquired into the matter, but from a totally different point of view. It was only when the concurrence of the two Departments had been secured that the sanction of the Government was given to the expenditure. His hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had pointed out that the Vote had increased by £100,000 since the year 1880; but his hon. Friend should recollect that since then they had established the Parcel Post. A considerable portion of the expense of establishing the Parcel Post was provided for in the Estimates of last year; but, to a certain extent, the Estimates this year were increased by the same cause, and there was a continuation in the present Vote of the expenditure incurred last year in that respect. He was unable to state the exact amount; but he believed it to be somewhere about £50,000, and consequently the cause which led to the increase of expenditure last year — namely, the establishment of the Parcel Post — would still operate in the present year. Nor did he think there would be much diminution in future years in respect of this Vote. There were constant applications pressed upon the Government from different parts of the country which it was impossible to refuse. It would be seen in the present Vote that there was an item of £28,000 for the Bradford Post Office. That was a matter which he believed had been under consideration for many years. The Bradford people had complained very much of the delay which had taken place; but, at last, the Government had bought a site in the middle 1622 of the town which met with the full approval of the Bradford people, and they intended this year to commence building upon it. He dared say that the inhabitants of Liverpool would express some surprise that it had been decided to erect a new building at Bradford, whereas it was only proposed to alter the existing building at Liverpool. All he could say was that every consideration had been given to every claim, and that no decision had been come to without taking the fullest opinion as to the necessity, and without a sincere desire to meet all the requirements of the case.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the right hon. Gentleman to give some explanation in regard to the delay in the completion of the Manchester Post Office.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the new Office at Manchester was already partly completed, and he believed the completed portion was already occupied. The remaining portion would be completed as rapidly as possible.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, he had listened attentively to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works; and he confessed that the proposed arrangement with regard to the Post Office buildings did not appear to him altogether satisfactory; £50,000 was a very large sum to be expended upon an old building by way of adding to it another storey. No doubt the present building covered a considerable area, as the right hon. Gentleman stated —something like an acre of ground. And there was no doubt that, on the face of it, it appeared cheaper to add a storey to the present building than to erect a new building upon a fresh site; but the right hon. Gentleman admitted, in the same breath, that it would be necessary to obtain additional space for other new buildings for the Post Office, so that he had it in reserve to provide ground for an additional building. He (Mr. Gregory) thought, however, it would be much better to face the difficulty at the outset. The Chief Commissioner of Works spoke of additional space in another part of London for the building which he contemplated; and he thought, from his knowledge of the present price of land in the Metropolis, that the right hon. Gentleman could not have a better opportunity than the present for getting the land which he re- 1623 quired. In the City particularly there had been over-speculation in building, and the consequence was that a great deal of land was in the market for disposal. He ventured to say that it would be much better, and fairer, to ask Parliament to vote a certain sum, and, with that money in hand, gradually to acquire the land necessary for additional Post Office accommodation. Parliament would, no doubt, readily grant the amount asked for; and there was such confidence in the right hon. Gentleman who at present filled the Office of Postmaster General that there was no need why they should hesitate to place the disposal of it in his hands. He believed that, with the assistance of Sir Henry Hunt, the land, which he felt satisfied was now to be had on easy and favourable terms, would prove a profitable investment. Of course, he did not suggest that the Government should go openly into the market, but that they should proceed cautiously, as any man of business would do, by their agent; and in that way they would be able to carry out a much better arrangement than that of the always unsatisfactory and expensive plan of making additions to old buildings. With, respect to the general question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour), he believed there was a good deal in the suggestion that a capital account should be established for the Post Office and Telegraph Departments, and that, instead of debiting the Revenue of each year with the expenditure incurred, such Revenue should not be chargeable with the cost of structural and other permanent expenditure. If a capital account were established, expenditure for permanent objects could be met by means of loans drawn from such account, and a fair rate of interest paid out of the Revenue of the year on the money so borrowed.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he was glad to see the Postmaster General in his place, and knowing how ready he was at all times to give information as to the Department over which he presided, he ventured to ask him for a short statement with reference to the working of the Parcel Post. He believed that the feeling in the public mind was that it had, up to the present, cost a great deal of money, and that the profits were not sufficient to cover the expenditure which had taken place— 1624 that at present there was a loss, and that it was problematical when there would be a gain. He would like to know how far the increased accommodation, alterations, and enlargements, beginning at page 31 of the Estimate, were to be ascribed to the necessities and requirements of the Parcel Post, because there was only one amount of £2,000 specifically placed to that Department, as for maintenance and repairs of Parcel Offices in London and the country. The points on which he desired information were, first, as to the proportion of the expenditure in question necessitated by the Parcel Post; secondly, as to the annual expense of carrying out that system; thirdly, as to what the result had been to the public; fourthly, what was the extent of the loss up to the present time; and, finally, as to the period which it was expected would elapse before there would be a profit from the new Department.
§ MR. FAWCETTSir, several remarks have been made in the course of this discussion which, as they relate to the Departments represented by the First Commissioner of Works and the Secretary to the Treasury, it is scarcely necessary that I should refer to. But I should like to make this general observation, that anyone acquainted with the rapidly increasing business of the Post Office will perceive that it is a Department which must make constant demands for the increase of the plant and machinery necessary for carrying on that work. I do not wish to weary the Committee with statistics, and I did not know this afternoon that a general debate would be raised upon this Estimate; but there are one or two statistics fresh in my memory, and which I think will illustrate the extraordinary development of the Departments connected with the Post Office, and those statistics lead to the conclusion that if you can only succeed in bringing within reach of the mass of the people facilities of which they can avail themselves, it is scarcely possible even for the most fervid imagination to conceive the extent to which those facilities would be availed of. I may mention one fact connected with the introduction of the system of cheap Money Orders, known as Postal Orders, and I am anxious to do so because I can describe the success of that arrangement without taking any credit there from to myself. When the 1625 present Government came into Office, I found a Bill at the Post Office for carrying out that system, the credit of which is therefore due to my Predecessor, the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners), remember asking one of the most experienced officials in that Department of the Public Service what he thought would be the number of Postal Orders issued; and the late Mr. Chetwynd, the gentleman to whom I refer, said that the number would probably be 50,000 a-week. At first the number was almost exactly what he predicted; but no sooner did the people discover that they had the means of sending small sums of money to their friends—sums as small as Is. at the charge of a halfpenny—than they availed themselves of the system to the extent that, instead of the estimated issue of 50,000 a-week, the number rose to between 260,000 and 280,000; the somewhat sanguine estimate, as it was considered, of 50,000 a-week being exceeded by more than 500 per cent. I will give the Committee another example. Of course, I have nothing whatever to do with the success which, within the last 10 years, has attended the system of Post Office Savings Bank deposits; but these have within the last 10years increased by £20,000,000. Within the last four years theyhaveincreasedby£10,000,000, while the number of depositors has increased by 1,000,000; and I put it to commercial Gentlemen in this House that if you are carrying on a banking business which, within four years, increases its deposits by £10,000,000, and the number of its customers by 1,000,000, you will require a large extension of machinery for the purpose of carrying on that business. Now, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) has gone through the list of Post Offices throughout the country, and asks, why do you build here and why do you build there? Let me tell the hon. Member what are the kind of representations made to us. We get a letter, perhaps from the Mayor of a town, and he says that "so inadequate is the Post Office accommodation for the business which we are now doing, that with my own eyes I have seen a crowd of people waiting for an hour in the rain to put their small deposits into the Post Office Savings' Bank;" and then he appeals to me as to whether "that is the state of things which should be al- 1626 lowed to continue in a Department yielding a profit of some £2,500,000 annually to the Revenue of the country?" I ask my hon. Friend, as a man of business, whether it is possible to resist such an appeal as that; whether the public of this country would approve it, if it were resisted? I give this as one fact simply, but in every direction the work of the Post Office has increased. No doubt the expenditure has increased largely also; but if you take a considerable period, not a period of one, two, or three years, because the comparison of a short period may be disturbed by some exceptionally large charge—such, for instance, as the purchase of a large building—but if you take a considerable period of time it will be found that the annual profit of the Post Office has increased with greater rapidity than its gross expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works has alluded to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Financial' Statement this year, brought forward some striking figures with regard to the increase in the Civil Service Expenditure within the last ten years, and that he said of that increase more than £2,300,000 were due to increased expenditure in connection with the Postal and Telegraphic Services. But I can show that this increase of expenditure does not indicate a less effectual control over the expenditure generally; it simply indicates the necessary and unavoidable expenditure incurred in meeting the growing business of the Department, as will be seen when I say that although the expenditure has increased by £2,300,000 in the period named, we are actually making a profit of £700,000 or £800,000 a-year more than we were 10 years ago. With regard to the Parcel Post Expenditure referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), I do not wish to conceal anything; and I have very little to add to what I stated on this subject when the Supplementary Estimates were under discussion. The Parcel Post does not now pay, and I do not see how it should do so in the first year of its existence. We have no capital account, and consequently for the first six months the whole of the charges necessary to bring the new service into operation had to be thrown into current expenditure and borne by Revenue. Those first 1627 charges, as is pointed out in this Estimate, have not as it were expended their force up to the present time. I will not be rash enough to fix the exact period which will elapse before there is a balance between expenditure and revenue with regard to the Parcel Post, the Postal Services of the country being be inextricably entwined that it is impossible to make a correct separate estimate of the Parcel Post Expenditure; but I believe that the time will soon arrive when there will be a balance, and in addition to that I believe that the expenditure on account of the Parcel Post, which it is almost impossible to calculate now, will assist in the development of other branches of Postal Revenue. And now I will explain this in a way that will interest the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, by an example drawn from Ireland. During the winter there was an advertisement that some remarkably good knitted socks were made in Donegal; some were ordered, and they were sent by post, the charge being 3d. A Postal Order was bought to pay for them, forwarded in a letter, and a receipt was sent for the amount. In this way, although we only received 3d. from the Parcel Post, there was an additional sum of 4d. from other sources, which went to the general Revenue of the country. In this way things obtained from Donegal were brought at as small a cost for carriage as if sent for from a neighbouring village. I think this shows that if we were to attempt to strike a balance between the Parcel Post Expenditure and Revenue, we might fail to arrive at a true idea of the actual results, because it would not be possible to take an account of the way in which this and other postal facilities may stimulate the postal and other revenues of the country.
§ MR. CAUSTONasked if the large increase of £13,781 over the Estimate of last year included the necessary expenditure in connection with the 6d. telegrams, because, if not, he feared that next year there would probably be a difficulty in respect of the buildings required to carry out that change. He hoped they would have an assurance that the sum referred to included the amount that would be required on that account. He was, of course, aware that 1628 it was not competent to a private Member to move an increase of a Vote; but he was sure that in case of need it could be very well increased in the public interest.
§ MR. FAWCETTI may say, in reply to the hon. Member who has just sat down, that the item of £53,000 for the General Post Office is, to a great extent, due to the increased accomodation which will be required when the 6d. telegrams are introduced. The growing business of the Office could not possibly be met without the addition of another storey to the present building.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he had understood that there was no difficulty in the way of introducing 6d. telegrams this year, except the objection on the part of the Treasury to the expenditure that it would entail. It was demonstrated before the Select Committee that the Telegraph Department was not doing at the time one-third of the work which the existing staff with the plant at their disposal could perform. Nothing whatever had been said about another storey being required at the Post Office in connection with the Telegraphic Service. the statement of the right hon. Gentleman showed in the clearest possible way that the Parcel Post, instead of taking from the Revenue of the Post Office Department, added to it and they mow by the statements of the right hon. Gentleman to the House that the reduction of the cost of telegrams from 3s. or 4s. to 1s. had had the same effect upon the Revenue. He was certain that if the right hon. Gentleman had been left to himself and to his own resources, without any supervision on the part of the Treasury, he would have decided to give the contemplated concession at once to the public, instead of postponing it on the paltry plea that the Department which commanded a profit of £2,000,000 a-year could not risk the loss of a few thousands. He had been struck by the adaptability of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman to a question which he (Mr. Gray) had drawn attention to a short time ago—namely, the way in which the Post Office Department had acted in the case of telephones. As that question was to a certain extent applicable to the present Vote, he ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that his arguments went a little further than the question as to the Parcel Post, and that, as 1629 had been proved by the experience of other countries, the facilities afforded by telephonic communication would add to the Revenue derived from the Postal and Telegraphic Services. He ventured to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be better if his policy of serving the public by increasing their facilities by means of the Parcel Post and reduced charges for telegrams were applied to a business which did not so immediately come under the control of his Department, but which was so connected with the system of public communication that it must necessarily serve, instead of injuring, the Postal Revenues. But the policy of the Department with reference to telephones had reversed the advantages which the right hon. Gentleman so eloquently described as resulting from the Parcel Post. The Post Office had obtained partial possession of telephones by a method which he said was very nearly akin to a process of legal chicanery.
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the Vote before the Committee was not that on which the question raised by the hon. Member should be discussed.
§ MR. GRAYwished to renew the discussion he had initiated some time ago on the subject of telephones.
THE CHAIRMANremarked upon the great inconvenience of having repeated discussions, at inopportune moments, on the same subject. The hon. Member had gone very fully into this question of telephones the other day. Now, any observations on that subject would be quite irrelevant to the Vote before the Committee.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he bowed to the Chairman's decision. He should like to know to what extent that decision precluded him from discussing the question of telephones? He would not, directly or indirectly, set himself up against the ruling of the Chairman, even if he had the power; but, as a matter of Order, he wished to know whether he was entitled to discuss the question of the use of the telephone by the Post Office, the telephone being used in the building the Vote for which was now under discussion?
THE CHAIRMANThere is a matter of fact involved in that. I have already pointed out that it is to the convenience of the Committee that the question of telephones should only be discussed on 1630 the Post Office Vote. The present Vote is for buildings, fuel, and some miscellaneous items; and if the hon. Gentleman on this discusses all the subjects which were discussed the other night on the Post Office Vote, and which can be discussed again at another stage, it will be very inconvenient to the Committee. I am of opinion that his remarks on the subject of telephones are not strictly relevant to the Vote before the Committee.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the Treasury had very cleverly drawn a red herring across the scent of his Motion. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General on the manner in which he had defended the extravagance of the Department on the ground of promoting efficiency. That was the ordinary ground on which extravagance was defended, hon. Gentlemen who complained of the extravagance always being dealt with as wishing to detract from the efficiency of the Department. He was not desirous of impugning the great service the Post Office rendered to the public; and it would be his last wish to reflect, in the slightest degree, upon the admirable manner in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fawcett) discharged his duties. He must say, however, that, in his opinion, it was not necessary, in order to secure all the advantages which the public enjoyed, and to provide the buildings which the Public Service required, that so much money should be spent. The Vote last year and the Vote this year for Post Office and Telegraph Buildings alone represented a sum of upwards of £420,000. He did not mean to say that there was a single building mentioned in the Vote which was unnecessary; but he did mean to say, notwithstanding the explanation of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, that the buildings ought to have been, and could have been, put up at much less expense. Let him call attention again to the items for new Post Offices—and do not let it be supposed that he objected to any one of them. But a Post Office was not like an iron-works or a cotton mill, or a variety of other buildings put up by manufacturers, which varied according to the amount of business transacted in 1631 them. A Post Office was put up for the transmission of letters, telegrams, and parcels; and there could not be a very great difference in the amount of this kind of work to be done in towns of nearly the same size. There was no legitimate room for the enormous discrepancy between the cost of the buildings in different towns as shown in the Estimate. The Committee would see under the Vote that the Post Offices were to cost, in Boston, £2,500; Cambridge, £9,500; Exeter, £13,500; Folkestone, £5,500; Glasgow, £57,785; Manchester, £108,000; Guildford, £3,500; Halifax, £9,500; Kidderminster, £4,000; St. Alban's, £2,500; Watford, £4,000; Wigan, £5,000; and York, £7,800. The figures showed that in some of these places there was a liberal hand at work which wanted considerably checking and restraining. He did not think the Postmaster General would be astonished if the Committee expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which public money was being expended for these purposes. Having regard to the fact that it was proposed to spend £423,000 in two years on Post Office buildings, and taking into account that the public were to be deprived of 6d. telegrams on the ground that the Post Office could not afford it, as a distinct protest against the rate of expenditure now going on in the Department, he should press his Amendment to a Division.
§ MR. CAUSTONsaid, he should like to have some evidence that the expenditure proposed in the Estimate was extravagant before he voted with the hon. Member. The hon. Member said that certain sums of money were to be spent in the towns he had named; but he had not given any evidence that the expenditure was extravagant. He (Mr. Causton) did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General himself, even, was acquainted with the details of the expenditure. He was anxious to support the hon. Member in his endeavour to decrease expenditure; but he thought he had a right to have some details as to the extravagance of the items before he could object to them. So far as he knew, the money ordinarily spent in connection with the Post Office was highly beneficial to the public and the commercial community.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that even a cursory examination of this Vote 1632 would show that a great deal of the money asked for under it would never be spent, and was not really wanted. Tens of thousands of pounds had been voted over and over again for some of the places referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and had never been drawn or needed. If they turned to page 33 of the Estimates they would see from the total that £420,000 was asked for; but that, although since the 30th of September, 1883, £362,000 was obtained in Votes and re-Votes, only a third of that had been spent, and that between the 1st of October, 1883, and the 31st of March of this year, only a further sum of £40,000 was spent, making a total of £160,000. They found that sort of thing taking place every year in which they examined these Estimates. He had found it going on in the 10 or 15 years during which he himself had examined the Estimates; therefore, he assumed, that the large sums asked for this year would never be spent. If the Post Office really wanted the sums they asked for, why did they not obtain them and spend them? Why did they obtain the money and return it to the Exchequer, only to ask for it to be re-voted another year? The Post Office knew that it was asking for a great deal more money than it was likely to spend. What was the reason? The fact was, the Department liked to draw money in this loose fashion, because, if they did not, they would be confined to the expenditure of a particular sum for a particular service in a particular place. They knew that if they had a margin they could, without saying anything about it, appropriate £5,000 or £10,000 from time to time for services that had never been thought of before, but which they took it into their heads to arrange for during the financial year after the Estimates were passed. The House of Commons could have no effective control over these matters under such an arrangement, and the only way in which they could secure that control was by taking care not to vote more money than was actually wanted.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, it was stated at the bottom of page 33 that £20,000 had been deducted from the Vote, in respect of works which might not be carried out during the year. The Department he represented did not suppose that all the works would 1633 be carried out. There were a large number of places involved, and it was quite impossible to carry all the works out. Very often, when these sums were voted, delays took place in the acquisition of sites, and it was found out of the question to go on with the operations which they had expected to be able to commence. The consequence was that year after year there was a large amount of money voted which could not be spent. It was usual to deduct, at the end of the account, the money not spent. The Government were extremely anxious to cut down these expenses as far as possible, and every item had been examined with minuteness. He was sure they had now arrived nearer to perfection in the matter than they had done for years.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he sympathized with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) in his efforts to reduce expenditure, when it could be done judiciously; but he could not follow the hon. Member in his harsh condemnation of the expenditure of the Post Office. The Post Office gave the country a larger amount of service for the money spent on it than any other Department—at any rate, that was his opinion. They were chary in making their contributions to the Post Office, and the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General was chary in making his demands. There was a feeling on the part of Municipalities of large towns in favour of improving the architecture of the public buildings; and in cases with which he was acquainted it had been with the greatest possible difficulty that the local authorities had been able to induce the Department to consent to the expenditure of a few hundreds of pounds in order to make the Post Office buildings uniform with the streets. Considering the services the Post Office rendered to the community, and that in great Public Departments like this they should not scrape down every 1s., he hoped the hon. Member for Wolverhampton would not be too hard, and push his Amendment to a Division.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he hoped it would not be supposed that those who criticized the Vote wished to depreciate the value of the services of the Post Office, or of the Postmaster General, as the head of the Department. What 1634 they contended was that these large Votes were asked for as an expression of confidence in the Department, and nothing else. It was said that the more money that was spent in the Post Office the greater was the service the public got in return; but if that were a sound argument the amount of money voted to the Post Office might be unlimited. Whether the Parcel Post was, or was not, likely in the end to prove remunerative to the Department they could not say; and they would, therefore, like to have some statement from the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General as to what the results of the Parcel Post so far had been, and the possibilities as to the future. They would like to have that statement, because in the enormous expenditure they were now discussing there was no account of that particular service. In any large private commercial enterprize there would be sure to be some calculation as to what the returns were likely to be; and he was certainly of opinion that before they went further they were entitled to ask, within reasonable bounds, for some definite estimate of the probabilities in the future of the Parcel Post.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he was extremely sorry he was not in a position to give anything like a detailed estimate with regard to the working of the Parcel Post system. He was unable to do it for the simple reason—as he had already explained—that they had come to the conclusion that for the work of the Parcel Post to be economically performed it would be necessary, as far as possible, to fuse it with that of the General Post. And when that was done, it would be just as impossible to give an estimate of the cost of the Parcel Post as it would be to give an estimate of the cost of the Newspaper Post. He would give one example, in reference to a large town— namely, Bristol. It was complained that in that town letters from the North often arrived too late to be sent out in. the first delivery. Frequent complaints were made by the merchants of Bristol of great loss in consequence. He had made an estimate of the cost of establishing a special delivery of letters from the North of England in that town, and had come to the conclusion that he would not be justified in sanctioning it, though he refused the request made to 1635 him with great reluctance. When, however, the Parcel Post had been in operation some months, he had found it possible to have the delivery of parcels combined with the delivery of Northern letters, and in that way had given the general postal accommodation that had long been desired by the people of Bristol. That being the case, it was almost impossible to say how much ought to be put down to the Parcel Post, and how much to the general improvement of the Service—just as in London, for instance, it would be impossible to say how much should be put down for letters, and how much for newspapers. In connection with the improvement of the postal arrangements of the country, he was not able to give a precise estimate of the cost of the Parcel Post; but he believed that the Parcel Post expenditure would not exceed the revenue when they had got rid of the first charges, and that the operation of the system would result in collateral and incidental advantage to the general service of the country. He was not in a position to say more at present.
§ MR. MOLLOYwished to know what was the position of the question as to overhead telegraph wires, and how far the system of underground wires would be adopted?
§ MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said he was afraid that question could not be discussed nnder the present Vote.
§ MR. MOLLOYIt comes under Post Office Buildings, I think.
THE CHAIRMANThe question seems to me like the one I referred to a short time ago. It seems to me to belong to the Post Office Vote, which will come under discussion later on.
§ MR. MOLLOYI think you will find nothing will come under discussion later on with regard to the Telegraph Service. This is the only opportunity there will be to raise the question. The other Vote will be for the personnel.
§ MR. MOLLOYYou will find that is a Vote for the personnel, and has nothing to do with the matériel.
§ MR. RAMSAYsaid, he thought that as all the money specified in the Estimate would not be wanted, the Government might consent to a reduction. By submitting this unnecessarily large item, and so challenging criticism, they 1636 were taking up the time of the Committee needlessly.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (6.) £20,125, to complete the sum for County Court Buildings.
§
(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,549, 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 1885, for the Metropolitan Police Court Buildings.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that Item B of the Vote amounted to £6,549, and it was to one of the small details of that item he wished to call attention— namely, to the sum of £85 for the rent of the Wandsworth Police Court, and to the sum of £40 for the Hammersmith Police Court. These two Police Courts were worked together by a couple of magistrates, who sat on alternate days, from 10 o'clock until 1 o'clock at Hammersmith, and then in the afternoon at Wandsworth. The arrangement was exceedingly inconvenient, both for Hammersmith and for Wandsworth, but especially for Wandsworth. It very often resulted in an unfair, and sometimes cruel, detention of a large number of poor persons who were summoned in the latter district. A very large number of poor people were sometimes summoned to Wandsworth Police Court for trumpery offences against the School Board regulations; and until very recently these people had to stand—often in tens and twenties—for a long time in the rain, until the magistrate came at some uncertain hour from the other side of the water, his work at Hammersmith having, perhaps, detained him longer than he had anticipated it would. Recently some kind of shelter outside had been afforded the people; but the Court itself was simply a disgrace to the country. It was one of the lowest, most murky, and ill-lighted rooms that could be used for the purpose; and it was hard to understand how any Government or Administration, having the least respect for itself or for the name of justice, could allow such a hole to be used to administer justice in. The magistrate was obliged to sit with his elbow against the window in order to get sufficient light to do his work, while his other 1637 elbow was obliged to rest almost on the hob of the fire-place. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) did not think the room was more than 7 or 7½ feet in height, and there was no convenience either for solicitor, or counsel, or witnesses, and the clerk to the magistrate had hardly room to sit down. He referred to this matter some time ago; and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) informed him, in reply, that it was the intention of the Government to provide in some London Government Bill for this and other matters. Why should they have to wait for the passing of this marvellous Bill? He was afraid matters of this kind would be in a very sorry plight before the Municipality of London had anything to do with them. Wandsworth Police Court was, as he had stated, simply a disgrace to the country; and it was no reasonable or serious answer to say it would be all right when the London Municipal Government was placed on a proper footing. This was an Imperial question, and it ought to be dealt with in a decent and respectable manner. The very surroundings and condition of the Court were sufficient to breed contempt for the administration of justice.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he did not propose to go into the question which the hon. Gentleman had raised, though, no doubt, there was great force in what the hon. Member had said; but he wished to raise a much larger question, which concerned the Vote as a whole. The Vote proposed to throw upon the Consolidated Fund the charge for Metropolitan Police Courts; and of that Vote he proposed a reduction of £3,478, that being the estimated amount of the extra receipts payable during the past year. He should have proposed a much larger reduction, but that there appeared to be only a balance of something like £3,500 remaining to be voted. The Committee would, no doubt, be told that this must stand over until the London Government Bill was passed, an excuse that had been put forward every year since 1880 with reference to this imposition upon the National Exchequer of a charge that should be borne by London, for it was part of the local administration of London. He was not very sanguine that the London Government Bill would pass this year; but whether it was passed or not, he sub- 1638 mitted to the Committee that as Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham, Glasgow, and other towns defrayed the expenses of their own Police Courts, so London should pay for the Metropolitan Police Courts out of its own rates. He need not go into the arguments; they were perfectly familiar to the Committee. The Secretary to the Treasury would say he desired it as much as he (Mr. Fowler) did, but that the Treasury were waiting for the London Government Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would refer to the Paper circulated among Members just before the holidays, not signed by the Secretary, but by one of the Under Secretaries of the Home Department. It was one of the most extraordinary Papers ever published, inasmuch as it was in the form of an imaginary balance sheet between the Exchequer and the proposed Municipality. He did not know whether the Secretary to the Treasury would father that document; but if he attempted to do so he would meet with the strongest opposition in the House. It was a most scandalous attempt to impose upon the National Exchequer charges which ought to belong to London alone. But, for the present, all the Committee had to deal with was whether London should pay for its own Police Courts as other towns did, or whether every other town in England should be taxed for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the Metropolitan Police Courts. On that he hoped the Committee would express a distinct opinion. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £3,478.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £71, 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 1886, for the Metropolitan Police Court Buildings."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he did not intend to enter into the weighty question which had been raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), but to confine himself to what had come under his own observation. Every year since he had been in Parliament, he had told the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works what he had just heard from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor)—namely, that Wandsworth Police Court was in a per- 1639 fectly disgraceful condition. He had invited the right hon. Gentleman to visit the Court, because he was persuaded that if the right hon. Gentleman did visit it, he would be so disgusted that even he, in common decency, would admit that it was a perfect disgrace to British justice that such a shabby and contemptible room should be used as au English Police Court. He (Mr. Warton) could hardly find words to express his intense abhorrence of the use of such a place. The description given by the hon. Member for Queen's County was quite inadequate to give a notion of what a wretched place the Court was. He had attended the Court—he had practised there. The staircase was wretched and shabby, not more than 3½ feet in width, and the Court itself was low and frightfully small; indeed, it was perfectly dangerous to health and to life to remain an hour in the atmosphere found there. Having some respect for English justice, he should be positively ashamed if a foreigner were to come over and visit such a Court. The room was small, dirty, dark, wretched, and shabby in every respect; it was not fit for a servant's bedroom.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, Wands-worth Police Court was certainly not all one desired; but he had no doubt one of the first duties of the now London Municipality would be to deal with it. He had done his best to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) by dealing with the matter in the London Government Bill; when that Bill passed, this Vote would be unnecessary. In the meantime, he hoped his hon. Friend would not think it worth while to divide, because the effect of carrying his Motion would be to leave the police magistrates in the Metropolis without any Courts at all.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, they had again and again protested against these charges; and he recollected many years ago, in a former Parliament, dividing the Committee upon it, and the Teller with him was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth). He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman was not in his place to tell again against these charges being put in the Estimates. He saw the Home Secretary had just returned to the House. They all wished the right hon. 1640 and learned Gentleman success in his Bill for the reform of Municipal London; but, in the meantime, there were these charges, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly aware ought not to be made on the Public Exchequer at all. The best way to get rid of them, and to strengthen the hands of the Home Secretary, was to divide against the Vote. He believed that if hon. Members would join his hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and by a large majority reject this Vote, they would do a great deal to assist the right hon. and learned Gentleman in passing the London Government Bill. Let it be understood that they would not continue to pay these sums of money. He had no doubt the hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) were quite right in saying that some of the Metropolitan Courts were a disgrace to British justice. Some of them, he understood, were very unsuitable buildings in which to administer justice; but the localities ought to pay for improved buildings. Why should his (Mr. Rylands's) constituents, who paid for their own Courts, pay for his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warton) to have a nice Court to practise in? The localities ought to defray the expenses of their own Courts, and he maintained that the Committee were justified in resisting these charges. He recommended the Committee to join the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) in rejecting these charges. If they did reject the Vote, he was confident his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would find some way or other of meeting the difficulty, and of saving the Exchequer from unjust charges.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands) had been kind enough to appeal to him in the matter; but he, as Home Secretary, could not dispense altogether with Acts of Parliament. The Home Secretary had two functions—the one was to see that justice was administered, and the other to see that there were the means of administering it. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) that these charges ought to be local charges on the Metropolis. The Government 1641 had accepted that principle, and had included the charges in the London Government Bill. In the meantime they must continue the present system. If the Vote were rejected that night he could not put the charges on the localities except by Act of Parliament; and his hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) knew perfectly well what little chance there was of passing a Bill that Session to put these particular charges on the ratepayers of London. His hon. Friend knew perfectly well that practically that could not be done; therefore to ask him (Sir William Harcourt) to be responsible for the administration of justice, and to take the means away from him, was the reductio ad absurdum of the situation. They could not leave 5,000,000 of people without any Courts in which to administer justice; yet that would be the consequence of carrying the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. The hon. Gentleman was a very practical man; and, therefore, he (Sir William Harcourt) was sure the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a Division. The adoption of the proposal would result in the most preposterous and ridiculous state of things; and, therefore, he hoped his hon. Friend would be content with the assurance that the Government accepted the principle of the Motion, and would endeavour to give effect to it in the London Government Bill by transferring these charges from the Imperial funds to the Metropolis.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 50: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 104.)
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (8.) £6,516, to complete the sum for the Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it was a great inconvenience that there was no Sheriff's Court House in Fife. He would like to know whether, in the event of the local authorities being prepared to pay their moiety towards a Court House, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to meet them in the usual way?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that if a representation was made by the county authorities it 1642 would be duly considered. Until a representation was made it would be premature for him to give any pledge on the subject.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (9.) £16,969, to complete the sum for New Courts of Justice and Offices.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, that this Estimate showed an excess over the original one of something like £500,000 for the expenses of the New Courts of Justice. He did not mean to say that the expenditure had not been legitimately incurred; but one day or other the very large question would arise, on whom the liability was to rest—upon the country or the suitors? He did not propose to raise that question on the present occasion; but he must enter his protest against any further imposition for the New Courts of Justice on the suitors. The fees levied upon suitors were already very high—in fact, the suitors had done their duty in the way of contributions towards the New Courts; and he should contend, when any attempt was made to impose additional taxation for the purpose of paying for the New Courts, that the expenditure, having been incurred by the Treasury, should be met by the Treasury out of the public Revenue of the country, and not by the suitors, who had had no voice or control over the expenditure. That, however, was a subject he should reserve until the Bill which was now pending for the purpose of imposing the expenditure on the suitor came before the House. With respect to the New Courts themselves, there were one or two points he would like to advert to. Unfortunately the construction of the Courts had not been so satisfactory as could have been desired, nor had the result attained been such as might reasonably have been anticipated from the great outlay. While wishing to do full justice to Mr. Street for his design, he could not help thinking that the passages were too dark, and not very readily accessible, and that the Central Hall was practically useless for judicial purposes. There were certain passages leading out of the Hall it was true; but they were very long and intricate, and led to rooms provided for the jurors in waiting. It was, however, rather difficult to find the rooms, and when they were obtained they were not such as to conduce to the 1643 comfort of the persons for whom they were intended. The passages were very badly illuminated. At one time he understood that the electric light was to be used in the building; and he believed it was absolutely necessary there should be some such illumination if the passages and corridors were to be made properly accessible. Again, the access to one wing of the building from the other was by no moans adequate, because it was necessary to go out into the open air to gain that access. That was a thing which might be remedied by a little alteration in the construction of the building; and he suggested three points for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) who had charge of the public buildings. In the first place, he suggested that the passages should be lighted better, if not by the electric light, by gas. Personally, he preferred the electric light, and he hoped it would be adopted. Secondly, he suggested that better means of access should be afforded to all quarters of the building; and, thirdly, it had occurred to him that access might be given at the end of the Central Hall to the corridors by means of a flight of steps, in lieu of the balcony which at present existed there; and, again, recesses might be constructed in the Hall which could be used by counsel as places in which to communicate with their clients. At present counsel had to communicate with their clients in the corridors, which were very dark and frequently very crowded, and in which it was very difficult to meet, but still more difficult to consult with any person with whom a counsel wished to have intimate communication. Old Westminster Hall was used as a meeting place for counsel and client. It was true there was no facilities for sitting down; but still it was largely used as a meeting place. He believed it was originally intended that the Central Hall at the New Palace of Justice should be used for the purpose of meeting, and he could not see why it could not be adapted for such a purpose. At present it was a mere waste. It was of noble construction no doubt; but for all practical purposes the money which had been expended upon it had been thrown away. He trusted these matters would receive the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), because he considered that the 1644 building could be improved to a very considerable extent.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked if it was to be understood by the Committee that this was the final Vote in respect of this costly building?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that this was the final Vote; but there were claims on the part of the builder which might possibly have to be met. He believed the builder had been rather overpaid; but still that gentleman had taken legal proceedings against the Government. With regard to the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory), he must agree with him that the Central Hall had at present no obvious connection with the rest of the building. It was, no doubt, intended by the architect that the Hall should be used by counsel in the same way as Westminster Hall was used by them. The difference between the two cases appeared to be this—that the Courts were now upon a different floor to the great Hall, and it was not convenient for barristers to come down from the Courts to use the Hall for the purpose of consultation. The result was that the Hall was generally empty. Whether it could be converted to any use in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory)— namely, by making a staircase leading up to the upper Gallery where the balcony now was, was a question which he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) could not at present form an opinion upon; but he would communicate with the Lord Chancellor and discuss the matter with him. He was under the impression that the passages were lighted by the electric light. They might not be sufficiently lighted, and therefore he would make inquiries. With regard to the other points raised by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory), he should, of course, be guided very much by the opinion of the Lord Chancellor.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (10.) £162,500, to complete the sum for Surveys of the United Kingdom.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works if he could give the Committee any account of the progress which the Survey was making? While wishing to know how the Irish Survey was progressing, he was peculiarly interested in the completion of the Scotch part of the work.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Vote was very much increased two years ago, and also last year, with a view to the total completion of the Survey by the year 1890. By that time he hoped the work would be completed. He could not off-hand give the hon. Member the details about Scotland; but the Report for the current year had already been laid before the House, and the hon. Gentleman would see from it the particular progress made in each county.
§ MR. MOLLOYasked if the right hon. Gentleman could give them any information with regard to the Irish Survey?
§ MR. E. STANHOPEinquired what progress was being made in the preparation of the maps?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the publication of the maps would follow at some distance from the completion of the Survey. The preparation of the maps, however, had lately been greatly accelerated by an invention of Colonel Cooke, who had also effected great economies in the conduct of the work. It was quite impossible for him to state at present at what stage the Survey stood in Ireland.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that on page 42 there was what appeared a most extraordinary item. Under the head of "Contingencies," medical bills this year amounted to £1,100, and last year they amounted to £1,000. He would like to know on what principle medical bills were charged? He supposed the different officers had proper salaries; and why, therefore, should the State be called upon to pay their doctors' bills?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, a very large number of non-commissioned men in the Army were employed in the Survey. They were detached from their ordinary staff, and therefore it was absolutely necessary that medical advice should be provided for them.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (11.) £10,429, to complete the sum for Science and Art Department Buildings.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked what was proposed to be done with regard to the South Kensington Museum? At present there was a very unsightly block of buildings fronting the Knights-bridge Road. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would state whether the Govern- 1646 ment had any plan in contemplation for completing the Museum.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that, no doubt, at some time or other it would be necessary to complete the Museum by erecting a new wing in the front of the Knightsbridge Road; but at present it was not thought necessary to extend the buildings.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKcalled the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to an item in the Vote for a so-called fresco by Sir Frederick Leighton. The right hon. Gentleman would recollect that this item was made the subject of considerable discussion last year, when a Division of the Committee was taken with regard to it. The first thing that was proved to the satisfaction of every competent person was that this projected picture was not a fresco at all. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be taken by surprise when the matter was brought to his notice; and he did not appear to have a thorough acquaintance with the subject. The hon. Member for East Cumberland (Mr. George Howard), who was a practical artist, and, therefore, better able to deal with the subject than he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), had stated, in the course of the discussion last year, that the picture was not a fresco in the true sense, because it was not executed as frescoes usually were executed. It having been established that the picture was not a fresco at all, that it was not intended to be painted in the manner of frescoes, it seemed rather singular that it should be called a fresco. Now, during the discussion last year, he repeatedly asked the Government how it happened that the order to paint this picture was given to Sir Frederick Leighton; because the records, which were accessible to Members of the Committee, gave no information on the subject. The intention of giving this order to Sir Frederick Leighton never appeared to have been submitted to the Houses of Parliament. He hoped that during the last 12 months the right hon. Gentleman had informed himself on the subject, and that he would be able to state to the Committee the circumstances under which the order for the picture was given. The first objection that was taken—and he thought very properly taken—to the proposed expenditure, was that the frescoes hitherto executed in public buildings— 1647 in this building and in other buildings in London—had practically been failures; that they had almost all disappeared. That difficulty was got over by the Committee being informed that this was not a fresco at all, but a picture which was to be executed in a manner different to that in which frescoes were painted. For the satisfaction of the Committee, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman, who was responsible to the House for the Science and Art Department, should say how this order was ever given to Sir Frederick Leighton; and, in the next place, should say what progress had been made with the work; because, as he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) understood, no progress, up to the present moment, had been made with the picture.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right in saying there was a very long discussion last year on this subject, and that there was some doubt expressed in the House that this picture was not a fresco in the true sense of the term. The hon. Member for East Cumberland (Mr. George Howard) expressed that opinion; but his (Mr. Shaw Lefevre's) recollection was that the majority of Members were of opinion that it was a fresco, although not painted in the ordinary manner. Sir Frederick Leighton himself granted that it was not painted as frescoes usually were, yet it was properly described as a fresco painting. Last year the Committee voted £1,000, a third part of the payment for the picture, after a long discussion, and by a considerable majority, and the order was then given for its execution. The work had been commenced, one-third of it had been completed, so that it was obviously impossible that the order could be withdrawn. He hoped, therefore, the Committee would grant the sum asked for.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, bethought that by the decision of the Committee last year they were committed to the purchase of this picture; but he was sorry to hear it had been found necessary to pay money on account of the painting. He understood that £1,000 was paid in the last financial year, and that a second £1,000 was put down for this financial year. He feared that now they were committed to the "Arts of War"— ["Arts of Peace!"]—oh! the "Arts of Peace," by the present Government, if 1648 right hon. Gentlemen opposite came into power they would think it necessary to carry out the original intention of having two of these frescoes.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKWe have the "Arts of War."
§ MR. RYLANDSconsidered that that was a good reason why they could not object to the second picture. If they had got one of the frescoes they could not well refuse to have the second. He imagined from what the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works said that this was the first picture.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, the first fresco —that depicting the "Arts of War"— was paid for by the last Government, and the second picture was now in progress. Towards the payment for it £1,000 was paid last year, and it was now proposed to vote the second £1,000.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had no knowledge of wet frescoes or of dry frescoes; but he thought that before they indulged in artistic gimcracks they ought to spend a little money in completing the front of South Kensington Museum. As a resident of South Kensington, he expressed the strong hope that the Government would soon see their way to remove the eyesore presented by the present buildings fronting Knightsbridge Road.
§ DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, the first picture had been quite satisfactory, and they ought to be extremely glad to get another by so eminent an artist as Sir Frederick Leighton at so cheap a rate. There was no doubt that if Sir Frederick Leighton were to put the same time he was expending on this picture into the ordinary pictorial market he would get two or three times the money. He was glad to hear that the picture was to be placed on the wall in a form in which it would be tolerably durable. Ample evidence had been adduced to show that the method which would be tried in this case had been adopted with the greatest success on the Continent. There was every reason to believe that this picture would be just as durable as some of the pictures in that House had been perishable.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had never thought that the House of Commons was the proper place to discuss questions of taste—he never discussed them himself, because they were quite out of the purview of the House. 1649 But they might discuss questions of fact. Now, a fresco, in the very nature of the term, could not be a dry painting; it was necessarily a wet painting. What, however, he wished particularly to point out now was that the Government had not answered the first question he put to them. Two Members of the Government had risen in their places; but neither of them had said who it was that gave the commission for the picture. All of them who were familiar with South Kensington Museum knew that under the late Government an order was given to Sir Frederick Leighton for the painting on the wall called "The Arts of War." It was not for him to say whether it was a good or a bad picture —that was a matter of taste. But the order for that picture was given, and the work was executed. Now, he wanted to know from the Government, who gave the order, under what circumstances the order was given to Sir Frederick Leighton for the second picture? He, in his place in Parliament, had a right to ask that question, and the Government ought to give a distinct answer. He believed that when the reduction of the Vote was proposed last year the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had not informed himself on the point; indeed, the right hon. Gentleman as much as said so. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) assumed that in the course of the last 12 months the right hon. Gentleman had obtained the necessary information; and he hoped, therefore, it would be given to the Committee.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had already said that the money was voted last year, and that he gave the order. No order was given until after the money was voted. He ascertained from Sir Frederick Leighton, before submitting the Vote last year, that he was prepared to execute the picture. He agreed with his hon. Friend (Dr. Farquharson) that if Sir Frederick Leighton. chose to take his work into the ordinary market he could get a great deal more for it than he was getting from the Government. But Sir Frederick Leighton considered that having executed the one work he was bound in honour to execute the second.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINOKsaid, he had been informed that Sir Frederick Leighton prepared cartoons and studies for this picture long before the Vote was 1650 submitted to Parliament. He would like to know whether his information was correct or not? If it was correct it was quite clear that Sir Frederick Leighton knew that the order would be given to him by the Government. He did not wish, as he had already said, to discuss questions of taste, or to discuss whether it was right or not to give the order to Sir Frederick Leighton. What he would like to know was, whether an order was given under which cartoons and studies of the picture were prepared?
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the designs for the two pictures were ordered by the late Government, who paid £1,000 for them. One fresco was ordered by the late Government, and paid for by them. The other was ordered by the present Government after the Vote of £1,000 was taken last year, and it was fortunate it was so, because otherwise they would have lost the services of Sir Frederick Leighton, which were worth a great deal more than £1,000. He was surprised that so excellent an authority on Art as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) should be indifferent to such works.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, that to him the explanation of the Government was entirely satisfactory. The Committee having voted £ 1,000 last year on account of the frescoes, the designs for which had already been paid for, it seemed to him useless to discuss the question any further; and he begged to apologize to the Committee for having joined in drawing attention to it.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he made no imputation and expressed no opinion whatever on the question of taste or Art in connection with the subject. His question related simply to the form of proceeding; and he desired to know whether the picture was ordered by the present Government or not? He understood when the first £1,000 were paid that the amount included the cartoon for the second picture. He had no fault to find with Sir Frederick Leighton, nor did he wish to be supposed to imply that he gave his services at more than a moderate rate of remuneration; but it was desirable, for the satisfaction of all parties interested, that there should have been an inquiry into the circumstances of the case. He understood, from the statement of the 1651 right hon. Gentleman, that the late Government made a contract with Sir Frederick Leighton for the "Arts of Peace," and that the present Government made a contract with him for the "Arts of War," and that, as he had already remarked, the first payment included not only the price of the first picture, but the cartoons also.
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he could not pledge himself as to whether the £3,000 included the price of the cartoons. His impression was that they had been paid for. He know that Sir Frederick Leigh-ton was commissioned by the late Government to execute two designs, and that when the present Government came into Office they were told that if they did not at once order the second picture they would never get it finished at all.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he had some recollection that the same point had been raised last year on the Estimates, when the Committee were assured that the work, which was to be executed on a new principle, was only an experiment. he thought now, as he did then, that £3,000 was rather a large sum to experiment with, and that the experiment should have been tried upon a much smaller scale, and that the work should have been exposed for two or three years to see whether or not it would stand the London atmosphere. But it appeared that the "Arts of Peace" was not yet finished, although a considerable sum had been paid. He would like to know the name of the official who gave a certificate that £1,000 worth of work had been done?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he could say no more than that there was a certificate to that effect.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, it was but a short time ago, and surely the right hon. Gentleman could recollect the name of the official who gave the certificate.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had the assurance of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury that a certificate had been given.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that, under the circumstances, it was, perhaps, not worth while to pursue that subject further. There was clearly something about the transaction that would not bear investigation, or the Government would have been willing to enlighten the Committee. The Committee were told last year that there was an implied contract with Sir 1652 Frederick Leighton with reference to the picture in question; and, on the faith of that, £1,000 were voted on account of the work to be done. There was a strong suspicion in his mind that the person who gave the certificate was the Vice President of the Council of Education.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (12.) £4,711, to complete the sum for British Museum Buildings.
§ (13.) £1,400, to complete the sum for Natural History Museum.
§ (14.) £6,347, to complete the sum for Harbours, &c. under the Board of Trade.
§ (15.) £124,740, to complete the sum for Bates on Government Property.
§ (16.) £5,000, to complete the sum for Metropolitan Fire Brigade.
§ (17.) £195,000, to complete the sum for "Disturnpiked and Main Roads, England and Wales.
§
(18.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £29,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, in Aid of the Cost of Maintenance of Disturnpiked Roads in Scotland during the year ended Whitsuntide 1884.
§ MR. RAMSAYsaid, he wished to know on what principle this Vote was to be allocated to Scotland? He observed that the grant this year was £35,000, as against £25,000 last year. The Committee was no doubt aware of the cause of this. It was that instead of paying a Grant in Aid towards the maintenance of the whole of the roads in Scotland, the distribution was conducted on such a principle that a large proportion of Scotland was altogether struck out from the benefit of the grant. That applied especially to those counties where turnpikes never existed. In this way the wealthy districts got the grant, and the poorer counties, although they were more heavily burdened, were altogether excluded from, participating in it. He would be glad to have some explanation as to the mode in which the grant was to be distributed this year, and in what way those counties which were formerly excluded were to be re-imbursed for their past outlay. He felt that it could not be maintained that injustice should be 1653 done to any section of the community under the name of economy. But the counties he referred to had been subjected to injustice; they were, in the first instance, called upon to furnish proofs of expenditure, and when they did so, they were told they were not to have the grant. He believed that to be an injustice which the House would not sanction; and he thought the Treasury would hardly feel justified in withholding from those counties the grant to which they were entitled with the rest of Scotland. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate could give an explanation of what had taken place, and what was intended in reference to the future allocation of the grant, the Committee would be glad to hear it; because the people in the counties interested, and who still expected to get their share of the grant, would take care to keep the matter in remembrance, and make future application for that measure of justice to which they were fairly entitled.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, it might be in the recollection of the Committee that the Grant in Aid of the expenses of maintaining main roads was first made for the year 1881–2; and the terms upon which the grant was proposed and voted in that year did not cover the case of such roads as his hon. Friend had referred to. In that year, consequently, the contribution was given in the form of one-fourth of the cost of maintenance of the roads disturnpiked since the year 1860. A good deal of dissatisfaction had been felt at that limited mode of giving the benefit of the grant; and his hon. Friend who had just spoken had been largely instrumental in bringing the subject before the House. Accordingly, in the next year, 1882–3, not only was one-fourth given of the cost of material and labour employed in the maintenance of the roads extending to 10 years prior to 1860—that was going back to 1850— but there was also a contribution as nearly analogous as circumstances would permit, in respect of those counties to which his hon. Friend referred, in which there were no disturnpiked roads, because there had never been any turnpikes there. So far, therefore, as regarded last year, he did not think his hon. Friend had cause for complaint. He was afraid it was quite impossible, in the 1654 application of an annual grant of this kind, to go back from one year to another and redress inequalities that had arisen; but as the Government last year had taken into account the case of the counties to which his hon. Friend referred, he trusted that upon that point he would be satisfied. As regarded the current financial year 1883–4, there was a certain difference in the position of affairs as compared with previous years, because now all the roads in Scotland had been disturnpiked, and there was a more equal basis for distributing the grant than existed in previous years; and the proposal was to allocate this sum of £35,000 as nearly as could be upon the basis of working out a rule of three sum which might be thus stated—As the total cost of all roads in all the counties and districts of burghs was to £35,000, so was the sum expended in each county or district of burghs to the amount of the contribution. That appeared to him to be a most just mode of procedure with reference to the allocation of the grant.
§ MR. RAMSAYsaid, the Lord Advocate had given no satisfactory explanation of the way in which those counties were to be re-imbursed for the share of the grant which ought to have fallen to them, but which they had not received. He thought the Government should state clearly whether they intended to rob those counties, by depriving them of their just claim for their share of the grant.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he thought he had explained that it was a past matter, which it was not possible to enter into; it was not possible to do so last year, and was still less so now. It must be borne in mind that the grant was originally given as a contribution in aid of those which had been disturnpiked. It was not a case of the exclusion of any counties which were originally within the letter of the grant; but a case of the extension of the grounds of the original grant, was to include the counties to which his hon. Friend had referred.
§ MR. RAMSAYsaid, he would remind the Committee that this was just an instance in which the interests of the people of Scotland were entirely ignored. He hoped that when a Minister who should be considered responsible in all distinctively Scottish affairs came to be 1655 appointed this circumstance would be remembered—that a portion of the people of Scotland had been deprived of a grant given by Parliament for their relief, and were now sought to be deprived of it on the technical ground that they were not now dealing with the year 1881–2, but with the year 1884–5. The Lord Advocate had admitted that the claim was a just one, and justice ought to be done.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it appeared to him that it was a rather strange and bald assertion on the part of the hon. Member who had just sat down to say that the just claims of Scotland were entirely ignored. This was a Vote for £35,000 in relief of local burdens in Scotland, whereas there was no similar Vote for Ireland. England obtained assistance in this respect to the extent of £215,000, and the Vote of £25,000 of last year for Grants in Aid to Scotland was now to be raised to £35,000, whereas Ireland did not receive a single penny. It seemed to him that it was the claim of the Irish taxpayer for the relief of local burdens that was ignored. Although the wealth of England and Scotland had been increasing by leaps and bounds of late years, the means of Ireland had been decreasing through the land going out of cultivation; and it was under those circumstances that the Irish Representatives were called upon to assent to taxation for the benefit of England and Scotland without getting any corresponding benefit for Ireland. He failed to see the justice of that arrangement from any point of view, and should, therefore, move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £10,000, the amount now asked for in excess of the Vote of last year.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £19,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, in Aid of the Cost of Maintenance of Disturnpiked Roads in Scotland during the year ended Whitsuntide 1884." —(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
§ MR. GRAYsaid, that when the Vote on Account was discussed some time ago some Irish Members raised an objection to the items for England and Scotland in the form of compensation for disturnpiked roads, and the Government stated that arrangements of a similar character 1656 were made, or were being made, for Ireland. Something to that effect was certainly said, for he had it clearly on his mind, and could not be mistaken. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) had been invited to explain what he meant; and if he would now be kind enough to offer an explanation as to what he had wished to convey when he had referred to something in the nature of a corresponding allowance being made for Ireland, he (Mr. Gray) might, perhaps, be able to support the Vote. The hon. Gentleman had suggested something about a temporary arrangement; but even though this money grant were a temporary affair Ireland had a right to urge her claim to a share in it.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gal-way County (Colonel Nolan) had raised this question a little while since; and, in reply to him, he (Mr. Courtney) had stated that the arrangement was a temporary one, adopted only in anticipation of and until the Local Government Bill was brought in for England and Scotland, when it would be withdrawn, and a new one entered into on the resettlement of local taxation. He had not stated that any similar arrangement was in contemplation, or was going to be adopted in regard to Ireland. If he had gone further, he should have said they would have had to consider many circumstances in drawing a comparison between the proper treatment of England and Scotland on the one hand, and of Ireland on the other. It had, for instance, often been suggested that the House Tax might be given over to local authorities; but if this plan were attempted to be adopted in the Three Kingdoms, they would find that in Ireland there was no House Tax as there was in England and Scotland. There was a tax a portion of which, in Ireland, was allocated to local wants in relief of local cess, which was not the case in England and Scotland—namely, the Dog Tax. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: How much of it?] About a third, he thought; but, as he said, there was no corresponding allocation in England or Scotland. The Government would have to consider questions like these in settling the problem of local taxation; and that was all he had intended to say on a former occasion to the hon. and 1657 gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he had given some attention to this subject. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had mentioned the House Tax. Well, it was a strange thing, but, nevertheless, a fact, that that was not paid by the same set of people who paid the county cess, which went to the county roads in Ireland. That argument of the hon. Gentleman, therefore, did not apply. If they raised the whole question of the incidence of taxation they would raise the point of the duty on special articles consumed in Ireland. Take the question of alcoholic beverages, for instance. Ireland was a whisky-drinking country, whereas England was a beer-drinking country. Whisky was taxed much more heavily than beer, so that the Irish had to pay a much larger sum for their favourite beverage, in the way of taxation, than the English. This subsidy was one for the disturnpiking of turnpike roads, and to relieve local burdens in respect of keeping roads in order. Well, there had been turnpikes in Ireland, just as there had been in England and Scotland; and when they were abolished the expense of keeping the roads in order had to be borne by the rating in the different localities. Ireland, therefore, in this respect was situated just as England was. He had no power at that moment to move a Vote in relief of this local taxation to Ireland; but it was within their right, and he believed it to be their duty, not only to take the action suggested by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), but to take away the whole of the subsidy to Scotland, and, when the Vote for England was proposed, to divide the Committee against that also. It seemed to him absolutely preposterous that England and Scotland should have relief for this class of burden, while all assistance was refused to Ireland. The arguments of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury were not of the slightest weight. He did not think it possible for any argument to be advanced by any Member of the Government which would justify the exemption of Ireland from relief of this kind, whilst it was given to England and Scotland.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he had certainly understood from the hon. Gentleman that an allowance of some kind, as com- 1658 pensation for disturnpiked roads, was to be given to Ireland. The hon. Gentleman told them now that this was a temporary arrangement, pending the passing of the County Government Bill; and when the introduction of some such Bill as that was foreshadowed there was a distinct promise given of the introduction of a measure of the kind for Ireland. At any rate, so he believed. A Bill for Ireland was mentioned when last the subject was raised. If this Vote for Scotland was to be continued until there was a County Government Bill there was no knowing how long it might not continue. Ireland stood in the same position as England and Scotland with regard to this legislation, if, indeed, she had not priority. The hon. Gentleman reminded them that they had no House Tax in Ireland. Well, that was true; but they had the blood tax in that country, which they had not in England or Scotland. He failed, however, to comprehend why they should vote out of the common fund contributed to by the taxpayers of the three countries sums for the purpose of maintaining the local roads in England and Scotland, whilst no such contribution was made for the same purpose to Ireland. He certainly saw no prospect of the County Government Bill becoming law this year, and he did not believe it would be passed next year. Next year, indeed, it would be seen whether there was really any prospect of the hon. Gentleman and his Friends introducing it at all. But, whilst they were waiting for such a measure, he thought there ought to be no distinction between England and Scotland and Ireland in regard to these subsidies to local rates. If his hon. Friend went to a Division he should certainly support him.
§ MR. BIGGARwished to know how it was that there was such a large increase in the Vote this year? Last year it was £25,000; this year it was £35,000.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, the increase in the Vote this year was owing to the greater number of Scotch roads which had been disturnpiked during the last 12 months.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed, therefore, that directly roads were disturnpiked in Scotland compensation was given at once; whereas, although roads had been disturnpiked in Ireland years ago, nothing had been given to that country in respect of them.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 7; Noes 50: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 105.)
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £138,568, 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 1885, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of the several Public 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. MOLLOYsaid, the Committee had now been working on these Votes six hours, and he thought it was time Progress was reported.
§ MR. COURTNEYappealed to the Committee to allow more Votes to be taken. The hour was a reasonable one for the continuation of the Committee (12.25 A.M.).
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, the Committee had now come to a very important Vote, which it would take a considerable time to discuss. The Votes to come really were of a very important character— nothing like those they had been discussing. He had said they had been six hours working at the Estimates; but, as a matter of fact, it was seven hours, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) must admit that the Government had obtained a much larger amount of money than they could have reasonably expected at the commencement of the Sitting.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not think there would be much discussion on the next Vote. However, he would propose to postpone this Vote on the understanding that the other Votes were disposed of.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he should be disposed to urge on his hon. Friend (Mr. Molloy) to accept that offer, were it not that the last Vote in this Class was for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings. If the hon. Gentleman would postpone that also, no doubt all difficulty would be removed. There were many hon. Members interested in the Votes it was proposed to postpone who were not at present in their places.
§ MR. GRAYsuggested that the Votes for "Royal University, Ireland, Build- 1660 ings," and for "Science and Art Buildings, Dublin," should also be postponed.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, a great deal of money had been voted away; and as hon. Members had been there many hours, he thought it quite time that Progress should be reported.
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, he would withdraw his Motion if the hon. Gentleman would consent to withdraw the present Vote, and that for Consular and Diplomatic Buildings.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, the last-named Vote had been expected to come on.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORremarked that the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Thomasson), who was interested in the Vote, was not in his place.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHobjected to picking and choosing amongst the Votes. He suggested that they should go on until they came to Votes containing debateable matter.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought that if the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Molloy) were accepted there would be a great saving of time. If it were not they would only find themselves, a little later on, discussing as to whether or not they should report Progress; and the final result would be that the Government would have to give way.
§ Question put.
§ MR. WARTONProgress, Sir.
§ MR. MOLLOYI made such a Motion, Sir.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member referred to such a Motion several times during the course of his remarks; but he did not make the Motion.
§ MR. MOLLOYThen I will make it now, Mr. Chairman.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Molloy).
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Molloy) would see his way to withdraw the Motion. He would consent to the postponement of Vote 22, and also of the Diplomatic Vote, if any controversy arose.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that all his hon. Friend (Mr. Molloy) wished to do was to avoid a second wrangle. They might just as well determine now whether the 1661 Votes should be postponed as do it afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had protested against proceeding with Vote 22; and he (Mr. Biggar thought the Government were unreasonable in wishing to take the Vote now, especially when this was the first day after the holidays, and when considerable progress in Supply had been made during the Sitting.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ (19.) £14,650, to complete the sum for Royal University, Ireland, Buildings.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) would explain how it was that with an Estimate of £17,000 for additional buildings and enclosures, with a revised Estimate of £19,200, and with £10,000 voted and revoted, nothing had been done in the way of "additional buildings and enclosures," and how it was that when so much had been voted and revoted so little had been done in the way of fitting and furnishing?
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Member must be aware that the University was not yet in full working order, and that, therefore, additional buildings and enclosures had not been wanting.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, his complaint was that the additional buildings were not in progress. Certain plans were devised and were approved of, and estimates were prepared and assented to. On account of the additional buildings and enclosures which were included in the original plan £10,000 was voted last year; but not one single 1d. of that £10,000 had yet been spent. What he wanted to know was the cause of the delay.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, the money had not been spent because it was not required. It was supposed it would be required.
§ Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (20.) £4,500, to complete the sum for Science and Art Buildings, Dublin.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, there was great uneasiness in Ireland as to the delay 1662 in the erection of these buildings. He knew that plans were in contemplation —in fact, the successful competitor had been told that he had succeeded. The plans of this gentleman had been accepted; but nothing whatever had been done to carry out the plans. It was not at all satisfactory, when this matter had been before the Irish public for some years, when the matter was put up for competition, and when plans were accepted and approved of on all sides, to find that nothing had been done to carry the plans out. He would like to know, from those who were responsible for this Vote, why nothing had been done, and when the work was going to be commenced? It was all very well to have beautiful plans prepared and accepted; but it would be more satisfactory to find that something was going to be done in earnest to give the Irish people at last Science and Art Buildings.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsupported the appeal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman for information. The original Estimate for the purchase of site and erection of New Science and Art Buildings, National Library, &c., was £100,000; but the revised Estimate was £132,000. There had been voted and revoted £21,500; but in spite of these repeated Votes of the House of Commons only £5,294 had been spent. That was £16,000 less than had already been voted, and yet they found that no more than £5,000 was asked for this service during the current year; that was not one-third of the unexpended balance which had been voted over and over again. Could the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) tell the Committee how the matter of the purchase of the site stood, what amount of work was expected to be done during the present financial year, and why, if they could do any work at all in connection with the buildings, they could not do the whole?
§ MR. COURTNEYSAID, he should have thought that hon. Members who were acquainted with Ireland were aware of the difficulties in this matter. They knew how the first competition had failed, and how a new competition had been called for, and the whole work had had to be done over again. That simple fact explained the circumstance that sums of money had been voted and not expended. It was necessary they should start de novo. They had done so, 1663 and a Bill had been passed sanctioning an enlarged scheme. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) was, no doubt, right in saying there had been some indication of preference in respect of the recent competition. Plans had been in a sense approved; but it was necessary they should be examined carefully to see whether they could be executed for the amount estimated. If it was found they could be, as he presumed they would be, the plans would be adopted. There would not, however, be much done this year in the way of building, and that was the reason why so small a sum was put down. The plans were still under examination.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) would say whether this £5,000 was intended to cover any expenses in connection with building at all, or whether it was merely to cover the price of the extra ground for the site?
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought there would be a small surplus which would go towards the preparation of the site. He did not imagine that any part of the sum would go towards building.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, the explanation of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) was to some extent satisfactory; but it was not very definite. The plans had been practically accepted for some months; indeed, it had been announced in Ireland that they had been accepted. They might, of course, be open to further examination; but in substance this had been a closed matter for some months, and, as far as Dublin and Ireland were concerned, it was regarded that no steps whatever had been taken to carry the plans out. He would like some assurance from the Treasury that they not only meant business, but speedy business. There had been a delay of years in this matter, and it was hoped that in the next few months some earnest effort would be made to proceed with the erection of Science and Art Buildings.
§ MR. COURTNEYWe mean to spend this money.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (21.) £8,460, to complete the sum for Lighthouses Abroad.
1664§ (22.) £36,416, to complete the sum for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings.
§ MR. BOURKEcalled the attention of the Committee to the very great increase of this Vote. When the late Government left Office, the Vote amounted to £21,900, but it now amounted to £46,416; that was to say, it was a great deal more than double what it was in the time of the late Government. If the Members of the Committee would run their eyes down the various items on page 73, they would see that there was only one item that had not been increased. For instance, the charge in 1881 for China and Japan Legation and Consular Buildings was £6,237, now it was £9,439; China rents then was £2,000, now it was £2,181. He would not weary the Committee by running through all the items; but it was nevertheless the fact that in all but one case there had been a very material increase. The increase in respect to the Berlin Embassy was very large indeed—it amounted to no less a sum than £16,000. He hoped that some explanation would be given with regard to that increase; and he hoped also that explanation would be given with respect to all the other items which made the Vote more than double what it was three or four years ago.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the main increase of the Vote was the £16,000 for the Berlin Embassy. The simple fact was this. The rent paid for the Berlin Embassy was £3,000 a-year, and the lease was approaching its termination. The question arose whether it was better to renew the lease or to get a new Embassy. The difficulty about taking the lease of a building at Berlin was this—that they could not get an absolute secure tenure under lease. It appeared that according to the law of Germany, if the owner of property sold the property, the then lease of the premises was broken. Therefore it was that absolute security could not be obtained by lease, and under those circumstances the Government were strongly advised that it would be a prudent course to purchase a site. That could be effected with the sum of £50,000. It certainly would not be a bad transaction on the part of the Government, because, although they would pay a sum of money down, they would save on the Estimates a rent of no less than £3,000 a-year. The Government had come to the conclusion 1665 that it would be wise, instead of renewing the lease of the present Embassy, to obtain a new site, and £16,000 was the charge which would come within the present year. As to the other items of the Vote, he had not in his mind the amounts charged in the time of the late Government, and therefore could not make a comparison between them. The chief increase, however, was in the China and Japan Vote, and that had been due to the opening of the new Treaty ports in China, which involved the purchase of new sites for Consular buildings. There were six Treaty ports.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he could not off-hand give a full list of the Treaty ports; but, as his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bourke) was aware, they had been recently increased, and some had not yet been fully opened. So far as he was aware, the principal increase in the Vote was owing to the increase of certain Consular establishments. He thought his right hon. Friend would find a list of the Treaty ports in the documents before the House.
§ MR. BOURKEasked if there had been any new Treaty ports opened since 1881?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he believed he was right in stating that some had been opened since 1881; but he did not wish to place all the increase of the Vote upon the opening of the ports. There had been an increase of Consular establishments, and that was a matter quite irrespective of Treaty ports.
§ MR. BOURKEsaid, that Consular establishments existed in 1881; but the Vote had increased since the late Government left Office from £21,000 to £46,000. The explanation which the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had given with respect to Berlin was very satisfactory. He (Mr. Bourke) thought it was very true policy on the part of the Foreign Office to purchase Embassies wherever they could. But there was yet a balance of increase. Every single item in the Estimate, from China down to the various cemeteries, had increased, and certainly for an economical Government that was an extraordinary circumstance.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had already stated he had not the Estimates of 1881 with him, and therefore could 1666 not make a comparison. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bourke) had said the Vote was more than double. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had accounted for £16,000 in respect of the Berlin Embassy, and another £4,000 was due to the Consular buildings at the new Treaty ports.
§ MR. BOURKEFive of those ports existed in 1881.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEBut the expenditure had not been incurred. The ports were opened, but in 1881 the expenditure on account of them had not been incurred.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, there was an increase with regard to Vienna. He supposed there were no Treaty ports there?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that that increase was owing to the recent change of Ambassador.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if the noble Lord would explain why £400 was charged for Legation buildings at Teheran? As he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) understood, a building at Teheran was presented to the British Government for their Diplomatic Corps. Under those circumstances, how came it that any rent was paid at all?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the £400 was charged for the maintenance of the buildings.
§ MR. BOURKEunderstood the noble Lord to say, in respect to Vienna, that some additional expenditure was incurred in consequence of the change of Ambassador. That was all very well in respect to the salary of the Ambassador, but that did not come under this Vote. The increase in the item was something like £2,000. How did this increase in. regard to buildings at Vienna occur?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that £2,500 had been spent in refurnishing.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that under the head of China and Japan, of which they had heard so much, he found that of £4,600 voted last year not half was spent. Accordingly, they had a re-Vote of that amount this year. What was the object of the Treasury in. asking for these large sums every year if they were not to be spent? The same thing occurred in every Vote, and it was made exceedingly difficult to compare the effective Expenditure in one year with the Estimates they had to decide upon. Of 1667 course, it was very easy to compare the Expenditure in the two past years, because they had the Appropriation Accounts of both years; but it was impossible to compare the Estimates of the current year with the Expenditure in past years by reason of these repeated re-Votes. Why was it that the money voted for China and Japan was not spent?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, £2,000 was voted for the purchase of the sites for Consular buildings at the five new Treaty ports. It was found impossible to complete the transaction in the financial year, therefore the money had not been spent. They were most anxious to complete the purchase of the sites, but were unable to do so. They had every reason, however, to believe that during the present financial year it would be possible to complete the purchase. He understood there was a certain limit of time in the Treaty with China, during which the sites could be obtained.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow.