CLASS I (Hansard, 19 May 1893)

§ MR. FORWOOD (Lancashire, Ormskirk)
said, the previous evening he ventured to put to the Secretary to the Treasury one or two questions, to one only of which he had up to the present received an answer. He at once said that the question which was answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was replied to in the most satisfactory manner. The right hon. Gentleman undertook to consider the suggestion that, instead of charging the cost of Post Office buildings on the Votes for the year, it should be spread over a number of years, the same as was done with the expenditure for barracks and fortifications. But there were two other points to which he had not yet received a reply. Ono was as to the form of the Estimates, and the other was as to Re-Votes. The right hon. Gentleman told him that the items opposite which "Re-Votes" were marked indicated sums of money voted in the previous year, but which had not been spent, and which, therefore, had to be re-voted this year. These Re-Votes amounted, in the case of the Post 1387 Office, to no less than £46,000, and on Customs and Inland Revenue buildings to £5,500, making a total of £51,500 apparently at the disposal of the First Commissioner of Works on these items. That amount, if this Estimate was accurate, must have been either surrendered or spent. Clearly it had not been surrendered, because from the Re-turn with which he had been favoured by the First Commissioner of Works he found that the total sum at his disposal for 1892-3 for Revenue Department buildings was £237,000, of which he expended no less than £231,000. Either, therefore, the Return must be erroneous, or he had spent for works not indicated in the Estimates of last year over £50,000. He should like to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in the expenditure of money not required for one item, he could apply it to another without Treasury control? He knew that in other Departments the Treasury had to be consulted before money saved from one item could be expended on another. That Treasury control very often led to great delay and inconvenience, and his experience was that such control was not of advantage to the Service. Another question in reference to the Treasury control was this: Did that control extend to the stoppage of the commencement of any work in the financial year until the whole Vote had been passed by that House? because, if it did, the summer season, which was best for building purposes, was often lost, and the work not commenced till the autumn, so that the amount of money which the First Commissioner might have expected was not expended.

§ *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,) Bradford, Central
said, the right hon. Gentleman had yesterday made an attack on his Department, although that attack in reality was more on the Colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman than it was on him (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). He thought the right hon. Gentleman, before making his observations, should have consulted his Colleagues who sat beside him, for they would have removed some of the misconceptions into which he had fallen. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Treasury had starved the Post Office Vote; that great delays took place in the completion of 1388 these works after they had been agreed upon; that the money which had been voted and not been expended on these works had been surrendered to the Treasury, and that the Votes, as presented, were entirely misleading. To the first of these charges —namely, that the Treasury starved the Post Office Vote, he had no complaint to make of the Treasury, and he did not think there was any ground for the suggestion that had been made under the late Government. There was equally no ground for the other complaints made by the right hon. Gentleman. The facts of the case were shortly these: The Department had under construction at the present moment no fewer than 64 Post Offices in different parts of the Kingdom. These works were at different stages of progress. At the commencement of every financial year the Office of Works made out an estimate of what could be spout upon each of these works, and that estimate formed the basis of the aggregate Estimate laid before the Treasury, and finally before Parliament. Experience had shown that in the course of the year where so many works were undertaken, accidents and unexpected events occurred which prevented the full expenditure taking place on some of these works. In other cases disputes occurred with the contractors, or strikes took place, or questions arose regarding light and air, and the result was that in a certain number of these works delays occurred, and it was found impossible to expend in the financial year all that was expected at the commencement of it. In order to meet these cases and prevent the voting of unnecessary money for any financial year, the practice had been for the Treasury to make a reduction on the aggregate Vote of about one-fourth from the aggregate Estimate. In other words, when the total amount was to be added up, the Treasury had been in the habit of making a reduction of one-fourth, which in practice had been proved to be exactly the amount to deduct from the aggregate Vote. He had before him a statement showing the actual Vote in each of the four or five years, and the actual expenditure, and it was very curious bow nearly the two coincided. In 1889–90 the aggregate Vote for the 1389 Revenue Department buildings was £125,900; and the actual amount expended £126,800, a difference of less than £1,000. In the year 1890–91, the amount voted was £215,000, and the amount expended £213,600, a difference of only £1,400. In 1891–92 the amount voted was £214,000, and the amount expended £227,000, an excess of £13,000, which had to be met by a Supplemental Vote. In 1892–93, the amount voted was £237,000, and the amount expended £231,000, showing an expenditure of within £5,000 or £6,000 of the aggregate Vote. He thought that entirely disposed of the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman. He quite agreed that when once they began a work they should push on with it.

§ MR. FORWOOD
asked, what about the Re-Votes, amounting to £50,000?

§ *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he had explained that from the aggregate Vote there was deducted by the Treasury one-fourth. In the course of the year, from accidents of various kinds, it wits impossible to spend the whole of the sums anticipated in respect of particular post offices, and a Re-Vote was necessary. It was not a Re-Vote of the aggregate amount, but in respect of that particular item. The Treasury sanction was obtained for the transfer from one item to another without difficulty, and no inconvenience was found in practice to that expenditure. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that his experience at the Admiralty must be very different to his, because he had found no difficulty whatever in getting the Treasury to facilitate arrangements of that kind. As he had said, he quite agreed that when once a Post Office was begun the true policy was to complete it as quickly as possible; that was a policy he had always endeavoured to carry out, and he had found no difficulty in the Treasury voting the necessary sums of money to carry out that policy. The right hon. Gentleman had staled that the Return which had been presented showed that the average length of time for the erection of a post office was five years. He had been misled in that respect by the 1390 inclusion in the Return of many post offices, of which the total cost was very large; but where a few hundreds only were to be spent in completing them during the current year.

§ MR. FORWOOD
That is not what I said. What I said was that the amount of money asked for this year, compared with the total expenditure of £1,096,000, showed that it would take five years to complete the works.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
That is precisely what I said. The right hon. Gentleman had been misled by figures which be had not studied. Included in that Return were many post offices which were just on the point of completion, and on which a very small amount would be expended within the year. If they deducted these cases, instead of the average time for the erection of a post office being five years, it would be found to be less that three, which, having regard to the magnitude of the works, was not excessive. The Department was doing its utmost to complete the works when once they were begun, and it would fully recognise that no economy was so bad as to delay works when once commenced. He now came to the Liverpool Post Office, a subject in which the right hon. Gentleman was naturally so much interested. It was a fact that two or three years ago a very large sum of money was voted by the late Government for the purpose of purchasing a site for the Liverpool Post Office. Apparently, it was not anticipated that last year it would be possible to spend any sum to commence building; but in the course of the year it became possible to do so. Tenders were invited for commencing the foundations; the lowest was accepted, and if things had gone on as was expected it would have been possible during the last year to have expended a considerable sum of money upon them. But, unfortunately, as sometimes happened, a dispute arose with the con-tractor as to the terms of the contract and the conditions imposed upon him under the tender, which led to delay, and 1391 only that clay they had been apprised by their solicitor that they were justified in treating the contract as at an end, and in accepting the next tender. The result had been that during the last year they had been unable to expend any money on the Liverpool Post Office; but they hoped to be able to do so at once. The work of preparing the foundations in a building of that magnitude was very great, and it was not, therefore, likely that any money would be spent on the building itself during the present year; but the work would be pushed on with the utmost expedition. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that there was much to be said in favour of treating these Post Office buildings as a matter of capital expenditure, instead of voting the money every year, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had undertaken to consider the matter.

§ MR. FORWOOD
said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that his Department submitted to the Treasury the sum of money which they had anticipated they could expend in the coming financial year over each of the different buildings; that the Treasury had a better knowledge of these matters than the expert officers of the Commissioner of Works, and struck off one-fourth from the total, and, as a matter of fact, that after such revision the total left really represented the amount of work that could be done in the course of the year, thus showing the Treasury could make a better estimate than the Office of Works. If it was the fact that the Treasury were better able to estimate the amount of money that could be expended on post offices than the First, Commissioner of Works, he would strongly urge that when that right hon. Gentleman put down the amount required for the year opposite each and every work, instead of putting it at the larger sum of £15,000 or £20,000, as the case might be, he should take 25 per cent. off each of these works, and then they should see the amount which, in the judgment of the Treasury, could be expended on the work, and they would thus got rid of that misleading item of Re-Vote. It was not 1392 really a Re-Vote, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted, and it was, therefore, misleading to represent it as such. He submitted that he was justified in raising this question, as the Estimates themselves wore misleading, and led the House to believe that a large sum of money voted last year had not been spent, when the real fact was that the money had not been voted. He believed that if the First Commissioner of Works had had more money he would have been enabled to complete a greater number of Post Office buildings, and so do the work more efficiently than was done by starving the work from considerations of the Treasury.

§ *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
could assure the right hon. Gentleman he was entirely mistaken if he thought there had been any starving of this Vote. There were 64 works in hand. The Office of Works at the commencement of the year brought an Estimate in respect of each of them, and the aggregate amount went to the Treasury. The Treasury, with the full assent of the Office of Works, guided by experience of the past, knocked off one-fourth of the whole amount, which the results showed exactly led to the requirements of the year. It would not be advisable to follow the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, and knock off 25 per cent. from these works. There was no difficulty in getting the consent of the Treasury to transfer the Vote from one item to another, as the requirements necessitated; the whole arrangement was a convenient one, and in the aggregate the work was done as anticipated.

§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)
attributed the delay of completing the works in hand and the insufficiency of money for the post offices to the system which compelled the Post Office to satisfy the Treasury as to the requirements in particular places. Naturally the Treasury would not look beyond the immediate present, and they allowed post offices to be designed and built which satisfied the wants of the place at the particular time, but which took no regard whatever for the expansion of the town and the consequent necessity for an increase of accom- 1393 modation. His own borough of Preston was an instance of this. They had there a post office which was built, he supposed, 40 years ago, when the town was only about half the size it was at the present time. The town had gone on increasing; telegraphs and parcel post had been added, so that additional post office accommodation was urgently needed. Years ago this matter was brought under the notice of Mr. Raikes, who considered various schemes. It happened that the Post Office at Preston was in one of the leading thoroughfares, so that there was no room to enlarge it, and, therefore, what the authorities had to contemplate was the providing of a new site and the building of new buildings. It appeared to him that the system of passing the Estimates for Post Office buildings from the Post Office to the Treasury, and from the Treasury to the Hoard of Works, entailed an enormous amount of delay and unnecessary work. The condition of the post office at Preston was that about 20 men were working in a place which was not fit for more than 10 at the outside. The conditions under which the officials had to carry on their business was conducive neither to health nor the efficient discharge of duties. He did not want to travel beyond this Vote, but he would like to point to the fact that they had this curious matter connected with the Post Office, that while the buildings and works came on on this particular Vote the acquisition of sites came on in another Vote, and before they began to build they must of course acquire the site. He should like to know at what point the jurisdiction of the First Commissioner came in in reference to the acquisition of the site? It appeared to him that the public interests were not well served by the intervention of that officer when he did come in. The Post Office was really a Commercial Department, which ought to be conducted on commercial lines, and those who were responsible for its management, when they decided that further accommodation was required in a particular place, should not be hampered by having to go to another Department. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could make any statement about the present position of the Preston Post Office, or state what steps it was 1394 intended to take towards providing the increased accommodation which was so urgently needed in that town.

§ *SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University)
said, that the right hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division of Liverpool had made an interesting and practical speech, which resolved itself very much into a question of the advisability of Treasury control. As one who had been for many years on the Public Accounts Committee—for some time Chairman—he could bear his testimony that, although the Treasury made mistakes occasionally, like other Departments, yet its control was advantageously exercised, and conduced very much to the economy of the finances of the country. His hon. Friend spoke of the Post Office and Treasury as being two separate concerns, but he rather looked upon them as two Departments of one business carrying on the affairs of the nation. The right hon. Member for Ormskirk questioned very much the present form of keeping-accounts, because he said—if he understood him correctly—that the Controller and Auditor General found it practically impossible to give his certificate under the present system.

§ MR. FORWOOD
My remarks had reference to one special form of Estimate placed before the House which is totally different to the form of Estimate placed before the House by all other Departments, and on that form of Estimate I said that the Controller and Auditor General could not give his certificate with any degree of accuracy. This points out certain expenditure to be allocated to certain buildings; but that expenditure, although set out on the Estimate, is varied by a lump sum deducted in the aggregate.

§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK
said, with all due deference, he thought there would be no difficulty in giving the certificate under the form of Estimate they now had. Of course, whether it was a desirable form or not was another question. As far as his experience went, he did not anticipate any difficulty on the part of the Controller and Auditor General in 1395 giving his certificate under the present form of Estimate. His right hon. Friend suggested they should get out of the difficulty alluded to by using the power of the Treasury to grant transfers from one sub-head to another. That was a useful provision in keeping the national accounts, and was exercised by the Treasury with great judgment. No doubt there was some convenience in allowing money to be transferred from one Vote to another, and, though it would be a mistake to put any great restrictions on the practice, there were objections to it, and it was not desirable that it should be resorted to oftener than could be avoided. He had been under the impression that £180,000 was the total cost of the Liverpool Post Office, but it now appeared that that amount did not include the cost of the site; and to that extent the statement in the Estimates was misleading. In order to have all the facts before them the purchase of sites should be included in the Return. In the case of Landport Post Office nothing was to be spent this year, although there had been an original and a revised Estimate of £(3,700, and if there were no idea of spending anything he did not see why it was introduced at all. Great loss in interest was involved in undertaking so many works and expending so little upon them. To acquire sites and to do nothing with them for a long time made a very serious addition to the cost of the buildings. He understood that the First Commissioner was willing to expedite building operations as much as possible, with a view to minimising this source of loss, and, therefore, he did not think it necessary to pursue the subject further. Some of the suggestions of the right hon. Member for Ormskirk would rather complicate our accounts, and the right hon. Gentleman hardly did justice to the valuable supervision exercised by the Treasury.

§ MR. BARROW (Southwark, Bermondsey)
was understood to ask what was the contemplated expenditure on the new post office at Croydon?

§ MR. POWELL WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.)
inquired what was proposed to be done with the old post office at Birmingham, an ugly building, whose 1396 ugliness was rather added to by its present unoccupied condition? The popular idea in relation to the building in Birmingham was that it was absolutely un-suited to any purpose whatsoever. If the right hon. Gentleman could devise some means of disposing of it and getting it occupied he would confer an advantage on the inhabitants of the town. He should also like to ask a question in relation to the incidence of charge for these post offices as between the Telegraph and Postal Services. The first point, would arise upon the original cost of the building, and he should be glad to know how that cost was distributed between one Service and the other. He believed the system formerly in operation was that the superficial space of the floors in the building was ascertained, the quantity of that area appropriated to the two branches of the Service ascertained, and the total charge of the building was distributed as between the two Services upon that calculation. He should be glad to know if that system was still in operation or not. A further question arose in relation to maintenance and repairs. Some years ago maintenance and repairs were charged—25 per cent. to the Telegraph Service and 75 per cent. to the Postal Service, and if that was the case now he did not see how it could be justified. If a less charge on the important item of maintenance and repairs was being made upon the Telegraph Service than ought strictly to be made it was very clear that the deficiency on the Telegraph Service was in reality much, more considerable than the Estimate showed, and if the deficiency were increasing it was also clear that there might exist a necessity for a change of policy in relation to the Telegraph Service. As he understood from the First Commissioner of Works, the Treasury contemplated trying the adoption of some system of capital expenditure in relation to these buildings. It was a very curious circumstance that if a Municipal or other Local Body wished to erect an expensive building it did not do it out of revenue. Such a process would be absolutely impossible, inasmuch as for a year or two over which the expenditure would extend there would be such an increase of rating as would be intolerable. Therefore a loan was borrowed for the total value of the building and site, 1397 and that loan was spread over a series of years, having some relation to the life of the building, probably being 50 or 60 years. That, on the face of it, was a. fairly just system, and for this reason: A building lasted far beyond the term of the life of the persons who, under the system pursued by the Crown, had to pay the whole cost of it; and, therefore, by the Municipal system, the cost of the building was really paid for by the generation winch had the use of it. It would be a perfectly fair and just system if something of the kind could be applied by the Treasury to buildings of a permanent character, such as those provided for the accommodation of the Post Office, the Customs, and other Services.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, it was quite true that nothing was proposed this year as regarded the post office at Land-port. He believed they were quite prepared to undertake the building, but it was uncertain whether they would be able to do it this year. If, fortunately, they were able to commence the building, they would be able to do it out of the savings of another Vote. As representing the Treasury, he did not in the least find fault with the right hon. Member for Ormskirk for his criticisms; but, on the contrary, he rather thanked him for Usefully drawing attention to many points in the Estimates. He differed from the right hon. Gentleman, who said that the column as to Re-Votes was more misleading than it was. He thought it was clear what was meant by that column, though he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in his criticisms with respect to the information given. He quite agreed that the form in which the Re-Votes wore given was very misleading. For instance, there was a case in which £6,860 was voted last year and a sum was spent, leaving £2,000 unappropriated. That was put down for this year as a Re-Vote of £2,000, but it was a Re-Vote of less, because last year there was taken off from the total a certain amount which would have the effect of reducing the Re-Vote to a less sum than £2,000. He was going to suggest that the Treasury should consider whether a better 1398 form could not be devised for next year, and if his right hon. Friend would wish to make any suggestions on the subject he would be glad to receive them. With regard to the long delay in the building of post offices, and to the suggestion that they should be built out of capital, he did not see why that should be done for post offices unless it were to be done for all other public buildings throughout the country. If it was desirable for one, it was desirable for all. What he would suggest to the First Commissioner was that quite so many post office buildings should not be undertaken at the same time. There were 64 now in some process of construction, and, in his opinion, it would be better to have only one-half that number on hand and to spend a larger sum upon them.

§ MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.)
said, that it would be desirable to give great consideration to the form in which the Estimates should be presented. What the House of Commons wanted was to get more information, instead of less; the present system was not calculated to give them that, and he hoped the matter would have the attention of the Treasury. Another matter to which he wished to draw the attention of the First Commissioner was the Leeds Post Office. This work had been on hand a very long time, and there was not a case in the United Kingdom which was more pressing, in view of the fact that it was in contemplation to make Leeds a still more important centre for forwarding telegraphic communications, and that the present building was entirely inadequate. He noticed that only £20,000 was to be voted this year as compared with £24,000 last year. He could not understand how anyone who had prepared the Estimate could consider himself justified in reducing the amount. Only £18,500 was spent last year, and that might seem some justification for reducing the amount. But last year there were local circumstances which tended to delay. The building was now well advanced, and there was no reason whatever why not only £20,000 but even £40,000 should not be spent upon it during the present year. What he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman was that, if he had it in 1399 his power, he would not allow the work to be limited by the amount of the Vote, but let it make as much progress as it could.

§ *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, that the contract was entered into more than a year ago by his Predecessor—

§ Mr. JACKSON
There was a strike.

§ *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, that was so; and thus the right hon. Gentleman would see that the amount to be expended depended not upon the Government, but upon the contractor. Nothing, he could assure the Committee, would be done by the Department to delay the work. If, under the contract entered into by his Predecessor, it was possible for the contractor to make greater progress, more money would certainly be expended.

§ MR. TOMLINSON
said, there were other questions to be answered.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, with regard to Croydon he had to say that £5,000 was the total amount which it was intended to spend.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, he would like to point out to the right lion. Gentleman the First Commissioner, and the Committee, the great difference between the amounts of the original and revised Estimates, which might be made still larger next year. For example, the new Sorting Office at Tothill Fields was now put down for more than double the original Estimate. Telegraph factories also showed a large increase. They had in one case, he found, an Estimate of £983,857, and another Estimate of £960,152, and even the revised one, which was the higher, was not final. That was a very serious matter, because the House was asked to vote for the buildings involved on the original Estimate, whereas they were now asked to sanction an expenditure of over £1,000,000 more. Surely that would strike them as a very serious abuse. In another item they had an original Estimate of £137,000, and a revised Estimate of £190,000. Why, the difference would constitute a small fortune! Next year, perhaps, they would have another increase of £20,000. They had still 1400 another item, relating to the North-Western District, with an original Estimate of £26,000, and a revised Estimate of £54,000. Was not that a serious condition of affairs? In the matter of the telegraph factories, the increase was from £36,700 to £65,000. Next year he supposed it would be £75,000, and it might even go up to £85,000 the year after that. But perhaps the right lion. Gentleman did not care what happened next year, as he know he would not be in Office then. At the same time, he would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could not do something to place the House in a better position with regard to these Estimates.

§ MR. POWELL WILLIAMS
said, that he had received no answer to the question he had put.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
It is a matter of account, and I would prefer that it should be discussed on the Report stage.

§ MR. POWELL WILLIAMS
said, it was not a matter of that kind, but a matter of principle, and it should not be treated so lightly.

§ *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he would look into the matter referring to the Telegraph Department. The Birmingham Post Office buildings had not been sold because the Government did not think that the offer which they received was good enough. In regard to the increase in the present Estimates, he would point out that the original Estimates had been framed in some cases six or seven years ago. Wages were much higher now than they were then. As to the Tothill Fields Office, it was found that largely increased accommodation was acquired since the original estimate was framed.

LIEUTENANT-COLONEL LOCK WOOD (Essex, Epping)
asked for further information with regard to expenditure.

*MR. JAMES LOWTHER
said, there was a question of great importance which he would like to press upon the notice of the Government—namely, that of electrical communication with lighthouses and lightships. He had often tried to do so before, but he could not 1401 get an opportunity, and he doubted whether this was the Vote upon which he should speak regarding the subject.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, this Vote did not cover the subject-matter of the inquiry proposed to be put.

*MR. JAMES LOWTHER
said, the right hon. Gentleman was rather premature. He wanted to guard himself, if this were not the proper Vote, against being subsequently precluded from raising the question at a later stage. What he desired to ask was whether there was included in the Estimates any provision for carrying out the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission relating to this question? [Cries of Order!]

THE CHAIRMAN
Order!

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman, and could only answer that he did not know at present. He would now appeal to the Committee to allow the Vote to pass.

§ MR. PLUNKET (Dublin University)
said, he would not delay the Committee, but he was anxious to know what was being done in regard to the buildings at Manchester, the site for which had been acquired?

§ *MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE
said, he hoped the matter would be proceeded with in the course of the coming year.

§ MR. FORWOOD
wished to thank the First Commissioner for the courteous way in which he had met the remarks which had been offered.

§ *SIR JOHN LUBBOCK
said he wished to call attention to the want of accommodation for examinations at the London University. The Government had recognised the fact that the accommodation was deficient, but seemed disposed to put off dealing with the matter almost sine die. If they would only inquire into the subject, he was sure they would satisfy themselves that something should be done at once. The 1402 Millbank site was by no means the most convenient that could be selected. His view was that, as additional accommodation was required at South Kensington, arrangements should be made whereby that accommodation, and the additional accommodation for examinations required at the London University, should be given in the same building. This would be much the most economical arrangement. The cost of the University to the National Exchequer was very small; in fact, with the exception of the buildings, the expenditure was more than recouped by increased fees. The government of the University was carried on at no expense to the State. The number of students going up for examination increased nearly 10 per cent. every year, the total number of students doubling itself each decade. At present, the examinations took place in buildings by no means suitable for the purpose, where there was not sufficient means of giving accommodation to successive batches of students. Clearly it was very disadvantageous for a batch of students in chemistry to be obliged to undergo an examination in a room just vacated by another batch, where the atmosphere was laden with the fumes of previous experiments. The late Government had recognised the necessity of something being done, and had proposed to add another storey to the University buildings, but the Royal Academy Authorities had objected on the ground that it would interfere with their light. It had been expected that the late Government would have taken steps to give additional accommodation at South Kensington, but nothing had been done.

§ *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
The Government have not lost sight of the subject to which the right hon. Baronet refers. I thought we had gone a long way towards meeting the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman by suggesting the Millbank site, not only for the Civil Service Commission Buildings, but for London University examination rooms. Of course, if the London University object to that site their objection will be entertained, and we shall consider what 1403 provision can be made elsewhere, but it occurred to me that, on the whole, it would be well to have the examination rooms in combination with other buildings.

§ SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)
desired to impress on the Government the necessity for something being done at once. The matter had been discussed the other day at the Senate of the University, and the unanimous opinion was that the accommodation was so defective that the students could not do justice to their work. He thought that in the interests of education something should be done. As to the Millbank site, he concurred with what had been said by the right hon. Baronet. The examination rooms ought to be near the University, and he doubted whether the proposed site was at all suitable. Furthermore, it was desirable that there should be no delay; therefore, he hoped that something would be done in the matter as rapidly as possible.

§ *SIR J. LUBBOCK
said, he did not desire to be understood as objecting to the Millbank site. It was only as a matter of economy that he suggested they should go to South Kensington. He would, however, press on the Government the necessity of doing something as soon as possible.

§ MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)
said, there was an item for the residence of Parliamentary counsel, and he should like to know what explanation the Government had to offer with regard to such a charge? It seemed to him to be as dark and mysterious as any item the hon. Member for Peterborough had ever drawn attention to. He should also like to know how it was that the item for the Public Works Loan Board had increased from £700 to £2,000?

§ *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, the increase referred to was due to the fact that the Bank of England, to whom the building belonged, had raised the rent, and the Government were not in a position to raise objection. No doubt the building was worth £2,000 a year. The item for buildings for Parliamentary Counsel was owing to the old quarters having been given up for the purposes of the Admiralty. In a short time those quarters would be pulled down, and this was 1404 thought to be a convenient opportunity for removal to Whitehall, where a private house had been obtained. The rent charged was not excessive.

MR. JOHSSON- FERGUSON (Leicester, Loughborough)
said, he presumed that when the buildings at the St. Martin's side of the National Gallery were finished that portion of the structure would be complete. No one could say that the buildings at that side were not handsome and suitable for their purpose. But the buildings on the opposite side, near Pall Mall, were not such as they ought to have for national purposes. The approaches were a disgrace to the country. It would be impossible to improve them, and make them like those of the other side, so long as the barracks were maintained in the rear. Besides being inconvenient in this sense, the barracks were a source of danger in the possible event of lire. He had heard it said, and he hoped it was true, that the Government proposed to remove the barracks to the Millbank site.

§ *MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)
said, he saw a sum of £25 in the Estimates for the Whitehall Banquetting House. He had understood that that building had been given up to an institution of some sort; and he should, therefore, like to know whether it was still to be kept in repair at the expense of the public? On another page he found an item of £1,000 for electric current against £150 last year; and he found that, in spite of this increase, there was no reduction in the charge for gas and oil. He failed to understand how the whole of the charge for the electric lighting could be put down as an extra. Some time ago he had put a question to the Government as to the condition of the water in the Fountains at Trafalgar Square, which was supplied from the Orange Street Waterworks. The tanks were in a disgraceful state, and he should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would give orders to have them cleaned out? Though be (Mr. Morton) had called attention to their state every year for some years past nothing had been done in the matter. As they now had a new First Commissioner 1405 of Works, and as there was some fear of cholera coming to this country, he would ask the Government for some explicit statement at to what was to be done in this matter.

§ *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, that the barracks behind the National Gallery would, by arrangement with the War Office, eventually be removed to Millbank, and this would enable the Government at some future time to make a further extension of the National Gallery. The day was not far distant when it would be necessary to do that, in order to find room for all the pictures of the National Collection. He did not agree that the approaches to the Gallery were unworthy of the country. The question of the condition of the water in Trafalgar Square had not been brought under his notice since he had been in Office; but In. would make inquiries into the matter. He ventured to hope that the Committee would now pass the Vote.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS
suggested that the Department for which the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner was responsible should follow the example set by the London County Council in other parts of London and the City Corporation, and provide orderly boxes in. Trafalgar Square and other open spaces in which pieces of paper, orange peel, and so forth could be thrown.

§ MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)
urged the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, in connection with Item D, for Caretakers, to remember the ease of discharged soldiers, and to give them situations as caretakers when he had the opportunity. He could say a great deal on that subject, but he would not now take up the time of the Committee.