CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS. (Hansard, 28 February 1887)

§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)
I have no desire to detain the Committee on this Vote, which is a Vote for the repairs of Marlborough House. The expenditure in the repairs of Marlborough House have, in some years, been very large indeed, and there is no good reason now for this supplementary increase; but my real desire is to secure that all the items connected with the cost of the Royal Family shall, in future, be placed under one head, so that the total may be easily and certainly known, and that the various items shall not be distributed in different parts of the Estimates, 726 and only discoverable with official knowledge.

§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
I understand that this item is for the repairs of Marlborough House. Now, Marlborough House is occupied by the Prince of Wales, and I want to know why the Prince of Wales does not undertake the repairs of his own house himself?

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)
I wish to ask, whether, as a matter of fact, there are not some surpluses under other sub-heads in connection with this Vote which ought to render this expenditure unnecessary?

§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET) (Dublin University)
As the Committee are aware, this sum is asked for in connection with the works which have been undertaken for improving the drainage of the Houses of Parliament, and the work is being carried out in accordance with the Report of a Committee which sat last year to inquire into the sanitary arrangements of the House.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
Then the sum asked for is only in respect of this Vote. Before entering into the Supplementary Estimates, I think it should be incumbent on the Government to make a complete statement in regard to the whole Vote, as far as the different sub-heads are concerned. I am not objecting to this charge; but I only ask whether there may not have been savings under other heads which might be utilized in reduction of these charges?

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)
The total cost of the drainage works is £20,675; but there has been a saving under other sub-heads from which the balance of expenditure of the current year can be met; principally in connection with works for the restoration of Westminster Hall, in regard to which there will be a saving of £7,000. £5,000 will be included in next year's Estimates, and will complete the cost of the drainage works.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
I think that, in a case of this kind, the real facts ought to be laid before the Committee. The Committee votes certain sums of money to be appropriated for specific purposes. For two years in succession several thousands of pounds have been voted for the restoration of Westminster Hall; but, when something else turned up, the Government have considered themselves entitled to stay the work in Westminster Hall, and spend the money for some other object that has not been authorized by Parliament. I cannot help thinking that that is a very bad system; and, if I had not made the inquiry, the fact would not have been brought out now.

§ MR. PLUNKET
The hon. Member is quite right; but I did not understand what his inquiry really was. It has been considered that this is the most convenient way of dealing with the matter. The works in connection with Westminster Hall were stayed in consequence of delays in the decisions of the House of Commons on the subject; and we have applied the money to other works which it was necessary to undertake at once. Among the other works undertaken have been the construction of a corridor which forms a new approach to the Strangers' Gallery, and which has cost £1,500. We have also supplied additional lockers for the use of hon. Members. They have often been asked for, and we have now made further provision in that respect, at a cost of £460, and there have been some slight improvements in the Reporters' Gallery.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)
I should like to know whether the drainage is now working properly, and is likely to stave off the prospects of fever and those other disagreeable consequences we were threatened with last year. If that is so, I do not think the House of Commons will grudge the money; but, at the same time, I think this plan of voting money for one thing and doing something else with it after it has been voted, is a very unsatisfactory one.

§ MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)
I should like to know how many additional lockers are to be given to Members of this House?

§ MR. PLUNKET
We propose to supply as many as we can find space for, and the cost is estimated at £460.

§ MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON
My object in asking the Question was to divide the sum voted by the number of lockers provided, in order that I might find out what the cost of each locker is.

§ MR. PLUNKET
I can assure the hon. Member that these lockers are very expensive, and I have had a hard struggle with the Treasury, under the pressure of the House, to obtain leave to make them. I do not think it possible to make them more economically than we are doing. As regards the Question put by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) I believe that the works are being carried out in a perfectly satisfactory manner.

§ SIR HENRY ROSCOE (Manchester, S.)
As Chairman of the Committee which has considered the subject of the drainage of the House, I may say that I believe the House will be thoroughly satisfied with the work which has been done. It has been done in a completely workmanlike manner, and in my opinion the House will not suffer as it did last year. I certainly trust the Committee will see the desirability of voting this sum. I am quite sure that it is money well spent.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)
When we were considering this Vote last year, I drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the disadvantageous position in which Members of this House were placed as to the hearing of the House. I think I am in Order in referring to that subject now.

§ THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)
The hon. Gentleman will only be in Order in referring to the items under discussion now.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
I understood that this Vote was the result of several Votes not set forth in the Estimate.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The discussion has been upon the item included in the Vote for the drainage scheme.

§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co. Mid)
We have now under consideration a Supplementary Estimate for new works and alterations connected with the Houses of Parliament. I can certainly say, speaking as a private Member knowing a little about sanitary arrangements, that there is an immense amount of money spent upon these buildings, and with very little effect. The state of the House 729 was found at the commencement of the Session to be very far from satisfactory. Upon one evening when the House was sitting a fog got into the building, which was so bad and so dense that I may legitimately refer to it as a November fog. I never saw a fog in the month of November worse than the fog which prevailed in this Chamber on the occasion to which I refer. I know that it was impossible at this end of the House to see the Speaker in the Chair, and I am afraid that the fogginess of the atmosphere may also have tended to obscure the intellect of the speakers. Therefore, I think that when we are asked to consider a Vote like this—a Supplementary Vote—and when we know the immense amount of money which has been and is being spent on the Houses of Parliament, we have a right to complain when we find matters so unsatisfactory as they have been. We ought not to ask the House to throw away the money of the taxpayers. Anybody who has ever looked into the subject—anybody who has seen proper appliances in connection with the filtration of the air and the atmosphere in other great public buildings, knows that the atmosphere can be rendered perfectly pure, and deprived of all those particles which we have here floating about us night after night. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh; but I am afraid they are not thoroughly acquainted with the subject. I will put before the House an actual case in connection with one of the largest hospitals of Paris, the "Maison de Dieu." In that hospital the air is filtered through successive layers of cotton wool. Not long ago I was speaking with a gentleman of intelligence upon the subject, and he stated that a London fog could be thoroughly filtered in this House, and deprived of all its fogginess. What I complain of is that we are asked to come down here night after night, to take into consideration the expenditure of large sums of money without any practical result, and I am afraid that we are making ourselves a laughing-stock not merely for England, but for the world at large. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. They are perfectly welcome to laugh and jeer at my observations; but I think that we ought to be here for some practical purpose, and that practical purpose, if we are to spend the Public Money, should be in return to secure 730 that we have some value for it. What I maintain is, that we get no value for our money. The smells in this House are so bad, that only the other night I heard 12 or 14 Members complain bitterly of the horrible state of affairs, especially in regard to the galleries leading to the tea room. There is a powerful stench still existing there, which ought to be done away with at once, and if this Vote is pressed, I for one am prepared to go into the Lobby against it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman who has the conduct of these Votes to make some statement as to what the actual state of affairs is, and what is proposed to be done. I have no desire to weary the House, and I thank it for its indulgence.

§ MR. PLUNKET
I can only promise the hon. Member that if he will suggest to me how the evil he complains of can be remedied, I will have the matter inquired into. So far as the drainage works are concerned, for which the Vote is now asked, all I can say is that the works have been carried out to the entire satisfaction of Members in all parts of the House. Personally, I know of no plan of filtering the air which would prevent a fog from entering the House.

§ MR. O'HEA (Donegal, W.)
The right hon. Gentleman has stated that, according to his belief, these works are being carried on satisfactorily and with due regard to economy. I should like to know if they have been carried out by contract under specifications in due form similar to those which are made upon works of a similar nature are undertaken, outside this House.

§ DR. TANNER
Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman (Mr.Plunket) that I did actually put a case in point in which the air has been filtered through successive layers of cotton wool, which are taken out and renewed every three or four days. Seeing then that what I suggest is already done elsewhere, I think the matter is one which deserves the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)
I have no wish to object to this Vote; but I should like to put the same question in regard to it, 731 which I put in reference to the other, I want the right hon. Gentleman to state the condition of the sub-heads of the Vote, as it is not specified or set forth in this Estimate, As far as I have been able to ascertain, by a hasty reference to the accounts for the previous year, I find that there is a similar irregularity in regard to this Vote. A large number of Works are set forth as necessary and as about to be undertaken at once, and generally there is an appropriation of money for works which are not touched at all in the financial year. No doubt the sums have been voted; but the money has been applied to other works which have never been before Parliament at all; but which have been taken in hand on the authority of the Treasury and money spent on them which has never been obtained from Parliament. In 1884–5 there was an excess in various items in that way, which amounted to £6,700; and if that were taken from the amount of £9,275 asked for now the Vote would have been reduced to £2,500. That would be the entire sum for which the Treasury would have any occasion to draw. Therefore, I ask upon this Vote, as upon the previous one, for some explanation of the real condition of the services for which the Vote is asked.

§ MR. MONTAGU (Tower Hamlets, Whitechapel)
This Vote covers a special grant for the Mint, and thus affords me an opportunity of saying a few words as to the regulations of the Mint and their effect upon the coinage.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the building of the Mint, not to the regulations of the Mint.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON (Essex, Epping)
There is one point upon which I should like to ask for information. I see that these Estimates show a considerable amount of excess. Under sub-head E there is an item of £1,400 for the extra cost of gas, and it is stated in an explanatory note at the foot that "the cost of gas was greatly under-estimated," I should like to know what system is adopted in regard to forming this calculation for the year for this purpose, because I think that an average estimate might be accurately formed every year. This is a matter in which a very large excess seems to have been incurred; and I wish to know 732 from my right hon. Friend what the system is that is adopted, because I do not remember an excess of this kind in such an item before.

§ MR. JACKSON
I believe the explanation of this excess is a very simple one. Of course, it is not difficult to estimate the cost of gas if we are to judge by the experience of different years. The simple explanation of this excess is, that the gas in some of the public buildings, owing to a fear of outrage or attack on them, has been kept alight nearly all night throughout the year, which was not the case in previous years.

§ DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)
I perceive that a sum of £3,000 is required for works at Dover House and buildings in Whitehall, Surely that is a very large sum to be expended in improving Dover House. There has been some discussion on previous occasions in regard to the unsatisfactory position of Dover House: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that at last, after the expenditure of this additional sum of £3,000, Dover House will be placed in a proper and satisfactory condition; and that adequate protection will in future be afforded to the Secretary for Scotland, the Lord Advocate, and the officials connected with the Scotch Department.

§ MR. PLUNKET
Dover House, when taken over by the Scotch Office, was found to be most defective as regards drainage, and there were constant and very loud complaints on the subject. For instance, it was found that the drain was connected with another drain in the covered way under the Treasury, which was of a very old pattern, and in a very bad state indeed. Those who have passed along that passage must have noticed the bad smells which proceeded from it. It was ultimately discovered that the Dover House drain went into it, and that it was not in working order at all. The works which have since been undertaken in connection with Dover House have been expensive, but they are intended to place that building in a proper condition both with regard to drainage and all other matters.

§ MR. O'HEA
There is an item in this Vote of £840 for alterations, &c, at the residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think it would be satisfactory to the Committee if we were 733 supplied with some particulars, or had some accurate information given to us in respect to the manner in which this expenditure has been incurred. I believe that for some years past no Chancellor of the Exchequer has resided at this official residence, and this is certainly a large sum of money to be voted away for alterations. It must also be remembered that this is only a Supplementary Estimate, and I should like to know what other sum has been expended for this purpose. When sums of money so large and extravagant are brought forward in the Supplementary Estimates, the Committee ought certainly to be supplied with full particulars. As a private individual, I should like to have some information as to how this expenditure has been incurred—for instance, whether the money has been actually paid away, or is only about to be spent in the ornamentation of the building.

§ MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)
There is another item in this Vote—namely, a sum of £1,400 for works connected with the transfer of the Seamen's Registry to the Custom House. I should like to have an explanation of that item. It appears to me that the contractors, or persons engaged in carrying out works of this nature, who get contracts from the Treasury, are able to fix their own terms; and it would certainly seem that the system of inviting tenders by the Treasury is altogether at fault. I am told that it is only those persons whose names are down on a list who are invited to send in tenders. That may not be a corrupt system, but I think it is a mistaken one, and it is altogether unfair to the public. I think, in a matter of this kind, when public works are being carried out, that the Government should submit their contracts to the whole nation, so that all persons should have an opportunity of competing. I believe that if that were done the Estimates would be very materially reduced. The system of keeping a list, and receiving tenders from specially favoured persons only, is a system which leads to gross extravagance, and ought to be put a stop to.

§ MR. PLUNKET
In regard to the residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I may say that when the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland occupied that position, he proposed to live in the house in Downing Street, which had not for some 734 time previously been used as an official residence; and it was, therefore, found necessary to undertake certain alterations, which alterations have been carried out. The work has been done as economically as possible; but it was not possible to include this item in the Estimates of last year. It is, therefore, necessary to insert it in the Supplementary Estimates now brought forward. In regard to the question of the transfer of the Seamen's Registry to the Custom House, I think I can also give a satisfactory explanation to the Committee of that matter. The nation has, in fact, made a very good bargain. The sum included in the Vote is £1,400; but this expenditure, by providing accommodation for the Registry in the Custom House, has given a clear profit of £98,000 to the country, by enabling it to sell the old building. In regard to the tenders sent in for Government contracts, I believe that a general competition is invariably invited, and the Government never refuse any respectable firm the liberty of tendering. When the tenders have been sent in, they are carefully gone through, and the Government almost always accept the lowest that may be submitted by a solvent firm.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
I should like to have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to the other sub-heads in this Vote?

§ MR. PLUNKET
The Vote includes the sum of £160 for the Stationery Office, and that work is complete. Then there is a sum of £3,000 for sanitary works required chiefly in connection with Dover House, and certain buildings in Whitehall. That also is complete. The other items are £1,400 for works connected with the transfer of the Seamen's Registry to the Custom House; £840 for alterations in the residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; £300 for providing protection from fire for the Exchequer Chamber, Edinburgh; and £775 for improved accommodation for the Fisheries' Inspectors in connection with the Board of Trade. The whole of those works have been completed.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I did not ask him whether the work was complete or incomplete, so far as these separate items are concerned; but what I desire to ascertain is the condition of the different sub-heads of the Vote A, B, C, D, and so on. In some 735 of these items Supplementary Votes are asked for, but there have been economies effected in reference to others which I think ought to be set off against them.

§ MR. JACKSON
I am afraid I have not got the information which my hon. Friend asks for in regard to the subheads mentioned in this Vote. If, however, there is any surplus, it must, of necessity, be surrendered every year.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
In theory what the hon. Gentleman says is the case; but in practice it is altogether different. The balance is not always certain, and it by no means follows because Supplementary Estimates are asked for, that the Treasury has not enough money in hand to supply all its wants. We had a notable instance of that before the Committee of Public Accounts last year, when it was found that instead of wanting £7,000, there were actually savings of £10,000 on one head and £20,000 on another.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)
In reference to the item for the alterations in connection with the residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mouth Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) was the last Chancellor who lived in that residence. As to the item of £300 to protect the Exchequer Chamber in Edinburgh from fire, I should like to know how it is that offices in particular localities can get these sums of money spent upon them, while in other places no such provision is made at all. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, that the Exchequer Chamber in Dublin has a very valuable library attached to it containing a large number of books that are priceless in value, and it would be most deplorable if anything were to happen to them. It would appear that the Exchequer Chamber in Edinburgh is able to secure a grant of public money for protection from fire; but in other parts of the Kingdom no such protection is afforded. I want to know why that is so, because I believe that in Dublin if a fire were to break out, books worth many thousands of pounds would be at the mercy of the fire brigade. I should like to have a guarantee from the Government that they will look into this matter in connection with all the Law Courts and places where books of value are deposited.

§ MR. PLUNKET
The explanation of this item is that it has been found necessary to provide fire-proof rooms for the valuable records now in the Exchequer Office in Edinburgh. This work was recommended to be done in the year 1882–3. So far as the Law Library in Dublin is concerned, I presume that no similar representation was made in that year to the proper authorities in Ireland. I have nothing to do with it in my Office, but I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member that it would be most deplorable if the valuable library he has mentioned were to be destroyed by fire, through carelessness, or from any other cause.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
I would press upon the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury the importance of the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny) as to the manner in which these contracts are issued. As I understand, the method pursued by the Treasury is this—they have a certain number of firms on their list, and the members of those firms have an opportunity of tendering for public work. I should say, judging from the extravagant rate at which all the public works of this country are maintained, that that is a valuable monopoly to the persons who possess it. Some time ago, a gentleman came to me—a contractor—and told me that some official in the Treasury had removed his name from the list of contractors. He represented the case as a very hard one. The person of whom he complained was not the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but I think it was his Predecessor in Office, and the man stated that in consequence of having been taken off the list of contractors he was deprived of the greater part of his income. Now, there can be no doubt that the reason why this privilege was worth so much to him was that the Government work is done at a very extravagant rate, and that only a certain number of persons are allowed to compete for it. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if there is any objection whatever against opening up these public contracts to every firm who is able to compete for them? If the Government have any doubt as to the solvency of any particular firm who may tender for a contract, they could easily make inquiry, and compel the contractors to give solvent bail. I think it a most unbusinesslike proceeding to make a sort of select list of contractors, and by 737 that means prevent the general body of the public from having any opportunity of tendering. The right hon. Gentleman has already, I understand, agreed to reconsider the manner in which the public advertisements are given at the present moment to a select coterie of newspapers. I shall be happy if the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make a similar announcement with regard to tenders for contracts.

§ MR. PLUNKET
The practice where the contract exceeds £500 is to advertise for tenders, except in a few special cases—such, for instance, as the works now being carried on in connection with the Houses of Parliament for drainage and other improvements. In such cases as that the work is put up to competition among a few very well-known firms; but, as a rule, in any contract involving an expenditure of over £500 there is an advertisement inserted in the newspapers inviting competition.

§ MR. JACKSON
I would point out to the hon. Member that the question of advertising the tenders rests with the Treasury.

§ DR. TANNER
I really cannot altogether understand what is the use of repairing a house for gentlemen who never live there. We have been told that the last two Chancellors of the Exchequer have not resided at this official residence; and I understand that the present right hon. Gentleman who adorns that high and exalted position has another residence which he prefers. Therefore, I do not see the necessity of bringing on this Estimate now for doing work which is not required, and making the public pay for what is practically of no use whatever. Then, again, the last sub-head is somewhat singularly drawn up. It is an item of £1,400 for fuel and light, and then in a foot-note there are these words—"The cost of gas was greatly under-estimated." Surely when right hon. Gentlemen assume the position of Secretaries of State and Ministers of the Crown they ought to enter upon their duties in a businesslike way, and ought not to tax the country in the manner we find they are doing. Such an item as this, if submitted in connection with any public building in the City of London, would certainly not be tolerated without a protest. I ask for some clear explanation of this subhead "fuel and light," and why the 738 cost of gas was "greatly under-estimated?"

§ MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)
I think that all the items included in these sub-heads ought to undergo careful consideration. It is difficult to understand how the Departments have been so much out in their calculation of the Estimates as originally framed.

§ MR. BLANE (Armagh, S.)
There is an item in Sub-head E of £775 for improved accommodation for Fisheries Inspectors in connection with the Board of Trade. This item seems to me to apply to the Inspectors of Fisheries appointed under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 92. In my opinion such Fishery Inspectors are a wholly useless and valueless body of men; and their salaries, together with the expenses of the office, have more than devoured all the revenue derived from the fisheries. Under these circumstances, it is a matter of surprise to find that money is now asked for to provide Inspectors with improved accommodation. I trust that I may succeed in eliciting some information as to these Inspectors from the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
This item refers entirely to offices in Great Britain, and not to the Irish Office.

§ DR. TANNER
I wish to know whether the Vote includes accommodation for the Irish Inspectors?

§ MR. PLUNKET
It has nothing to do with the Irish fisheries at all.

§ MR. O'HEA
As there are a number of Scotch Representatives, I think they ought to ask for some information in respect of the constitution of the Fishery Board in Scotland.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! There is no reference in this Vote to the Fishery Board in Scotland.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)
I never like to propose the reduction of a Vote unless I feel that there is a very substantial ground for it; but I think that in regard to this Vote there is ground of a most substantial kind for asking the Committee to reject it altogether. The Vote as it stood originally in the Supplementary Estimates amounted to £374. Since then there has been a further paper circulated stating that that was a 739 mistake, and that the sum required is £800. I do not allude to that fact, except so far as it illustrates the uncertainty of the position of the Treasury in regard to the Public Services. The ground on which I object to this Vote altogether is that a very serious irregularity has been committed by the Treasury in connection with it—an irregularity, as far as I can ascertain, which is absolutely without defence or explanation. Now, Sir, in the Vote for 1884–5 there was a surplus of £22,241, which ought to have been surrendered to the Exchequer. Of that £22,241, £17,000 were, in fact, surrendered; but £5,241 remains in the hands of the Department with the sanction of the Treasury. That is a course which is at once unusual and seriously irregular. The Treasury has no right to keep over from one financial year to another admitted balances on any one of these Votes. The surrender of this money—£5,241, which the Committee will see is very far in excess of the Supplementary sum now asked for—was promised by the Treasury in March last year. In July the Paymaster General stated that he then had sufficient cash in hand to enable him to make the surrender; and he desired instructions from the Treasury as to whether he should, in compliance with the law, pay over the amount or not. But no surrender was made or ordered by the Treasury. In September or October the Department over which the First Commissioner of Works now presides asked the Treasury what they were to do with the money; and on the 26th of October last, or up to that date, the Treasury still refused to acquiesce in the surrender of it, and said the money would be kept until it had been ascertained what amount it would be necessary to ask Parliament to vote in a Supplementary Estimate on account of the Service in the present Spring—that is to say, at the time at which we have now arrived. The Treasury—I do not know on what ground, for I do not think there is a precedent for such, a proceeding—persisted in retaining in its hands this sum of £5,241. It is perfectly clear that no alteration of the balance of the Vote of 1884–5 can lawfully be appropriated, either for the service of the financial year for which these Supplementary Estimates are being taken, or for the financial year we are now about to deal with. The money has been improperly and, as 740 I think, illegally detained by the Treasury; and, having this sum in their hands, they now come down to the House of Commons and ask, first of all, for £374 for the new Admiralty and War Offices, and then for a sum of £800. It is quite clear that in this matter the Treasury have acted, not only in an unusual manner, but in a manner evidently irregular and illegal. Under these circumstances, I shall oppose the granting of the Vote.

§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
I should like to have some information in regard to this Vote of £800 for legal expenses in connection with the purchase of property under the Public Offices Site Act of 1882. What kind of legal expenses are they? I presume that the Government have their own legal officers, who are perfectly competent to transact the legal business of the country on matters of this kind. Does this sum go towards the payment of the expenses of these officers, or is it for stamps, or some other purpose? I should certainly like to have further information as to the particular character of these legal expenses we are asked to vote. I. should also like to know whether, in connection with the new Admiralty and War Office, it is proposed to carry a new road from Charing Cross to the Mall, or whether that proposition has been abandoned?

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK (Whitehaven)
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works will inform the Committee what course Her Majesty's Government intend to take in regard to the erection of new buildings. There was a plan proposed by the late Government which I should have been very sorry to see carried into effect. Since then I have heard a whisper that my right hon. Friend and the Government are about to take a new action in the matter. I should like to know whether part of the new scheme is that the existing Admiralty building should not be taken down? I think we should all regret if the portico there, the well-known work of Robert Adam, were to be destroyed. Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Departmental Committee to consider the matter?

§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET)
In answer to the questions of the hon. Members opposite, and also of my right hon. and 741 learned Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), I may say that the way in which the case stands in regard to the Admiralty and War Offices is this. Last year there was a considerable amount of feeling expressed in favour of reconsidering the whole question as to whether it would be well or not to pull down the old Admiralty House, and to carry out the new plans for housing the Admiralty and the War Office under one roof. After some communications on both sides of the House, a Committee was granted by the late Government for the purpose of considering this question. But the Committee was never actually named, and, owing to the Dissolution of Parliament, it fell through. The present Government have undertaken that as soon as possible a similar Committee to that which was proposed last year by the late Government shall be appointed for the purpose of considering the subject. I have given an undertaking to the House that no further expense shall be incurred in the way of building until a final conclusion is arrived at. That is the way in which the case stands at present. The Committee will report upon it, and, if it be necessary, the House will be asked to decide upon their Report before any further steps are taken. As regards the particular item under consideration, I may mention that it has been increased from £374 to £800, in consequence of the unexpected receipt in the present financial year of a bill of costs incurred in connection with the purchase of one of the sites for the new building. It was not expected at the time the Supplementary Estimate was first framed that we should be able to enter the cost of that transaction, as the bill had been sent to be taxed. It has been returned, however, and we have had to provide for the increased sum which now appears in the Estimate. As regards the balances in the hands of the Treasury, I am afraid that I cannot give a very lucid explanation. It is rather a technical question; and I can only say, as has been explained to me, that the simple fact is that if these balances had been paid into the Exchequer it would have been necessary to vote the money again in this House. Part of the balances will be applied to the works now in hand, and whatever surplus remains will be paid into the Exchequer later on.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
Really this matter is so important that I must press the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to give the House a full explanation of the circumstances under which the distinct terms of an Act of Parliament have been departed from. It is clearly illegal to appropriate for the purposes of any other financial year than that for which it has been voted any portion of a surplus which ought to be surrendered to the Exchequer. The Department in this case had a clear surplus of £22,241. They admitted their liability to the extent of £17,000, which sum they surrendered to the Exchequer; but in regard to the balance of £5,241 they distinctly refused to do so. They have refused now for the whole of the financial year. They were invited by the Paymaster General to give him permission to make the necessary surrender, and they refused their sanction. They were then asked by the Department which has the balance in hand what was to be done with it. The Department knew perfectly well that they could not in law make use of it; but the Treasury said—"We will not surrender it until the beginning of next year." We have now reached the beginning of the next year, and we now find the Treasury asking for a Supplementary Estimate of less than £1,000, while they are retaining illegally a sum five or six times as great, and which ought long ago to have been surrendered. If they are able to do that on a particular Vote without challenge in this House, then good-bye to all the check this House holds over the Expenditure of the country. The appropriation of money will become a perfect farce, and in the course of time the Treasury will claim the right to retain, without surrendering them, all the balances. If they are allowed to do that now, they will, undoubtedly, do it on many more occasions, and the whole of our paraphernalia of Committee of Supply will be mere moonshine.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)
There are other objections to this Vote besides those which have been urged by my hon. Friend. I should like to know into whose pockets this sum of £800 goes! Only a few days ago—on the 23rd of February—when this Supplementary Estimate was first presented, the sum set down for this purpose was £374, and it has since been raised to 743 £800. So far as I understand the matter, the property which is being purchased by the Admiralty is simply the transference to the public of a certain amount of property belonging to the Crown. It is altogether a fancy thing. There can be no dispute whatever about the title; and as there are no stamps to be purchased, I should like to know into whose pockets this £800 is to go?

§ MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)
Was the Estimate £374 before the bill of costs was taxed, and was the amount increased to £800 after taxation? Does the taxed bill of costs represent the entire cost to the country?

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)
The hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) has asked a question as to the amount of surplus which, in his opinion, ought to have been surrendered to the Exchequer. The matter is somewhat complicated, and yet, at the same time, to those who have any knowledge of the subject, it is very simple. It is difficult, however, to explain. The hon. Member is perfectly right when he says that there was a surplus in the year 1885–6.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
The hon. Member is mistaken; it was 1884–5.

§ MR. JACKSON
No; it was 1885–6, as I understand, that that surplus would, in the ordinary course of events, have been surrendered. It so happens that the Vote which was to have been taken—I believe £25,000—was put down in the Estimates of the current year for the Admiralty and War Office building. As a matter of fact, no Vote was taken, and, therefore, no expenditure can be made; and the reason for this Supplementary Vote now arises entirely from the fact that, without the sanction of Parliament, it is impossible to pay the money. The manner in which the surrender of a surplus is made, as I understand, is this. If, at the end of the financial year, there is a surplus of, say, £10,000, and for the succeeding year a Vote is taken for £12,000, then the sum of £10,000, the amount of the surplus, would be written off the £12,000, leaving only £2,000. If we had surrendered the surplus of 1885–6, we must have issued money unnecessarily from the Exchequer. I hope I have made it quite clear that there has been no desire on the part of the Treasury either to make a fresh pre- 744 cedent or to violate any rule that has existed. The difference between the item now under consideration and the sum of £374 originally asked for I have already explained, and I hope the Committee will agree to the Vote with the assurance I give that the surplus in hand will be surrendered at the end of the year.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
The liability of the Treasury in reference to the surrender of the original surplus is perfectly clear, and they admit it themselves. They permitted the surrender of £17,000 out of £22,000, and there was no reason why they should not have sanctioned the surrender of the whole surplus. It would have been quite as easy, seeing the condition of the present year's Estimates, to surrender £22,000 as it was to surrender £17,000. Why should a distinction be drawn between the two portions of the surplus? My contention has reference to more than the mere matter of convenience. I say that what has been done is irregular and illegal. [MR. JACKSON: No.] The Comptroller General has so reported it, and he has refused to recognize the arrangement at all. According to the argument of the Secretary to the Treasury, it would appear that if this House votes a sum in any single year for such a thing as a monument to General Gordon, and the expenditure does not reach the full Vote, there being no Vote for a similar service, it would be impossible to surrender the surplus, and it would have to be hung up for the present.

§ MR. JACKSON
What I stated was that if it came to the knowledge of the Treasury that further works of the same character would require to be undertaken in the succeeding year, the surpluses should be retained in order to avoid an unnecessary issue from the Exchequer.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
The Treasury have no right to appropriate for the payment of the liabilities of one financial year sums of money which have been voted for the service of the previous year. The Treasury have taken this sum of £5,200 into their own hands, and they know they have done wrong in doing so. I believe they will find it impossible to point to another instance in which the Treasury have acted in the same manner. The whole thing is grossly irregular. Why should 745 the Treasury ask for a sum of £800, when they admit that they are retaining a sum of more than £5,000?

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR (Kincardineshire)
I hope that this Estimate will be withdrawn. The whole business appears to me to be illegal and irregular. On the year closing all moneys not used out of the year's grants are yielded up. It is well known to many Members of this House that it is contrary to law for the Treasury to retain, or to allow Departments to retain, the year's unexpended balances in their own hands. I hope that in future this system will not be continued.

§ MR. LOCKWOOD (York)
I trust that before the Committee leaves this Vote some right hon. Gentleman opposite will take the trouble to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) as to how this sum of £800 has been spent. The attention of the Government has been called to it in most unmistakable terms, and strong objections have been taken to the Vote. I know that an answer has been given from the Treasury Bench; but in that answer the objection of my hon. Friend in regard to this charge for illegal expenses was entirely passed over; and the Secretary to the Treasury devoted his reply to the objections taken by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) to the appropriation by the Treasury of certain cash balances. I think it would be well for the Committee to appreciate exactly the position of the Government with regard to this Vote. On the 23rd of February they presented an Estimate in which they asked the Committee to vote in respect of legal expenses in connection with the new Admiralty and War Offices a sum of £374. They then came up to the Committee on the 26th of February with another Estimate, in which, instead of the sum of £374, they ask the House to give them £800. They are directly challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton to tell the Committee how that sum of £800 is made up, and they have been asked whether any portion of it is for stamps, or whether any part of it consists of the cost of inquiries as to title. But the right hon. Gentleman has not given us the slightest information on the subject. 746 What I understand my hon. Friend to want in the way of information from the right hon. Gentleman is that he should give the Committee a full detail of the original item of £374, and also of the sum of £800 we are now asked to vote. At any rate, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will condescend to give the Committee a sufficient amount of detail to enable them to form some opinion as to how an item of £374 on the 23rd of February was converted into one of £800 on the 26th.

§ MR. PLUNKET
I thought I had explained to the Committee already. The affair is as simple as possible. These expenses are legal expenses incurred in connection with the purchase of property in the neighbourhood of Charing Cross and Spring Gardens, and of arbitrations which have taken place in connection with that purchase. These legal expenses have not been incurred since the Supplementary Estimates were first laid on the Table. But when the Supplementary Estimates were circulated, the costs which had been incurred had not been returned by the taxing officer; but before the Estimate was brought on for discussion the return of the taxing officer did come in, and it has been thought better to submit the whole sum to the Committee.

§ MR. BYRNE (Wicklow, W.)
I wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works in reference to a reconsideration of the site and plans for the new Admiralty and War Offices. I will ask him whether it is not possible to reconsider the proposed site for the Admiralty and War Offices, with a view of setting the building back very considerably from the point shown on the plans now before the House? I would also ask if it is the intention of the Government to utilize the whole of the site at Charing Cross, including Messrs. Drummond's Bank, in order to open up The Mall to Trafalgar Square? Most of our public buildings have been spoiled in consequence of there being no point from which they can be seen, because of their not being set back far enough from the street. Take St. Paul's, for instance; it is impossible to obtain anything like a view of it without going to the top of some of the houses in the neighbourhood. I hope that such a gross blunder will not be perpetrated in the year 1887. 747 On the other side of Charing Cross and Whitehall there is land having frontages to these streets and the Victoria Embankment which the Government have or could acquire that would add to the beauty and importance of these handsome buildings; and I think something should be done to preserve the view of the new Public Offices. I am informed, in reference to Messrs. Drummond's Bank, that a very unwise promise has been given that it will not be interfered with. Now, that appears to me to be a very shopkeeping view to take. The preservation of Drummond's Bank will destroy very nearly the whole of this magnificent building for the Admiralty and War Offices. I think it would be far better to provide some accommodation in the new building for Messrs. Drummond's if it is found impossible to get rid of them in any other way. I cannot help thinking, however, that Messrs. Drummond or any other bankers would be only too glad to take the proper value of their property if the site is required by the public. Certainly, the site ought not to be spoiled by confining it to too small a piece of land; and, therefore, I trust that some arrangement will be made to set the proposed new building back and open up The Mall to Trafalgar Square.

§ MR. PLUNKET
I am afraid that I cannot satisfy the hon. Member. It is not for the Government to decide the question, seeing that the whole matter has been referred to a Committee. Therefore it is not for me to say what they will or what they will not do when the question conies back from the Committee. The hon. Member is quite right in saying that the taking of Drummond's Bank is no part of the present scheme; but I cannot give the hon. Member any further explanation until the Committee shall have concluded their investigation and presented their Report.

§ MR. B. COLERIDGE (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
We now know, for the first time, what these legal expenses are. We now hear that some portion is the costs of arbitration. I think the Committee ought to be told what sums have been awarded by way of arbitration, and what amount of money we shall have to pay upon the awards which have been made against us. We are here to represent the taxpayers of the country, and we know that in the case of trans- 748 fers the law costs are always estimated upon a scale of value. We should like to know what the value of the property proposed to be transferred is in this case, so that we may have some knowledge of the scale of the legal costs incurred in proportion to the value of the property.

§ MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)
With regard to the enormous increase of the original Estimate, I cannot conceive how it was possible to make such a mistake in the estimated cost of the transfer. Surely it ought to be possible to estimate to a nicety what the cost of a transfer is likely to be, when the value of the property is ascertained. It is complained that the Treasury have entirely failed to give the Committee information in sufficient detail in regard to the real manner in which these Votes are presented. I see, under the head of Details, that there is only an announcement that the sum of £800 is required for— Legal expenses in connection with the purchase of property under the Public Offices Site Act, 1882. But for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal happened to be acquainted with the manner in which the Treasury have acted in regard to the non-surrender of a balance in their hands, amounting to upwards of £5,000, the Committee would have been induced to vote this sum of £800 without demur. We now find the Treasury coming here with a demand for £800, for which there is only the slightest need. They have in their hands a sum of £5,241, and if they pay this sum of £800 out of it, they will still have more than £4,400 left. The Treasury, there can be no doubt, have acted illegally in regard to this balance. In March, 1886, they promised to surrender it; but they have not surrendered it yet, and there has been no proper explanation at all in regard to it. It appears to me that the Committee are asked to sanction a Vote of £800, which the Government ask for without having the slightest necessity for it. They have already a sufficient surplus in their hands if they want to enter into further expenditure. I am quite at a loss to know what they propose to do with this £5,000. We know perfectly well that in nearly every case in which the Government come down here with Supplementary Estimates they have a sufficient balance at their disposal to discharge their debts, 749 if they only choose to do so. The law which compels the Departments to surrender all balances, although strictly binding, is a law which is constantly violated. In this case we find that it has been violated; and the Treasury, who talk about having no money at their disposal, have really more than they want. I should like to press for a further explanation of the matter which has been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Coleridge)—namely, an elucidation of the singular increase of this Vote by the sum of £426. Is it for the cost of conveyancing, or of stamps, or of arbitration?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)
As this is a matter in which I had some concern, I may inform the hon. and learned Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield that the cost of this property was estimated at £160,000, and as that sum represents a very large amount of property, I have no doubt that this item of £800 represents a part of the legal charge involved in the arbitrations. The question which has been raised by the hon. Member for East Donegal appears to me to be an extremely important one; but I hope I may be permitted to remark that it comes before the Committee in the shape of a correspondence between the Auditor General and the Treasury. It has not yet come before the Committee on Public Accounts. It is necessary that it should go before them, and I presume that it will be then thoroughly investigated. I would, therefore, suggest to the Committee that it would be as well to postpone any further discussion until we have their Report on the matter. I quite agree with the hon. Member that an important principle is involved; and if the statement of the Comptroller and Auditor General is right, there has, undoubtedly, been some indiscretion on the part of the Treasury.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
(Kirkcaldy, &c.): The question of the surrender of the Treasury balances is a very important one, and I hope to hear more on the subject. So far as the details are concerned, we may wait for them until we get the Report of the Committee on Public Accounts. I have always understood that what sums were not spent in the financial year ought to be surrendered. That is a very important principle, and the Treasury have now set up an. entirely 750 new principle. What I understand the Treasury to say is this—if we refuse to surrender the balances and prefer to keep them over for another year we may do so, on the understanding, however, that the money is not spent until the expenditure is sanctioned by Parliament. If that is so, it destroys altogether the principle that the balances ought to be surrendered every year. I think it is a most dangerous doctrine, and I hope I have misunderstood the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. At any rate, I trust the Committee will receive some further explanation.

§ MR. JACKSON
The explanation of the increased amount of the present Estimate is a very simple one. The Treasury put in an Estimate of the sum that was required for a certain purpose up to a certain date. It subsequently came to their knowledge that a further sum would be required; and they took the first opportunity, after they obtained that knowledge, of submitting a further Estimate giving the altered sum required. An hon. Member has said that there is no necessity to vote this sum now, because the Treasury have in hand a balance more than sufficient to meet it; but the Treasury have no power to pay a single shilling of money except after the sanction of Parliament to the payment has been obtained. It is, therefore, necessary to ask the Committee for this sum in order to enable the Treasury to pay it. With reference to what the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) has said, I have laid down no new doctrine at all. What I endeavoured to explain was, that the surplus of a previous year may be written off the Vote of a succeeding year. That is a simple question of book-keeping, and it merely saves the issue of the sum so written off. In regard to the principle that all surpluses must be surrendered, there is no difference of opinion upon that point at all. That practice is invariably followed, and I believe it is impossible to find a single exception.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
I hope the hon. Gentleman will not suppose that I do not regard the explanation of the alteration of the amount of the Vote as satisfactory. I think the explanation is ample. The hon. Gentleman says that certain bills of costs have come in since the Estimate was first drafted, and that they have been added to it; but in 751 regard to the other and much larger point, I must say that I failed to gather any explanation, or any excuse, for the line of conduct which the Treasury have pursued. I must draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Treasury have admitted every allegation which I brought forward, and now I will make another, and that is that in March, 1886—because this transaction relates to 1884–5, and not, as the hon. Gentleman supposes, to 1885–6—in March, 1886, the Treasury promised to surrender the sum of £5,241; but they have retained it in their possession ever since. They are retaining it now, and they are detaining it irregularly and illegally. It is perfectly true that if it had been voted in 1886–7 the unsurrendered balance would have been treated as a set-off by transfers, and instead of being paid actually into the Exchequer it would have been taken as a diminution of the Vote for the coming year. That is quite clear, and is in accordance with the usual practice; but when there is no Vote it is impossible to treat a surplus in that way. On several occasions money has remained unspent and unaccounted for, and at this moment the Department is in irregular and illegal possession of £5,240 with the consent of the Treasury; and, that being the case, the Government come down and ask for a further sum under this Vote. In reply to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), to the effect that the matter will come before the Committee on Public Accounts, and that they will deal with it, I am willing to adopt that course if the Treasury will agree to the postponement of this Vote until the Public Accounts Committee have inquired into the matter. [Mr. JACKSON: No, no!] The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury says he cannot do that, and in that case I have no other course to take but to protest against what is undoubtedly an illegality, and to divide the Committee on the Vote.

§ MR. JACKSON
I think the hon. Member for East Donegal will, on consideration, see that we cannot agree to his proposal to postpone this Vote until the Public Accounts Committee have had before them the question which has been referred to by the hon. Member. We are now approaching the end of the 752 financial year, and we cannot, therefore, postpone the Vote.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
Will the hon. Gentleman pay over the balance to-morrow morning?

§ MR. JACKSON
Yes, Sir.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)
I rise to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £14,400, which is the amount charged under Sub-head E. for the purchase of the freehold of the Legation House at Brussels. In times gone by there has been a very strong objection shown in this House to the purchase of houses for our Embassies abroad. That was the case with regard to the Embassy Houses at Paris and Constantinople. It was thought that these houses cost a very large sum annually, because, whenever there was a change of Ministers, the new Minister always wanted to have some alterations made, and there were demands perpetually made upon the House to carry out those alterations and re-arrangements in addition to the large sums spent in the purchase of the houses. Two years ago there were very large sums spent for the purchase of Embassy Houses at Rome and Berlin, and now we are asked to vote this sum of £14,400 for a Legation House at Brussels. We are paying at present £600 rent for the house; and therefore, on the face of it, the speculation is not a good one, because the interest upon this sum of £14,400, at 5 per cent, would be £720 per annum. There are two other objections that I have to the Vote. In the first place, I do not see why we should charge upon one year all the gross sum, instead of spreading it over a number of years and allowing other Parliaments to bear their shares of the Vote. In the next place, there is, perhaps, no necessity to have a Legation at Brussels. We know, and the Secretary of State knows, that small countries sometimes disappear from the map, and become 753 merged into large countries. It is possible that Belgium may continue to exist; but there is no reason why we should not cease to spend these large sums of money upon Embassies abroad. This money is voted to enable Ministers abroad to live in a certain way; to give balls and parties to fashionable people in the place and fashionable English people who go there. The houses are not wanted for the transaction of the business of the country abroad. It might be well enough to pay a gentleman £1,000 as Chargé d' Affaires; but here we are asked to pledge ourselves to maintain, on the present scale, the Legation at Belgium. I put aside the argument founded upon the expectation of some that Belgium will not continue to exist; but a legitimate reason why we should not pledge ourselves to this large expenditure is that we shall probably have to pay in alterations and repairs a far larger sum than £720 a-year. I think the whole system of purchasing these Legation Houses abroad is exceedingly bad. Let us by all means pay for a house that the Minister can live in; but in Brussels there is no such run upon houses that we cannot hire a house for our Representative there. There are many houses being built in Brussels; and I would myself undertake to provide the Minister with as good a house as ever he has had for £600 per annum.

§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET) (Dublin University)
I do not, of course, pretend to follow the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) into his argument with regard to his expectation that the country will in the future at one day present us with a House of Commons more sensible than the present. My view of this matter is a more simple one, and I will endeavour to satisfy the Committee that this transaction is a great saving to the country, and that it does not constitute an increase of expenditure at all. The expenditure on the old Legation House at Brussels was £720 a-year; but in 1884 the Treasury determined that they would not renew the lease, and a lease was taken of more convenient premises, at a rent of £600. In that lease, a 754 clause was inserted which gave the option to the Government of purchasing the building at any time within three years. It was decided in 1885, under the late Government, that the right of purchase should be exercised, and, as a matter of fact, the building has been purchased for £14,000. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is an expensive arrangement. Of course, if we wanted to raise money we should not pay 5 per cent for it, but 3 per cent, which would be £420 a-year; and, therefore, I submit that there has been a saving to the country upon the amount hitherto paid of £ 180 a-year.

§ DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)
I am always very suspicious of these saving arrangements. A year or two ago we were told that there was to be a large saving to the country effected by the purchase of the Embassy House at Berlin, which has not been realized. Under this Vote we have a charge of £500 for the Preliminary Expenses of Purchase of Site, &c, for the Residence of the Agent and Consul General at Cairo, of which we are told that the total will be £27,000. I should like to have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman of that item. The right hon. Gentleman has such a winning way of placing his facts before the Committee, that I have no doubt he will be able to convince hon. Members that we are about to effect a huge economy by this outlay. The right hon. Gentleman, however, has said nothing about rates, taxes, and repairs that have to be taken into account in stating the cost of these houses. In looking over the Estimates we find that a very considerable amount has to be voted, in addition to the purchase money for repairs and other expenses. I cannot see why, if by paying rent, and keeping the principal in our own pockets, we can make anything like as good a bargain we should not do so. We have the same excuses brought forward in respect of every increase of expenditure on national property, and especially with regard to houses for our Envoys and Ministers, and the result is always the same—that we have large sums added to our annual expenditure for the details of repairs and other matters that I have mentioned. I think it is our duty to protest against every transaction of this kind, unless it can be shown that a real and substantial eco- 755 nomy will be effected thereby. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that there will be a saving in the case of the house at Brussels of £180a-year; but that I think is not sufficient to justify the Committee in passing the Vote.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
I have another Amendment to propose to this Vote—that is to say, that it be reduced by the sum of £500 under Sub-head V. for the Preliminary Expenses of Purchase of Site, &c, for the Residence of the Agent and Consul General at Cairo; and I hope my hon. Friends will understand the matter sufficiently to answer "Aye" this time when the Question is put from the Chair. This £500 is one of those prolific sums which in themselves seem very small, but which lead to a much greater expenditure. It is the first step towards the payment that appears on the Estimate of the approximate cost of Site, Building, and Furniture for the Resident at Cairo—namely, £27,000. Now, I should like to know whether we have at present any property at Cairo—whether anything there belongs to us? However that may be, the same reasons which I have urged against the purchase of a house in Brussels for our Minister there apply to this proposal to spend £27,000 for a site, building, and furniture at Cairo. Why are we to pay for furniture? I have never known of any furniture being given in these cases. Whenever we have to do anything in Egypt, we always have to pay more for it than we have to pay anywhere else, and that is the case with the £27,000 we are asked to spend for the Agent and Consul General at Cairo. What does the Agent and Consul General live in now? Does he live in a hired house, or does it belong to him? He has a salary, and I presume that the rent of a house has to be paid for. Another reason against voting this money is that we ought not to spend large sums of money for the benefit of Egyptians. There are a vast number of palaces in Cairo; and surely, in common decency, considering that we are maintaining the Khedive on the Throne, he ought to lend us one of his palaces for the accommodation of our Agent and Consul General.

§ MR. PLUNKET
I can assure the Committee that there is every desire on the part of the Government to insure economy in this matter. With regard to the site and building for the Residence of the Agent and Consul General at Cairo, I would point out that there is the greatest possible difficulty in obtaining accommodation in that city, nearly all the existing houses being badly ventilated and badly constructed. Besides that, they are below the level of the Nile, and, as a consequence, there is great difficulty in the matter of drainage. Further, the furniture existing in the house of the Agent and Consul General at Cairo was found unsuitable. A proposal was made to purchase a house in 1886; but Sir Evelyn Baring said that he could not recommend the purchase of any house, and he advised that a house should be built at a cost not exceeding £30,000. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has overlooked the fact that there will be a set-off, by way of reduction, of £600 a-year, which is the allowance now made to our Agent at Cairo. I would also point out to the Committee that it is necessary to provide for the safe keeping of the archives.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)
I think there should be a broad distinction drawn between the regular Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates. Now, if that is a proper thing to do, why is it that this Vote should not have been put into the regular Estimates, which for nearly a month have been upon the Table of the House? According to my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, this proposal was made to the late Government. I understand that a Supplementary Estimate is one which provides for certain things which have nothing to do with the regular Estimates; and therefore it is that I ask why this Vote does not form part of the latter, which have been in the hands of hon. Members for a considerable time? And I venture to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) whether this is not a sound principle of finance to be observed in these cases? I confess that I am against 757 the purchase of these houses for our Embassies abroad—I disbelieve in buying them. In my own opinion, to build a house is not an economical arrangement. My right hon. Friend thinks that by spending the sum of £27,000, which is on the Estimates for building a house for the Agent and Consul General at Cairo, we shall save £600 a-year, the amount of allowance now made to Sir Evelyn Baring. But if you built a house of your own, you might find, after a few years, that it does not suit your purpose, and that you could have been more content elsewhere than you can be in the house on which you have laid out a large sum of money. The right hon. Gentleman says that the archives must be taken care of, and therefore it is necessary to build a house for them; but I would point out that half the Governments of the world have their archives in hired houses. I greatly doubt whether, on this Estimate of £27,000, we shall have a saving as compared with the present yearly payment of £600; and I think it would have been better that we should have continued to spend the latter sum rather than build a house at the cost of this large amount of money. Under any circumstances, I contend that the charge ought not to have been brought into the Supplementary Estimates.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)
I think, if I expressed my own views and the views of the Treasury, they would be found to be generally in agreement with those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), as to the desirability of purchasing houses for the residences of our Ministers abroad. But there are cases and cases. The right hon. Gentleman says we ought not to have brought this Vote forward as a Supplementary Estimate. The reason why that has been done is that the question was raised in the latter part of last year. It was pointed out that Sir Evelyn Baring was living in a house which certainly no hon. Member would be content to live in. It was stated that if Sir Evelyn Baring entertained anyone at his house, he had to send the members of his family to a hotel, and it was under the strong pressure of these representations that the Treasury came to the conclusion that it was their duty to sanction the pur- 758 chase of a site for a house for our Representative at Cairo. It is true that it can hardly be said that the saving that will be effected will be great; and no one, I believe, would put that forward as the reason for asking for the present Vote. It is a fact that every other house that was available was found to be unsuitable; and, after great care had been taken to find a solution of the difficulty, the Treasury, as I have said, thought it necessary to sanction the purchase of a site on which to build a residence for our Agent and Consul General. On arriving at this conclusion, it became necessary to make some preliminary provision with regard to the matter; and hence it is that we ask the Committee to agree to the present Supplementary Vote. I may add that the Treasury were advised that there was no other site so suitable as that decided upon.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)
I was about to take the same objection to this Vote for the house of the Agent and Consul General at Cairo which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) has expressed much better than I should have done. But I may point out that, by assenting to this small sum of £500, it seems to me that we shall be committing ourselves to a much greater expenditure. All I shall say besides on the present occasion is that, if the Vote is agreed to by the Committee, the Government ought not to grudge us the exercise of our right to a full and thorough discussion of the whole subject hereafter.

§ DR. CAMERON
We are told that the reason for the purchase of this site is to provide Sir Evelyn Baring with proper accommodation. I ask, how long will it be before this new Consulate House is erected? I point out to the Committee that it is possible that before long another Government may sit on the Treasury Bench, and that Egypt may be in a very different position hereafter with regard to this country than that in which it now stands. One argument of the Secretary to the Treasury is that the site is the only one that can be obtained, and that, if we did not make haste, we should lose it altogether. But the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) told us a few minutes before that a report came in 759 from the Surveyor that the site was to be had at a lower cost. [Mr. PLUNKET: No, Sir; I said it was found not to be so.] However, the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that there was no advantage to be gained by delay. But these Egyptians very often ask much more than they will take; and if they find their present demand rejected, the probability is that the proprietors will be willing to reduce it; and if the purchase is postponed, the probability is that, by the time we come to discuss the Estimates of the year, we shall reap some advantage from the delay. Therefore, if my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) thinks it his duty to divide the Committee on the Vote, I shall vote with him.

§ MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)
We are asked to commit ourselves by this Vote to an expenditure of £27,000. I object to the Government taking this money for the purpose of building a house at Cairo for the Agent and Consul General. There is no doubt that a house quite large enough for that gentleman and his family could be built for a much smaller sum; and I do not see why we should be asked for a sum of money so largely in excess of the amount that is necessary. In my opinion, the sum of £27,000 is altogether excessive; and on that account, and on account of the irregular manner in which the sum has been placed upon the Estimates, I hope the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) will divide the Committee on this Vote.

§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)
I think that whenever it is known that the Government want to buy land anywhere it will be found out that many others are exceedingly anxious to obtain the site. The right hon. Gentleman will find that some months before the present Government came into Office the late Government decided that they could not approve the erection of a house for the Agent and Consul General at Cairo. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny) objects to the proposed expenditure of £27,000 as being excessive; but the hon. Gentleman is, in my opinion, under a very great mistake if he thinks that it is all we shall be called upon to pay for this business. I venture to say that if the Committee votes this sum the actual cost will reach a far larger 760 amount. It will be much nearer £50,000. We all recollect what happened in the case of the Embassy House at Berlin. We have had Representatives in Cairo for nearly half a century, and they have been able to reside in the houses there; palaces have been available there before now, and the probability is that other palaces will be available hereafter. I do not dispute the figures of my hon. Friend, or the statements put forward; but the Committee must remember that the same statements would be forthcoming from every Embassy in the world if there were a chance of getting a new building erected. The late Government were of opinion that it was desirable to put a stop to the erection of these houses, and I hope my hon. Friend opposite will take the same view of this matter. I submit that no reason has been given for the expenditure of this money; and, as a protest against the principle involved, I shall vote with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton.

§ SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICK (Kensington, S.)
I have been several times in Cairo, and am able to say that the house in which Sir Evelyn Baring is lodged is in a most unhealthy situation. The house is very small; there is no room for his Staff, and the place is altogether unsuitable for the purpose for which it is intended. As to finding another house, and one that would be suitable, which the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) says could easily be done in Brussels, I would point out that this cannot be done in Cairo. Everything in Cairo is done in the same meagre way, and it is almost impossible to get a large house, or anything approaching to it, in Cairo. I can testify, from my personal experience, that the site on which it is proposed that the money should be expended is certainly a most excellent one, and I do not think that the expenditure is at all extravagant in view of our peculiar position in Egypt, and the importance of maintaining the dignity of this country in Egypt.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)
The Government have said that Sir Evelyn Baring has not room in his house at Cairo for the accommodation of visitors. I do not consider that it is the duty of the Committee to provide 761 accommodation for the visitors of Sir Evelyn Baring, and it is certainly a monstrous thing that we should be asked to commit ourselves to an expenditure which will continue to swell, as all these expenditures do, without being told precisely what is to be the cost of the site, the cost of the building, and the cost of the furniture. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton intends to join us in voting against this Estimate.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)
I have never known a question of such importance as this raised on a Supplementary Estimate, and I think that the proceeding is most objectionable, more particularly as the late Government had decided against the purchase of a site in Cairo. I think the course adopted by the present Government in reference to this matter is totally unprecedented, and that we ought not to assent to it. The Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) has given us no reason why this Vote should be inserted amongst the Supplementary Estimates rather than in the Estimates for the coming year. Again, he has not told us the cost of the site, the building, or the furniture. I have had some experience in these matters, and I am satisfied that the Estimates will be very largely exceeded, and that we shall be called upon for a very much greater sum than that which appears here. My conviction is that however desirable it may be sometimes to buy a house, yet that the building of a house is the most expensive operation that can be entered into. It has been the case at Rome and elsewhere, where large sums of money have been spent in building. A house can generally be bought at a reasonable price; but, as I have said, there is nothing more expensive than building a house for our Representatives abroad. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to postpone this Vote until the Estimates of the coming year are taken, when we shall probably have a full statement of the cost of the several items of which the Vote is composed. As far as my experience goes, it is a very unusual thing to furnish these houses, except, at all events, the State Apartments, which, in a few cases, have been furnished. I do not know a case in which the whole house has been furnished.

§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (Manchester, N.E.)
The amount to be paid for the site is £3,700, which is a considerable reduction on the sum originally asked. It is, in fact, a low price, and we were advised that the site would not be available unless it was secured. Sir Evelyn Baring states that another offer has been made for it, and that it is best, if it is to be secured at all, that it should be secured now. It is, therefore, necessary to take some money for preliminary expenses in these Estimates. As hon. Members are aware, the accommodation is absolutely inadequate for the requirements of the Consulate. The estimated cost of the building is £20,800; furniture, £2,500; and purchase of site, £3,700; and I would mention that a gentleman from the Office of Works was sent out for the purpose of ascertaining the cost for the purpose of the Estimates.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH
HOW much will it cost for sending that gentleman out?

§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON
There will be no cost beyond his travelling expenses.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH
It is manifestly unfair to say that the total proximate cost is £27,000; to say that one item is £20,800, and refuse to tell us how much the others are.

§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON
I stated that the total £27,000 is made up of three sums—£3,700 for the purchase of the site; £2,500 for estimated cost of furniture; and the remainder for the cost of the house.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH
That leaves £20,800 for the building; surely that is an enormous sum, and it is only fair that the Government should have given us some information as to the details. If they cannot give them, then it is improper to put down this Vote for discussion now.

§ MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)
I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite has given us good grounds for voting against this charge. I should like to know whether this Estimate will cover the whole cost! The sum is very large, and I protest against such Votes as this in the present state of the country. We are not in a position to pay for luxuries. We ought at this time to study economy, 763 and if the Government want to know where economy can be exercised, I will give them a little information as to how they can profitably spend money on houses—that is to say, in housing the poor in the East End of London.

§ MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)
If I understand rightly the information given to the Committee, it is intended to enter into a contract for the purchase of the site. Then what we are doing in granting this Vote is to authorize the Treasury to enter into a private contract to buy property in Cairo which will involve us in a very large expenditure. We have to decide by "yes" or "no" the question whether this property is to be acquired; and I think we ought to be careful how we decide it, because, when the Estimates come forward, our objections will be met with the cry from the Treasury Bench—"You sanctioned our entering into this contract." We are, virtually, now asked to sanction the spending of a large sum of money on a site and building at Cairo. The Secretary to the Treasury says that Sir Evelyn Baring has great inconvenience in entertaining his friends in his present house. I ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether this is the first instalment only of the house building programme of the Government, and whether we shall next be asked to build a house for Sir H. Drummond Wolff? I trust that either the Vote will be rejected by the Committee, or that it will be withdrawn, until we have before us the whole of the details in the proper way for consideration.

§ MR. JACKSON
I think it quite fair to say that if this Vote of £500 is passed the Committee will have sanctioned practically the building of the house at Cairo for Sir Evelyn Baring. I do not wish to conceal from the Committee that fact. With reference to this particular sum, the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Anderson) will know that on entering upon contracts for the purchase of land a certain preliminary expenditure is necessary; and we have included in the Estimate only such sums as, according to the best information which can be obtained, would come in course of payment during the present year. I wish the Committee to understand that by sanctioning the expenditure of this £500 they are sanctioning the building of the House; but as to the certainty of 764 the Estimates being exceeded, I am sure that the right hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) has no foundation for making that statement, except, perhaps, his experience of what occurred when he was in Office. I may say, so far as the value of the site is concerned, that has been ascertained. With regard to the cost of furniture, I think hon. Gentlemen will agree that £2,500 is a reasonable sum. [An hon. MEMBER: £3,000.] The hon. Member who refers to it as £3,000 has in his mind the cost of the site perhaps; but the item for furniture is as I have stated—£2,500. It is for furnishing the State rooms in the house, and will, in all probability, be sufficient for the purpose. The figures are, of course, stated to be approximate; but we are given to understand that the closeness of the Estimate is such that it would be impossible to arrive nearer at the figures, unless tenders were obtained. We have taken the best means at our command; we have sent out an officer of the Board of Works to Cairo, who assures us that the estimated sum is sufficient for building the house. Having said this much, I trust the Committee will see that we have done all we can to place at the disposal of the Committee the information in our possession.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
The hon. Gentleman has informed the Committee that £2,500 is to be expended in furnishing the State rooms in the house of the Consul General at Cairo. I will simply say that if the Government would give me the contract for £2,000 I should make £1,000 profit out of it.

§ MR. M'CARTAN (Down, S.)
I think the expenditure of this large sum of money in the present state of the country will be little less than a scandal. In former times the Ambassadors of this country lived in houses that were rented on lease, and we had no complaints made; but now, when we have the poor people of this country crying out for bread, we find these Estimates on the Table. I understand the whole building is estimated to cost £27,000. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) has himself given a strong argument against this Vote, by saying that the price of the site was a considerable reduction on the sum originally asked for it. I am of opinion that if we 765 wait a little longer we shall get the site at a still lower price. The value of ground does not seem to be rising in Egypt any more than it does in Ireland. I hope the Government will turn their eyes to the place where houses are being pulled down, houses which are not occupied by Ambassadors living in luxury, but houses belonging to men who are spinning out a miserable existence in poverty.

§ MR. M. J. KENNY
I rise for the purpose of asking the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) whether, in consequence of the objections taken to this Vote and the further opposition it is likely to give rise to, he will consider the propriety of postponing it and bringing it forward again in the course of the year? We have had no explanation as to how this £500 is to be expended. We are told that it is in connection with the preliminary expenses of purchase; we are told that a certain person has been sent out to examine the site; but we do not know what the travelling expenses of that individual are. All we know is, that we are committing ourselves to an enormous expenditure, the estimate of which is likely to be largely exceeded, and the interest on which at 3 per cent is £810. That item in itself shows a loss to the country of £210 a-year. I think the feeling of the Committee is greatly against this Vote, and therefore I trust the Government will consent to postponing it and placing it on the Estimates of the coming year.

§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)
I think we are spending the evening in a most satisfactory manner, because we are proving to the country that economy is asked for by hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House, and that hon. Members who support the Government are altogether on the side of extravagance, and that at a time when there is want and destitution in the country. I cannot help asking, looking at this Vote and hearing the arguments of several right hon. Gentlemen in support of it; hearing that the site is to cost £3,700, and that the money ought to be forthcoming at once—I cannot help asking why the Government do not ask at once for the whole of the money? There appears to be a want of principle in connection with the whole Vote. I do not allude to the Vote for the furniture, for that is not wanted at the present 766 time; but if you want to purchase the site, why do you not ask for the money fearlessly and honestly? That is the course which I think ought to be pursued by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in connection with this matter. It is clear to anyone who knows the actual state of the case, and the way this Egyptian occupation is being carried out, that the way in which this money is being asked for is only an attempt on the part of the Government to get in the thin end of the wedge for the purpose of showing Europe that England is determined, under a Conservative Government, permanently to hold Egypt, and the Government know that it will be so understood outside this House. I think it will be wrong for any Member to allow this iniquitous Vote to pass unchallenged.

An. hon. MEMBER
It appears that the question raised is not so much on account of the sum of £500 here asked for, as on account of the larger expenditure of £27,000 which is to be incurred. Therefore, I think we ought to hear from the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Committee grant the £500 or not, if the Government is already committed to the purchase of the site, and the expenditure of the money? It would be very useful to know whether the Division about to be taken will decide whether the £27,000 is to be spent, and whether the Government have committed themselves to this scheme? I trust the Secretary to the Treasury will reply upon that point.

§ MR. JACKSON
I think I have already answered the inquiry of the hon. Gentleman in saying that the Committee will sanction the purchase of the site by this Vote of £500. Of this sum £100 is the estimated legal expense, £150 the Government tax on the purchase-money, and £250 is for the preliminary work.

§ ADMIRAL Sir JOHN E. COMMERELL (Southampton)
It is a sufficient answer to the argument of the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) that our buying a site in Egypt is a proof that we intend permanently to occupy Egypt to say that it does not follow because we are going to build a house in Brussels that the Government are going to occupy Belgium. But the real question is this—is it necessary for the Government to keep up 767 in Cairo the dignity of our Consul or not? I say that in an Eastern country the dignity of the English Ambassador must be second to none. I know that it is perfectly impossible to get a house at Cairo fit to live in, and I say that from personal knowledge, having been there frequently. I do not suppose that hon. Gentlemen really propose that our Ambassador should be the guest of the Viceroy of Egypt, who should lend him one of his palaces. I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite will now consent to give the Government the amount asked for, on account of the preliminary expenses necessary for carrying out this important work.

§ DR. CAMERON
This Vote is composed of three items. The first we intended to vote against, but lost the chance; the second we have not been allowed to reduce; and the third, for the purchase of a site and building for a Consulate at Samoa, is equally objectionable with the others. We shall, therefore, challenge the whole Vote.