Commons Sitting of 9 April 1885

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE — Industries (Ireland), Motion for Nomination [House counted out].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS; Votes 5 to 11, 13 to 19. Resolutions [March 30] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered— East India (Unclaimed Stocks).*
Ordered—First Reading—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders*[123]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Provisional Order*[124].
Second Reading—Egyptian Loan [122].

QUESTIONS.

  SAVINGS BANKS ACT—BELFAST (KING STREET) SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. GRAYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Savings Banks may prepare two forms of accounts, one for the satisfaction of the Commissioners of National Debt and the other for exhibition to depositors; and, whether he is aware that the Belfast (King Street) Savings Bank has been doing so for some time past?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Since the hon. Gentleman put his Question on the Paper, I have been in communication with the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, who have made inquiries of the Trustees of the Belfast (King Street) Savings Bank. The reply of the latter is, that they have
  "Complied with the 59th section of the Act of 1863, and have publicly affixed and exhibited in a conspicuous part of the office where deposits are usually received a duplicate copy of the annual statement rendered to the Commissioners for the year ended the 20th of November, 1884, and dated the 7th of January, 1885, and which will remain so affixed and exhibited until the issue of the next annual statement. No supplementary or explanatory account or item whatever, not included in the Return made to the Commissioners, has been added to the duplicate."
  The accounts being annual do not show any variation that may take place during the year, and no other than the authorized account can be exhibited.
  MR. GRAY: I am extremely obliged to the right hon. Gentleman; but there is one part of the Question which I do not think he answered. The point on which I desired information was, whether it was in compliance with the regulations to have two forms of account, one being the public annual account, and the other being the account exhibited in accordance with the Act of Parliament?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I thought I had answered the Question very distinctly. There is only one form of account, and it cannot be altered during the year.

  IRELAND—SLIGO HARBOUR BOARD— REPAYMENT OF LOAN.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Lords of the Treasury have considered a Memorial addressed to them, on the 14th of January last, by the Sligo Harbour Board, praying that the period fixed for commencing the repayment of the principal of the Treasury loan of £20,000 to them may be deferred; that the term of years in which repayment is to be made may be extended; and that the rate of interest charged may be reduced to the lowest practicable terms, in accordance with the recommendation made in the Report of the Select Committee on Harbour Accommodation; whether it appears from the Memorial, and from other information in the possession of the Treasury, that the Board have expended the full amount of the loan in deepening the channel, dredging for deep-water berths, improving the berthage at present quays, and other works of urgent necessity; that very considerable progress has been made with these works; that, owing to the failure of the contractors to execute their contract, the Harbour Board have been obliged to undertake the completion of the works with their own staff and plant; and that, as no improvement in revenue can result from the works until they are completed, and as the existing terms of the loan would necessitate the payment of £1,700 a-year, out of a revenue of only about £6,000, which barely allows the requisite margin for prosecuting the works, the Board will be constrained to abandon the effort to complete the works in which they are now engaged, and to give up the hope of improving the portal revenue, unless the Treasury terms are relaxed; and, whether the Treasury will grant the terms prayed for in the Memorial of the Board?
  MR. HIBBERT: The Memorial has been received, and the subject is under inquiry in Ireland. An engineer will visit the place at next spring tides; and, on receipt of his Report, we shall be in a position to decide upon the course to be pursued. At present, I can only add that the rate of interest on the existing loan is fixed at the lowest rate allowed, by the Act under which the advance was made.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he would put a further Question on the subject.

  POST OFFICE—MR. A. TURNER, POSTMASTER AT OAKHAM.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Postmaster General, If he is aware that Mr. Alfred Turner, the Postmaster at Oakham, has recently addressed a political letter to The Grantham Journal; that Mr. Turner is constantly taking part in politics, attending political meetings, and occupying the chair at them, and is actually the President and Treasurer of the Liberal Executive Committee; and, whether, in the circumstances, he will direct Mr. Turner to abstain, directly and indirectly, from taking any further part in politics?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that the facts stated in the Question are substantially correct. In consequence, however, of the answer which I gave on the 26th ultimo, to the Question put to me by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley), the Postmaster of Oakham at once resigned his post of treasurer of the Executive Committee of the Rutland Liberal Association, and expressed his regret that he should have transgressed the bounds of propriety inseparable from his official position. He further stated that in future he should not take any public action in political matters. I have accepted this assurance, and have no doubt that it will be faithfully observed.

  FRANCE AND CHINA — THE HOSTILITIES (INTERNATIONAL LAW)— CONTRABAND OF WAR—RICE.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the French Government have withdrawn their declaration indicating rice as contraband of war?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; the French have not given notice of the withdrawal of the declaration.

  FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—CHECKPOINT PIER, CO. WATERFORD.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he could state what was the amount of the engineer's esti-
  1154
  mate for the Checkpoint Pier, county Waterford; how was the money provided; what is the amount of the contract for the work, and when is the contractor bound to complete the works; and, is it a fact that the plan of these works designed by the engineer of the Board of Works is so faulty that a boat slip has not been provided for boats bringing fish there at low water, and that at such times the pier will be nearly useless?
  MR. HIBBERT: The engineer's estimate for this work was £3,000, towards which £2,250 was provided by grant from the Sea Fisheries Fund, and £750 has been contributed locally. The amount of the contract is £2,649, and the contractor is bound to complete the works on the 1st of October next. No boat slip was recommended by the Fishery Commissioners, neither did there appear to be any local desire for one; but the Waterford Steamship Company having asked that there should be one, the Board of Works are in communication with them on the subject.

  FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—CLEGGAN PIER, CO. GALWAY.
  MR. KENNYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If it is a fact that the Grand Jury of the county of Galway presented a sum of £2,000, as far back as the Spring Assizes of 1884, towards a grant out of the Sea Fisheries Fund for the erection of a pier and formation of a harbour at Cleggan, in the county Galway, according to plans prepared by the Board of Works, and that the Piers and Harbours Commissioners, and the Treasury thereupon sanctioned a free grant of £6,000, to complete said works; and if, notwithstanding the length of time that has since elapsed, the works have not yet been commenced; if the works have been lot to a contractor; and, if so, what is the amount of the contract, and when is he bound to have them completed; and, if a copy of the detailed plans and specifications will be furnished to the county surveyor, who will be obliged to maintain the works hereafter?
  MR. HIBBERT: At the end of last June, the Government hoard that the Grand Jury had made a presentment for £2,000 on account of this work, and a grant of £6,000 from the Sea Fisheries

  1155
  Fund was sanctioned in the middle of July. The tenders received after the necessary interval were not satisfactory, and fresh ones had to be called for. The contract was executed on the 18th of December last, its amount being £7,468, and the contractor is bound to complete the works by the 1st of October, 1886. Detailed plans and specifications will be furnished to the county surveyor if the Grand Jury desire it.

  CIVIL SERVICE — PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATURE—SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Sir W. B. Gurdon, being a Parliamentary candidate, has retired from his appointment in the Treasury?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): No, Sir; Sir William Gurdon is not a Parliamentary candidate. But whenever, if ever, he should become one, he will give up his appointment in the Treasury.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had seen an announcement in The Lunn Advertiser to the effect that Sir William Gurdon had written a letter, which was read at a meeting of the Liberal Association, consenting to his name being mentioned as a candidate for the constituency? At the same meeting a letter was read from Mr. Lestrange withdrawing his name as a candidate.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Will the hon. Member give me the date of that extract?
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: The 28th of March, 1885.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): If the hon. Member will let me have the extract, I will look into the matter.

  THE DECLARATION OF PARIS, 1856.
  MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the instructions and powers of the British Plenipotentiaries to the Congress of Paris, who signed the Treaty of March 20, 1856, included authority to sign the Declaration of April 16, 1856, and if he will lay a Copy of them upon the Table of the House; whether the Declaration
  1156
  of Paris has ever been ratified by the Crown or approved by Parliament; and, whether there is anything in either the Treaty of Paris, its Protocols, or the Declaration to show that Article 11 of the Treaty, which neutralized the Black Sea, "was not expected to be a permanent provision," while "the Declaration was intended to embody a permanent principle?"
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The British Plenipotentiaries at the Congress of 1856 had no instructions with reference to the Declaration, the signature of which was not contemplated when the Congress was summoned. The concurrence of Her Majesty's Government in the principles of the Declaration was communicated to Lord Clarendon in a despatch of the 13th of April, 1856, and after its signature the course taken by Lord Clarendon was entirely approved by Her Majesty's Government in a despatch of the l8th of April. Lord Palmerston declined to lay the instructions, and so did Mr. Bourke (see debates of April 13 and July 2, 1875). The Declaration was laid before Parliament, but did not require ratification. The phraseology quoted by the hon. Member does not appear in the Treaty, its Protocols, or in the Declaration. The 11th Article of the Treaty states that the Black Sea is formally and in perpetuity interdicted to the flag of war. The wording of the Declaration shows that it was intended to embody a permanent principle in so far as the Powers who adhered to it were concerned.

  FRANCE AND CHINA —THE HOSTILITIES—THE ENGLISH MAILS.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that Her Majesty's mails are not landed at Formosa owing to the French blockade; that the steamer with the mails arrived, but the captain refused to land the mails without the prior consent of the French authorities; that, as no French man of war was in sight, H.M.S. Champion went 150 miles to receive the answer that the mails were contraband of war; whether the English postmaster at Hong Kong announces that the mails for the French Fleet will be delivered regularly; whether French ships are allowed to coal and refit at Hong Kong in order to be able to chase English vessels and

  1157
  steamers; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take immediate steps to remedy this violation of the rights of neutrals, and make representations to the Trench Government on the subject?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: It appears that, on two occasions recently, the mails were not allowed by the French to be landed at Taiwan Foo, on the ground that information might be conveyed to the enemy by that means from the mainland. Letters for the Consuls were, however, allowed to be landed. I am not aware that the English Postmaster at Hong Kong has made the announcement referred to. French ships are allowed to coal and refit at Hong Kong so far as the terms of the Foreign Enlistment Act permits, as the Papers which will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow show. I may point out that Questions relating to Hong Kong should be asked of the Colonial Office.

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—THE PORTE— THE CONVENTION OF LONDON, MARCH 18, 1885.
  MR. RAIKESasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When, and in what form, the communications between Her Majesty's Government and the Porte, relating to the signature of the recent Convention concerning Egyptian finance, will be communicated to Parliament?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: As I have already stated, it is not intended to lay the Papers on the Table relating to the confidential communications which passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Porte prior to the signature of the Convention. But the Declaration of the 17th and the Convention of the 18th will be laid on the Table with the signature of the Turkish Ambassador attached, as soon as the ratifications have been exchanged, and two separate declarations made by the Ambassador on signature will be laid on the Table at once.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE EGYPTIAN LOAN BILL.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What are the intentions of the Government
  1158
  with regard to the second reading of the Egyptian Loan Bill, which is the Second Order of the Day; is it intended to proceed with it this night; and, if so, at what hour?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The Government propose to take the second reading of the Bill to-night. As there will probably be a debate of some importance on going into Committee, I have considered with my Colleagues on what day it would be well to take that stage, and we propose to take it on Thursday, the 16th instant, naming Thursday, the 23rd instant, for the Budget, instead of the 16th. The second reading of the Bill will be taken at any time tonight.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: If the second reading is taken to-night, it must not be understood as committing the House to the principle of the Bill, the debate on which must be made on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am quite willing that the second reading shall not be understood as adding to the force of the previous division on this subject.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I should like to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any further Papers to lay on the Table with regard to the correspondence subsequent to that now before the House respecting this loan?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): No, Sir; all the subsequent correspondence was confidential, and cannot be laid before Parliament.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: What will the Business be on Monday?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Queen's Message will be taken first, and the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill next.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIAN ATTACK ON THE AFGHANS AT PENJDEH— STATEMENT OF H.M. MINISTERS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Seeing the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is now in his place, I desire to ask him, Whether he is in a position to give the House any information with regard to the position of the question relating to the Russian negotiations respecting the Afghan frontier; and, also

  1159
  with regard to the reports published in the newspapers to-day as to a collision having taken place on that frontier?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I shall do my best to answer the Question of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), which he has put in such a considerate manner; and I likewise thank the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) for having evinced the same disposition in regard to the Question he had proposed to put. I had prepared myself to answer the Question as put; and what I should have said to him (Mr. Stanhope) I shall state in answer to the first part of the Question of the right hon. Baronet. The House will recollect that a good deal of notice was taken in the newspapers, in the course of last week, of an answer which it was stated had been despatched by the Russian Government to the British Government on the subject of the frontier negotiations. Constructions were put upon that answer which, no doubt, had a certain effect on the public mind. That answer reached Her Majesty's Government on Thursday, the 2nd instant, and a Cabinet Council was summoned, and met on Saturday. The answer, which we then examined and considered, did not appear to us to advance the questions that were under consideration between us towards a conclusion. But a subsequent communication has been received from Russia within the last 24 hours, and that communication did appear to place the matter in a more hopeful position. However, Sir, the House will not be surprised when I say that it is impossible for me to make any further statement upon the subject of the "frontier negotiations" strictly so called. It is impossible for me to make any further statement as to the progress of these negotiations in the present very rudimentary and incomplete state of the communications between the two Governments as to the very grave occurrence that has just been reported to us, and in respect to which occurrence we shall carefully bear in mind both what is due to our engagements to the Ameer of Afghanistan and what is due to ourselves as representing the British Crown. I pass, therefore, from that occurrence, and proceed to give as good an account as I can to the right hon. Baronet and the House of the intelligence which is in our possession. I will mention, in
  1160
  the first place, the allegations that are made by the Russian Government; and, perhaps, I ought to state, injustice to the Russian Government, that it has been made known to us that their information is incomplete, and that a telegram which they knew had been despatched to them had not reached them when some later communications reached them, on the strength of which I now recite the principal propositions which they contain. In the first place, there are two things admitted—namely, that an attack was made on the Afghans by the Russians, and that the Afghans were defeated. On those two points there is no doubt—defeated, as we are informed, after a gallant fight. The Russian allegations are mainly these—I will not attempt to give them in strict form, but the House may depend upon the substance of my recital. The Russians attacked the Afghans, as they state, after being provoked by acts of hostility so termed—the nature of which we are not distinctly informed of—on the part of the Afghans. When the fighting was over the Russians retired. They retired, according to a phrase used in one document, "to their previous positions." The phrase used in the other document is that they retired "to the left bank of the Kushk." These two phrases may be exactly equivalent. I am not prepared to say they are not; but I mention them both because they are used in the two accounts which have reached us. It is next alleged that English officers directed the Afghans, without taking part in the actual engagement; and, finally, it is stated that the Russian Commander sent an escort to protect the English officers after the Afghans were defeated, but that the English officers had themselves left the ground when the escort arrived, so that there was no occasion for it to act. Now, Sir, these are the principal allegations that have reached us as the allegations of the Russian Government.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: What is the date?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Of this statement?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: No, of the engagement?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The date of the engagement is the 30th of March; and, perhaps, I may say that the earliest intelligence of the most material of the

  1161
  facts I am about to recite only reached Lord Granville and myself this morning. Well, now, Sir, I come to the allegations made by Sir Peter Lumsden and our own officers—allegations to which I need scarcely say that, as a matter of course, we give credit, and which, undoubtedly, call for very grave attention. In the first place, it is stated that no forward movement of any kind was made by the Afghans before or since the 17th of March—the 17th of March being the date of the telegram I shall now recite. On the 29th of March we were informed—and when I say "we" I speak of Sir Peter Lumsden's telegram sent to us—we were informed that, notwithstanding the Russian assurances of the 17th of March—this is the substance of the telegram which the House will no doubt recognize, because it was the substance of the statement made by me in this House and sent to St. Petersburg and recognized there, and returned thence with a certain addition stated in this House at the time—on the 29th of March we were informed by Sir Peter Lumsden that—
  "Notwithstanding the Russian assurances of the 17th of March that the Russian forces would not advance from the position the they then occupied, provided the Afghans should not advance nor attack them, or unless some extraordinary circumstance should happen, such as a disturbance in Penjdeh"—
  then the recital says—
  "the Russians were drawn up in force almost within range of the Afghan position, though the Afghans had neither attacked nor advanced, and Penjdeh was perfectly quiet."
  Next, that every endeavour was being made by the Russians—this is in the nature of a general statement—to induce the Afghans to begin the fight; and that the Russian forces had twice attempted to forcibly pass through the Afghan pickets. The next point is, that on the failure of those attempts, Captain Yate met the Chief of the Russian Staff by appointment, and was informed that no such arrangement as that referred to in our telegram of the 17th of March, as to the non-advance of the Russians, had been received. ["Oh, oh!"] These are very grave statements, and have been made the subject of proper communication. Next, that the Chief of the Staff—the name of the Russian General I do not recollect—would not give an assurance to Captain Yate that the Afghans would not be attacked without
  1162
  previous notice, and he claimed the right to turn out the Afghan posts, whenever they might inconvenience the Russians, without reference to any third party. That, of course, must be taken in connection with the statement immediately preceding it—that he had not received from St. Petersburg instructions corresponding with the telegram of the 17th of March. Next, we learn that, on the 29th of March, Sir Peter Lumsden desired Captain Yate again to see the Russian Commander and effect an amicable arrangement if possible. We learnt, again, on the 7th of April, that down to the 30th of March, the Afghans had made no forward movement before or since that telegram of the 17th of March. I must make this recital, because it brings down to a somewhat later date the statement with which I have commenced. On the 7th of April we also learnt that Captain Yate had, on the 1st of April, sent a note from a point which he had reached with all the British officers and escort safely on the previous day, at 8 P.M., on the way to Gulran. It stated that the Russians had attacked and defeated the Afghans, and had occupied Penjdeh on the 30th. The Afghans were said to have fought gallantly, and to have lost heavily, two companies being killed to a man in their entrenchment". The survivors retreated along the Murachak road. The British officers were neutral in the engagement. The House will not be surprised when I say, speaking with measured words, and in circumstances of great gravity, that to us, upon the statements I have recited, this attack bears the appearance of an unprovoked aggression. We have asked for explanations from the Russian Government; but there has not yet been time to receive such explanations. We shall endeavour to arrive at a just conclusion on the facts. But before receiving our communications yesterday, and when we had not the important communications of this morning, but something preliminary in the same direction, the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg reported to us last night (at 40 minutes past 5) in these words—
  "The Minister for Foreign Affairs expresses his earnest hope and that of the Emperor, that this unhappy incident may not prevent the continuance of the negotiations;"
  and he also reported a statement in the

  1163
  words of M. de Giers, that the Russians retired to their previous positions, and did not occupy Penjdeh. I may say that I have laid these statements before the House as being the incomplete and partial statements which the very short time that has elapsed since the receipt of the news alone enables me to offer; but such as they are, they are as much as our public duty will permit us to make; and I think I may say that they comprise the whole of the material statements of fact which have reached us upon this important and, for the moment, I may say very painful matter.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: After the very grave statement the right hon. Gentleman has made, of course I do not wish to put questions that would be embarrassing to the Government; but I do not quite understsnd whether the Government believe that Penjdeh is now occupied by the Russians or not. The reports seem to be conflicting.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir, there is much that is conflicting in the statements. I may also say that this particular point, I think, is not yet quite elucidated, because the statement that the Russians occupied Penjdeh comes to us from a British officer who had left the spot. Under these circumstances, it is not for me to say what has taken place; but it is evidently possible that when they defeated the Afghans in the intrenchments at Penjdeh, and entered those intrenchments, the natural inference would be that they may have occupied Penjdeh; but I do not presume to give an opinion, or any explanation on the point. I merely suggest it as a mode in which, possibly, the conflicting statements may be reconciled.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that representations have been made to the Russian Government, but that Her Majesty's Government have not yet received an answer. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell us when he expects to receive an answer?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That, Sir, is a question I am not able to answer; but I cannot doubt, from the grave nature of the case, from the nature of the representations made, and, I am bound to say, from the spontaneous communications from the Russian Government on the subject, I expect that it will arrive
  1164
  with full expedition; but I cannot presume to point out the exact time when it may be expected. But the Government will take care that every communication which can properly be made to the House is made without delay.
  MR. O'KELLY: I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say that the statement that no advance took place on the part of the Afghans is confined to the locality of Penjdeh; or, whether any advance, or any other act of aggression on the part of the Afghans, took place in any other portion of the territory?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; the statement is given to us in general terms, and so I have quoted it. But we have no reason to believe in any forward movement, or in any aggressive act on the part of the Afghans.
  MR. NORWOOD: I beg to give Notice that, to-morrow, I will ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether any provision has been made for the protection of British commerce in the Baltic and Black Seas?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I wish to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, how many days it takes Sir Peter Lumsden to communicate with this country; and, also, whether the Russian communications take a longer time?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The wire on a part of the route—namely, that viâ Meshed—has quite recently, I am sorry to say, been broken—I believe, by a snowstorm—and, therefore, communications are taking longer than they did a short time ago. The communications between Sir Peter Lumsden and London before the wire was broken took three or four days. Now, the communications referred to by the Prime Minister take six days—that is, in consequence of the wire having been broken.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Will the noble Lord tell us what time is occupied by the Russian communications?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Eight days.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: By what route could the Russian communications take place?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I cannot give accurate information on that point now; but I will make inquiry.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Has this communication come through the Viceroy; or, are the Government

  1165
  aware whether the Viceroy has been made acquainted with what has occurred?
  MR. GLADSTONE: These communications have come to us direct from Sir Peter Lumsden, and not through the Viceroy; but it is the invariable practice of Sir Peter Lumsden, on every subject of importance, to telegraph to the Viceroy; and his telegrams invariably end with the words "Sent Viceroy."
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Have the Government had any communications from the Viceroy since?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There has not been time.
  MR. MACFARLANE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, when the Russian Government made statements to our Ambassador in St. Petersburg, with reference to this regretable incident, they, at the same time, offered any explanation why the arrangement between the Russian Government and Her Majesty's Government, communicated to this House on 17th March, had not reached the Russian Commander on the 30th?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot undertake to make any additions to the statement I have made before the House; but I will point out to the hon. Gentleman that we have no knowledge entitling us to say that the Russian Government, when M. de Giers saw the British Ambassador last night, was aware of what had been said by the Russian Chief of the Staff. That statement of the Russian Chief of the Staff would only reach the Russian Government through us, and it had not reached them at the time when the explanation of M. de Giers was made.
  MR. ONSLOW: Is it the fact that Sir Peter Lumsden is in telegraphic communication with the Viceroy? My impression is, that the telegrams come to this country, and then are sent on to the Viceroy.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have explained that all this intelligence is regularly communicated by Sir Peter Lumsden to the Viceroy.
  MR. ONSLOW: How; not by telegram?
  MR. GLADSTONE: By the best means of communication at his command; and we have a communication from the Viceroy which shows that Sir
  1166
  Peter Lumsden had communicated with him, so far as the time permitted, on this very matter.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I suppose we may assume that the information that was in possession of the British officers as to the agreement of the 17th March was formally communicated to the Russian Commanders on the spot by the British Commissioner?
  [No reply.]
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Is it within the knowledge of the Government that the Afghans have been fortifying Penjdeh?
  [No reply.]

  EGYPT—SEIZURE OF THE "BOSPHORE EGYPTIEN."
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that The Bosphore Egyptien newspaper was seized at Cairo by the orders of Her Majesty's Government, in spite of the protests of the French Consul?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The hon. Member had better put his Question on the Paper.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would give Notice of a Question on the subject.
  MR. O'KELLYasked whether this paper was not suppressed by the authorities at Cairo in an arbitrary manner, and without consultation with the French authorities?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAHRICE: Perhaps the hon. Member would also put his Question on the Paper.
  MR. O'KELLY: Does the noble Lord mean to say he is not in possession of any information on the subject?

ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

  SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    (1.)£129,088, to complete the sum for Public Buildings, Great Britain.
    MR. HEALYasked if this were Vote 5 in the Estimates?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the Vote contained an item in connection with the Bridge over the Menai Straits in Holyhead. As the Irish Members were constant travellers across this Bridge, he would like to have some explanation of the item?
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEremarked, that the Bridge referred to was not the Tubular Bridge, but the Chain Bridge, which had no connection with the railway service.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £7,000, 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 1886, for preliminary expenses in connection with the erection of the New Admiralty and War Office, under the provisions of The Public Offices Site Act, 1882."
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he should be sorry if this Vote were allowed to pass sub silentio. He could quite understand that at the present moment the House had very grave matters pressing on its mind, and that therefore there might be a disposition to get rid of minor questions, such as he admitted this to be. But although far beneath the important questions now arising in connection with European and Asiatic politics, this was not altogether a minor matter to many persons living in the Metropolis who had any regard for Art or taste for architecture, and who were not prepared to sit down quietly with a tacit admission of Napoleon's definition that they were "a nation of shopkeepers." He did not contest the necessity for the erection of the projected new Offices for the Admiralty and War Department. On the contrary, he was quite prepared to say that it was a shame and a disgrace that the matter had not been undertaken a long time ago; and he thanked his right hon. Friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) for having undertaken it with his usual energy when First Commissioner of Works. As they all knew, this building was the result of a general competition which took place last year; and they also knew that, to everybody's surprise, the prize at that competition was carried off by two gentlemen, no doubt very meritorious persons, but who up to this time had been absolutely and
    1168
    totally unknown. He did not complain of that. He remembered the lines of the poet—
    "Full many a gem of purest ray serene
    The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear;"
    but, at the same time, he thought the circumstances of the case were such as to render it necessary that something should be known of the architects who had been selected. Those who had arranged the competition would no doubt be prepared to maintain that the necessity of having buildings for the purposes for which they were intended was the chief consideration. He presumed that everybody would admit that to be the first object; but it was also desirable that, in securing that object, regard should be had to the adequate and satisfactory architectural details of the new Public Offices. In this case, it appeared that the competition had been managed upon a much more complicated system than other competitions for the erection of public buildings in former times. In the first instance, there was a preliminary competition, and out of that preliminary competition nine designs were selected. With regard to those nine designs there was a second competition, and he complained that the public had not been consulted and taken into full and complete partnership with the Office of Works in regard to the competition and the final selection. The first competition—the general competition, out of which the nine designs were selected —was a complete secret confined to the judges, from all participation in which the public had been excluded. They only knew that nine designs were selected, and that out of those nine designs the one which was presumably the best had been taken. He was unable to say whether it was the best from an artistic point of view, but he presumed that it was the one which best complied with the narrow and restricted limits laid down by the Office of Works. The public, however, had no means of knowing whether the preliminary competition was as sufficient and satisfactory as it should have been, and the competitors themselves had a right to the utmost assurance as to the manner in which the eliminating process by which the designs sent in had been reduced to nine had been reached. The designs had not been exhibited, as had been the case in all previous competitions. In the

    1169
    famous competition in connection with the erection of Public Offices, 30 years ago, there was a full exhibition of the designs in Westminster Hall. It might be said that an exhibition of the designs in this case would have been so cumbrous that it had been of necessity excluded; but he denied that that was a sufficient reason for excluding it. They ought to have been prepared, when they engaged in the competition, to accept it with all its difficulties and its liabilities, no less than its advantages and its conveniences. He contended that by inviting the architects of this country to enter into a public competition, and then, by hiding away all the unsuccessful designs without allowing a judicial, critical, and enlightened public to come in and judge for themselves as to how far the appointed judges had or had not discharged their duty, and how far they had or had not come to an enlightened decision, the Government had conducted the competition in a most unsatisfactory manner. Of course, the fact that the successful competitors were men who were totally and absolutely unknown intensified the dissatisfaction; and in the absence of information as to the principles by which the judges had been guided in making their selection, of all knowledge as to the comparative merits of the different designs sent in, and of the grounds upon which the prize had been finally and substantially won, he thought the Committee ought to pause and look twice before it accepted the award. For these reasons he called upon the Committee to consider well what it was doing before it passed the present Vote. The facts which had attended the competition throughout—the unexpected choice of unknown men, the doubt whether the successful competitors, who, of course, had won their position in a creditable manner, had, nevertheless, won it from the superior artistic merits of their designs—a doubt rendered still more forcible by the fact that the designs sent in at the original competition had been carefully suppressed, was a ground which ought to induce the Committee to pause before it irrevocably accepted the award. He came next to discuss the merits of the designs of Messrs. Leeming, the successful competitors. In doing so, he was honestly and fairly bound to confess that, viewing the matter from an artistic point of view, he was not at all
    1170
    satisfied with the result. He would not pretend to attempt to enter into the question of Office accommodation. That was a matter on which, after all, it was far more fitting for clerks and Under Secretaries to say something than architects or men of taste; but he must say that, looking at this building as a production of National Art, it was we fully disappointing. It was vulgar, commonplace, overloaded with ornament, and absolutely fantastic in such originality as it possessed, for that certainly appeared in a form which no one else would have conceived—that of elongated four-sided cupolas, standing in a row upon the top line of the structure. The design might be seen upstairs in one of the Committee Rooms, so that any hon. Member, by a personal inspection, could see the manner in which the building was to be overloaded with columns, and what it was the nation was called upon to buy. He would not speculate upon the effect which a study of the designs was likely to produce upon the artistic mind of Europe, and that of the general public in this country. No doubt it would be said that the architects had won the prize after an open competition, and it might be asked what, under the circumstances, Parliament ought to do. He ventured to say that was not the best thing; but after matters had gone so far, the only way of partially repairing the damage done was what, although it might probably affect the amour propre of Messrs. Leeming, was well worth doing for the sake of the national credit in regard to Art—namely, to accept, if they so pleased, the carcass of the building and the distribution of the rooms, and then to clothe that carcass with artistic features of a different character from the present proposals. It was not a question of style, Gothic or Italian, but peculiarly and emphatically one of taste, and the design ought to be as simple as possible. If it were decided to erect these buildings in the Italian or Classical style, let it be so; but let the work be carried out in the best taste, and not in so inferior a manner as to be unworthy of a great nation. Messrs. Leeming were young architects, unknown in their Profession, and probably they would be able to produce something better in time; but it would have been more satisfactory in this instance if so important a work could have been placed

    1171
    in the hands of more experienced men. There was one thing he could answer for, and he trusted the Committee would estimate it at its proper value, that any other design would be cheaper, as the faults of the design under consideration were not those of its plainness and simplicity, but, on the contrary, were found in the way in which it was overloaded with ornaments. He sincerely hoped that the Government would not hurriedly proceed with the execution of the work upon the present designs, and any additional expense which the delay would involve would be amply saved by sparing the country from the national disgrace of erecting an inferior building upon so conspicuous a site. In order to take the sense of the Committee, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £6,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, for preliminary expenses in connection with the erection of the New Admiralty and War Office, under the provisions of 'The Public Offices Site Act, 1882.'"—(Mr. Beresford Hope.)
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that as he had been mainly responsible for the progress of the arrangements in connection with these buildings, he thought the Committee would expect him to say a few words on the subject. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that this matter was of so much importance that it should not be allowed to pass without discussion. Reference had been made to the competition, and it had been stated by his right hon. Friend that there had been a double competition—that was to say, in a first competition all the world had been invited to send in designs for this important building, and, having eliminated a certain number and selecting a limited number, the competitors were invited to enter into a further competition. The first competition resulted in 148 architects sending in designs. The judges consisted of five persons—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. 11. Smith), himself (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), as the First Commissioner of Works, and two very eminent architects, one of whom was the President of the Institute of
    1172
    Architects. He believed that this was the first time two architects had been invited to be judges on equal terms with the official judges in a competition of this kind. He had said that 148 designs were sent in. Among the 148 architects who sent in designs in the first competition, there were many of the most eminent architects of the day. He was not able to mention their names, because the first competition was necessarily a secret one; but some of those gentlemen had since published their designs, although they were not among those that were selected, and no doubt many hon. Members had seen them in The Builder. The judges were unanimous in their selection of the first nine designs. In the first instance, 10 prizes of £500 each had been offered; but the judges were unable to select 10 of equal merit, and being only able to select nine, those nine were invited to enter into a second competition. The judges eventually selected three out of this number as being of more conspicuous merit than the rest and above all the others; and, after again very carefully considering the matter, they at last decided that the Messrs. Leeming's plan was the beat, both in respect of internal arrangements, elevation, and appearance. In every way Messrs. Leeming's designs were distinctly and decidedly the best. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had complained that the public had not been invited to inspect the designs of the first competition. That exclusion, however, was a necessary incident in this form of double competition, and it was a plan which had not been adopted for the first time in the general trade, although it was adopted for the first time by the Government. Hon. Members would see that it was impossible to allow the public generally to see all the designs of the first competition, since hints might have been taken from other designs and made use of in the second competition. The public, however, had been invited to inspect the nine designs chosen, and they had agreed with the choice made by the judges. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had spoken in somewhat harsh terms of Messrs. Leeming's plan. For his own part, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) felt great hesitation in expressing any strong opinion on artistic matters; but if there was one point on which he could himself speak with great

    1173
    confidence, it was that of the internal arrangements and ground plan of the designs selected. That was a matter to which he had given great attention, with a view specially to this competition and in laying down the conditions of the competition, and with the experience which he had had personally of many Public Offices he had no hesitation in saying that Messrs. Leeming's design, both in regard to the ground plan and the internal arrangements were incomparably and infinitely superior to those of any existing public building in London, and very far superior also to those of any of the other designs which had been selected from the first competition. When he came to the question of the elevation, in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman, who was an authority on such matters, he felt some hesitation in expressing an opinion; but he would say this much—the two eminent architects who were among the judges and had inspected the plans—not only the 143 originally sent in, but the nine finally selected—were of opinion that this design was one of great merit, would do great credit to the country, and would compare favourably with the building of Sir Gilbert Scott on the other side of the Horse Guards Parade. He believed that his right hon. Friend opposite was more of an authority upon Gothic than Classic architecture, and, when speaking of the details, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to treat the projected building rather as one which was intended to be erected in the Gothic than in the Classic style.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPE: No; my right hon. Friend is quite mistaken.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that comparing it with many Gothic buildings, especially the one in which they were sitting, or the new Law Courts, he should say that the design of Messrs. Leeming was very conspicuous for its simplicity of treatment and for the absence of those fantastic details which the right hon. Gentleman condemned. It was quite true that Messrs. Leeming were young and unknown men, and had hitherto won no high prize in their Profession; but that was not the first time that an open competition had brought forward conspicuous merit. He need hardly point out to the Committee that admittedly the most beautiful classical building of modern times in this coun-
    1174
    try, and perhaps the most beautiful in Europe—namely, St. George's Hall at Liverpool—
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: No.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Did the right hon. Gentleman deny that?
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Yes.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he must say that the right hon. Gentleman almost stood alone in that opinion. Mr. Ferguson and the highest architectural authorities had expressed the strongest opinion as to the artistic merits of St. George's Hall, and spoke of it as the best building of modern times, in this country at any rate. And the design for St. George's Hall was the result of an open competition, which had been won by a young architect who had only just reached the age of 21, and who had never previously performed any public work. Owing to his death before the completion of that work, St. George's Hall had been his single work. He only mentioned the fact to show that open competition had before produced a great work; and he believed that the work of Messrs. Leeming would be equally a credit to the country, and not unworthy of our reputation for artistic taste. Probably the Committee would expect him to say a few words on the finance of the matter. The site had already been made the subject of an Act of Parliament in 1882, after a long and careful investigation by a Select Committee of the House. The site had been bought at a cost of £550,000. Of this sum it had been agreed to pay £400,000 to the Woods and Forests Department as representing the Crown, or he should rather say that it was the sum agreed to be paid by the Crown, by an annuity spread over a term of years. The remaining £140,000 or £150,000 had been paid to individual owners of land or leases on the ground, so that altogether the sum of £550,000 represented the cost of the land. Comparing this price of £550,000 with the price of the only other alternative site suggested — namely, that of Great George Street and Parliament Street, there would be a great saving of money of not less than £1,000,000. It must also be remembered that £400,000 of the price agreed to be given was merely a book transfer from one Department to another, and that

    1175
    the money paid out of pocket would not be more than £150,000. With regard to the estimated cost of the building, that was between £600,000 and £700,000; but, large as the sum was, it would not be a serious burden upon the State, inasmuch as the payment would be spread over a considerable term of years. It would be necessary to erect the building in two blocks, the first occupying the position of Spring Gardens Terrace. When that block was completed, the clerks of the Admiralty would be placed in the new block, and then it would be possible to pull down the existing Admiralty buildings and erect the second block. It was estimated that the first block would take four or five years in building, and after the removal of the Admiralty Office, another period of four or five years would be occupied in the erection of the second block. Altogether, the election of the entire building would take about 10 or 11 years. In the current year there would only be an expenditure necessary of £10,000, and there was a possibility that even the whole of that sum would not be required. It would be necessary to enter into a contract for the building, and for that purpose working drawings would have to be made. It would, therefore, hardly be possible for the builders to begin work during the current year, and even next year no very large sum would be required to be paid over to the builders. After that the animal payments would be considerably larger; but, as they were spread over a space of 10 or 11 years, the charge in any year would not be very considerable. When the building was completed, it would be possible for the War Office to remove from its present quarters in Pall Mall. The buildings now occupied by that Department would consequently become vacant, and it was estimated that they were worth from £350,000 to £400,000. At present they were rented from the Woods and Forests Department at a not very high rent in proportion to the value of the property; but when the War Office was removed into the new building, property valued at from £350,000 to £400,000 would be set free. He thought he had now fully explained the financial part of the matter, and the only question now remaining was whether the Committee would sanction the plans which had
    1176
    been prepared. As he had already said, those plans had been the subject of very careful consideration, and had been very much improved since the time of the final competition. In the first place, Messrs. Leeming, acting upon a suggestion he had made to them, had amended their designs and thrown back the front of the building from Whitehall for a distance of 35 feet, which would very much improve the appearance of the building as seen from Whitehall. In the second place, they had enlarged the great Court of the building from a width of 80 feet to 95 feet, which would very much improve the building in respect of light and ventilation; thirdly, they had completely modified the Whitehall front; and, fourthly, they had altered the position of the campanile, which had been formerly placed at the end of the building next to the Horse Guards, but was now placed at the angle of the two fronts to the Horse Guards Parade. Anyone who would look at the designs would see that those alterations were of great importance. The building bad been simplified in appearance, the columns to which his right hon. Friend had alluded, and which certainly stood out, having been thrown back more than the building itself. In that respect also a very important improvement had been effected. The main question, however, after all, for the Committee to consider was whether this building would really be a suitable building for the Admiralty and War Office. He thought they would be of opinion that the interior of great Public Offices ought not to be sacrificed to exterior. Every possible attention had been paid to the interior arrangements, and he must repeat that in their interior arrangements these plans could not possibly be improved upon; the building would house the two great Departments, and leave a considerable number of spare rooms over. There was only one other point to which it was necessary to allude—namely, that no provision was now made under the roof of the Admiralty for official residences for the First Lord of the Admiralty and the First Naval Lord; but on the ground plan they would see that there was a plot of land reserved on the north front of Spring Gardens, separated by the road only, upon which it would be possible, if in the future it should be

    1177
    desirable to do so, to erect residences for those two Officers. For his own part, he was inclined to think that it was desirable those Officers, although not necessarily under the roof of the new building, should have residences provided in close proximity to it. That would be quite consistent with the other arrangements of the building, according to the plan adopted. He would conclude by saying that his belief was that Messrs. Leeming had honourably won this very great prize, and that the building erected upon their design, although it might not satisfy the artistic requirements of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), would, nevertheless, be a great ornament to the Metropolis, and satisfy all the requirements of the War Office and Admiralty.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, the sum the Committee were asked to vote at the present moment was, of course, a comparatively small one, but it would involve a very large expenditure of money hereafter. It was satisfactory to know that the interior arrangements of the new building had received so much attention at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. He spoke feelingly upon the subject, because he happened to be a constant frequenter of a building where the arrangements were far from complete or satisfactory—he referred to the new Courts of Justice, which, both in regard to light, ventilation, and many-other requirements, were most defective. He trusted that no inconveniences of a similar kind would be experienced in the proposed building, and certainly the right hon. Gentleman and the Government had ample warning before them in the arrangements to which he referred. He hoped that warning would not be without its due effect upon the consideration of the details of the arrangements connected with the new Public Offices. With regard to the elevation of the building, he could not, of course, speak with any authority upon the matter; but he confessed that when he saw the designs, it did appear to him that they were somewhat overloaded with ornament. There seemed to be a rather large number of columns designed for the purpose of ornament which could very well be dispensed with without spoiling the architecture of the building. He would, therefore, suggest that some
    1178
    reduction should be made in the external ornamentation. He gathered from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General that that was to be the case, and he sincerely hoped that the building as erected would not be nearly so redundant in the way of architectural ornament as the designs seemed to imply. The total sum put down as the cost of the building was £700,000. He did not know—but here again he spoke in ignorance—whether that sum was to be considered excessive; £700,000 was the Estimate for the Courts of Justice, and he took it that the new Public Offices would be of something like the same dimensions. In the case of the Law Courts, however, there had been constantly increasing Estimates. As the Government were now about to enter upon a very serious expenditure, he hoped that great care would, be exercised, and that before they entered into this large expenditure, they would see that everything was strictly regulated by contract. It would be necessary, in the first instance, to provide that contracts should be duly entered into, signed and sealed; and that every step of the work hereafter should be regulated by such contracts. They should also have a contractor upon whom they could rely, not only for the performance of the work, but for seeing that the Estimates were not materially exceeded. It was a matter of great importance, he thought, that before voting a large sum of money, Parliament should have some assurance that contracts would be entered into and laid upon the Table. He also trusted that the contracts, when entered into, would be substantially adhered to, and that the work would be proceeded with as rapidly as possible. The building operations should not be allowed to be suspended, either by want of means, or by strikes; but it should be rapidly and substantially carried on. Upon those conditions, so far as he was personally concerned, he was prepared to assent to the Vote.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he must invite the Committee to consider well the remarks which had been made by the Postmaster General in bringing this Vote under their notice. It was not a question as to the qualifications of Messrs. Leeming, or the artistic character of their designs. Everybody must admit that the plan for these new

    1179
    buildings was a very beautiful one; but the question which the Committee had to consider was not whether the plan was a beautiful one or not, but whether it was really necessary or desirable that at the present moment they should spend a sum of certainly not less than £1,500,000 in the construction of the buildings, in the present state of the financial arrangements of the country? There was one matter which it was important the Committee should consider. At the close of last Session the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, who was then Chief Commissioner of Works, wished the House to make some arrangement respecting the outside of Westminster Hall. An hon. Member sitting on those Benches discussed the subject, and the House of Commons decided that the proposal of the First Commissioner should not be entertained then, but should be postponed. The Committee would recollect that at the close of last Session it was determined that the arrangements proposed to be entered into by the First Commissioner of Works should stand over as a matter for further consideration; and he certainly thought the country must rejoice at the decision then come to by the House of Commons. The question now raised by the Postmaster General was one of very great importance. The Committee were asked at the present moment of financial crisis not to vote £6,000 this year, or £10,000 next, but to commit themselves by the Vote proposed to be taken to an expenditure of at least £1,500,000. [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: £700,000.] They knew from what his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had just said that they could not always depend upon the Estimates submitted to the House. They were always largely exceeded; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General said that £700,000 was the full sum that would be required, the right hon. Gentleman knew as well as he (Sir Robert Peel) did, and as well as the Committee did, that the Estimate would not cover one-half of the expenditure that would be ultimately incurred. The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee a short time ago, that private residences for the First Lord of the Admiralty and some other Officers was not included in the Estimate, and that item alone would
    1180
    probably cost at least £100,000 more. At all events, he maintained that this was not the moment for the country, in the present state of their political affairs, to pledge itself to expend an amount of money which would probably in the end exceed £1,500,000, nor was it necessary. Was not the accommodation at the present moment adequate for the purposes for which it was required? The Postmaster General admitted just now that he was unable to express any opinion upon matters of Art; but he said that, under the plan of Messrs. Leeming, the internal arrangements in connection with the new Offices would be perfect. Well, let that be so; but was that a moment for spending something like £1,500,000 for the purpose of securing more perfect internal arrangements, when the internal arrangements of the existing Admiralty and War Office were, he presumed, fully adequate for every purpose required? No doubt Messrs. Leeming had very creditably gained the competition; but nine gentlemen were selected, as they now learned from the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, out of 148 gentlemen who took part in the first competition. Each of those nine gentlemen received £500 for his designs, and he presumed that that sum of £500 a-piece was included in the sum of £7,000 the Committee were now asked to vote?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that was not so.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he should like, then, to ask where that sum of £4,500 was to come from?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREremarked, that it was voted last year.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he would be glad, under those circumstances, to learn from the right hon. Gentleman what it was the sum of £7,000 represented? It appeared in the Votes as the estimated expenditure which was to come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1886, in conection with the erection of the new Admiralty and War Office.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Committee would, perhaps, allow him to explain that this sum was put down in the Estimates in order that the opinion of the Committee might be taken upon the plans of Messrs. Leeming. It had been thought desirable that a small Vote should be submitted to the Com-

    1181
    mittee, in order that the Committee might have an opportunity of expressing its opinion. A portion of the money would be expended in pulling down some old buildings which it was necessary to pull down before the new scheme could be proceeded with.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, it was quite clear that this sum of £7,000, which appeared in the Vote as the sum necessary to complete the sum that would come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March, 1886, was intended to deceive the House of Commons, and to obtain a pledge that would bind the Committee to the expenditure of the whole of this money upon the proposed new buildings. He certainly did not think the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was at all a creditable one for a Member of the Government to make; and he could only hope that the right hon. Gentleman conducted the Department over which he now presided with a greater amount of accuracy, because to tell the Committee that this was the estimated expenditure up to the 31st of March, 1886, but that not 1d. of the sum was to be expended when voted, except in pulling down a few old houses, was certainly not dealing with the House of Commons in a straightforward way. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General had found fault with the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). No doubt, his right hon. Friend had been somewhat severe upon the accepted designs; but his right hon. Friend was a high authority upon questions of Art, and was fully entitled to express his opinion, however harshly it might bear upon a protége of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had described the design as wofully disappointing, and as original only in the depravity of its taste. No stronger condemnation could have been passed by any authority upon artistic questions; but his right hon. Friend went on to say—"Let the building stand; but let us have the carcass only, and surround that carcass with artistic features entirely at variance with the present proposal." He (Sir Robert Peel) sincerely trusted that the Committee would not hastily pledge themselves to the demand now made upon them by the Government. He was con-
    1182
    vinced, in his own mind, that it was not necessary to expend this money. He was also sure that the explanation of the Postmaster General had not been thoroughly satisfactory; and bearing in mind the vast sum of money the adoption of the present Vote would hereafter involve, in connection with the new Admiralty and War Office, it would be well if a little more time were given for the consideration of the plan. He cordially endorsed what had been said by his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Gregory), that really the financial question was one which ought to engage the attention of the Committee, and that this was certainly not the moment for the House of Commons to embark blindly into a scheme of this nature—a scheme, too, which they learned from the right hon. Gentleman himself was ill-digested, and anything but complete.
    MR. BROADHURSTtrusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) would not press his Motion to a division. They could not expect that the designs for a classical building would altogether meet the approval of a Gentleman who was understood to admire little other architecture than Gothic; and the right hon. Gentleman would himself admit that a Gothic building for the purposes of official labour was altogether an impossibility. [Mr. BERESFORD HOPE: No.] Probably the right hon. Gentleman had had some experience in the course of his life of the difficulty of satisfying himself with any building plans that were submitted to him. Any hon. Gentleman who undertook to erect some large building for himself must be aware of the enormous difficulties which attended the settlement of the plans. There were many consultations and numerous alterations of the plans, and every kind of detail had to be examined and gone through before the individual who entered upon a building speculation was able to please himself with a plan that was intended to be carried out under his own direction. If, then, they were to wait until they had a plan which met with the universal approval of the House of Commons, they might have to wait for a very long time indeed, to say nothing of the difficulties which would have to be contended with in the criticisms which would be passed upon the

    1183
    scheme from time to time in the House itself. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel) appealed to the Committee not to pass this Vote at a critical time like the present, because of the enormous outlay to which it would commit Parliament. But he did not understand the right hon. Baronet to tell the Committee what the crisis was to which he referred. He presumed, therefore, that he made a merely general allusion.
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: I, of course, referred, though in more general terms, to the programme of the Liberal Party, "Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform!"
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he thought that was hardly a satisfactory explanation of the general term crisis. What was in his mind, and no doubt it was in the minds of other hon. Members, was that the right hon. Baronet meant that the Government, or rather the country, was now engaged in difficulties in Egypt and the Soudan, with, unhappily, prospective difficulties in another part of the world. But surely the right hon. Baronet would be the last man in the House to tell the country that they must not undertake the erection of some Offices on account of the possibility of an engagement in warlike operations with a great European Power. Surely the right hon. Baronet would not present the financial position of this country in that light before Europe and the whole world. There was, surely, no reason to suppose that he would so humiliate the nation before the financial authorities of the world. If these Offices were necessary, the sooner they were erected the better for the business of the country. If they were not necessary, why was the proposal ever entered into? He understood that this was not the proposal of one side of the House only; but that right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, who had had considerable experience of the inconveniences of carrying on Departmental work owing to the contracted state of the present Government Offices, in the War Office, and especially in the Admiralty Office, had approved it. If that was so, the first necessity, nay, the first duty of the country, was to provide Offices in which the work could be done conveniently and expeditiously, and they ought to lose no time in preparing the Offices for the transaction of their im-
    1184
    portant work. He had taken some little interest in this matter from another point of view. He had been in communication with the Government for some months past, urging on them, if these Offices were to be erected, the desirability of commencing the work as soon as convenient. It was well known that they had a great mass of unemployed labour, chiefly unskilled labour, especially in London. Although the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) stated that building operations would probably not commence this year, even if the Vote was passed that night, still there would, he apprehended, at an early day be a considerable demand for labour in pulling down the present buildings, erecting hoardings, preparing the foundations, and effecting a general clearance of the site to be occupied. That would give employment to a large number of the unskilled labourers of London. In saying that, he was not speaking for his special class, the mechanics, because there would be no employment for them for a considerable time under any circumstances; but there would be instant employment for a large number of unskilled labourers, who were the most pressed of any class of the community in times of depression and want of employment. He wished it to be clearly understood by the Committee that he was not advocating in the slightest degree that the Government should provide employment for those out of employment. He had never proposed and never advocated such a thing, and, so far as he knew, there was no possibility of his doing so. But if the work was necessary, if they had made up their minds that the work was to be done, then, he said, commence it at this time, rather than at any other time. Therefore, he hoped the Committee would not entertain the objection made to the proposal by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon; indeed, he did not suppose the right hon. Baronet would himself press the objection. The hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had appealed to the Postmaster General to take care that the inconveniences under which the Legal Profession laboured at the new Law Courts should not occur again in the Government Offices now under discussion. He did not possess an intimate acquaintance with the construction of

    1185
    the new Law Courts; but he questioned whether, if the present contract was let under the circumstances under which that contract was let, they would be satisfied either with the building or with the contract. No matter how clever, accomplished, and far-sighted the architect might be, he always received at the hands of a capable and careful builder a vast number of practical suggestions as they progressed with the work. The contract for the Law Courts was let under circumstances which made it most unlikely that any such suggestions should be made. It was let at a ruinous price. Everyone who was engaged in the building trade knew perfectly well at the time the contract was accepted that nothing but disaster, failure, incompleteness, and dissatisfaction could result from the acceptance of that estimate. He was now speaking entirely from memory, and as the incident occurred 10 or 12 years ago the Committee would excuse him if he was wrong in his figures; but what he was about to state was something near the mark. The estimate of capable and well - known substantial building firms was something like £1,000,000; and the estimate which was accepted from an entirely unknown Provincial firm, of no experience, and of very little position, was, he believed, about £250,000 less. How was it possible for anyone to suppose that half-a-dozen of the great London building firms, some of the best firms in the world, the most experienced, the most honest, the most capable, could make a mistake of £250,000 in a contract of £1,000,000? The thing was absurd and impossible. He should not have referred to this, as he doubted whether it was quite the occasion to do so; but as the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had referred to it without correction he had ventured to mention it. He further wished to say that when they got to that stage of the proceedings of accepting contracts, he hoped the Government would take the greatest possible care that the inconceivable blunders committed in the case of letting the contract for the Law Courts were not repeated in the contract for the new Government Offices, and thus avoid bringing disgrace on the country, having incomplete buildings, and involving a far greater loss to the taxpayers of the country than if the con-
    1186
    tract was let at a fair price to a competent firm.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he thought the Government had got the support of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broad-hurst) on false pretences. He understood the hon. Member to suppose that out of this sum of £10,000 a considerable proportion would go to the payment of unskilled labour. He should like to know how much? Up to this point they had spent £6,000 on architect's commissions and salaries of foremen of works without touching a brick; and how much of the £10,000 that was going to be spent this year was likely to be spent in giving wages to labourers, especially to unskilled labourers? He should also like to know whether the hon. Member reckoned the workmen who pulled down buildings as unskilled? He did not profess to have the same knowledge on. these matters as the hon. Member; but he had always understood that a "house breaker," as he was called—that was, one who pulled down houses—was one of the most highly-skilled in the trade. But he rose for the purpose of supporting the views placed before the Committee by his right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel)— views which had been misunderstood and misrepresented by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Broadhurst). He did not suppose anyone in that House thought that whatever crisis they might find themselves in, they could not look forward to spending £10,000, or £100,000, or £1,000,000 upon any absurdity which the nation liked to throw its money away upon. They had quite sufficient money and financial credit to throw money away when they liked. But the question was whether, when their Navy was notoriously inefficient, and when the Admiralty themselves had come to the House and told them that large sums were necessary to make the Navy efficient, this was a time to spend £1,500,000 on Admiralty Offices. He should say—better keep the Admiralty Offices a few years longer in their present barely efficient state, and bring up the Navy to a more efficient position. It was not a question whether they could afford to spend £1,500,000 or not, but whether, having £1,500,000 to spend, they had better spend it on buildings in Spring Gardens or on torpedo-boats and iron-clads, which would add to the effi-

    1187
    ciency of the Navy. He knew that the erection of the new War and Admiralty Offices was planned by the late Government; but it did not follow that the late Government would have spent the money at the present moment. He did not oppose the erection of those Offices at some time or other, and he did not feel competent to enter into the architectural question, or say whether the plans now proposed were good or not. What he was anxious to say was that the present was not a moment when they should begin an expenditure of this kind, but that it would be better to devote any money they had to spare on the Army and Navy, neither of which were in an efficient condition, as was confessed by the Government themselves. He understood his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) to urge the Committee to postpone this unnecessary and, comparatively speaking, useless expenditure, in order to spend the money on something more essential to their present position.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDobserved, that the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) had spoken as if this expenditure were necessary for the removal of the building. As he had had the pleasure of sitting for some days on the Select Committee appointed to consider the matter, he should like to trouble the Committee with a few words. The House had already voted a very large sum of money for the acquisition of the site; and therefore the question of the progress of the work was in a different position from what the hon. Member (Mr. Broadhurst) had stated. He was prepared to bow with great deference to the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) on matters of taste; but he understood the right hon. Gentleman, after condemning the design before the Committee, to suggest that the carcase should be preserved. But he understood the carcase of a building to mean the external walls; and if they were to do that they would be accepting the architect's design. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope) proceeded to advise the Committee to study the designs upstairs; but he saw little use in doing so if they accepted the Vote now before the Committee. Those designs were considered by a Select Committee, of which one distinguished Member, the right hon. Gentleman
    1188
    the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), was present that night, but had not yet favoured them with his views. The Chairman was the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers); but that right hon. Gentleman had been so busy during the last few months that he supposed he had not been able to give much attention to the matter. The Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) spoke of the building as a great practical work, and compared it with one of the most successful works of Sir Gilbert Scott in another part of London. He spoke of the internal arrangements as being perfect. There were rooms in the Home Office which were higher than they were long. That was a great fault. Some of those rooms had a space of from 6 to 8 feet above the tops of the windows, entirely unventilated, and they were asked to vote a sum of £30,000 to complete the sanitary arrangements of the Government Offices. That was a point which the Postmaster General did not touch upon. He spoke only of the ground plan, which had nothing to do with the height of the rooms, and did not necessarily show the sanitary arrangements. He should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman had to say on that matter. Then the right hon. Gentleman had informed the Committee, for the first time, that there had been a considerable modification in the plan proposed by Messrs. Leeming and Leeming; and the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) proposed to reduce the Vote by £1,000. Now, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had pointed out that they were not in a great hurry for this money; and he was not quite sure if the money were voted this year that it would be spent next year. Therefore, he took it that his right hon. Friend would be just as well pleased to get £9,000 as £10,000, because the conclusion of the arrangement with the architect would be one and the same thing. It was obvious from the remarks of the Postmaster General that this was not a matter of very pressing urgency. He (Mr. Arnold) was not disposed to any dealing with this Vote which would refer the matter to another competition. Whether there were faults in the competition he was not an authority to decide; but he was not disposed to do anything to re-open that competi-

    1189
    tion. But he thought the Committee had some reason to complain that there was nothing in the shape of a Report on the proposed buildings. They were asked to commit themselves somewhat blindly to a Vote of £700,000 upon the word of one whom he was always disposed to respect, the Postmaster General; but he had drawn the attention of the Committee to some points to which that right hon. Gentleman had not alluded. There must be many other points of great and vital interest; and he should be glad if the Postmaster General, or some other Member of the Government, were disposed to postpone the consideration of the Vote for a little while, until they were in a position to receive a full and accurate Report upon the building, embracing not only the modifications which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had suggested, but showing the House that all the internal and sanitary arrangements had been considered. He could not support the Motion for the reduction of the Vote; but he should be glad if the Vote itself were postponed, so that the Committee might have more full and decided information before it.
    MR. W. H. SMITHwished, as special reference had been made to him as a Member of the Committee, to say a few words. In the first place, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had stated, competitions were invited; and the Committee, which was appointed under conditions of strictly "limited liability," had specific instructions to report as to the best 10 plans out of the 148 submitted to them. There was no difficulty in arriving at the con-elusion that nine were worthy of consideration, and that no more than nine were. When those nine came to be still further examined, and after a considerable period had elapsed, during which the architects had opportunities of improving their plans, there was no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that there was one plan which was the best. The Select Committee were not responsible for procuring the best plans which could be procured, but only for deciding which were the best plans out of the 148 submitted to them; and then, by a subsequent arrangement, they expressed the conclusion that this one plan was the best. He had no doubt whatever that they arrived at a completely satisfactory
    1190
    conclusion upon the conditions under which they acted. They were unanimous. They were assisted by competent special advice in the persons of Mr. P. Hardwick and Mr. Christian, than whom no one could have given information more interesting to the Committee and more important to the country. As he had said, there was no reservation in the conclusion at which the Select Committee had arrived; but there were considerations which the House would bear in mind before deciding so large a matter. It was the largest Government Office since the erection of the block which comprised the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the Local Government Board Office, and the India Office. The points to which the Select Committee particularly directed their attention were the Office arrangements and the convenience of the Offices; and they satisfied themselves that many of the evils which undoubtedly existed in the Government Public Offices had been obviated in the plans of the Messrs. Leeming. Those plans showed great skill and ability in dealing with the points of light and air which were not provided for satisfactorily in other Government buildings: but there were details in which he should wish to see a decided improvement. The Select Committee were not responsible for the existing revised plans, which they had not seen until they saw them upstairs in the Committee Room. They were responsible for the selection of the original, not for the revised plans, though the revised plans, no doubt, in many respects, showed improvements. If he were responsible, he should wish to see still further improvements in many respects—such as provision for larger rooms in several of the Offices, where clerks would work together more efficiently than if they were separated and in smaller rooms. He would prefer to see the Accountant's Department, or any other Department involving the employment of many clerks under the charge of a senior officer, much larger, rather than having them dispersed over many smaller rooms, without the supervision which the senior officer was capable of giving. He was aware that in the Departments themselves there was a good deal of objection to that arrangement; but experience was against the Departments, and in favour of the views he advocated. He had no doubt

    1191
    that if, by the Vote that night, it were placed in the power of the Office of Works to see that modifications of that kind were carried out, it would be a great advantage; and he should be disposed not to assent to the Vote unless some assurance were given even now that such modifications would be effected. Hon. Members had been invited to examine the plans upstairs; but he would point out that a cursory examination by hon. Members, with the slight knowledge that many of them possessed with regard to the details of large architectural works, was not sufficient to enable them to arrive at a correct conclusion, and to make up their minds to a plan to which the Committee could commit themselves. If, therefore, the Vote was taken that night, he thought there ought to be an opportunity for further consideration with regard to the details, which were of such very great importance to the proper discharge of the duties of those establishments. The hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst) had urged upon the Committee the difficulties in the way of the conduct of Public Business; but it should be borne in mind that those difficulties might, perhaps, rather tend to increase than be removed by the too hasty adoption of plans that might not be the best that could be desired. He wished to bear his testimony to the fact that the general plan of the building was probably as good as it could be; that the rooms were well-proportioned and well-ventilated, and that they were not open to many objections which had been urged on hygienic grounds in other cases; but he did not think that they were altogether suited to the work to be performed in the building. Nor did he think that the most economical system had been arrived at with regard to a point on which he desired to lay particular stress—namely, the distribution of the work itself within the building. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the question of the erection of official residences at the Admiralty. He could only speak from his own experience, and say that, in his opinion, such official residences were a matter of absolute necessity. In times of difficulty and emergency, the First Lord and others were expected to be on duty day and night, and it was no uncommon thing for messages to be
    1192
    brought to the First Lord at any time after 11 o'clock at night and before 11 o'clock next morning by clerks who were on duty for the purpose during that time; and it was often desirable, in consequence, that the First Lord should have the opportunity of communicating with the First Sea Lord. Therefore, he repeated that, in his judgment, official residences in close contiguity with the Admiralty, both for the First Lord and for the First Sea Lord, were absolutely necessary. He hoped that the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) would be well considered by the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he did not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman into the question from an architectural point of view as to whether the plans were the best or not for the purpose in view. It seemed to him that there were two or three preliminary questions which should be considered with reference to this Vote. In the first place, he thought that the Committee ought to be definitely assured by those in authority that it was absolutely necessary that those buildings should be at once proceeded with, and that grave public inconvenience arose from the fact that the buildings were not erected. He had had the honour of being a Member of the Select Committee which met specially to consider the site of the proposed building, and he believed that the site recommended by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), the Chief Commissioner at that time, had, on the whole, the most advantages; therefore, whatever money had been spent in securing the site with the view of carrying out the recommendation of that Committee had not been lost; because he believed they were all unanimous in the opinion that, sooner or later, it would be necessary to erect new Admiralty buildings. But the question remained as to whether the urgency of the case was so great as would justify the Committee at the present moment in undertaking this very large expenditure. The £700,000 which had been put down must be regarded as a round sum. They knew well that when an enormous building of this kind had to be erected the ultimate charge was always in excess of the figures put forward by the Government for the encouragement of the Com-

    1193
    mittee in making the first Vote. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) said it was a matter of the greatest importance that the residence of the First Lord should be within the Admiralty building. He recollected that, when be was on the Committee which considered this question, evidence was laid before them that this was absolutely necessary; and, as a matter of fact that was admitted. He had himself put a Question on the subject in the House, and the necessity of the official residence being so placed was acknowledged; but immediately afterwards came the plan of the Chief Commissioner, with the house of the First Lord left out.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the original plan showed the residences, except in cases in which it had been suggested that they should be left out.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, that appeared to him to be an entire change of front on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said he agreed as to the importance of those residences, and he would probably remember that he (Mr. Rylands) had on a former occasion stated that if the official residences of the First Lord and the First Sea Lord were not made part of the first plan the right hon. Gentleman would involve himself in an enormous additional expenditure. There could be no question that, as part of this great plan, the First Lord's residence could be dovetailed in a way which would not, to a very large extent, increase the cost of the building; but if it came forward by way of addition it would lead to a very largely increased expenditure. He thought they were justified in asking whether this Vote meant that Parliament, within the next few years, would have to provide for this special object a very large sum of money? He understood the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) to say that, notwithstanding all the professions of the Government with regard to Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform, they had gone on increasing the Expenditure of the country in a formidable and appalling manner. He did not know how they would satisfy the country when they came to justify this expenditure. The promise had been given a year or two ago that there should be something definite done to curtail the Expenditure of the country, and to cut down the various
    1194
    items which were in the nature of excrescences; but nothing had been done, and he pointed out that with regard to the various Departments the increase was really going on to a greater extent than appeared upon the face of the Estimates; because in making the calculation they must add to the present Estimates the Supplementary Estimates that would be brought forward. When he found that in all branches of the Civil Service and in the Army and Navy Departments there was an enormous expenditure, and when hon. Gentlemen opposite told them that, notwithstanding all the great expenditure upon the Army and Navy, they ought to spend some millions more to put the country into a proper state of defence, he knew that this meant sooner or later an increased burden on the public. They could not tell, until the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Budget Statement, how that burden would be applied to the shoulders of the people; but it would come, and the present was already a time when the people of the country and the capital employed in industrial operations were suffering to a very large extent. He thought the Government ought to pause before they committed themselves to the expenditure of so large an amount, unless it was absolutely necessary, and they were compelled to take the step, in which case the burden would have to be borne. But if the case was one in which the Committee could exercise an option, he was of opinion that the Vote should be postponed to a more convenient season. He should vote for the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), not as an expression of any opinion in favour of his views, but simply because he felt that in the present state of the country the Vote should be postponed, which postponement might possibly lead the Government to the conclusion that this was a time when the proposal ought not to be pressed.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he wished to endorse what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) as to the inopportuneness of incurring this large expenditure at the present moment. The amount proposed for the year was not, perhaps, very large; but it was, as

    1195
    the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General had expressed it, for the purpose of pledging the House of Commons to the expenditure of the whole sum. Now, the whole sum asked for was a very large one, and half of it, it appeared, was to be spent in five years; because, although they did not know which block of buildings was to be completed first, whether the Admiralty or the War Office, they were informed that the proposal was to erect the buildings in two blocks, one of which was to be completed in five years. His right hon. Friend had observed that this was merely a bare estimate of the expenditure, and hon. Members knew very well that the actual estimates for architectural works invariably exceeded the original estimate. He believed that the cost of the Houses of Parliament was three or four times as much as the sum originally estimated. Now, the danger of embarking on this at the present moment was that they would have to expend, perhaps, £200,000 annually for the next five years, during which, from what he had heard that night, the country might be engaged in a desperate and expensive struggle. They were going to spend £1,600,000 on the Admiralty Offices. Why not, he asked, spend £1,600,000 on restoring the Navy, instead of making the Offices more comfortable for those who administered it? This money would provide the cost of an iron-clad; the Government might build torpedo-boats with it, or they might give the troops cartridges which would not jam. He said that, with the enormous expenditure going on in the Soudan, and with the probability of a war with Russia, this was a most profligate proceeding on the part of the Government. He observed that the occupants of the Treasury Bench, finding themselves hard pressed on this subject, and knowing what was the feeling of the Committee, had sent for a strong reinforcement in the person of the Prime Minister? He had no doubt that that right hon. Gentleman would find out that this was not the time for going into this large expenditure, especially in view of his policy of Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform, to which the hon. Memher for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had alluded, and upon which the right hon. Gentleman, on acceding to Office, laid so much stress. But he wished to
    1196
    say one word with regard to the manner in which these Estimates were brought forward; and, without wishing to depreciate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone), he was bound to protest against the act of the Government in placing the head of another spending Department in the other House of Parliament. He had more than once expressed his regret that the Admiralty was not represented in the House of Commons, and now the Government were again placing the head of a spending Department in the other House. That, to his mind, was a great and dangerous innovation. He thought that all expenditure ought to be watched over in the House of Commons; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some assurance that if they remained in Office, which was very likely, seeing that they were going to plunge the country into a great war, all the spending Departments should be represented in that House.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the question of erecting this building had been for years before the House of Commons; and it had been advocated from the point of view of economy as a most desirable thing that a building should be erected for the two Departments of the Admiralty and the War Office. In 1877 a Committee which sat to consider this question came unanimously to that conclusion. They said that they could not too strongly point out the necessity and the expediency of the Government proposing some plan to remedy the evils then complained of; that it would avoid great expense in the future; and that it was essential that the officials should be concentrated under one head. Sir Robert Hamilton, one of the most able officers of the Department, and now connected with the Irish Government, gave it as his opinion that the Admiralty staff should be housed under one roof, instead of being dispersed through 28 small houses; and that, Sir Robert Hamilton believed, would lead to the saving of many thousands a-year by the diminished charge due to the concentration of the staff. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) could bear out that view certainly from his own experience at the Admiralty; and he did not think it too much to say that the system under which all the Admiralty officials were

    1197
    spread about in so many places was the most uneconomical one which could be devised, and that by bringing them under one roof a great economy would be effected. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that the cost of the building would be £1,500,000; but he ventured to say that such would not be the case, and he would point out that the other Estimates for great buildings which had been erected by the Government of late years had, as a rule, not been exceeded. It was so with regard to the new Law Courts, which were built within the Estimates, and also with the new Home Office and the new Colonial Office. All those had come within the original Estimates, and he undertook to say that these new buildings for the Admiralty and the War Offices would be erected for the sum of £700,000. But the Committee must recollect that when he last spoke upon this matter, he had pointed out that there would be a very considerable sum derived from the setting free of the site now occupied by the War Office in Pall Mall, which was worth from between £350,000 to £400,000. That being so, it would be seen that the Government were not calling really for £700,000 for this purpose, but for something like one-half of that amount. He also pointed out that the houses in Spring Gardens, which had been bought for a considerable sum, were now empty, and must remain so until some plan had been carried into effect. Therefore, he said that it would be very bad economy, having gone so far, suddenly to stop and relegate this affair to the future. He had dealt with this question from the beginning from the point of view of economy, and his opinion was that the alternative plan would have cost the country much more money; indeed, he ventured to take some credit to himself for a scheme which would undoubtedly have an economical result. It was his confident belief that when the Admiralty and War Office Departments were brought under one roof, not only would the Public Business be facilitated, but a great economy would be effected in the Departmental charges. That led him to the subject of the concentration of the clerks, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had alluded—a point which he, equally with the right hon. Gentleman, held to be of
    1198
    the greatest importance; and he had already done his best to persuade the War Office and Admiralty officials to adopt this course as far as possible. He believed that an arrangement of the kind indicated would not be inconsistent with the plan as it existed—that was to say, that it would be very easy, by removing the partitions between some of the rooms as now laid out, to modify the plan in such a way as to make provision for a greater number of clerks in the same room. He could only say on that point that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster, supported, as he understood it to be, by the general opinion of the House, would be of great value to the Department. Although he was no longer connected with it, he hoped that his noble Friend (Lord Rose-bery) would bring further pressure to bear on the Authorities at the War Office, and Admiralty to adopt this plan, which he believed would be conducive to the better supervision of the clerks and to greater economy. His hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) had asked him whether the faults which now existed in the Colonial Office and the Home Office would again make their appearance in this building. He would only say that he had in view the very faults to which his hon. Friend had alluded, and that, so far as he was responsible, they should not be repeated. The rooms were to be of a moderate height, not excessively lofty, as in the case of the Home Office, the rooms of which building he considered to be discreditable to the architects engaged upon them. With regard to the internal arrangements, he would repeat his belief that the new building would be extremely satisfactory, and most suitable to the Public Service. While expressing with some confidence his own opinion with regard to the architectural details of the building, it must not be supposed that he was in that respect dissatisfied with it—on the contrary, from all he could learn from those competent to form a judgment on the matter, he believed it would be an ornament to London, and that it would compare most favourably with any of the existing public buildings.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that when complaints were made of defects in the new Public Offices it was only fair to

    1199
    the late Sir Gilbert Scott to remember the immense influence brought to bear upon him by the then Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, to compel him to erect a mass of buildings in a style it was notorious he greatly disliked. He (Lord John Manners) was glad to hear there was no intention of compelling this unknown architect, Mr. Leeming, to construct the proposed new building in a style he was not familiar with, and was not partial to. So far the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General was satisfactory. Having had some considerable experience in the Office the right hon. Gentleman recently filled —the Office of Works—he (Lord John Manners) was aware that nothing led to expense so much as unnecessary delay in the commencement and completion of large Government buildings. The Postmaster General had told them that he favoured this particular site over that of Great George Street, because he believed the cost would be something like £1,000,000 less. On that subject the Committee should be informed—if they did not know it already—that when the Great George Street site was first suggested, the recommendation came from a most important Committee, appointed during the Earl of Derby's third Administration, to consider the question of the site for the necessary new public buildings. That Committee went into the question of cost in great detail, and, recommending the Great George Street site, put down a given sum of money as the necessary expenditure. Parliament was informed of all that had taken place before the Committee; and, in an informal manner, it expressed its approval of the plan for the whole of the Public Offices being built on that one site. In consequence of Parliament having taken that course, notice was served upon the owners of all the houses on the site, and considerable expense was incurred in consequence. Proper notices were given in the month of November. Well, a change of Government ensued—a Liberal Government came in, and repudiated altogether the scheme of their Predecessors; and the result was that nothing was done for many years in the matter of the concentration of the Public Offices. Later on—in 1874— when Mr. Disraeli's Government resumed the consideration of this question, it was
    1200
    found that, in the interval, the estimated cost of acquiring the Great George Street site had risen by some £500,000. That was one of the results of delaying immediate action in these great enterprizes. From an economical point of view, therefore, he was not personally in favour of delay. When he was told that the ground had been already purchased at considerable expense, and was lying more or less useless, and must continue so until the buildings which it was intended to put on it some day or other were erected, he confessed that, from the point of view of economy, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would not gain much by delay. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Burnley, he (Lord John Manners) had been very much struck by the great difference which existed between the view of the hon. Member and that previously expressed by an hon. Gentleman sitting immediately behind him—namely, the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst). The latter hon. Member had stated that there was great distress in all the building and other trades which employed unskilled labour, and had recommended the commencement of the work of pulling down the houses which now occupied the site, for the sake of giving employment to those who were in need of it. The hon. Member suggested that the work of pulling down might be proceeded with, even if the work of erecting the new buildings was not to be undertaken just yet. The hon. Member for Burnley, on the other hand, had argued that because there was great distress in the building and other trades it would be well to suspend operations on this particular class of building. He would leave it to those two hon. Gentlemen to reconcile their views. Having said that, he was bound to state that he thought the debate which had been originated had shown that, in one or two important respects, the Government themselves were not quite clear as to what ought to be done with respect to these great buildings. He had been much struck by the important omission from Messrs. Leeming's plan of the official residences of the First Lord and the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty. It was said that there was a piece of land on which these residences could hereafter be built; but he confessed, from what the

    1201
    right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General had himself told them of his knowledge of the Admiralty, and also knowing how strongly the same view was entertained by those who had had Admiralty experience, he was surprised at the absence of all reference to those buildings. They were, on great and universal authority, proclaimed to be absolutely necessary. It would, therefore, he thought, be better for the plans to be taken back, and for the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, or whoever was responsible for the plans in the future, to have prepared one complete design showing how the residences for the First Lord and First Naval Lord were to be interpolated into, and brought into immediate connection with, the other Admiralty Offices. That was an important point, and he should be sorry to see the Committee give a Vote for these public buildings, and some years hence be called on again to vote an additional sum for the official residences. He should be sorry if unnecessary delay occurred in the prosecution of the work; but he really thought that, under the circumstances he had mentioned, something like a postponement should take place.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) appeared to think that the Committee was of opinion that the official residences should be under the same roof as the Offices. [Mr. RYLANDS: No, no!] At any rate, the original scheme had not provided that the official residences should be under the same roof. The scheme two years ago provided that the official residences should be on a plot of land in Spring Gardens, at the north of the main block of buildings. That plot was still reserved for the purpose, and it would still be possible to erect the official residences on it. It would not be possible to put those residences under the same roof as the Admiralty and War Offices. There was not room enough for them, and it would not be possible to squeeze them in. The Government, however, would reconsider the subject; and he trusted that in the meantime the Committee would be content to leave the matter where it was.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he rose to express the opinion that, from the acquaintance he had had with the War Office, he believed it desirable that those residences should be under
    1202
    the same roof as the new Government Offices. He was also of opinion that the buildings for the two great Departments should be pushed forward with the utmost rapidity, and that the War Office should be first erected. The rooms in the War Office were small in number, uncomfortable and unhealthy, and difficult of access; and he would, therefore, strongly support the recommendation of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) in regard to the speedy erection of the proposed new buildings. He was of opinion, moreover, that all the expense of providing the official residences, as well as the other new Government Offices, should be paid for by means of Annuities, and thus save the necessity of applying to Parliament for annual Votes for the purpose of defraying the cost of their construction. An Annuity of £12,000 for 35 years at 3 per cent would cover the sum needed. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General had told them that the Estimates were not often exceeded in these matters, and that it was not frequently found necessary to apply to Parliament for grants for extra work after the original plan had been either wholly or in part carried out. But the statement appeared to him to be not well founded. At all events, allowance should be made for such probable calls. He objected to the way in which the expenses were minimized in the Estimates. The Auditor General, in his first year's audit, had estimated that the cost of the land would be £238,000; but it was now stated that it would be over £500,000, and that sum, to his mind, ought to be paid in the form of Annuities, so as to enable the accounts to be kept in a proper manner. The Estimate for all the works, put in a lump sum now, was £1,270,000; but he thought the right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel) put the probable cost at a very low figure when he put it at £1,500,000, and that his estimate would certainly be exceeded; and he was strengthened in that view when he heard that alterations had already taken place in the plans, and that other improvements were to be made in them. The Committee, he thought, were entitled to have all the items put before them. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) was of opinion that a detailed Report should be sub-

    1203
    mitted to the House showing all the items and arrangements; and he (Sir George Balfour) agreed with the hon. Member in that, believing it to be desirable that they should see what went on from time to time, and in what respect the increase was taking place, and that a revised annual Report should be presented to the House on the progress or on the changes in plans. As matters were now arranged, the House of Commons had no control over those items in detail, the control of large items of money being ineffective without detail. He would recommend the Junior Lords of the Treasury to consider the subject, and to see that these and kindred remarks were made known in the proper quarter.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that, up to a certain point in this debate, he had intended to support the passing of this Vote. In several of the reasons adduced in support of it he entirely agreed. He believed it would be economical to begin the work as soon as possible, now that the site had been fixed upon and purchased, and also from the saving that would be effected by getting rid of the different houses in which, to the great inconvenience of the Service, the work of these Departments was now carried on. He was satisfied also that the want of accommodation, and the consequent want of arrangement in the present Offices, called for as speedy a remedy as possible. No one who had occasion to visit either of those Departments could doubt that. At the Admiralty one was buffeted about from one house to another in New Street and Spring Gardens; while in the War Office the passages and rooms were all on different levels owing to the Department extending over adjoining houses; the rooms themselves were small, inconvenient, ill-ventilated, and not at all fitted for the work to be done in them. He would go further, and say that the proposed plans seemed to him to be exceedingly well adapted for Offices. He did not now refer to the architecture of the buildings; upon that he offered no opinion; but he had paid special attention to the arrangement of the rooms, the shape of the rooms, the lighting of the passages, and so forth. Nothing was more deplorable than the want of attention paid to those important points in the great block of public buildings con-
    1204
    taining the Foreign Office, Home Office, and Colonial Office. The rooms were ill-proportioned; the passages had to be lighted by gas; and the ventilation was most imperfect. It had been said by the late First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) that the Estimates in respect of those Offices had not been exceeded; but he (Sir Henry Holland) would like to know what sum had been spent since their completion in improving them and in securing proper drainage? The drainage was so defective that the cellars were filled with water at one time, and the expenses incurred since the buildings had been opened must have been very great. For all those reasons he would have supported the Vote, had it not been for the point raised by the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) as to the necessity of having residences for the First Lord and the Naval Lord within, or closely contiguous to, the Admiralty building. Now, his right hon. Friend the late First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) said there was a site upon which such residences could be built; but the Committee had no plans of these residences, nor had any Estimate of their cost been presented. The necessity, or, at all events, desirability, of having those residences had been upheld by several persons of authority, and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew, by Sir Alexander Milne, who probably had done as much and as good work at the Admiralty as any living person. That being the case, he thought the Vote should be postponed—only for a short time, as he hoped it would be passed this year—to allow the First Commissioner of Works to have plans and Estimates prepared and presented to the Committee of houses for the First Lord and Naval Lord.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): It has been my fortune to be both at the Admiralty and War Office, and I was also a Member of the Committee upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) sat last year. Perhaps, therefore, I may be allowed to say a few words with regard to the desirability of proceeding with these buildings with as much speed as possible, and also as to the addition of these residences. I have heard it said that everyone who has been at the Ad-

    1205
    miralty is of opinion that the First Lord should have a residence there. I am bound to say that I know two persons, at least, who have been First Lords of the Admiralty who are not of that opinion. This has been a vexed question for some time, whether the Heads of the Admiralty and War Office should reside continually on the scene of their work. Speaking from my own experience, I do not think it wise that either the Secretary of State for War or the First Lord of the Admiralty should reside in the building in which his work is carried on. There are many reasons why, in this proposed new building, such arrangements would not be convenient to the Admiralty. I do not know whether the Committee is acquainted with the history of the Admiralty; but formerly it consisted, in the main, of the houses of the different Lords. There were five Lords who had houses under one roof, there being one large Board Room for them to meet in and transact business, and three or four other rooms for clerks. The occupation of these houses was from time to time discontinued. One Secretary only, besides the First Lord, was retained on the spot, and since then even he has left. I am of opinion that as the old plan has come to an end it would not be wise to revive it, and to build these houses for administrative officers, with one exception. It is, no doubt, of importance that there should be someone of position on the spot in connection with the Navy, someone who would be ready at all times to receive telegrams with power to telegraph replies in matters not necessarily requiring the approval of the First Lord. But my impression is that it would be better for this official, who should be, I think, the First Sea Lord, to live in the special building contiguous to the Admiralty than that he should reside actually inside the Admiralty building. I speak with great submission to the Committee; but from my experience of the nature of the work to be done in the Admiralty that is my deliberate opinion. It would not be desirable even for the First Lord or the Secretary of State for War to have houses in the new Offices; but, as I have said, it would be well to have either the First Sea Lord or the First Secretary to the Admiralty in a contiguous building near enough at night to give orders at once. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-
    1206
    hurst (Sir Henry Holland) that there should be as little delay as possible in proceeding with the building of these Government Offices. If we put off the Vote another year I fear great mischief will be done. The proper thing, I think, is to pass this Vote, and to have a distinct proposal made with reference to the building of the residence I have referred to. My right hon. Friend will be prepared to bring up such a proposal; and the Committee, when it is put before them, will be in a position to pronounce an opinion upon it. After the great care which has been taken over the preparation and adoption of these plans I should strongly deprecate any further delay in commencing the work.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that in order to simplify the discussion he might observe that when he moved the reduction of the Vote it was simply in order to bring the matter before the Committee, and to avoid a premature decision being arrived at. Since then an alternative course to that of the Government had been proposed—namely, to postpone the Vote, not for an indefinite time, but so as to enable a fuller House, and one with a mind more matured on the subject, to discuss it. If a proposal to postpone it was made he would not stand in the way, because he would have gained his object in having prevented a premature decision being arrived at.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, it was clear the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not have been in his place when the Postmaster General made his speech, for the latter had told them over and over again that there was no accommodation for the Minister for War or the First Lord of the Admiralty in the proposed new building, but that he would bring up a plan for the construction of residences for one or two of the superior officials ruling over these Departments.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I never said anything of the kind.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had distinctly stated this—that he would consider an Estimate for the erection of these residences on a plot of ground contiguous to the proposed new Public Offices. What he (Sir Robert Peel) wished to point out was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had either not heard, or had not paid much attention to, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster

    1207
    General. Before they came to a decision on the Vote he wished to impress upon the Committee—if the Government were not prepared to postpone the matter— the importance of the statement they had heard from the Postmaster General in his second or third speech, he did not know which. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to the statement that the new building would cost £1,500,000, had said that, in his opinion, it would not cost more than half as much as the estimated £700,000.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that in that statement he, of course, took into view the amount which would be received on account of the site in Pall Mall.
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: Yes; the right hon. Gentleman did not believe that more than half the £700,000 would have to be expended. Was that at all likely to be the case, judging from what they knew of public buildings in this country? Were the Government prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) and postpone the Vote? The Prime Minister was in his place, and he, if he pleased, could bring about such postponement. The right hon. Gentleman smiled at the suggestion; but if he had been present during the whole of the debate he would know that the Committee had not the proper plans before it, and that the expenditure which the erection of these new Offices would entail would be enormous. The right hon. Gentleman must know that the circumstances of the country at this moment were not such as to warrant a large expenditure on public buildings, and probably he would agree that it would be desirable to have the Vote postponed to a more fitting occasion.
    MR. BROADHURSTwished to say to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), and those who were inclined to vote with him on the ground of economy, that they were very poor economists indeed to have advocated any such proceeding as that they had enunciated. The noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) had stated to the Committee that he had discovered that delay in these matters was costly. In this particular case nothing was more certain than that delay would be costly. He would ask the Committee to remember that iron
    1208
    was enormously cheaper than it had been for many years past, and iron was no inconsiderable item in the estimate for a building of this kind. All building materials, from the concrete upon which was put the brick foundation to the slates and chimney-pots put on the roof, were, at that moment, at a price hon. Members could never expect to see them at again, and which few would care to see them at again, because they were too cheap for reasonable trade profits. He hoped the Committee would consider this circumstance in coming to a decision. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), no one would find fault with their counter suggestion. Those hon. Gentlemen did not advocate economy; they did not condemn the spending of public money in the sense that the hon. Member for Burnley condemned it. What they said was that if there was £1,500,000 to spend, spend it by all means, but not on these public buildings—spend it at Portsmouth and Chatham. He (Mr. Broadhurst) certainly thought that as an argument against delay, from an economical point of view, the low price of every class of material was an element in the consideration of the subject not unworthy of the attention of the Committee.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it struck him that this discussion was too late; that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would have shown a practical interest in the question of public economy if he had made this stand a little earlier. If when the Bill which sanctioned the transfer of the land from the Crown to the Board of Works was before the House the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rylands) had made his protest instead of now, when it was an empty parade, he might possibly have effected some economy of the public money. But on this occasion, as he had done on many others, the hon. Member for Burnley had indulged in a great show of anxiety to curtail the public Expenditure; but he (Mr. A. O'Connor) had never yet seen the hon. Gentleman give a vote in the House which was at all likely to be effective for the purpose he was supposed to have in view. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General

    1209
    (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had told them that the two blocks to be erected were to be allotted, one to the War Office, and the other to the Admiralty, and that whatever might be their exterior merits from an architectural point of view the interior arrangements were perfect. Now, the staffs of those two Departments were not of the same size, and the work carried on in the one did not admit of the same classification as the work carried on in the other; and, therefore, he (Mr. A. O'Connor) assumed that the arrangements which were to be so perfect in the first block intended to be allotted to the Admiralty were made with a view to the Admiralty work, and that the block could not be very well assigned to War Office work. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) told them that the first block would furnish ample accommodation for all the Admiralty work, and leave room to spare. Well, the right hon. Gentleman went on to tell them that when the Admiralty Authorities transferred their staffs to the new buildings they would be able, by classifying the men employed in a better way than now, by getting rid of multiplied sub-divisions, and by having very large rooms, to effect a considerable reduction of the staff. That he (Mr. A. O'Connor) thought was very likely, and he thought it was also good policy; but when the right hon. Gentleman had effected that reduction he would have a still greater amount of spare space; and, under those circumstances, he (Mr. A. O'Connor) failed to see that the internal arrangements could be regarded as so very perfect. What he wanted to suggest to the Government was that it would be better not to give the first block to the Admiralty, but to give it to the War Office, and he made this suggestion for two reasons. The distribution in the War Office was admittedly defective and inconvenient. The structural difficulties impeded the work, and the sanitary condition of the Office was exceedingly bad —indeed, some of the rooms actually stood over old cesspools, which were only cleared out after some of the staff had died. Besides this, there was, on page 21 of the present Estimates, a long list of the houses in Pall Mall for which the Treasury were paying rent for War Office accommodation. The sooner those buildings were surrendered, the sooner the War Office staff got into the new
    1210
    premises in Whitehall, the sooner the expenses of the buildings in Pall Mall would be got rid of, and there would be this further advantage—that £350,000 worth of property would be liberated; and if when that sum came in hand the Government, instead of coming down to the House to ask for a further Vote on Account, were to ask leave to appropriate the money, they would thereby effect a large economy. That, he thought, was a practicable suggestion which the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) would do well to consider. The money would be taken into the Exchequer, and be spent on anything which might happen to attract attention, or require expenditure on the part of the Government. By housing the War Office first they would save an immediate outlay for rent, and they would also get in hand £350,000, which would enable them to disburse that sum in the shape of Votes in the House for the prosecution of the Admiralty buildings. With regard to the unused space in the Admiralty buildings, he (Mr. A. O'Connor) presumed, after the expression of opinion they had heard from more than one Member entitled to speak with authority, it would be useless to propose that such officials of the Admiralty who were to be housed should be under the same roof; but whether the First Lord, or the Naval Lord, or any other official was to be in residence, it was plain a further Estimate on account of the Admiralty buildings would be brought forward. If this was not so, why not give the first building to the War Office, and let the question of the housing of Admiralty officials stand over? The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) wanted to know why this was a time when the House should hesitate to vote large sums of money, or to commit itself to large expenditure; and he seemed to think that the possibility of a war in Asia, in addition to the war in Africa, was not to interfere with the erection of buildings which might be necessary. But, apart from all prospective war expenditure, he (Mr. A. O'Connor) thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) was in a position to tell the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke that this was scarcely a time to increase the charge on the public purse. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) did not know whether they were to

    1211
    be told in a few days about a deficit; but he thought that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could make both ends meet, without some extraordinary expedient, many people in the country would be very considerably surprised. That alone seemed a satisfactory reason why the Committee should be chary of voting large sums of money for work of this kind. The hon. Member for Stoke had given very bad grounds for expenditure of this kind, for practically he had asked the Government of this country to adopt the Napoleonic plan, or, in other words, to Hausmannize London.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he distinctly stated at the commencement of his remarks that he did not ask the Government to find employment because people were out of work.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he should be very sorry to impute to the hon. Member anything he did not say, and he willingly withdrew any words which put an unfair interpretation upon what the hon. Gentleman stated. But it seemed to him (Mr. A. O'Connor) that there was great danger in advocating the expenditure of large sums of money because there were a great many people out of work. To have an energetic foreign policy, and to erect large buildings in the Metropolis in order to give employment to people, was just that kind of policy which did so much to overthrow the Administration of the Emperor Napoleon III. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), had been twitted by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) because they wished to have all the money of the country spent in the Dockyards at Chatham and Portsmouth. Now, there was another part of the United Kingdom besides Portsmouth and Chatham, which might also claim some recognition at the hands of the Government when they were proceeding to distribute public money, and that was the part of the United Kingdom called Ireland. There were Offices in Dublin with regard to which the strongest possible representations had been made year after year. Even so far back as the year 1877, it was pointed out that there were Offices in Dublin in quite as an unhealthy condition as the War Office or the Admiralty; but it was im-
    1212
    possible to get anything from the Government for the improvement of those Offices. The Government were willing to come to the House, and get money by £500,000 or £1,000,000, and sometimes by tens of millions, for Public Offices in this country, or for the erection of barracks or fortifications, or for expenditure on the Navy which was to be made in this country; but in Ireland, neither for Military purposes nor for Civil Service purposes, could money be got in the same way. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope) meant to proceed with his Motion for a reduction of the Vote; but if he did he (Mr. A. O'Connor) should support him, not because he at all appreciated the point of view from which the right hon. Gentleman approached the subject—indeed, he could not see how the right hon. Gentleman's arguments bore on the subject—but upon a to tally different ground—namely, as a protest against the system of spending lavishly large sums of money in this country, and utterly neglecting Ireland.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he had suggested that the Vote should be postponed, in order that the Committee might obtain some further information upon the sanitary and other arrangements of the present buildings. As the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) did not seem disposed to accept that suggestion, he (Mr. Arnold) was not disposed to vote against him if he pressed the Vote. If the right hon. Gentleman was determined to press the Vote, he (Mr. Arnold) hoped he would afterwards be prepared either to re-assemble the Committee, in order that there might be some reconsideration of the details, or to appoint a Departmental Committee, who would give some Report upon the internal arrangements of these very important buildings.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he thought his right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would be quite willing to consent to the appointment of a Departmental Committee to consider the suggestions made. It must, however, be remembered that what the Government were now proposing was merely a preliminary Vote. Of course, it would be quite possible to give more information to the Committee upon various items of details when the contract had been advertised and accepted. With respect to the suggestion

    1213
    of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), that they should postpone, or, rather, not proceed with the Vote that night, he (Mr. Hibbert) was hound to say that if the Vote were now withdrawn the Navy would not get anything in consequence of the withdrawal of the Vote. He did not, however, wish to press that matter very strongly; what he wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to was, that when the Committee had passed this Vote—as he hoped they would—proceedings could be taken towards the pulling down of the houses upon the site in Spring Gardens and the immediate neighbourhood, so that a real preparation could be made for the commencement of the work. The £10,000 asked for that night would be used partly for the purpose of pulling down the old houses and preparing the foundations for the new buildings. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) had suggested that the War Office, rather than the Admiralty, should be transferred to the first block of buildings; but he (Mr. Hibbert) thought the hon. Gentleman would be led to see that that was quite impossible. There would be great advantage in removing the War Office first, if it could be done; but it would be seen that if they filled the first block with the War Office there would be nowhere to place the Admiralty; in fact, it was quite necessary that the Admiralty should be moved, in order that the land upon which it now stood could be obtained for the erection of new buildings. That seemed to him (Mr. Hibbert) to be a real answer to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. O'Connor). His hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) had suggested that the money should be paid by Annuity. He (Mr. Hibbert) did not think they had quite come to the position of undertaking the erection of their public buildings by means of Annuity; indeed, he thought it was better to postpone their erection than to adopt such a principle.
    MR. W. H. SMITHunderstood that, in his absence from the Committee for a few minutes, the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) undertook that the question of the larger rooms for the work of the important Office of the Accountant
    1214
    General should be fully considered. As to the question whether there should be one or two official residences, he (Mr. W. H. Smith) was of opinion there should be two. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think there should be one. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) hoped that some assurance would be given that there would be a further opportunity afforded of discussing the matters raised by this Vote before the end of the Session; because, in his opinion, the question of residences was one of the very greatest importance.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURdesired to explain that he suggested that these proposed buildings should be erected by means of Annuities, because it was well that they should be completed with all possible speed. If they could not be completed under 10 years—the time stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre)—because they could not get the money more rapidly voted by Parliament, he (Sir George Balfour) thought it would be well to raise the money by Annuity, as in the case of the fortifications, and then the work could be finished within three or four years.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 45: Majority 19.—(Div. List, No. 89.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. WARTONdesired to ask one question of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre); and that was, if he correctly understood that the right hon. Gentleman had already made some alterations in the plans? That day the right hon. Gentleman had expressed an inclination to make other alterations to meet the necessities of the official accommodation required. Might he (Mr. Warton) ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any intention of letting the House know, at any time, the extent of the alterations; and whether he would settle, in his own mind, how far the alterations would extend before he invited tenders?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman could see himself what alterations had already been made by comparing the plans now lying in the Committee Room with the plans

    1215
    exhibited a few years ago. The alterations were made by the architects at his (Mr. Shaw Lefevre's) suggestion, which was a very different matter to the alterations being made upon his own authority. Whether further alterations would be made would be, of course, a matter for consideration. He had no doubt an opportunity would be given the House later on of knowing what, if any, alterations were contemplated.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsuggested that it would be well if the original plans were exhibited along with the new ones.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that he would see that that was done.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not think the Government had made out any case why the Vote should be passed that night. The Committee were asked to vote a sum of £10,000 in order to pull down some old buildings; but it was not intended to commence the new buildings for some considerable time. He did not altogether disapprove of giving employment to the unemployed labourers of London; but it really seemed to him that the expenditure of £10,000 would have no practical effect upon a population of 4,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had told them that he did not understand anything about architecture, but that he had made several suggestions to the architects which were of great importance. It struck him (Mr. Biggar) that the right hon. Gentleman had better not meddle with the architects, but let the architects themselves be responsible for the structure. The right hon. Gentleman also told them that the internal arrangements would be perfect; but he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) in the opinion that it was very desirable that the internal arrangements should be materially altered by making rooms of a larger size than was at present contemplated. In point of fact, it appeared that the Government themselves had not made up their minds at all upon the subject. With regard to the question of the official residences the Postmaster General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) took issue, and expressed perfectly different opinions. When it came to the final test, he (Mr. Biggar)
    1216
    supposed the Cabinet would confirm the decision of some official of the Board of Works, so that it was utterly impossible for any Member of the Committee to guess correctly what kind of arrangements would ultimately be made. The right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge the fact that if this Vote, small as it was, were carried, the country would be committed to the large outlay of something like £1,200,000, which he understood to be the estimated expense of the new buildings for the Admiralty and War Office. Against that might be placed the annual rent now paid for the War Office; but he understood that nothing was taken for the value of the land. He gathered that there would be an expenditure of £1,200,000, independent of the necessary outlay hereafter upon the official residences. In regard to the official residences it did not appear that the Government had, as yet, made up their minds as to what they intended to do. He thought that before they asked the House of Commons to commit itself to an outlay of so very large an amount they should themselves make up their minds as to what their future plans were to be. At present they were asking for this large expenditure for a plan in regard to which they had not themselves formed any fixed opinion. Under the circumstances, he would suggest to the Government that they should withdraw the present Vote, and submit full plans hereafter when they had entirely made up their minds. Not having made up their own minds, how could they expect the House of Commons to make up theirs? The position of the Government in the matter was altogether untenable.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (3.) £15,120, to complete the sum for the Furniture of Public Offices, Great Britain.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORremarked, that this was not a very large Vote, but it by no means exhausted the money appropriated for this purpose. If hon. Members would turn over to the next page of the Estimates—page 29—they would see, under the head of Customs and Inland Revenue, Post Office and Post Office Telegraph Buildings, a further sum of something less than £10,000 for furniture for Public Offices. In previous years he had drawn attention to this Vote, and had pointed out what

    1217
    he considered to be the gravest shortcomings in the administration of this part of the Public Service, and to a certain extent his criticisms had been admitted by previous Secretaries to the Treasury to be well-founded. The Committee of Accounts had examined certain officials in regard to this matter, and had obtained from them very material admissions as to the state of things which existed. The consequence was, that owing to the observations contained in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, the Exchequer and Audit Department had communicated with the Office of Works, which was in charge of the Vote, and had made some inquiries in regard to the proceeds of the sale of old stores and furniture. Inquiries had also been made as to whether the Office of Works was responsible for the furniture in use in the various Public Offices, and if it had in its possession an inventory of such furniture. The Office of Works wrote back a letter, which was printed on page 23 of the Appropriation Account of last year, from which it appeared that in the opinion of the Office of Works it would not be found practicable to lay down any hard-and-fast rule for the disposal of old stores and furniture. The practice had hitherto been to dispose of worn-out stores and furniture by auction as they accumulated from time to time, in the case of a large quantity, or by private competition where the stock was small. What he had said before, and what he would now repeat, was that there was a considerable waste of public property in connection with old furniture, and the Treasury and the Office of Works ought to exercise a much closer scrutiny over those who had the management and the handling of this furniture than was the case at present. The Office of Works went on to say that the furniture in the various Public Offices, after it was deposited by the Department, was placed in the custody of the Office-keepers, who were primarily responsible for any loss. No inventories of such furniture were in existence, except in the case of certain official and other residences, in regard to which there were special arrangements, and to make and keep up a system of inventories would involve heavy labour which ought not to fall upon the Office. That was the observa-
    1218
    tion of the Office of Works; but it seemed to him that if the preparation and keeping up of these inventories would entail heavy work upon the Office, that fact alone showed how important it was that the work should be done. There was an immense quantity of furniture in the Public Offices which was liable to be shifted about from room to room, and it was easily lost sight of after it had been once moved. It was therefore, of great consequence, in the interests of the public, that something like a systematic check should be kept over all the public furniture, both old and new, at head-quarters. In every workhouse, under the existing Poor Law system, an inventory of the furniture in every room was taken, and the furniture itself was carefully watched in order to guard against local peculation. Had the Office of Works any guarantee that improper transactions in regard to the furniture might not be going on in many of the Departments of the Public Service? He had not the least doubt that a considerable amount of personal profit was made here and there throughout the Service by reason of the utter absence of check upon the disposal of old furniture. Old tables and chairs, and all sorts of things, were furnished to the different Departments and charged for as new. An oak table ought to last for 50 years if properly handled; but it would be found that in the case of the Public Offices furniture of that description was provided new and replaced in the course of a few years, costing the country a considerable sum of money. What became of the old furniture he was unable to say. No doubt, each item was very small in itself; but when it was necessary to supply hundreds and thousands of these articles, the cost amounted to a considerable sum, and the admissions contained in the letter published in the last Appropriation Account ought to be quite sufficient to direct the attention of the Committee to the matter. Seeing that there was a Comptroller and Auditor General specially appointed to watch over the administration of the public money, it was only right that the Committee at least should draw his attention to this matter. The attention of the House had at last been drawn to the question by the reference made to it in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, and he should be glad to learn

    1219
    that the Government were prepared to take effective steps to prevent the disposal of Office fixtures in the manner he had indicated.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) had pointed out that the present Vote did not exhaust the whole of the present charge for furniture. That was quite true; but he (Mr. H. Gladstone) might point out that it was found more convenient to place the items for furniture in the respective Votes for the different Departments in order to allow hon. Members to judge of the proportionate cost of the furniture according to the character of the Public Office or Building provided with it. That was the defence of the present practice. In regard to what the hon. Member had said of the lack of inventories, no doubt it was true that the Office of Works was not supplied with lists of furniture at the present time, and he could not help feeling the force of the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member. It appeared to him that it might be possible for the staff of each Department or Office to keep an inventory of the furniture of such Department, which might be submitted when required to the First Commissioner of Works. He would bring that suggestion under the notice of the First Commissioner, who might be able to make some arrangement which would meet the views of the hon. Member.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, the Junior Lord of the Treasury had not alluded to one part of the objection to the present system—namely, that which had reference to the course taken by the authorities in deciding upon condemning furniture as being so far worn out as to require replacing. He quite agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member opposite. It was very desirable that Parliament should have, under the heads of the different Votes, a statement of the amount of money expended upon furniture in the respective Departments. That would be a much more convenient course than the one now adopted. In the Vote now under discussion there was a note at the foot which directed the attention of hon. Members to the fact that there were various Departments under which expenditure for furniture was incurred, which expenditure was not included in the present Estimate.
    1220
    He presumed that about £20,000 was voted for furniture in separate Votes, in addition to the sum of £17,120 they were now asked to vote for the supply and repair of furniture for the Public Offices.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the amount was more than that.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Condor) said that the amount was more than £20,000, but he was probably including the Vote for Consular Buildings. Independently of that Vote, there was a sum of about £20,000 distributed in the general Votes, and not included in the Vote now before the Committee. The points which he understood to be pressed upon the Office of Works were, first of all, that there should be some system under which the Office should know exactly what articles of furniture they had for disposal, so that if an application were made to them from any Department, the Office of Works would know at once whether such articles of furniture could be supplied. The other point was this—that there should be some careful means taken to secure that no furniture should be condemned without proper authority being given. He must say that on looking at these Votes it always struck him as somewhat extraordinary the short life which appeared to belong to Government furniture. Every year they passed Votes of considerable sums for various Departments, and he thought the Votes they passed were very much in excess of the amount which ought to be reasonably expended. The third point, and a not unimportant one, was—what became of the old furniture? What was the system under which the old furniture was disposed of? He understood that there was some statement of the amount received for the disposal of old furniture somewhere. The system, however, was a very uncertain one, and he did not know where to find any record of the extra receipts which came from the sale of furniture, unless it was contained in the Vote they were discussing at the present moment. He certainly saw one item of £50 for estimated extra receipts; but he hardly thought that that item could be supposed to represent the entire amount received from the sale of old furniture. These were the three points he would impress upon the Government as matters in

    1221
    which economy might be effected by the Department.
    MR. WARTONwished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Junior Lord of the Treasury, who was in charge of this Vote, a question or two. He did not quite understand what was the meaning, on page 28, of giving an account of the expenditure incurred for the year 1883–4, because they had in the Vote now before them an Estimate not only for the coming year, but for the past year also. Why, therefore, should they go into the expenditure incurred two years ago? He certainly failed to see what advantage they would derive from doing so. There was, however, one matter with regard to which he would like to have some explanation. He referred to the item of £14,030, which would be found in the middle of page 27, for the supply of furniture to the various Public Offices and the Courts of Law in England and Wales, inclusive of fixtures and fittings. He did not quite see what was the object of those figures, which included a considerable number of items—even one as small as £1 15 s. 6d. But no amount of consideration devoted to these items would reduce the expenditure of last year—1884–5—or affect the estimated expenditure for the coming year. So much, by way of general observation, upon the whole Estimate. But there was another question he wished to ask with a distinct object object—namely, whether this item of £14,030 had reference to the furniture for the Royal Courts of Justice? If not, he did not know where they were to look for the expenditure upon the furniture supplied to the Royal Courts of Justice. If hon. Members would look at the bottom of the page they would not be able to find any distinct statement in connection with the Royal Courts of Justice; and the reason he felt tempted to call attention to the matter was the loud complaints that were made of the disgraceful character of the furniture, desks, and fittings of the Royal Courts of Justice provided for the use of barristers. He had mentioned the matter last year; but he knew it was folly to expect to make any impression upon the Government under five or six years of persistent complaint. He had certainly called attention to matters five years ago which were only now receiving attention. He would ask hon. Members who were not
    1222
    acquainted with the Royal Courts of Justice to be kind enough to go there and inspect the seats provided for the junior Bar. It was hopeless to attempt to write at them; and, as a matter of fact, the desks and seats were more fit for a workhouse than for a Court of Justice. They were altogether degrading to the dignity of the Bar, and he hoped to see some attempt made to render them more decent. At any rate, their defects might be concealed by a coating of paint, or by staining them, or in some way or other. If the hon. Gentleman the Junior Lord of the Treasury would give him some assurance upon that point he should feel much obliged.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, the first question asked by his hon. and learned Friend was—why the expenditure in connection with the various Public Departments was given for the year 1883–4, and not for any later date? He believed that the list was given very much in compliance with a request made by hon. Members in investigating the accounts of previous years. It was quite impossible, however, to give a list for the year 1884–5, seeing that the expenditure was not yet completed, and the financial year itself was not concluded. The list given contained the expenditure for the last complete year, and that was the only year to answer any beneficial purpose that could be given so as to be of assistance to hon. Members in enabling them to see the extent to which furniture was provided for the different Public Departments in any one year.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the explanation which had just been given was hardly a satisfactory one. He should have thought that these items might very properly have appeared in the Appropriation Account; but he did not see why, to explain this particular Vote, they should have a set of figures, which amounted to something like £42,900, but had no connection whatever with the expenditure for the present year. He failed to understand how an expenditure of £42,900 two years ago could form any guide to the Committee in regard to items which were estimated this year to come to £17,120. Of course, there might be exceptional expenditure in a particular year in connection with any particular Department. To give an instance of what he meant

    1223
    he would take the item of the Tower of London. The furniture for the Tower of London in 1883–4 was put down at £27 4s. 5d.; but this year, in consequence of recent occurrences, it was only reasonable to suppose that a large sum of money would be necessary to replace the furniture and fittings destroyed in the explosion. He, therefore, failed to see how an expenditure of £27 4s. 5d. in the year 1883–4 could be any guide in regard to what was likely to be expended this year upon furniture for the Tower of London. He knew that the Junior Lord of the Treasury would tell him that the Return was given in answer to a request made by hon. Members on former occasions. Still, it did appear to him to be very remarkable that such a statement should be given in the Estimates by way of explaining this Vote, which could only be described as a page from the Appropriation Account.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, that he was equally surprised with the hon. Member when he first saw this Return in the Votes, and on making inquiry the reason given to him was the one he had stated—namely, that the Return was inserted in compliance with a request made by several Members when this Vote had been under discussion in previous years. That reason must, of course, be taken for just what it was worth.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that he had received no answer to the complaint he had made in reference to the Royal Courts of Justice.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, he would make inquiry into the complaint of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). As to the furniture generally, no doubt the Office of Works was responsible for the disposition of the old furniture; but he believed that the old furniture parted with was very small in extent. Nevertheless, as the whole of the furniture of the Public Offices came under the special control of the Department of the Office of Works, and that Department was solely responsible for it—either for supplying new furniture or for condemning it when old or worn-out—he would make inquiries in order to see what force there was in the complaints of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor).
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether, if the official in charge of the furniture of a large Public Department were to cart it away, and put the price of it into his pocket, there was any authority which could check such a proceeding, or, indeed, know anything about it?
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, he thought it would be impossible for any public officer to do that. He did not know that there was any special machinery to prevent it; but, practically, such conduct was impossible.
    MR. BIGGARasked for information in regard to the item of £64 9s. 1d. for the General Assembly Hall in Scotland. It was an item which appeared as the sixth from the bottom of page 68. He wished to know if the Junior Lord of the Treasury could give any information to the Committee on that item, and could explain upon what grounds the General Assembly of Scotland was entitled to furniture for their Hall? He understood that the General Assembly of Scotland obtained their funds by levying tithes, and that they had no claim upon Parliament for anything in the shape of a subsidy.
    MR. HIBBERT,in reply, stated that the General Assembly Hall was kept up at the expense of the State. The tithes levied by the General Assembly of Scotland were handed over to the Imperial Exchequer and paid into the Public Accounts every year. Consequently, the expense of keeping up the General Assembly Hall was provided for in the same way as other public buildings in Scotland. The system might be a very wrong one, but it was a system which had been in operation for a considerable time.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he had already called the attention of the Committee to the curious result of the plan adopted by the Government in giving a Return of the expenditure upon furniture for the Public Offices. The Return now given on page 28 had no reference whatever to the Estimates the Committee were called upon to vote, and formed no guide to the expenditure of the coming year. The Secretary to the Treasury told them that the Return was inserted at the request of certain Members who had complained in previous years of a want of information. He should like to know who those Members were who

    1225
    desired to have the Return printed? He was afraid that it was just the sort of thing the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would suggest, and then take no notice of it afterwards.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, that his impression of the matter was that the First Commissioner of Works had been asked to give the Return in order that it might be looked upon as the basis upon which the Estimates for succeeding years were framed. They had now an Estimate of £14,035 for the supply of furniture for various Public Offices, and the question they wanted to know was which Offices were to receive that furniture? He thought there was considerable advantage in having before them an account of the way in which the money had been expended in a previous year, in order that the Committee might form an opinion as to the requirements of the same Offices for the present year. Of course, that was all the advantage that could be obtained. They had before them a Vote of £14,000, and they were asked to show how that £14,000 was expended. Of course, it was not to be supposed that this year the same charges would appear against the different Offices. Some would be much lower, and some much higher; but the Committee would have an opportunity, and, he thought, with advantage, of seeing from time to time what the expenditure under each head was in the different Offices. No doubt, a complete Return would appear in the Appropriation Account; but he thought it would also be convenient for the House to have it before them when they were discussing the Estimates.
    Vote agreed to.
    (4.) £227,373, to complete the sum for the Revenue Department Buildings, Great Britain.
    Mr. TOMLINSONwished to call attention to the way in which an item of £14,800 was inserted in the Vote for rents, insurance, and tithe-rent charges, on account of Customs buildings. From the item, which would be found on the first page of the Vote, it would appear that the rents were mixed up in a most extraordinary manner with other things. He could not help thinking that it was very desirable, in framing the Estimates, that they should be so prepared and submitted that hon. Members would be able
    1226
    to know exactly what was paid for rent, and what were the liabilities incurred for insurance, tithe-rent charges, and other items of expenditure. Very considerable sums were now paid in the shape of rent for buildings in which the public business was transacted, and the amount so paid had always been one of the stock arguments in favour of the erection of new buildings for the Admiralty and War Office. The contention was that considerable economy would be produced by having a permanent building belonging to the State, instead of leasing premises. But unless Parliament had the means of knowing what was expended in rent, it would be impossible to judge what saving would be effected by substituting new buildings, erected at the expense of the State, for the premises now held under leases. From the present Vote, it was impossible to ascertain what sum was paid in the shape of rents of various kinds; and he wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman the Junior Lord of the Treasury was able to give any explanation to the Committee of how much was expended in rents, and how much went in insurance and tithe-rent charges on account of Customs buildings? One reason which induced him to put this question to the hon. Member was that upon the next Vote, which related to County Court buildings, he intended to say something in reference to an item of £13,000, which appeared there for rent, insurance, &c.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Committee would, perhaps, allow him to reply to the hon. Member, seeing that he had had experience in the matter when occupying the position of First Commissioner of Works. He might say that a comparatively small part of the item was for tithe-rent charge, the great bulk of it being for rent in the true sense of the term, and it applied to a large number of buildings that were used for Public Offices.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was not precisely directed to the point he had raised. He thought that the charge for rent ought to be altogether separated from the charge for insurance and any other charge. The Committee ought to know what was the aggregate amount paid for rent, in order that it might be possible to compare the system of hiring

    1227
    buildings with that of erecting them specially. The Vote ought to be sufficiently plain to enable hon. Members to see at a glance what was charged for rent, and any charges for insurance and other matters should appear in separate items.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought that, generally speaking, it would be as well to have all the items connected with Customs buildings, Inland Revenue buildings, Post Office buildings, and Post Office Telegraph buildings placed under their proper heading in the different Departments to which the Offices belonged, instead of being included in this Vote. Why should not the expenditure in connection with each Department be taken by itself; and why should not the Customs buildings appear under the Customs Vote, the Inland Revenue buildings under the Inland Revenue Vote, the Post Office buildings under the Post Office Vote, and the Post Office Telegraph buildings under the Telegraph Vote? Speaking under correction, he felt bound to say that the Estimate laid before the Committee in regard to the Post Office expenditure did not afford a full opportunity for comparing the revenue with the income. They were asked to make up their minds whether they could afford to establish a system of 6d. telegrams instead of the present 1s. rate, and they would probably be asked very shortly whether the Revenue would sustain material injury by taking off a trifle of the charge it was at present proposed to impose for the address. How could they tell what the profit or loss was upon the Post Office or the Telegraph Department unless they knew what the buildings connected with each cost? He thought it would be a much more business-like mode of proceeding to include, both in the Post Office and the Telegraph Vote, every item of expenditure which related to those Departments. In his opinion, it was altogether absurd to have separate Votes, and he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General would inform the Committee why the present system was persisted in? He certainly thought that it would not only save trouble, but that it would enable the House of Commons to understand in a better manner what they were called upon to do. So much with regard to the general question. There
    1228
    was, however, one special matter upon which he desired to ask for information. He saw, under the head of Customs buildings, an item of £138 for the protection of the London Custom House from fire in 1884–5. He wished to know why that item did not appear again for the present year? Had any other arrangement been made for the protection of the Custom House from fire, or for what reason was that item excluded from the present Vote? Certainly, in these days, when so many attempts had been made to destroy public buildings, it was a most important thing that every step should be taken to protect the public property from every sort of danger. He could not, therefore, understand why this item had been cut off.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEremarked that the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), that all buildings should be brought under the separate heads to which they related, would be a retrograde step, and a return to the old system which had already been condemned. It had been thought desirable to concentrate the items for the maintenance of the several public buildings in one Office, and include them in one Vote, so that everything might be looked at and attended to upon a large scale whenever an expenditure was found to be necessary. Of course, that idea must be taken for what it was worth; but it was certainly considered to be more economical to deal with all these buildings in the same Vote. He did not think it would be of any public advantage to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had referred to an item for the protection of the Custom House in London from fire. That item had been discontinued owing to the adoption of a new system, by which the building was regularly watched, and hydrants employed, with a constant supply of water.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, there was an item in the Vote of £3,350 for fuel, light, and things of that kind. He wished to know under what Office that charge came, because it would appear to apply to a variety of Departments—the Customs, Inland Revenue, Post Office, and Telegraph Departments—each of which required fuel, light, and things

    1229
    of that nature? He should have thought it would have been a more economical plan for fuel and light to be provided for each Department by the Department itself. The item was a very large one, and he was certainly of opinion that the Department itself would be in a better position to exercise a complete control over the expenditure than if it were placed in the hands of some general Department, which he presumed, in this case, was the Office of Works. He should be glad to learn what the arrangement was, and how it happened that these items were not provided for under the head of each Department?
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, the Department which dealt with the question of supplying fuel and light was the Office of Works. There were officials specially responsible for this branch of work. It was found more economical for one Department to attend to all the arrangements, and to see that they were conducted upon the same system. Although the work was upon a large scale, there were great advantages in the plan which was now adopted.
    Vote agreed to.
    (5.) £26,210, to complete the sum for County Court Buildings.
    MR. TOMLINSONwished to make an observation in reference to the items under Sub-head C. He found that in reference to several similar items in other Votes the full details were given—as, for instance, in the case of the Metropolitan Police Courts under Sub-head B. At the bottom of that Vote there was a statement of the rates of insurance and rents paid in connection with the Police Courts. But on referring to the present Vote he found that all the rents and insurance were lumped together, and a lump sum of £13,000 charged for them. He found also that there was a reduction upon the item this year as compared with that which was contained in the same Vote last year. He wished to know how that reduction was effected, because there had boon a sort of floating rumour that in the town with which he was connected (Preston) there was going to be an attempt to effect a reduction in the charge for the County Court Offices by the removal of the offices from one part of the town to another? He thought a plan of that kind ought not to be at-
    1230
    tempted without careful consideration. It was quite possible that in many instances offices could be provided at a reduced rental; but such a change ought not to be made without fully considering the convenience of those who had to practice in the Courts and had charge of the business conducted in them. In matters of this kind, in connection with the County Courts, economy of rent was not the only question which ought to be considered, because it must be remembered that the County Courts, in populous towns, were almost wholly maintained by the fees received from the suitors, and anything which tended to render the transaction of business in the County Court Offices less convenient to the Legal Profession, and to the public generally, would have a tendency to reduce the fees. What, therefore, he wished to urge was that if any saving was sought to be effected in a Vote of this kind by reducing the amount of rent now paid for the offices, the greatest care should be exercised in order to see that professional gentlemen were not in any way prejudiced by the change. He hoped the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote would be able to give some explanation in reference to the reduction, and that he would further explain how much was charged for rent, how much for insurance, and so on, and if any steps had been taken to supply permanent buildings instead of renting them, and whether any economy had been effected by such charges?
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought there was a great deal of force in the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) in reference to the loose manner in which the Estimates had been prepared. For instance, on page 28, no detailed information in reference to the particular items was given, whereas in the next Vote full information was supplied in connection with similar items. He should be glad to learn why the same plan had not been followed in both cases? There appeared to have been a reduction of £500, and the Committee ought to have some account of it, because he did not suppose that there had been any diminution in the number of County Courts. If the Committee could not have full particulars, he would submit, with great respect, that it ought, at any rate, to be explained why the reduction had been

    1231
    effected. For instance, a short foot-note stating where the reduction had taken place—whether in Bridport, or Preston, or wherever the case might be—would be of advantage. He complained of the entire want of uniformity in the system pursued, and he hoped the Government would explain why the item for rents, insurance, &c, was only £13,000 this year, when it was £13,500 last. This was a very important matter, because he was sorry to say that for some time past he had noticed that when the Supplementary Estimates were brought forward there seemed to be something like a systematic suppression of a good deal of the information which ought to be laid before the House in the first instance. In some cases there were 30 or 40 additional items placed in the Supplementary Estimates which had never appeared in the old Estimates at all, and, of course, all the circumstances were almost forgotten when it became necessary to consider the Supplementary Estimates. In addition, it was quite evident that the original Estimates supplied only very imperfect data for arriving at any conclusion as to the actual expenditure. He hoped that nothing of that kind would be attempted this year; and that although there appeared to have been a reduction of £500 upon this item, which would look very pretty in the eyes of those hon. Members who advocated economy in the Public Expenditure, he trusted that there was a real and substantial reason for the reduction, and that the place would be mentioned in which the reduction had been effected. If there was some County Court which was to be suppressed or otherwise, the Committee ought to know the fact; and it was desirable on every ground that they should be informed of the object with which this reduction of expenditure had been effected.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that it would be somewhat inconvenient to give a detailed list of the rents paid in respect of all the County Court buildings throughout the country. The list would be a very long one; but, of course, any hon. Member who desired any information with regard to any particular County Court could easily obtain that information. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) had asked him to what the decrease under Sub-head C was due. There was nothing very dan-
    1232
    gerous in that item, and nothing which was calculated to impair the efficiency of the County Courts. The decrease was due to the fact that rent was no longer payable in respect of the County Court buildings at Birmingham. If the hon. Member would refer to page 38 in the Votes, he would find that new buildings had been provided at Birmingham; and, of course, the old buildings, hitherto provided for the use of the County Courts, were no longer required, and no charge for rent in connection with them appeared in the present Vote.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was obliged to the hon. Member for the more full information he had now given; but he thought the fact mentioned by the hon. Gentleman justified the complaint he had made. Whenever there was a diminution in the Vote, owing to the circumstance that no rent was required for a particular County Court, it ought to be stated in a foot-note. A short note on page 37 would have been quite sufficient to place hon. Members on the right scent. He must confess that what he admired in the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Estimate was his perfect truthfulness and ingenuousness; but he thought that the hon. Gentleman stood almost entirely by himself in that respect. Perhaps when the hon. Gentleman had seen a little more of official life he would not be as ready to tell so much, but he would acquire the art of those Members who had preceded him, and whose chief characteristic was to be found in the manner in which they had succeeded in mystifying the Committee. He was glad, at any rate, to find that the hon. Member, at present, was completely honest. The hon. Member told them that the reduction arose in consequence of new buildings having been provided for Birmingham; but why, in common honesty, had that little simple fact not been stated in a foot-note? It would not have occupied more than a line of print simply to say that the reduction was owing to no rent being further required for County Court buildings in Birmingham. The only remark he had to make on the information which had been so kindly and candidly given to the Committee was that it showed the way in which the time of the House was unnecessarily occupied. He was not aware that there ought to be any cause for concealment. The fact ought to be

    1233
    stated plainly and simply in the Estimates, and hon. Members ought not to be obliged to put a series of questions in order to get the information. They ought to have had the fact that the diminution of £500 was due to the new provision made in the case of Birmingham fairly explained in a foot-note, and he was quite sure that if the hon. Member the Junior Lord of the Treasury, who was in charge of the Vote, could have had his own way it would have been explained. He trusted that next year the hon. Member, gaining experience from what had just occurred, would add a short note either in the case of Birmingham or whatever other place might be concerned. What he (Mr. Warton) wanted was to save trouble and the waste of time and labour which was involved in finding out these things. Such trouble and waste of time would be altogether unnecessary if the facts of the case were fairly explained in the Estimates. While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his candour, he desired to add that in future, whenever a County Court rent was cut off, the fact should be mentioned in the Estimates. He could not help reminding the Committee that they had very minute information as to the remuneration of rat-catchers and so on, and he could not understand why the same minute information was not supplied in an important case like this. Of course, Birmingham was an appendage of a very important and powerful Member of the Cabinet, and they were now informed that the reduction in this item was due to the provision of new County Courts for that borough. It appeared that a sum of £35,000 had been voted for the County Court at Birmingham, and he should be glad to find some explanation of the manner in which that sum had been obtained. He only mentioned the circumstance with a view of obtaining information as to what these figures meant. Where was it shown that the sum of £35,000 for County Court buildings in Birmingham had been voted? What period of years had the sum been spread over, and why should Birmingham have been specially selected for so large an expenditure? Perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury, or some hon. Member who had been longer in Office than the Junior Lord of the Treasury, would be able to recollect
    1234
    how long this expenditure had been going on?
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was afraid that he could not give the information which his hon. and learned Friend seemed to think he possessed. Indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman was a little out of Order in drawing attention to a matter respecting Birmingham which was not included in the Vote at present before the Committee. There was no Vote for Birmingham in the present Estimate, and as far as the sum referred was concerned, it had already been voted and spent. He thought his hon. and learned Friend was disappointed in finding that he had not succeded in discovering a job—[Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!]—and in having received a satisfactory explanation.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, there was an item on page 38 of £3,060 for new works, additions, and approaches. He wished to know whether that was the first, second, or third item; whether the Committee was sanctioning the expenditure for the first time, or whether it was to be regarded as an item that would be further continued?
    MR. HIBBERT: It is for the whole.
    MR. PARNELLasked whether any of the money proposed to be granted under this head would be expended upon County Court buildings in Ireland? Was there any money to be spent in Ireland at all? In looking through the Irish Estimates he did not find that there had been any sum allocated for this purpose, and, therefore, if any sum was to be expended in Ireland he presumed that it was included in the present Vote.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that this was not so, and that any sum given for the purpose would be found in the Irish Votes, he believed, under the Estimate for the Office of Public Works in Ireland.
    MR. CALLANasked where any sum of the kind was to be found? He was unable to see any Vote for Ireland for purposes similar to that which they were now asked to vote for England. The total sum they wore asked to vote for County Court buildings was £32,210—for new works, additions, and approaches, alterations, maintenance, and repairs, rent and insurance, payment to care-takers £6,500, for furniture £900, and for fuel, light, &c, £3,350. He

    1235
    wished to know whether any similar Vote appeared in the Estimates in regard to the County Courts of Ireland, and, if not, what was the explanation of its omission?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that that information would be given when they came to discuss the Irish Votes, which, however, had nothing whatever to do with the present Vote. It was out of Order to discuss the question of County Court buildings in Ireland upon an English Vote.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he objected to the Vote on the ground that there was no similar Vote for Ireland, and he would divide against the Vote because he did not see why they should vote £32,000 for County Court buildings in England, when there was no Vote of the same character for County Court buildings in Ireland.
    MR. CAUSTONsaid, that instead of being a matter for surprise that there was no similar Vote for Ireland, it ought to be a matter for congratulation to Irish Members that it appeared that the business was so well conducted in Ireland that there was no need for County Court buildings there.
    MR. SEXTONremarked, that if the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Causton) was so ignorant of matters connected with the administration of public affairs in Ireland as the remark he had just made seemed to imply, it was not a matter of regret that he intervened so seldom in the debates of the House. The Vote for the Office of the Board of Works in Ireland related to salaries only, and had nothing to do with buildings. He thought it was objectionable that a sum of £32,000 should be voted for the maintenance of County Courts in England, when buildings of a similar character had to be provided out of the county cess in Ireland. There was no corresponding Vote for Ireland to that which they were now discussing. Large sums of money appeared to be expended upon County Court buildings in England, and for Police Courts, and he could not see why the expenditure should be paid for out of the Imperial purse, when similar expenditure in the case of Ireland was ignored. It was only reasonable that some explanation should be given as to the distinction which appeared to be made in the treatment of the two countries.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that before the Vote was taken he should like to know if they were to understand what the policy of the Government really was in throwing the cost of County Court buildings upon the whole of the Three Kingdoms in reference to England, and taking it from the local rates in regard to Ireland? He was of opinion that there ought to be one general and uniform plan, and he, therefore, wished to know why an exception was made in the case of Ireland? Of course, the matter was one which had been to a certain extent settled as regarded England. The County Court Acts in England were of old date, and, consequently, had become part of the settled policy of Parliament. Under that policy it appeared to be the practice to throw the cost of the erection and maintenance of the buildings for the administration of secondary justice in England upon the Imperial Exchequer, and thus to take the charge off the local rates. He was not prepared to object to that policy if it was to be a uniform policy. But the corresponding Act in the case of Ireland was only passed in the last Parliament, and, consequently, it had been a matter which had not attracted very much attention. He thought it was a great and glaring injustice that while the town of Birmingham was assisted, or supposed to be assisted, in regard to the erection of County Court buildings, to the extent of £35,000, there was not a single case in which the Government had undertaken to erect a single building in connection with the administration of justice by the County Court Judges in Ireland. In some of the large Irish counties there was a considerable amount of work for the County Court Judges, and in almost every case the County Court accommodation was most insufficient. The County Court Judges were compelled, in many instances, to take refuge in the Petty Sessions Courts. He submitted that this was not a proper state of affairs; and if the Irish Members were to be asked to consent to vote considerable sums of money, year after year, for the erection of these buildings in England, under precisely analogous circumstances to those which existed in Ireland, the Votes certainly ought to be extended to the case of Ireland also, and a fair proportion of the money granted should be

    1237
    allocated to the erection of similar buildings in that country. The matter was, of course, a fresh and a novel one, which had never been raised before, because the Act in regard to Ireland was only of recent date. The question had not, therefore, been properly brought under the attention of the Government; but now that it had been brought under their attention, he hoped some assurance would be given that the scope of the Vote would be extended in future, and if it was irregular to include Ireland in this particular Vote, he trusted that a separate Vote would be submitted which would deal with the case of Ireland.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the complaint of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was a reasonable one; but probably the facts of the case, as they affected Ireland, were capable of explanation. For instance, it might be the fact that in England the County Courts paid for themselves, while in Ireland they did not. Of course, the Secretary to the Treasury would know whether that was the fact or not. He believed that in England the County Courts paid a great deal more in the shape of fees than they cost; but he did not know whether that was the case in Ireland.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, that was also the case in Ireland.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he had not been aware that that was the fact, and was under the impression that that might account for the absence of a similar Vote in the case of Ireland. The fees paid in England were more than enough to pay the salaries of the County Court Judges and of the officers connected with the Courts, as well as to provide for the maintenance of the buildings. He wished to know whether there really was any distinction drawn between the two countries, and, if so, for what reason? Although he was not an Irishman, he was just as anxious that justice should be done to Ireland as any Irish Member, and he thought that some notice should be taken by the Government of the complaint which had been made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). He was quite satisfied that the sum charged in the Vote for the English County Courts was amply provided for by the fees charged. He regretted that no Member of the
    1238
    Government had risen to reply to the hon. Member for the City of Cork.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he could assure the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) that it was not from any want of courtesy towards the hon. Member for the City of Cork' (Mr. Parnell) that he had not risen at once to take notice of the remarks which the hon. Member had made. He had simply waited because he was anxious to hear all that was to be said upon the question, seeing that it was altogether a new point which had been raised. He was quite prepared to admit that there did not appear to be any Vote in the Estimates for this purpose so far as Ireland was concerned; but whether the Courthouses there were in a better position than those in England he was not able to say. He believed, however, that the County Court system in Ireland was not exactly on all fours with that of England; but he was quite prepared to admit that there should be an equality of treatment. The whole question of local taxation would have to be considered whenever an opportunity was afforded for taking up that question; and, of course, among other points for discussion would be whether Ireland was able to make out any real and substantial grievance. Whenever the question of local taxation came under discussion, he promised that the point raised by hon. Members for Ireland, as to whether these buildings should be paid for by the State in Ireland, should receive the best attention of the Government.
    MR. MOLLOYremarked that a Supplementary Vote might be submitted.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he could go no further at present than make a promise that the subject should be fully considered, and he hoped that hon. Members, under the circumstances, would not feel inclined to prevent the present Vote from being taken.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, it suited the hon. Gentleman to express an opinion that the question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was a reasonable one, and he (Mr. Sexton) might say that whatever the disposition of Irish Members might be towards any other Member of the Government, they had never accused the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury of any want of courtesy towards them. The hon. Mem-

    1239
    ber said that the County Court system in Ireland was not on all fours with that in England. But it might be pointed out that neither was the system in Scotland on all fours with that in England. Indeed, the dissimilarity was far more marked than in the case of Ireland. In Ireland they had a body known as County Court Judges, who presided in the Courts of that country under a system which was generally assimilated to that which prevailed in England; whereas in Scotland there were Sheriffs and Sheriff Substitutes, who were entirely different both in name and in prerogative from the English County Court Judges, and yet it would be found that the public money was voted for keeping up their jurisdiction. Her Majesty's Government appeared to extend to the County Court buildings throughout Great Britain generally the most paternal care. In the first place, they built them where they were needed, and after they were built they repaired and maintained them, furnished them, provided them with fuel and light, and gave salaries to care-takers for protecting them; whereas in Ireland every penny of the expenditure upon all these items fell upon the local ratepayers, who were certainly heavily burdened enough without having to bear this additional charge. The position which the Irish Members took up was this—either that the cost of these buildings in England and Scotland should fall upon the localities, or else that the County Courts in Ireland should have provision made for them out of the Imperial Exchequer, in the same way as in England and Scotland. They had no wish to be exacting; but they demanded that either one course or the other should be taken. After the explanation which had been given to his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that the Government would look into the matter and see whether an arrangement could be made, his hon. Friend would in all probability be satisfied.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that in England about one-half of the expenses of erecting these buildings was borne by the Imperial Exchequer, and there was also an annual contribution for their maintenance and repair, whereas in Ireland no contribution whatever was made either towards the cost of erection, or of maintenance afterwards. It should also
    1240
    be borne in mind that although there were County Courts in England, and Sheriff Substitute Courts in Scotland, the Irish Courts, which were used for the County Courts, were also employed for other Governmental purposes. It was only fair, therefore, that they should be held to impose a greater amount of liability on the part of the Government for their maintenance, and instead of receiving no contribution at all from the Estimates, they were entitled to a larger amount of support than either the English or the Scotch Courts.
    Vote agreed to.
    (6.) £5,012, to complete the sum for Metropolitan Police Court Buildings.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he did not wish to allow this Vote to pass subsilentio. He recollected that his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who now sat upon the Treasury Bench, had last year opposed this Vote upon very sound grounds, and he believed also that upon that occasion he (Mr. Rylands) had appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on the subject, who told the Committee that he was agreed upon the main principle that it was most unreasonable that these charges should be placed on the Estimates, while the Local Authorities throughout the country had to erect their own buildings and support their own Police Courts. But the right hon. Gentleman, although he said he was anxious to procure the removal of this injustice, stated that if the Vote were rejected, there would be no means of raising the money—that was to say, there would be no means of imposing rates except by Act of Parliament. If that were so, he (Mr. Rylands) was bound to say that while he did not like to allow the Vote to pass without entering a verbal protest against it, and while he agreed with all that his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton had expressed with regard to it last year, he did not think that the Committee could with any propriety, under the special circumstances of the case, divide against the Vote. Not only in this case, but in others of a kindred character in which there was a large expenditure, he hoped it would be considered by the Government whether the charges now thrown upon the taxpayer might not be

    1241
    thrown upon the localities concerned. He protested against this Vote as being a very unjust one.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he thought the proposal of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was a very reasonable one. But while the Government pretended to look after the Metropolitan Police buildings, they really did nothing of the kind. There were certain Metropolitan Police Courts which were a disgrace to the Metropolis, and the Government had, over and over again, pleaded as an excuse for their condition that at some time they hoped, at no very distant day, to pass a Bill relating to the administration of London, in which it would be provided that all these matters should be dealt with by the Local Authorities, and that all these charges should be taken over and the Estimates relieved of them. But although that might be all very well when the Bill became law, yet in the meantime they had the disgraceful spectacle of thousands of people having the right to enter the Police Courts who were absolutely excluded from them, and who, from want of space therein, would be nearly suffocated if they were not. If any hon. Member would go down to Wandsworth Police Court, he would be as indignant as he (Mr. O'Connor) had been at the conditions on which the gentleman who sat there had to administer justice. The magistrate went to Wandsworth from Hammersmith, and the place in which he had to administer justice was such that it would not be rented by anyone for business purposes of any kind. It was difficult of access, it had a staircase which might lead up to a loft, it was badly ventilated; the ceiling was so low that one might touch it with the hand, and the magistrate administering justice sat, so to speak, with one elbow on the window-sill and the other on the hob; it was exceedingly narrow, and so hot that it would be injurious for anyone to remain there more than 10 minutes. Such was the place in which the magistrate sat year after year. Then the outbuildings in connection with the Court were also very defective. A shed had been recently put up for the convenience of persons who came to the Court on business, or on summons for not sending their children to school. Those persons were absolutely without any shelter, and one could see women
    1242
    with babies in their arms standing out in the rain, the magistrate being unable to afford them any relief, and the police standing by and commiserating them. The Government had said they must wait until the Metropolis could take over the charge in connection with those Police Courts; but the fact was that, for a very small expenditure, any builder of moderate ability would erect premises with five or six times the space of the Wandsworth Police Court, which would enable persons attending the Court to have light and air and other reasonable accommodation. He should imagine that £1,000 would be more than sufficient to meet all the requirements of this case, and he said that prompt arrangements ought to be made to deal with it. Considering the crush of applicants to the Court, which must go on increasing with the population, it seemed only reasonable that the Government should do at once what they could to remedy the evil to which he had drawn attention.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, with regard to the difficulty connected with Wandsworth Police Court, if the hon. Gentleman had been in his place on a former occasion he would not have said that the Government had persistently refused to deal with this case. Early in the Session his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) stated that the question had been discussed between the Home Office and the Treasury, and that an arrangement had been arrived at for the settlement of this matter. He was happy to inform the hon. Member that since that time, within the last fortnight or three weeks, a plan had been arranged between the two Offices, under which the grievance complained of would be removed. He would revert now to the subject which his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had alluded to with such moderation. He had always been of opinion that London ought to pay for matters of this kind; but he pointed out that the arrangements made were such that they could not be altered except by legislation. The subject, however, formed part of the much larger one of London Government, and they must be dealt with together. It had always been his hope that arrangements would be made to put these matters upon a fair basis.
    MR. WARTONsaid, although the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had denied that the Government persistently refused to consider this question, and had referred to an arrangement arrived at within the last fortnight, he would point out that he himself had called attention to this subject in 1881, 1882, 1883, and 1884, on which occasions it did not receive the attention to which it was entitled. He had been referred by the Home Secretary to the Attorney General, and from him again to the Home Secretary. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head, but that would not settle the question. It was all very well, when a General Election was approaching, for the Government to make a show of vigour and liberality; but he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not consider it unreasonable, under the circumstances, if he repeated the statement of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) that the Government had persistently refused to consider this question.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in his remarks as regarded the London Police Courts. He remembered that in former years the argument in favour of the existing arrangement was, that matters of national importance were decided in the London Police Courts. Now, however true that might be with regard to one or two of them, it certainly could not apply to cases like those of Lambeth and Wandsworth. He thought that the only way to enforce legislation, which was so much desired in some quarters, would be to refuse to grant public money for purposes that strictly appertained to the Metropolis. That being so, it appeared to him that the present Vote ought to be refused. £1,500 would, in his opinion, be quite sufficient payment on account of all the work done in the Police Courts that was alleged to be of a public nature; and with regard to the purely police business of the Metropolis, he thought that the different Vestries, who were not prepared to give proper accommodation in their own neighbourhoods for the administration of justice, should be compelled to do so. There was a great want of reform of the law in this re-
    1244
    pect; and it was in the power of the Government, by stopping this payment, to make the position rather more uncomfortable for those who stood in the way of the reforms which the Government said they were anxious to bring about.
    Vote agreed to.
    (7.) £8,000, to complete the sum for Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he noticed in this Estimate a strange peculiarity. The Vote was distributed under six sub-heads, and last year the amount under each sub-head had been given separately. This year the amount under the first sub-head was given, but the amount under the other sub-heads was lumped together, the total amount for this year being £7,000, as against £5,000 for last year. Now, it struck him that this peculiarity, if not suspicious in itself, was, at any rate, a departure from established practice. Of course, it would be satisfactory to any Department to have a lump sum given to it to spend as it might choose. But it had been found conducive to economy, inasmuch as it enabled the Treasury to exercise a prompt check on the expenditure of different Departments, to have smaller sums appropriated to certain subordinate branches of the Service. Hence it was that sub-heads were distinguished in almost all of these Votes. He asked why, in the case of this particular Vote, that system had been changed? The result of such change would be simply that the Department would be enabled to divert from maintenance and repairs sums which might be used for the purpose of giving individuals pecuniary advantages. In that way the personal allowances would be increased, while the real object for which the money was voted would be neglected. That was the natural effect of having a lump sum to deal with. In the case of the Army and Navy, the benefit of alloting definite sums to each Vote had been acknowledged. If at the end of a year a Department sent in a Supplementary Estimate, the Treasury, although it sometimes required information with regard to the claim, as a general rule, passed it on the mere statement of the Department that the money was required. In certain cases, however, they required a

    1245
    statement in detail under sub-heads, and when that information was given, they had a practical check on the Department; but when a lump sum was voted to any particular Department, that efficient check, which was so conducive to economy, was abandoned. As a matter of fact, the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General with regard to this Vote showed that the House of Commons really voted the money in the dark. It appeared that in one case last year £2,500 had been voted for Paisley. But of this sum only £1,000 was spent at Paisley, for which the money was voted, while £150 about was spent on Kirkwall and £900 on Glasgow, which money had never been voted at all. No doubt the Treasury considered that the best way to avoid inconvenient inquiries was to put down a lump sum, and not to say how it was to be disposed of. But he objected to that. He said the House ought to know what the money was asked for in all these cases, and he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to say that, in taking this Vote, he would distribute the amount between the respective sub-heads, as they had been distributed last year. He did not ask him to confine himself to any particular sum; he asked him to distribute the money under the various sub-heads, so that the Treasury and the Comptroller and Auditor General, as well as the Committee, might have something like a check upon the expenditure which took place.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEpointed out that under 42 Vict. there was a fixed sum payable for these Courts, based on the average of the last three years.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, that the Treasury were not compelled to obtain money in this form, but they were empowered to do it.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was afraid the hon. Gentleman had not understood one part of his objection. On page 41 he would see that about two years ago the House was asked for £2,500 for Paisley, and that the money was voted. But the Department did not spend the money for the purpose for which it was voted; they spent only £875 at Paisley, and then proceeded to spend £145 at Kirkwall, and £900 at Glasgow, for which no money had been voted at all. He said this system was
    1246
    perfectly illusive, because, under it, the House of Commons did not know what was being done. No doubt, there were good reasons for asking money for Glasgow; but if the money was to be obtained in this manner, the Government might just as well ask for a round sum to cover the Estimates and spend it as they pleased. While, however, they went through the formality of asking money for these separate Services, the least that should be done was to say how the money was to be spent.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDagreed with much that had been said by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) as to the taking a lump sum for the last five items of this Vote, instead of distributing the sum amongst the several items. He was partly answered by the Secretary to the Treasury, who referred to the Act 47 & 48 Vict. c. 42. But as the Treasury were only empowered, not compelled, by that Act to sanction this new arrangement, he hoped they would reconsider the matter, and present future Estimates in the old form. The more complete check there was upon the Department, the more careful would be the expenditure; and he was unwilling, therefore, to see even this slight check relaxed. He was not so sure that he agreed with the hon. Member for Queen's County in his observations upon Item A, New Works, and for this reason. Of course, it was very desirable that money voted by Parliament should be strictly applied to the purposes for which it was voted; but it might well be that in the course of the financial year it might become absolutely necessary to undertake some other work, while, at the same time, the work brought under the notice of Parliament, and for which the money was voted, could stand over and be temporarily postponed. Now, if the diverting the money from one work to another could be done at the mere will of the Department, he should entirely dissent to the voting money for new works in a lump sum; but, as a matter of fact, the sanction of the Treasury had to be first obtained, and the Treasury were bound to look closely into each case, and to judge of the necessity or expediency of diverting the money from the original work, and unless satisfied upon the point, they would refuse their sanction.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was not prepared to accept the opinion of the hon. Baronet on this matter to the extent to which he had carried it. No doubt it was a convenient mode of procedure to grant a lump sum for new works, and no doubt no diversion could be made in the expenditure of the money without the sanction of the Treasury; but he thought that that sanction should only be given under the most exceptional circumstances. The case which the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) had brought under the notice of the Committee was a very remarkable one. There was a sum of money expressly voted by Parliament for a certain purpose, and which had been spent upon objects of which that House had no knowledge at all. It was quite true that the Treasury might have sanctioned such application of money; but he thought that the hon. Baronet rather agreed with him in the opinion that it was extremely important that such changes in the application of money voted by Parliament should be looked upon with great jealousy. They knew that when Parliament was asked to vote money for a particular object in connection with the Army or Navy, cases to which the hon. Baronet had referred sometimes arose; they knew that in the case of money voted for works sanctioned by Parliament for those Services it was sometimes diverted to other works, and although the sanction of the Treasury was obtained, the whole thing was really done without the sanction of Parliament. No doubt, when the Appropriation Account came forward Parliament was placed in possession of a knowledge of the facts; but he was bound to say that he looked with a great deal of jealousy on that mode of dealing with the public money.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDbegged leave to say a word in reply to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). In a case like the present, when the whole sum voted was declared to be for a special purpose, the Treasury would not sanction any other application of the money except under very special circumstances. Nor was it correct to say that this could be done without the cognizance of the House, as at a later stage the House would become aware of it. The facts would all appear in the Appropriation Account, and would be sub-
    1248
    mitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General. He would report the matter, and it then would be considered by the Public Accounts Committee. They had a high Official of the Treasury before them, whom they examined upon such matters, and then they reported to the House. There was thus a check upon the Department by the Treasury, and a check upon the Treasury by the Public Accounts Committee and the House.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, there was, no doubt, great force in what the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) had said. But this Vote had actually been prepared under the Act passed last year. That Act had been passed with the idea of providing an economical arrangement in these cases, because it provided for a lump sum being taken upon the average of three years, and also that in the case of excessive expenditure such excess should be defrayed by the county. That, the Committee would perceive, was throwing all the excess of the sum which might be spent in future years upon the Local Authorities. With regard to the consent of the Treasury to the application of money voted by Parliament, he believed that everything would be found to be in order, and in accordance with the Act of Parliament.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman had failed to see the canniness of the Scotch arrangement which he had endeavoured to point out. The Act provided that if there were a balance under any one of the six heads, such balance should be paid to the Treasury. Now, the Scotch advisers of the hon. Gentleman had arranged that the six sub-heads should be reduced to two. This arrangement would enable more money to be spent on various objects than was intended by Parliament. Before this lumping system took place, whatever surplus there might have been under any one of those six sub-heads would have to be repaid. But it was not so now. If there were any surplus under any one sub-head, it would be repaid; but the Scotch Department had eluded that check, and they would now probably get a great deal more public money than they would otherwise have obtained.
    Vote agreed to.
    (8) £210,500, to complete the sum for Surveys of the United Kingdom.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, there were several items in the Vote, and he should like to ask under which of them came the sum in respect of Surveys in connection with the Land Courts in Ireland? It was necessary to know that, in order that the amount might be put with the other expenses of the Courts.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that, seeing that these Survey maps were practically of very little use to the people at large until an Act had been passed for the conveyance of land by the registration of titles, he wished to ask the Government whether it would not be wise to make the price of the maps as high as possible, in order to obtain the largest possible sum in reduction of the Estimates for the Survey?
    MR. ACKERSsaid, he should like to point out how very incomplete had been the Survey in certain parts of England. In his own district it had been very badly done. Some three years ago, or more, the sappers had come round and had surveyed the whole of the district; but since then it had been ascertained that the districts surveyed by the different parties did not fit, owing to there having been no proper oversight, and the result was that last year a certain part of the Survey had to be done over again. In that district they experienced this extreme inconvenience—that while some parts of the parishes were surveyed others were not; and, consequently, whilst residents could get maps of some parts, maps of other parts were not yet issued. If there had been a proper oversight when the Survey was made, such an inconvenient state of affairs would not have arisen.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he should like to ask the hon. Member in charge of these Votes what was the difference between the Cadastral Survey and the Irish Survey for Valuation?
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that, in reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ackers), all he could say was that if there were complaints to be made of the manner in which the Survey was made and information on the subject were sought, he would do his best to obtain it. The hon. Member for Sal-ford (Mr. Arnold) had put a question to him as to the price of the Ordnance
    1250
    maps. That matter had been under consideration for a long time. The profit from the sale was extremely small; but he was not able at that moment to say that any change in the price could be made. He would undertake, however, that the hon. Member's suggestion should have every consideration.
    MR. RYLANDSdisputed the accuracy of the statement of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) that the Ordnance maps were of no use.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I did not say that. I said they are of no use to the people at large. Of course, they are of great use to landowners.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was speaking for the people at large. He agreed with the hon. Member that when they had Courts for the conveyance of land and the registration of titles it would be a good thing; but, in the meantime, those maps were of great use to the public at large. They were constantly used by them. People who neither owned nor bought land were glad to have the Ordnance Survey maps, in order that they might make themselves familiar with the roads of the country and with all the valuable information the maps contained. He was not at all disposed to share the view of his hon. Friend, his opinion being that they ought to go on the principle of having a large sale of the maps. The sale was increasing; and he was disposed to think that, with the view of securing the convenience of the public, they ought to continue to charge a low price for the maps. No doubt, looking at the additional amount asked for under the present Vote, they might assume that the expenditure was going on at a much more rapid rate than in former years. He should be very glad indeed if they could get on with the Survey; indeed, he was particularly anxious that it should be got on with as rapidly as possible, because when delays occurred it was often found that whilst one county was being proceeded with the circumstances of others entirely changed. No doubt there would be a great deal of work to do with regard to the Survey for a long time to come.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, he did not express any opinion as to the price of the Ordnance Survey maps; but he would consider what had been said on both sides of the question. As to what had fallen from the hon. Gentle-

    1251
    man the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), the difference between the Cadastral Survey and the Irish Survey for Valuation, he imagined, was to be accounted for by the fact that the Survey of Ireland on the 6-inch scale was completed some time ago, and was now being revised. It was simply a revision of the old Survey.
    MR. PARNELL: Does the charge for that revision come under this Vote?
    CAPTAIN AYLMER: Will the hon. Member tell the Committee how much is added on account of the new Land Court in Ireland?
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. and gallant Member the information he asks for.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that this question as to the different Surveys in Ireland was rather a confusing one. He wished to ask the hon. Member (Mr. H. Gladstone) whether he meant that the revised Survey now proceeding in Ireland under the Ordnance Survey Department was paid for under the first column or the second? Was it paid for under the head of the Cadastral Survey, or under the head of the Survey for Valuation?
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: Under the second head.
    MR. PARNELL: That of the Revision of the Irish Valuation Survey?
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: That is the head under which the charge is made.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he found that in Class II. of the Estimates, Vote 41, there was an item of £23,804 for the Valuation and Boundary Survey in Ireland. There were evidently, then, two distinct Surveys, one known as the Ordnance Survey, and the other called the Valuation and Boundary Survey, the first being paid for under the Vote they were now discussing, and the second paid for in Vote 41 of Class II.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: That refers to the actual Survey now being carried on in Ireland. This money is for the revision of the 6-inch maps, the Survey for which the Office of Works is responsible.
    MR. PARNELL: Which Department carries out the work of the Survey? Is it the Ordnance Department?
    MR. HIBBERT: I believe it is the Valuation Board in Ireland who carry it out.
    MR. PARNELL: That is to say, the work under Vote 41 in Class II. is being carried out by the Valuation Board, and has no reference to the 6-inch Survey. The work under the second column of the present Vote is being carried out by the English Department—that is to say, by the Ordnance Survey Department, and has reference to the 6-inch Survey?
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: Yes; I believe that is so.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that in that case, having obtained the desired information, he wished to direct attention to the very great discrepancy between the amount spent on the Survey in England and that spent on the same Survey in Ireland. He found, judging from what the hon. Member had just told him, that that the Cadastral Vote was for the English Survey—that was to say, for the revised 6-inch Survey in England which was now proceeding. Provision for this, to the extent of £200,148, was asked for; whereas for the same work in Ireland only £12,494 was to be provided. This discrepancy between the two amounts would, no doubt, explain the very backward condition of the Irish 6-inch Survey.
    MR. HIBBERTasked the hon. Member to remember what had been done in Ireland during the past year. Maps of the whole of Ireland could now be obtained on the 6-inch scale, and an edition of the 6-inch map had been published in regard to certain places. The revised 6-inch plan, engraved and published during the year, included an area 34,000 acres in extent. It appeared that in regard to the 6-inch scale the Irish Survey was in advance of that of England. The whole of England had never yet been included in the 6-inch Survey; and it would, therefore, seem that the re-issue if the 6-inch scale maps was going on in Ireland pari passu with the issue of the maps of that scale relating to England for the first time.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, his complaint was that whereas they had over a great part of England completed the 6-inch Survey, and really reliable maps on the 6-inch scale could now be procured of by far the larger portion of the country, in respect to Ireland the Survey had only proceeded to a very partial extent. According to the statement of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) it had only proceeded over four counties.
    MR HIBBERT: It has proceeded over five counties in Ireland, and some additional towns.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it was true that a great many years ago the Irish Survey was in advance of that of England—that was to say, that Ireland was surveyed first. But that Survey was a very ancient one, and was utterly unreliable; in fact, for all practical purposes it was absolutely useless. It gave the old boundaries, fences, and so forth, which were in existence in 1848, when the country was very much more thickly populated than now. All the alterations which had since been made were, of course, absent from the maps; consequently, there remained a vast amount of work to be done, and a great expenditure of money would be necessary in order to bring up the Irish 6-inch Survey to the same position as the English 6-inch Survey. According to the hon. Gentleman, the English 6-inch Survey was nearly completed, and the Irish Survey of the same scale was an old one and unreliable, the revised edition having only covered five counties up to the present. What, under the circumstances, he (Mr. Barnell) wished to ask the Government was, whether they would not pay some attention to the matter, and, by increasing the staff in Ireland and spending more money on the work, take steps to bring the Irish Survey up to the same position as the English Survey? It was obvious that if they only went on spending on the Irish Survey £12,500 a-year, whilst they spent on that of England over £200,000 a-year, the latter would make the quickest progress, and they might all be very old or dead before the former was completed. He wished to direct the attention of the hon. Gentleman opposite to another fact. He saw that in this Vote there was a column for expenses under the various sub-heads, including the Geological Survey. Now, if the Ordnance Survey was bad in Ireland, the Geological Survey was ten times worse. The Survey itself was of a very old date, and of an exceedingly imperfect character. It might have been—it probably was—made by experienced men; but they evidently had not sufficient time to make it it in a thoroughly efficient manner. They had delineated the geological features of the country in such an imperfect fashion as
    1254
    to enable no sort of reliance whatever to be placed in the geological maps of Ireland. He had often had an opportunity of looking over English geological maps, and had been struck by the amount of care and attention which had been evidently devoted to the accurate marking down of the mineral and other geological features of the country. A Survey which was of so much importance to the development of the industrial life of a country was particularly necessary in Ireland. One of the great troubles those who were interested in the welfare of that country had to face with regard to industrial matters was the impossibility of getting any information from the result of the labours of the Government in regard to this important question of the Geological Survey. He did not wish to dwell at any considerable length on the matter now, because the present Vote had reference only to the cost of engraving for the Survey. He found that the cost of engraving in connection with the Geological Survey was £1,500. He was afraid that not a single 1d. of that would be spent on the Irish Geological Survey, for he did not believe that the result of the labours of the very small geological staff in Ireland was yet in a position to be published, or that any attempt had been made to publish it. The gentlemen connected with the Geological Survey in Ireland had been for several years past engaged in re-surveying the county of Wicklow, the old Survey being entirely worthless. The Irish Members had been unable to hear anything as to the result of their labours, and they found now that the Department was not able to fix a date when the new revised maps would be issued. The revised Geological Survey had only proceeded over a few of the Irish counties; in fact, it was in a similar position to the Ordnance Survey. As a consequence, an enormous portion of Ireland in this respect was left entirely out in the cold. The people of Ireland had not benefited by the very partial labours of the Geological Survey—even by the Survey which had been completed up to this time. It was evident to him, both as regarded the Ordnance Survey and the Geological Survey, that the expenditure was being scandalously starved and stinted in Ireland as compared with England, to the manifest disadvantage of the former

    1255
    country. He earnestly hoped, now that the question had been raised and the attention of the Government had been drawn to it, and they had shown a desire, at all events, to appear to do something to develop the industrial resources of Ireland, that more consideration would be given to these two important sources of information from an industrial point of view. He trusted that the people of Ireland might ere long see their way to obtaining important information as to the geological formation of their country and as to local boundaries.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he hoped the Government would take notice of what the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had said about the Geological Survey of Ireland, because at present the geological maps of that country were most unreliable. He had had to go down to the South-West of Ireland in connection with a land survey on one occasion, and he had discovered that where sandstone was put down only slate was to be found.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that the question of the Geological Survey could be more conveniently raised in Class IV. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), he would undertake to make inquiries as to the position of the 6-inch Survey in Ireland, and to see whether its progress could be accelerated.
    MR. PARNELLasked, whether the hon. Member was able to say whether any of the money asked for in this Vote concerned the Department of the Geological Survey; and whether any of it would be spent in expediting the publication of geological maps of that country?
    MR. MUNDELLA: There is nothing whatever in this Vote which relates to the Geological Survey. That will come under Class IV., and not under the present class at all. When we come to Class IV. I shall be able to show the hon. Member that in connection with this matter Ireland is in a much more forward position than either England or Scotland.
    MR. PARNELL: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; but there is a column here—the 5th column—involving the Geological Survey.
    MR. MUNDELLA: Yes; but only on a small point.
    MR. PARNELL: I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place, because he will be able now, perhaps, to give us some information which it has been promised shall be given a little later on. I think he will admit that my question comes more pertinently at the present moment. I would ask whether any of this £1,500 is to be allocated to the advancement of the Geological Survey, and the publication of the geological maps?
    MR. MUNDELLA: I cannot give an answer on that point. The engraving for both Surveys come under this Department; but with respect to the Geological Survey itself that will come under under Class IV. I think that when we reach that Vote I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman that we have made great progress with regard to the Geological Survey in Ireland.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that perhaps the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote could give him the information he sought?
    MR. WARTONwished to know whether, under the present Vote, the cost of the maps supplied to the Land Court in Ireland was included? He thought that an answer which had been given by the Junior Lord (Mr. H. Gladstone) was rather a misleading one. He had said that the expenses were £183 paid to a Colonel; but if he would run his eye over the Estimates he would find that, in addition to the £183 paid to a Colonel, there was a sum paid as "Extra pay and allowances to non-commissioned officers and sappers," and other sums paid under such heads as "Pay of Civil Assistants, meresmen, and labourers," "Travelling expenses," "Stores," and "Contingencies." All that showed that the Junior Lord was not altogether au fait with the question of expense. That only showed that these Estimates, which were defective in so many ways, would be much more intelligibly prepared if at the bottom of the items, which were so badly strung together, it would be possible to give the totals in each case in bold type, as, for instance, "Maps for the Land Court in Ireland." Could they not have these items given separately, without being mixed up with others? If these Estimates, owing to the manner of their preparation, were misleading to hon. Members, how much

    1257
    more so must they be to people outside the House who were honestly stumbling after the truth?
    MR. E. STANHOPEasked whether the Junior Lord could tell them if the Survey of all the English counties was begun? He had understood that they were all to be commenced by the end of 1885.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: They have not all been surveyed.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: Have they all been begun?
    MR. HIBBERT: The Surveys have been commenced in all the English counties.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: Has progress been made in all of them?
    MR. HIBBERT: Yes. There are only three counties in which the Surveys have not been commenced, and they are in Wales.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The hon. Member is not, then, able to tell us what this item of £1,500, in Column 5, of page 42, is for?
    MR. HIBBERT: It is for engraving.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: But we are led to understand that there is no engraving going on.
    MR. MOLLOY: I understand there has been none for Ireland in connection with the Geological Survey. Is that so?
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: I cannot say.
    MR. MOLLOY: Can the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council tell us?
    MR. MUNDELLA: I have nothing to do with the engraving. The Geological Survey itself comes under Class IV.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it appeared to be a hopeless task to endeavour to elicit information on that point. He would ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, under this Vote, anything was to be taken for the carrying out of Surveys by civil surveyors who were not in the employ of the Ordnance Survey? Some years ago—the year before last, he thought—plans were prepared by civil surveyors who were paid out of this Vote. The work of those private surveyors ought to be most valuable; and he would ask whether the experiment of the employment of those gentlemen had been successful? Had they performed their task satisfactorily, and was the experiment to be
    1258
    repeated? If the work had been satisfactorily performed, would it not be desirable to do away with the whole of this Vote, and to have the work done by civil contract?
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, the experiment was so far satisfactory that it was being continued.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) if he could explain why it was that, when the charge was first made, there was a separate sub-head furnished, and called "the Appropriation Account;" why it was, if the same system was now being pursued, there was no mention of it in this Vote? If the hon. Gentleman looked at page 45 of the Appropriation Account, he would find that Item I. was a separate item provided on account of this new Service. If the system was to be continued, why was there not a separate item?
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, that if the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) turned to page 42, he would notice that a considerable sum was set down for Civil assistants.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the charge to which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) referred was for Civil assistants for the officers. The item he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) meant had reference to Civil surveyors, not assistants; men who were Civil engineers or land surveyors. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) had said that the plan had been found satisfactory, and would be continued this year. Under such circumstances, why was not Subhead I. continued?
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was very glad indeed the question of surveying had been mentioned, because he would like to know whether the cost of surveying by Civil surveyors compared favourably or unfavourably with the charge under this Vote? He presumed there would be some means of forming a comparison between the two classes of work. He had always been under the impression that the charge for surveying was very excessive, very good salaries were paid to the military officers engaged in surveying, and those gentlemen received in addition the Army pay which attached to their respective ranks. He supposed that was also the case with the non-commissioned officers and men. He could understand the position taken up

    1259
    by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), though, as they had gone so far, he could see the wisdom of adhering to the present arrangements. He was disposed to think, however, that, by the engagement of ordinary surveyors, an economy might have been effected. Perhaps his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) could give the Committee some information on the point.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he did not understand all the different details of the Vote, inasmuch as the Vote was one which came within the province of the Office of Works. He was not able to give the Committee the information for which his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands) asked; but he would be pleased to make inquiries.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that some years ago, in consequence of the great increase in the work of surveying, a large increase was made to the staff of surveyors. There was no doubt that the head of the Surveying Department preferred military men to civilians. He did so because they were more under control.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) had promised to make inquiries into the part of this Estimate which related to the Irish Survey. Perhaps it was hardly necessary that the hon. Gentleman, who had a good deal of work to do, should do so. If he would look at page 41, he would see there were 31 officers engaged in this Service, and that only two of them, a colonel and a captain, were concerned in the Survey of Ireland. There were, in all, a director, a colonel, three lieutenant-colonels, three majors, 19 captains, three lieutenants, and one quartermaster, and only the colonel and a captain were engaged in Ireland. Under Sub-head D a total of £4,480 was charged for travelling expenses; but of this sum only £210 was spent in Ireland. Furthermore, the activity of the Department in Ireland might be judged by the fact that the expenditure for instruments and repairs in Ireland was only £5, while the total charge under this head was £1,984. Finally, the charge for fuel, light, water, &c, was £1,380; but the expenditure in Ireland was represented by a blank. It was perfectly
    1260
    apparent from the Estimate that the Services in Ireland were merely nominal.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that the figures on page 41 were for the United Kingdom.
    MR. SEXTONasked the hon. Gentleman to refer to the Estimate. He would find that the salaries of the 31 officers engaged in the Cadastral Survey amounted in the aggregate to £8,530. The pay of the colonel and captain engaged in Ireland amounted to £429.
    MR. ACKERSsaid, that, with reference to what had been stated with regard to the employment of civilians in the work of surveying, he would like to point out that in the part of Gloucestershire in which he lived the work had, in the first instance, been carried out by sappers, and not by civilians. The result was that the surveys had been very improperly made; indeed, in some places they would not fit together, and, therefore, were quite useless. There was no proper supervision; parts of parishes had been surveyed, and other parts had not.
    Vote agreed to.
    (9.) £14,363, to complete the sum for Science and Art Department Buildings.
    (10.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum not exceeding £7,446, 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 Maintenance and Repair of the British Museum and Natural History Museum Buildings, for Rents of Premises, supply of Water, Fuel, &c. and other Charges attendant thereon."
    MR. E. STANHOPEasked the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) what provision was being made in respect of the allocation of rooms in the British Museum for the Department of Prints and Drawings? Anyone who knew the Museum would admit that this Department, as compared with all the other Departments, had been treated with very scant courtesy; it had hardly had fair attention to its important demands; and he would like to know whether steps were being taken to give it a fairer and a legitimate amount of space?
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he understood that in the new buildings provision was made for prints and drawings. A Com-

    1261
    mittee had been sitting lately to inquire into the best mode of distributing the objects which had not been properly provided for, and the distribution of prints and drawings had engaged their attention.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he understood that most of the new space had been given to the Department of Antiquities. He did not object to that; but, at the same time, he thought the claims of prints and drawings had hitherto been neglected, and it would be well if more attention were given to them. There would be an opportunity subsequently for raising the question; perhaps the hon. Gentleman would make inquiries in the meantime, and then say what provision was being made.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he would make the inquiries desired.
    MR. MOLLOYasked if any arrangement had been made with the Trustees of the British Museum as to the opening of the Museum at night? For the last two years the matter had been discussed, and it had been said that an expenditure of £14,600 would be required to fit up the Exhibition with the electric light. It was promised last year that arrangements would, in the course of the then ensuing 12 months, be made with the Trustees to enable them to open the Museum to the public at night. He would like to know if any arrangement had been made with the Trustees; and, if so, what arrangement? If no arrangement had been made, he would like to know why the promise made last year had not been kept?
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, he was afraid he could not answer the hon. Gentleman's question; but he would make inquiries.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there was one question which he had asked for many years past, and which he was anxious to repeat now. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) preferred to answer the question on Report, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would defer it until that stage. The point on which he was extremely anxious was the prevention of fire, and how far the invaluable collection at the British Museum was safe from fire. His attention was called to the matter, in the first instance, by a visit he had to pay to the Register House in Edinburgh. He found there probably the most dangerous state
    1262
    of things as to fire it was possible to find. Happily, things were now altered. But from accounts he had heard from sources which were most likely sources of authority, he was not at all satisfied with the measures which were taken for the effectual protection of the British Museum from fire; he understood that if fire wore to break out, there would not be sufficient means of coping with it. The effects of a fire in that building would be so disastrous that he was sure the Government would not feel he was pressing the matter too hard in asking his question again It would be most re-assuring to the public to know that every precaution had been taken against fire at the British Museum.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, he was not able to answer fully the question of the right hon. Gentleman. Captain Shaw, however, had charge of the British Museum and the Natural History Museum, and for this received an allowance of £100 a-year. Therefore it was to be presumed that the apparatus was sufficient to cope with any fire that might occur.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was aware that the British Museum had been placed under the able supervision of Captain Shaw; but then Captain Shaw had a good many other places to superintend besides the British Museum. Moreover, Captain Shaw was really a servant of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and he had only a very limited staff; as a matter of fact, the staff was regulated by the Act of Parliament, which only allowed a certain rate to be levied for Eire Brigade purposes. He was sure that if Captain Shaw were asked what staff he would like to have, he would say a very much larger one than he had at present. It was quite true that Captain Shaw was able to call upon the Metropolitan Police in certain cases; but, notwithstanding that, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was not at all certain that power enough was placed in Captain Shaw's hands, so as to be able to cope with such an emergency he had pointed to. He trusted inquiries would be made, with a view of making every provision against an outbreak of fire at the Museum.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the subject had not been neglected. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was a complete staff looking

    1263
    after the building in the direction he desired—watching against fire. That staff was under the immediate superintendence of Captain Shaw, and all the apparatus was ready in the building that was required for the purpose. If the right hon. Gentleman wished for any further information it should be provided.
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) only confirmed his (Sir E. Assheton Cross's) impression. The point he wished to press upon the Committee was that Captain Shaw had only a very limited staff for all the fires of the Metropolis; he was a servant of the Metropolitan Board of Works; and that Board were tied by Statute only to levy a certain amount of rate for Fire Brigade purposes. It might happen that the whole of Captain Shaw's staff was engaged at a distant part of London when a fire broke out at the Museum. In such a case, was the staff at the Museum sufficient to cope with the outbreak? He thought the Government ought to take the matter into their serious consideration, because the Collection at the British Museum was simply invaluable. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) would agree with him that the staff of Captain Shaw should be greatly increased.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that, with reference to the provision against fire generally in the Metropolis, there was a feeling that it would be extremely desirable that the Fire Brigade should be strengthened. He was under the impression that the Metropolitan Board of Works had already made application to Parliament for that purpose. Certainly, any influence he had would be used in the direction of encouraging and supporting the Metropolitan Board of Works to increase the staff for the use of the Metropolis generally, and for the protection of such National Collections as those to which reference had been made.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) could say what had been done with regard to the opening of the British Museum at night.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the matter rested with the Trustees of the British Museum, and not with the Government. Last year he said the matter would be referred to the Trustees; but he made no promise on the part of the Government.
    MR. MOLLOYasked if the question had been referred to the Trustees? As a matter of fact, the Trustees had, on two different occasions, recommended the opening of the Museum at night; but the Government had refused the £14,600 necessary to fit up the building with the electric light. The question he had now to ask the right hon. Gentleman was, Will the Government now give this £14,600, or will they refuse it? It was a very simple question, which had nothing to do with the Trustees.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the Natural History Museum at South Kensington formed a very valuable Collection, and it was well that that should be open to inspection by the working classes at night.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he would very much like to know whether the Members of the Treasury Bench knew anything at all about this matter? He found that, both as regarded the British Museum and the Natural History Museum at South Kensington, there was a considerable increase in the charge for gas—in the one case an increase of 30 per cent, and in the other case of 50 per cent. What was the reason of this increase? One of the Trustees was a Member of the House. Surely he could give the reason.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that, in the case of the British Museum, the increase was occasioned by the new buildings; while in the case of the Natural History Museum it was found that the Estimate for 1884–5 was insufficient.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was not satisfied. The charge for gas had increased at the British Museum, and they were led to suppose that the increase was produced by the lighting of the new buildings. But at South Kensington there had been no new buildings. How, therefore, was the increase in respect of that establishment to be accounted for? Besides, why should they spend more for gas and not for coals, coke, and firewood? He really thought that Ministers should send for the Trustees.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he hoped the Committee would receive some indication of the views of the Government with regard to the opening of the Natural History Museum at South Kensington at night. During the daytime the Museum was visited by a great many nursemaids and children, but not by the working classes. The working classes, in fact, had no time except at night to inspect the Collections. If, therefore, the Museum could be lighted at night without danger, and at a moderate expense, it would, he was sure, prove a very popular and useful resort.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that under Subhead "E," there was an item for "Forming Entrances to the Museum Gardens from Cromwell Road and for minor Works." He would like to know what that meant? Did it mean there was a connection with the Museum Gardens from the underground passage from South Kensington to the Exhibition grounds?
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: It has nothing to do with that.
    MR. TOMLINSON: What has it to do with?
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: The formation of entrances to the Gardens from Cromwell Road, and the fixing of ornamental railings on the copings of the parapet walls.
    MR. TOMLINSON: There is nothing about railings here. The item is for "Forming Entrances to the Museum Gardens from Cromwell Road and for minor Works."
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, he would take care to bring the question of the lighting of the British Museum at night to the notice of the First Commissioner of Works (Lord Rosebery), and to inform him of the views entertained by hon. Gentlemen.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, the question had been brought to the notice of the First Commissioner for two years past. The assurances of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert Gladstone; were not sufficient; and the Committee ought to mark their dissatisfaction at the refusal of the Government to afford the working classes facilities of inspecting the Collections at the Museum. He was astonished that the Government could not see their way to a paltry expenditure of £14,000, in order to allow the working classes to visit the Museum at night, particularly
    1266
    when they could give as much as £70,000 for a single work of Art for the National Gallery, an institution which, also, by the way, was practically kept up for the enjoyment of the upper classes. The working classes could not visit the National Gallery in the daytime; and to cap matters, he understood that the Gallery was closed during the Easter holidays on the plea of making repairs. To mark his sense of the action of the Government with regard to the opening of the British Museum at a time when it could be visited by the bulk of the people, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £6,446, 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 Maintenance and Repair of the British Museum and Natural History Museum Buildings, for Rents of Premises, supply of Water, Fuel, &c, and other Charges attendant thereon."—(Mr. Molloy.)
    MR. WARTONrose to Order. He wished to know if it was possible for the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Molloy) to move a reduction of the Vote, when he wanted the Vote to be increased?
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is quite competent for the hon. Gentleman to do so. Whether that course would further his desire is another question.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he protested against the most unsatisfactory mode in which the Estimates were being discussed this evening. These were Estimates which affected the Department of the First Commissioner of Works, and the particular question now before the Committee was one for the First Commissioner of Works and the Treasury. It was complained that the First Commissioner, having promised to induce the Treasury to make provision for lighting the British Museum and the Natural History Museum by electricity, had not fulfilled his pledge. The present head of the Board of Works, a great spending Department, was not a Member of the House, and hon. Members could not approach him, or get at him in any way. The hon. Gentleman the Junior Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) did his best, and they all sympathized with him, because of the most unsatisfactory position in which he

    1267
    was placed. Not only had they not got the First Commissioner of Works present, but there was no one in the House who really represented the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) could not explain why the Treasury refused the money. The only person who could give the Committee any information on the point was the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was not present. They were, therefore, discussing questions which affected the administration of the First Commissioner of Works and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when neither of those official persons were present. He sincerely sympathized with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Molloy), who had moved a reduction of the Vote; and he thought the hon. Gentleman had a right to ask why the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the First Commissioner of Works had not fulfilled the pledge made to the House.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he understood the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Molloy) to have stated that the First Commissioner of Works made such a promise last year to the House.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, he had stated that a promise was made.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the complaint made by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was that he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had made a promise which he had failed to keep in regard to this matter.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he had stated that that complaint had been made by Members of the Committee.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham bad stated that someone else had complained that be (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) bad made a promise to the effect mentioned, and that that promise bad not been kept. Now, for his part, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) distinctly denied that he bad ever made any such promise. When the matter was brought before the House by the hon. and learned Gentleman, all that he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had promised to do was that be would refer the question to the Trustees of the British Museum for their consideration; and in so doing he had expressed no opinion as to what course they ought to pursue. The matter was, in point of fact, one which rested between the Trustees of
    1268
    the British Museum and the Treasury, and was not one with which the First Commissioner of Works bad anything to do. All the First Commissioner of Works could undertake in regard to the British Museum was to see to the construction of works in connection with that institution, and to provide for the maintenance of the building. This was his sole duty in the matter. If the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Trustees of the Museum, should decide that it was advisable to light the building with the electric light, they would then call upon the First Commissioner of Works to see that the works necessary for that purpose were performed; but it did not rest with the First Commissioner to decide whether the electric system should be adopted as the mode of lighting the Museum. It had been stated that the Trustees had recommended the adoption of the electric light; but, for his own part, he very much doubted whether the Trustees had ever arrived at the conclusion that it would be a wise thing to light the building in the way suggested. It had also been stated that the cost of lighting the Museum by electricity would be £14,000; but the hon. Gentleman who bad made that statement (Mr. Molloy) would see that it was not merely a question of the expenditure of £14,000 in making the provision necessary in the first instance for that mode of lighting, but that it also involved the consideration of a considerable addition to the permanent staff of the establishment. Moreover, the introduction of the electric light would necessitate an increase in the number of hours during which the staff were employed; and when the gigantic extent of the building, and the large number of persons necessarily retained in looking after the different departments, were considered, it would be seen that the proposed change must add very materially to the amount of the permanent charge for the maintenance of that institution. However, the subject was one which was open to careful inquiry; and one of the first things to be ascertained was, whether the Trustees of the British Museum really did desire that the electric light should be adopted. As he had already stated, he had very great doubt on that subject; but after the assertions that had been made, and the discussion that had taken place, he

    1269
    would promise the Committee that inquiry should be instituted as to whether it really was the wish of the Trustees that the electric light should be introduced.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, that last year one of the Trustees of the British Museum who sat in that House stated that the Trustees had made an application to the Treasury for the necessary funds for the introduction of the electric light into the building, so that the institution might be open to the working classes in the evening, and that application had been refused.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had understood that last year the then First Commissioner of Works had said he would refer the matter to the Trustees of the British Museum; and, that being so, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to inform the Committee what was the opinion of those gentlemen now that the question was repeated in another form. Were the Committee again to be told that the Representative of the Department did not know what that opinion really was?
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, the Committee had already been told that the Trustees of the Museum had made an application to the Treasury last year, and that that application was refused.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, it would appear, from what had been stated in the course of the discussion, that the Postmaster General did not know what the real object of the British Museum was. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that that institution ought not to be opened in the evening, which was the only time when it could be made available for the working classes, because the introduction of the electric light and the extra hours during which the building would be open would entail an increase of the permanent staff of employés, and would add to the expenses of maintaining the Museum. If that argument were to be accepted, the best thing that could be done would, in his (Mr. Biggar's) opinion, be to pay off the staff, and close the building, as, under existing circumstances, it was practically useless; because during the day time it was only taken advantage of by nursery maids and young children, and he did not think it necessary to vote a
    1270
    large sum of money every year for a purpose that would be sufficiently fulfilled by any park or garden. In point of fact, if the Government were to hire a few Guardsmen to walk about the grounds with the nursery maids, they would find that such a procedure would be much more successful—at any rate from the nursery maids' point of view—than the maintenance of a large and costly National Museum. At the same time, while it was thought desirable to keep up the British Museum, he thought the building ought to be properly lighted, and at such times as the people generally could go and see it. Moreover, for the sake of students who desired to study the objects contained in the Museum, it was very desirable that the building should be lighted during the evening, and that the works of Art should not be rendered unavailable at such hours only as were at the disposal of a very large number of individuals. He thought that, upon the whole, the most practical way of dealing with the question was that which had been proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Molloy), who had moved a reduction of the Vote. By adopting such a course a greater amount of pressure would be brought to bear on the Treasury, with a view of compelling them to do that which was reasonable. He did not think that sufficient pressure had been brought to bear on that Department hitherto. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was now present, had not been in the House when the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) had replied on behalf of that Department; and the Committee would probably be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what the Treasury had said to the Trustees of the British Museum, or what they were now prepared to say in regard to the question that had been raised. The Secretary to the Treasury was the official mouthpiece of the Department, and ought to have been able to have given such a reply to the statements made on the subject as would have amounted to a satisfactory explanation, so that the Committee need not have been driven about from one official to another in the vain attempt to elicit definite information.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he thought the Committee entitled to ask Her Ma-

    1271
    jesty's Government to answer one question, and it was this. He considered that the Trustees of the British Museum were fully justified in exercising every possible precaution which might be deemed necessary to insure the safety of the building under their guardian-ship before they insisted very strongly on the introduction of the electric light. The security of the Museum was, of course, the first consideration; and he should like to be informed whether, in the opinion of the Trustees, it was deemed desirable that the building should be opened during certain hours in the evening? He did not wish it to be thought, for a moment, that he was disposed to find the least fault with the Trustees for any hesitation they might feel in taking such a step; but the Committee had been told that the Trustees of the Museum, a year or more ago, had represented to the Treasury that the time had come when, in their opinion, the building ought to be lighted with the electric light. If that were so, he desired to know what was the answer the Treasury had made to that representation? It had been stated that the Treasury had refused to comply with the application of the Trustees; and if this were the case, he thought the Committee were entitled to know on what ground the refusal had been based; because, if the Trustees of the British Museum had applied for the additional expenditure that would be necessary to carry out such an object, he felt sun; they had not done so without due regard to all the circumstances of the case, and that a representation, so made by that Body, was entitled to the fullest consideration on the part of the Treasury.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, with reference to the question put by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope), that, as far as he was personally concerned, he had no knowledge on the subject. The question was one that, in reality, belonged to the Secretary to the Treasury; but he would undertake to look into the matter.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was now in his place he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to put a question on a
    1272
    subject to which he had already made allusion in the right hon. Gentleman's absence. He referred to the important subject of insuring that proper provision was made to guard against the possible outbreak of fire. What he had stated before the right hon. Gentleman had entered the House was that the Metropolitan Board of Works had only a certain sum at their disposal for fire brigade purposes, and only a certain staff that could be employed; and he felt bound to put it to Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the great importance of providing for the safety of such buildings as the National Gallery and British Museum, it would not be a wise and prudent course to offer something in the shape of Government aid as a provision for duly guarding those valuable institutions. It might be said that there was already a certain staff, watching over London, and charged with the protection of our public institutions; but this was a fact of which he was well aware, and it was not the point he desired to raise. What he wanted to call attention to was the fact that Captain Shaw had only a very limited number of men under his control in the Metropolitan Fire Brigade; and if they were called away at any time to fires in different parts of the Metropolis, he would have no means on which he could fall back in case of the sudden emergency of a fire breaking out at one of these great public institutions. He did not wish to ask for any definite assurance on the part of the Government at the present moment; but rather to call the attention of the Prime Minister to this point—that the Government should be prepared, if necessary, to make such provision for the protection of the great public institutions in case of fire as would constitute an efficient supplement to the means possessed by the Metropolitan Board.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman was one that had been the subject of a good deal of discussion and consideration in that House, and the necessity of bestowing due attention upon it had already been recognized by Her Majesty's Government. A considerable amount was annually raised for the purposes of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade;

    1273
    and he was not disposed to say that the burdens on the Metropolis in this respect ought to be largely increased. But the grant by Parliament in aid of this Service was fully as large as the circumstances warranted, especially now that all Government property was rated.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he wished to point out that, although the question was one on which the fullest opportunity had been given to the Representatives of Her Majesty's Government to offer the explanations that had been asked for in the course of the debate, those explanations had not, up to the present moment, been given. He still hoped the Government would be able to give such an answer to the question put by the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) as might save the Committee the trouble of going to a division. During the debate on this subject, they had had speeches from the Postmaster General, the Secretary to the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and surely, from such a galaxy of talent, the Committee ought to have been enabled to elicit what was the reply which the Treasury had given to the representations of the Trustees of the British Museum. The question was a very simple one; but it was one which seemed to be so difficult to answer that they were unable to obtain the desired information from either of the Gentlemen then occupying the Treasury Bench. He (Mr. Biggar) could not but think that it was in the power of the Government to give some definite information on so simple a matter.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he did not think the question referred to had been brought before the Treasury in 1884; but, as he had already promised, he would take care that the matter should be carefully looked into.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, it had been positively stated, on the one hand, that the Trustees of the British Museum had applied to the Treasury last year for the means of utilizing the electric light; and all the Members of the Treasury who had spoken had asserted, on the other, that they had never received any such application. Surely the question was a matter of fact,
    1274
    which was capable of definite explanation.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the application, so far as he was aware, did not come last year to the Treasury; but he would make further inquiry.
    MR. GORSTasked, whether the Committee were to understand that it was customary in the Treasury Department for a subordinate official to refuse any application such as that said to have been made by the Trustees of the British Museum, without referring the matter to his superior?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)replied, that the matter was one that would be brought before and dealt with by the Secretary to the Treasury, who was by no means a subordinate official, in dealing with Civil Expenditure, and it was not customary for him to refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on all questions of that kind. He had, however, undertaken, now that the subject had been brought under his attention, to look into it.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, he should not ask the Committee to go to the trouble of a division, as it was now clearly understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would himself examine into the matter; but he would repeat that promises were also made upon the subject last year, and the year before that—that, in point of fact, promises had been made for three years running, but, up to the present moment, without any result. The Committee had now had a distinct promise from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would personally inquire into the subject; and he would then see whether the grant of £14,000, involved in the application of the Trustees of the British Museum, could be complied with.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (11.) £13,002, to complete the sum for Harbours, &c. under the Board of Trade.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, this was an item to which he felt bound to object, and on which, unless he received a satisfactory assurance from the

    1275
    Government, he should take the sense of the Committee. He was of opinion that, if it were possible to devise a piece of legislative absurdity that should be more ridiculous than another, it would be found in the state of things evidenced by this Vote. The Harbour Commissioners of Harwich owed the Government a large sum of money. The Commissioners were not able to pay the money out of their Harbour Dues; and in order to enable them to pay the amount they were indebted into the Treasury, the Government induced that House, year after year, to vote a sum amounting to a good many hundreds of pounds, which they inserted in the Estimates. This year the sum was £738, which showed an increase of £350 on the Vote of last year. The year before that there was a Vote of £430, but the expenditure was £1,170, so that £740 more than was estimated for was expended, and that additional expenditure of £740 was sanctioned by the Treasury letter of the 2nd of January, 1884. Upon this the Controller and Auditor General reported that the excess of the expenditure over the sum granted was £740, this being the sum sanctioned by the Treasury letter dated the 2nd January, 1884; but it appeared, from the accounts of the Harbour Commissioners, that £764 13 s. 4d. not provided by the actual income of the Harbour for the year was expended in excess of the sum voted, and the difference between that sum and the £740, which was not provided either by income, or by Vote, or by Treasury sanction, and must be met out of the next year's funds, and which had been actually expended in the year 1883–4, should have been included in the account. The Committee here had before them an account which was, as far as possible, arranged for the benefit of the Commissioners of Harwich Harbour, at the expense of the public at large. But the Commissioners did not seem to be able to cook or prepare their accounts with anything like accuracy, or even common sense, because, although able to obtain a Vote from that House, they made it appear that they expended money which they did not possess. It was set forth, on page 49 of the Estimates, that the repayment of principal and interest of the loan advanced by the Public Works Commissioners was £413,
    1276
    that the charge for maintenance was £600, and for works £950, making a total of £1,963, while the estimated receipts from dues and ballast were put down at £1,225, so that there was a deficiency of income to the amount of £738. Now, because the Harwich Harbour Commissioners owed the Government a certain amount, that House was asked to vote a deficiency of £738. Would it not, he asked, be much better, both for the Commissioners of Harwich Harbour and for the public account, that the sum of, he did not know how many thousands of pounds, which was now due from the Commissioners to the Government, should be wiped off? Year after year they had Bills introduced into that House in which liabilities due to the Treasury were thus wiped off. Why, then, should not steps be taken to wipe off this Harwich Harbour claim? The result would be a nominal loss, but a real gain, because, as it was, the money was only taken out of the public accounts and given to the Commissioners, to be handed back again by them in the nominal discharge of their debt. He considered that such a mode of procedure constituted one of the most ridiculous blots possible on the financial system of the country, and why the Government insisted on its perpetuation he was totally at a loss to understand. He would propose the reduction of the Vote by £738, unless he obtained some satisfactory reply from the Government.
    MR. J. HOLMSsaid, the Vote was one that was recommended by the Commissioners on the subject of Harbours of Refuge in 1844; and, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), this year the amount of the deficiency to be made up in the case of the Harwich Commissioners was £738, which was a little more than was the case last year. If his hon. Friend would allow the Vote to pass without moving the Amendment he had in contemplation, he (Mr Holms) would make inquiry, and see whether he could not arrange to meet the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman as to wiping off the whole sum.
    Vote agreed to.
    (12.) £135,985, to complete the sum for Hates on Government Property.
    (13.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £7,500, 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 Contribution towards the Funds for the Establishmennt and Maintenance of a Fire Brigade in the Metropolis."
    MR. CAUSTONsaid, that reference had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), in a discussion that had taken place on a previous Vote, to the necessity that existed for making adequate provision for a Fire Brigade in connection with the British Museum and National Gallery; and he should now like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they were prepared to take any steps to insure that the Metropolitan Fire Brigade should be rendered really efficient in regard to all the purposes for which it might be required? Speaking on behalf of those who had places of business in the City of London and in the Metropolis generally, he was bound to say that the Metropolitan Fire Brigade at the present time was considered to be in anything but an efficient state. It was a significant fact that insurance rates had recently been very considerably increased in the Metropolis, the Insurance Companies stating that the ground on which this increase was deemed to be necessary was the inefficient state of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. Not that he believed there was any cause for complaint as to the efficiency of the admittedly very gallant men composing the Brigade, who always did their work well; but he knew that there was an impression very generally prevalent in the Metropolis that the appliances at the disposal of the Fire Brigade were inadequate to the duties they were called upon to perform. Therefore, he hoped that Her Majesty's Government, in bringing forward the Estimate as the public contribution towards the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, would take care to see that the work towards which that sum was to be devoted was done in a thoroughly efficient manner; otherwise it might one day be found that in consequence of a want of efficiency in the arrangements made for this important department of the Public Service some terrible conflagration, of an unusually extensive character, would take place. It should be remem-
    1278
    bered that in consequence of the enormously increased value of land in the Metropolis the buildings erected at the present day were usually carried up to a much greater height than was the case in past times; and the result was that the appliances at the disposal of the Fire Brigade, which used to be sufficient, were now now found to be unequal to the work required.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the control of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade was vested in the Metropolitan Board of Works, and Her Majesty's Government had no control over it whatever. The annual contribution of £10,000 was made in accordance with the Act of Parliament.
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not desire to extend the debate on this Vote; but as the question of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade had been raised he felt bound to bear his testimony to the efficiency of the chief officer of that fine body of men. He did not believe there was a more efficient officer in any service in the United Kingdom than Captain Shaw. He was very glad that he had had the opportunity afforded by this Vote of saying so much in testimony of the merits of that officer; but, at the same time, he must express his concurrence in the statement of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Causton) that Captain Shaw had not an adequate force at his disposal. There were great public institutions which it was absolutely necessary to preserve; and, therefore, if, in the opinion of Parliament, the powers at present possessed by the Metropolitan Board of Works were not sufficient, or so large as they ought to be, then they ought to have further powers given to them to enable them to carry out their work.
    MR. GORSTsaid, the statement made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was not quite accurate. The Government were not bound by law to pay £10,000 a-year, but such sum as Parliament might grant, and the amount of the sum was entirely within the discretion of Parliament, which might grant or withhold it at its pleasure. It followed, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government were clearly entitled to obtain from the Metropolitan Board of Works such information as might be necessary, in order to induce Parliament to grant the sum required,

    1279
    and he could not accept the doctrine of the hon. Gentleman that the Government had no power in the matter. They had the great power of saying—"If you do not give us such and such information we will not vote the money." Parliament had the most absolute discretion in voting the sum.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, he wished to know whether it was not the fact that the Metropolitan Board of Works alleged that the sum voted by Parliament was not enough to enable them to make the Fire Brigade thoroughly sufficient for the purpose for which it was required, and that they had already asked for double the sum now granted?
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, a larger sum than £10,000 could not be voted without fresh legislation. If any change was to be made, fresh legislation, as had been pointed out by the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), must be asked for. As the law stood at present, the maximum sum allowed was £10,000. As to the power of the Government to control the Board of Works, or to interfere in its internal management in reference to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, he could only repeat what he had said before—that it seemed to him that Parliament had vested the control of the Fire Brigade in the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that as the power had been given to them it ought to remain with them.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that, as he understood it, what the Government did was to ask the House of Commons to vote a sum not exceeding £10,000 to be expended on the responsibility of the Metropolitan Board of Works. But did the Government ask the Metropolitan Board, or Captain Shaw, for any Report as to the special precautions taken for the protection of Government property? Was the £10,000 really expended for the purpose of looking after Government property? Did Captain Shaw ever give any Report to the Government as to the special precautions taken on account of, or in return for, the grant?
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he could only re-echo the sentiments already expressed by the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire, and declare that the Government had entire confidence in Captain Shaw, and in his efficient management of the Fire Brigade.
    1280
    He did not think there was a Fire Brigade in the world which was better conducted.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had not answered his question. It was said that a Report had been made by Captain Shaw to the Metropolitan Board of Works, setting forth that the sum allowed by Parliament was not sufficient for the purpose of affording ample protection to the property of the Metropolis. Was that so, or not?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am not aware of any such Report.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, this opened up a very much wider question. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Molloy) talked of protecting the property of the Metropolis; but Parliament was not called upon to vote money to protect the Metropolis from fire—it only gave this sum for the purpose of protecting Government property. What the House of Commons had a right to ask was this—was the Metropolitan Fire Brigade so conducted, and altogether so efficient, as to justify Parliament in being satisfied that the money was judiciously expended? He could not suppose for a moment that £10,000 was too small a sum for the purpose to which it was to be applied— he thought it was a very substantial contribution on the part of Parliament to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. If there was any reasonable ground of complaint, that would be another affair. If the Committee had reason to believe that the Brigade was inefficiently managed, they would expect that unless an improvement was made the Vote would be refused; but he did not anticipate that there was any such charge in the present case. He thought they might well assume the efficiency of the Brigade, though what he would like to see—and no doubt many hon. Members would agree with him—would be that the Brigade should be under the control of the Municipality, and therefore under the control of the ratepayers. But that was altogether a different matter to asking Parliament to give such a sum as would be necessary to make the Fire Brigade efficient for the Metropolis generally.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that no accusation was made, so far as he understood, against the administration of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. He

    1281
    believed the Brigade was as perfect as it could be; but the Metropolitan Board of Works, in dealing with it, was limited by statute; and the real question was, whether the Brigade had a sufficient number of men; and whether the money spent was expended economically? However, both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State had promised to look into the matter, to see whether it was necessary to enlarge the powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works.
    MR. B. BIDDULPH MARTINsaid, the question was whether the property at stake was sufficiently covered by what might be taken to be a premium? It could scarcely be supposed that the Government property could be insured for the sum paid.
    MR. CAUSTONsaid he had never, for one moment, wished to convey the idea that Captain Shaw and the firemen were not efficient. All he had said was that the Brigade had not sufficient appliances at their disposal to enable them to discharge their duties properly, and that was a most serious matter.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he understood the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department to say that, in regard to legislation or re-arrangement, this was part of the general question of Local Government for the Metropolis, and that they must wait until that general question was settled before any change could be made. Now, that was always the answer to any criticisms upon these matters. On the other hand, when it was proposed to introduce a Bill for the Local Government of the Metropolis, it was always said—"Oh, that cannot be done now; there are too many other subjects before us." The grievances of Londoners, therefore, were constantly relegated to the Ides of March. But things could not always remain in this position, and the inhabitants of the Metropolis would have to find some remedy for themselves within a measurable distance of time.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he must take exception to the statement that the Metropolitan Board of Works did not represent the Metropolis. That was a matter of opinion. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), for he thought the Metropolitan Board of Works probably—and certainly on a question of this kind—
    1282
    represented the Metropolis as well as any other constitution could represent it. He had been very glad to hear the high testimony borne to Captain Shaw by those who had practical knowledge of the subject.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he had been exceedingly glad to hear the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. H. H. Fowler) say not a generous, but a just word on behalf of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. He had also been very glad indeed that the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) had said the same thing, and that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Causton) had explained away what he had said. He (Mr. Warton) knew something of the Fire Brigade, and he did not fear to say that they had always discharged their duty nobly and well. He would defy any Member of the Government, or any cheeseparing economist, to find the least fault with the officers of the Fire Brigade. Not only had they always discharged their duties well, but it was within the knowledge of the Government that they had themselves taken every additional precaution that they possibly could take to guard against accidents under such circumstances as might arise. A more gallant body of men did not exist. It had pained him to the heart to hear the observations made, in a spirit of grudging economy, over the expenditure of this paltry sum of £10,000—a sum the amount of which was fixed 20 years ago, when the value of property was not what it was now. However, he had the consolation of reflecting that the observations he complained of had been made by persons who knew nothing at all about the matter.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought they need not discuss the Vote at any great length, because the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department had told them that though they had to vote the money there was no Department of the Government which had any right to interfere with its expenditure, or to make any inquiry into it; it was simply so much of a sop to the ratepayers of the Metropolis. He did not think the reason given by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Causton) why the rate of premium should be increased in this country was the real one. The real

    1283
    reason was, not because the fire offices were unfortunate, but because persons made fraudulent claims, and got more payment than they were entitled to. The result was that fire insurance was unprofitable, and the Insurance Companies were bound to raise the general rates in order to recoup themselves for the loss on that part of their business. But the present Vote in favour of the Metropolis involved a real injustice to other parts of the Kingdom, for London obtained £10,000 a-year towards fire insurance, and no other part of the country had any similar grant. There was a good deal of Government property elsewhere than in London, and there was not the least argument in favour of giving grants to London which was not equally strong for giving grants to other places. He thought the only proper way of settling this question was to strike off this grant altogether, and then, if it should be considered desirable at some future time to give grants by way of fire insurance towards the Fire Brigades of different parts of the country in proportion to the amount of Government property in each particular locality, it would be legitimate to do so. But the money should not be given unless some Government Department had power to interfere with and criticize the conduct of the body to whom the money was given. In the present case no interference was allowed by the Metropolitan Board of Works over their fire department; and for that reason, as well as for the reason that the Vote was only intended for a limited part of the Kingdom, he should divide the Committee against the Vote, even though all the London Members might vote against him.
    MR. CALLANsaid, there were Government Offices in Dublin. There were the Custom House, the Castle, and other places, and probably the Castle required the aid not only of the Fire Brigade, but of the waterworks. He did not know whether any contribution was made by the State to the fund for the Fire Brigade in Dublin. He took it for granted that this Vote of £10,000 was given mainly for the protection of Government Offices; and as there were a large number of such Offices in Dublin he wished to know whether any contribution was made to the Corporation Fire Brigade Fund for that City? If no contribution was made
    1284
    to Dublin as well as to London, he should be against the Vote; but if the two cities were treated in a similar manner he should vote for it.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, the present grant was made not so much in return for security from fire as in compensation to the Metropolitan Board of Works for the loss occasioned by so large a part of the area of the Metropolis being occupied by Public Offices, instead of by ratepaying houses.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he wished to know how the Dublin Fire Brigade was maintained? He was informed that it was maintained out of the general Corporation rates of the City; and, if so, he wished to know whether, under the last Vote agreed to by the Committee—the Vote for a contribution for rates on Government property in Great Britain and Ireland—any sum of money was given to the Dublin Corporation in respect of the Government property in Dublin?
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, there was a contribution made to the rates of Dublin on account of Government property, and in the case of the Metropolis this charge in respect of the Fire Brigade was made in place of rates which would otherwise be paid if the contribution were made in the same way in the two cases.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he would point out that the previous Vote showed that in England the Government paid rates to a very large amount on various descriptions of property, including Customs, Post Office, criminal lunatic asylums, prisons, public buildings, Law Courts, Parks, and War Office property. Did not the War Department, for instance, pay rates to the Metropolitan Board of Works?
    MR. HIBBERT: No—not for this particular purpose.
    MR. GRAYthought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) was rather misleading the Committee when he conveyed the impression that in Dublin and other places contributions were given in lieu of rates for this particular purpose. He (Mr. Gray) was strongly of opinion that the contribution was given in Dublin before the Fire Brigade was initiated; but, in any case, it did not amount to anything approaching the sum that would have to be paid if the Government property were rated. It was, therefore, not right to say that the contribution in lieu of rates was given for

    1285
    Fire Brigade purposes in every place except London. In London the Fire Brigade was maintained partly by rates, partly by an enforced contribution from the insurance offices, and partly by this Parliamentary Grant; and it was, therefore, a completely exceptional case, and it would be better to justify it on exceptional grounds rather than endeavour to show that it stood on all fours with other cases.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, that in Dublin the Fire Brigade was kept up out of either the borough or the City rates, and was part of the ordinary expenditure of the City. The Government properly made a contribution in place of rates, and therefore the Government did pay in Dublin—in the form of that contribution—a sum towards the Fire Brigade which it did not pay in the Metropolis except in the form of this particular Vote.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to know whether the Government property within the area guarded by the Fire Brigade of the Metropolitan Board of Works did not pay some contribution to the rates; and, consequently, whether the Government property within that area was not in the same position as Government property in Dublin, on account of which no contribution was made from the Imperial Exchequer towards the Fire Brigade? The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) did not do well in conveying, however unintentionally, an erroneous impression to the Committee. The question of contributions in aid of local rates was a very important question, which would have to be gone into very fully. It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had based his position on the exceptional circumstances of the government of the City of London, and of those portions of the Metropolis which were guarded by the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, instead of trying to produce an erroneous impression upon the Committee.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he had no very high opinion of the suggestion which had been made—that the powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works should be reinforced by fresh legislation. He doubted very much whether any legislation on the subject would make matters any better than they were at present. His own impression was that it would
    1286
    only make them worse. The most desirable thing was to make the Metropolitan Board as efficient as possible for its duties, instead of bringing in some narrow Bill which would take a great deal of time to pass, and which would probably do a great deal more harm than good when it was passed.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 11: Majority 54.—(Div. List, No. 90.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIAN ATTACK ON THE AFGHANS AT PENJDEH.

    QUESTION.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Perhaps it might be convenient to the House, and I am sure the country would like to know, whether the Government have any further explanation to offer, or any further statement to make, in addition to that which we heard in the early part of the evening, as to the Russian advance in Afghanistan; whether they have received any further news from St. Petersburg or from Sir Peter Lumsden?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I had intended, either on the Motion to report Progress, or on the actual Report of the Resolutions with the Speaker in the Chair, to make a further communication to the House. Since I spoke at the commencement of the evening a telegram has been received from Sir Peter Lumsden, which conveys what I may call a qualification of one of the statements which he had made. The statement I made on the authority of Sir Peter Lumsden was—and it will be emembered by the House that I repeated it twice—thatthe Afghans had not made any advance either before or after the telegram of the 17th of March. But Sir Peter Lumsden states to us in a later telegram that when the Russians immediately threatened an attack on the Afghan position by advancing in force from Imaken to Ak Tapa, the Afghans threw out vedettes to their front and extended their pickets to Pul-i-Khisti, on the left bank of the Khushk, and gradually strengthened it, until, on the 30th the bulk of their force had been transferred across the river.

    1287
    That is the qualification which he conveys. He goes on to say that, in his opinion, that does not properly constitute an advance, but was the occupation of a more advantageous military position. But I presume he evidently considers that the question might be raised as to what did or did not constitute an advance; and he is desirious that the British Government should be placed in the possession of all the facts. I give the qualification to the House precisely as Sir Peter Lumsden has given it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  EGYPTIAN LOAN BILL.— [BILL 122.]
  (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Hibbert.)
  EGYPTIAN LOAN BILL.— [BILL 122.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that after the conversation early in the evening, from which it was understood that the more serious debate should take place on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that after the conversation that took place at the commencement of the Sitting it was not his intention to take up the time of the House by making any lengthened remarks upon this matter. But he could not help protesting in the strongest way against taking the second reading of such an important measure as this on this particular day; because, by the ordinary practice and custom of the House, the day on which the House reassembled after the Easter Recess was always supposed to be one on which no Business of any great importance was brought forward. It was all very well to say that it was necessary to proceed with the Bill as fast as possible; but surely the House of Commons had a right to express its opinion upon the matter. Judging from the character of the division which took place the other night it was quite clear there was a
    1288
    large proportion of the people of the country who held very strong views upon the subject. No one could have spoken more strongly than the Prime Minister himself did, just 30 years ago, as to the danger of an agreement of this kind in giving opportunities to the Powers who joined in a guarantee of interfering politically in the country in respect of which the guarantee was ourselves. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented] The Prime Minister shook his head; but, probably, before next Thursday, he would have an opportunity of reading again the speech he made in 1855, after he had referred to some of the precedents quoted the other night. It also appeared to be clear, from the attitude of the Government at the London Conference, that they, at that time, held the same views which the Prime Minister did in 1855— that it was one of their chief objects there should be no Joint Guarantee. He did not wish to enter into debate on this point now, but simply to enter his protest against the explanation given in regard to it by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was quite sure that anyone who read the Protocol must be struck with the idea that the Government felt at the time that document was drawn up that it was absolutely impossible to propose to Parliament an International Guarantee. If anything else were wanted to establish the view which he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) took, and which he held very strongly, it was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Wednesday afternoon that he announced the result of the negotiations with the Powers. The right hon. Gentleman then stated that the Government did not object to an International Guarantee, provided there was an understanding, a promise, or an arrangement, or something or other, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would not quarrel about words, that it should not lead to anything like International interference in Egyptian affairs; and it was perfectly clear, from the cheers which followed the statement of the rig-lit hon. Gentleman, that the House took it as an assurance that the Government had provided ample security against any such interference. But when the Agreement itself appeared there was a feeling of universal dis-

    1289
    satisfaction and disappointment, because it was found that no such securities existed. All these, however, were matters for serious debate on a future occasion; but he could not help, on the second reading, making this protest. He was not one of those who cared to put off until going into Committee the debate upon the principle of a Bill. He believed the feeling of the country was against the arrangement which had been made; indeed, anyone who referred to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite in debate on the Resolution upon which the Bill was founded would find that they were against the proposal of the Government, though the votes of hon. Gentlemen were in favour of it. Having entered this protest against the second reading of the Bill, he would reserve any further observations until a later stage.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not congratulate the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) on the rather peculiar course which he had pursued. The right hon. Gentleman began by saying he would not enter into a discussion after the arrangement that had been made at an earlier hour; but then he went on to make every statement and every allegation the most extreme, and the most extravagant, that he could possibly have adduced in the most elaborate argument. That was a course which was extremely inconvenient. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not choose to follow the right hon. Gentleman by doing what would be the proper counterpart to his speech — namely, making a series of contradictions to his series of propositions; it was not a convenient or usual way of conducting a debate of grave importance in this House. The Leader of the right hon. Gentleman having agreed to postpone the debate until the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, the right hon. Gentleman now took the opportunity of saying that that was an inconvenient practice, so that even the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford North-cote) was not exempt from the right hon. Gentleman's profuse and exuberant criticism. The right hon. Gentleman went back to a speech of his (Mr. Gladstone's), which had nothing to do with the matter, made several years ago—a speech in which he referred to a case very unlike that of Egypt. The
    1290
    reference simply illustrated the weakness of the right hon. Gentleman's position. The right hon. Gentleman protested against the measure of the Government, and he (Mr. Gladstone) protested against the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had no intention to prolong the discussion unduly; but he thought one might very fairly, upon the second reading of the Bill, make one or two observations in the way of inquiry. The House was hurried—he might even say hustled— into passing the Resolution upon which the Bill was founded; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed, by the remarks he made earlier in the evening, that he regarded that Resolution as the vital and most important part of the whole proceedings, so far as this House was concerned. But a good many things had happened since that Resolution was passed; and he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) thought the House might well ask whether those occurrences affected this country in any way, or altered the circumstances under which this loan was proposed to be raised? Since the Resolution was passed in this House, the French Chamber had been seized of the measure, or one analogous to it; but it was now said that the debate upon it was to be adjourned till the 4th of May. A significant and important statement had also been made with regard to the Austro-Hungarian share in the transaction. Hon. Members had learned by telegraph that the legislative sanction of Austria could not be granted until the autumn of the year. He supposed that there also the matter would be hung up and postponed. If that were so, it was entirely contrary to the understanding upon which the Resolution was passed before Easter.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he must express his surprise, not about the anxiety of the Government to get this measure passed, but at the fact that they were now discussing the second reading of the Bill at all. He was in the House on the 30th of March, when the Resolution of the Committee, on which the Bill purported to be founded, was brought up for Report. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought up the Resolution, and then, on the Motion that the House do

    1291
    agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, and while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was addressing the House, an hon. Member moved that the House be counted. The House was counted out, and the Resolution was never, as far as he recollected, adopted by the House at all. He was, therefore, very much surprised indeed to see that, in his Parliamentary Papers of the following day, the Resolution was given as passed, and that it was on the further question that leave be given to bring in the Bill the counting out took place. He referred to the newspapers, especially to The Times, and there he found that his recollection was perfectly borne out—namely, that it was on the question that the House agree to the Resolution of the Committee that the count out took place. If his recollection was right, and if the report in The Times was correct, the Resolution never reached the stage which would admit of the House being called upon now to read this Bill a second time; the report in The Times and his own recollection were entirely against the entry in the Votes and Proceedings. He did not think they had reached the second reading stage of the Bill at all.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) thought that the Resolution upon which this Bill was founded was not passed on the 30th of March. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken. The Resolution was passed; he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) moved it, and it was passed. On the Motion for leave to bring in the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) rose, and during his remarks the House was counted out. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had said that several things had occurred since the Resolution was passed on the 30th of March, and had asked what was to happen if the approval of the Convention was withheld by the French Chamber and the Austro-Hun-garian Legislature. As to the last point, he had no information; but as to the first, he might say that until the French Chamber assented to the Convention it would be impossible to raise
    1292
    the loan. But by the passing by this House of the Resolution authorizing the loan, and approving of the Convention, the credit of the Egyptian Government would be sufficient to enable that Government to borrow the amount necessary to make the requisite payments in April without violating the Law of Liquidation. It would not have been able to do that if the Resolution had been either postponed or rejected.
    MR. RYLANDSasked if he was right in supposing that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that until the French Chamber and the Austro-Hungarian House of Representatives had passed their respective measures in relation to the Convention, no steps would be taken to raise the money for which the House were now asked to pass this Bill?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he was not prepared to give a detailed statement on the subject; but it was clear that it would be impossible to raise the actual loan until the different Chambers had adopted their Acts.
    MR. W. H. SMITHasked, whether the Correspondence between the Government and the house of Messrs. Rothschild would be laid before the House?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)thought, the right hon. Gentleman had better give Notice of his question.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the credit of the Egyptian Government would be sufficient to enable that Government to borrow the necessary money. Hon. Members were well aware of the means by which the money was to be obtained. Last year money was obtained as the result of correspondence between the Government and the house of Messrs. Rothschild. He wished to know whether the Correspondence which had taken place on this occasion would be produced? It would be remembered that the Correspondence which passed last year was laid before the House.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I wish the right hon. Gentleman would give Notice of the question.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he did not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire

    1293
    (Sir R. Assheton Cross) in his observations with regard to the nature of the Bill, because he had no wish to incur the anger of the Prime Minister. He thought it his duty, however, to say a word in respect to the way in which the Bill had been hurried through the House. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was under the impression that the Resolution which gave rise to the Bill was not passed on the 30th of March. He (Mr. Warton) was quite willing to accept the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Resolution was passed, and that it was on the Motion for leave to bring in the Bill that the count out took place. He was not a little surprised, however, that very early the next day, Tuesday, when scarcely any hon. Members were present, and certainly before any of the Leaders of the Conservative Party had come down to the House, the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor) should, with that agility and dexterity for which he was famous, walk up to the Chair, and move quietly that leave be given to bring in the Bill. The thing was done in a second of time, and the day appointed for the second reading. [Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR dissented.] The noble Lord might shake his head; but he certainly did the thing very skilfully. He (Mr. Warton) protested against today being fixed for the second reading of such an important Bill as the present. It had always been understood that the day on which the House re-assembled after the Easter Recess was one upon which they did not enter upon any very important Business. He hoped that the future stages of the Bill would not be taken as quickly as the previous stages. To-night, the second reading had been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer without a word of explanation. That, in itself, was hardly respectful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire Sir R. Assheton Cross), a distinguished Member of the Conservative Party, who had evinced considerable interest in the measure.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he would like to ask what was the exact position they were in with regard to the proposed loan? It appeared to him that if they were to allow the Bill to be read a second time the position of affairs
    1294
    ought to be clearly defined. It was generally believed that the loan would be a joint one; but, as a matter of fact, Austro-Hungary had not yet given its assent, the French Chamber had postponed the consideration of the matter, and it was needless to point out that Russia was, to say the least, placed in a very delicate position with regard to ourselves in the guaranteeing of this loan. Before the House agreed to the second reading of the Bill, they ought to receive some information from the Government as to whether it was to be understood that the guarantee was really a joint and several one, and as to what position the English Government would be placed in in regard to the loan in the event of the joint and several guarantee failing.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to remark that he also was present on the 30th of March, when the Egyptian Loan Vote was reached. He remembered perfectly the Motion upon which the House was counted out. He was quite at a loss to understand the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If leave had been given to bring in the Bill, it would have been necessary to state who were prepared to bring in the Bill, and certainly no such statement was made.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I said there were two Motions—one agreeing to the Resolution, and the other for leave to bring in the Bill.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he was surprised that no Member of the Government had given any answer to the very pertinent question of his hon. Friend behind him (Baron Henry De Worms). He (Mr. R. N. Fowler) did not wish to anticipate by any remarks the discussion upon the question which would come forward on Thursday next; but he must point out that they were practically the guarantors of the loan, and, therefore, he could not conceive what advantage there could be in taking the guarantee of other countries. If Egypt could not repay the money, England, as a rich country, would be able to do; and assuming that Egypt was unable to redeem the loan—the possibility of which the right hon. Gentleman had intimated—England would, no doubt, have to do it. In view of the circumstance that we were taking the whole re-

    1295
    sponsibility upon ourselves, it seemed to him that the taking of other guarantees could only have the effect of involving the country in difficulties for no reason whatever. His object in rising was to express the hope that some Member of the Government—perhaps the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), or the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs— would return an answer to the question of his hon. Friend.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he thought they were a little anticipating the discussion of the question which would take place next Thursday, on the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair;" but he would offer one or two remarks to the House. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. R. N. Fowler) appeared to him to be a little inconsistent with himself on the present occasion; because he was one of those who protested against the Convention on the ground that it involved the joint and several guarantees of Foreign Powers. Now, he seemed to be complaining that this guarantee might not be effective, and that in that case this country would be solely responsible—an den which he had supposed the hon. Member and his Friends had in view. In reply to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms), he thought that the answer which he expected had been anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had, in his (Mr. Chamberlain's) opinion, put clearly before the House the position in which they stood with regard to this matter. The Convention which the House was asked to agree to was a Convention for a Joint Guarantee of this loan; that Convention had to be confirmed by the Resolutions of the Parliaments of those countries which had Parliamentary institutions; and it was, of course, but reasonable for the Government to wait a proper time in order to allow those Parliaments to be consulted. In the meantime, no embarrassment could arise; because, on the faith of the Resolution of the House, the Egyptian Government could utilize its own credit at once. The hon. Member had put forward the supposition that, this matter having been referred to the several Parliaments, one or more of them should refuse to confirm the Agree-
    1296
    ment which this Government had made, and had asked what would then happen; but that was one of those hypothetical questions to which he did not think the Government ought to be called upon to say anything in reply.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORrose to ask Mr. Speaker whether leave could be obtained to introduce a Bill of a public character without Notice being placed upon the Paper? Since the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, with perfect correctness, that leave had been given to introduce the Bill on the 31st March, the day after that on which the House was counted out, he had looked into the Votes and Proceedings, and found that in the time occupied by Private Business, without there being any Notice upon the Notice Paper, or in the Orders of the Day, upon the Motion of someone, the question had been put from the Chair that leave be given to bring in the Bill. He asked whether it would not be in accordance with the Orders and established practice of the House of Commons that, when leave was applied for to bring in a Public Bill, there should be a Notice on the Notice Paper; whether it was in accordance with the usual custom to move for leave without Notice, and at an unusual time?
    MR. SPEAKER: The course indicated by the hon. Gentleman is in Order. The Bill was brought in in accordance with a Resolution previously agreed to. Under those circumstances, no Notice was necessary. The Bill was based on a Resolution passed, and was brought in in accordance with the usual practice.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, that the fact that other Powers might retire from the arrangement altogether changed the aspect of the question. The Bill did not say that England was to repay the money borrowed by Egypt; but assuming that, as would probably be the case, two or three Powers retired, would the country be satisfied with having to pay £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 for this purpose?
    MR. TOMLINSONdrew attention to the fact that the Bill only empowered the Government to join in a guarantee with the other Powers named in Article VII. of the Protocol, and in accordance with the Articles of the Protocol set out

    1297
    in the Schedule. He referred to the fact that by a note attached to the Articles, but not forming one of them, the Russian Government had limited the share in the guarantee. He thought that consideration ought to be given to the question whether the Bill as framed would empower the Government to participate in a guarantee to which all the Powers named did not join on terms of equality.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

MOTIONS.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HOLMS, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861,"relating to Cattewater, Dingle, Lee-on-the-Solent, North Sunderland, Plymouth, Saint Leonards, Saint Monance, and Southbourne, ordered to be brought in by Mr-HOLMS and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 123.]

  OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HOLMS, Bill to confirm an Order made by the Board of Trade, Tinder "The Sea Fisheries Act. 1868," relating to Poole, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HOLMS and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 124.]

  EAST INDIA (UNCLAIMED STOCKS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. KYNASTON CROSS, Bill for making provision for the transfer to the Secretary of State in Council of India of Unclaimed India Stock and Dividends, and for amending the East Indian Railway Company Purchase Act,1879,and the East Indian Railway (Redemption of Annuities) Act, 1881; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. KYNASTON CROSS and Mr. HIBBERT.
INDUSTRIES (IRELAND).

  NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Select Committee on Industries (Ireland) do consist of Twenty-one Members."—[Sir Eardley Wilmot.)
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid, he rose to move, as an Amendment, "That the Committee consist of Twenty-three Members." He regretted that no Member of the Government was present, because he believed Irish Members on those Benches had been treated rather badly with reference to the nomination of this Committee; and for that he thought the hon. Baronet who moved its appointment (Sir Eardley Wilmot) was himself somewhat to be blamed. This was a proposal to deal with Irish matters; and how was the Committee to be constituted? There were nominated 10 English and Scotch Members, the remainder being Irish Members, who, however, were not selected fairly from amongst Irish Parties in the House. For instance, there were only four Members representing the opinions held by hon. Gentlemen on those Benches, while there were no less than seven Irish Members who represented the Whig and Tory factions. He ventured to appeal to the Government not to have any wrangling over this matter; but to consent to the appointment of a Committee of 23 instead of 21. In the event of the Amendment being agreed to, he should propose that his hon. Friends (Mr. Molloy and Mr. Kenny) be Members of the Committee. He and his hon. Friends felt it their duty to take up a determined attitude with reference to this question, with the object of their views obtaining full and fair representation on the Committee.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words Twenty-one, in order to insert the words "Twenty-three,"—[Mr John Redmond,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Twenty-one' stand part of the Question."
  Notice taken, that 10 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.