CLASS 1. (Hansard, 30 March 1894)

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, he should like to ask for an explanation of the reduction of £2,000 in the item of new works, alterations, and additions in connection with the British Museum, and for a statement from the Government as to the truth or otherwise of the rumour that it was proposed to add four or five acres to the site occupied by the Museum.

§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)
was understood to complain of the inconvenience which had been caused by the conversion of certain rooms in the Museum.

§ SIR R. TEMPLE
said, there were several additions to the British Museum buildings, such as new wings, still incomplete, which must, no doubt, imperil the safety of the edifice. But notwithstanding that there was a diminution in (be Vote for buildings, one would have thought the object of the authorities would be to complete (be buildings as soon as possible. He would like to know why the buildings were left in an incomplete state, and when they would be completed?

§ * SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said that, as be had stated upon the Vote on Account, it was quite true that the Government proposed to purchase a considerable property from the Duke of Bedford. The amount would be borrowed and spread over a number of years, so that the payment would not form a very serious item of increase upon the ordinary Vote for the British Museum. Extensions of the building would probably be made from time to time, but at present there was no immediate intention of adding to the edifice. A Bill would have to be introduced into the House for the purpose of carrying out the transfer of the new plot of ground, and that would be the time to have the whole matter discussed. One or two matters were somewhat pressing upon the authorities, and among those was the question of removing some rather dangerous boilers from the lower portions of the building. Those would be removed on the first opportunity.

§ MR. HANBURY
thought an excellent opportunity now existed for adding to the collection of Syrian sculpture in the British Museum by the purchase, at a very small cost, of samples of Syrian art and archaeology, which were lying exposed to 1066 the sun and weather in the neighbourhood of Nineveh and along the head of the Tigris. He had had the opportunity of visiting Nineveh, and had been much struck by these priceless archaeological treasures, with their inscriptions, which furnished the key to Syrian history, lying neglected and unprotected. The Pasha of the district has expressed his readiness to sell them for a very moderate sum indeed, and the cost of transport would be small. There ought to be some Member of the Government to whom they could appeal, and who would take a special interest in matters of this kind.

§ * MR. H. GLADSTONE
said, that his responsibility was concerned with the fabric and with any structural alterations which might be decided upon. He would not therefore follow the last speaker's remarks, though no doubt the Trustees of the Museum were fully alive to the subject. He was not personally responsible for framing the Estimates, but, as far as he was aware, no demand by the Trustees of the Museum for money for necessary alterations had been refused by the Government. He did not think-there were any unfinished building work at the Museum.

§ SIR R. TEMPLE
said, there were scaffolding up outside portions of the building.

§ MR. H. GLADSTONE
said, he was not aware of any new work. Though the inquiry of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) rightly referred to a subsequent Vote, he would say that it was not part of the duty of the First Commissioner of Works to interfere with the discretion of the Trustees in such a matter.

§ MR. TOMLINSON
said, the Committee were asked to vote money for alterations in the Museum buildings, and be thought it was the duty of the Minister in charge to give some reasons for carrying out these changes. He believed the proposed change in the rooms for gold ornaments and medals would not tend to the security or safety of the gold ornaments, and that was why he urged this matter on the attention of the First Commissioner.

§ MR. H. GLADSTONE
said, he did not think the matter came within his Department. He understood that the 1067 change in the rooms had been sanctioned either last year or two years ago; but had not yet been completed. The Trustees considered the re-arrangement of the rooms desirable, and so far as he was concerned his responsibility lay entirely in any structural alterations of the building.

MR. J. LOWTHER
said, he was sure the Committee did not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman as to matters of detail connected with the Department which they were all so glad to see him presiding over; but some protest should be made against the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman that the Trustees of the British Museum were the authority to which in these matters Parliament should bow. The Government were responsible to Parliament for the expenditure of this money, and Parliament was entitled to an explanation with regard to it from the Government.

§ MR. H. GLADSTONE
said, that all he had stated, or meant to convey, was that the matter did not come under the jurisdiction of his Department, which was interested only in questions affecting the Museum buildings.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
explained that all applications by the Trustees of the British Museum were first considered by the Treasury—which had full control— and approved of before being laid before Parliament.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, the First Commissioner had stated he was not aware that there had been any refusal on the part of his Department of anything the Trustees of the Museum wanted in the way of building. As he had spent a good deal of his life connected with one of the Public Departments, he could say that the Departments were always most anxious to obtain money for their purposes, and he was sure that this money would not have been given up by the Trustees of the Museum unless great pressure had been brought to bear on them by the Treasury to reduce their demand for money for repairs and new buildings to the lowest possible amount, especially as they were in want of additional accommodation for their treasures.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, he could give a satisfactory answer to the hon. Gentleman. The £1,000 had been spent last year on the basement for the 1068 Assyrian sculpture, and, as that work had been completed, it was not necessary to ask for any more money for the purpose. The Trustees also knowing that the Government had in prospect this large scheme for obtaining additional land around the Museum, involving an expenditure of £200,000, thought it wise to hold their hands for a time before they asked for money for further extensions, for they would under this scheme be able to extend their buildings in a more satisfactory way.

§ MR. H. GLADSTONE
said, he had learned that the scaffoldings referred to by the hon. Baronet the Member for Kingston were put up for the ordinary external repairs, and had nothing to do with any unfinished new work.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
thought that enough money had now been spent on Assyrian bulls. If the Government had any other bulls in view—such as Irish bulls—the House might consider whether it ought not to vote more money for their purchase.

§ MR. TOMLINSON
said, the matter he had called attention to referred to alterations in structure, and was therefore relevant to the present Vote. He objected on principle to being referred to the next Vote, and when that Vote came up and he asked for particulars of the re-arrangement of the rooms to be told that he was not in Order, as the Vote for structures had been disposed of.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)
said, that outside the very high railing in front of the British Museum there was a small railing, breast high, enclosing five or six feet of the footpath. The small railing had probably been put up about 30 years ago to keep off boys from climbing up the main railing, but as the latter was now sufficiently intimidating, and as there were policemen about night and day, the small railing might be removed and five or six feet added to the footpath, which was all too narrow for the crowds of people who visited the Museum on holidays.

§ MR. H. GLADSTONE
I will look into that matter.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
asked for some information regarding the item of £950 to provide additional space in the copyright department. Was it con- 1069 nected with any new development, or expected development, of the Copyright Law? That law was not in a satisfactory position at present; it would certainly have to be attended to in a short time, and unless there was some completed plan with regard to the Law of Copyright, he doubted the wisdom of this large expenditure.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, he did not know why there should be an annual charge of £1,000 for furniture for the British Museum. It was not an institution where one would have thought there was a constant demand for fresh furniture; and if this sum were spent yearly the Museum must be crowded with old furniture, for there was never any mention of an appropriation in aid by the sale of old furniture. He would like to know what became of the old furniture.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
said, he was glad to see a Vote of £3,850 for Bethnal Green Museum. Instead of spending all the money on the West End of London, where those who called themselves the aristocracy lived, some of it should be devoted to the East End or the South West. He should like some explanation of the item of £3,500 for rent of Galleries at South Kensington, and why it was required to spend £4,500 on temporary buildings in that Museum. There was also an item of £860 for rent of galleries, in the Imperial Institute which showed an increase of £110 over the Vote of last year. He objected to the Vote last year because it looked like a subsidy to the Imperial Institute, which was, generally speaking, regarded as a sham and a farce, in which no one took any interest except a few adventurers and company promoters.

MR. POWELL WILLIAMS
asked the right hon. Gentleman to state to the Committee how far the completion of the South Kensington Museum building was being proceeded with. To their present unsightly condition as seen from the public road it would be difficult to find a parallel in this or any other country. He had been unable to find that any progress had been made in that direction.

§ * MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE
said, that it was hoped a beginning would be made with the new buildings at South Kensington next year. There were obvious reasons for not going on with them this 1070 year. By the completion of a number of new and heavy works in the course of the present year a sum of £60,000 would be set free, so to speak, without substantially adding to the Votes for Public Buildings next year. In the meantime, a sum of £4,500 was asked for this year to provide temporary accommodation for the South Kensington staff. Hon. Members would agree that the Department was acting wisely in equalising the expenditure year by year, and money would be saved in the long run by the erection of temporary buildings.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
asked whether plans had been adopted for the new buildings?

§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE
said, plans had been approved.

MR. POWELL WILLIAMS
said, it was desirable the plans should be exhibited.

§ MR. BARTLEY,
speaking from considerable experience of expenditure on the South Kensington buildings, objected to an expenditure of £4,500 on temporary buildings which would have to be pulled down to make room for the permanent structure. There were several acres of land at South Kensington merely covered with grass, and which might be built upon, and common-sense would surely dictate that this money should be expended in making a commencement with the permanent buildings there, leaving the boilers alone. It seemed most extravagant to employ the money as proposed upon a building in which the staff were to be placed temporarily while the pulling down was going on. A block of buildings might be put up at the south-west corner, where at least a couple of acres of land were available, and the "Boilers" would, of course, ultimately have to come down.

MR. J. LOWTHER
said, the plan contemplated building over a considerable area, part of which was not at present occupied at all. Undoubtedly some provision must be made for the accommodation of the staff. He had understood that the new buildings erected on the vacant site would be utilised for that purpose, and the £4,500 should be employed in that way rather than in the erection of temporary buildings which would have soon to be removed as absolutely worthless. The Committee ought really to be further informed as to the progress of the build- 1071 ings and the expenditure of the money voted for them.

MR. POWELL WILLIAMS
suggested that the Government should take this opportunity of making known to the House of Commons generally what plans had been approved for these buildings. He, at any rate, had not seen them. That was the more desirable, as the right hon. Gentleman had told them he was going to ask Parliament for a Vote for these buildings next year. Surely they should know what the buildings were to be like. Another important consideration was that they should not be built of unsuitable materials for the atmosphere of London, as had occurred in other instances where white stone and red brick, both easily spoiled and defiled, had been used. Terra cotta would much more successfully resist the ill-effects of our Loudon atmosphere.

§ * MR. H. GLADSTONE
stated that the plans were approved by the late Government. He would be glad to arrange for the plans being exhibited in the tearoom. As to the charge for furniture for the British Museum, he was informed that certain things had to be supplied in the nature of fittings for certain official residences, but the larger part of the money was expended in cases and necessary furniture for the Museum. With regard to the rent paid to the Imperial Institute, an arrangement had been made that, for the gallery occupied by the Department, it should pay annually 3 per cent. on the cost of that part of the building.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
objected to the Department occupying any part of the Imperial Institute, and to public money being paid to an Institute which did no good whatever, and was got up to provide salaries for adventurers. He was afraid this was a subsidy to the Imperial Institute, which was shoved into the Estimates for the first time by the late Government.

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order!

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
was only pointing out that these arrangements were a sham and were merely a fraud upon the public. Why was it necessary to give public money to the Imperial Institute?

§ * SIR J. GOLDSMID
said, it struck him that, instead of pulling down the "Boilers" 1072 and erecting temporary buildings at a cost of £4,500, it would be better to commence permanent buildings at once; and, if necessary, to house the staff temporarily in the permanent buildings. That would be far more economical than to put up temporary buildings at a considerable cost. And there was always a danger of their being maintained when once erected, however little that might have been at first intended. He remembered a good many years ago some temporary buildings being put up, and Parliament, as so much money had been spent upon them, ultimately made them permanent, so that they remained an eyesore to this day. The expenditure of large sums upon temporary buildings was very bad in principle. No doubt the Vice President wanted his staff to be properly housed somewhere or other, but that was no reason why these buildings should be pulled down and temporary ones erected, when a commencement might be made on the permanent structure elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman would have to offer a better explanation if he would satisfy him and a good many other Members of the House.

§ * MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, it was only after the most careful consideration the conclusion had been come to that the wiser course was to build accommodation for the staff on the site of the "Boilers," which at present were in themselves a source of considerable danger, although that was not the principal reason for removing them. There was not the slightest wish to expend large sums on temporary buildings, which he agreed would be great waste. This was the most convenient place for locating the staff. He would be very unwilling to authorise temporary buildings unless it was absolutely necessary to do so.

§ MR. PLUNKET (Dublin University)
said, it was certainly desirable that those hideous things called the "Boilers" should be removed, but he would ask whether they were to understand that the erection of temporary buildings was to serve as an excuse for postponing the commencement of permanent buildings, in order that another year might elapse before the House pledged itself to the larger expenditure. They had spent money on good plans which had been exhibited and approved; and he should like an assurance that the works were 1073 really going to be taken in hand and carried through. The only way to ensure something being done was to get the opinion of the House of Commons upon the matter. Of course, the Treasury was naturally anxious, as always, to postpone the incurring of considerable expenditure. He had had that struggle many a time, and could assure his right hon. Friend he also would have to undergo it. He wanted an undertaking that the Office of Works would not put off the House of Commons with this small expenditure, but that they would obtain the consent of the Treasury at the earliest possible moment to the principal scheme being carried out.

§ * MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE
said, he had already, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, stated that next year the Treasury would present an Estimate for the commencement of the new buildings. It was not possible to do it this year on account of the large expenditure for other works, which would be completed within the year. The Public Buildings Vote showed an increase of £20,000 for works which would be completed within the year; and to that extent the Department would be set free for next year. The right hon. Gentleman would recognise that the Department could not commence the whole of the buildings at once.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, the explanations given were so unsatisfactory that he should conclude by moving the reduction of this item. There was no doubt the Government could spend this £4,500 in erecting permanent buildings in which the staff could be temporarily housed, and thus obviate the necessity for erecting temporary buildings. The rough estimate of the whole expenditure to be incurred was about £500,000; and that showed the size of the site that had to be covered. It did seem a most extraordinary way to set about this work to begin by erecting temporary buildings. The "Boilers," as they were called, were only to be temporary buildings when they were erected in 1857; and if temporary buildings were put up now they would probably remain as long as the "Boilers" had done. The assurances that had been given might be given in good faith, but they were not worth very much, because, before next year, another set of officials might 1074 reign at the Treasury who might have different views on the matter. The whole system upon which the extension was being carried out was very unsatisfactory. He objected to the hiring of these spaces on the other side of the road. The country was paying many hundreds a year for the rental of these buildings outside, when there was as a fact plenty of space otherwise. It seemed to him that the whole system was in a state of chaos. The present proposal was to put up temporary sheds, which would be as ugly as the old "Boilers." He said that the time had come when they ought to stop this haphazard expenditure. They ought to have proper plans submitted to them, and those plans ought to be carried out. In the interest of the taxpayers and of the South Kensington Museum itself, he should move a reduction of this sum of £4,500, so that they might really test the feeling of the Committee upon the matter.

§ * SIR J. GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)
said, that the report which reached him was that the "Boilers" were used for an entirely different purpose from the one pointed out by the Vice President of the Council. They were used now and then for the purpose of examining plans which were sent up from the country, and were not occupied by the permanent staff. The permanent staff were housed near the Oratory. He wanted to know whether it was not possible to economise by beginning to build at the other end, near the buildings where the permanent staff was now accommodated, leaving the "Boilers" to be dealt with last, when their temporary occupation could be made permanent. It struck him that, instead of pulling down the "Boilers" in order to erect temporary buildings at a cost of £4,500, it would be far better to commence permanent buildings at once in which the staff could be housed.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)
said, there seemed to be some misapprehension with regard to this Vote. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down thought that the "Boilers" were a series of iron sheds, and he believed 1075 that they were not used for the purposes of the staff, but were depositories for the examination of plans. Whether they were used for plans or for offices, the "Boilers" occupied the site that the Government ought to start upon at once for the finishing of the buildings. [An hon. MEMBER: No !] Well, he knew South Kensington just as well as the hon. Gentleman who cried "no." They had at least to complain that the appearance of one of the most beautiful buildings in London—he meant the Brompton Oratory—was spoiled by the unfinished state of the South Kensington buildings; and, consequently, he said that they ought to start with the completion of the frontage of those buildings as near to the Oratory as possible. When they found that that was the point at which some of the staff were situated it seemed to him that the First Commissioner of Works had made out a strong case for getting rid of the "Boilers" and completing the front of the Museum. The hon. Member for Kensington said that the staff could be accommodated by starting a new building at the other end of the premises. He thought that by the time the "Boilers" were pulled down, and the temporary building erected, they would find that there was no necessity for completing the new block at the south-west corner of the Museum, because by that time public opinion in London would protest against the Imperial Institute being used for its present purposes, and would demand that it should be handed over to the South Kensington Authorities, and be devoted to mechanical engineering, instead of being devoted to the uses of "Diplomatic Johnnies and Colonial Bounders." It was his opinion that they ought to have the staff housed in a portion of the building in close proximity to the Oratory, and that they ought to have these dangerous "Boilers" pulled down at once. Although he was opposed to the general system of temporary buildings of any kind whatever, he thought that, under the circumstances of the case, the Government were entitled to ask for a sum of money to complete the front of the Museum, so as to place it in harmony with the beautiful buildings both right and left.

§ * MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE
said, that this proposal for the erection of temporary buildings was not a new one. 1076 It was decided upon by the late Government two years ago. He was not more desirous than the hon. Gentleman opposite to see temporary buildings erected. The immediate necessity, however, was the provision of a building for the staff. The staff was very insufficiently provided for at present, and it was absolutely necessary that the first extension made should be devoted to their purpose. The hon. Member for Islington said it would be a wise course to erect a portion of the building and to put the staff in it, and then to remove it again. The effect of that would be that they would have to erect in another portion of the ground a building for the staff, which would afterwards have to be used for exhibition purposes. As it was obvious that no building could be equally suitable for both purposes, he could only say that that course did not commend itself to his mind, and that he did not think it would commend itself to the Committee, if they had the plans before them. The course now recommended to the Committee seemed to him to be the wisest one that could be followed, and indeed the only one that could be adopted.

§ SIR H. MAXWELL (Wigton)
said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman had agreed to exhibit these plans afresh in the tea-room. He was not aware himself that the opinion of hon. Members had been invited upon the plans. The impression left upon his mind was that the style of architecture adopted was neither classical nor Gothic, nor Renaissance, nor English domestic architecture. It was totally a new school. There was, undoubtedly, great merit in originality, but he should be glad to know whether there was any chance of the plans being reconsidered.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
said, he should not go into the various styles of the architecture of the building, but should address himself to the sole question whether they were going to spend £4,500 on a temporary building or upon a permanent building. The hon. Member for Battersea had argued that they should erect a temporary building because a permanent building would never be required, inasmuch as he intended to turn the Imperial Institute into a school of mechanical engineering. He had said that they 1077 had these buildings called "Boilers." In these "Boilers" was housed the staff of South Kensington Museum. They had also acres of ground vacant, upon which at some time they were going to erect a permanent building. How were they going to erect this permanent building? They might begin by erecting a part of the permanent building on the vacant ground. But the hon. Gentleman said that, first of all, they must pull down the "Boilers," and then erect the temporary building. He presumed that what was meant was that the temporary building was to be erected first, and then the clerks and staff were to be transferred, and that afterwards a permanent building was to be erected, and at some future time the staff and clerks were to be transferred from their second temporary home into their permanent home. It seemed to be plain that the whole of the money proposed to be devoted to this building would be absolutely thrown away. Let them take the £4,500 and begin upon the vacant ground with the permanent buildings. It would be as good, at any rate, as any temporary building that could be erected, and useful as well for other purposes. They would then save the£4,500, instead of putting it into a building which must hereafter be taken down, and they would be putting an end to the system of temporary buildings, an arrangement which was a disgrace to South Kensington, and had made the building ridiculous in the eyes of the artistic world.

§ * SIR J. GOLDSMID
said, he should like to know where it was intended to erect these temporary buildings? He was inclined to think that the staff who were said to be now occupying the "Boilers" might prefer to remain in then-present quarters rather than be removed a long way away from their work. He was glad to see that the Vice President had come back to the House, because they would be pleased to know how he was going to arrange for the housing of the staff who were temporarily accommodated in the "Boilers." They had heard that a good portion of the permanent staff occupied the "Boilers," but he understood that it was only a portion of the staff which was sent into the "Boilers" in order to examine the plans which came up from the country, and that they were not occupied by the 1078 regular permanent staff. It was necessary that they should have some explanation as to how this matter stood, and as to what was really intended to be done.

§ THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,) York, W.R., Rotherham
said, that the present accommodation was absolutely unsuitable for the staff. Hon. Members seemed to think that providing proper accommodation for the staff was a very immaterial matter. If, however, they would take the trouble to go down one day and inspect the "Boilers" they would find some well-known and distinguished men like Mr. Morris and Mr. Crane located there. He thought that was a disreputable place for them to be in. They were just as much members of the permanent staff as any others. He understood that the building was to be on the other side of the Exhibition Road. A very important part of their work was carried on on the other side of the Exhibition Road, but as a fact it did not really matter on which side the buildings were placed.

MR. J. LOWTHER
said, that nobody had addressed himself to the practical question involved in the Amendment. Why could not the Government commence by erecting permanent buildings on the vacant ground? Why could they not commence their expenditure upon that portion of the ground which was now vacant, and house the staff in the buildings so erected, thereby saving this' expenditure of £4,500?

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
said, he was glad the Government had promised to exhibit these plans again in the tearoom. He must say he had been a pretty regular attendant at the House, but he had never seen these plans. Possibly they were put in the tea-room during the time of the General Election. As he understood, they were not bound to these plans although a tender had been accepted. It appeared to him that the answer of the Government was not a very good one as to the erection of temporary buildings. He did not suppose that they wanted to waste the money of the taxpayers, which could be very much better expended in other parts of London. The Museum ought not to be made a lounge for the aristocracy. It was not clear to his mind that it was necessary to spend this money on temporary buildings. He thought it could be spent upon new 1079 buildings, and so saved. It was all very well to say that the matter had been well considered, but they were not bound by the official mind. He found that what the officials wanted was money, and they knew that a great deal of it was wasted. He hoped the Government would consider whether this money could not be saved by spending it upon a part of the permanent buildings instead of upon a temporary building. They might put it upon what side they liked, but lot them put it where it would be permanent. As at present contemplated the money would be wasted.

§ MR. TOMLINSON
said, that whatever might be the merits of the question he did not think that they could be satisfied by the explanation of the Vice President. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to get the staff out of their temporary accommodation in the "Boilers," and yet he proposed to put up another temporary building for their accommodation. It would be a great deal better that a permanent building should be constructed; and in the interests of economy, and the carrying out of public works for the public advantage, he thought that the Committee ought to express its view against this proposal.

§ * MR. H. GLADSTONE
said, that the only desire of the Government was to carry out the work as economically as possible. By the pulling down of the "Boilers" the staff would be displaced, and up to the present time it had not been found possible to find accommodation for the staff in any other way than that suggested. If they could find temporary accommodation in the neighbourhood they would endeavour to obtain the sanction of the Treasury to alter the proposal so that the staff could be placed in any accommodation so found.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, the Committee now heard that although the Government were asking for £4,500 for temporary buildings, that between this and the erection of the building they would, if they found it convenient, go to the Treasury for power to expend the money in a direction different to the verdict expressed by Parliament. Their argument was that they ought to begin the permanent buildings. What the Vice President had told him was that 1080 The "Boilers" were used for looking at the national competition drawings. If there was a place that could be used with advantage for the purposes suggested he should say that it would be one of the new courts of the Museum. Nothing could be better than that one of these new courts should take the place of the present "Boilers." The hon. Member for Battersea had said that he wanted to beautify the space between the Museum and the Oratory. There was ample room at the bottom of the building next to the Oratory to put up a new block quite as largo as the "Boilers" themselves. The "Boilers" were not next to the Oratory, There was no question whatever that if the Government thought proper to do it they could set to work and put up one section of the new building which would do perfectly well for all the purposes required.

§ MR. H. GLADSTONE
said, that the plans had been accepted, and that alterations, though possible, would involve a severe fine. Some provision must be made at once, otherwise it would not be possible to house the staff.

§ SIR R. TEMPLE
called attention to the next item, £2,800 odd, for the purchase of property adjacent to the Bethnal Green Museum. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee something about it—what that property was, what purpose it was to serve, and to what extent the Museum would be benefited by it?

§ * MR. H. GLADSTONE
explained that the expenditure was to acquire a small amount of property which projected into the open space at present existing, and which was a source of danger from fire.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
asked for an explanation of an item of £860 paid to the Imperial Institute. He said, he objected to any form of subsidising out of public money the Institute, which he regarded as a fraud on the nation altogether. Public money had been obtained and buildings promised, but the money had been spent elsewhere. He asked whether any agreement had been 1081 made in this matter, and if so what it was?

§ MR. H. GLADSTONE
said, the sum was a terminable payment for rent of rooms in the Institute, space being wanted at South Kensington.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS
called attention to an item of £3,850 for the purchase of houses adjacent to the Bethnal Green Museum in order to pull them down. He stated that the London County Council had recently acquired seven or eight acres of ground near the Museum for an open space, and suggested that the First Commissioner of Works should confer with the architect of the County Council with a view to the work being carried out as a whole in a symmetrical way.

§ * MR. H. GLADSTONE
undertook to do this.

§ SIR R. TEMPLE
asked what had been done to improve the accommodation for the Art students at South Kensington when they assembled there for examination. What had been done with the land required for the examination buildings? He believed some plan had been proposed for some fine new buildings, but was not aware what progress had been made with it.

§ MR. H. GLADSTONE
said, his right hon. Friend the late First Commissioner had made the best arrangements he could for the present to improve the accommodation without spending too large a sum upon that particular item.

§ COLONEL TOMLINSON (Preston)
could understand charges for proper repairs, but not that the charges should extend to providing furniture, in a building account.

§ MR. HANBURY
asked for an explanation with reference to the contribution of India towards the rents of Legation and Consular buildings in China.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
referred to the charge for municipal and State taxes, including insurance at Berlin, and asked whether this country was to be asked to continue the payment of those taxes, when Great Britain made an exemption in favour of other Powers? He also objected to the poor people of India being called upon to make contributions which the British authorities ought to pay out of Imperial funds. The China rents also included a sum of £490 for taxes, which seemed very large, and satisfactory information should be given about these contributions towards the China rents.

§ * MR. H. GLADSTONE
was understood to say that there was a certain amount of reciprocity observed with regard to the payment of rates and taxes, and that the payment by India towards rents of Legation and Consular buildings in China had been made for many years.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
said, that it would be only fair that notice should be given to the Embassies that the Local Authorities of London would charge them rates and taxes, and that we should insist upon reciprocity in this matter to the advantage of the ratepayers of various parishes as the case might be.

§ MR. LEGH (Lancashire, S.W., Newton)
asked whether it was not the universal practice in all foreign countries to exempt Diplomatic and Consular Representatives from the payment of rates and taxes, and why the rule was not observed in Berlin and Vienna?

§ * SIR C. W. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)
was bound to say that he did not think that India contributed too large a share towards the Diplomatic and Consular Services of this country when they considered the enormous advantage which she derived from them. No doubt the time had come when there might be some reconsideration and revision as to the particular cases in which she should contribute. But he thought that the result of any such revision would be to increase and not to diminish the extent of the Indian contribution, and that it would not be a good thing for India if the matter were re-considered. For instance, the expenditure in Eastern Africa, partly colonial and partly foreign, was almost entirely incurred on behalf of Indian subjects and Indian trade. Both the Indian subjects and the Indian 1083 trade had an enormous interest in the East Coast of Africa. The whole matter was very thoroughly considered in the famous investigation into the finances of India which took place upon the suggestion of Mr. Fawcett some years ago, and there was no case made out for India ceasing to pay towards the Diplomatic and Consular Services. There was another matter which arose upon this Vote under several different items. It would be improper to discuss a question of policy upon a Vote which was simply a Vote for buildings. At the same time, there were certain matters in the Vote in regard to which this was the only opportunity for discussion, and if they were not mentioned upon this Vote, they could not be mentioned at all. There were items of expenditure on behalf of British Central Africa and Zanzibar, some of which did not arise upon any other Vote; and in this connection it was desirable to take notice of how far the Foreign Office was becoming a Colonial Department. He held that the proper policy of this country was to place protectorates, which were virtually colonies, under the control of the Colonial, and not the Foreign, Department. With regard to Central Africa, there was no other opportunity of making mention of the fact, that British Central Africa was practically a portion of the British Empire——

§ * SIR E. GREY
said, there would be opportunity for further mention of this matter.

§ SIR C. W. DILKE
said, that although he might have an opportunity of mentioning Central Africa again, there were other items in the Vote which he could not mention. All he could say was, to take the case of Africa, that there were now in Africa a large number of establishments for which they were paying in this Vote in regard to places which were paying their running expenses out of the revenue they received; and there was no Budget presented by these colonies, as they virtually were. The proper thing was to place these colonies under the Colonial, and not under the Foreign, Office. He would not, however, discuss the matter further now, as he should be able to refer to it on Class V.

MR. J. LOWTHER
said, that before they entered upon this large field which 1084 the right hon. Baronet had opened out to them, they should clear up the question of the position which diplomatic residences in this country occupied in regard to local rates. The right hon. Baronet, who had a practical knowledge of the Foreign Office, said that the houses occupied by the Foreign Representatives were exempt from rates. If that were carried out strictly it would be unjust to localities from the local taxation point of view. He was under the impression that the Imperial funds made up to the localities for the sacrifice to which they were subjected in the Imperial interest. That was so, he thought. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] If, for instance, a house in a parish in London where a diplomatic residence was situated, for Imperial reasons was purchased for diplomatic purposes, it became extraterritorial. Certainly the Imperial Exchequer ought to come to the rescue of the parish in cases of that kind. He thought that in the cases of diplomatic residences there should be exemption from rates. But before they entered upon any larger topic, he would like to call attention to the item for the accommodation of our Residences in China. Now, India was largely benefited by our diplomatic expenditure in China, and he thought that it should devolve on the Revenues of India to make us some recompense. He did not champion the British Empire against the British taxpayer. It was considered to be patriotic to say that the British taxpayer ought to do everything, and to be very generous with his money, and that he ought to contribute towards all sorts of Imperial expenditure. He was glad to find that India did contribute something towards the expenses of these Services, but he thought they ought to know exactly what the proportion was. He was not saying that India ought to contribute anything at all, but inasmuch as there was a contribution, he should like to know what the details were.

§ * SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, he should like to state what was the position of the case in regard to houses occupied by the Representatives of Foreign Powers. It was not the case that all the Representatives had their houses exempted from local rates. Formerly these houses were liable for rates, but the Foreign Representatives were not liable to be proceeded 1085 against for non-payment of rates. That question was brought up upon complaints made by the Local Authorities to the Government in 1891, and complaints were also made by the Diplomatic Body as to the trouble to which they were put in this matter. The Treasury at that time made a proposal to the Diplomatic Body and to the Foreign Office, which was accepted by all parties. The proposal was that local rates for the relief of the poor, School Board, police, baths, and wash houses, public libraries, and Burial Board were to be borne by Her Majesty's Government; and that the local rates for sewerage, drainage, maintenance lighting and improvement of streets, and fire-brigade were to be borne by the Diplomatic Body. This arrangement was only operative in cases where our Representatives in foreign countries received the same treatment. There was to be a system of reciprocity; and he had a list of 19 or 20 countries which adopted the system. The plan now adopted was that the Government paid both classes of rates in the first instance, and obtained repayment through the Foreign Office of that portion for which the Diplomatic Body was responsible. The plan worked most satisfactorily.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
asked whether the German Government came under this arrangement?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
Yes.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
said, that Germany already had a long pull at the British purse, and he wished to be sure that they had no more.

§ SIR R. TEMPLE
said, he must ask for an explanation of some of the figures of the Estimate. From an accountant's point of view the particulars given wore not intelligible. Was the original amount £1,490, from which £490 was deducted for the Indian contribution, or was it that the gross sum was £1,000, to which India contributed £490. The specifications said under Subhead E (China Rents) that the amount was for "Rents of the Legation and Consular Buildings in China, in respect of which the Indian Government contributes, including £490 for taxes." What was the total amount of the contribution of India?

§ MR. HANBURY
said, it was all very well for the Member for the Forest of Dean to say that if this matter were reconsidered India might have to pay a 1086 larger amount than she was paying at this moment. Four Ministers were interested in the Vote, and yet they were unable to get any answer to their questions. He thought they ought to know exactly what the Indian contribution was, and except he got an answer showing that Ministers knew what the contribution was, he should move a reduction. He begged, in order to get an answer from the Government, to move to reduce Sub-head E by £100.

§ MR. TOMLINSON
said, he noticed that in regard to the expenses for Legation and Consular Buildings in India the Vote was smaller this year than last year. He suggested, therefore, that a larger contribution was being made by India. That was quite consistent with such information as had been furnished to them. It seemed to him strange that there should be a reduction of the rent of the Consular Buildings from £1,270 to £1,000.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, he did not know whether the Estimates were intended to be read according to the ordinary construction of the English grammar. He did not know whether it was to be supposed that the contribution of the Indian Government was £1,000. He was rather shocked to observe that the Minister for India was not in his place. The right hon. Gentleman would no doubt be able to tell them what was the amount that India did contribute. He, as the guardian of the Indian purse, would no doubt know whether India was or was not contributing a fair share of these rents. The definite question to which they wanted an answer was the amount contributed by the Government of India.

§ * MR. H. GLADSTONE
said, that he was not possessed of full information on this point, and he could not answer for all the details of a Vote for the preparation of which he was not responsible.

§ SIR C. W. DILKE
said, that the contribution from India was £12,500.

§ * THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,) Wolverhampton, E.
said, the right hon. Baronet 1087 had correctly stated the contribution of India to be £12,500. He had no objection to hon. Members raising the question as to whether that contribution was too much, but he might say that those who took the deepest interest in Indian finance were content with the arrangement under which that contribution was paid, and were not desirous that the matter should be re-considered.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, that he must consider the question from the British taxpayers' point of view Justice ought to be done between the two countries, and if India ought to pay more why should she not pay more? He wanted to know what the particular contribution of India was to these China rents. He must insist upon the reduction which he had moved.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, it was very clear that there was a lump sum of £12,500, on account of the Consular and Diplomatic Services, paid by the Government of India, and whether that sum was paid for buildings or for salaries did not seem to him to matter. What did it signify whether it was paid under one particular item or another? The taxpayers benefited to that extent.

§ MR. TOMLINSON
said, that it made this difference, that they did not know what the cost of the Services was. They knew that they were contributing £1,000, and they knew that India was contributing something out of the £12,500, but they did not know what it was. He thought the Estimate ought to be made up in such a way that they would know what was being contributed. They were entitled to some explanation as to how this £12,500 was divided.

§ * MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, the hon. Member opposite was an experienced man of business, and he knew that the usual way of settling contributions either between one Corporation or any other, or between one part of the Empire or another, was to ascertain what was the gross sum to be paid by the contributing party in regard to the whole service rendered. It was not practicable to divide and apportion the money in the detailed manner suggested. Competent authorities representing the British Authorities on one hand and the Indian Authorities on the other agreed that the sum of £12,500 1088 was a fair amount for India to pay, and for England to receive. The Government took this Service as a whole, and said India derived great advantages from it, and that it was fair that she should pay £12,500 a year towards this part of the Diplomatic and Consular Service of Great Britain. If the hon. Member wished to re-open the question, he believed there was a Motion on the Paper complaining that India paid too much. To ask how the money was divided was to ask a question which could not possibly be answered.

§ MR. TOMLINSON
asked whether the £1,000 was the whole of the cost of the communication with China?

§ * MR. H. GLADSTONE
said, that up to a few years ago one-third of the subhead they were now considering was charged on the Indian Government. A change was made, and the sum included in the £12,500 now contributed by India in respect to the Consular Service.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)
The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner (Mr. H. Gladstone) has performed what the Secretary of State (Mr. H. H. Fowler) described as an impossible task. He has told us that the contribution of India was not fixed at the sum of £12,500 as a matter of arrangement between the United Kingdom and its great Dependency, but was made up by calculating the fair share of each of the items concerned. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the Indian contribution was estimated at one-third. The Secretary for India has just told us, from his official knowledge I presume, that in the interests of the Indian taxpayer he would recommend that this matter should not be further pursued.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
No, I did not say that. I did not express any opinion of my own on the question. What I did was to communicate to the House the opinion of the India Office.

MR. J. LOWTHER
Well, that is better still. The right hon. Gentleman gave us not his views, but the views of his official advisers, who are those most competent to form an opinion upon the subject. In the opinion of the experts who advise the right hon. Gentleman India pays too little. That, of course, is a subject which, when it comes' up for the consideration of the House, will have to be discussed. The question 1089 is whether this is a reasonable and fair arrangement.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, he had no doubt it seemed a little hard that the Secretary for India should be expected to understand these points, and perhaps a little hard that the new First Commissioner of Works should have to understand them, but the Committee really had a right to expect that the Government which had been in Office for a year and a half should present their Estimate in an intelligible manner.

§ * MR. H. GLADSTONE
It has been in the same form for the six years preceding.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, he did not think that it was in exactly the same form this year as it had been before. It was impossible to understand the words as they stood. They did not constitute an English sentence, and they meant absolutely nothing.

§ MR. H. GLADSTONE
I understand that for many years past no notice has been bestowed upon this matter. I quite admit that the Estimate might be worded more clearly, and I will see that this shall be done in another year.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
said, the point was that the Committee was asked to vote £1,000, although, as a matter of fact, £1,000 was not needed. The amount needed was £1,000, to be reduced by some sum not named, and of the amount of which no Minister was cognisant except the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. H. Gladstone), who had made a shot of £300. It was very important that the Committee should know exactly what they were voting. Hon. Members had been entirely unable to elicit the slightest information either as to finance or as to grammar from Her Majesty's Government.

§ * MR. STUART-WORTLEY
I see that all through these various European capitals in the case of repairs the architect always has a fee of £24; but when we come to Washington the fee is £50. I do not know whether this increase is due to the blessings of a Republican 1090 Government or to exigencies of Federal currency, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain that on the Report stage.

§ MR. BARTLEY
asked whether the new Agency House at Cairo Was completed. He wished to know what the item for maintaining the Agency grounds and gardens meant. He knew that there was a very nice garden round the Agency House, having seen it when he was recently in Cairo, and he wished to know whether the Ambassador was to pay half the cost and the State the other half?

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, he noticed on page 28 the item of "Prisons." This involved a claim to go into certain countries and put the subjects of those countries into prison. He was aware that under what were called the Capitulations we undoubtedly had the power in Turkey of putting Turkish subjects into prison under certain circumstances.

THE CHAIRMAN
I do not see how the question of the Capitulations can be dealt with under this Vote.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, his point was that the items for prisons was unnecessary. There was a sum of £450 put down for Consular Offices, Prisons, and Post Offices. He wished to know how much of the £450 was applicable for the prisons. If the question could be raised on any other Vote he would willingly defer it, but his contention was that no prison should be maintained by the Sovereign of this country in another country in derogation of the power of the other Sovereign. The maintenance of a prison in Constantinople was, in his opinion, very unjustifiable.

§ * SIR E. GREY
I cannot state the exact sum which is spent upon prisons, but I gather from the speech of the hon. Member that his object is to object to the whole sum which is spent upon prisons, because he disapproves of extra-territorial jurisdiction. Well, Sir, that raises a very grave question of policy connected with the Capitulations in Turkey. If we were to renounce our rights under the Capitulations it would mean that British subjects residing in Turkey, or being in Turkey for any length of time, would become subject to the Turkish law, and could be placed in Turkish prisons. That is a course of policy which Her Majesty's Government have no intention of embark- 1091 ing upon. The present system has existed for a very long time, and the Government have no intention of renouncing their rights under the Capitulations. I do not think it would be a wise step to take, and I am surprised that the question should be raised by the hon. Gentleman, as it would mean the sacrifice of British interests.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, under those circumstances he should be obliged to move the reduction of the Vote by the whole sum of £450. He said boldly that if a British subject went into Turkey he should become subject to Turkish law, just as British subjects who went into Russia, or even into the Argentine Republic, became subject to the laws of those countries.

§ SIR E. GREY
I look upon this as a matter, not only of policy, but of very large policy indeed, and I should have thought that a more suitable occasion to discuss it would have arisen either on the Foreign Office Vote or else on the Vote for the Under Secretary's salary.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
That being so, I will not press the matter now.

§ * MR. H. GLADSTONE
said, that the Agency House at Cairo was absolutely finished. The contribution to the Agency garden was on account of the special cost of water in Egypt.