CLASS I.

HC Deb 21 May 1894 vol 24 cc924-93

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £314.900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1895, for the Customs, Inland Revenue, Post Office, and Post Office Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, including Furniture, Fuel, and sundry Miscellaneous Services.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, there were one or two important questions he wished to ask upon this Vote, and in the first place he 'wished to point out what appeared to be a mistake in the printing. On page 34, in the second column, sub-section A, the item appeared at £350 instead of £2,350, as it appeared in the abstract. But the important points he wished to refer to were these. In sub-section F, Manchester, there were a number of new buildings referred to, and it was stated that out of the £2,000 voted last year, the expenditure up to last March was £1,000. He assumed the balance had been paid into the Exchequer, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell him that later. Then he came to the question of rents under sub-section I, and here he thought they ought to have some information as to the large expenditure upon rent. Year after year the country went on paying no less a sum than £21,700 for rents. This could not be desirable in the interests of economy, and some steps should be taken to reduce the amount. He also wished to draw attention to the items K and O. He did not wish to move any reduction unless the answer he obtained was unsatisfactory. These items K and O were in respect of Post Office buildings, and what he wished to draw attention to was the enormous differences between the original and revised Estimates for buildings. He found that the original Estimate for the works at the General Post Office was £170,000, while the revised Estimate was £190,000, and the building was not yet finished. The original estimate for the sorting office of the South-Western District was £26,000 and the revised Estimate £59,800, or more than double the original Estimate. The original Estimate for the Mount Pleasant Parcel Post department was £48,600 and the revised Estimate £61,000; and so on with all these matters. At Fulham the original Estimate was £2,200, but the revised Estimate amounted to £4,100. For the enlargement of the North-Western District Office the original Estimate was £1,500. On the strength of that Estimate the House granted the money, but the revised Estimate amounted to £6,500, or more than four times the original Estimate. No doubt it was difficult not to exceed the original Estimate, but it was unreasonable that an Estimate for £1,500 should swell into one for £6,500. These were items that required careful consideration. He had referred to three or four, but he could go through a great number. In the case of the Cardiff new Post Office the original Estimate was £35,000, and the revised Estimate was £53,000; the original Estimate for the Leeds Post Office was £50,000, and the revised Estimate £76,000, or 50 per cent. more. The original Estimate for the Nottingham Head Office was £30,000, the revised Estimate was £40,600, and so on all through the items. He certainly thought they should have some explanation of why these enormous increases were allowed, and if he did not get a satisfactory answer he should have to move a reduction of the Vote.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, he objected to the Vote on principle, as he thought the separate Departments ought to be responsible for their own buildings; the Departments had no control in the matter, and therefore had no interest in cutting down the cost. He thought the Departments ought to be more responsible for the cost of their buildings than they had been. Why should the Revenue Department be treated differently to other Departments by having a separate Vote for buildings? These Votes did not deal with Scotland; they certainly did not deal with Ireland; therefore they were wholly illusory. The whole matter was dealt with in a very slipshod fashion, and there was no definite system of presenting the Votes.

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

Public buildings in Ireland come under Vote 14.

MR. HANBURY

said, that was his point—namely, that the public buildings should be all put together. He should have liked to have seen the Irish buildings in each case assigned to the particular Irish Departments; but neither one thing nor the other was done at the present moment, and there was no regular system by which the Estimates were submitted to the House. But, accepting the principle upon which the Votes were submitted, look at the careless way in which that principle was carried out. This Vote purported to deal with Revenue Department buildings in Great Britain; but he saw that under other heads £269,000 was voted for exactly similar work. On what principle they paid for the buildings which were actually included in this Vote, and then paid £269,000 for precisely similar buildings in other Votes, he could not conceive. The matter was presented in such a careless fashion that it was impossible for the House of Commons to know what money it was voting for its public buildings in Great Britain. Take the appropriations in aid. They were all mixed up together, and, so far as he could see, the savings on the Post Office buildings might be transferred and used for the Inland Revenue Department. Surely that was wrong. Let the appropriations in aid connected with the Inland Revenue Department be asssigned to that Department and not used for the purposes of the Post Office. Purchases of sites for buildings for the Inland Revenue Department were dealt with in this Vote, but no such purchases in connection with the Post Office appeared. Why the purchases should be entered in the case of the one Department and not in the other he could not understand. He was not objecting to the items in the Vote, but to the promiscuous fashion in which these items were thrown at their heads without any system whatever. They had got under the heading of "furniture" the large item of £11,000. One would suppose that covered the whole amount of furniture required for the year, but that was not the case, for they would find another entry—"new buildings, new works, alterations, additions and purchases, including furniture for new buildings." Why the furniture for the old and new buildings should not be put under this sub-head he could not conceive, and he hoped that in future the Estimates would be presented in a more businesslike fashion, and not in a way in which no private firm would conduct its business. On the question of rents, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be a great saving to the Public Purse and be the means of distributing a good deal of money for wages if, instead of going on hiring these buildings—which were very costly, and many of them in a condition in which no Public Office ought to be, scattered, as they were—here, there, and every where—they were boldly to face the difficulty and capitalise this annual cost in having some good public buildings of which the country might be proud, and which would at the same time be much more useful for the transaction of public business. He fancied that public business suffered much from the way in which the buildings were separated and distributed all over London. He noticed that the cost of furniture for the Port of London was over £1,000, whereas for all the out ports in England and Wales it was only half that sum. He should like to have some explanation of this apparent disproportion. A strange item appeared under sub-head (I.),"rents, insurance, tithe-rent charges, &c," from which it appeared that a payment of £500 a year had presumably been going on for some time as an annuity in respect of the "old Excise Office", Broad Street, 8th George 3rd, chapter 32."Perhaps the First Commissioner of Works would be able to throw some light upon the subject. Again, he should like to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of seeing if he could not get his works carried out a little more in conformity with the Estimates. It was startling to see the differences between the original and the revised Estimate in nearly every item for post offices which was submitted to Parliament last year. Did the Department have one gentleman to go over the whole country and make estimates? If so, he was a gentleman whose estimates were strangely inaccurate, and his salary ought to be dealt with in some way when it was reached. If, on the other hand, there was a different person to prepare an estimate in every town, how was it the Government employed men who could not estimate properly? A new post office was very urgently needed in Preston, and he thought that a new building was to be erected at once, but he saw no estimate in the Vote for the work. He could not understand the reason why the provision of a building which was so much needed should be postponed in the case of Preston, whilst new buildings were provided for towns like Nottingham, where the necessities were not so great. Unless he received some satisfactory assurance that it was intended to proceed with the work of providing a new post office for Preston, he should have to move a reduction in some other items of such a sum as would provide for the building. The charge in respect of post offices for Scotland were out of all proportion to the population of Scotland as compared with the charges for England. For instance, the charge for maintenance and repairs was only £1,800 for Scotland as compared with £42,000 for England. Again, the cost of furniture for the Post Office in Scotland was only £200, as against £6,000 or £7,000 for England, and so on through the various items. The same state of affairs prevailed in regard to the Telegraph Department. The cost of maintenance and repairs for England and Wales was £14,000, and for Scotland only £600. Either the Scotch were more economical than the English, or a reduction had taken place in regard to Scotland which was not exhibited in the English Post and Telegraph Offices. He hoped they should get some satisfactory answer to the various points that had been raised, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would explain why this Vote was presented to Parliament in such an unbusinesslike fashion.

* MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)

said, the fact that this Vote showed an increase of 10 per cent. this year as compared with last year required explanation. He was glad to see hon. Gentlemen opposite taking an interest in this matter, but he regretted that they did not evince the same interest in the last Parliament when their own Party was in power, and when their intervention might have been productive of good results. The hon. Member for Preston said there was no system observed in the presentation of these Votes. That was a great mistake. There was an excellent system all through in connection with them, and that was a system whereby the Votes were made as difficult for them to be understood as it was possible to make them—a task in which all the Departments seemed to be so eminently successful that very few men could understand them. The only thing it was possible to understand was that these Departments always asked for more money than they required, but yet managed to spend it somehow or other. In regard to the charges for the Port of London there was an increase of £400 over last year in furniture and other matters, but as less work had been done he did not see why the amount should be increased. One of the transactions of the Customs Department of the Port of London was to turn the Port of London Sanitary Authority out of their offices, and to refuse to let them make use of them. They thus put the Port Sanitary Authority to considerable expense, which they were anxious to increase; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at his (Mr. Morton's) suggestion, prevented them doing as much mischief as they seemed desirous of doing. The hon. Member for Preston had raised a question with regard to rents and other expenses connected with the innumerable offices they had about London. This matter would come more appropriately on the next Vote, when he should urge that, instead of continuing to pay these rents, they should utilise some of the many vacant places that were now lying idle, to the great loss of the nation, for these buildings, the building of which would find employment for large numbers of working men. The hon. Member commented on the fact that in almost all cases, and in some to an extraordinary extent, the Estimates for buildings were always exceeded. In the South-Western District the original Estimate was £26,000, and the revised Estimate £59,800; or more than double, there being no explanation whatever of the increase. It might be right that the larger sum should be spent, but it was deceiving the House of Commons to say they only wanted £26,000, and then deliberately to go and arrange to spend nearly £60,000. If buildings and money were wanted they ought to be told as nearly as possible what the total cost would be, otherwise they bad no control over the money, and would never know how much they were going to spend. In the case of Cardiff the original Estimate was £35,000, and the revised Estimate £53,000; in the case of Leeds the original Estimate was £50,000, and the revised Estimate £76,000; and in the case of Nottingham the original Estimate was £30,000, and the revised Estimate £40,000. In Scotland, where, as the hon. Member for Preston said, they were more economical than in England, they managed to do their work on smaller salaries, and the cost of buildings and expenses generally were less. Instead of increasing the Scotch Estimates, as some hon. Members desired, he should like to see the English and Irish Estimates reduced to the level of the Scotch, and then they should probably have the work done better than it was done now. The spending of such extraordinary amounts on extravagant and luxurious buildings was an invitation to these officers to do as little work as they possibly could, and why the Scottish officers did their work better was because they went for the purpose of doing work, and not to admire themselves, their offices, and their fine furniture. He desired to refer to the new sorting office at Balham. When that office was commenced some years ago the Department insisted upon building it out side the line of frontage. The Board of Works objected on the ground that it would interfere with and spoil the line of frontage, and eventually took the Department to the Police Court. Un-fortunately, in the most shabby manner, when they got to the Police Court, the Post Office Authorities pleaded that the Queen could do as she liked, unrestrained by the law. The Magistrate was obliged to give way, and the building was stuck some 10 or 12 feet in front of all the other buildings. He desired to know if the building was going to be altered, and he would express the hope that in all matters of this kind in the future the First Commissioner of Works would see that the Government obeyed the law like other people, and were not allowed to disfigure a public street in the way they had done in this instance. He hoped also that the various charges, such as for furniture, fuel, light, and household articles, would not in future be dis- tributed all over the accounts, but placed together so as to show in a simple and intelligent manner what was the total amount. The Financial Secretary was anxious to effect this change, and he trusted it would be accepted by the Government generally, and that they would overpower the Departments in their desire to wrap these things up as much as they could. Hon. Members should recollect they were not spending their own money but the money of the taxpayers of this country, who were already taxed and rated beyond the bearing point. They ought to endeavour to decrease rather than increase these charges.

* SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE (Camberwell, Dulwich)

said, that in his opinion Post Office buildings, instead of being charged in an account like that which appeared in this Vote, ought to be charged to a capital account, Whilst each year the outlay should appear in the Post Office Returns For instance, leases were being continually disposed of. Why should they not have an account of the disposal of these leases? At present they could not tell what were the profits from the Post and Telegraph Department. No business would have its accounts muddled in that fashion. There should be a profit and loss account, and by a capital account the country should be able to see every year that there was something from the Department to go to the liquidation of the National Debt. He trusted that next year the manner of keeping accounts would be so amended that the House would be able to see at once the profit and loss of the Post Office Department.

* SIR J. DENG (Dundee)

said, the hon. Member for Preston had pointed out that relatively the charges for post offices and other public buildings in Scotland were much smaller than in England. That was because the officials in Scot-land were more careful in their work. He hoped the good example of the Scottish officials would be followed by officials further South, and that for the future the cost of buildings would be found to be more in accordance with the original Estimates. He believed that in all the Public Departments in Scotland the same state of things as in the Post Office would be found to exist, and he hoped that that fact, 'which was most creditable to Scottish prudence and carefulness, would be borne in mind by the authorities, because, unhappily, Scottish officials were paid on a much lower scale, though they did their work much better than officials further South. He believed the sum allowed for the new post office in Dundee was altogether inadequate for the purpose. Only £22,000 was allowed for the new post office in the third city of Scotland, while for a mere alteration in the Edinburgh Post Office £29,000 were allowed. He also desired to impress on the head of the Board of Works the desirability of giving local tradesmen the opportunity of competing for those local works. It was too much the custom to insert advertisements in the Metropolitan papers which did not come under the observation of local tradesmen. Very frequently work was tendered for without the knowledge of local tradesmen, and obtained by tradesmen living hundreds of miles away, who brought their own workmen to the locality to execute the works, In all large provincial towns there were tradesmen of great respectability and substance, able to do first-class work, and those men should in every case be given the opportunity of tendering for work in their localities.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)

said, he noticed a large sum of money in the Estimates for alterations in the Nottingham Post Office. That post office was described in the local guide book as "a handsome new building." If the building was new, why was this large sum of money to be expended on it?

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, he noticed that while an ordinary locality like Lynn, which had not the honour of being represented by a distinguished Member of the Government, got nothing in the way of new buildings, Leeds and Nottingham, which were represented respectively by the First Commissioner of Works and the Postmaster General, were getting not only post offices, but Inland Revenue offices.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he was aware that those works were originated by the late Conservative Government.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, ha suspected that the late Government made an economical Estimate for the buildings, and that the usual course of the present Government was pursued in regard to them—the Estimates were greatly extended, so that until better advised he must hold the present Government responsible for the buildings. He did not say that the new buildings were unnecessary. Perhaps they were being put up for the accommodation of the new clerks which would be required to issue the new certificates under the new Death Duties; but he would tell the Government that to provide for the extra work they would want multitudes of new clerks and acres of new buildings. He thought the manner in which the cost of new buildings invariably exceeded the original Estimates was perfectly scandalous. In some cases the excess was between £20,000 and £30,000. In fact, the Post Office did its business in such a loose way that if it had not a monopoly, and were subject to the stress of competition, it would have been in the hands of the Official Receiver long ago. He also; thought the £300,000 asked for the new Post Office buildings was altogether too large. The business of the Department could be done in smaller buildings, and would be done in smaller buildings if it were a private firm under the stress of competition.

* THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. H. GLADSTONE,) Leeds, W.

said, the hon. Member for Lynn Regis had brought some serious charges against the Department in connection with the money spent on the buildings in Leeds and Nottingham. He would point out that Leeds and Nottingham were towns of considerable importance, and he should take some exception to the comparison instituted by the hon. Member between them and Lynn. However, he was glad to say that there was no foundation for the hon. Gentleman's suspicions, because, with regard to Leeds, the expenditure was very properly sanctioned by the Treasury under the late Government at a time probably when his right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds was Secretary to the Treasury; and the expenditure at Nottingham was also sanctioned by the Treasury under the late Government, despite the fact that the present Postmaster General represented a division of the town.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

What is the date?

MR. H. GLADSTONE

said, the date added nothing material to the case. The fact was, that the expenditure was sanctioned by the late Government. The hon. Member for Lynn Regis also complained of the large amount asked for this year for Post Office buildings. It was difficult to please everybody. Last year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ormskirk Division made a charge against his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board of a precisely opposite character; and accused the Government of starving the Post Office. The hon. Member for Lynn now denounced the Government for extravagance. He could say that all the Estimates had been gone into this year with special closeness, and no more money was asked for than was absolutely necessary for the Post Office Service. His hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough said it seemed as if the Government intentionally surrounded this Vote with difficulties in order to prevent hon. Members from understanding it. If that were true, he (Mr. H. Gladstone) was to be pitied, because he had nothing to do with the original framing of the Estimates, and he had to try to master the difficulties surrounding them as best he could. However, he would see whether the difficulties could in any way be removed. He believed his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee was misinformed when he said that local tradesmen did not get full opportunities of tendering for local works. It was the invariable practice of the Board of Works to insert advertisements in the local papers, though advertisements were also placed elsewhere, because sometimes there was no one in the locality to tender for the work. The hon. Member for Islington pointed out what seemed to be a misprint. He could not at the moment give the hon. Member an explanation, but he would do so at another time. Several hon. Members drew attention to the heavy rents paid for additional departmental offices; and he agreed with them that the rents were heavy. It was said that the Government ought, in the interest of economy, to concentrate those offices, and give, by additional building, employment to those out of work. He had great sympathy with that view; but it was a matter that would require looking into, and he would consult with the Treasury on it. He confessed there was considerable weight in the complaints made by hon. Members as to the differences between the original Estimates for buildings and the revised Estimates. He believed the explanation was that the original Estimates were somewhat hurriedly put forward in a rough shape when the Treasury sanction for the new buildings was asked for. They were rough estimates made before it was possible; to draw plans or receive tenders. It might be that the difference between the Estimates was more marked in the present than in past years, because, as hon. Members knew, the cost of material and the cost of labour had very considerably increased recently. If the Estimates could be framed in a more business-like fashion he would be very glad; and if hon. Members opposite gave him the opportunity, by leaving him in Office during the next two or three years, he would undertake to say that he would make the Votes clearer and more businesslike by that time. The hon. Member for Preston seemed to think that it was incongruous that the Office of Works should be responsible for expenditure on Inland Revenue and Post Office buildings. As a matter of fact, the Office of Works was responsible for the buildings of all the civil Government Departments, except in Ireland. As to the alleged impolicy of the practice, he did not see what was to be gained by transferring the responsibility from the Office of Works to the various Departments concerned. On the contrary, by concentrating the work in one office and employing experienced officials there was a probability of getting it done cheaper and better. However, it was a matter for argument; but whether right or wrong the present system represented the wisdom of many Governments for many years. The hon. Member for Preston had spoken of treating furniture as an asset, but the practice was to use and to repair the furniture until it was worthless for anything except firewood. With regard to the question as to the post office at Preston, he (Mr. H. Gladstone) was afraid he could not give the hon. Member much satisfaction. Delays and difficulties had occurred in connection with the negotiations for the site, and he was not in a position to say at present how the matter stood, or when the work was likely to be taken up. He would inquire into the question of the Balham Post Office referred to by the hon. Member for Peterborough. As to the question referred to by the hon. Member for Dulwich, the matter had come up last year, and the case had been promised favourable consideration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He himself (Mr. H. Gladstone) had had some communication with the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General on the subject. There were objections to doing anything this year which he need not go into just now, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter would be looked closely into when the Estimates for another year came on.

MR. HANBURY

said, he had inquired whether these Estimates were prepared by one set of persons in the Central Office or by officials in the different towns.

MR. H. GLADSTONE

said, they were prepared by the Surveyors at the Central Office. Each had his own district.

SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)

said, he did not think they should pass the Estimate until they had received an assurance from the Secretary to the Treasury that in framing the Estimates in future the strictures passed by the hon. Member for Preston on the present system would be duly considered. He did not agree with the hon. Member that it would be better if the different Departments of the Government were to build their own offices. He believed that if they did it would be an extremely expensive business, but he did agree with his hon. Friend that every Department of the Government ought to be treated alike in the Estimates. If the system which was carried out by the Treasury and the Office of Works was good in one case it ought to be applied impartially and rigidly to every Public Department. But from the Estimates it was apparent that the Post Office was unduly favoured in comparison with other Departments of the State. Take, for instance, the matter of sites. In all other Departments of the State the payment for sites was made by the Office of Works under the control of the Treasury, but he believed he was right in saying that the Post Office was allowed to find its own sites. If economy was secured by entrusting the purchase of sites to the Board of Works in all other Departments, why on earth should not that system prevail in connection with the Post Office? The Treasury should assure the House that this matter would be looked into, and that all Departments of the State would have the advantage of the control of the Office of Works in these matters. In all other Departments, again, if buildings had to be hired the arrangements were made by the Office of Works, the rents being fixed by that Office; but in the case of the Post Office they hired their own buildings, and the Estimate was brought forward in a separate form. What he asked the Secretary to the Treasury to do was to assure the Committee that he would look into this matter and see that the same control was exercised and the same economy ensured in regard to building works and sites in the Post Office as was secured through the instrumentality of the Office of Works in every other Department.

* THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,) Oldham

said, that as to the method adopted in connection with these matters by the Post Office and the other Departments, the arrangement was made in 1868–9. He was told that as a result great economy had been secured from the transfer of control over buildings to the Office of Works, and the work since carried out by that Department had been much less expensive than formerly. He would promise to make careful inquiry into the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Gorst) as to the Post Office being differently dealt with to other Departments. He could only think that the reason why the Post Office had been placed in a different position from that of other Departments was because the Post Office was supposed to know bettor than the Office of Works what would be the best sites for the various post offices throughout the country; and, no doubt, there was considerable force in such a reason. It was hardly possible for the Office of Works to know the best sites for post offices; therefore, there might be strong grounds for leaving the selection of sites with the Post Office. With regard to the erection and repair of buildings, he did not see why the Post Office should not be on the same footing as other Departments. He would promise that the point raised should receive attention in order to see whether a better plan could not be devised of dealing with the large expenditure on the part of the Post Office. In regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Peterborough, he ventured to think that the Estimates for this year with regard to Post Office buildings were much clearer and more simple than they were last year. They had been altered considerably. He was anxious to do all he could to simplify the form of the Estimates, and if possible to improve them. If any suggestion was made at any time for furthering this object he was always ready to go into it and see if it was possible to improve the system. The reason items for Post Office buildings appeared under two Votes was that under the present system the Post Office purchased the sites. If they purchased a site with a building upon it which they meant to appropriate and use as a post office, then it came under their own Vote; but if they purchased a site without buildings on it, the Office of Works would deal with the buildings.

SIR J. GORST

said, he did not raise the slightest objection to the Post Office selecting their own sites for buildings they intended to erect or selecting their own offices. All he contended for was that, when they made a selection, they should employ the Office of Works. It had been proved by experience that the Office of Works could perform this service at a cheaper rate than the Post Office could perform it for itself.

SIR R, TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)

said, that as one who had had as much to do with the purchase of sites for public offices as anyone in the House, he desired to say a few words on this question. He wished to acknowledge the courteous and satisfactory manner in which the Secretary to the Treasury always answered points raised on that (the Opposition) side of the House. At the same time, he felt bound to take exception to the great variations he found to exist between the amounts of the original Estimates for some of the works included within the present Vote and the sums now asked for. In the case of Item 8 the original amount was £26,000, but the Vote submitted was £59,000, or a variation of more than 100 per cent. It was explained that there had been a great increase in the cost of material and labour since the original Estimates were prepared.

* MR. H. GLADSTONE

said, he had explained that the original scheme in the case in question had been found to be totally inadequate. A new one had to be adopted.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, that if that were the case, he would let the item pass. He had not heard any explanation as to the variation in Item 9.

* MR. H. GLADSTONE

said, he had already given a particular explanation in the case of Items 8 and 9, and a general explanation—namely, that the original Estimates were necessarily rough.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, it would have been well if the Minister had come down to the House fortified with a detailed explanation on these points, because he must have known that from the Opposition side of the House attention would be given to these grave variations. In Item 23 there was a variation from £35,000 to £53,000, or more than 50 per cent. In Item 31 there was an increase from £30,000 to £46,000, and in Item 42 there was an increase from £23,000 to £30,000. These were large increases, and they were very unsatisfactory. To bring the matter to a somewhat more definite issue, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £313,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Sir R. Temple.)

MR. HANBURY

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would proceed to a Division, because the admission made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works was a very serious one, and the House ought to protest against having these "rough" Estimates submitted to it—Estimates drawn up in a hurry, which, as they saw in the result, bore no relation whatever to the actual cost. He did not think that was a proper way for the Department to treat the House of Commons. They had a right to have placed before them Estimates that were correctly drawn, and which could be carried out, and not Esti- mates which were 50 and 100 per cent. below the mark. He did not wish unnecessarily to divide the House, but he and his friends were forced to divide against this Vote as a protest against the existing state of things. He had no doubt there was a great deal to be said for the system of the Board of Works being responsible for the buildings of this Department, but there was much to be said on the other side, particularly when they were told that Estimates were submitted "in the rough." There was a tendency in this way for more extravagant expenditure to be incurred than would be the case if each Department was responsible for its own buildings. When Estimates were prepared by the Board of Works they were not based on the actual requirements of the Departments. In the case of the buildings at South Kensington, the Estimates were not based on the requirements of the Department, and the result was that alterations had to be made as the work progressed. In this way a great deal of money was wasted. The same thing happened in connection with the new{Admiralty buildings. When the buildings had proceeded some distance the Admiralty officials went to the Board of Works and said, "We want all this altered. We must have larger rooms, and you will have to throw two rooms into one." The Departments interested were not sufficiently consulted, and this resulted in the end in great loss to the Public Purse.

MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)

said, he wished to offer a criticism on the building policy not only of the Post Office Department, but of the Chief Commissioner of Works. He protested against their claiming exemption from the ordinary architectural rule, which all Local Authorities and private builders were bound by The hon. Member for Peterborough had called attention to a departure from the proper line of frontage by the Government surveyors at Balham, and the Post Office Authorities were about to put up a building in his (Mr. Burns's) own district which, if the precedent set in the case for a recent Police Court built there were followed, would be an architectural nuisance to the whole neighbourhood. An encroachment of eight feet on the frontage would be made. These encroachments encouraged local shop-keepers to throw forward their premises, and so to increase the value of their property, and prevent the Local Authorities from making the streets as wide, convenient, and handsome as they should be. It seemed to him that all buildings, Government and otherwise, should conform to the ordinary rules and be constructed under the supervision of the local surveyors. He failed to see why the Office of Works should be a law unto itself on this matter. Looking over the Estimates for post office buildings he could not help being struck by the fact that one had only to be a provincial Member of Parliament to get £20,000 or £30,000 or £40,000 spent on a post office in a particular district. As for poor London, it suffered to an extent that was deplorable. It had only £700 or £800 spent on its post offices—at most £2,000 or £3,000. In Islington, with a population of 350,000, they found the post office at a frowsy, stuffy corner shop, whereas they found provincial towns with a sixth or seventh of that population having £50,000 or £60,000 spent on their post offices. As a Metropolitan Member he was sick and tired of seeing a large population served by a post office at a cheesemonger's shop or an oil merchant's. In his own neighbourhood they were using tin tabernacles which the Sanitary Authorities ought to condemn. Ho appealed to the Postmaster General and the First Commissioner of Works to see that justice was done to London, which at present was treated in this matter of post offices worse than a fourth-rate provincial town.

MR. D. PLUNKET (Dublin University)

said, he wished to say a few words on the great apparent increase which appeared on the face of these Estimates over the amount contemplated when the original Estimate was framed. He thought that the Committee might easily be under some misapprehension as to the gravity of the criticisms which had been offered. In the first place, it must be remembered that, in regard to many of the post offices and other buildings of which they had been speaking, the original Estimates were framed some time ago—some as far back as 1884, and a great many five or six years ago. If they remembered the great increase which had taken place of late in the price of labour and materials—an in- crease which it would not be an exaggeration to say had amounted to 20 per cent. within the past five or six years—they would not be surprised that the original Estimates had been exceeded. He did not think that any system which could be invented by the wit of man would enable them to construct buildings which would carry out the wishes of the Departments and at the same time correspond exactly with the original Estimates. In the case before the Committee it was a doubly difficult matter to achieve. Provincial towns were anxious to have improved post offices; their Members pressed the Government to set the buildings on foot at once, and very often—as the hon. Member for Battersea had pointed out—if the friends of those Members happened to be in power, the demands were acceded to and Estimates were immediately called for. Well, it was necessary that the sanction of Parliament should be obtained as soon as possible if the thing was going to be done, and consequently that an Estimate of some kind should be presented. As the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had said, from the necessities of the case the Estimate prepared must be a rough one. No one who had had any experience of private buildings would suppose for a moment that Estimates hurriedly framed could be carried out without adding to the original scheme. Increases in the case of Post Office Estimates were not so easily obtained, because even when the Post Office had satisfied the Office of Works that it was necessary that such and such changes should be made all the papers had to go before the Treasury, and having had experience in these matters he could assure the House that the Treasury were not very soft-hearted people to deal with in the matter of increasing original Estimates. He did not believe that the increases in question were in any degree to be attributed to the infirmity of judgment of those who originally framed the Estimates. He was bound to say that there could not be found in England or in any other country more skilled, experienced, or prudent men than the surveyors and architects who had to undertake and carry out this difficult matter. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had both promised that they would look into the question of transferring the business of acquiring sites for post offices from the General Post Office Authorities to the Office of Works. Speaking from his own experience of the matter, he must say that his own judgment would be entirely in favour of some such change, for undoubtedly the saving of expense had been very considerable in the case of the Customs and Excise buildings since they were transferred from the authority of the several Departments to the responsibility of the Office of Works. And it stood to reason that it should be so. If a Department employed its own surveyor or architect, he would be more likely to fall in with the views of his principals or the heads of the Department who might desire additions and alterations to be made to his plans than would a surveyor or architect lodged in a different office. When building operations were conducted by the Office of Works a double protection was afforded to the taxpayers— first, by the interference of the Office of Works with the view to economy; and, secondly, by the control of the Treasury with the same view. Reference had been made to the Committee which sat in 1877, and recommended that the Customs and Inland Revenue Offices should be transferred, as far as buildings were concerned, to the Office of Works. In confirmation of the views which were presented by that Committee, he might mention that another Committee, he believed under the presidency of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), sat in 1887, and the Permanent Secretary of the Office of Works, who was as excellent an official as there was in the Service, was able by his evidence to satisfy them that the recommendations of the former Committee had been entirely carried out, and to prove that there had been a very considerable reduction in the cost of buildings since the change had taken place. He (Mr. Plunket) would, therefore, venture to support the view put forward by some hon. Members in the direction of, if possible, further putting the principle in force and transferring to the Office of Works building operations now performed by the great Offices of the State. MR. W. WHITELAW (Perth) inquired whether the fact that no Vote appeared in the Estimates with regard to the post office of a particular town would prevent buildings being carried out in connection with the Post Office during the present year?

* MR. WADDY (Lincolnshire, Brigg)

said, he thought that the criticisms of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) were hardly fair in regard to the question of the roughness of the Estimates. He had not attacked the completed Estimates at all. It was desirable that the Committee should realise that, while only 20 of the Estimates before the Committee had been increased, 38 were unaltered, and one had actually been decreased. That said a great deal for the care with which the Estimates had been originally framed.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

inquired whether attention was being directed to the subject on which he put a question the other day concerning the sanitary arrangements of the additional buildings now being constructed for the Post Office in London?

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

said that, while a large number of new works or alterations were proposed in connection with the Post Office during the present financial year, he had looked in vain for alterations or additions to the post office in the town of Sleaford. The claims of Sleaford had been pressed upon the attention of the Postmaster General more than once, and he trusted that the First Commissioner of Works would be able to give him some assurance on the subject.

SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said, he did not think that the way in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. II. Gladstone) had vindicated the Estimates would commend itself entirely to the House. The point to which objection was taken was the difference between the two columns of figures, one representing the original and the other a revised Estimate. In one instance there was a difference of 50 per cent. between the two sets of figures. In the case of private buildings the very greatest exception would be taken to such differences by any prudent business man. He wished to point out that there was a great difference between the kind of buildings erected for post offices in the provinces and those that were supposed to be sufficient in London. In many provincial towns the expenditure upon post offices had been almost superfluous, whilst in London it was entirely inadequate. He believed that what had been said about the insanitary condition of many of the post offices was applicable to many cases in London. In his district the post office was quite inadequate as compared with those of any ordinary provincial town, although the district had some 400,000 inhabitants, and he believed the post office served a larger area than Islington itself.

* MR. H. GLADSTONE

I am not aware that a distinction has been made by the Office of Works between London and provincial districts, and certainly, as far as I am concerned, I am prepared to treat all districts with the strictest impartiality. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) asked me a question about Sleaford. I am sorry to say Sleaford is not included in the Estimates for this fear, and I cannot give him any accurate information about it. I will, however, Inquire into the question in a very sympathetic spirit, and will communicate the result to him. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) that I have not at all lost sight of the matter to which he has alluded, and it is at this moment under consideration. There is plenty of time to deal with the question, however, because the post office in question will not be occupied for several months to come. With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns), concerning the Post Office and the Local Authorities, I fully agree with the general principle laid down by my hon. Friend. I will look into the matter and see what can be done, but I think I must guard myself by saying that power may possibly have to be reserved to the Department in certain cases. I hope the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Temple) will not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division after the somewhat full discussion we have had upon the question of the differences between the original and the revised Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. D. Plunket) has explained with extreme lucidity the difficulties that have to be got over; and I cannot say at the present time whether we could make any better arrangement. Some rough original Estimates must be made. If the hon. Baronet insists upon having two columns which should better harmonise with one another, I do not quite see at what point the earlier Estimates could be made. When proposals for post offices are first made the cost is, of course, almost invariably stated to be less than it subsequently turns out to be. When proposals are first made locally, difficulties are under-estimated or not foreseen, whilst, as the plans have not been fully gone into, the actual expenditure cannot be accurately known. It is absolutely necessary to have a rough original Estimate when bringing the scheme before the Treasury in the first instance, and the question we have to decide is whether, as a standard comparison with the ultimate cost, you will put into your first column this rough original Estimate, or whether you will have a more finished Estimate based on accurate examination of the details of the work. I can assure the hon. Baronet that I will go into the matter as carefully as I can, with the view of making a better arrangement if possible.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

said, he had several times heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) contrast the spirit in which Parliament approached its task of discussing the Estimates now with that in which it approached it in former times. He (Mr. Lowther) had been much struck during the present Debate by the degree of influence which had been brought to bear on the Government in the direction not of economy, but of increased expenditure in all parts of the country. Metropolitan Members had been urging that the Post Office expenditure in London ought to be upon as great a scale relatively as that in other parts of the country. He must point out to those Members, however, that their object had been already more than fully attained, because something like half of the whole of the Estimates for Post Office buildings in England and Wales related to the Metropolis. He must draw the attention of the Committee to what he might call the logrolling system—using the term in its most harmless sense—which appeared to prevail. When an hon. Member complained that a larger expenditure had been incurred at Sheffield and Nottingham, it was not, however, the larger expenditure at Sheffield or Nottingham that aroused his virtuous indignation, but the fact that a corresponding outlay had not been made at King's Lynn or Preston, or some other place. This was what, in an inoffensive sense, might be termed log-rolling of the most barefaced character. The Civil Service expenditure was the growing evil of the present day. The increase which had taken place in the Civil Service Estimates within his recollection as compared with the other Estimates was gigantic. It was said by the Government that it was impossible to frame rough Estimates in any way approximately to the ultimate cost of the undertakings. He thought that such a statement ought to make the Committee extremely cautious how in the future it accepted rough Estimates. The Committee was treated in a manner in which the Representatives of the people should not be treated if they were to exercise any control over national expenditure. When the revised Estimates were produced, Members who objected to sanctioning a large increase over the original Estimates were told that it was too late for them to do so; that the ship could not be spoiled for a ha'porth of tar, and that unless the buildings were carried out on the same scale as had been originally proposed a great deal of expenditure would have to be incurred in modifying the Estimates. This was a point which appeared to be deserving of the consideration of the Committee, and he hoped that, instead of urging the Government on to increased expenditure, hon. Members would rather endeavour to induce them to diminish these bloated Civil Service Estimates.

MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)

said, that when his right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Lowther) contended that half the Post Office expenditure in the current year was to go to the Metropolis he did not appear to be aware that no less than £185,000 was to go to the General Post Office besides other sums of £28,800 and £48,000. Surely it could not be held that the expenditure which was incurred in the service of the United Kingdom generally could be in any way assigned to London by way of arriving at a just comparison between London Post Office expenditure and Post Office expenditure, say, in Leeds. He (Mr. Cohen) should certainly support his hon. Friend (Sir R. Temple) if he went to a Division, because he did not think the First Commissioner of Works had given an explanation which was calculated to satisfy the Committee upon the question at issue.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, in explanation, that the hon. Member would find he had not been in the least disingenuous. If the hon. Member would look at the sums required, he would see that the money wanted was for other parts of Loudon, and not for the General Post Office.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, with regard to the statement that the instances he had mentioned were very few in comparison with the total number, he had refrained out of mercy from alluding to other cases. For instance, for the post office at Leeds the Estimate had risen from £50,000 to £75,000, for Newmarket from £1,800 to £2,600, and for Slough from £2,400 to £3,600. Those were all increases of 50 per cent. or more. Again, the hon. and learned Member had stated that the first Estimate was only a rough one; but it was the original Estimate, and upon it the House began to vote the money. The speech of the right hon. Member for the University of Durham was, like everything which fell from him, very interesting and very sympathetic, but it evidenced that union of mind which always seemed to subsist between the two Front Benches. The 20 per cent. for wages would not represent the increase; and the matter simply amounted to this: that in this country it was impossible to frame perfectly accurate Estimates with regard to the cost of buildings. He thought a Division ought to be taken upon the question of principle whether the House of Commons was to vote money upon a rough-and-ready reckoning of cost, or upon properly framed Estimates.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 115.—(Division List, No. 46.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. R.G. WEBSTER (St, Pancras, E.)

rose to a point of Order. Unless he had happened to walk into the House at the time, he should not have known that a Division had been called, the Division bells not having been rung either in the Library or in the offices of the House.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he understood that was the case, but a message had been sent to the person in charge, and they would be put in order.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

desired to repeat a question he had put on a former occasion in reference to the Post Office Votes upon a point on which he had received a number of letters. Some old buildings known as Coldbath Fields Prison had been fitted up as a money order office, and many of the persons who had to work there had suffered from illness, and even cases of death had V resulted. Certainly the number of per-sons who had been made ill in that particular department was very large. This was a serious matter. It was represented that the place-—originally a prison—had only been fitted up temporarily as a branch of the Post Office, but the fact was that a considerable number of clerks employed there had been invalided. He put the question at the solicitation of the clerks in the office, who bitterly complained of the insanitary arrangements of the place. He believed that on the former occasion the right hon. Gentleman promised that the necessary alterations should be made, and he only rose now to renew his previous question, -and to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether proper precautions had been taken to protect the health of the clerks employed in the department?

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,) Nottingham, E.

said, a thorough investigation had been made into the ventilation of the offices in question. As communications had been received with regard to its condition, a small Commission, consisting of Lord Play fair and Dr. Corfield, had been appointed to inquire into the matter. They wanted to ascertain the condition of the atmosphere at different times of the year. It was probable that he would receive the Report in the course of a few days.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, that was hardly a satisfac- tory reply—that the clerks were to continue being poisoned while scientific investigations were made. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that £95,000 had been allocated to the improvement of the sanitary arrangements of the departments, and the Committee would have to deal with it in the next Vote. In the circumstances, it was absolutely inexcusable to leave men to be poisoned in offices of this kind while doing their work. He remembered a very painful incident of the kind in his own former experience at the Legacy Duty Department. That was a serious case, involving the death of a meritorious clerk, and he quoted it to show the right hon. Gentleman what he was exposing these men to. The man he spoke of had been placed in an insanitary position in Somerset House, where his health suffered very much, and though he was obliged to leave the Service the Commissioners refused to grant him any compensation. Ultimately, however, in consequence of a series of "disturbances," to put it mildly, the unfortunate man was granted £1,000, but he did not live to enjoy it, for he had, in fact, died a month before, undoubtedly from having been left in that unsanitary place. As far as appeared, the right hon. Gentleman was following exactly the same course with regard to his own clerks, leaving them to be poisoned in a room which was not in a sanitary condition. It was unnecessary to await the result of a scientific investigation. One's nose was generally sufficient to tell whether a place was in a sanitary state or not, and by that test not only was it plain inside the building that this old prison was not in a sanitary condition, but it was plain to the whole neighbourhood.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the percentage of disease in this particular building at the beginning of the year was very heavy indeed, and if it should continue at anything like the same rate the Post Office authorities would simply be playing with the lives of these unfortunate men to keep them at work in suck a place. He should be obliged to divide the Committee unless he received a distinct assurance from the rigth hon. Gentleman in this matter, that the clerks were not now suffering to anything like the same extent as at the beginning of the year. Looking at the acknowledged insanitary state of the building, they were likely to suffer more severely in the hot than in colder weather. In the absence of that assurance, he should move a reduction of £1,000 on the Vote.

MR. A. C. MORTON

suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should ask the Local Sanitary Authorities to report upon these buildings. At present, as far as he could toll, no notice had been taken of them. He believed they had no power to compel what was necessary to be done, but he did not think the Department ought to refuse to do what was considered necessary. The services of qualified Inspectors could be obtained from a very useful body in London at no great expense, and in that way the necessary Report could be procured on which the proper authorities might act. The right hon. Gentleman should remember how difficult subsequent alterations were sometimes. The Board schools in London had been built on a certain system, and it had been found necessary in some places to reconstruct the sanitary arrangements at an immense expense. Here was something of the same kind, and this old building seemed to be in its present state simply because the Department had not consulted the Local Sanitary Authorities. In such a case where other people were concerned that action would have been taken with the assistance of a police Magistrate. He suggested as a matter of business that the Department should, in this instance, obtain the assistance of the Local Sanitary Authorities, as was done in other cases throughout the Kingdom.

MR. A. MORLEY

said, in reference to the remark of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, that the clerks were being poisoned, there was nothing of the kind. The only objection that had been raised to the condition of these buildings related to the heating and ventilation.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that was exactly what poisoned the men.

MR. A. MORLEY

said, as he had already stated, the matter was being fully inquired into by the Commission which had been appointed to investigate, and he might assure hon. Members that whatever was necessary would be done.

MR. HANBURY

said, the right hon. Gentleman's answer had, in fact, made out a very strong case, and showed that the complaints had been made with good reason of the insanitary condition of these buildings. The place was in a thoroughly insanitary state. The right hon. Gentleman now told them that the Commission which had been looked to so much for the protection of the health of the people employed by the Department was merely dealing with the heating and ventilation of the building. That was most unsatisfactory, and was not dealing with the exigencies of the case. What was requisite in the matter was not being done, and in view of the unsatisfactory answer which had been given he should move to reduce the Vote by £500.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £314,400, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, the Committee ought to know something more about this matter. Certainly it appeared that these clerks were carrying on their work in danger of being suffocated by the defective ventilation. The Postmaster General had said it was only a matter of ventilation and fresh air. Exactly; and surely something should be done to put a stop to the present state of affairs. There was no question at (all of the insanitary condition of these buildings, and such a state of things was not creditable. It seemed unreasonable that Government buildings should) be exempted from the requirements demanded in other cases. He had had a good deal to do with public Offices, and knew perfectly well that one of the difficulties with regard to them was their being kept in a proper state of sanitary repair. If any ordinary private employer were to put up a great block of buildings and ignore all obviously necessary sanitary rules the authorities would be, down on him at once. Restrictions were often very troublesome, but that was no reason why these buildings should be kept in a bad state to the danger of the health of the clerks. The Postmaster General had quite given his case away, and it was the duty of the Committee to obtain from him some better assurance that the men would not be suffocated.

MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)

said, he had no desire to question the qualifications of the gentleman appointed by the Postmaster General to conduct this special inquiry. It seemed to him, however, that the right hon. Gentleman was asking from Lord Playfair and Dr. Corfield more than he ought to do, and the object he had in view would be much better attained if he would agree that post offices in all parts of the country should be open to the inspection of the Local Sanitary Authorities. He maintained that the County Council and the Vestry between them ought to inspect not only private houses, but such buildings as those belonging to the Salvation Army and the Post Office to see that their ventilation and structural conditions were such as to satisfy the requirements of sanitary science. He felt certain that the investigation of Lord Playfair and Dr. Corfield would not be as searching? and practically beneficial to the postmen as would an inquiry conducted by the surveyors and medical officers of the Vestries. In his own district there was a corrugated iron post office about which the postmen complained very bitterly. One of the men had come to him to com-plain of the insanitary condition of the place and to urge the necessity of some mealthy rest being provided for the men when off duty. Members of Parliament ought not to be petitioned as they were aft present for subscriptions for postmen's rests and auxiliary institutes. These institutions should be provided by the Post Office Authorities, and no doubt they would be if the duty of inspecting the post office buildings were entrusted to the proper Local Authorities.

MR. A. MORLEY

said, he thought this suggestion well worthy of consideration, and he-would promise to confer with the First Commissioner of Works on the subject. With regard to the provision of institutes and postmen's: rests, the subject did not arise on this Vote.

MR. JOHN BURNS

said, he had been obliged to drag the subject in on this Vote. The complaint was not that there was no place for the postmen to rest in—for they could rest in the existing insanitary buildings in which the work of the post office was performed— but that there was no separate room.

MR. A. MORLEY

said, that there was sufficient accommodation provided for the men who were off duty in the permanent offices, but he gathered that the hon. Gentleman referred to rests in buildings of a temporary character.

MR. JOHN BURNS

There are scores of these iron buildings all over London.

MR. A. MORLEY

said, he could assure the hon. Member for Preston that the Commissioners named had full power to investigate the whole circumstances. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would not put the Committee to the trouble of a, Division. The Report of the Commissioners would be prepared in a few days, and he would undertake that every consideration should be given to the suggestions which had been made to-day.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER

said, he endorsed what had been said by the hon. Member for Battersea. He had long thought it would be desirable for the Local Sanitary Authorities in the Metropolis to have the inspection of all buildings, whether they belonged to the Government or not.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 100.—(Division List, No. 47.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

2. Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £187,975, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will conic in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1895, in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes.

SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)

said, he wanted to call attention to this matter, but not for the purpose of making any objection. What he desired that the Committee should notice was the hiring of rooms by the Factory Department of the Home Office. This was the first time that a room had been hired by the Office of Works for the purposes of the administration of the Factory Acts, and he should be glad to be told what the room was for, and whether there was any intention to establish such rooms in different parts of the country. He did not say that this was not a wise expenditure in the interests of the Public Service, but there was the danger that such expenditure might be- come excessive. He wanted to know whether it was not intended to establish similar rooms or offices generally, so that there might be an easier communication with the Factory Inspector than could at present take place through the medium of the Home Office? It was only by a multiplication of offices of this kind all over the Kingdom that the Government could hope successfully to deal with the evil of sweating.

* MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he noticed in the Estimate a large amount for the lighting of London University. It appeared to him that they were always spending money on the London University, and he had asked the Government more than once whether they ought not to reduce the fees, which were very large. They had not been able to get the Minister for Education to do anything, and he should like to see whether the First Commissioner of Works could do anything in the way of economy. Then he wanted to draw attention to the question of the Orange Street Waterworks, which, as he understood, supplied the water to the fountain in Trafalgar Square. Complaints were constantly made as to the dirty state of the water. Of course, he knew that the people living about the square did not want to make any serious complaints, because if they did so, being tenants under the Government, they might have their rents raised. It was a fact, however, that the water was used over and over again, and that in warm weather the fountain was in an insanitary condition. He did not see why the Local Sanitary Authority should not have authority over a matter of this kind, and he should urge that every Department, not only the General Post Office, should consider the advisability of making use of the Local Authority for sanitary purposes. Another matter which he had to point out was, that in reference to Post Office buildings there was almost always an increase upon the original Estimate. The buildings in which the offices of the Board of Trade were situated would be a disgrace to the smallest country in Europe. He wished to know why, when the Government had vacant sites on their hands, they should not get rid of the various tumble-down buildings now used by the Board of Trade, and put up good and useful buildings for the Public Service? He was indebted to The Daily Chronicle for some information on the subject of Government buildings. That paper very properly said that— With the exception of the Foreign Office, and the Home, Colonial, and Indian Offices, there is not probably a single Department in Whitehall the whole of whose staff is housed under one roof. The sanitary condition of the War Office in Ball Mall has long been a scandal. This was one of the offices for which rent was paid. The article proceeded— The strange congeries of buildings occupied by the Board of Trade are not any better. The main office of the Board of Trade in Whitehall Gardens is a strange and motley group of buildings with long and dark passages, and small and inconvenient rooms, but various branches-of the Department are scattered over Whitehall and Parliament Street. He (Mr. Morton) had to a large extent gone over the buildings, and he found this description to be correct. Parliament did not mind spending any amount of money on the Army and Navy and the Royal Family and Foreign Royal Families, but it never seemed to be able to do anything properly for the trade of the country. He knew that gentlemen opposite were rather ashamed of being called shopkeepers, but as a matter of fact everybody in the country depended upon the shopkeepers and the workers. This being so, it was surely desirable to have respectable offices for the Department which dealt with trade. He did not advocate any unnecessary expenditure. There were, however, two vacant sites— that in Charles Street and that opposite the Horse Guards in Whitehall. Out of the savings that might be made in rent and messengers, if the present arrangement were put an end to, good, useful offices might be built on one of these sites. He calculated that the present tumble-down buildings cost in rent, repairs, extra messengers, and so on, about £100,000 per annum, although it was difficult to get at the precise amount, because the accounts were so mixed up. The Government had been calling upon Local Authorities to find work for the unemployed, and he thought they might very well find some themselves by carrying out the suggestions he had made-He believed that if they did they would actually save money. It would be very easy indeed for the Government, if they desired, to borrow money for the purpose at a low rate of interest. As to what had been said about the Estimates, he was afraid that Government Departments in making Estimates purposely left out items that ought to be included. In the Estimate for the Admiralty buildings the architect's fee of £10,000 was not included. Either there were some very-stupid men in the Department, or that item was purposely left out of the Estimate. There was no reason why it should have been left out unless the Department wanted to bamboozle the House of Commons. He knew from his own experience that there was no difficulty, provided that there were no accidents, in estimating within a few thousand pounds the cost of the biggest buildings. To turn to another subject, he found that certain sums were spent Upon the improvement of certain rooms of the officials of the Admiralty without consulting the House. He did not think that such a thing should be done, at all events without any information being given to the House. One Government was just as bad as another on these questions, and when the occupants of the two Front Benches were against the economists the latter were "between the Devil and the deep sea." He knew that it was usual during discussions of the Estimates for Members of the Government to make very fine promises, and he hoped that the present Government would endeavour to keep the promises they made. He knew that it required a very strong-minded and strong-backed individual to manage a Government Department properly in these matters. He knew from his very short experience on the Public Accounts Committee the difficulty of dealing with these questions. The Parliamentary head of the Department could, if he chose to assert his authority, see that all these officers did their duty. He would recommend the right hon. Gentleman to reduce all the salaries except those of the lower grade officials, who generally did all the work and got the least pay. They got from the poorly-paid Scotch officials much better work than they did from the highly-paid English officials. The question of new buildings was a big one, worthy the attention of the Government; and he certainly thought the Government might wisely devote to the purpose some of the immense sums of money now spent on the Army and Navy and on Royal grants.

* MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

said, he wished to recur to an inquiry made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University as to the new office established in Finsbury Square for the Factory Inspectors. He supposed it was not the only one of the kind that had been provided, because the Secretary of State, in reply to a question, had mentioned several offices in large towns. He suspected that a charge was made for these; offices under the Vote for the Chief Inspector of Factories, and if that was the case he would ask why this matter was not dealt with in one Vote instead of two? Could the right hon. Gentleman opposite tell them at how many towns these offices had been opened, and if it was intended still to increase the number? He should like to know whether inquiries in respect of workshops could be addressed to these Inspectors? who were Inspectors not less of workshops than of factories. He should also like to know whether the new offices of the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools had been found satisfactory?

SIR A. ROLLIT

said, that inasmuch as the University of London made a profit for the Government in the balance of fees, it ought, at any rate, to be put in a position to do its duty to the public and to its candidates. It was not now able to do so, however, particularly through the want of adequate accommodation for the student examinations. The Millbank site was practically impossible; but, whatever was done, the present state of things could not continue. The University was being reorganised; it would have to do more teaching, and its work, consequently, would be largely increased, while steps had been taken to make the examinations in some cases of even a more practical character than in the past. The Senate could not do justice to the candidates or to the public as an Examining Body. The Estimates had been adopted year after year without any advance being made, but now, unless he received an assurance that there would be no inordinate delay in providing the necessary additional accommodation for the Uni- versity, he should feel bound to move a reduction of the Vote, and take a Division on the subject with a view of drawing the serious attention of the Department to the matter. He saw an item for the adoption of the electric light in certain of the Departments, and he wished to express a strong hope that the lecture theatre would be lighted in this way. At present the theatre was simply in a state of darkness visible. At a recent meeting of Convocation there they had found it almost impossible to transact the proper work. With regard to the question of the improvement and consolidation of the offices of the Public Departments, the hon. Member for Peterborough need not have apologised for occupying the attention of the Committee with the subject. He agreed that the question was one of great importance, and one in regard to which there was room for the exercise of great economy. The Offices of the Board of Trade—one of the most important, if not the most important Department of the Government, —were unsuitable for the work to be done, especially when it was borne in mind what large deputations had to be received from time to time.

* SIR J. GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)

said, he would like to say a few words with reference to the University of London. Long before the hon. Member for Peterborough raised these points in regard to National Expenditure—for the last 20 years—he had called attention to the requirements of the University of London. It was fixed in a Government building which was not under its control, and all the expenditure on it was regulated by the Office of Works, which knew nothing of the business it conducted, and which certainly did not understand what were its requirements; consequently, he thought the Committee would see that the expenditure upon it might well be totally insufficient, and often in the wrong direction. The sum paid for the University of London was miserable in comparison with the amount paid for many University Colleges, and the examinations were interfered with and limited in many ways in consequence of the insufficiency of the accommodation. If the Government could see their way to devoting £5,000 or £6,000 a year towards meeting the claims of the University that amount would be by no means too large, considering the enormous number of students presenting themselves for examination. The matter was a pressing one, and he hoped it would receive attention. He quite agreed that Government sites might be utilized for Government buildings if common sense regulated the erection of these buildings; but in this matter the rules which guided private individuals were never observed on behalf of the country. They had recently had an example in the case of the new Admiralty buildings. Next, he observed in the Vote one item towards the cost of the Eastern wing of the National Portrait Gallery, the maximum balance not to exceed £4,000. He did not consider the grant an extravagant one, and ho wished to know, if more than the maximum balance was required, who was to provide it? It was, of course, very important that both national servants and national property should be properly housed, and, so far as this great collection of pictures was concerned, this grant would be money well spent. Another item in this long list, to which he would like to refer, was the lumping together of rents, insurance, &c, linden Class ILL, and ho thought it was necessary to appoint a practical person to have control over this Department. He trusted these matters would be considered.

* SIR J. T. HIBBERT

I quite sympathise with the view that has been expressed as to the necessity of some provision with respect to the laboratory for the London University. The Government were prepared this year to have entered into a scheme for providing a large laboratory for the University and the Science and Art Department, and it. was proposed that it should be erected on the site of the old Millbank Prison. But I believe the authorities of the University objected to that site, and I am not sure that they did not also object to joining with the Science and Art Department. At any rate, the proposal was not found to be satisfactory, and the Government, finding that they had not much money which could be used for the purpose this year, arrived at a compromise with the authorities of the University under which they postponed for the present the proposal for a laboratory, and instead made a grant for the purpose of lighting the University by electricity. They hope to be able, before next year's Estimates are prepared, to come to an agreement as to the best position for the laboratory. A proposal has also been made for new rooms for examinations, to be used jointly with the Civil Service Commissioners, but that also has fallen through, although, as I have said, our views were sympathetic, and at present I do not know that there is any proposal on the subject. I think, however, that those who are interested in these matters have a strong case for consideration. The London University receives a very large sum in fees, which is paid over to the Exchequer.

MR. A. C. MORTON

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of reducing the fees?

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

So long as it is necessary to provide increased accommodation for the University, I am afraid it is quite impossible to enter into that question.

MR. A. C. MORTON

We have now got free education.

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not see how that arises.

MR. A. C. MORTON

Yes, but we have to provide the money.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES,

referring to, an item in the Vote of £1,390 for the maintenance and repair of Burlington House and London University, said, he did not know which portion referred to Burlington House and which to the London University, but he believed he was right in saying that part of the sum which referred to Burlington House was expended in keeping up that portion of the building connected with the Royal Academy. That being so, he must enter his strong protest against any public money being expended on such a purpose as this. The portion of Burlington House to which he referred was in the occupation of a close corporation representing a particular section of art extraordinarily wealthy, so wealthy that no man had a notion of their possessions, possessed of an immense number of works of art, and every year in receipt of such an enormous revenue that it ought to make them ashamed to ask for any portion of public money at all for the maintenance of the building in which they were lodged. He not only said they were not entitled to it, but that it was a positive misuse of public money to apply any part of it to what was practically an accretion to the revenue of the Royal Academy. The Royal Academy only represented a particular side of art. If he were going to subventionise art one of the first things he should do would be to devote some attention to the national side of art — namely, water colours; but these Royal Academicians thought of nothing but oil colours, and practically ignored and relegated to an inferior position statuary and all other forms of art, whilst the whole of the public subventions were devoted to a particular form of art and to a particular close corporation representing that form. He boldly said that the Royal Academy, instead of doing anything for the furtherance of art, had done much to discourage and keep back artists, and had fostered an extremely bad school of art, founded, first of all, on the Greek school, which originated in the very worst and most discreditable period of Greek history. Had it been founded upon the noble Egyptian art—

THE CHAIRMAN (interposing)

said, the hon. Member was wandering from the subject of the Amendment.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said that, without going into particulars, he would merely say that here was a body, receiving a public subvention in the way of the maintenance of this building, which, first of all, was enormously rich, which really fostered an extremely false and bad style of art, and only one particular form of the many sides of art; that it was encouraged by subventions and the yearly presence of Ministers who ought not to be there, for it was not decent of them to go to a banquet of this sort and crack poor jokes. He strongly protested against one farthing of public money being devoted to the maintenance of this building in which there was yearly an exhibition so profitable that the Academicians ought to be well able to pay for its maintenance. He did not know what portion of this sum was devoted to Burlington House; but it seemed to him time that this enormously rich body should cease to be fostered by the illegitimate presence of Ministers, and that the grants to it for the maintenance of the building should be at once and for ever withdrawn. They had ruined Burlington House, to begin with, and, instead of leaving it the thing of beauty it was, had made it a hissing and a reproach.

* MR. H. GLADSTONE

was afraid he could not state the relative cost of the London University and Burlington House. The chief cost was the maintenance of the exterior of Burlington House, sums having been voted for this purpose for many years up to the present day under an agreement made in 1867. These sums kept the building in structural repair and occasionally paid for gas services and outside fittings. He was not prepared to say that the Board of Works proposed any alteration in that arrangement. The hon. Member had passed certain strictures on the Royal Academy, but that was a matter in which he could not follow the hon. Gentleman. It was a matter of opinion, and he saw no reason for altering the system and practice which had so long prevailed. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had asked him about the charge for the Factory Inspectors' office in Finsbury Circus. That office was not on the same footing as those which the Home Secretary now proposed to establish in various populous centres. The raison d'être of that office was that it should be a centre for Mr. Lake-man and his assistants. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Gorst) knew all about the nature of their work. This office was situate in that part of London in which the principal part of the work of the Inspectors lay; it formed the most convenient centre, and it was taken for that reason. The Home Secretary had obtained Treasury sanction for a large number of offices which were to be established in various large towns in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, but that charge, he imagined, would not fall upon this Vote, but upon a Supplementary Estimate for the Home Office.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

Does not one come here and others of them in another Vote?

* MR. H. GLADSTONE

said, this was a new departure. Last year three offices were established for Superintending Inspectors, and the office in Finsbury Circus was provided for Mr. Lakeman and his assistants. The other 20 offices had only been provided this year after the Estimates were framed, and they would have to fall upon a Supplementary Estimate. The hon. Member for Peterborough raised a question as to the Orange Street Waterworks, and criticised the nature of the water supplied to Trafalgar Square. The colour of the water when it came from the wells was very curious, presenting a yellowish tinge, but it was stated to be the best water in London, and the colour was not objectionable except to the eyesight. He was satisfied there was no harm in the water from a sanitary point of view. His hon. Friend criticised the charge of £25 for the Banqueting Hall at Whitehall. That charge was to defray the cost of the external structure, and it was advisable to keep this work under the control of the Office of Works, as the Banqueting Hall was really a national monument. As to the next question raised concerning the building of Public Offices, in which the various Departments would be concentrated, he could only repeat what he had said on the previous Vote, that he would be glad to set about the work, if he could only get the money The question, however, was one which should be raised on the Vote for the Treasury. He hoped to be able in a short time to make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject. Everybody would admit that, if the money were available, it would/be possible to use the sites already in the possession of the Government for the concentration of offices in large buildings for the accommodation of the various Departments, and thereby to save the present large charges for rents and the unnecessary wear and tear of messengers between the different departmental offices situated in various directions. But it was a question of policy which the Government, and the Government only, could decide. The question of electric lighting at the Loudon University was being seen to, and the theatre was included in the rooms to be so lighted. As to the National Portrait Gallery, about which a question had been asked by the hon. Baronet the Member for St. Pancras, the original Estimate for the building was £60,000. When the work was begun it was found that the Estimate would be exceeded to the extent of £36,000. Mr. Alexander consented to contribute a further £20,000, making his contribution £80,000 altogether, on the understanding that the Government would provide the remaining £16,000. The Government consented to do that, on a guarantee being given that there would be no further expenditure needed on the building. The building was almost completed, and it reflected great credit on the architect.

SIR J. GOLDSMID

said, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman had accidentally omitted to say that the public were very much indebted to Mr. Alexander for his great public liberality. It was an instance of extraordinary public liberality that should be acknowledged in the House of Commons.

* MR. H. GLADSTONE

was obliged to the hon. Baronet for reminding him of his duty. But he thought it unnecessary on the present occasion—it had been so often done and properly done in the House of Commons—to bear testimony to Mr. Alexander's generosity and the gratitude the public owed to him. SIR J. GORST said, he was sorry to hear that the Home Office was about to begin a very improper financial practice in connection with the provision of offices for the new Inspectors of Factories. He thought a protest should at once be made against such action.

* MR. H. GLADSTONE

said, he had been asked a question on the subject by the' hon. Member for Sheffield, and he had answered his hon. Friend as a matter of courtesy, but he thought the question did not arise at all under the present, Vote, and he was not responsible now for the Home Office.

SIR J. GORST

said, he was not blaming the right hon. Gentleman at all. In fact, he was speaking entirely in the interest of the First Commissioner of Works and the Secretary to the Treasury. It was admitted that the £145 in the Estimates for the provision of a Factory Department in Finsbury Circus did not by any means represent the amount that would in the end have to be spent for the purpose, and he contended that this further sum ought to be laid before the House in a Supplementary Estimate to be brought in by the First Commissioner of Works. He was not saying anything against the expenditure. He thought the provision of those offices was a most proper object for the expenditure of public money, but the offices ought to be provided not by the Home Office, but by the Department which was especially entrusted with the maintenance of public buildings for the Public Service—the Office of Works. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had very properly called attention to the fact that they were asked to vote a sum of money for the maintenance of Burlington House, while Burlington House was used by a private body—no doubt a body of great distinction—for the purpose of exhibiting pictures. The question naturally arose—why did not this body pay a rent for the use of this national building? He was told that this body charged an admission fee for seeing the pictures; they probably made a considerable sum annually by this exhibition, and that being so he could not see why they should not be made to pay an adequate rent for the use of the building.

MR. H. GLADSTONE

said, that in consideration for being allowed the use of Burlington House, free of rent, the Royal Academy had added a new storey and new galleries to the building, and kept it in repair.

SIR J. GORST

said, that was a peppercorn rent. Why should it not be a real rent represented by the real commercial value of the building? He had always maintained that all parties, no matter who they were, who got the use of national buildings—buildings that were the property of the nation—should pay for them a proper commercial rent.

SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)

said, the First Commissioner of Works, in his answers to the various questions put to him, omitted to allude to the very important point made by the hon. Member for Peterborough; that was with regard to the extraordinary differences between the original and revised Estimates fo sanitary improvements in the Public Offices. The original Estimate was £50,000; and it had risen to £95,000, which was almost 50 per cent. He ventured to press the point again on the right hon. Gentleman, and to say that the Committee ought to receive a categorical explanation as to the manner in which the original Estimate was framed.

MR. JOHN BURNS

said, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had very ingeniously replied to some of the criticisms of hon. Members by saying that if their demands were met it would mean a large expenditure of money which would have to be decided on not by his Department, but by the Government as a whole. He was going to make another suggestion which would involve the expenditure of a large sum of money, which would have to be spent one day, and the sooner the better. He noticed in the Estimates an item of £180 for rent for 32, King Street, Westminster. He could not but believe that a rent of £ 180 a year for a scandalously inadequate and insanitary building like 32, King Street, Westminster, was a waste of money. It was part of a block of buildings which it was said was going to be removed 20 years ago; but that removal appeared to be further off now than it was then. If it required legislation to effect the removal, let a Bill be promoted; and he believed that Parliament would readily find the money for the purpose of removing the congestion of traffic in Parliament Street, and giving a better view from Whitehall of that building, which of all in Europe he reverenced the most, Westminster Abbey, and of St. Margaret's Church and the Houses of Parliament. In the new National Portrait Gallery we had an excellently constructed addition to the National Gallery, which reflected credit on the donor, the architect, and the builder; but the approaches were inconveniently narrow and crowded. The First Commissioner should see whether it was not possible, by cooperation with the County Council and the authorities of St. Martin's Church, to carry out the scheme for removing the steps of the church, and so improving the approach to the new gallery. Of course, the improvement would have to be made at the public expense; but what better use could be made of public wealth than in beautifying the great Imperial City of London? To the west of the Houses of Parliament there was a tortuous, narrow, and dirty road between them and Lambeth Bridge, and, as the bridge was about to be re-built, the First Commissioner should see whether he could not improve this approach to the Houses of Parliament concurrently with the building of the bridge. The public would sooner spend £1,000,000 upon these improvements than spend £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 more upon the Army or the Navy. If the right hon. Gentleman did not pluck up courage next year to make these proposals, it would be the duty of them not only to oppose his Estimates, but even to vote against the Budget or some financial proposal of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who would not find money for such necessary improvements, which would be made at once in any capital of the Continent.

MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)

said, that sanitary matters ought to receive instant attention; and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman, instead of asking for £17,000 on the present occasion to put the Public Offices into a sanitary state, should have asked for £45,000. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not allow the germs of disease to get into the Public Offices, as the germs of influenza had got into the House a few years ago, owing to bad ventilation and bad drainage, injuring not only the health of Members, but the health of the gentlemen of the Reporters' Gallery and the ladies in the Ladies' Gallery. I am connection with the sum of £100,000 for the protection and maintenance of ancient buildings in Great Britain, he had asked last year a question of the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works— a question which had not been satisfactorily answered—in reference to the Drnidical stones in the Island of Lewis.

* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir J. GOLDSMID)

Order, order ! There is nothing in reference to those stones in the Estimates.

MR. WEIR

said, he objected to the proposed expenditure for the provision of offices for the Factory Inspectors in Finsbury Circus. It was a most careless method of conducting business to have a number of establishments scattered all over the place. The most economical and effective system was to have all the work done under one roof. £31,645 for coal, gas, oil, candles, soap, water, &c, for England, and only £1,000 for the same commodities for Scotland showed that Scotland was not treated fairly. Why that country was dealt with in such a niggardly fashion passed his comprehension. He had got to learn that these commodities cost more in England than they did in Scotland. There might be more frugality exercised in Scotland than in England. There was a sum of £1,500 taken for new furniture for England and only £500 taken for Scotland. He should like to know what became of the old furniture. Did it become the perquisite of some official? To his mind, the proper way to deal with it would be to send it to an auction room.

SIR A. ROLLIT

said, he hoped the hon. Member for King's Lynn would move to reduce the item for Burlington House and the London University. The explanation given by the First Commissioner of Works was wholly inadequate. Here was a body which was not a Government Department occupying premises which were kept in repair and upon which only a nominal rent was reserved by the Government. It seemed that only a peppercorn rent was fixed on condition that a storey was added to the building. But the Academy authorities had the use of that storey. It was really a Government subsidy, to a private or semi-private undertaking, without the latter being subjected to any test as to the efficiency of its art teaching or the adequacy of its improvements in art in thus country. Personally, he did think the advancement of art a thing which the Government should take under its own control.

* MR. H. GLADSTONE

said, the arrangement with reference to Burlington House had existed so long without exception being taken by hon. Members opposite that he could not undertake at the first breath of criticism to hold out any hope that he would suggest any alteration. He would make inquiries into the matter, but at present he could not undertake to say that it would be his duty to intervene to upset an arrangement which had existed so long without objection. With regard to the removal of the block of buildings in Parliament Street, and the improvement of the approach to the Houses of Parliament by way of Lambeth Bridge, the matter was not quite so simple as some appeared to imagine. He would be glad to confer with the London County Council, but in these matters he was a very humble person indeed, his powers being exceedingly limited. He would be willing to do a great deal if he had the money; but if he were to accept all the proposals which hon. Members opposite had made on the present Vote and the preceding one, the Government would have to incur an expenditure of millions of money. There must be reasonable moderation in these things. His hon. Friend the Member for Battersea had urged the necessity for improving the approach to the National Portrait Gallery. A proposal to remove the steps in front of St. Martin's Church was made some time ago, but the outcry that was raised showed that the public would not tolerate such a proceeding. The barracks were to be eventually altogether demolished, and it might be considered whether any new approach could be made in that quarter to the National Portrait Gallery. He agreed that something might be done eventually to make such an approach as had been suggested by the western and northern sides of the National Gallery. As far as this year was concerned, he was at the end of his tether, and ho could not hold out any promise of further expenditure.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he felt disappointed at what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to Burlington House. If his suggestion were adopted the Government would find themselves in possession of a little money wherewith to carry out the work that the hon. Member for Battersea considered so necessary. The Royal Academy paid no rent. The right hon. Gentleman said that was because they had added a storey to Burlington House. Well, by doing that they had defaced one of the finest buildings in all Europe, and they should be made to pay a swinging rent by way of fine for that act of vandalism. He maintained that they ought to pay a rent, the site being one that ought to yield a large amount of money to the Government. The Royal Academy was a most selfish Corporation, and afforded a strong and not very creditable contrast in their conduct to that of Mr. Alexander. He had the advantage of some acquaintance with that gentleman, and he could say that throughout his conduct had been most public-spirited and generous. The rich Corporation of selfish showmen were making thousands a year, and yet they not only refused to pay any rent, but came down to that House for this large sum for repairs. He moved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Item B (Maintenance and Repairs) be reduced by £1.000 in respect of Burlington House."—(Mr. Gibson Bowies.)

MAJOR DARWIN (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

said, that before the right hon. Gentleman opposite replied, he should like to ask whether the Vote under discussion did not include the cost of repairs to that part of Burlington House which was occupied by the Royal Society and the other learned Societies? This country did not do much for science, and he should be inclined to vote against the proposed reduction of the Vote.

SIR R. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

said, that in his opinion the hon. Member for Battersea had made a very proper suggestion as to the approaches to the House of Commons. The answer given to the hon. Member was not quite satisfactory.

* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir J. GOLDSMID)

There has been an Amendment moved which limits the discussion to the item for Burlington House.

* SIR J. T. HIBBERT

said, there was some misapprehension in regard to the Vote. Burlington House was divided into two portions, one of which was occupied by the Royal Academy at a peppercorn rent under a lease for 999 years, granted in 1867 upon condition of the Society adding an additional storey to the building and maintaining the building in repair at their own expense. The other part of the building was occupied by the Royal and other learned Societies, which were far from being rich bodies, being mostly supported by subscriptions. The money now asked for was entirely for the repair of the buildings occupied by those learned Societies. The Royal Academy of Arts were bound to keep their part of the building in repair both outside and in, and the sum which the Committee was now asked to vote had no reference to that Department.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he had begun by asking what part of the Vote affected the Royal Academy and what part the University of London. He did not consider that the Art Society of picture showmen were entitled to any assistance from the State at all. Did the right hon. Gentleman opposite mean to tell him that the whole of this sum was spent on that part of Burlington House occupied by the learned Societies?

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

That is my information.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, there, therefore, only remained the objection— and it was a most serious one—that this Corporation paid no rent for the enormous and valuable accommodation the State gave them. This, he thought, was almost a sufficient reason for them to mark their dissatisfaction by taking a Division on the Vote. But if not a single farthing of the sum asked for would go to the Royal Academy, he should ask leave to withdraw his Motion to reduce the Vote. He thought, however, that the Royal Academy ought to be made to pay some rent.

SIR A. ROLLIT

said, he approved of the determination of the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment, but he should like to know the terms of the agreement between the Government and the Royal Academy.

* SIR J. GOLDSMID

said, he must protest against the attack which had been made by the hon. Gentleman opposite upon the President and members of the Royal Academy. The language the hon. Member had used did not reflect credit either upon the hon. Gentleman's taste or his judgment.

MR. JOHN BURNS

agreed that it would be unreasonable to ask for a reduction of this Vote until the Committee saw the exact terms of the agreement with the Royal Academy. There was a great deal of difference between the conditions under which pictures were exhibited by the Royal Academy and the conditions of art generally in England in 1894 and those which prevailed in 1867 It seemed to him that either the Secretary to the Treasury or the First Commissioner of Works ought to place the terms of the agreement between the Government and the Royal Academy in the Library of the House, and ought to require the Royal Academy to furnish Parliament with some account of the manner in which they disposed of the money they took. Some artists regarded the Royal Academy as a close Corporation on which social prejudices prevailed, and which yielded to prejudices to the exclusion of genuine artistic merit. The Royal Academy ought to he made more representative in its character, instead of being, as it was now, a mere private trading concern. Many artists thought that pictures of real merit were frequently excluded from exhibition for whimsical reasons that could not be understood except by the close Corporation that bossed the show at Burlington House. He was as fond of pictures as anybody, and was as anxious as anybody that the country should do what was necessary for art, but he should refuse to vote another £50 for the Royal Academy whilst the present condition of things —which he should oppose through thick and thin—existed. Money was made by the Royal Academy out of their exhibition, and many people declared that it was misspent. Until the accounts were submitted to the House the criticisms offered against the action: of this Corporation would be justified. No other Government in Europe extended such privileges to a close Corporation of artists as was extended by the Government of this country to the Royal Academy. The selection of pictures for a proper representative exhibition of works of art ought to be placed in the hands of a competent Committee.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he could assure the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Goldsmid) that he took as much interest in true art as he himself. He did not think that sympathy with genuine art was demonstrated by buying expensive pictures and furniture under the advice of a Bond Street dealer. He had a detestation of false art, which was as rampant on the walls of the Royal Academy as anywhere. After the explanation which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and with the expression of a hope that the agreement between the Royal Academy and the Government would be laid on the Table of the House, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

* MR. A. C. MORTON

said, that as they spent so much money on this building, they had a right to ask why they had no share in the control of it. He feared that this Royal Academy was kept up for a class, and only a class. Seeing that Burlington House site was given to the Academy at such a low rent, the exhibition ought to be free to the public at least on some days during the week.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

On one day.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he did not even think one day would be sufficient. He thought the public ought to have some return for their money. He did not know if that money was expended on the dinner annually given to West End people—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! That does not arise on the Vote.

* MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he did not require to be told what was in the Vote; but they had a duty towards the British public, and he thought that unless the Academy was thrown, open to the people once a week at least they ought to refuse to vote this sum.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

SIR R. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

said, he wished to get some further information relative to the approaches to the House of Commons from the north side. He believed that if the First Commissioner of Works would make further inquiries he would find that there was a great distinction between the block from Parliament Street to King Street and the block from King Street to Delahay Street. Of course, it would be quite impossible to deal with the north side of Great George Street, because there were a number of buildings which could not well be displaced. But, with regard to the block between King Street and Parliament Street, some 15 years ago he was acting on behalf of several persons who then occupied the houses immediately on the west side of Parliament Street, and he remembered very well that compensation was paid by the then Government for possession at that time, 1878. At present, many of the tenants were occupying only at three months' notice, and therefore a large expenditure would not be required for the Government to obtain possession of this valuable site, and thereby effect a very great improvement. With regard to the syndicate which the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned, it would be found that it only had to do with the north side of Great George Street. The country had actually paid thousands of pounds for three-fourths of the site between Parliament Street and King Street some 15 years ago.

* MR. H. GLADSTONE

Power was given to the Syndicate to clear the block between Parliament Street and King Street, and to make a new frontage in continuation of the Home Office frontage. In any scheme now brought forward we should have to deal with that Syndicate.

SIR R. WEBSTER

The Office of Works bought all the houses on the north side of the block. I am quite certain of that.

* MR. H. GLADSTONE

The Office of Works had entered into an agreement with the Syndicate.

MR. BARTLEY

said, that he found two items for insurance, together amounting to £83. How was it that one or two of these public buildings were insured and that the others were not? It was obvious that where the Government possessed an enormous number of buildings insurance was out of the question. Another point to which he wished to draw attention was the grant made for the third time to Nottingham in connection with the Probate Registry buildings. Here they had a town favoured in a most extraordinary manner. In London they did not get such advantages, and he supposed the reason was that they had not their proper share of representation in the House of Commons.

MR. H. GLADSTONE

The Government do not insure buildings except where there is an express covenant requiring them to do so. The buildings alluded to by the hon. Member for North Islington are held under such a covenant. In regard to the grant to Nottingham, it is for the purpose of providing a new Probate Registry Office in combination with the Post Office.

MR. HANBURY

asked where the information was to be found relating to the item of £10,000—appropriations in aid on Government property? They were unable to say what property was referred to. He would like to know whether this was an actual or only an estimated sum? He also wished to know whether it was intended to light all the Government Offices by electricity? They had already installed it at the Foreign Office, he believed. Then he would like to be told why the State should provide stables for the First Lord of the Treasury and for the Chancellor of the Exchequer when they were not provided for other Ministers; and why a residence at Queen Anne's Gate should be found for the First Naval Lord? Why should not the Adjutant General of the Army also have a residence? Finally, could the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the new Admiralty buildings provision was made for a residence for the First Naval Lord?

* MR. H. GLADSTONE

I am afraid I am notable to throw much light on the question of the residence of the First Sea Lord or on that of the stables of the Ministers named. Such provision has been made for many years, and I am not prepared at the moment to say whether it is right or wrong. No provision has? been made in the new Admiralty buildings for a residence for the First Naval Lord. As to electric lighting, I believe the Foreign Office is the only Public Department which has been lighted by electricity, and I imagine that has been done because the building is used for official receptions. I am prepared to hand the hon. Member for Preston a list of the rents which make up the item of £10,000 to which he has referred.

MR. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

said, he desired to have some explanation of the large increase in the item of the expenses of the office of the Inspector General of Bankruptcy in Carey Street. Last year the sum paid was £1,820; this year £2,810 was asked for, and no reason was vouchsafed for the increase.

MR. H. GLADSTONE

The only explanation, I believe, is the increased work of the Department.

MR. BARTLEY

said, that had nothing to do with this item, which related merely to the rent of the premises. He certainly did not think the explanation satisfactory. If the right hon. Gentleman looks into the matter he will find, on page 45, that part of the premises are sub-let. Are we to understand that the money received as rent for them comes back afterwards as an appropriation in aid?

* MR. H. GLADSTONE

In reference to the item referred to on page 45, I am afraid I cannot just now say more than that some of the premises are sub-let, and that the rents received go to the appropriation in aid.

* SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

said, he wished to enter his protest against the unsatisfactory character of the reply given to the hon. Member for Battersea regarding the approach to the Houses of Parliament from Parliament Street and Lambeth Bridge. Hon. Members on both sides of the House concurred with the Member for Battersea that the approaches were of an exceedingly unsatisfactory character, and although the First Commissioner of Works had indicated that he had no money at his disposal with which to effect the improvement, he did think they should have some assurance that this question would be really taken up in earnest. Surely the right hon. Gentleman might press the question upon the attention of the Cabinet. If undertaken in a statesmanlike way—[a laugh] —there would be some hope of an effective improvement being carried out. Hon. Members might ridicule the use of the epithet "statesmanlike, "but he considered it properly applicable in this connection. Probably that laugh from hon. Members opposite might explain why this improvement had been so long delayed. A question of this kind should be dealt with in a broad and far-sighted manner. It should be treated as a whole and in time. The Government should examine this question of the approaches to Parliament, and consider how far the cost of improving the King Street approach and that from Lambeth could be met by the increased value of the new frontages thus obtained. That would be dealing with the question in a "statesmanlike" way. If the Government would at once deal with the King Street and the Lambeth approaches they would benefit the people of Loudon, who were now in want of employment, and at the same time would permanently add to the attractive-Bess of a building which was one of the most splendid and most interesting in the whole world. This subject merited more careful attention than it had evidently received from the First Commissioner.

MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)

asked as to the electric lighting at the Foreign Office, whether that establishment had its own installation or whether it was supplied from the outside; also whether it was high or low tension electricity, and how many volts?

* MR. A. C. MORTON

pressed the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to say that he would use his influence to secure that the Royal Academy would be opened free to the public at least once a week. With regard to the answer of the First Commissioner of Works to the hon. Member for Battersea, he did not blame the right hon. Gentleman; they ought rather to attack the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because this was a matter which must be taken up by the Government. He did not think that in this respect it could be suggested that they were advocating anything that was either unnecessary or extravagant.

* SIR J. T. HIBBERT

thought the hon. Member asked rather a large order. He did not think it was part of his business to ask the Royal Academy to make such an arrangement, considering the Academy possessed the buildings under an agreement made in 1867 for 999 years. If the hon. Member would wait till the end of the lease possibly some re-arrangement might be made in the interests of the public.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

thought with the hon. Member for Peterborough it was a great shame that there was not a free public day at the Royal Academy. Unlike his brother in Paris, the London artizan, unless he had a shilling in his pocket, was absolutely debarred from seeing the art products of the year, and so cultivating whatever aesthetic tastes he might have. It was not sufficient to give him occasional access to the National Gallery.

* MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he did not intend to wait 999 years before he again raised this question. But he reiterated that, as the Royal Academy had got the use of a valuable site for a very small sum, the least they could do in return was to give the public free admission on one day. He would not divide the Committee on the present occasion, but would give the Financial Secretary till the Report stage to consider the matter.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

3. £185,210, to complete the sum for surveys of the United Kingdom.

Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

said that, in reference to this Vote, he would like to point out that so long ago as December, 1892, the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the work of the Ordnance Survey gave in its Report, and he would now like to be informed to what extent it was proposed to give effect to the recommendations of that Committee. We shall be glad to see to what extent and by what method Her Majesty's Government propose to give effect to the recommendations of that Committee. The Report of the Departmental Committee having been issued as long ago as 1892, it is obvious that Her Majesty's Government have had ample time to consider their proposal and to mature their deliberate opinions. I assume, therefore, that the Estimates now before us contain the whole policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Ordnance Survey in the future. I may remind the House that the most important recommendation in that Report was that the immediate revision of the 25-inch and six-inch maps should be undertaken. The Estimate for that work for the current year alone, according to the estimate of the Director General of the Ordnance Survey, was £16,000. But I observe that the increase on the total Estimate for the present year is only £1,000, and it seems to me that is hardly an adequate increase in the Estimates to begin with. They are interesting for another reason: they form a new departure altogether on the part of the Board of Agriculture (which is now responsible for the conduct of the Ordnance Survey) likely in many senses to be fitting and satisfactory. It appears in the Appendix at the close of the Report, showing for the first time, as far as I remember, how much of the funds at the disposal of the Department are spent upon the production of the different maps, and in carrying out the different works which it is their duty to perform. I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to the item in the Appendix providing for the general revision of the six-inch and 25-inch maps for Great Britain, in order that none of them shall remain unrevised for longer than 20 years. That work, according to the present Estimates, is to be completed by the year 1910, at a total outlay of £640,000. I observe that if the proposals of the Director General had been carried out, the same work ought to have been completed by the year 1904, entailing an expenditure of £630,000. The Committee will see that upon this point the plan of the Government involves a delay of six years as compared with the Director General's plan. But I want to go a little further and ask how much of the £640,000 will be required for the completion of the six-inch map? Because £600,000 was the sum estimated for completing the 25-inch map alone. This is important, because it was pointed out most emphatically, both by the Director General of the Ordnance Survey and by the Departmental Committee, that a delay of a single year in completing this work would involve a large increase in the total cost of carrying it out. I should like to have an answer on this point from my right hon. Friend opposite, and also to know what is the additional expense the country will be put to by the delay which) has already occurred in carrying out the work?

MR. H. GARDNER

The work for which year?

MR. CHAPLIN

For 1893–4. I am referring to this work of proceeding with the 25-inch map. Again, I want to know how much of the £600,000 left from the revision of the six-inch map will be required for the completion of the Town-scale map already in hand. At the bottom of the page there is a note stating that a portion of the money will be expended for that purpose. The list of these maps is already very formidable. The Report of the Commission for 1893 states that— The large Town-surveys now in hand are London, Plymouth, Devonport, Neweastle-on-Tyne, Gateshead, Jarrow, Blackburn, South Shields, Tynemouth, North Shields, Wallsend, Cardiff, and Glasgow. Then come the towns in Edinburghshire, Haddingtonshire, Wigtownshire, Kirkcudbrightshire, Fifeshire, and Ross-shire. The maps for the towns in Lancashire and Yorkshire are already prepared. There are maps of 22 large towns already in hand, and they will have to be completed out of the £90,000 allocated for completing the towns in the country in addition to the six-inch map. I want to know how much will be left for the important work of revising the 25-inch and six-inch maps for the rest of the country? I must again direct the attention of the Committee to the Report of the Departmental Committee and ask them what they think of it. On page 11 they state that some of the 25-inch maps are dated 1855, and have never been revised since. We have some evidence of the great cost that will be entailed if the Ordnance Surveys are allowed to remain too long without revision, necessitating in some instances almost new surveys. It is obvious that the 25-inch survey should be commenced without delay, and I think the Committee will be anxious to hear - from the right hon. Gentleman how much will be loft after the completion of the 22 large Town-surveys for proceeding with the important work of the 25-inch and six-inch maps. Then there is another feature in this new departure of the Government which is far more important than all, to which I will also call the attention of the Committee. The Committee will notice the last item but one from the bottom of the page—"For the revision of Town-scale maps"—the cost over and above the revision of the 25-inch scale being paid by the towns requiring revision on the larger scale. But I observe there is no Estimate made at all for the total completion of this work. Nothing whatever is said as to the date by which the Government anticipate it will be completed, and this is explained in a paragraph which, I think, is the most important in this Report, issued by the Board of Agriculture. They say the Treasury issued a Minute, dated 18th of May, 1855, directing that the plans of towns containing more than 4,000 inhabitants, which had hitherto been drawn on a scale of five-eighths of an inch to a mile, should be drawn on a larger scale, equivalent to 1.276. This Minute remained in force until the 30th of January, 1894, when it was formally revoked by the Treasury. The reasons which led to the discontinuance of surveys on a larger scale than 1–500 are fully stated in a Treasury Minute of 1893 and need not be re-stated now; but the general result is, that after the completion of the Town-surveys now in hand, no surveys will be made, and no plans will be revised at the cost of the State on a larger scale than 1–500. I think we are fully entitled to ask what are the grounds upon which the Government feel themselves to be justified in abandoning altogether this very important class of work which has hitherto been carried on by the Ordnance Survey, not only with regard to the future, which is perhaps of less importance, but in the revision of the mass of work, done in the past. Are there any other grounds, apart from the expenditure necessary for carrying out the work, which justify the Government in abandoning the revision of the plans already made—without which the whole amount spent on this important work will be absolutely thrown away?—because, as pointed out by the Director General and by the Departmental Committee, these maps —especially the large-scale ones—become within an appreciable period of time, unless revised, almost obsolete and practically worthless for future reference. Is there any other ground for the abandonment, apart from the cost? Two questions arise, and I am sure the Committee will be glad of an answer to them. First, what has been the total expenditure by the Ordnance Survey upon the production of Town-maps on a scale larger than 1–500 from the commencement up to the present time? I venture to think it must amount to a very large sum. Secondly, what has been the usual amount expended annually upon the revision of these maps? Upon important work of this character since 1855 the expenditure of public money both in survey and revision must have been large. As far as I can see, there is great danger that it will now all be thrown away, for it is essential that these maps should be revised within a reasonable period. The Committee upon this point say— We find that while the large-scale maps are excellent in quality, and while they fully meet the purpose for which they were designed, the very largeness of the scale practically leads to their getting out of date. This defect is more apparent in the 25-inch plans of the Survey since 1854, and still more so in the Town-plans on the scale of 5 feet, 10 feet, and 10.56 feet per mile. Scarcely any of them have been revised, and it is urgently necessary that the advantage of these splendid maps should not be destroyed for want of a regular system of revision. Now, the right hon. Gentleman may tell me that the revision will in future bo carried out in the same way as in the past provided the towns desire it, and are willing to bear the expense themselves. I have no doubt they will in some cases be ready to take that burden upon themselves, but in many cases they will 1101. They will possibly say to the Board of Agriculture —"This has been your work; you have carried it out in the past; you have borne the expense of the production of these maps without consulting us about it, and it is your duty, therefore, to see that a proper system of revision is carried out. "If that should be so, what is to become of these Town-scale maps produced at such enormous cost where the towns are not willing to bear the expense of their revision in the future? What are the grounds, apart from expense—a matter on which the Treasury has always a good deal to say—which have induced Her Majesty's Government to come to this very serious decision? I think I may add another reason to show that it is desirable that these Town-maps should be 'maintained upon their present scale and properly revised—namely, that they are of enormous use and importance for the purposes of the registration of title of real property in towns. Registration of title is a matter in which Members on both sides of the House profess great interest, and if these maps disappear one of the greatest facilities for the registration of title will disappear with them. The Board of Agriculture have no doubt carefully considered and weighed the objections to the course which I venture to propose, and I think the Committee will be glad and will expect to have a full explanation and reply to the questions I have put to the right hon. Gentleman. I wish to say that in making these observations I have been actuated by no feeling of antagonism or hostility to the work of the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides; on the contrary, I know that in dealing with this subject the right hon. Gentleman has had to meet difficulties with which every head of a Government Department is confronted when he makes a demand for increased expenditure from the Treasury, and it is with the view of assisting the right hon. Gentleman to get his reason- able and proper demands met by the Treasury that I have made these observations. Enormous sums have in the past been spent on this important work, and it would be a great misfortune and a deplorable waste of public money if for any small or ill-timed economy a great part of the valuable work that has been done by the Ordnance Survey is thrown away.

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,) Essex, Saffron Walden

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his friendly tone towards the Department. For the first time in the history of the Survey the Vote has been placed before the Committee of the House of Commons in a plain and intelligible form; and notwithstanding the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman, I claim that the Survey has never been in so satisfactory a condition in every respect as at the present moment. That satisfactory condition is, I may say, mainly due to the action of the right hon. Gentleman in appointing the Committee over which an hon. Baronet opposite presided. That Committee made a most valuable and exhaustive Report, and the House is in possession of a Minute of the Board of Agriculture which, with some very slight modifications, carried out the valuable suggestions contained in the Report. I differ from the right hon. Gentleman's view that the Committee reported that the most important work of the Department was the revision of the 25-inch map. What the Committee said was that the most important work was the one-inch map, because that was the map which was most popular, and the completion of which was most demanded.

MR. CHAPLIN

It has been already completed.

MR. H. GARDNER

Yes; I was going to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we have made arrangements for the completion of the revision of the one-inch map at an early date, and I hope the Committee will accept that as a satisfactory statement. I may say that the work is being carried out at a more rapid rate than has hitherto been adopted. The right hon. Gentleman says the Estimate is only increased by £1,000, but he has forgotten that in addition we are employing 93 Engineers, whose cost is included in the Army Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman inquired with regard to the six-inch map; but he has forgotten that the 25-inch map and the six-inch map are based on one and the same survey, and that therefore the one Estimate includes both. I am unable to say what portion of the Vote will go to the completion of the Town-maps, but I am informed by the best authorities that a sufficient sum has been included in the £90,000 for the completion of the Town-maps and the revision of the six-inch and 25-inch maps. With regard to the main ground of the right hon. Gentleman's criticism, that is the Town-maps, the right hon. Gentleman seeks to convey to the House that the new departure taken by the Department would be detrimental to the country generally, and he went on to ask what ground we had for taking that new departure. The ground we had was the recommendation of the very excellent Committee which the right hon. Gentleman himself appointed. The right hon. Gentleman read to the Committee some observations of the Committee as to the importance of these Town-maps, but he might have gone a little farther and read the recommendation of the Committee with regard to those maps. He doubted whether the House realised what was the amount of money spent upon these maps. The Town-maps were useful only for local and not for Imperial or National purposes; but, nevertheless, they would be revised by the staff of the Survey, under certain conditions, where the Local Authorities desired it, and were willing to defray the cost of the work over and above the cost of revising the 25-inch map. What the Government had to do was to take the maps of a National character as against maps of a local character, and he thought there was a strong case for giving the preference to the revision of the former. If he wanted corroboration upon this point he could point to the statement of the hon. Baronet last year, when he said that these 10-inch maps were the bane of the Ordnance Survey. He did not think, therefore, that the Government could be accused of negligence in dropping these maps in order to make progress with the 25-inch map.

MAJOR DARWIN (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

said, he thought it was desirable that the maps should be revised every 15 years. He understood that the increase in the amount of the Estimate was due to the fact that more engineers were to be put on the survey.

MR. H. GARDNER

explained that the money hitherto allotted for town maps was to be applied to the purposes of 25-inch maps.

MAJOR DARWIN

said, he understood that the recommendation of the Committee was that the maps were to be revised every 15 years, whereas the Appendix to the Estimates said 20 years. They would certainly become ineffective in populous districts after such a length of time. He trusted that the period of 15 years would not be extended. It appeared to him that the Ordnance Survey maps ought to be published in a more suitable form for the convenience of the general public, and he believed that if the Ordnance Survey adopted the recommendations of the Committee they would increase the sale very considerably. From a military point of view it was extremely desirable, for he believed that a good map of the country would be of as much help to our defensive forces as one or two additional battalions.

* SIR E. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said that, after reading the Report of the Committee, he was amazed that more money had not been appropriated to the Survey. He did not think that a sufficient sum was allowed for the additional work which was to be done, and he hoped that a larger sum might be allotted to the service. Last year the House psssed a Bill under which there were to be compulsory sales of property, and he must say he could not conceive a greater mistake than that those operations should take place upon the basis of a plan 15 or 20 years old. He was sure that the Government would find assistance from all parts of the House if they proceeded with all possible rapidity with this branch of work. It was very desirable that the engraved maps should be proceeded with at once. He must say that he did not think the dates given in the Estimate for the completion of the work were very encouraging. So far as he understood, the one-inch engraved map was to be finished in eight years from this time and the others not before 1910, while for Ireland the publication would not be completed before 1920. There seemed to be an opinion in favour of a one-inch map, but he thought a six-inch map would be better. His experience in Yorkshire was that a six-inch map was most useful and convenient. Everything was marked upon it, and in case of agricultural transactions the parties knew exactly what the farmer was letting and what the tenant was taking. A frequent revision of the maps was a great saving to the country, because if a map was some years old nobody would accept it, and considerable cost was thrown upon those concerned. He hoped that in the future more progress would be made, and he was sure that such a policy would be approved by all and objected to by none.

MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)

said, he could not understand why in reference to these maps Scotland should be merged with England. It was not long since, when the Government was in Opposition, that they heard Scotland spoken of as a foreign country. He wanted the right hon. Gentleman to tell them how much of this £90,000 was to be expended upon Scotland, and particularly what sum was to be spent upon the Highlands of Scotland. As the maps at present stood, lochs were shown where there were no lochs, and roads where there were no roads, while existing lochs and roads were not shown at all. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take care to have these errors rectified.

* MR. ROBY (Lancashire, S.E., Eccles)

said, he desired to thank the Minister for Agriculture for the interesting and valuable statement he had presented to Parliament with regard to the recommendations of the Committee, and was sorry that the Chairman of that Committee was not in the House. He congratulated the Ordnance Survey upon having now enlisted in its service both the gentleman who formerly presided over the Board and the gentleman who might at some future time preside over the Board. He must say he did not entirely agree with the objections which had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin). In his opinion, the Board of Agriculture had taken a right step in throwing the cost of the large town maps upon the localities themselves. They were used by the Local Authorities, but were not of much general interest, and the sale to the public was extremely small, while the labour of preparing them was so enormous, and the cost of revision so great, that it had prevented adequate attention being directed to other parts of the survey. The scale upon which they were prepared was so extensive that they actually marked the door-step of a house. If the large towns desired to have such maps they should, of course, be properly prepared, but they ought to be made at the expense of the localities. With regard to the cost of the six-inch maps, which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) desired to have, he thought that could hardly be given separately, as these maps were prepared chiefly by photographic reduction from the 25 - inch maps. He must say he found some objection as to the time named in the Estimates for the periodical revision of the maps, and with regard to the dates of completion, which were much further distant than he anticipated. It was a matter for regret that more money could not be expended this year, but, inasmuch as the naval expenditure pressed so heavily on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he did not see that anything further could be done. He thought that the one-inch, six-inch, and 25-inch maps would be most useful to everybody, and hoped the work would be carried out as promptly as possible. He could not agree with what his Friend the hon. Baronet opposite had said with regard to the superiority of foreign to English-printed maps. He had used the ordinary Government Survey maps for many years, and he had good reason to be satisfied with them.

* CAPTAIN BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)

said, it seemed to him that a 25-inch map was scarcely large enough, and he doubted whether they got an adequate return for their money in respect of the town map on the 25-inch scale. With regard to the revision of maps, it often happened that the maps were useful for a large number of years, because the characteristics of the country did not alter very rapidly, and he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture arranged for a revision once in 25 years all the requirements of the case would be met. There was another question with regard to the smaller scale maps—he always thought the Ordnance Survey had been too much under the dominance of the military idea. With regard to the actual preparation of the maps, there were two methods by which hills were shown-—namely, by contour lines and by shading. The shading was the most effective method, and he thought the Ordnance Survey Department might well consider whether in the new maps the shading should not be universally employed to denote hills. If it bad been decided that there should be an alteration in this respect he thought a wise discretion had been used.

MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.)

said, he was sure the Committee would be glad to see the valuable information which was given in what was called the Appendix to this Vote. He remembered the question of these town maps being raised when ho was at the Treasury, and he could only repeat the statement of the importance of these town maps being kept up to date. Certainly, in Yorkshire the features of the towns were changed from year to year, and it was most important that the maps should be kept correct. He thought that Vote might be postponed, or that information should be given on the Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture had spoken with pardonable pride of the form in which this Estimate was presented, and had expressed his satisfaction with the condition of the Service. The form, however, in which the Estimates came before the Committee seemed to show that a further sum would be required for the completion of these different works. It had been pointed out that there had been an extension of time beyond that recommended by the Committee. He could quite understand that under the circumstances it was necessary that there should be such an extension. He understood, however, that the Government intended that the work should be completed within the dates mentioned in the Estimates.

MR. H. GARDNER

was understood to assent.

MR. JACKSON

said, he was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman assented, and he was sure that all those who were interested in the survey would accept the present proposal, if the dates mentioned in the Estimates were adhered to. If, however, the Government intended to adhere to those dates, they had not provided sufficient money for the purpose. The cost of the re-survey of the Scottish counties, which was to be completed by June, 1897, was to be £50,000. Anyone who looked at the figures would see that if the dates mentioned were to be adhered to, there must be an addition during the next three years of £30,000 a year to the Estimates. The Scottish expenditure would amount to £17,000 a year for three years, and the British expenditure to a little over £100,000 a year for 16 years. That being so, instead of the £90,000 a year, provided for by the Estimates, the amount to be provided ought to be £120,000.

* MR. H. GARDNER

The right hon. Gentleman forgets that when work is completed the money provided for that work will be set free.

MR. JACKSON

said, that taking the Estimate as it stood, it was quite clear that during the next three years the sums he had stated would have to be provided. A similar result was obtained by looking at the totals. By dividing £3,500,000 over practically 16 years, an annual expenditure was obtained of a little over £240,000 a year, instead of £225,000 a year. If his figures were not correct, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would afford an explanation. If his figures were correct, however, the Committee must clearly understand that the Estimate of this year was not, sufficient to guarantee the completion of the work within the period named.

* MR. H. GARDNER

The Estimates have been very carefully prepared by the officers of the Department, and we are thoroughly satisfied that we shall be able to carry out the services specified in the period named. We shall have at. our disposal towards the expenditure of future years the sums that will be set free on the completion of some of the work. Those sums can then be devoted towards the completion of the 25-inch map. One or two questions have been asked me which I hope I shall be allowed to reply to briefly, as it is highly desirable that we should get the Vote to-night. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down was good enough to congratulate me on the way in which the Estimates are set out. I must at once admit that I am indebted for the form of the Estimates to a suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman himself. As to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Local Authorities, we propose that in future, if any additional proposals should be made by Local Authorities, they should come to us, and we should carry out their intentions.

MR. JACKSON

My suggestion was that the cost should be divided between the Government and the Local Authorities. It cannot be said that the maps are not of use to the Government and to the public generally, and my suggestion is that the cost should be apportioned on some basis which the Government could probably determine between them and the Local Authorities.

* MR. H. GARDNER

Yes, Sir; and I say at once that I shall be very glad to take that into consideration in the future. Several other questions have been put to me, but I hope the Committee will allow us to have this Vote before 12 o'clock.

COLONEL NOLAN

I will not; I want to talk.

* MR. H. GARDNER

Then perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will talk now.

COLONEL NOLAN

said he would, as that was the only chance he had had of speaking on the Vote. He would be very glad to save the whole of the Vote. While he believed in surveys he did not believe in the way in which they were made in this country at the present time. Wherever he went he found that the British surveys were 50 years old. For the last eight or ten years he had been asking for the map of Galway, and although 1891, 1892, and 1893 had been named in succession as the dates of its production, it had not yet appeared. Last year he was told that some of the sheets bad been printed, but, on inquiry at the office in Grattan Street, Dublin, he was told that the officials had not even heard of them. He could never get anything that approached the truth as to the date of their production. He knew that the Minister tried to tell the truth, but he was deceived by his subordinates. If the Department were to continue to pursue its present course the revision would be completed, not in 1920, but in 1950, and he did not see why it should not be left to the people who lived in 1930 or 1940 to pay the cost. He did not think that any military map that was published was of any use for military purposes, simply because it was available to the enemy. In fact, such a map would be more useful to the enemy than it would be to our own military men, because, whilst the latter would know something about the country, the former, but for the map, would not know anything. He objected also to the shaded contours, which were, no doubt, very pretty, but were not of any use.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)

asked whether it was possible that some maps could be printed on materials suitable for folding up and putting into the pockets of pedestrians, hunting men, cyclists, and so on, and also whether in maps of all descriptions there should not be explanatory signs of the markings?

* MR. H. GARDNER

was understood to say that an explanation of the signs was given on the maps. As to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), the publication of the Galway sheets would begin this year. It must be remembered that Ireland had the advantage of a survey for the six-inch map before England. He would endeavour to obtain the information that had been asked for with regard to the money to be spent on town maps. The re-survey on the 25-inch scale of the maps of the Scottish counties, heretofore surveyed on the six-inch scale only, was to be completed in 1897. As to the lochs, which were said to be shown where there were no lochs, and the roads where there were no roads, he should be glad to be furnished with specific cases, and he would then make inquiry into the subject. He hoped that the Committee would now agree to the Vote.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he must remind the Committee that this was a very important question, that it had not been discussed for an hour and a half, and that many of the questions which had been addressed to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gardner) had not yet been answered. If, however, there was a distinct understanding that the information which had been asked for should be given before the Report stage was taken, he would not oppose the taking of the Vote.

MR. H. GARDNER

was understood to indicate assent.

Vote agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday; Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.