CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

HC Deb 05 April 1888 vol 324 cc483-592

(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £29,260, 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 1889, for the Maintenance and Repair of Royal Palaces.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said, that this Vote might be divided into three heads—namely, palaces in the personal occupation of Her Majesty; secondly, palaces partly in the occupation of Her Majesty; and, thirdly, palaces which were not in the occupation of Her Majesty. He had given Notice of an Amendment to reduce the Vote by the sum of £500 as a protest against the system of expenditure upon palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty. He did not complain of Hampton Court Palace, which might be considered a people's palace, but there was an item in the Vote against which he did protest for Hampton Court Stud-house. He had never yet been able to discover what on earth Hampton Court Stud-house was. He understood that a certain number of cream-coloured horses were bred there; but he did not know what became of them, although the country had to pay £400 per annum for the maintenance and repair of Hampton Court Stud-house, and £15 for furniture. Then, again, there was a palace at Kew Green. He had had great difficulty in finding where that palace was at Kew, and he did not think there were half-a-dozen Gentleman in the House who had the slightest idea whore it was, or who lived there. Nevertheless, £556 appeared in the Vote as a charge for its maintenance and repair, together with £20 for furniture and £156 for fuel. There were a number of other houses which were called palaces, but which were not palaces in the sense of ever being occupied by the Sovereign. One of them was a house which was lent to One of the French ex-Royal Dukes, and its maintenance and repair cost about £600. In addition, there was an item for money expended in furniture. If it was neither desirable to let these houses or pull them down, those who occupied them ought certainly to maintain thorn and keep them in repair, and not come upon the nation for furniture. He would, therefore, move the reduction of the vote by the sum of £500, having reference to the items for Hampton Court Stud-house, Kew Gardens, and the other buildings he had mentioned.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £28,760, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET) (Dublin University)

said, this was not the first time he had had the pleasure of replying to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) on the question of the maintenance of the Royal Palaces, and he was afraid that he could not add anything to the information he had already given on several previous occasions, and which had always been considered satisfactory by the House. The fact was that in former times the expense of maintaining and furnishing the Royal Palaces always fell upon the Civil List. From time to time that Civil List, as the hon. Member knew very well, had been very much reduced. In 1831 it was reduced by the sum of £547,000 per annum, and in 1838, on the accession of Her Majesty, it was further reduced by the sum of £215,000 per annum. When those arrangements were made the country undertook to pay the expense of maintaining and furnishing these Royal Palaces. That was part of the bargain made on that occasion on behalf of the country with the Sovereign for the time being. He could not, therefore, understand how the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member, should dispute the way in which the bargain was carried out, or propose to set it aside. There might be hon. Members who thought that at some future accession to the Throne the Civil List might be still further reduced; but he could not understand how they could desire to break down a bargain which had been deliberately entered into at the beginning of the present reign, and he could not think that the hon. Member seriously proposed that such a thing should be done. In regard to particular points which had been raised by the hon. Member, he must say that there was no difference whatever in principle in the carrying out of the bargain between the palaces in the personal occupation of Her Majesty and those which were not in the occupation of Her Majesty. The principle was the same all through. The country had chosen to take off from the Civil List the charge of maintaining these palaces, and certain sums were put on the Estimates from year to year for the purpose of honestly carrying, out the bargain which had been made. As to the particular instance referred to by the hon. Member—namely, Hampton Court Stud-house, that house was attached to Hampton Court Palace and occupied by the Crown Equerries. The stables attached to them were used for the purpose of producing certain kind of horses. The hon. Member would like to know what became of the horses. He (Mr. Plunket) was not bound to know. [Cries of "Oh!"] Certainly not; but, as a matter of fact, the horses were used for the purpose of horsing Royal carriages. The hon. Member for Northampton said the horses were of a cream colour. Very likely that might be the colour that might be required. Personally, he knew nothing about it, nor did he know whether the hon. Member had a preference for that colour or not. As to the palace at Kew Gardens, it was preserved by the nation, and if the hon. Member had really any serious curiosity on the subject he might easily see it. All these houses were Royal Palaces which Her Majesty had inherited, and which used to be maintained out of the Civil List. They were now, by the agreement entered into with Her Majesty, maintained by the taxpayers of the country and fell upon the Estimates. He could give no precise reply to the question of the hon. Member as to who were the inhabitants of these palaces, inasmuch as they changed from year to year; nor was it any part of his duty to inquire who were in the occupation of them. He was afraid that he could not add more in the way of explanation, or give any further infor- mation, than he had given in previous years. He could quite understand that at some future time, if the hon. Member thought a further economy could be effected by an alteration of the Civil List, he might make some proposal of a serious character on the subject. It would, however, be pressing the principle of economy too far to ask the House of Commons in the present day to set aside the bargain made by the Sovereign as regarded these Royal Palaces. He, therefore, hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion for the reduction of the sum asked for in this respect.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he did not deny that the Civil List had been reduced. There had been numerous expenses thrown upon the Civil List formerly, such as the maintenance of the whole of the Diplomatic Service, the Judges, and so on, which items had never been removed from the list; but he protested against the pious theory of a bargain having been struck between Her Majesty and the nation with regard to the maintenance of these Royal Palaces. There was never any specific bargain between the Crown and the country. The Civil List at the commencement of the Reign was decided on after an exhaustive inquiry as to the expenditure of William IV., and it was upon that basis that the Civil List was established. It was perfectly true that various items on the Civil List were not put down as a charge to Her Majesty, and as a necessary consequence the cost of maintaining certain houses would necessarily fall upon the taxpayer if it was wished to keep them up; but many hon. Members who sat on that side of the House were of opinion that it was quite enough for the nation to bear the cost of maintaining the palaces actually occupied by the Sovereign without maintaining and tinkering up a lot of old houses in various parts of the country, which Her Majesty, instead of occupying herself, granted to certain people for their lives. Many hon. Members thought that it would be better and cheaper for the country to allow these buildings to go to rack and ruin rather than to spend the money of the taxpayers in repairing them, seeing that they were of no benefit to the country, but only to those who lived in them. At any rate, those who occupied them should have them on the same terms as the man who took a house upon a repairing lease. He certainly did not agree with the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket). The right hon. Gentleman had answered Questions put to him on this subject before, and had always fallen back on the stupidity of our ancestors in making a bad bargain with the Sovereign; but he (Mr. Labouchere) did not believe that our ancestors had been such fools as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to think, or that they had entered into such a bargain as that which the right hon. Gentleman suggested. If the right hon. Gentleman could not give a more satisfactory answer upon this subject than that which he had just given, he should feel compelled to divide the House upon the question of the reduction of the Vote, in order to put a stop to what appeared to him to be a reckless, wasteful, and useless expenditure.

MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)

said, he thought that the Committee ought to get at the bottom of this so called bargain between the Sovereign and the country. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) had mentioned the word "bargain" or "agreement" five or six times, and had spoken of it as a bargain which the House of Commons was bound to adhere to. If such a bargain had been entered into, it must have been embodied in some document, and he should like to know where that document was to be found? The contention of the right hon. Gentleman was that the Civil List Act was a contract between the Crown and the country. He (Mr. Robertson) altogether denied that. He denied that anything was contained in that Act with which Parliament might not interfere at any moment it chose. The right hon. Gentleman's theory went still further than that. He said that they were not only bound to respect the Civil List Act, but also payments which were made outside that Act. As the right hon. Gentleman maintained that there was an agreement between the Crown and the country, he called upon him to produce it, or to explain what its contents were and what it required the country to do. Unless the right hon. Gentleman could give the Committee some more satisfactory answer in reference to this matter, he should feel bound to support the Motion for the reduction of the Vote.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

said, he certainly thought that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) ought to give the Committee some information as to the uses to which these palaces were put. He did not go as far as his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) when he said that they ought not to keep up any palaces except those which were occupied by the Crown, because it was obvious that certain places were required for the exercise of hospitality. He, therefore, did not agree that all the palaces which were not in the actual occupation of the Sovereign should be pulled down. The right hon. Gentleman, however, seemed to put the matter on too high a ground. He implied that there was a distinct bargain and a schedule of palaces that were to be kept up. If that were so, and there was any specific bargain between the Sovereign and the country in existence, it ought to be produced; if there was no such bargain, it amounted simply to this—that by the Civil List, which was drawn up on behalf of Her Majesty on her accession to the Throne, the country undertook to keep up certain buildings for the purposes of Her Majesty. In that case, he thought it was incumbent on the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) to tell the Committee what the purposes were for which these palaces were occupied. Take the case of Hampton Court Palace. He was bound to say that it was not inappropriate to provide apartments in that palace for the accommodation of the lady relatives of distinguished officers who had fallen in the service of their country. So far as Kew Palace was concerned, he (Sir George Campbell) had seen it through the railings, and it appeared to be a very mysterious place. It did not seem as if anybody ever inhabited it. It cut off part of the gardens, and gave an air of secrecy to the place.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) to say that the Committee had no right to refuse this Vote. In that case, what was the necessity of bringing it forward, and why was Parliament asked to pass it? He thought that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had made out a very strong case, and he should have great pleasure in supporting by his vote the Amendment which had been moved for pulling down this extravagant expenditure.

MR. PLUNKET

said, he regretted that his explanation had not given satisfaction to the hon. Member. He thought it unnecessary to explain the matter more than he had done, but from no wish to give either a discourteous or unsatisfactory answer. The statement he had made was that at the time the Civil List was settled, at the beginning of the present reign, a bargain was entered into between the country and the Sovereign. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Where?] It was a bargain entered into between the country and the Sovereign, that in consideration of certain large reductions which were made in the Civil List at that time the arrangement whereby certain expenses were borne by the Votes should be continued throughout the present Reign. That bargain was contained in successive Civil List Acts, and the particular Civil List Act which governed the present arrangement was the 1 & 2 Vict. (1837), c. 2. The 1st section of that Act recited the principle, of the bargain to which he had referred, and the bargain was carried out throughout the rest of the Acts. The effect of the Act generally was that several reductions were made in the Civil List, and certain expenses connected with the honour and dignity of the Crown were to be borne by the sums voted by the taxpayers of the country. In consequence, among the matters connected with the honour and dignity of the Crown was included the maintenance of certain palaces, some of which were in the personal occupation of the Sovereign, some, like St. James's Palace, which were partly in the occupation of the Queen, and certain other palaces which were not in the personal occupation of Her Majesty at all.

MR. LABOUCHERE

asked, if a list of them was contained in any Schedule?

MR. PLUNKET

said, he did not think they were contained in any Schedule attached to that or to any of the previous Acts. They were, however, the purposes which had always been included, and there was the same obligation under the Act to keep them up and maintain them. It would be un- gracious to criticize the provisions of the Act; but it was, of course, open to the Committee to criticize its administration by the Office of Works, and to say that too much money was being expended in a particular direction. He could only say again, as he had already said, that if the Committee were to refuse to give effect to the policy of the Civil List Act, it would be in his opinion, and also he was sure in the opinion of the country, a departure from the bargain made, although, perhaps, not exactly in words, but in its sense, at the time when the Civil List was made between the country and the Sovereign. That arrangement had ever since been faithfully carried out, and he believed that it had been economically and faithfully carried out to the advantage of the ratepayers of the country. He hoped the explanation he had endeavoured to give of the policy of the Act on which the arrangement depended would be satisfactory.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman amounted to this—that Her Majesty gave up certain Crown lands, in return for which the taxpayers maintained the honour and dignity of the Crown. But they did not recognize the personal right of the Sovereign to the Crown lands. The right was first put forward in the time of George III. There was then a servile Minister, who put in the Preamble of the Civil List Act a statement that His Majesty gave up his right to the Crown lands during life. That statement had been repeated in the recital of succeeding Civil List Acts; but the fact that Her Majesty gave up her right to the Crown lands did not bestow any right of the kind on Her Majesty. If it amused a Minister of the Crown to put in an Act a statement that the Sovereign gave up certain rights which they denied she had, of course they could not make any objection; but, assuming that this bargain did exist, what did it amount to? It amounted to this—that on the side of the taxpayers they engaged as a quid pro quo for the Crown lands to maintain the honour and dignity of the Crown. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell the Committee that the honour and dignity of the Crown depended upon furnishing and maintaining a house for an Equerry at Hampton Court, in order to look after a few cream- coloured horses which were brought out every three or four years? Or did he mean to say that it depended upon maintaining those various houses, one of which was given to a French Prince? The honour and dignity of the Crown would be maintained if all those houses which were spread over the public parks were to fall into ruin. He could understand that the palaces occupied by Her Majesty, or partly occupied by her, ought to be maintained; but the maintenance and furnishing of all these small houses spread over the Royal Parks had nothing whatever to do with the honour and dignity of the Crown. The Committee ought to refuse this money; but whether it did so or not, he thought that, under the circumstances, the Committee, at least, had the right to decide whether it was properly and legitimately spent for the maintenance of the honour and dignity of the Crown. It was an item which appeared in the Votes every year, and he presumed that hon. Members were called upon to express an opinion upon the Estimates. When, however, they were prepared to do so, they were told that they had no right to criticize the Estimates, but must be prepared to vote them as they stood. It was a perfect absurdity to ask the Committee to take that course, and he should certainly go to a Division as a protest against the system.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

said, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) had entirely failed to substantiate the theory of a contract with which he began to defend the Vote. He (Mr. Robertson) wished to point out that the right hon. Gentleman had mixed up two entirely different theories. He had started with the theory that the country had undertaken to pay the expense of maintaining these palaces; but, in his second speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that the obligation was incurred in consideration of a largo reduction of the Civil List—that was to say, that the Civil List of Queen Victoria being to a certain extent similar to the Civil List of her Predecessor, there was a bargain entered into that the charges heretofore borne should continue to be borne. Now, what was the evidence the right hon. Gentleman had produced? He had produced a recital in the Civil List Act, which stated that in consideration of the surrender of the Crown lands the country was to make suitable provision for the honour and dignity of the Crown. It might be said that that was a contract whereby the House of Commons was forbidden to enter into the Civil List Act or to amend it, the same as any other Statute. He did not admit that assertion; but, granting it, what the right hon. Gentleman had to prove was that at the time of the passing of the Act there was anything like a contract or undertaking that those expenses outside the Civil List Act were to be borne by the Estimates. That view of the case was altogether unsupported by any evidence the right hon. Gentleman had produced, or could produce. As the right hon. Gentleman had been unwise enough to drag the Civil List into the discussion, he (Mr. Robertson) wished to point out how certain items in the Estimate and the finding of them appeared to be governed by the grant made in the Civil List Act. There were six classes of grants contained in that Act, and the second class was for the salaries for Her Majesty's Household, while the third was for the expenses of Her Majesty's Household. There was no definition in the Act itself as to what those two items would cover; but he should have supposed that a fair interpretation would cover the maintenance of the palaces to which the hon. Member for Northampton had referred, while the other class covered the salaries paid to persons in the service of Her Majesty in houses set apart for the use of Her Majesty. In the Vote now before the Committee, he found the sum of £2,352 set down for salaries and allowances to Her Majesty's servants in the Royal Palaces. Why were those salaries and allowances not paid out of the third branch of the Civil List, and why were not the expenses for the maintenance and repairs of those houses paid for out of the second branch of the Civil List? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give an answer to that question. The House having made a provision of £131,200 for salaries and allowances to persons in the service of Her Majesty, he could not for a moment understand how it was reasonable to come down year after year to ask the House for additional salaries and allowances also connected with the Queen's Palaces. Some of these salaries and allowances were, no doubt, small in amount—for instance, in the case of Buckingham Palace, there was the insignificant item of £8 for the rat-catcher, £1 1s. a-week to a labourer, and £1 1s. to a turncock; but surely it was ridiculous, after having made a grant of £131,000 to Her Majesty for salaries to her servants, to come down to that House and ask for a Vote of £8 to pay a rat-catcher. The principle was an important one, and as the right hon. Gentleman had insisted in dragging the Civil List into discussion he wished to ask him on what principle these expenses were not included in the Civil List in Classes I. and II.? On what principle was the Civil List maintained? He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give this information to the Committee. Unless he could maintain it, he should certainly vote in favour of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Northampton.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

asked the First Commissioner of Works to give an explanation of an increase in the Vote for Holyrood Palace. He found that the expense of warders there had been increased from £234 to £239?

MR. PLUNKET

said, the salaries to which the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) had referred were salaries of persons who were employed for the purpose of taking care of these buildings and keeping them in proper repair; and if the Office of Works was to be responsible for the repair and maintenance of buildings, of course they must employ persons even of such humble calling as a turncock and rat-catcher. If there was any absurdity in the matter, it was the absurdity of any hon. Member criticizing such expenditure. With regard to Holyrood Palace, he was afraid he could not at that moment tell the hon. Member (Mr. Hunter) what the particular increase was due to, as he had not at hand the details of the expenditure. The increase, however, was very slight, and during the last two or three years there had been a considerable reduction in all these items. He was informed at the moment by his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) that the increase in expenditure at Holyrood Palace was owing to the employment of additional warders to take care of certain parts of Holyrood Palace which had been thrown open to the public; and arrangements had been made with the Corporation of Edinburgh, under which it was necessary to employ the additional servants.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 77: Majority 40.—(Div. List, No. 55.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(2). £1,500, to complete the suns for Marlborough House.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works if he could inform the Committee what the total amount spent on sanitary works in connection with Marlborough House had been? He believed that a great many hundred pounds had been spent every year for a number of years in connection with the sanitary works of the residence of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. Indeed, he believed that a far larger sum had been expended than would have been necessary to rebuild Marlborough House altogether.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET) (Dublin University)

said, he hardly knew what the hon. Member meant. No doubt, there had been from time to time considerable expenditure incurred in connection with sanitary works at Marlborough House; but he did not know over how many years the expenditure had extended. He believed it had been going on ever since His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales began to reside there; but he was unable to say what the particular items amounted to.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

asked, if they had not reached £10,000?

MR. PLUNKET

said, he was unable to say, nor for how long a time the expenses had been going on.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, that it had been going on, at any rate, for the last 15 years—ever since the drains were taken up in Pall Mall and the pond was drained.

MR. PLUNKET

said, he was altogether unable to enter into any details; but if the hon. Member would put down a Question upon the Paper; he would endeavour to obtain the information he required.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he would do so on the Report

MR. PLUNKET

said, he would be prepared to give the information on the Report.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £77,013, 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 1889, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said, that he had always protested against the expenditure under this head, and he did so on two grounds—first, because he considered that the amount was too large; and, secondly, because the public were excluded from very large portions of the different public parks. With regard to the Richmond Park, there was a larger number of officials there than any private gentleman would employ. There was a Ranger, a Deputy Ranger, a Bailiff, a Superintendent under the Ranger, and an Assistant Superintendent. These were the head officials who had to look after others. He had always noticed in the accounts which had been submitted before that very large items were set down for gamekeepers. He had called attention to those items more than once. A salary of £250 a-year used to be paid to head-gamekeepers, and £200 a-year to sub-gamekeepers—such as assistants and deputies. He did not, however, see these amounts in the present Estimates, and he wished to know where these gamekeepers were? These gamekeepers were really supposed to be employed to guard the deer; but, in point of fact, he imagined they were there because they were there. Of course, it was necessary for a number of people to look after the deer; but he doubted whether any persons in the position of gamekeepers would be paid by any private gentleman £250 or £200 per annum. He was strongly of opinion that this expenditure ought to be done away with. He could not flatter himself that he had induced the Government to discharge these men; but he very much doubted whether the deer ought to be maintained. They were miserable, tame creatures, except at one time of the year, when they became a nuisance to mankind and a danger. In point of fact, there had been some of these door running at the people who made use of the Park, and notices had been put up warning the public against going too near them. Surely the Parks were made for human beings, and not for deer. In Hyde Park they had done away with the deer in order to allow the public free access to the Park. The amount of pleasure which people could derive from looking at the deer did not justify the expenditure incurred in keeping them. Another objection in regard to Public Parks was that a large part of them was taken away from the public use of the community. His hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) had moved for a Return which had been laid before the House, in which it was stated what amount of land had been taken away and what amount had been enclosed in the different Parks included in the list given in the Return. There was, however, another Park which had not been included, though he did not know why it should not have been—namely, Windsor Great Park. Bushey Park consisted of 994 acres, and the public were excluded from 322 acres which were used as pasture land, meadow land, and land for the use of the Royal Palaces. He supposed the wonderful cream coloured horses required this land. Hampton Court Park contained 752 acres; but how much would the Committee suppose was reserved for the public? Not one single acre. Hampton Court Park consisted, as he had said, of 752 acres, and from the whole of that area the public were excluded. Now, Hampton Court and Bushey Park were very much frequented by the people, and it was preposterous that the whole of one Park, and a large portion of the other, should be taken away from them. In Richmond Park, also, 440 acres were taken away from the public. He would anticipate the right hon. Gentleman in pointing out that between 1873 and 1887 more acres had been thrown open than had been enclosed. That was all very well, but he wanted all the enclosed acres thrown open to the public, because they belonged to the public, and ought to be devoted to purposes of recreation. They were never intended to be given to Rangers, Deputy Rangers, and similar persons; but the whole should be thrown open to the public, except some small enclosures for timber and so on. He had given Notice of his intention to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £500, and he would now move that Amendment with the view of securing that the subject should be discussed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £76,513, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET) (Dublin University)

said, that the hon. Member for Northampton was, of course, aware that there had been a considerable reduction in this Vote in the present year; and not only had there been a reduction compared with the Estimates of last year, but compared with the Estimates of a few years ago. That was, no doubt, owing to a great extent to the Act passed last year, a very good Act indeed, in passing which the hon. Member himself had a considerable share. That Act transferred a certain number of Metropolitan Parks, which previously fell on the Estimates for maintenance, to the Metropolitan Board of Works. There had also been a considerable reduction in the expenditure on the Parks which were still maintained by the Office of Works. The hon. Member for Northampton had directed attention to particular points. In the first place, he complained of the office of Ranger, Deputy Ranger, and other officials he had named. They were the same officials who had always been employed in connection with the Parks. The hon. Member said there was a difference in the nomenclature applied to these officials, and he asked why the name had been changed.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he had not asked that, but he had asked where the gamekeepers had gone.

MR. PLUNKET

thought the hon. Member went on to say that there was a difference in the title of these officials. It was quite true, and the alteration was in the first place, he believed, suggested by the criticisms which the hon. Member had himself from time to time made upon these Votes. The answer of the Government always was that these officials were not, in the true sense of the word, gamekeepers. Their business was to look after the general management of the Parks, and, therefore, they had now been called Superintendents. A part of their business was to take care of the deer, and it was for that reason that in former Estimates they were described as "gamekeepers." It was part of their functions then, and still was, to take care of the deer, and the only sense in which the officials were employed as gamekeepers was in having care of the deer in the Parks. The deer had been under their care for centuries; there were about 1,500 head of deer in Richmond Park—the same in number as in the days of Cromwell. Of course, the question whether the deer ought to be maintained or not was quite another matter. He did not agree with the hon. Gentleman, and he did not think that the public would agree with him, that it would be wise to remove the deer from the Park. He believed that if they were to have a Park of that kind, one of the best specimens we possessed of an English Park, the presence of the deer added an element of great beauty and interest to the general effect of the Park. He was entitled to say, before passing away from this subject, that there was other game in the Park as well as door—pheasants, for instance. They were not maintained at the public expense at all, but at the expense of the Ranger, who provided the pheasants and the food for them, and also gamekeepers in the ordinary sense to take care of the pheasants, and of the other game to be found in the Parks. In regard to the question of enclosures, the hon. Member had himself admitted that they were less extensive now than they were some years ago. The enclosures in Richmond Park were mainly for the purpose of protecting the now plantations which were Crown property. As in the course of time the older trees became unsightly and fell into decay, they were replaced by young trees from these plantations. He could assure the hon. Member that there would be no unnecessary expense connected with the plantations.

MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.)

said, there was a subject connected with this Vote which he desired to bring under the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. There were certain Parks in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh which were public Parks under the Office of Works in the same sense as those in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis. He was bound to say that when any question connected with these Parks was brought before the right hon. Gentleman he had always evinced a readiness to consider the representations made to him. The people of Edinburgh at the present moment complained of certain petty restrictions that were placed upon their enjoyment of the Arboretum which had been handed over to the Office of Works for management. The Arboretum was primarily intended for the use of the public, and was only in a secondary degree a scientific institution. This might appear to be comparatively a small matter, seeing that the Regulations to which he referred related to the admission of perambulators, the opening of gates, and the hours of entering into the Arboretum and of closing it. He understood the objection taken by the Office of Works to meeting the views of the inhabitants was that the Arboretum must not be looked upon as a Public Park, but must be placed in the same category as Kew Gardens, and regarded as public gardens made use of for scientific purposes. The use of the Arboretum as a Park was regarded by the Office of Works as a matter of secondary importance. Upon that ground Rules had been drawn up for the use of the Arboretum similar to those which prevailed at Kew Gardens. These might be suitable to the Botanic Gardens, which adjoined the Arboretum, but they were not suitable to the Arboretum. In the summer time no place was more frequented than the Arboretum. If any hon. Member would go there upon a summer afternoon he would find how largely it was frequented by all classes of the community living in Edinburgh; but he would also find petty restrictions which were imposed to guard the public from the full enjoyment of the Gardens. There was another and most important point in regard to the future management of the Arboretum and Botanical Gardens. It was generally known that it was under the contemplation of the Government to transfer the Botanical Gardens and the Arboretum from the Board of Works to the University of Edinburgh. It was a proposal which had been mooted for many years past, but which had never yet been carried out. It had always been steadily resisted by the general community of Edinburgh, by the University of Edinburgh, and by the late Professor and the present Professor of Botany. There was, however, a distinction between the Botanical Gardens and the Arboretum; and if the Government intended to transfer both to the University, they would, in the Arboretum, be transferring to a learned body an institution the object of which was only in a secondary degree a scientific one, its primary object being the enjoyment of the public. There were two grounds of objection to the transfer of both institutions. The first was that of public policy. It had hitherto been the policy of the State to maintain in each of the three divisions of the United Kingdom a Botanic Garden primarily for the encouragement of science; and it would appear, as regards this proposed transfer, that the Treasury were anxious to shift the responsibility for the future development of the Botanic Garden in Edinburgh on to the University of Edinburgh. The University would be placed in a most invidious position—they would be hampered, in developing the Gardens, by the insufficiency of the sums at their disposal; in the second place, they would be obliged to look exclusively to the scientific uses of the Gardens; and, in the third place, by the claims of the people of Edinburgh and the people of Scotland, who had long looked on these Gardens as a national institution.

MR. PLUNKET

said, the last point raised by the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) had reference to the policy of the future as to the maintenance of the Arboretum at Edinburgh under the management of the Office of Works, or whether the Arboretum should be handed over to the University of Edinburgh on the understanding that it would be maintained by that institution. That was a question of policy upon which he was not in a position to say anything definitely; but he was quite sure that the objections which had been stated by the hon. Member, and the grounds he had brought forward in support of his own views that the change should not be made, would receive that full consideration to which everything which came from him was entitled. As far as the present management of the Arboretum and Botanical Gardens was concerned, he could assure the hon. Member that while he remained at the Office of Works, if any proposal or representation should be made as to any alteration in the Rules and Regulations for the enjoyment of these Gardens, or the hours when they ought to be opened and closed, he would go as far as he could to meet the wishes of the public. He must, however, point out that the object of maintaining the Arboretum was not solely the enjoyment of the public of the locality, but to encourage the study of botanic science; and it would be a great mistake if such arrangements were made that the Arboretum could not be used for the purposes of botanical study. As the hon. Gentleman had stated, the same questions were raised in the case of Kew Gardens, and arrangements had to be made to reconcile the claims of sightseers with those of students by reserving the Gardens for students in the earlier part of the day. He could only say that his wish was, as far as possible, to meet the convenience of the public consistently with the objects for which these Gardens were maintained. If the hon. Member would represent exactly what alteration he thought ought to be introduced in reference to the Arboretum at Edinburgh he would be glad to consider it.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. He had put himself in communication with the Office of Works on the subject a few months ago. He would not trouble the House with more details; but he would point out that the Arboretum at Edinburgh stood in a different position from Kew Gardens, because the Arboretum was bought and laid out by the people of Edinburgh at a cost of £18,000 as a Public Park. It had, therefore, a distinctly higher claim to be considered as a public garden for the free use of the people than the Royal Botanical Gardens. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to state, as the matter was not absolutely clear at present, whether the Treasury intended to hand over the Arboretum as well as the Botanical Gardens?

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S. W.)

said, the hon. Member for Northampton had already referred to the Return for which he had moved last year. He did not intend again to go over the ground which had already been covered by his hon. Friend, but there were a few features in the Return which had not been referred to, and which he thought it desirable to call attention to, because he would be glad to have some further information upon the subject from the First Commissioner of Works. In the first place, he would direct attention to Greenwich Park. In Greenwich Park it would be found that there was a very considerable enclosure. It consisted of 63 acres of ground, and the use to which it was applied was thus described in the Return, "Ranger's Lodge, Offices, and Meadows, and Buildings for Residence." He wished to know if that enclosure had been recently made, or, at all events, whether there had been a considerable addition to it within recent years? If there had been no addition within recent years, he wished to know when the enclosure had been made? He need not refer further to Bushey Park, because his hon. Friend had drawn attention to the chief items in the Return which related to that Park. At the same time, he thought the public would be of opinion that it was an extreme step to exclude the community from the use of one-third of that Park. He came next to Richmond Park. There were some items there to which the attention of the Committee ought to be directed. 141 acres were reserved for the purposes of plantation. There were 104 acres of meadow ground. The Ranger's meadow consisted of 20 acres, and two acres were set aside for the Queen's Kitchen Garden. It certainly seemed to him that that was a survival of a time very different from our own, for it was extremely difficult to imagine what adequate or appreciable use the Crown could make of a kitchen garden in Richmond Park. Further, there were considerable enclosures in connection with residence in the Park. The most flagrant instance of the exclusion of the public was undoubtedly that to which his hon. Friend had referred—namely, the case of Hampton Court Park. He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman did not say a single word in reference to that case. Hampton Court Park was as large as Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens put together, and yet the public were excluded from the whole of that area, which extended from Hampton Court Gardens right up to Kingston Bridge, and was bounded in one direction by the towing-path of the river, and in the other by the public highway from Hampton Court to Kingston. Upon the whole length of the road the Park was surrounded by a dead brick wall. He thought that even if it were necessary to exclude the public, they might, at all events, have a peep at the Park. Certainly, anyone who was in the habit of travelling upon that road must be of opinion that a dead wall was an eyesore of a most objectionable character. What was the use made of the Park? As far as he could gather, it was devoted entirely to the feeding of deer. Deer, however, were fed in other Parks without excluding the public from the use of such Parks. He should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain why the same course with regard to door was not adopted at Hampton Court Park which was followed in other places. In the next place, he would ask, what was the use which was made of the deer? They were informed last year, in the course of the discussion which was raised on this subject, that the venison was presented to Government officials. Now, when he was a Government official he never received any venison. He did not know whom the Government officials were to whom the venison was presented, but he conjectured that they were highly-paid officials who could very well dispense with the perquisite, if it were a perquisite. He believed that some of the Government officials who received the venison would be glad to be relieved from it, seeing that they were called upon to pay a fee when the venison was presented to them. The Park was not entirely devoted to the feeding of deer, because he saw that a certain payment was made by the Master of the Horse, who seemed to be responsible for the deer to the Chief Commissioner of Works for the pasturage of the Parks. What, however, was the payment which was actually made? It only amounted to £280 a-year for 752 acres, or something like 7s. an acre. He had been down to see the Park, and he found that the land was very good grazing land indeed, and he should say that the fair letting marketable value of the land would be about £2 per acre. If that were so, he failed to see why the public should suffer from the land being lot to the Master of the Horse at the very inadequate sum of 7s. per acre. While he found that the Park cost the public over £1,000 a-year, the only return obtained was something like £500, so that there was a dead loss of £500 a-year. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would explain, if the matter was capable of explanation, why the public were altogether excluded from this Park? He knew that it was felt to be a great grievance that the people should have no use of the Park; and, even admitting that it was necessary to feed deer in it, that formed no adequate reason for the exclusion of the public, because it was well known that in other Parks from which the public were not excluded deer were fed. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not pass over this matter in absolute silence, as he had done with regard to the reference made by the hon. Member for Northampton to the case of Bushey Park.

MR. PICTON (Leicester)

wished to call attention to the exclusion of the public from a considerable portion of Regent's Park. The whole area of the Park was 472 acres, and from more than one-fourth of it—namely, 130 acres, the public were excluded. No doubt there were some excellent enclosures, such as the Zoological Gardens and the Botanical Gardens; but he could not understand why the public should be excluded from certain land situate on the western side of the Park, seeing that admission was secured by others on the payment of a fee at the following rates—residents, 21s. per annum; non-residents, 42s. per annum. He had often seen persons gazing through the railings of the enclosure, envious of the enjoyment which the privileged few were deriving; and, seeing that the public paid £1,000 per annum for maintaining this Park, he thought it hard that they should be excluded from the enjoyment of it. He certainly thought the particular enclosure to which he referred might be thrown open. He observed that a number of houses in this Public Park were let at incredibly low rents. One of them, which had a garden of five acres, was let for £114 10s. a-year. He believed it would command that rent without any garden ground at all. There were other houses and enclosures let at equally ridiculous rents. He presumed the reason was that they were letting the old leases not yet run out. He should, however, like to have an explanation on the subject, and an understanding that when the existing leases ran out the houses would be relet and the enclosures thrown open. He did not think that it was the wish of the public to continue to maintain Parks like this for rent-earning purposes. The population around the Park was rapidly increasing, and it was felt to be a very great hardship that Her Majesty's subjects should be excluded from any portion of the Park.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR. (Donegal, E.)

said, it seemed to him that a reduction of £500 in the Vote was altogether inadequate. The Return moved for by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill), on which the hon. Member for Northampton had based the reduction he had moved, would, if it were examined, show an abundant reason why a very much larger reduction should be made. On page 9 of the Estimates it was shown that the amount of £2,400 was expected to be received during the course of the financial year for what were called estimated extra receipts. Now, that Return showed, first of all, how very misleading and untrustworthy many of the Returns were which were submitted to Parliament, or else it showed that the Return submitted to the House and the Motions of hon. Members were of a very extraordinary character. This Return showed not only the area of the Parks and the area from which the public were excluded, but what public revenue, if any, was derived front the said area. From Bushey Park the revenue derived was £91; from Hampton Court Park, £577; Holyrood, £375; Hyde Park, £466; Regent's Park, £2,536; Richmond Old Deer Park, £972; and from Richmond Park £500. If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would take the trouble to add up these sums, he would find that they come to a total of more than £5,000, or more than £1,000 in excess of the estimated receipts shown on page 9. If the Return was trustworthy and the figures given to the House by the Treasury were correct, then the Estimate must be wrong, and wrong by at least £1,100; and, therefore, the reduction moved should be not £500, but £1,100. Even the larger sum was altogether below what ought to be realized from these Park. He did not propose to go over the items mentioned by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green; but in regard to Bushey Park he saw there were receipts for wood and timber of £50, and from other sources £41, although in that Park the enclosed area from which the public were excluded was no less than 104 acres. Those portions of the Park used for meadow land and making hay did not appear to figure on the credit side at all. There were further items of 30 acres for pasture land and 20 acres for meadow land, to say nothing of plantations. There was sufficient property of a profitable kind to secure an income of several hundred pounds, and yet £91 was the entire sum derived from it. With regard to Hampton Court Park, the total amount received was £577, yet the land enclosed amounted to 752 acres, and consisted of very good grazing ground; so that the revenue was altogether too small for the purposes for which the Park was utilized. Then, again, in regard to Regent's Park, the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) had pointed out the ridiculously low sums for which much of the land—very eligible land—was let. Instead of having a sum of £2,340 derived from that property, it ought to be worth, at least £10,000 or £15,000 a-year. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, in replying, in the first instance, to the hon. Member for Northampton in regard to the enclosures in the Deer Parks at Hampton Court and at Richmond, took very good care to confine his observations to the deer in Richmond Park and the pheasants there. Now, no complaints had been made in regard to pheasants, and no attack was made by the hon. Member for Northampton on the Ranger. That question was fought out several years ago, and in regard to the pheasants he believed that some satisfactory arrangement was made. There remained, however, the Old Deer Park of Richmond, 362 acres in extent, and there were 900 acres elsewhere which were entirely given up to deer. If these Parks were situated away from a large city like London, it would be a matter of very little importance; but the preservation of these open spaces for the use of the people were of great consequence to London, with its population of 5,000,000. He thought the Government ought to make some arrangement that would secure that the large spaces at Hampton Court, Regent's Park, and Richmond Park, which were now let at inadequate rents for the benefit of a small ring of persons, should, as soon as possible, either be let at full value, or, as he should prefer, be thrown open to the public, so that, in one form or another, the people should reap the full advantage of this valuable land. Hampton Court Park and Richmond Park, from which the public were now largely excluded, were very easy of access to the people of London, and at holiday times would be of the greatest value. As it was, people could only see from a distance the promised land they were never allowed to enter, and yet, although they were excluded from it, the revenue derived from it by the Government was ridiculously small. He was afraid that there was a great deal of jobbery connected with the management of the Parks. There appeared to be a small ring of highly-paid persons who did derive great advantage of one kind or the other from these Parks; but the great bulk of the public derived no advantage at all.

MR. PLUNKET

said, that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill), in referring to the Return which had been given to the House upon his Motion, had asked some questions in reference to Greenwich and Richmond Parks. The hon. Member had asked whether there had been any decrease in the space which was formerly devoted to the enjoyment of the people, and whether the reserve spaces had been enlarged? As far as he had been able to ascertain in the Office of Works, there had been no such decrease, nor had there been any withdrawal from the public of any rights which they had formerly enjoyed. For instance, the Ranger's Lodge at Greenwich, now in the occupation of Lady Mayo, and the reserve spaces around it, had not been in any way increased in modern times, nor in the case of Richmond Park or Hampton Court had there been any withdrawal from the public of rights which they had formerly enjoyed. Hampton Court Park had never been thrown open to the public at any time; but he was rather inclined to agree with the hon. Member that some improvements might be effected in the present arrangements, especially in regard to the dead wall. He would promise the hon. Member that he would go into the question, and if he could see his way he would be glad to have that improvement effected. As to the position of the Master of the Horse, he had nothing to do with the deer, nor were the deer in Hampton Court Park under his management. What he had to do there had reference to horses, and he was required to pay for the pasturage which the horses had in the Park. He might say that this subject was under consideration at present, and he hoped that a more satisfactory agreement, as far as the public were concerned, might be made with the Master of the Horse. It was a question, however, which had only been mooted within the last few months. With respect to Regent's Park, to which the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) had called attention, he hoped the hon. Member would admit that, as far as it had been in his power, he had endeavoured to make the Park as available as possible for the use of all classes of the public. As a matter of fact, the Park had only been thrown open within comparatively modern times. For a long time it was not open to the public at all, and it was only in the year 1835 that it was first thrown open. Since then, from time to time, various portions of the Park had been added to those which were originally given to the public. No one would probably desire to interfere with the various societies which occupied parts of the Park. There was one portion, however, occupied by the Toxophilite Society, of which the lease would shortly fall in. The Society was, of course, anxious to have the lease renewed, whereas others desired that their grounds should be added to the part now open to the people. The Government were hampered also by other leases and established private rights with which they could not interfere. In 1883, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) was at the Treasury, some additions were made to the spaces available for the public. There was no discrepancy in the figures referred to by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor); but the apparent error arose from the fact that the Return moved for by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) was made not only from the Office of Works, but from the Department of Woods and Forests.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he had confined his quotations to those Parks which were shown in the Return.

MR. PLUNKET

said, that a great portion of the argument of the hon. Member was based on the sum of £2,344 18s. 10d., which appeared in the Vote as derivable from Regent's Park; but the whole of that sum, as the hon. Member would find from Sub-head B, had been claimed by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, because that part of the Park was under their control. He thought that would reconcile the discrepancy which had been pointed out.

MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had referred quite correctly to what was done in 1883, in connection with Regent's Park, and the additions which were then made. When he went to the Treasury he found that a portion of the Park was about to be opened if the claims of some of the residents could be satisfied. He settled that controversy, and, in addition, decided that some of the ground round the villas should be added to the Park. In regard to the lease of the Toxophilite Society, he could only express an earnest hope that when the lease fell in it would not be renewed, but that the land would be made available for the public. It was a great pity that Hampton Court Park was not available for the public. Everyone who went there know how much the public would appreciate the privilege if they were allowed to use it—that was to say, if the grounds were thrown open to thorn. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had done much good in several of his concessions to the public, and he (Mr. Childers) trusted that he would go still further in the same direction.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) had joined in the demand that Hampton Court Park should be thrown open to the public. Three hundred acres were taken away from the public in Bushey Park, 75 acres of it being devoted to the maintenance of the cream-coloured horses—which he supposed would be looked upon by the Treasury as essen- tially "pleasure horses." There were also a number of horses kept in Hampton Court Park, and the land there was let under lease to the Master of the Horse for £280 per annum. It was said that there were a lot of brood mares kept there; but, though he had often asked what became of the foals of the mares, he had never been able to obtain a satisfactory answer. The great point was, however, that these two pieces of land should be thrown open to the public, and that some arrangement should be made by which the cream-coloured horses should be taken elsewhere, and the 75 acres devoted to them thrown open to the public, the lease of the Master of the Horse being terminated. This lease was not one they were bound to maintain as part and parcel of the bargain made with Her Majesty when she came to the Throne. It was open to the Board of Works to refuse to grant the lease. Thousands of holiday makers went down to the Park on Bank Holidays and Sundays. He, himself, had a house near by, and saw the people, and he thought not one of Her Majesty's subjects outside the House would complain if this £280 per annum received from the Master of the Horse were forfeited and this large Park were thrown open to the public. He thought he had been too moderate by only moving to reduce the Vote by £500. He knew, however, that whatever the amount of the reduction moved, whether it were £1,000 or £2,000, it would not be likely to pass; and, therefore, £500 was as good a figure as any other for the purpose of protesting against the system of appointing Rangers and other fancy officers. He should certainly divide the Committee upon the subject.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

said, he thought this was a very useful discussion, and trusted that the land in the Parks referred to would be thrown open to the public. He held that the House would have no real control over matters like those in this Vote until all the Estimates were looked at and examined by a Committee before they were submitted to the whole House. Until that were done hon. Members would not be able to come to a better understanding on these matters. He joined in the hope that Hampton Court Park might before long be thrown open to the public. There was another point upon which he wished to make some observations—namely, as to the deplorable condition of the trees in Kensington Gardens. A great many of these trees were in a dying state, and a great part of the Gardens was either bare or covered by half-dead trees, a thing which appeared to him as nothing short of a national calamity. He thought it the duty of the Government to get to the bottom of this matter. He was not a scientific man as regarded trees, but he had taken some interest in this matter, and he had made inquiries in reference to the condition of the trees in Kensington Gardens. It was evidently not the air of the Metropolis which poisoned them, because in several neighbouring squares large numbers of trees were growing, and were in a most flourishing condition. He and the Board of Works had set up opposite theories as to the cause of the fatality amongst the Kensington Garden trees. His theory was that the Board of Works had allowed builders in that district, when digging up foundations for new houses, to remove the clay to Kensington Gardens, and place it over the roots of the trees. The theory of the Board of Works was that the trees had suffered from defective drainage, and that great improvement would be observed now that the drainage had been in some degree attended to. He (Sir George Campbell) was convinced that there were large tracts upon which the trees were dying, which never could have been affected by the overflow of water from the pond. He should very much like to know if the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) could tell them if there had been any perceptible improvement in the condition of the trees in consequence of the drainage operations which had been carried out, as he did not himself believe it to be the case. He was under the impression that the trees in those parts were still dying. If the Park were private property, its owner would not be, as the Government were, content to sleep on the matter and allow the thing to drift. He would not allow the Park to continue in such a state, but would take measures to correct any evil which he believed to exist. Nothing had been done to examine the roots of the trees really to find out if the seat of the difficulty lay there. At any rate, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would be able to give them some satisfaction in this matter. He also trusted that something would be settled in regard to the Roehampton Gate of Richmond Park. Richmond Park, as everyone knew, was a magnificent Park, but the access to it was not sufficient, and anything which could be done to improve it would be of enormous benefit to the people of London.

MR. PICKERSGILL

said, there had been one very important and striking omission from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. He (Mr. Pickersgill) had asked him why the public were excluded from Hampton Court Park, and in reply the right hon. Gentleman had given them no reason, but had contented himself with the observation that the public never had been admitted. That was not the question. He did not ask whether they had been admitted in the past, and if not what was the reason of their exclusion; but what he asked was, why they were not admitted now? He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give something like a satisfactory assurance on the matter now, and if he did he (Mr. Pickersgill) for one would not press the subject to a Division.

MR. PLUNKET

said, that as to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) no doubt his complaint as to the state of the trees in Kensington Gardens had for a long time possessed some considerable foundation, and he (Mr. Plunket) regretted it as much as the hon. Member did. The matter was considered some years ago by a small Committee, of whom Mr. Littler, of the Office of Works, was one, Sir James Cooper was another, and a third gentleman whose name he had forgotten, but who, he thought, was connected with the Office of Woods. This Committee went very carefully into the subject of the mortality amongst the trees, and the conclusion they came to was that in the first place the trees had been planted too closely together originally, and that in other respects they had not been well planted. In the next place they came to the conclusion that owing to the saturation of the soil from excess of water a great many trees, as they expressed it, "stood in water." Now, the hon. Member asked him whether the improvements which had been effected at the Round Pond had been productive of good results. He was afraid they had not produced much good effect in the Garden generally; but he was informed that in the immediate vicinity of the Pond the trees were improving considerably. He feared the evil complained of was one which could not be altogether remedied or overcome; but the Board of Works were doing their best to grapple with it. They were removing some trees in those places whore they were overcrowded, and were making some drains, and he believed that would do something to prolong the existence of some of the older trees. Whilst they were doing this they were planting young trees from time to time, and in all such cases they took the greatest possible care that the trees were put in under favourable circumstances for their growth and development. He might illustrate what he meant by saying that the trees in Bird Cage Walk, and in the Mall at St. James's Park, had undoubtedly suffered from the great carelessness with which they were originally planted. They were continually planting new trees in those places, and whenever they did so they made every provision to increase the chances of the trees growing well. They only chose trees of the best kind, and had them planted under the best scientific conditions. He could assure the hon. Member that it was not because the Board of Works had not very carefully considered the question that they had not been successful in putting a stop to the mortality amongst the trees in Kensington Gardens. He was afraid there was not much to be hoped for in regard to the older trees; but he thought that the trees they were now planting—together with such as could be rescued of the old ones—would benefit by the more careful treatment they were now receiving. As to the question regarding Hampton Court Park, he could add nothing to what he had already said. It had always been reserved, and it must be remembered that it was situated in the centre of a great deal of open space which was available for the public. He had said already that the matter was now being considered, but he could not give hon. Members any pledge as to what would be done as the result of that consideration.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he was glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had said as to the trees in Kensington Gardens; but he did not think the evil to which he had referred arose from the cause pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman. Having watched for a long time the decay of the trees, whether they were young or old, and whether originally overcrowded or not, and having heard from some people that the only possible theory to account for that was the super-saturation of the soil with moisture to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, he (Sir George Campbell) gathered that the real cause of the mischief had not yet been ascertained, and that there was still something to be found out. He acknowledged that the authorities the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned as having formed a Committee were very high authorities from a scientific point of view; but, at the same time, he could not help observing that these gentlemen did not seem to have mastered the whole difficulty, and he hoped experts would still continue to give attention to the subject.

MR. CHILDERS

said, that one expression had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works on which he thought he might ask for some further explanation. The right hon. Gentleman had said that Hampton Court Park had been "reserved" from the public. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that it had been legally reserved from the public, and that it was not in the power of the Office of Works, in conjunction with the Treasury, to make arrangements for the public to use the Park? He (Mr. Childers) was under the impression that there was no such legal reservation, and that it was purely a matter for the Office of Works. If that were so, "reservation" was hardly the word to use, and he hoped they would see the land given up for the use of the public.

MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

said, he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to the fact that last year objection was taken to this Vote on the ground that the public were excluded from Kew Gardens until 1 or 2 o'clock in the day. The right hon. Gentleman had then promised to take the protest which was made into his serious consideration, and see if it were possible to admit the public into Kew Gardens at an earlier hour. Nothing, however, had been done in the matter, and unless some promise were given that a little more attention would be paid to the wish of the public in that direction he (Mr. Cremer) should certainly move to reduce the Vote by £1,000. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee whether he had directed inquiries to be made in this matter; and, if so, what was the result of those inquiries? Another complaint made last Session, and which he (Mr. Cremer) wished to repeat now, was that the public were not allowed to take even the smallest parcel into Kew Gardens. The public were obliged to leave even small handbags at the entrance of the Gardens, lost they might contain anything in the shape of—not explosive matter—but in the shape of food or drink. There seemed to be on the part of officials a fear that the public would regale themselves after they had entered the sacred precincts of the Gardens. It was pointed out last year that there was a part of the Gardens into which the people might be allowed to carry parcels for the purpose of providing themselves with refreshments, and where, if an empty bottle or two, or a few pieces of paper, were left lying about, it would not injure the Gardens or produce an eyesore—he alluded to that part of the Gardens on the bank of the Thames. If the Board of Works could not see their way to allowing the public to make use of this part of the Gardens for refreshment purposes, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government would seriously consider the desirability of erecting in Kew Gardens for the convenience of the poorer classes of their countrymen, some such building as was to be found in Regent's Park. There was a building there which was admirably conducted where refreshments were to be obtained at a very small cost. It seemed to him (Mr. Cremer) that if they had a building of that kind in Kew Gardens it would get over the difficulty to which he alluded. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention had been directed, or whether inquiries had been made first of all in regard to the exclusion of the public from these Gardens up to the late hour to which he had alluded, and why they could not be admitted at 11 or 12 o'clock in the day? Eleven o'clock was late enough he thought. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would also say whether the public would be allowed to carry parcels into the part of the Gardens to which he had referred; and, if not, whether the Government would not erect there a building in which refreshments might be obtained?

MR. PICKERSGILL

said, he should not have risen again except for an answer which just now fell from the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. The right hon. Gentleman had seemed to drop some dark hints to the effect that some higher powers were concerned in this question of the admission of the public to Hampton Court Park. He (Mr. Pickersgill) however, submitted that the matter was under the control of the Office of Works. If the right hon. Gentleman would go down to the Park, he would find, from the notice board, that admission to the Park was subject to the Rules and Regulations made under the Parks' Act of 1872. The Regulations there made prescribed that the Park should be open to those who had the licence of the Office of Works. Well, then, the right hon. Gentleman had only to extend the licence to the entire public, and the whole thing was done.

MR. PLUNKET

said, that as to what had fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Cromer) with reference to Kew Gardens, he could assure him that since the debate referred to, he had gone very carefully into the questions raised, as he had promised to do; and, as a matter of fact, he would inform the hon. Member that the public were now admitted to the Gardens at 12 o'clock on ordinary days. The reason why they were not admitted earlier was that the public generally—that was to say, the people who came from a distance to see the Gardens—hardly began to arrive until that time; and the only conflict of interest was between the people who lived in the immediate vicinity and the students of botanical science. The Board of Works thought it right that there should be a certain period of the day during which these students should have an opportunity of pursuing their studies in seclusion and quiet. He (Mr. Plunket) did not think there was any grievance to any extent felt even by the people who lived in the neighbourhood. On Bank Holidays the Gardens were open at 10 o'clock, and, he was glad to say, were largely availed of by the public. The other question the hon. Gentleman had referred to, and which was also spoken of when the Estimates were under consideration last year, was a more difficult one. It had been found in practice that if they once began to allow the public to take provisions into the Gardens, it very greatly interfered with the amenities of the Gardens, and that it required additional care and expense in looking after the place in order to keep it in proper and seemly order. As to the hon. Gentleman's other suggestion, that a refreshment kiosk should be erected, that was undoubtedly a subject well worthy of consideration. The general impression had been that the fewer of those establishments that were set up in the Public Parks the better. However, he would promise to give the matter his careful consideration.

MR. CREMER

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would state to the Committee whether any record was kept of the number of students in botanical science who visited Kew Gardens for the purpose of studying in the early part of the day? Could the right hon. Gentleman inform the Committee as to the number of students who visited the Gardens in the course of a day or a year?

MR. PLUNKET

said, he dared say it would be very easy to obtain such a list; but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the privilege of studying in the Arboretum in Kew Gardens, which was, perhaps, the finest in the world, was highly valued by a large number of students and others.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

Will the right hon. Gentleman state the number who visit the Gardens on a Sunday morning?

MR. PLUNKET

I can easily find out. I am not sure that any record is kept; but I know that these people go there in considerable numbers.

MR. CREMER

asked, whether he was to understand that the right hon. Gentleman would take the question of the erection of a refreshment kiosk into his consideration? He (Mr. Cremer) had heard a cheer some time ago when it was stated that it would be difficult to allow the public any part of Kew Gardens for the purpose of picnics. Well, it might be all very well for hon. Members to object to the public having this privilege when they themselves could drive down to the Gardens in their carriages, take a stroll through the grounds, the hot-house, and the Arboretum, and drive home again to partake of the sumptuous repast there awaiting them. But there was no such luxury for the enormous majority of the visitors to the Gardens. They were poor people, who found it necessary to carry their provisions with them, and it was on behalf of these that he was pleading to the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. PICKERSGILL

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would consider the point which he (Mr. Pickersgill) had raised with reference to Hampton Court Park?

MR. PLUNKET

said, he was aware that Hampton Court Park was placed in the Schedule to the Act of 1872; but the Park had never been used by the public.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 95: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 56.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £40,940, 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 1889, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament.

MR. CAUSTON (Southwark, W.)

said, that this year a further sum was asked to be voted under Sub-head B, in connection with the Westminster Hall improvements, and he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) whether it had been decided for what purpose the now building for which this money was asked for was to be used? In Parliament in 1885 a strong protest was made against the erection of what had appeared to a large number of hon. Members to be an altogether useless building. Before they voted any further money for the building, it was desirable, he thought, that they should know for what purpose it was to be used. To his mind, this was a useless expenditure, a waste of public money. Many hon. Members had prophesied that in all probability the time was not for distant when the building would have to be pulled down to make way for some more suitable erection. If the money were voted to-day, he should like to have some information from the Government as to when it was likely that the building would be completed?

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman did not allude to Westminster Hall, when he spoke about the prophesy that this building would have to be pulled down, because he (Sir George Campbell) thought that one of the most admirable buildings in all Europe. No doubt that magnificent building would be, to a large extent, spoiled by the so-called "restoration" now going on on its western side. A great architect, under the name of "restoration," had been allowed to have his own way with it in carrying out some gim-crack ideas of his own. They were told that when the new building was completed they would get a new Grand Committee Room; but it did not now appear that they were likely to get all he would like. They were also told that there would be another practical purpose effected—namely, that hon. Members would get a shed in which to put their horses; but he did not see that that expectation was likely to be realized. At any rate, he should like to have some information on these points. He should also like to be told to what use Westminster Hall—which was the finest hall in Europe—would be turned when these building operations were finished? At the present moment the Hall was turned to no account at all. He (Sir George Campbell) wished to see it made the centre of their Parliamentary life. He wished to see it made the centre of a great many Grand Committee Rooms, and a centre of life as it used to be when the Royal Courts of Justice were held there. He hoped they would be told that these building operations would not continue very much longer, and that the House would soon know the worst of them.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK (Whitehaven)

said, he should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gen- tleman the First Commissioner of Works to a point of some practical importance, and that was the very inadequate accommodation which there was for smoking in that House. There was, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, but one room downstairs for smoking and one upstairs; and if the right hon. Gentleman ever visited those chambers at a time when there was a full attendance he would see that they were hardly fit for human occupation. The right hon. Gentleman had been very kind to his Colleagues. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had not been able to visit the new chambers prepared for them; but he was told that almost every Member of the Ministry had a chamber to himself in which he could do almost anything he liked—in which he could even smoke if he chose. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would venture to make a suggestion which was not a new one by any means, but one which had been brought before one of the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessors, and had been approved of by nearly every Member of the House who had considered it, and that suggestion was that the Office of Works should cover over either a portion or the whole of the centre enclosure of St. Stephen's Cloisters surrounding that part of the building now used as a Cloak Room, and that it should become a Smoking Room. There might be seats placed there, and so forth, and the alteration would be found to be a great convenience to hon. Members, especially to those who came in smoking a very good cigar and did not wish to throw it away. And, as a matter of fact, this Cloister was habitually every day used by hon. Members as a Smoking Room. If the right hon. Gentleman chose to visit it when an important Division was about to be called, he would find that there was always a large smoking company assembled there at that end of the East Cloister. A Predecessor of his right hon. Friend now in Office had had that proposal brought before him and had not disapproved of it; in fact, he had given a qualified approval of it, and had said that he had referred it to the officers of his Department, who, after consultation, had come to the conclusion that the cost would be too great. They had declared that the cost would be thousands of pounds; but he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) did not agree with that view. He perceived that the right hon. Gentleman had afforded protection to hon. Members who drove down to the House in their carriages by constructing a glass and iron awning overhead, and he observed that that awning had cost only £300. Well, that being so, he did not think it was possible to say that the plan he was now suggesting would cost thousands of pounds. He did not think that the expense of carrying out his proposal would approximate to the sum which had been mentioned to his right hon. Friend's Predecessor. He thought that a few hundreds of pounds might be sufficient to carry out a tentative scheme in a convenient and inexpensive manner. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) ventured to put this matter before the right hon. Gentleman in the hope that he would kindly take it into his consideration, and that if next year he had the honour to hold the Office which he now filled in such a distinguished manner, and which it was to be hoped he would continue to hold, he would be able to carry out this or some similar plan. There was only one other point to which he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) wished to refer—namely, the additions to Westminster Hall, to which reference had been made by the two hon. Members who had spoken from the other side of the House. He quite concurred in the condemnation which they had expressed. Before the work which was now being carried out was commenced he had protested against it; but all that was over and done with now. The plan had been accepted, the work had been carried out, and was now near its completion. They were indebted for this great disfigurement of a noble building to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, who was First Commissioner of Works belonging to the political Party with which hon. Gentlemen opposite were connected. Those hon. Gentlemen did not protest at the time, and did not turn the then First Commissioner of Works out of Office, and they must be prepared to accept the consequences—it was no use discussing the matter now.

MR. C. SPENCER (Northampton, Mid)

asked the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works if he had considered the question of the windows of the House—a question which he had put to the right hon. Gentleman the other day? As the summer was coming on, it was rather important that they should have arrangements made by which, when the windows of the House were open hon. Members sitting below them, would be saved from draughts.

DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

said, he wished to call attention to the serious condition of the frescoes in the House which had been painted by eminent artists. He would draw attention in particular to those frescoes occupying the passage upstairs leading to the Committee Rooms. They were simply dropping from the walls; and what he wanted to know was whether, if they could not be restored in some way or other, it would not be as well to remove them altogether? The two great frescoes by Maclise in the House of Lords were also getting into a bad condition. The silica in those pictures was beginning to effloresce, and a crustaceous bloom was gathering and would in time completely destroy the pictures. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works whether something could not be done to check the process of decay which was theatening the destruction of some of the most valuable pictures of our English school?

MR. GREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

said, he must move to reduce this Vote by the sum of £5,000 by way of protest against the continuance of a state of things to which he had directed the attention of the Government last year, and on which he had made remarks on two or three previous occasions. First of all, he must join with hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House in entering an emphatic protest against the building which was being erected outside Westminster Hall, and which, so far as he (Mr. Cromer) was capable of judging, was of a most hideous character when viewed from the Bridge Street standpoint. He was astonished at any Government sanctioning a structure of that character. And now, in regard to the £5,000 which he was moving, he wished to say that he had called the attention of the Government last year to the fact that there was a most objectionable system of dual control adopted in connection with this House and other Government establish- ments. A portion of the employés were paid directly by the Government, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to state for the information of the House what portion of the item under the head "Maintenance and Repairs, £8,655," was paid to the contractor, and what portion was paid to the employés direct? He had never yet been able to understand why any portion of the workmen about this building were employed by a contractor who was permitted to deduct from their scanty wages 1d. per hour. He (Mr. Cremer) had been very much astonished when he heard that this state of things existed here and in other Government buildings, and last year he had called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to the matter, and the right hon. Gentleman had promised to take it into his serious consideration, and to ascertain whether, when the contract with the contractor expired, it would be possible to place the workmen here and in other Government buildings on the same footing as the well-paid officials. The only answer which was vouchsafed or explanation tendered was that the contractors, in consideration of being allowed to make this deduction from the wages of the men—wages which were small enough in themselves, before anything was deducted from them, being only 5d. or 6d. an hour—supplied certain plant, such as brushes, dusters, steps, and trestles, things which could be obtained for £5 or £6 a-year. That was not a sufficient plea for permitting deductions to be made from the wages of the men, which reduced those wages to an amount which was scarcely sufficient to enable those who received them to live in anything like a decent manner. It was, to his mind, an unfortunate thing that they should have two classes of men about the building. It would be better that the men should be employed directly and paid directly by the Government than that a third party should be allowed to intervene, and that the Government should have no control over some of the workpeople. If he was rightly informed, the contract with the contractor expired since he brought the matter forward and received the right hon. Gentleman's promise, and that another contract had been entered into for three or four years, and that for that period these workmen were to continue to be robbed of a portion of their wages. As a protest against this state of things, and on behalf of the poorer class of employés, in that House and other Government buildings, he proposed that the Vote be reduced by £5,000; and when the Vote for the British Museum and the Votes for other buildings came before them, he should move similar reductions, in order, if possible, to get justice done to the poorer class of their countrymen employed in those places. If it was right that the poorer class of workpeople should have reductions of 1d. per hour made from their wages, it was only right that similar reductions should be made from the wages of the higher officials. Until the whole body of employés was put on the same footing, whether rich or poor, he should continue to make these protests.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £35,940, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Cremer.)

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be successful in his endeavour to see that the small pittance given to the humblest persons employed in this House was really received by them, and that no portion of it was taken away by the middleman. He (Mr. Labouchere) rose more to express his dissent from some observations which had fallen from the right hon. Member for White-haven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck)—

THE CHAIRMAN

As a reduction has been moved as to a specific item, that item must be disposed of first. Afterwards, the hon. Member will be able to refer to any other portion of the Vote.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET) (Dublin University)

said, he did not know whether the Chairman's ruling was that the present debate was entirely confined to the subject by the hon. Member for the Haggerston Division of Shoreditch (Mr. Cremer).

THE CHAIRMAN

Yes; that is so.

MR. PLUNKET

said, the truth was that practically the whole amount for the repairs of the House was paid over to the contractors—Messrs. Mowlem, Burt, & Freeman. Those contrac- tors executed for them their repairs in this and other public buildings, and as regarded the particular charge referred to it was a matter of business arrangement between the contractors and their employés—the Government knowing nothing whatever of the way in which the former paid their men. The Government paid the contractors a certain sum, for which sum the work was contracted for; and having paid that—and this was a much more economical way of managing the business than doing the work themselves—they could not go to the contractor and say—"You are to pay your men so much," or—"You should increase their pay," or—"Reduce their pay," and so on. All that it was necessary to leave to ordinary laws of demand and supply, and they must leave it to the contractor to deal with the men as he thought best whom he had engaged to work for him. As he (Mr. Plunket) had said, there was no doubt in the world that in a great many cases this system of employing contractors was the most economical for carrying out the maintenance and repairs of the Houses of Parliament and the whole of the Palace of Westminster and the other buildings the hon. Member had referred to. He was afraid he must take his stand on that view of the case, and say that the system adopted was the most economical one in view of the work to be carried out, and that it was not in the power of the Board of Works to interfere between the contractor and his men. He was sure that the hon. Gentleman himself would see that the only alternative which would be open to them, supposing the arguments which were brought against the Vote were established, would be to undertake the work themselves.

MR. BROADHURST (Nottingham, W.)

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had not quite met the points raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Cremer). What his hon. Friend evidently meant was that the Government let their work at prices, and under conditions and terms, which made it impossible for the contractor to pay the current wages in the respective trades. He understood the Government had recently let a contract to a very efficient firm, so far as work was concerned, for the repair of Government buildings during the next three or four years. What he gathered from the terms of the contract was that the firm had undertaken to do the work at a scheduled price, at so much per hour. Now, the scheduled price mentioned was but little over the wage that should be paid to the workman himself, and the contractor undertook to take a given amount per cent off the contract price. That being so, it was evident that the percentage below the ordinary scheduled price must come out of the wages of the workpeople. To give an example, let him take the case of the trade with which he was closely acquainted. He noticed there was an item of £1,000 for the repair of the stonework of the Houses of Parliament; and he presumed that the contractor contracted to do the work, say at 10d. per hour, and that he gave so much percentage off for the privilege of having the work. The result of all this must be that the stonemasons employed about the building in repairing would receive ½d. or 1d. less per hour than they would if employed by private firms on other work. The charge he (Mr. Broadhurst) and his hon. Friends made was that by this system the Government was in reality a party to the "sweating" process, because they let their work at prices and under conditions which made it impossible for a contractor to pay the proper wage, and observe the proper rules of the respective trades. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) had said that it was the most economical plan for the Government to let work to contractors. That might be so, and might be a means, of relieving the Office of Works of a certain amount of labour and of some anxiety; but there was no good and sufficient reason, either from an economical point of view or from any other point of view, why the Government should not do its own work in the matter of repairs. He noticed there was an item for the Clerk of the Works' wages. There was a Clerk of the Works attached to the Office of Works; such a man was the general supervisor of the Government works, and all that was required was the engagement of a foreman practically acquainted with the respective branches of repairs to be done, who would purchase the material wanted, and then the Government could pay the current wages to the workpeople. Some little labour would be entailed upon the Office of Works, but there was no real difficulty in the matter. The Government were charged with the expenditure of the people's money, and they ought not, when engaging people to do a work, to be parties to a system which resulted in the reduction of the wages of many skilled artizans engaged in the different branches of the work to the extent of 1d. or 1½d. per hour. This was the point he was sure his hon. Friend (Mr. Cremer) was wishing to enforce, and it was a point which would be complained of so long as work on Government buildings was compelled to be done at a less wage than was paid in the trade generally.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said, that, no doubt, there was much in what his hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) had just said; but he did not think the hon. Gentleman had quite caught the point raised by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Cremer). The real point was that the Clerk of the Works engaged a certain number of men employed about the House; but, instead of engaging all the men, he obtained a few through a contractor. He (Mr. Labouchere) did not complain of the contractor; the contractor naturally took something for his labour, and this came out of the wages of the men. The men had spoken to him (Mr. Labouchere) upon this subject, and therefore he was able to speak definitely as to the complaint which was made. It was not a very important point to anybody except the men themselves; but they undoubtedly felt the grievance very keenly. It certainly was only reasonable that the Clerk of the Works should engage all the men employed, and that was the point which his hon. Friend (Mr. Cremer) wished to raise.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET) (Dublin University)

said, he was afraid he could not add much to the argument he had already submitted to the Committee; but he must point out that the remarks of the hon Gentleman the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) went to the root of competition. The Government were satisfied that it would be far more expensive for them to do the work themselves. For instance, directly they did so they would have applications for sick leave and for pensions which would assuredly be made under such circumstances. Being satisfied that that would be a much more expensive way of doing the work than employing a contractor, he repeated that they had no option but to put up the contract to competition. Having satisfied themselves, as they had done, that the firm who obtained the contract was respectable and solvent they must leave the firm to deal with its own employés. It was quite true that some men were employed directly by the Office of Works for special services; but that employment was restricted as far as possible, because they were satisfied that it was a cheaper, and a more economical, and a better way to have work done by contractors. They would regret exceedingly if the contractor took any advantage of his workmen and screwed down their wages improperly; but, as he had already said, they could only take precautions against such a condition of things by making contracts with respectable firms. Beyond that he was afraid they could not go. If there were any unfair conditions in the employment the question must be settled between the contractor and the people employed.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University)

said, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) had even now answered the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Cremer). He was much surprised at the remark of the hon. Member for Nottingham, and thought there was no doubt that work could be done much more cheaply by contract than by the Government; but that was not the question raised by the hon. Gentleman. He (Sir John Lubbock) did not wish to press for a further answer now; but if the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to give it, perhaps he would undertake to look into the matter, and go further into it when the question came again before the House.

MR. CREMER

said, he was afraid that he could not accept such a vague promise as satisfactory, because something more than a hint was given last year that this matter would be enquired into; and, if he was rightly informed, the contract had been renewed since last year. He did not complain of the contractor. It was very natural the contractor should seek to recoup himself by making reductions in the wages; but what he did was to blame the Govern- meat for allowing the system to continue. The tendency of the age was to get rid of middlemen, and to prevent working men having deductions made from their wages, and yet they had the Government countenancing the very system which had been condemned almost universally, not only among the working classes of this country, but of every other country. If there was any advantage in the employment of a contractor the system should be adopted all round. He did not see why they should have any men employed upon this or any other Government building who were engaged through contractors. Why should the principle be confined to the poorer class of working men; why should it not extend to the wealthier office holders? He should continue to enter his protest against the present state of things, and as the only effectual way of doing so was to move a reduction he was afraid he must persist in his Motion.

MR. PLUNKET

apologized for not having quite caught the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. He did not think that the question was raised in the same way last year as now; but certainly he would undertake to inquire into the matter and see how it really stood, and if there was any injustice to have it put right.

MR. CREMER

said, he had such faith in the right hon. Gentleman's sense of justice that he would accept the pledge given to the Committee and withdraw his Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. PLUNKET

said, that before the Amendment was proposed certain questions were asked him by hon. Members which he desired to reply to as briefly as he could. In the first place, the old argument was glanced at as to the propriety of what was called the restoration of Westminster Hall. As to the new buildings which had been built outside Westminster Hall in place of the Law Courts, if he were disposed to shelter himself behind the authority of Parliament, he might say that the work had been done as the result of the Report of a very strong Committee which sat in 1885; and the Report of that Committee, after being criticized as all matters of Art were liable to be criticized, was finally approved by the House. He was asked how soon they were to know the worst. There was no worst about it. He was very glad to know that hon. Members would very soon know the best of it, because by the end of this or the beginning of next year the work would be completed. Speaking for himself and for persons of authority whom he had been able to consult, he should say that the result would exceed the expectations of those who were in favour of the plans which had been carried out. He believed that the buildings would be a very stately and handsome addition to Westminster Hall. He believed they would be thoroughly in character with the old Hall, and that they would, as a work of Art, be considered on all hands to be a great success and triumph. He might mention one interesting circumstance as illustrating the fidelity with which Mr. Pearson had endeavoured to restore the Hall and its surroundings to what existed formerly. The staircase by which it was proposed that access should be given to the new buildings from Westminster Hall was greatly criticized some time ago, and Questions were asked of him in the House as to whether the Government were going to consent to such a disfigurement of the old Hall? The answer he then gave was that it was only proposed to reinstate a staircase which it was believed had existed in the old Hall. When the workmen in the course of their labours proceeded to break the hole through the wall to make the access from the Hall to the new buildings, they absolutely found the opening for a staircase which had been filled up. He believed that a great deal of other criticisms urged against Mr. Pearson's plan would fall to the ground as it had done in this particular instance. He was asked some practical questions. For instance, he was asked whether there would be a Committee Room or anything worth having at all? As a matter of fact, there would be an extremely handsome room there, a very large room and one capable of accommodating a Grand Committee. He had not measured it; but he believed it would be as large as any room now employed for the purposes of Grand Committees. He was sure that when the work was complete it would be found not only architecturally a great success, but would add a large and valuable space to their overcrowded premises. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) had questioned him about the frescoes. He was afraid that some of the frescoes were unfortunately gone past redemption; but he had asked an officer of his Department to go very carefully into the matter, and see what was still capable of being preserved, and to estimate the expense of the preservation if it was possible. Then came the most vexed of all questions, that of additional accommodation for smokers. It was one with which he personally felt great sympathy; but he could only say, in answer to his right hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr Cavendish Bentinck), that the proposal he had made came to him for the first time. As he understood the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, it was that glass should be placed over the Cloisters outside, or rather in the square along the sides of which the Members' Cloak Room runs. He (Mr. Plunket) would find out what the expense would be, and he would also sound the opinion of the House generally upon the subject; but he was inclined to think that, besides being very expensive, judging from the glass covering which had been put up in the Members' Courtyard, it would hardly be satisfactory unless they covered in the whole Courtyard referred to by the right hon. Member with glass. The hon. Member for Mid Northamptonshire (Mr. C. R. Spencer) had spoken about the opening of the windows so as to avoid the draughts which sometimes descended upon Members, especially those who sat upon the Front Benches. The system of ventilation in the House was an artificial one; in hot weather cold air was sent from underneath the floor. In hot weather it was, first of all, passed over blocks of ice in the regions below; and if Members would have a little faith, and if the windows were allowed to remain shut altogether, the House would be found much cooler than if they were open. He had, however, asked for a report from the gentleman charged with the ventilation of the House.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he thought there was a great deal too much artificial air in the House. Certainly God's air was preferable to the air artificially created. As to the alterations in Westminster Hall, there was no use in crying over spilt milk; the money voted was gone. He was glad, however, to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that, even if the architecture was defective, they were to have one Committee Room. He could not help thinking that the site ought to have been used for the creation of a number of large Committee Rooms; in which case they might have had the physical or material means of dividing the House, and Westminster Hall itself might have been turned to great account. Situated, as it would have been then, between the House of Commons and the Committee Rooms, Westminster Hall might very properly have been regarded as a centre of the political life of the nation.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) that the facilities for smoking in the House of Commons were quite inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that they should have an additional Smoking Room below. By all means let them have it, but also let them have a fair and reasonable Smoking Room on this floor. That certainly they had not got at the present moment. The Committee would remember that originally they had a Smoking Room which was still used for Members and Strangers down below. They thought it would be desirable to have one nearer to this Chamber, and it was proposed that they should be given the Tea Room. The Tea Room would have been given up to smoking had it not been for the late Mr. Beresford Hope, who objected to the conversion. That right hon. Gentleman said he sometimes went into the Reading Room, and there was such respect for him that a good deal of attention was paid to his objection, and it was agreed that the Tea Room should not be touched. Last Session, however, a second Smoking Room was obtained from the House of Lords. The House of Lords did not use the room, and, with a spirit which he could only respectfully qualify as a "dog in the manger" spirit, the House of Lords had deprived them of the room in question, and now they were driven back to the temporary room which was given to them while some other arrangement was made. This, he thought, ought to be taken into consideration by the right hon. Gentle- man the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket). Either they ought to have the Tea Room, which was a very large room, and the tea people sent to the present Smoking Room, or same other arrangement should be made. He did not care where the room was got, but in time a crushed worm would turn. It was recognized that in every public assembly smokers had their rights. He could assure the Chairman that if they had proper Smoking Room accommodation it would lead very much to the peace and quiet of the House. There were a great many Members who felt soothed if, during a debate, they could indulge in tobacco smoking; he (Mr. Labouchere) always returned to the House in a calmer and more agreeable spirit after a cigar, and he was sure there were a great many Members in the same position as himself. He believed that if they had really good Smoking Rooms attached to the building the debates would be so much shortened that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) would hardly ever have to move the Closure. Was it not perfectly preposterous that they should go on year after year spending money in tinkering up this Assembly, and yet that there should be only room for about one-third of the Members? It had been suggested that there should be a new Chamber; Committees had sat upon the subject. He had looked over the Reports of the Committees; but he had not found that any single architect had ever suggested a plan by which every Member should have a seat on the floor of the House. The House had changed very much of late years; Members attended to the Business far more than they formerly did, and now that the hours were shortened they would attend even more regularly. At present, when there was a great debate expected, there was great hurrying and scurrying on the part of private Members to obtain seats. Private Members got no sympathy whatever from the occupants of either of the Front Benches. Those Gentlemen had their seats reserved for them; they did not come down to prayers. He had to come down to prayers every day. It might be said that it was a good thing to pray; but none of the Ministers and ex-Ministers ever thought of attending prayers. [Mr. MUNDELLA: Oh, oh!] He did not think there was a single Member of either of the Front Benches who attended prayers. [Mr. MUNDELLA: Oh, oh!] The right hon. Gentleman evidently did pray, but he was the only Member of the Front Bench who did. No Ministers ever came down to prayers. [Mr. MUNDELIA: Yes; they do.] As a matter of fact, how many times in the course of the Session did the right hon. Gentleman himself come down to pray? He had not had the advantage of praying with the right hon. Gentleman. He appealed to any private Member of the House whether it was not a fact that during prayers the two Front Benches were entirely empty? He only said that to prove that Members were obliged to come down to prayers solely in order to obtain a seat. At present the House met at 3 o'clock, an hour earlier than formerly; many Members were engaged in business, and often, if they knew they would be able to get a seat, they would not come down, say, till half-past 4, when Business would be practically under weigh. The obligation imposed upon a Member to come down at 3 o'clock greatly encroached upon his business day. With all respect to the architects, he asserted that there was nothing easier than to make a Chamber, not much larger than the present Chamber, which would give a place to everyone. Architects were the bane of business assemblies. He admired the late Mr. Ayrton for many things; but he admired his Post Office more than anything else. When he built the Post Office, he called together a number of architects and other people, men of science and of æsthetic tastes, and he said—"You have Greek architecture, and Roman architecture, and Gothic architecture; but this is neither Greek, nor Roman, nor Gothic—this is the Post Office, and this is Post Office architecture." If they could only get House of Commons' architecture applied to the House, he (Mr. Labouchere) was certain that, without making the House very much larger, without destroying its acoustic properties, they could make it sufficiently large to give every Member a seat. He asked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) whether he was prepared to agree to a Committee to look into the matter? The question was one which concerned a great number of Members, and they were anxious to have the matter discussed, and know clearly and definitely, firstly, whether it was possible to make a House, as he asserted, not very much larger than the present one, capable of accommodating all the Members; and, secondly, whether it would be possible to do this without very much expenditure?

MR. PLUNKET

said, that he should be very glad to promote, as far as he could, the comfort of the smokers. It must be borne in mind, however, that the Committee Room which they had last year did not belong to the House of Commons at all, but to the House of Lords. It was clearly understood last year that the Committee Room was only a loan to them; the House of Lords very willingly gave them the use of the room, because it was not wanted for Committee purposes. The use of the room by smokers depended very much on the state of the Committee Business of the House of Lords, and he would make inquiries whether it was possible to have the advantage of the Committee Room again as a Smoking Room.

MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)

Has it ever been used as a Committee Room?

MR. PLUNKET

said, it had been so used ordinarily; it would be quite impossible for the Committee Business of the House of Lords to be carried on without the room being in almost constant employment; but last year there was not much Business for the Committees of the House of Lords, and they were able to let the House of Commons have the use of the room. He would renew the application for the room this year, and he was quite sure the House of Lords would meet them fairly in the matter. As to the reconstruction of the Chamber in which they sat, he certainly could not give the pledge the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) asked for. He did not wish to prejudice the hon. Gentleman's proposal by expressing an opinion adverse to it; but the proposal ought to be made after Notice, and to be decided by a full House. It was a very serious proposal, and would involve the expenditure of a considerable sum of money. Still, he did not desire to prejudge the question at all. If the hon. Member would place it on the Notice Paper, the whole matter might be thoroughly discussed.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

said, that an hon. Friend had assured him that the House could be made equal to all the demands upon it by such a small change as moving it back 20 feet on the Ministerial side. There was no doubt that the present state of affairs was very inconvenient. A good many business men found it impossible to be down at 3 o'clock in the day, and it was rather absurd to bring men down at such an early hour merely for the purpose of obtaining a seat. He desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) what had been done in regard to the matter to which he called attention some time ago—the matter of intercommunication between different parts of the House? He had often pointed out the extraordinary fact that one could learn in an office in Fleet Street more of what was going on in the House of Commons than he could in the Smoking Room, or in the Library of the House itself. If one was in the Smoking Room, a place which he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) rarely frequented, he was absolutely ignorant as to what was going on in the House; but if he were in The Times or The Standard office in the City, he could, by putting his ear to the telephone, know what was going on in the House. There were many ways by which that state of things could be remedied. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) gave an undertaking some time ago that he would look into the matter, and had since led them to believe that he had succeeded in devising a plan. If he had, the result had not been seen. Could there be any arrangement made by which the telephone would be a little more accessible to Members than it was at present? He could not see why the telephone should not be brought up to someplace in the Lobby, instead of being located opposite the Cloak Room. There was another point he desired to raise, and it was with reference to the accommodation of the Press in the House. At present, if a new newspaper was started it was impossible for its representative either to find a place in the Reporters' Gallery or to gain admission to the Lobby. Everybody know that the public took a great deal of interest in the affairs of the House of Commons, which, to a certain extent, was the nerve centre of all political affairs in the country. The present system was this—that one could not now get into the Reporters' Gallery because it was full, and he could not get into the Lobby because he could not get into the Reporters' Gallery. No one was allowed to have a ticket for the Lobby who had not a ticket for the Reporters' Gallery. On a previous occasion he had mentioned the case of The Scottish Leader, but he believed that that had been remedied since. The Scottish Leader wanted to get a place in the Gallery, but the paper was told that the Gallery was full. Then the paper said—"Will you let our representative into the Lobby in order that he may be able to confer with Scottish Members?" The reply given was that the representative of The Scottish Leader could not get admission into the Lobby for the reason that no one was allowed in the Lobby who had not a ticket for the Reporters' Gallery. That newspaper was placed at a considerable disadvantage as compared with other newspapers by such a regulation. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make representations to the proper quarters in order to have that state of things remedied. The Reporters' Gallery was far too small, and ought to be enlarged as well as the House itself. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had not decidedly negatived the proposal of the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); because it really did seem almost too grotesque that, year after year, they should all agree that the House was too small for the accommodation of its Members, and yet that they should do nothing to remedy the evil. That was the one Legislative Assembly in the world that had not accommodation for all its Members. If they went to the House of Representatives at Washington they found that every Member had his own desk; the seats were given out at the beginning of the year, and were allotted by ballot. The some thing occurred in the State Legislatures of every American State; even in the small State of Connecticut the same state of things prevailed in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. He was bound to say he would not like to see the American plan adopted here, because the provision of desks enabling Members to write was destruc- tive of proper attention to the Business of the House. He thought that in some respects they had an ideal system here in having Members seated beside each other with no place to put their papers, and no place at which to write. But between that and having seat accommodation for every Member of the House there was a very great difference. He had often said that he did not know any place in the world where the means of communication between the different parts were so bad as they were in the House of Commons. Formerly, if a Member wanted to go to the Ladies' Gallery he was allowed to do so by the door at the back of the House. That, however, had now been done away with. He presumed that the Whips complained that Members were able to escape their vigilant eye by means of the back door; but if there was no objection now on time part of the Whips, he thought it would be advantageous to revert to the old plan, because one could then got to the Ladies' Gallery in about half the time he now could.

MR. ADDISON (Ashton-under-Lyne)

said, he did not think that Members were agreed that the House was too small. On the contrary, as far as experience went, the House was a very convenient size for the transaction of its ordinary Business. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. O'Connor) had alluded to other Legislative Assemblies. He (Mr. Addison) was acquainted with the French Legislative Assembly. There every Member had a seat and a desk, and, besides that, there was a tribune which a Member must mount who desired to make a speech. The experience of such Assemblies would make one very sorry to introduce such a system here. First of all, they must recollect that they did Business in the House of Commons, and that in most of the Assemblies in which desks were provided the Business was done in Bureaus or in Committees. There would be this great inconvenience attached to every Member having his own place—a Member would have the same place throughout the entire Session; one would always be next to the same Member, and, instead of having the elasticity and the social feeling which at present prevailed, they would have a Member always sitting next to another Member whose company he might not always prefer. There would be a tendency to break up the House into cliques and sections, and to do away with that freedom and comfort which, so far as his observation went, they enjoyed at present in the House of Commons. He did not think that any individual Member had ever suffered any serious inconvenience from the arrangements as at present. Then it was suggested that the means of intercommunication between the different parts of the House should be increased. That, he thought, would lead to serious inconvenience; Members who now wanted to know what was going on had the advantage of coming to the House and listening to the discussions. They all knew that what they heard had more effect upon them than what they read. If from time to time Members could learn what was transpiring, they would not come into the House at all, and that would not be as convenient as the present system. No doubt, it was very proper that if Members were in Pall Mall or in Fleet Street they should be able to know what was going on in the House; but it was very different if a Member was in the Lobby or the Library. It would be much more pleasant, and even convenient, for a Member to come in and listen to the living voice than to read a summary of a speech.

DR. FARQUHARSON

said, he thought it was very important that every Member should have a seat, but it was of equal importance that every Member should have a looker. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, if he could not make arrangements by which each Member should have a locker?

MR. PLUNKET

said, that not long ago a considerable addition had been made to the number of lockers, and he was not aware that any further demand had been made for them. The complaint of the hon. Member came to him for the first time. With regard to the matter of intercommunication, it was quite true, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) said, that the question was raised last year, and that he (Mr. Plunket) undertook to go into it. He had done so, and he had devised a plan by which an additional amount of information could be given to those outside the House who were desirous of knowing what was going on. What he suggested was an arrangement which would announce who was the last speaker, and that by some signal there should be an intimation when there had been a change. There was, however, some difference of opinion as to the desirability of establishing such communication, and until there was a decided balance of opinion in favour he was afraid it would be difficult for him to secure the sanction of the Treasury to the adoption of the plan he had devised. The proposal to have the telephone in some more convenient part of the House was suggested also for the first time, and he should not like to express any opinion on the subject until he had had an opportunity of considering the matter. He assured the hon. Gentleman that he had done all he could to promote the convenience of the members of the Press so far as the limited space of the House would allow. Not long ago the Gallery had been considerably extended, and any further extension of it would certainly infringe on the limited space at the disposal of Members. While the House remained as at present, he feared it would not be possible to hold out any hope of extended accommodation, which he would very gladly offer if he could.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he saw the difficulty in which the right hon. Gentleman was placed, and he did not wish to be unreasonable. He thought, however, the right hon. Gentleman might reconsider the question of admission to the Lobby, if that were in his Department. [Mr. PLUNKET dissented.] If that was not in the right hon. Gentleman's Department, he would not press the matter now. With regard to the question of intercommunication, he thought it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of providing one of the Exchange Telegraph instruments. They cost £7 or £8 a-year, and, as a tentative arrangement, one might be placed in the Smoking Room. The instruments made a certain amount of noise, not very great, that might be objected to. If it were, he certainly would not suggest its continuance. A fair summary was given of what took place almost as soon as the speaker had uttered the sentence. It was absurd that at the present moment the only means a Member had of knowing what was going on was to go to the Smoking Room, in which a summary was kept by a gentleman there of what transpired. The Exchange Company's instruments gave out a tape, and there was a fair summary, not too full, of what was going on, The right hon. Gentleman might, perhaps, be able to see his way to adopt the suggestion he had made, which would not entail any great expenditure of money.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(5.) £2,200, Gordon Monument.

(6.) £110,629, to complete the sum for Public Buildings, Great Britain.

(7.) £12,930, to complete the sum for Furniture of Public Offices, Great Britain.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, although he confessed that the amount of the Vote was not large, still it was just through such small leakages as this that the public money ran away. He did not understand upon what principle the Board of Works managed the supply of furniture to certain Departments. It appeared that some Departments were supplied from the Board of Works, and that others were supplied by the ordinary trade contractors. But he believed it would be much better for the public interest to have a uniform system which would throw all the Departments under one Office so far as the supply of furniture was concerned, and that the system should be more economically managed than was the case at the present moment. It must be plain to everyone that there was a fair opportunity, to say the least of it, for a good deal of waste in the matter of the supply of furniture under the present arrangements. He would have thought that, having regard to the large Vote every year for furniture for Public Departments, the estimated receipts would have been more than was stated. He saw that the estimated receipts for this year amounted only to £100. It was difficult to understand how so small a sum was shown, and he would like to know what became of the large quantity of furniture supplied to Public Departments, which should certainly be represented by a larger amount of receipts. Then, with regard to the question of contracts for the supply of furniture to Public Departments, his experience was that the whole system of Government contracts required to be thoroughly looked into. He had one or two plain questions to ask upon this subject. In the first place, how were these contracts given out? Were they thrown open to public competition; and, if not, were they thrown open to limited competition, and again, if that was not so, were they given without any competition at all? Then he asked whether these contracts were given out every year, and for how long contractors were appointed to supply the Public Departments; and he would also be glad to know whether it was a fact that one firm alone contracted for the furniture supplied for nearly the whole of the Public Departments? He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the Committee some information on these subjects.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK (Whitehaven)

said, that on page 23 there was a charge for the Chapter House, Westminster, including police. He asked his right hon. Friend whether or not the Government had the right to exercise any power whatever with regard to the admission of the public to the Chapter House?

THE CHAIRMAN

The observations of the right hon. Gentleman are applicable to Vote 6, and not to the present Vote.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET) (Dublin University)

said, with regard to the question of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) as to the small amount of the receipts for old furniture, that the reason why the amount was so small was because the practice was to employ workmen to repair damaged furniture as long as it was worth anything at all. When, therefore, the final repairs were made the furniture was practically of little use to anyone, and the value which was obtained and shown in the receipts was as much as the furniture was then worth. With regard to the contracts, these were made for three years at a time, because in that way the Department was able to make better terms with the contractors. The contracts were open to competition, but, up to the present time, to limited competition, because it had been found by experience that those persons who made the lowest tender did not always supply the best furniture, which was, of course, a very important consideration. The Department exercised a certain discretion in inviting competition from a large number of persons; the contracts were decided by competition amongst the best firms in London, but not in such a manner as to admit of anything like a ring being formed.

MR. HANBURY

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his question as to why certain Departments were supplied by the Board of Works and others were not?

MR. PLUNKET

said, there were only two Departments which were an exception to the rule—namely, the Science and Art Department and the British Museum. The hon. Gentleman would understand that the reason why the furniture for these Departments was placed in a separate Estimate was because they might require some peculiar fittings, which were left to them to be executed in the manner considered to be most suitable. These two Departments, he believed, were the only exceptions, all the others being supplied in the way he had explained.

MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)

said, he could bear testimony to the difficulty which every Minister had in obtaining a supply of furniture from the Board of Works for his Office; and there could be no doubt whatever that it was the desire of the Department to be as economical as possible in this matter. At the same time, he was bound to say that the articles furnished, although very costly, were of a poor character; and he was afraid that the contracts were not made in the very best possible manner. The Secretary to the Treasury, and anyone acquainted with the furnishing of Public Departments, would know how much more sensible a plan it would be if contracts were made with a good manufacturing firm to supply sound and substantial articles; because there could be no doubt that there would be great economical advantage to the Public Service in having goods of the best quality. There was, for instance, an item of £3,700 for household articles, for cleaning purposes, &c.; and surely such things as these could be contracted for with the manufacturers, and something like uniformity of kind and quality obtained. He did not accuse the Department of any extravagance; on the contrary, as he had said, it was with the greatest possible difficulty that the smallest articles of furniture could be obtained from the Board of Works, and when they were obtained they were of such a quality that no private person would purchase with a view to economy. He thought that much good might be done if the Government invited tenders from manufacturers, and took steps to insure that the articles supplied were of first-class make.

MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

said, he would like to know what steps were taken to insure the bonâ fide nature of the contracts? He asked whether, when furniture was required, advertisements were inserted in the public Press inviting furnishing houses to send in tenders, and on what principle those tenders were entertained by the Board of Works—that was to say, whether it was the rule in the Office invariably to accept the lowest tender? The right hon. Gentleman had stated that every effort was made to prevent a ring being formed. He had no doubt that steps of that kind were taken in the Office; but he would point out that, unless the tender was an open one, it would be very difficult to prevent the formation of the rings to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, because under the present system two or three or more houses could very easily form themselves into a ring without the knowledge of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the fact that the Government had their own workshops in which men were employed in repairing furniture. That was the first time this circumstance had come to his knowledge, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman where the workshops were situated, and also what was the number of men engaged in them? He also asked whether the men were engaged by the Department, or were supplied by a contractor, as was done in the case of the Houses of Parliament? If the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to supply this information he believed that the Committee, as well as the taxpayers outside, would be grateful.

MR. ADDISON (Ashton-under-Lyne)

said, he thought the Government would behave in an unbusiness like spirit if they were to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella). This Vote, although a small one, involved a very important principle, and he submitted that the adoption of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would cause great discontent among the traders and dealers of the Metropolis who had to pay heavy rates. He believed that it would not be considered a fair act on the part of any Government who from an economical point of view went behind the backs of these traders and dealt directly with the manufacturers. However much they might desire economy in that House, he hoped the Government would deal with those houses who had a business reputation, and not pass them by in the manner which the right hon. Gentleman had suggested. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Cremer) it would be surely inconvenient if these tenders were open to every trader in the Metropolis, because there would be so many competitors, and amongst them would be a number who had not any standing in the trade and who might be tempted to offer to supply at a low price goods that would turn out to be of very inferior quality. Probably, in no case was quality the test of economy more than in that of the purchase of furniture. Surely the fair course to adopt was what the right hon. Gentleman had explained to be the practice in his Department—namely, to select those retail houses who had a position in the trade for the purpose of these competitions, and certainly he protested against the unbusinesslike—he would not say shabby—suggestion that the Government should pass by traders in the Metropolis who paid large sums in rates and taxes.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he was afraid that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was not very well acquainted with the method of business adopted by the Government, when he recommended that they should go to retail shops; because as a matter of fact every Spending Department of the Government went to the best market for the best article they could obtain, and they had nothing whatever to do with the question whether the contractors paid rates and taxes. The hon. Gentleman might as well recommend the Clothing Department of the Army to buy their cloth in Piccadilly, or recommend the War Office to buy their steel of private persons rather than in the Sheffield Market. It was the duty of the Government to buy their goods on the best terms wherever they could obtain them, and they had no right to take any other course.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said, he was somewhat surprised that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Addison), who had not even the excuse of being a Metropolitan Member, should recommend them to buy their carpets from dealers in order to make business for the traders in London. That, however, was not the principle on which the House of Commons acted. The correct course was to go into the market, invite tenders, select those which offer the best price and quality, and then if the goods were equal to the sample accept them, and refuse them if they were not so. He protested against this monstrous theory of going to the London traders and pay extra because otherwise they would be offended. The House of Commons did not care one farthing whether they were offended or not.

MR. HANBURY

said, he hoped that the Government would be able to say that they carried out the rule of dealing only with manufacturers, and not with retail firms, because, as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had pointed out, this in the first place insured that the goods would be a great deal better, and in the next place a great deal cheaper. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) had told the Committee that these contracts were open only to limited competition. He (Mr. Hanbury) thought that the House should be very chary in listening to any Minister who said that Government contracts were dealt with on that principle. He was sure that a great deal of favouritism was shown in every Government Department by the system of limited contracts, and he contended that they should be thrown open to public competition, and that the public should know more about them than they did at the present moment. Under that system it would be perfectly practicable to check undue competition. Under the system of limited competition it was impossible to know who were the contractors on the list, and it was quite probable that some firms never sent into the Government Departments any contract at all. He maintained that the whole system of contracts in these Departments required to be thoroughly looked into, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that the limited competition system would be put an end to, and the whole business thrown open to public competition, just as in the case of private contracts.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

said, he noticed an item in the Vote for furniture for the Glasgow Cathedral. The amount was very small; but he should like to know on what principle the House was called upon to find any money and furniture for Glasgow Cathedral? He observed that there were also some small sums for the supply of furniture to the Scotch Universities. It would be interesting to know whether the Government considered themselves bound to supply furniture to the Scotch Universities, and whether these small supplies of furniture were provided under the general contract?

MR. PLUNKET

said, these contracts were arranged with the greatest care, and there was not the slightest ground for suspicion of favouritism in regard to them.

MR. MUNDELLA

pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the question of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen as to the ground on which the Scotch Universities got furniture from the Office of Works?

MR. PLUNKET

said, that there was a thing once happened in Scotland called the extinction of teinds. He had never himself been able to discover what teinds were when they existed, or why they were extinguished; but it was a Constitutional principle that this entitled Scotland to somewhat more liberal treatment, and he supposed these sums, which were not excessive, were allowed on that ground.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

said, it would be interesting to know who were the persons that constituted the small number that received preference in the matter of contracts, and the grounds on which that preference was given.

MR. PLUNKET

said, that he had not stated that a small number of firms were on the list, but that, on the contrary, the competition took place between a large number. There was no basis whatever for the superstructure of suspicion which had been raised upon this Vote. He could assure the Committee that the Department took every pains to get the business done cheaply and well. It was impossible, however, that, if a new table or chair was wanted, the whole trade should be invited to send in contracts. Small things of that kind were done by certain well-known firms whom the Department found by experience to give good value. When large quantities were wanted which could be contracted for as a whole, then tenders were invited, but not from a few firms. The Department exercised every supervision and restraint of undue expenditure. With regard to the workshops for repairing furniture, besides those in that House there were workshops at Somerset House, Scotland Yard, and the Law Courts, employing 16 or 17 men.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

said, the Committee had every reason to be thankful to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) for raising this discussion, and he must say that the speech of the First Commissioner of Works in his opinion rather tended to confirm than rebut the complaint put forward by the hon. Member. He would cast no reflection on the right hon. Gentleman, who he was ready to admit was the very best man for the position, but at the same time the right hon. Gentleman must necessarily be very much in the bands of his advisers in a matter of this kind. He thought the right hon. Gentleman should give them a list of the firms who were favoured with these contracts, as the hon. Member for Preston had pointed out the more fact of being a Government contractor was one of the finest advertisements possible for persons in trade, and although the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) shook his head at that statement, it was clear that the matter was regarded in that light by the traders, who advertized the fact that they were Government contractors. There could be no doubt that an announcement of that kind was a valuable one in respect of any business—equal to 10 per cent at least. He believed that the person who supplied tea to the House of Commons advertized that fact to the world, and he was quite sure that an accession of trade would result from it. It was the basis of the whole matter that by giving a contract for supplying Public Departments they conferred upon the firm who received it the most valuable consideration. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if they had unlimited competition a large number of small traders would tender, but he would point out that the goods supplied by small traders were quite as good, and sometimes a great deal better, than those supplied by large traders. Some firms only traded upon their names, and supplied goods at a much higher price than they could be purchased for at smaller places of business. The right hon. Gentleman had said that although there was no open competition, a certain number of selected firms were allowed to tender. He believed the right hon. Gentleman said the number was considerable, but he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) said that it should be universal, and, although the right hon. Gentleman had stated that by that system they might get bad furniture, yet he did not believe there was a manufacturing firm in the world who would be absolutely so foolish as to forfeit their chance of supplying Government Offices by sending in bad goods; but even if that should be the case, those who did so could be at once dismissed. He thought this matter ought to be probed to the bottom, as the Government in this and other Departments were acting on a false system, the evils of which, in his opinion, could only be remedied by adopting the principle of open competition.

MR. CREMER

said, the First Commissioner of Works had not stated how the firms were selected.

MR. PLUNKET

said, although there was a limitation, yet all firms of a proper standing who applied were of course placed upon the list, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman there was no favouritism whatever in the matter. He would look again through the list, and see if it would be to the advantage of the Public Service to extend it.

MR. MUNDELLA

pointed out that in addition to the £16,000 included in the Vote then under consideration, there was in the Estimates, as shown by a foot-note, another sum of £32,000 for furniture of different Departments, making a total of nearly £50,000 altogether for Government Offices under contract with the Board of Works. This item was a largo one, and would represent an amount of furniture that ought to be obtained from the manufacturers on the best possible terms.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

said, he did not wish it to go forth to the public that £50,000 a-year was expended upon furniture in the limited sense in which the word "furniture" was used generally. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield would look at the foot-note to which he had referred, he would find an item of £9,500 for the British Museum. That sum was not for furniture in the ordinary sense of chairs and tables, and the like, but included fittings, cases, and similar things required for exhibiting the objects in the museum. Again, in connection with the Postal and Telegraphs Offices there was an item of £6,130, which was also for fittings. Supposing a new office to be taken, a certain sum of money had necessarily to be spent for providing fittings, counters, and other requisites for preparing the office for the staff and for the work to be carried on there. Included in these items were the necessary cost of cleaning, repairing, and taking care of all the furniture supplied. He was not finding fault with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but merely rose for the purpose of enabling the public to understand that the term "furniture" was not in these Estimates used in the ordinary sense.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the item was not entirely composed of what was generally understood by the term "household furniture." But, nevertheless, in the case of the Post Office, for instance, the charge went on year after year, and he was businessman enough to know that the articles might with very considerable advantage be contracted for year by year from the best firms in the wholesale trade. There was no doubt the vote for the British Museum was mainly for cases, but he remembered a time in the history of the Museum when it was proposed to buy cases at £150 each, which were afterwards supplied at £50.

MR. A. SUTHERLAND (Sutherland)

said, he saw no reason why contracts for the supply of furniture should be confined to London traders. The taxpayers of the country were not Londoners alone, and he did not see why any profit which might be made by the supplying of furniture to Government Offices should not be distributed among country traders. The right hon. Gentleman had not yet answered the question as to how many firms were invited to tender. The question was a very pertinent one, and the Committee would be glad to have some information upon it.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he thought the Committee ought to have the names of those firms. He could not understand whether the Secretary to the Treasury was ashamed of the firms or whether the firms themselves were ashamed to let it be known that they supplied goods to the public. He would point out that there were two sorts of firms—one which gave long credit and charged high prices, the other which dealt for ready money and doing a business on a very large scale and giving good value. He could not see that there was any valid reason why the names of those firms should not be known.

MR. PLUNKET

said, he was not at all unwilling to give the Committee the names of the firms, but he did not carry them in his mind. With regard to the tendering by Provincial firms, he might say that the furniture was supplied as far as possible by firms in the locality in which it was required—that furniture required in London was competed for in London, and that which was required in the country was competed for among firms in the Provinces.

MR. CREMER

said, that some of the items in this Vote appeared to be old friends in new clothes. He especially asked for information with regard to the item of £3,700 for cleaning, which appeared to him to be extravagant as well as indefinite. He asked what were the articles for which this cleaning was charged!

MR. PLUNKET

said, it was impossible for him to describe, or to give the hon. Gentleman the particulars of all the articles required, which consisted of brooms and other implements.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, there appeared to be every probability of this discussion ending in air. He would appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury, who was a business man, as to whether, in his own business, he made out a list of firms from amongst whom alone he invited competition? He ventured to say that there was no business in the world regulated on such a principle. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had said that his suspicions were unjust, but he would tell the right hon. Gentleman that in business there was only one sound principle, and that was to mistrust everyone, unless you had a system which made dishonesty absolutely impossible. He thought the right hon. Gentleman should give the Committee an assurance that the whole question of confining contracts to a certain number of firms should be reconsidered, and that the Treasury should also consider whether they were bound by contracts entered into under the present system.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

said, he had not the slightest hesitation in saying that it was the duty of the Government to see that the supplies obtained for the Public Service were good, and that they were obtained as cheaply as possible. With regard to the undertaking asked for by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), he had no objection whatever to saying that he would confer with his right hon. Friend at the head of the Department, in order to see whether it was possible to improve the system which now existed with regard to the supply of furniture.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly satisfactory. There was only one small point that he had now to refer to in connection with this Vote, and he asked the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury on what principle the advertisements inviting tenders were distributed.

THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AKERSDOUGLAS) (Kent, St. Augustine's)

said, that a list was prepared of certain newspapers in which Government advertisements were inserted, inviting tenders for the supply of articles to certain Offices. He should, on Notice of the Question, be glad to give the matter further attention. The subject was now under consideration, and it was quite possible that the other Offices would be made responsible for advertisements inserted relating to supplies for those Offices.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, that a question was recently raised in the House of Commons with regard to the manner in which advertisements were distributed in Ireland. On that occasion a Circular was produced, which made a distinction in the matter of distribution of advertisements as between journals which were favourable and journals which were unfavourable to the existing Government. He now asked whether the distribution of advertisements in England was entirely free from anything of that sort?

MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS

said, the one desire of the Treasury was to get newspapers most suited for the class of advertisements intended to be inserted, due regard being paid to the amount of their circulation.

MR. LABOUCHERE

asked if the list ever changed?

MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS

said, he was not able to answer that question without Notice. The list which he found in the Office had been revised from time to time.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he wished to say a word or two on this question.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed oat that the discussion was taking a very wide range.

Vote agreed to.

(8.) £203,514, to complete the sum for Revenue Department Buildings, Great Britain.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said, this Vote was one for public buildings, and it contained a vast expenditure for post offices all over the country. Now, he thought it a very questionable thing whether the system commenced by Mr. Fawcett of building these post offices all over the country was the right one. He (Mr. Labouchere) went into a small country town, and he found there a splendid building, far in excess of what they would think the requirements of the place demanded, with the words "Post Office" stuck up over it. Before these buildings were erected the accommodation required by the post office was obtained in houses, which were hired. He should think by enlarging such places to meet the growing requirements of the post office, even with the now parcels post, in country towns sufficient accommodation could be procured, and the country would be saved the expense of these large new buildings. It used to be said that fools built houses for wise men to live in them, and it seemed to him that that time had come again. They know that rents had gone down in almost every country town, and also in London; and it seemed to him that it would be far better for the Government to give up as far as they possibly could this system of building their post offices, and to adopt the system of renting in these country towns one of the very many buildings which were to be found to let. There was another point to which he desired to call attention. He found that in one town they frequently saw a post office much larger and infinitely better than the post office in another town of similar size, and he also found frequently in towns of the same size that a district post office in one place was a very much finer building than that in another place, although there might be exactly the same amount of work to do. He should like the Government to give some explanation on these matters. If it was thought desirable to go on building these new post offices, on what conditions were they to be built? He thought that the same principle they endeavoured to inculcate upon the Treasury upon another Vote just now should be applied in regard to these matters. Was there any contract?

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET) (Dublin University)

Yes.

MR. LABOUCHERE

There is. Then is it advertised?

MR. PLUNKET

Yes, it is.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Then is it given to the lowest tender?

MR. PLUNKET

Usually, but not always.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, if it was not given to the lowest tender, then they know how these things were done, and unless the greatest care was exercised in these matters unnecessary expenditure was incurred. Where contracts were confined to a few persons, and those persons knew that they had the whole thing in their own hands, they agreed amongst themselves not to cut each other out, and in that way a great deal of money was wasted. He did not think the Government should build these new post offices at all; but if they did he questioned whether, under the existing system, they were obtaining them with their fittings as cheaply as they might be obtained. Was there any tender invited for fittings? He did not see that furniture came under this head. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) had told them that the furniture item was a very large one for public buildings, because it included fittings; but if that were the case in the present instance, the Vote would be excessively small. Then, again, he thought that £64,500 was an enormous sum to be used for adapting Coldbath Fields Prison into a General Parcel Post Depôt. What were they going to build there; was it to be a General Parcel Post Depôt for the whole country? [Mr. PLUNKET assented.] The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works nodded, so that he might take him as answering in the affirmative. But they had a Parcel Post Depôt now, he supposed, and were able to get on without such an enormous building as would be put on the site of this prison. He did not think any part of this scheme would bear inquiry, and he should like to have replies to the various queries he had put.

MR. PLUNKET

said, that the process of producing a post office was this. When the Postmaster General was satisfied that the work of the post office in any place, whether in the Metropolis or the Provinces, had outgrown the accommodation provided in the existing building, he applied to the Office of Works in the first place, generally speaking, to know whether it was possible, by adaptation or addition to the existing building, to find the accommodation for the increased requirements of his department. Then a surveyor from the Office of Works, who was in charge of the particular district, inquired into the matter to ascertain whether it was possible as an economical step to provide the accommodation by enlarging the existing building. If he reported that that could be done, of course the existing building was enlarged. But if, on the contrary, the surveyor reported that it was not possible, and would not be an economical way of dealing with the matter to alter the existing arrangements, it was necessary to provide new premises, and the surveyor, generally speaking, prepared plans on—he must say—the most modest and unostentatious scale, which were submitted to the Office of Works, and afterwards referred to the Treasury. The result of the triangular duel which took place between the Post Office, the Office of Works, and the Treasury, was that a plan was approved, and tenders were invited from builders for carrying out the plans so approved of. That was the course usually adopted. He had no doubt that it would be far more expensive to change this method of proceeding and revert to the old plan of hiring premises. That was always a most expensive system—that of hiring the houses used for public offices. This, he thought, covered the whole ground of the hon. Member's remarks. When it was decided to erect a new building, very frequently delay occurred owing to the difficulty of obtaining a satisfactory site.

MR. LABOUCHERE

The right hon. Gentleman has made no reply as to fittings.

MR. PLUNKET

said, that a certain amount had been obtained in the Vote just passed for fittings. There was in the Vote just passed an item of £6,000 for fittings in the Post Office and Post Office Telegraph Departments, and if these fittings were in the nature of structural arrangements they would be carried out under contract. Other fittings were obtained by tender, as he had explained in connection with the last Vote.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

said, he thought it would be more convenient if they had the Postmaster General present during the consideration of a Vote of this kind. He should like to know if this system of building new post offices, instead of hiring buildings for the purpose, was now being universally adopted in this country where additional accommodation was required? Until recently retail shops had been employed as post offices in many districts, the Post Office Authorities considering that such buildings were sufficiently good for their purpose, without going to the expense of erecting new buildings. There were many towns with as large a population as 15,000 to 18,000 where the work of the post office was carried on in connection with retail shops, greatly to the detriment of comfort and efficiency. That method was one which he thought the Post Office ought to put a stop to. Then there was a great deal of extravagance in the matter of building new post offices. In the town of Birmingham, for instance, there was a Vote to be taken for the erection of a new head office there. A few years ago some £40,000 was spent in the construction of a building which was an eyesore, a squat block, one of the most ugly buildings erected in modern times. He had never seen anything surpassing it in ugliness, and he did not know anything which approached it for inconvenience. The public had to go on one side of it to obtain stamps, then to descend a steep street, very dangerous in slippery weather, to another part of the building in order to post their letters. The present Vote included £53,000 for a new head office for Birmingham. He thought a little foresight would have prevented this expenditure. Certainly, in no private concern would an expenditure of £40,000 have been incurred upon one building, and a few years later an expenditure of £53,000 be proposed for a new building to take its place. That method of spending public money ought to be checked by every possible criticism which could be brought to bear upon the Estimates in the House of Commons. That was one of the points he wished to call especial attention to. Another point was this item of £295 which it was proposed to spend on High Street, Birmingham. That, he supposed, was for the repair or alteration of some building which had either been hired or recently bought; and the item of £2,250 for Smethwick was, he presumed, for a new building?

MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)

said, that before this Vote was taken there was one point to which allusion had been made in previous years, but which came out with much greater force in the present Estimate, which he thought required some explanation, and that was the extraordinary manner in which the Estimates were made for the post offices in and around London. He would take eight different examples in this Vote. There was the proposed post office at Finsbury Park, the total expenditure upon which was to be £2,500, but £5,000 had been already voted for it, and it was not finished, only £1,100 having been spent. In this case, twice as much as the original Estimate had been already voted. Just below that item there was another for the post office at Hackney. The total cost of that office was put down in the revised Estimates at £2,100, but the amount already voted was £4,200, and only £700 had been spent. Just below that, again, there was the post office at Herne Hill, in which the amount to be expended was £1,000, but already £2,000 had been voted, and £700 spent. Below that there was the case of Leytonstone, the Estimate being £2,100, and the amount voted £4,000. Nothing had been spent up to the 31st December last. In the case of the London Bridge post office the Estimate was £12,500, and the amount voted £22,000, with £3,000 spent. In the case of Wandsworth, the total Estimate was £5,000, and the amount voted £10,000, but nothing had been spent; and in the case of Wimbledon, whilst the amount estimated was only £3,000, the amount voted was £8,700, and only £500 spent. All these cases were in one district—that was to say, the Metropolitan district, and he thought some explanation was due from the Government as to why these Votes appeared in such a shape. In each case the amount spent was twice or three times the amount originally estimated. This was not a new complaint. He (Mr. Childers) complained of it some years ago, and he had expressed a hope that a remedy would be found; but, in spite of what he had said, the evil which he had pointed out was going on worse than ever. He thought the Committee were entitled to some explanation as to what official was responsible in the matter, and whether it was not possible to put an end to this inconvenient system of voting large sums and not spending them, but applying the votes to other buildings. The system was very inconvenient both to the Treasury and to Parliament, and he thought some reason should be given for the irregularity, and a promise that it should be avoided for the future.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had overlooked one rather important explanation which appeared on the face of the Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted several instances in which he had referred to the total amount voted meaning the total amount which it was intended to spend—

MR. CHILDERS

No; I gave both the estimated cost and the actual Votes separately.

MR. JACKSON

said, that the total amount which it was intended to spend was given in the second column. The total amount voted was simply the amount of a number of Votes taken which made these large sums. The explanation was that these sums were simply sums voted and re-voted. The totals in the column in which the amount voted and re-voted were in excess not only of the original Estimate and the revised Estimate, but also of the actual cost of the work, and therefore to that extent it was somewhat misleading. It should be remembered that the gross amount that appeared in that column as voted and re-voted did not represent the actual amount spent on a particular work. The explanation of it was that at the time at which the Estimates were prepared, the Post Office had sent in a demand that they required a post office in such and such a district. As the right hon. Gentleman had truly said, this largely appeared in the London district. Well, during the last few years there had been a large extension of business, not only in the London district, but in other districts; and there had also been a large re-arrangement of business, if he might say so, and the only explanation he could give of the appearance the Vote presented was that certain post offices upon which it was expected the money would be expended in the coming financial year when the Votes were originally agreed to had not been erected. The work had been delayed for some reason or other, and the result had been that there had been several re-votes. Reference had been made to the large cost of the offices at Birmingham. Well, there was no doubt that the post office at Birmingham would prove to be an exceedingly costly business. In the first place the site had been extremely costly, and then the building would also be very costly, because the conveniences and arrangements to be made with a view to giving easy access to the railways would entail very elaborate plans. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had referred to the desirability of renting offices wherever it was practicable. He dared not appeal to the previous experience of the Chairman, but if he had been able to do so no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would have agreed that this was a subject which had been constantly agitating the minds of Financial Secretaries to the Treasury. The Post Office business was an enormously growing business. It had been largely added to during recent years by the enormous development of the parcels post work, and then, again, there was a demand which they could not complain of, on the part of the public that when they were going to build a post office in a town they should build it in the most central and most convenient place. As a rule that involved the purchase of property in a central part which was not vacant land; and very often the site that was built upon was a site with regard to which they had to pay compensation not only to the people whose houses of business they had pulled down, but also to the people whose businesses they had destroyed. He thought the Post Office could hardly resist the consideration urged upon them that the first thing to be done when a post office was erected, was the selection of the most convenient site for it. He said at once that he sympathized with the view which had been expressed by hon. Members that the expense of these buildings was growing at an enormous rate. He, however, saw no means of remedying that state of things, and he did not think the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton was a practicable one, because, in the first place, if they wanted to do their business economically, they must have a building specially prepared to suit the business they had to do, and in the next place they must have it convenient to the public, and they must have it healthy for the servants who were going to work in it. When one visited some of these post offices—as it had been his duty to do from time to time—and saw the crowded condition in which the people were working, it was quite evident that in the future the House of Commons must look to the expenditure on post office buildings as being one rather of an increasing than a decreasing character. But he could assure hon. Gentlemen that every one of these cases went through a most thorough sifting, first by the officer of the Board of Works, by whom the plans were prepared on the instruction of the Post Office, and next by the Treasury, to which the plans and estimates of the cost were submitted; and all he could say was that, struggle as they did from time to time to cut down both the cost of the sites and the buildings, one was almost inevitably forced to the conclusion that when they were dealing with public buildings, or buildings belonging to public departments which had to be used by thousands of people, they must have regard to the convenience of the public, to the permanence of the building, and the health of the persons who were going to occupy it. If they were to comply with these conditions, it was impossible to be niggardly in their expenditure. The Committee would remember that Coldbath Fields Prison had been closed as a prison. The site, therefore, became available for some other purpose. The post office requirements in London had, as he had already raid, been growing at an enormous rate. A site having been acquired, plans had been prepared for the building of a new post office at St. Martin's-le-Grand. This would be called "General Post Office North." He could not say what the cost of the building would be, because up to the present they had only acquired the site and prepared the plans; they had not got estimates for the building itself. But they had been warned for some time that a very considerable extension would be necessary for the purpose of the Parcels Post, even when the additional accommodation which was now in course of being provided had been provided. He ought to say that the building which was about to be constructed at St. Martin's-le-Grand would be largely, almost entirely, occupied for what might be termed clerical work. A very considerable portion of the parcels post work in London was carried on at the old General Post Office in St. Martin's-le-Grand, and almost entirely carried on in the basement of the building. The accommodation had become much too small for the requirements of the Post Office, and the Treasury were pressed to give sanction for the acquisition of several sites and for the provision of several buildings in different parts of London for the purpose of conducting, the Parcels Post. In addition to the buildings which the Post Office had, and which were known as ordinary post office buildings, the Post Office rented several buildings. A great deal of the accommodation which they rented was at the large railway stations in London. The suggestion was made that in view of the growing business which was coming to the Post Office by reason of the Parcels Post and by reason of the peculiarly favourable situation which Coldbath Fields Prison occupied, being in the direct route to the railway stations by which the far larger portion of the parcels work from London was done, the Government should seriously consider the question of handing over the site of Coldbath Fields Prison to the Post Office authorities for the purpose of establishing there a central depôt where most of the parcels post work of London could be done. The question was very carefully considered, and eventually the Treasury came to the conclusion that the suggestion was one which ought to be adopted, and it had been adopted. He reminded the Committee of the position and the condition of the streets at the entrance to the Post Office of St. Martin's-le-Grand. Some statistics bearing upon the traffic there had been obtained, from which it appeared that as many as 700 carts engaged in parcels post work crossed the street at the entrance to the Post Office every day. Every Member of the Committee would admit at once that in the interest of the traffic of London it was extremely desirable if it were possible to remove so great an obstruction to the traffic at such a crowded part of the City. But there was another reason why the suggestion should be adopted. There were at Coldbath Fields nearly nine acres of land. The Post Office required in the first instance five acres, and the way in which the case presented itself to him was that if it was necessary for the purpose of their business to secure so large a space as five acres in one particular district of London, what would it cost them to get it. The estimated value of the site of the Coldbath Fields Prison was £100,000, or, in round figures, between £10,000 and £12,000 per acre. But he maintained that if they wanted to get five acres of land in any convenient spot for post office purposes, not £10,000 an acre, but £100,000 an acre would have been much nearer the cost. It therefore seemed to him the argument was conclusive that if the business required that the site should be given to the Post Office, the Government could not do better than hand it over. They handed the site over, and enabled the Post Office Authorities to take possession of it before the crush of business during the last Christmas season. He had heard that the convenience of dealing with the parcels post business at this particular centre and the relief given to other districts of London had been very great indeed. Indeed, one important official had said to him—"It is the best thing that has ever been done for the Post Office since I have been connected with it." The decision to hand over the site to the Postal Authorities was come to after most careful consideration. Experience had proved the wisdom of the decision. It would not only be possible in the future to concentrate all the parcels post business at this particular spot, but to utilize it for many other post office purposes, and for some telegraphic purposes. He believed it was intended, for instance, to use it as a place where all returned parcels should be dealt with, and where what were known as dead letters should be dealt with. He ought also to say there would be effected, when the scheme was complete, a considerable annual saving, because already notice had been given to the Great Northern Company that the Post Office would give up possession of a building belonging to them, and for which a rent of £800 or £900 a-year had been paid. He believed he was correct in saying that it was intended to do at Coldbath Fields work which was now done in other premises, the total rental of which amounted to more than £3,000 a-year.

MR. WOODALL (Hanley)

said, he gathered from the explanation of the hon. Gentleman that the site was at present used principally for clerical work in connection with the parcels post.

MR. JACKSON

said, that what he stated was that the building which it was now proposed to build at St. Martin's-le-Grand, and which would be called General Post Office North, would be used almost entirely for clerical work.

MR. WOODALL

asked if they were to understand that the Coldbath Fields premises would be in direct communication with the Underground Railway?

MR. JACKSON

Not at present.

MR. WOODALL

Is that contemplated?

MR. JACKSON

Not at present.

MR. CAUSTON (Southwark, W.)

said, he was very sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes) was not present, because he desired to urge him to reconsider the answer he gave the other day with regard to the telegraphic arrangements at St. Martin's-le-Grand. There was no doubt that the commercial men of the Kingdom were very anxious with regard to what appeared to them to be the very unsatisfactory state of the telegraphic arrangements at St. Martin's-le-Grand. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General the other day whether it was true that nearly 70 per cent of the telegrams of the United Kingdom passed through St. Martin's-le-Grand, and that the two top floors of the office were above the high pressure water main. The right hon. Gentleman replied that 50 per cent of the telegrams of the United Kingdom passed through St. Martin's-le-Grand, but that only the top floor was above the high pressure main. That was a very unsatisfactory state of things, because it was easy to conceive that if a fire occurred at the office the whole telegraphic arrangements of the country might be upset. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General had said that the building was fire proof and that no alterations were contemplated. This was a favourable opportunity for drawing the attention of the Government to the fact that the telegraphic arrangements were in a very critical state. Any day might bring a disaster, and the Government might be severely blamed for not having paid attention to the matter. He urged the Government to take the matter into their consideration.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

said, the growth of the Post Office was a matter of such general interest and vast importance that he hesitated to criticize anything but the grants for buildings. That, however, was a point in regard to which there might be a great deal of extravagance. He rose particularly to draw attention to the item of £14,800 taken for the post office at Bristol. He understood from the account before him that £3,940 of that amount was to be spent this year. Was that so?

MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)

said, he desired to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman in respect to the post office at Wandsworth. For two successive years £5,000 had been taken for a new post office at Wandsworth, but had never been spent. Last year it was said that no site could be obtained. He believed his constituents had sent in a number of sites to the Postmaster General at his request. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could say he had now selected a site.

MR. CREMER, (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

said, he wished to ask how the Estimates in the cases of the 53 works referred to in the Vote were obtained? Were they obtained by open tender, and could the right hon. Gentleman give approximately the number of builders engaged upon the works? The experience of the London School Board as to the danger of allowing buildings to be constructed by two or three contractors was such that the Committee would do well to avoid falling into the same error.

MR. JACKSON

said, he could answer very satisfactorily the question the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cremer) had put. The greatest care was taken to give every publicity that tenders were invited and to secure that, if in the first instance only a small number of tenders was received, every effort should be made to obtain an increased number. He had in his mind at the moment the case of Inverness. Tenders were publicly invited, but the estimates for the work were so largely in excess of the original estimate that the Treasury refused in the first instance to sanction the amount. Further inquiries were instituted and every effort made to get additional competition. He believed that in nearly every case, unless there was some substantial reason why it should not be so, the lowest tender was accepted. In every case there was open competition, and the Department took every care that the work was efficiently as well as economically performed. He assured hon. Members that the Department was very desirous to keep as far as they could within their original estimates, but very often, even after tenders were received, it was necessary to make alterations in the plans. The hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. Handel Cossham) had asked what amount was to be expended at Bristol in the coming year. The amount which it was expected would be expended at Bristol during the current year was £8,000—£5,400 in respect of the post services, and £2,600 for the telegraphs. He need not remind the hon. Member that that was merely a sub-division of the total sum for the purpose of keeping the accounts of the post office and telegraphs services separate.

MR. PLUNKET

said, that as regards the post office at Wandsworth the Postal Authorities had not yet been able to obtain a suitable site. They were doing the best they could to get one, and were most anxious to provide new postal accommodation there. Of course, until a site had been acquired the money taken could not be expended.

MR. KIMBER

asked, how it was that £700 was expected to be expended during the current year?

MR. PLUNKET

said, the authorities lived in hope that a site would be obtained. If a site were obtained they would proceed to prepare the necessary plans at once. His hon. Friend would be the first in the interest of his constituents to require that the work should be pushed on.

MR. KIMBER

said, that £700 would certainly not cover the cost of the site required. If the authorities lived in hope of acquiring a site, why did they not take a sum sufficient to cover the cost of it?

MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport)

wished to say, in reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for the Haggerston Division of Shoreditch (Mr. Cremer), that it was not the case that the School Board of London only employed two or three contractors, and that the result had been unsatisfactory. They formerly employed as contractor any respectable builder who got his name on the Board's list. For years they never had less than eight or 10 builders tendering for a particular school. Lately they had thrown the tenders entirely open, and it was very doubtful whether they had gained thereby. The Board Schools had been very economically built considering the accommodation they afforded and their durable character.

SIR WALTER FOSTER

said, he was slightly misunderstood by the hon. Gentleman with reference to the expenditure at Birmingham. He did not complain of the amount of money to be spent, but complained of the fact that it was necessary after so short an interval to build another post office. As a matter of fact the stones of the present office had hardly had time to be discoloured by the smoke. He quite admitted that the site of the new office was one which was very valuable as regarded the convenience of the public. He hoped, however, that arrangements would be made whereby letters could be posted in the central street; that letters should not have to be taken down a back street as was originally the case in regard to the present post office. He should have been glad to have seen by the Estimates that more money was to be expended in other districts. There were many towns in which there was no satisfactory post office accommodation. In the town of Ilkeston for instance there was no proper post office. A certain sum of money might very usefully be spent in improving the postal accommodation there.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

said, he wondered whether the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) ever came down the street in which Coldbath Fields Prison was situated, sitting beside the driver on the top of a 'bus—["Oh, oh!"] Yes, on the top of a 'bus, because that was the whole point. In fact, he should have asked whether the hon. Gentleman had ever done this after indulging himself rather freely at the dinner table the night before, because if he had done so he must entertain a very different opinion to the one he had expressed as to the suitability of the site of the Coldbath Fields Prison for a post office. In all London there was not a more dangerous or more appalling street for an omnibus to pass up or down than the street outside Coldbath Fields Prison. The street descended on one side almost perpendicularly, and the result was that even the most experienced 'bus driver and 'bus traveller trembled in every nerve whenever they were passing along the street. And this was the site which the hon. Gentleman calmly declared was most suitable for the purposes of a parcels post office! He did not think that in all London a more unsuitable site for the purpose could have been selected. He wondered how many Members of the House knew where Coldbath Fields was. If there were equal laws in England and Ireland, no doubt some Members on the Opposition Benches would know whore Coldbath Fields was. As a matter of fact, very few of those who had not been in gaol had the least idea where Coldbath Fields Prison was. It was situated in a part of London that was very distant indeed from a large number of the railway termini. How many miles was it from the Paddington station? There were several other termini in London which were very distant from Coldbath Fields. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, by way of justifying the handing over of the site, said that if they were to ask for four or five acres of land in London, they would have to pay £100,000 an acre for it. If it would be any satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman, he would admit that to get five acres together in the City of London they would require to spend at a far greater ratio, but he did not see how that would advance the hon. Gentleman's argument. If the hon. Gentleman wanted a place cheap, and one which would require very little fitting or furniture, all he needed to have done was to have walked down Victoria Street. He would find there two large sites uncovered by any building, and which had been lying idle for 10 or 15 years. If he did not want to take a vacant space, the hon. Gentleman could have taken one or two buildings which he would have found admirably suitable for the purpose of a parcels post office. These buildings had cost £60,000 or £70,000, but he had no doubt that they could be bought with the freehold for £40,000 or £50,000. Before he sat down, he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) upon what principle the advertisements for tenders were distributed. He understood that the Patronage Secretary drew up a list of newspapers in which advertisements should be inserted, and sent it to the different Departments. How did such a system work? The newspapers were chosen mainly out of regard to political considerations. That was an altogether false principle in regard to business, and especially in regard to the business of advertising. The fact was that one guarantee a newspaper had for getting advertisements was that it was the best medium for making known to the public the facts contained in the advertisements. Circulation was the main test, though not always so, be- cause a trade journal with a comparatively small circulation might be a better medium for advertising than a newspaper with a large circulation. If the head of a Department had to issue an advertisement relating to building, he naturally wished to put it in a paper through which it would reach the largest number of persons engaged in the building trade. The Minister selected a paper, and going to the Patronage Secretary said—"I want this advertisement put in such and such newspaper." The answer he would probably receive was—"That cannot be, because the paper is not on my list." If the Minister asked to see the list, he would find on it a number of small, wretched, moribund newspapers, which were, perhaps, not seen by one-tenth the number of persons who saw the paper in which he wished to insert the advertisement. He did not say this from a Party point of view at all. He believed there was no difference between the Patronage Secretary of the Liberal Party and the Patronage Secretary of the Tory Party. They both did what they considered best in the interest of their Party. But the system was an extremely bad one, and ought at once to be put an end to. The reason why this was more inexcusable now than at any other time was that they had in the Parliament of 1885 an eager discussion with regard to certain sums placed at the disposal of the Patronage Secretary. The Liberal Government was then in power, and the late Mr. Peter Rylands—who was a severe economist—protested against this money being left in the hands of the Patronage Secretary. It then turned out that the money was spent to a certain extent for electioneering purposes. With universal assent the money was taken from the disposal of the Patronage Secretary, because the state of things was regarded as an anachronism for which there was no excuse. If they used the advertisements of the State for the purpose of bolstering up moribund newspapers of their own particular side, they used the public money of the country for Party and political purposes. In the first place, he desired that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury should give them the list of the papers which were so highly favoured by the State as to have a monopoly of the public advertisements; and, in the second place, he should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would inform them on what principle the list was made up.

MR. PLUNKET

said, that perhaps it would narrow the discussion which had been very widely started by the hon. Member if he said that so far as the advertisements touching the Estimates they were now considering were concerned—the advertisements which were under the control of the Office of Works—the Department were not entirely guided by the list which was sent to them from time to time by the Treasury. They took the advice of the Surveyor of the district where the buildings were situated as to the papers in which it was most desirable to advertise, and if by any chance a newspaper recommended by the Surveyor did not appear on the Treasury List, the Office of Works would insert the advertisement in the newspaper all the same. Advertisements were given to newspapers entirely independently of politics.

MR. ISAACS (Newington, Walworth)

said, that the alpine descent at Coldbath Fields, which was referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was being remedied. The valley was being bridged over by a new street running to the "Angel" at Islington from the Holborn Town Hall. As regarded the general position of the site, in his opinion no better spot could possibly have been selected, having regard to the great railway systems in the immediate vicinity. It suited the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) to ignore the fact that within 200 yards of Coldbath Fields there were the termini of three great railways—namely, the Great Northern, the Midland, and the London and North-Western. He (Mr. Isaacs) congratulated the Post Office upon having the good sense and the good fortune to acquire so eligible a site for the Parcels Post Office.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that the Midland is within 200 yards of Coldbath Fields?

MR. ISAACS

It is certainly within 300 or 400 yards of the site.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

said, there was a great increase in the Estimates this year for buildings. He should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes) had been in his place to defend, if by any language it could be defended, this most important item of expenditure, which was growing at an alarming rate, and, he believed, growing out of all proportion to the increased revenue which they derived from it. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) had bewailed the very heavy cost of buildings, but had said the inflation of the total cost was duo to the very high price which was to be paid for sites. Then the hon. Gentleman said it was necessary for the post office business that sites should be selected in very expensive districts. Of course, due weight must be given to that consideration; but he had some ground for believing that in some oases prices had been paid for sites which need not have been, and which ought not to have been, pail. He suggested that in the future re-arrangement of the Estimates the cost of sites should be given separately.

MR. JACKSON

said, the cost of sites was set forth separately.

MR. PICKERSGILL

said, he did not allude only to the Vote now before them. There was only one other remark which he desired to make, and it had reference to the Coldbath Fields site. As he understood, the Post Office had had a windfall this year in the shape of a free site. Of course, so far as the taxpayer was concerned, there would be no advantage in one Department paying over a sum of money to another Department; but from another point of view it was extremely important that the value of the site should appear in the post office accounts, because if it did not appear they would be misled in comparing one year with another, and the right hon. Gentleman the present Postmaster General might receive credit for economy which he might not deserve.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

said, that the discussion of this Vote was a perfect waste of time; the debate was a farce. He asked any hon. Member who doubted his assertion to look at pages 37, 38, 39, and 40 of the Estimates. These were four pages which affected to give the House information as to why money was wanted and how it was spent. There was a column for the original Estimate; there was a column for the revised Estimate in each case; there was a column for the gross amount of the previous Votes and re-Votes; and there was a column for the total amount expended up to the 31st of December, 1887. Upon looking down these pages they found that every case in which money had been expended up to the 31st of December, 1887, represented a re-Vote—that was to say, that in the first year there was no expenditure at all in connection with the item which Parliament was asked to sanction. The sums were voted again, and then a sum of money was spent. But they had a very large number of cases last year set forth in detail, indicating what the Post Office intended to do with the money the House granted, and none of that money, or almost none, had been spent in the financial year. The money which was expended up to the end of December, 1887, was money which had been voted and re-voted. The whole thing was a perfect farce. The fact was, that the House was treated to an elaborate list of sites and of projected buildings, and it passed some hundreds of thousands of pounds. The money was handed over to the Postmaster General; but the right hon. Gentleman and the Post Office officials never paid the least attention to the statements in the Estimates. If it suited them to do so they proceeded with the buildings which were mentioned in certain cases in the Estimates; but if they found in the course of the year that certain other sites were more eligible or that certain other buildings were required, they felt perfectly at liberty to spend the money granted by Parliament upon them. It was just as well the proceedings of the Committee should be of a practical and serious nature. It would be business-like to say—"We will give the Postmaster General £100,000 to spend on buildings which the circumstances of the moment may prove to be useful or necessary or best;" but to set this list before the Committee as anything like a trustworthy list of the ways in which the sums of money would be expended, was merely throwing dust in the eyes of the public. What he proposed was that the Committee should not waste any more time over these details, because they could not possibly do any good. The Post Office Authorities had spent money on sites and buildings not mentioned in the Estimates. There never had been Estimates submitted to the House which bore on the face of them so many proofs of careful pruning as these did; it was perfectly clear that these Estimates had been subjected to a most vigorous examination by the Secretary to the Treasury; but, at the same time, be regretted the blot he had mentioned and which had been perceptible for years was perceptible in the present Estimates.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he thought the Committee were entitled to an answer to the allegation made by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). The statement made by the hon. Gentleman was that it had been the habit of the Committee to vote sums of money for sites and buildings, but that if the Post Office did not choose to erect the buildings it spent the money in erecting other buildings. If that be the case, it was obvious it was a perfect farce, nay, an insult to the Committee, to submit Estimates for specific buildings. Before they voted this money, the Committee ought to require an assurance from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) that if the money was not spent as intended it would not be expended at all.

MR. JACKSON

said, he could, without the slightest hesitation, give that assurance. The hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had been pleased to say that the present Estimates bore evidences of having been carefully considered. He thought he could satisfy the hon. Gentleman that if the practice which he mentioned was over in vogue it was not likely to be put in force during the coming year at any rate. The hon. Gentleman would remember that the question came up before the Public Accounts Committee, and that he (Mr. Jackson) endeavoured to explain to the Committee some of the measures taken to secure that the expenditure was not only kept within the limit of the Parliamentary Vote, but also kept to the purposes of the Parliamentary Vote. As a matter of fact, every item of expenditure must come to the Treasury for sanction, and one of the first questions he required to be answered before he gave consent was—"Has provision been made in the Estimates for this expenditure?" The hon. Member would admit that if that practice was carried out, expenditure must be kept within the amount voted by Parliament, and devoted to the purposes for which Parliament intended it. He assured the hon. Member that the greatest care was taken to ensure that expenditure was kept within the amount sanctioned and appropriated to the purposes intended.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he was afraid the answer of the hon. Gentleman was calculated to lead the House to suppose that he had stated what he had no warrant for. He admitted that Treasury sanction was obtained to every building, and that the total Vote was not exceeded But the buildings specified in the Estimates were not proceeded with. Totally different works were undertaken, completed, and paid for within the financial year, to those mentioned to Parliament. He did not complain that the Vote was exceeded. He did not complain that any money not voted by Parliament was spent by the Post Office or the Inland Revenue or the Customs Departments buildings; but what he contended was that the elaborate statement of detail which was submitted to the Committee was perfectly untrustworthy as to the way in which the money was likely to be spent.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) £23,875, to complete the sum for County Court Buildings.

(10.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £12,756, 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 1889, for the Metropolitan Police Court Buildings.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said, he rose to move the reduction of the Vote, of which he was sorry that a considerable portion had been already taken. This money was asked for the Metropolitan Police Courts. In many towns in the country the Police Courts were paid for from the local rates, and he could see no reason why those towns should pay not only for their own but also for the Police Courts of the richest City in any country of the world. They had a Local Government Bill brought in, and he had looked to see whether there was in it any arrangement for the cost of these Courts being thrown upon the rates of the Metropolis; but he found no such provision, although in that Bill it was proposed to give far more relief to the ratepayers than had been given before. He had always been told, when this question was raised on previous occasions, to wait until the Local Government Bill for London came in, that the charge was monstrous, and that the cost of these police buildings was to be thrown upon the Metropolis. But the Local Government Bill had been brought in, and its operation applied to London, but there was nothing in it to throw this expense on the Metropolis. There was an additional reason why this Vote should be refused. The Treasury, feeling that the Vote was an injustice, tried to keep it down to the lowest possible point, and the consequence was that the Police Courts were a positive disgrace to the Metropolis. Prisoners, both male and female, were put together, and the cells were overrun with vermin. Hon. Members who represented the Metropolis, and the public also, might be assured that they would not have good Police Courts until the Metropolitan districts paid for their Police Courts from their own rates. He had never heard any argument in favour of the Metropolitan Police Courts being paid for out of local taxation; on the contrary, he had always heard the present system spoken of as one which must, when the Local Government Bill was introduced, be swept away; and he thought that on this occasion they ought to encourage the Government to bring in a measure for the purpose by dividing against the present Vote, which he should oppose.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET) (Dublin University)

said, that under an Act of Parliament now in existence it was necessary to provide funds for the Metropolitan Police Courts, to ensure that they were properly prepared for the purpose for which they were intended. With regard to the general charge of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Labouchere) that the Courts were a disgrace to the Metropolis, he could only say that it appeared too sweeping, although, if any particular instance were brought forward, showing that any individual building was inadequate and unsatisfactory in its accommodation, the complaint would, of course, receive consideration. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that there was a demand made last year for additional cells at Hammersmith, and it was for that reason that a sum of £2,200 was asked for in the present Estimates.

GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY (Hammersmith)

said, he had to call attention to the item of £2,200 for additional cells at the Hammersmith Police Court. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Fisher) and himself had last year pointed out that the accommodation at that Court was very bad indeed, both with respect to prisoners and to the witnesses waiting to be heard. He now asked whether this sum included provision for buildings other than cells which were necessary for the proper accommodation of all who were required to be present at the Court?

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) was mistaken in supposing that the Hammersmith Police Court was the only one about which complaints had been made. He believed he was right in stating that the majority of the Police Courts in the Metropolis were without anything like decent accommodation for those who were charged. The fact was, that those unfortunate persons were put into cells that were foul and filthy to a degree that would disgrace any city, and especially so the greatest City in the world. He agreed with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in the remarks he had made, and should follow him into the Lobby if he divided the Committee on his Amendment.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY) (Sheffield, Hallam)

said, he was not prepared to admit that the accommodation for untried prisoners at the Metropolitan Police Courts was so bad as the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) supposed; but that it was not altogether satisfactory was shown by the fact that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Matthews) had last year re-appointed a Departmental Committee for the purpose of examining the state of the cells, which Committee had been originally constituted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers). The Committee had been sitting since September last; its Chairman was Mr. Justice Wills, and there was upon it Mr. Du Cane and the Chairman of Quarter Sessions in Derbyshire. Hon. Members would see that the Committee was eminently qualified to form an adequate judgment in this matter. They paid personal visits to all those places which required to be inspected; and he happened to know that on the day after Boxing Day the learned Judge personally inspected the places set apart for night charges. The Government were expecting the Report of the Committee daily; and the sum of money referred to by the hon. and gallant Member (General Goldsworthy) had been inserted in the Estimates in order to improve the general accommodation at the Hammersmith Police Court.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he hoped the Committee would look a little more closely into this Vote, because not only were they asked for the present sum, but by granting it they would be pledging themselves to future expenditure. He thought that some small grant-in-aid should be given in the case of the Bow Street Police Court, because it had some International duties to perform; but that the Courts of Hammersmith and Wandsworth should be paid for by towns like Birmingham and Manchester, who had their own Police Courts to provide and maintain, was indefensible. They were pledging themselves to build a new Court for Dalston, estimated to cost £8,000, by the Vote of £2,000 that was now asked for on account, and he said it was outrageous that the taxpayers should have to pay for the existing Courts, and much more so for a new Court in a fresh district of the Metropolis. He trusted that, unless they had some assurance from the Government that this would be the last time the Vote would appear, the Committee would give a strong Vote against it, for that was the only way in which they could express their views on the subject.

MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)

said, he would appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury as to whether it was not high time this Vote disappeared from the Estimates. The only way to effect that was to deal with the matter as they had dealt with the Vote for the London Parks on a former occasion, when it was decided that they should be maintained at the cost of the Metropolis. It was not possible that anyone could contend that the towns in the country, the smallest of which maintained its own Police Court, should, in addition, be taxed to maintain the Police Courts of the Metropolis. What on earth had Sheffield or Birmingham to do with the cost of building a new Police Court, say, for instance, at Dalston? It seemed to him to be out of all reason that this system should be continued, and he trusted that the First Lord of the Treasury and the President of the Local Government Board would make up their minds that it should now come to an end. He did not think they could object to the present Vote for the maintenance of existing Police Courts; but he should certainly go into the Lobby to support a Motion for the reduction of the Vote in regard to the purchase of a site and the cost of building a new Police Court for Dalston.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, that as a Metropolitan Member he agreed that London ought to pay for its own Police Courts, and he hoped it would do so before long. But he thought it premature to say that this Vote should be cut down before the Local Government Bill was passed, as it undoubtedly would be, when they could hand over the cost of the Metropolitan Police Courts to the new London Authority. At the present time, however, he thought they must carry out the Act of Parliament, and pass the Vote on the understanding that when the new Act came into force, an alteration would be made, and the Police Courts dealt with in the same way as they had dealt with the expenditure on the London Parks.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield had expressed his present views with regard to this Vote; but it might have been well if, when he was a Member of a former Government which was responsible for a similar expenditure, he had used the same arguments. He (Mr. Ritchie) ventured to think that this question was one which ought to be raised when the Local Government Bill came forward for discussion. The Government were acting now by authority of the Act of Parliament, and so long as it was in force, they had no choice but to continue such provision as they con- sidered necessary for the proper maintenance of the London Police Courts. There were, however, one or two considerations in connection with the subject to which he thought hon. Gentleman had not given sufficient attention. It was true that in the Provinces the maintenance of the Police Courts was regarded as a local affair, but London had always been considered as somewhat different from local towns, however considerable they might be. Large masses of the people migrated to London to a degree that was not found in any other town in the Kingdom. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Labouchere) had said that a large number of those persons contributed to the rates, but it was certain that a still larger number of them were a burden on the rates. Indeed, the increase of pauperism, especially in the winter months, was caused by people who migrated to the Metropolis and became a burden on the rates. There was also another point to which the hon. Member had not alluded. The fees in the Police Courts in London were paid into the Exchequer; whereas those of the Provincial Courts went into the local funds. That was a very important portion of the case, and although he did not say that the fees covered the whole expenditure, the fact remained. The Government, as he had stated, were just now proceeding under Act of Parliament, and it was incumbent upon them to come to the House for the expenditure which they considered to be necessary for the maintenance of the Metropolitan Police Courts.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) was right in saying that the Vote was submitted to the Committee under Act of Parliament; but it was for the Committee to say whether they would vote the money or not. The Act did not, in any way, engage that Committee to Vote the money asked for every year for the maintenance of these Police Courts. Again, it was no argument in favour of their continuing to pay for these Courts, to say that the fees were paid into the Exchequer. He could not go into the plea of migration; but he did not believe there was any such migration to Dalston as the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of, and the right hon. Gentleman would have to go far to prove that the Exchequer ought to give a grant in aid for the Dalston Police Court, because it would be engaged in cases unconnected with the district. The right hon. Gentleman said that the matter ought to be discussed when the Local Government Bill was in Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not taken precisely the same view in his proposals; but he (Mr. Labouchere) would keep the matter in mind. In the meantime he proposed that they should agree to the Vote for the existing Police Courts, but that they should refuse the Vote for the £6,000 for the purchase of a site and for new buildings at Dalston.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £6,756, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)

said, he did not think the hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere) had considered what would be the result of the rejection of this Vote. There was no other authority in London which had power to raise money and which would be bound to provide Police Courts in the Metropolis, and the effect of the rejection of the Vote would be that the administration of criminal justice could no longer be carried on. He submitted that that would be the case. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had stated that a large burden was thrown upon the Metropolitan rates by the migration which took place from the provinces to London, and he (Mr. Kimber) believed there was one Union which, at the present time, supported permanently 700 or 800 paupers who had migrated to the Metropolis. That, he said, fully bore out the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that not only did the persons who come up from the Country to London not pay rates, but that in many cases they constituted a great burden upon them. It was a matter which ought not to be taken for granted that the cost of the police in the Metropolis ought to follow the same rule as in the country, and be borne entirely by the locality—the Metropolis. It ought at least to be discussed, whether or not the Metropolis was in a different position from that of other towns. It was admitted that the question was one of justice, and as the cost of the administration of Civil justice in the Metro- polis was borne by the State at large, the same principle might be shown to be applicable, to some extent at least, to the administration of criminal justice.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, there was no danger of the failure of the administration of criminal justice at Dalston from the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), because the Vote made provision for a temporary Court there. He thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ritchie) was reduced to a very bare extremity when he appealed to him (Mr. Mundella) to know why, when he was President of the Committee of Council on Education, he had not pressed the abolition of this Vote on the Government of which he was a Member. The right hon. Gentleman, he thought, knew better than to think such an argument applied, and if he were to ask the right hon. Gentleman why, when he was Secretary to the Admiralty, he had not introduced a Local Government Bill, he should be answering him in the spirit of his own remarks. All that they asked was that they should not be committed to this new expenditure, and the right hon. Gentleman himself had practically admitted that the Vote was indefensible.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

said, that seven years ago a Committee, under the presidency of Lord Rosebery, recommended in their Report, dated the 30th of December, 1881, the erection of a Police Court at Dalston as a matter of urgent necessity, in order to relieve the pressure of business in other parts of the Metropolis. Since that time there had been growing complaints of the insufficiency of Police Court accommodation, and as hon. Members would be aware, the condition of things at Wandsworth and Hammersmith had become almost intolerable. The arrangement was made in order to utilize the magistrate at Dalston, and thus with only one additional magistrate to work Hammersmith and Wandsworth as whole-day Courts; but if the Dalston Court was not established with its complement of magistrates, they would not be able to carry out the arrangement. He pointed out that a contract for the site had already been entered into in pursuance of the law, and the Government were under an obligation to pay the amount of the purchase money—£4,000.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

said, he understood from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) that the Government had signed a contract pledging the House to an expenditure of £4,000 for the purchase of a site for a new building at Dalston. Such a proceeding would not be allowed in any Town Council. It was not right that the House of Commons should be pressed to assent to an expenditure incurred without authority by the Government for the erection of a Police Court at Dalston. He thought the argument of the Home Secretary was therefore beside the question, and they still contended that the cost in the present instance should be borne by the inhabitants of the Metropolis. In his opinion this was the right time to protest against this expenditure. The condition of things at Dalston had gone on for some time, and no harm would be done if the matter stood over a little longer. The whole system was vicious, under which localities in the country were called on to pay for what ought to be borne by the inhabitants of London, and he considered it a disgrace that the Metropolis should not, by the proper management of its own affairs, copy the example of other towns in such matters as this.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

said, he felt no hesitation in supporting this Motion. The burdens on the citizens of London were heavy; but he thought they were willing to make this payment in order to secure thereby the control of the Metropolitan Police Courts. When that was obtained he thought it would emphasize the anomaly which now deprived them of the control of the Metropolitan Police.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

asked, if the contract had already been signed, and if it was binding on the Government for the purchase of the new site at Dalston?

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

said, the contract was certainly morally, if not legally, binding on the Government. With regard to the question whether the contract had been signed, he would point out that that was a matter that was not in his Department.

MR. PLUNKET

said, he understood that the contract was completed, and if it was not carried out it would be necessary to give some compensation.

MR. DODDS (Stockton)

said, the question was whether any contract had been signed. He contended that a contract of this kind should be provisional, and only be binding on the assumption that the House of Commons voted the funds. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had said that the recommendation with regard to the Dalston Police Court had been made seven years ago, and that being so, he (Mr. Dodds) thought the matter might be allowed to remain over for another year. He was somewhat surprised to hear the President of the Local Government Board speak in the way he had of migration from the provinces to London. He (Mr. Dodds) had always understood that that migration, so far from burdening the people of the Metropolis with expenditure, really caused a large amount of money to be spent in London. [Mr. RITCHIE: I spoke of paupers.] He protested that they had in the country to find enough money already, without being burdened with the cost of new Police Buildings in the suburbs of London. Although the Government had said they were proceeding by authority of Act of Parliament, that Act did not prevent hon. Members from expressing their opinion on this Vote, and he trusted that the majority would decide that, as in the case of the Parks, London should maintain its own Police Courts.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, he did not see why, by voting this sum now, they should involve themselves in an expenditure of £10,000 in the future. With regard to the contract, he did not see what business the Government had to enter into any contract for the purchase of a site; in the second place, he did not believe the contract was binding; and, thirdly, he thought if it was, it would be much better to sell the land.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

said, that when two or three years ago, he had urged upon the Government to consider the condition of the Hammersmith and Wandsworth Police Courts, he was told by the then Secretary to the Treasury, that the Government avoided any responsibility in the matter, because the Police Courts would be taken over by the Local Government Authority, and on that distinct ground no steps were taken.

MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

said, he should support the Amendment by way of protest against the practice of making contracts to bind the House before the subject matters were considered. He believed the day would come when business men on the other side of the House would be very grateful to hon. Members on these Benches for having raised this question.

GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY

said, that the Government had, in his opinion, done right in securing a site for the Police Court at Dalston.

MR. CAUSTON (Southwark, W.)

said, that when a County Member he had voted against this principle, and he saw no reason why, having since become a Metropolitan Member, he should alter his views. The inhabitants of London were desirous of having the control of their own affairs, and the maintenance of their Police Courts was a matter which he thought they ought to pay for. He should vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere).

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 87: Majority 39.—(Div. List, No. 57.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. DODDS

said, he felt it was only reasonable at such an hour, seeing the extraordinary length of time the Chairman had been in the Chair—indeed, during the years he had been in the House he hardly remembered a longer Sitting in Supply—it was reasonable to suppose the time had come to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Dodds.)

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

said, he could hardly imagine the hon. Gentleman was serious in making a proposal of the kind. True, the House met at 3 o'clock; but the Chairman of Committees had not been in the Chair for eight hours, and, even if that were so, it would not be reasonable for the Committee to cease work until 12 o'clock, the hour the House had agreed upon for closing discussion. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not proceed with a Motion that could not be entertained.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he would appeal to his hon. Friend not to persist with his Motion. True, the Chairman had been in the Chair nearly eight hours, but that was no reason why the Committee should not continue to sit till 12 o'clock.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(11.) £9,250, to complete the sum to defray half cost for Sheriff Court Houses in Scotland.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said, he did not thoroughly understand this Vote; but the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) being in his place, would no doubt give a lucid explanation of it. He (Mr. Labouchere) gathered that the House was bound to contribute a certain amount towards the maintenance of certain Courts in Scotland called Sheriffs' Courts. So far, so good; he did not complain of fulfilling that obligation by voting a certain sum; but what he would like to know, in the first place, was why the Vote, which last year was £7,570 for that purpose, should this year be £8,150? Why, too, when the obligation was to contribute to the maintenance, was the Committee asked to vote a sum for new works? Why should the whole sum be increased on that of last year by £4,000? This the Committee would see required some explanation.

MR. A. SUTHERLAND (Sutherland)

said, in addition he should like to ask some explanation of particulars under Sub-Head B. There was no detailed information in the Estimates as to the expenditure on each Court House. The whole sum distributed among 52 Court Houses would give to each an average of £275, and this seemed to him a high figure for the maintenance of old buildings together with the grant for new buildings.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

said, he should like to know why no provision was made for a Court House at Kirkcaldy, that being by far the most popular and important town between the Forth and the Tay, and yet the only Court House was at Cuper. The strongest representations had been made in favour of a Court being held at Kirkcaldy, where lately police cells and every accommodation had been provided.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET) (Dublin University)

said, that the increase in the Vote was due to alterations and improvements and drainage at Hamilton and elsewhere, long required, and now proceeded with. The sum of £4,700 would complete the payments for the year.

Vote agreed to.

(12.) £183,000, to complete the sum for Surveys of the United Kingdom.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

said, he wished to ask, first, for information as to the progress of the work of the Survey in Ireland; secondly, whether there was any system of taking stock established whereby the officer in charge could know what amount of stock he had on hand and how much was required—he referred to theodolytes and other instruments of great value—and also he would ask under what system the Department obtained stores, whether by private tender or open competition?

MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, N.)

said, he should like to know what provision was intended to be made for the work of revision of survey. As a matter of fact, he believed the work of the Ordnance Survey began in England with the counties around London, and the revision of the old maps had been going on for some time. In Scotland, the Ordnance Survey came later; but still there were counties—Fife and Mid Lothian, for instance—that were surveyed as far back as the years between 1840–50. The maps then produced were now quite out of date; but they might easily be kept up to date without any largo expense by an efficient staff or a regular system. More than once this point had been raised in the House, and the answer given as regards Scotland was that the first survey being concluded some years ago, the head office had been shut up and the materials removed, so it would appear there was absolutely no provision made for the revision of the survey of Scotland at the present time. This might easily be provided by an automatic system brought into play without any great expenditure or increase of staff, and such was carried out in the United States, in Austria, and other European countries. Another point had been brought on previous occasions before the House, and also the other House, and it was a point in which considerable interest was taken in all parts of the United Kingdom, and particularly in Scotland. The matter was brought before the House of Lords three or four years ago by Lord Balfour of Burleigh. He referred to the incomplete state of the survey of the country as compared with other countries at the present time. The great object of the Ordnance Survey, apart from purposes of estate valuation, was to describe correctly the geographical contour of the country. The Survey maps, therefore, in the surface contour gave the different heights, but they did not complete the work by giving the depths of the depressions and the soundings of lakes and rivers. In the Survey maps of the United States the depths of lakes were recorded, and the same thing was found in Switzerland, and he believed in Italian and Austrian maps; and this had been urged on the Government with respect to the maps of Great Britain. There could be no doubt of its interest and value scientifically, and from other points of view. As a matter of fact, the body which took the most prominent part in urging this work was the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and the only two complete surveys of lakes in the United Kingdom were those of Loch Awe and Loch Lomond, taken 40 or 50 years ago by the Admiralty. When this point had been urged before the Treasury, the Department of Works replied it was work for the Admiralty, while the Admiralty said it came within the province of the Department of Works. He did not care which Department undertook the work; but to make our survey complete and worthy to stand on a level with the surveys of other countries, the contour and depths of the lakes should be laid down as well as the height of mountains. It was of interest and of value scientifically to know, from what had been done long ago in relation to Loch Lomond, that there was there a depth of over 100 fathoms a depth not equalled in any arm of the sea on the West Coast of Scotland, and only found in ocean soundings. Private investigation had shown even greater depths; for instance, Loch Morar, in the West of Inverness-shire, gave 180 fathoms, a depth not attained in any but ocean waters. The greatest interest would be found in the comparison of depths with other lakes, like those of Ireland, spreading over large surfaces, and it was a matter well worth the attention of the Government, whether it was not desirable to make provision for making our survey complete.

SIR EDWARD REED (Cardiff)

said, he could support the observations of the hen. and learned Member for West Edinburgh, and extend them by saying that this survey of the lakes was of more immediate importance than the object of ascertaining the geographical contour of the country. He had himself in years past had occasion to make use of the Swiss Survey maps, in which all detailed information was given as to the depths of lakes, and had found this information most useful for engineering purposes. But when he came to our own Ordnance maps he found the whole of the lakes a blank, and civil engineers were deprived of that data so useful for them in the preparation of plans, and which they might fairly expect to find in a survey of the kind. This, and the question of adopting an automatic method of bringing maps up to date, were matters of great importance. He did not believe that the originators of the costly system of Ordnance Survey contemplated simply a record of the state of the country at one particular period; they surely must have had in their minds an idea of keeping up the information at regular intervals. He hoped that on those points the suggestions made would have serious attention, with good results.

MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

said, he would suggest the desirability of marking the heights above the sea on the Survey stones. The figures appeared on the maps; but it would be interesting and useful to have them really recorded on the spot. A traveller would not have to write for a map, and wait until he could receive it; he would have this interesting information before him on his journey. In many parts of Europe this information was recorded in localities, often at railway stations.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, he would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would include in his answers some information in reference to the salary of the Director of Survey. Last year that salary appeared as £870, but now it was suddenly raised to £1,200. It did not appear that this gentleman was entitled to such an increase, for he drew an extra sum of £400 for work done for the Local Government Boundary Commission, together with some £500 for retired pay.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

said, the expenditure had reached a very large amount, and he hoped that the account of the progress made would indicate the completion of the work soon.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

said, there was very little hope that we should be able to rival the United States Departments in this and other statistical matters. The United States were immeasurably ahead of us. It was a pleasure to see the amount of care bestowed upon obtaining such information by the Statistical Department at Washington. Still, though we might not be able to overtake the United States, he thought, considering the extent of the expenditure, our Ordnance maps might be more complete. Take the County of Fife; there was not an Ordnance map for professional purposes available; it was too small, and it was altogether out of date and useless for modern purposes by landowners and others. He knew of landowners who, when they had to deal with estates, were obliged to have a survey made for themselves.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET) (Dublin University)

said, he would endeavour to reply so far as he could to the several questions asked. First, the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) asked as to the progress of the Irish Survey. This had now been ordered to be carried out with maps of 25-inch scale instead of the old 6-inch scale. This was pressed upon the Department in former discussions on the Estimates, and was now being done. In the next place, the hon. Member asked whether stock had been taken of the various materials in the possession of the Department, a question he had raised on a previous occasion. The hon. Member would see it was not possible to take stock of all materials at the same time; but a system had been adopted by means of which stock was taken of each particular class of materials, and in that way he believed they would be able to arrive in the course of the year at the amount of stock. Then the hon. Member asked as to the system of contracts for stores, and here he (Mr. Plunket) had to say that it was not possible to pursue the same system as was adopted in other Departments; materials and instruments being of the most delicate and complicated nature. It had been found practically impossible to adopt a system of open competition for these contracts. As to the salary of the Director, he explained that the apparent increase was due to the sum of £1,200 representing the consolidated salary hitherto partly paid under this Vote, and partly by military pay. This sum represented the whole of the salary. As to the observations by the hon. and learned Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), he (Mr. Plunket) could only say they should have every attention, though he confessed he did not quite understand what the hon. and learned Member meant by an automatic system of revision. A re-survey was as often as practicable carried out without incurring a large expenditure.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he desired to know whether Scotland was to have the 25-inch maps, or was to continue with the old 6-inch maps?

MR. BUCHANAN

said, he did not mean to suggest any detailed plan when he spoke of automatic revision. What he complained of was that many Scotch counties were only completed on the 6-inch scale, and practically at the present moment there was no revision at all of the old maps, and many of the 1-inch maps were not yet published, or likely to be published this year. The appeal for a revised issue was refused before the Office was closed, and now it was said the Office being closed, and made over to the Post Office, nothing more could be done. The right hon. Gentleman had said nothing about the survey of lakes in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. He was informed that it could be carried out at a very small cost. He had had an op- portunity of speaking on the subject with a naval officer who had been engaged on many Government surveying expeditions, and he said, referring to his experiences on the West Coast of Scotland and Ireland, that if directed to survey and lay down soundings on the lakes, this could be done by boats' crews in the middle of their ordinary sea work of surveying along the coast. The cost would be little, the result would be of the greatest value for scientific and engineering purposes, and also for navigation purposes. Even the lochs that constituted the Caledonian Canal had had no regular Ordnance survey; only a rough survey by private effort gave incompletely the general average of depth.

MR. PLUNKET

said, he would inquire into the matter, which, so far as he knew, was suggested now for the first time.

MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)

said, the right hon. Gentleman had explained that the £1,200 for the Director represented the consolidated salary; but was there not also £400 for services on the Local Government Board Boundary Commission?

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

said, the explanation which, until now he had not understood, was, that the asterisk was misplaced, owing to a slip of the printer; it should appear by the Major General's name, not that of the Director.

MR. BRUNNER

said, he hoped that his request would not be passed over as too trivial.

MR. PLUNKET

said, certainly he would bear it in mind, and have inquiry made.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said, a note referred to the sum realized from the sale of maps, and it was a matter of importance to consider that these maps were sold at an excessively high price, on the principle of large profits and small sales. To many persons these maps would be useful, and he believed the Government would realize quite as much from sales if they considerably reduced the price to the public. Having made the original outlay, and got the proofs, any number might be produced. Everyone who had experience of printing knew that after the first cost the expense of printing machinery and ink did not amount to much. If the Government would be content with a profit of some 33 per cent, they would largely increase their sale, and benefit a large number of the community.

Vote agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £7,900,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 1889, for the erection and maintenance (including rents, &c.) of Buildings for the Department of Science and Art.

MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)

said, he must object to this Vote going through without discussion. He had something to say in regard to it, and hoped Progress would be now reported.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Dillwyn.)—put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.