HC Deb 28 March 1898 vol 55 cc1128-61

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Bill be now read a second time":—

MR. J. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I beg to move— That the Public Buildings [Expenses] Bill be read a second time this day six months. I object, in the first place, to the general financial character of this Bill; and, secondly, I oppose it because I hold that even if the House thinks fit to take the surplus of the year and devote it to an object which is not at present by law established, the object which this Bill proposes to set up is not one for which sound reasons can be adduced. Now, Sir, it is a Bill which provides a large sum of money for the erection of certain public buildings in the County of London, and it departs in all important particulars from the usual practice and custom of the House, which, I venture to submit, would be far more laudable when providing money for the erection of public buildings, because, under this Bill, instead of providing the money which may be required from year to year as the Estimates do, the House will be required under this Bill to vote an authority to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to expend money to the extent of £250,000 for certain large works set down in the Schedule. One of the provisions of the Bill to which I most strongly object is that in section 3 of clause 1, which proposes, in regard to the Sinking Fund, to apply the surplus of the financial year, which closes on the 31st, day of March, 1898, to the extent of £2,500,000 sterling for the purposes of this Bill, and authorises them to make payments as they are called for during the year. Now, the law, as we all know, provides that the surplus should be devoted to the Sinking ing Fund and the payment of the National Debt, and I think we ought to give some very much stronger reasons than any which have been laid before the House by the Government to justify their demands on the present occasion, to abrogate the law in this regard, and apply the surplus of the year to the building of these great establishments. If the Sinking Fund arrangement which was solemnly come to by the House is to be broken, it ought only to be done under the demand of some national emergency; and if there ever was a time when the Government was not justified in interfering with the arrangements of the Sinking Fund and the payment of the National Debt that time is the present one. What are the circumstances—the financial circumstances—of this year coming upon the top of similar circumstances in the year we have just passed over? We are now in a period of super-abounding prosperity, a period of prosperity which I daresay has never been equalled in the whole history of this country, a prosperity which I shall show is entirely confined to the island of Great Britain, and is in no degree shared by the island from which I come. But in this country we are undoubtedly passing through a period if extraordinary super-abounding prosperity so far, and it would be an unfortunate thing for any Government to accept this prosperity as the basis of calculation for its expenditure. We have had surpluses year after year, and I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have this year a surplus of about £2,000,000. In spite of these recurring surpluses, and in spite of times of peace and prosperity beyond all precedent in the financial history of the country, the income tax has been maintained at 8d. in the £. Year after year has gone by, and this year is to follow the example of its predecessors, and no relief of taxation whatever is to be proposed for the people of this country. And, Sir, not only has the policy of the Government been to appropriate or spend the surplus of the successful year and to propose no relief of taxation in the country, but they have once and again suspended the operation of the Sinking Fund and appropriated the surpluses which ought to have gone towards the reduction of the National Debt. Sir, that prevails pari passu at the same time with the immense and increasing expenditure, and what the House is entitled to assume is this: that, if the Government go on and continue on their present lines, in a very few years, without any war or foreign competition, even if the country escapes that foreign competition, it will be necessary, in order to maintain the present scale of expenditure, to increase the income tax by a penny or twopence in the £. That is a monstrous condition, of things, against which we are entitled to protest. I protest, in addition to that, against the enormous extravagance in increasing the expenditure of the Government, and against this policy of year after year going in for seizing upon the surpluses and devoting them to such projects as are contained in this Bill. I ask the House, by adopting my Amendment, not to approve of the policy of the Government in appropriating the surplus of the year for this scheme of expenditure, because I hold that if you are going to suspend the law in regard to these surpluses, and to divert them from the purposes which Parliament originally intended them for—namely, to go to the reduction of the National Debt—you ought only to do so in the event of a national emergency, and that money so taken from the payment of the National Debt ought to be devoted only to urgent necessities. I put it to any hon. Member, is that test satisfied by the present proposal of the Government? What emergency, or what urgency, is there for these enormous buildings in London? The question of these buildings has been before the House year after year, and although I daresay it may be possible for the Government to say a great deal in favour of some of these great buildings, I am perfectly certain that it will not be possible for the Government, or for any Member in this House, to maintain that any one of these amounts is of national emergency, or is urgently demanded, and I fail to see on what grounds the Government justify their conduct in abstaining from pursuing the ordinary routine practice of placing certain sums on the Estimates for the coming year for the erection of these buildings. I hold that it is impossible for anybody to maintain that these buildings are a most urgent necessity. I believe, Sir, that I should be out of order in going into any detail or at any length into certain other purposes which I hold ought to have precedence over these items set forth in the Schedule if we do seize upon the surplus. Coming as I do from a country where at the present moment the people are starving for want of food—from a country which has been denied for the last two years a sum of £600,000 or £700,000 a year to which she is entitled, on the specific ground that the state of agriculture was not so depressed as it is in this country—I say it is monstrous that this surplus, which would have enabled the Government to pay to the unfortunate Irish people that which they have been defrauded of during the last two years, is to be taken now it is available and spent in this city, where God knows enough money has been spent already. Now, just look at this aspect of the Bill. This £2,500,000 is proposed to be taken, and in that sum there is, according to the calculations of the Treasury, about £250,000 from Ireland. All this money proposed in the Bill is to be spent in London, and is it not a cruel injustice that you are undertaking to spend, under this Bill, £200,000 contributed by the taxpayers of Ireland, when you are making no provision whatever—I am hardly exaggerating when I say no provision—for those people who are actually starving in Ireland? The least the Government might do is to give out of this surplus a couple of hundred thousand pounds which will completely and amply deal with the distress and starvation which exist and are becoming desperate, in the west of Ireland, before they seize on the whole of this vast sum of money to be spent in London. Turning for a moment to the various items mentioned in the Bill, I appeal to the Radical Members, apart altogether from the question of Ireland, not to support this Measure. There cannot be the slightest doubt that London gets more than her share of national funds. That in one short Bill a sum of £2,500,000 is to be spent in this city is, I think, a most unreasonable demand, and it ought to be accompanied by some share to be spent in provincial towns. There are two items in this Schedule which I desire particularly to criticise. The first is the sum of £475,000 for the War Office. During the last two or three months a demand has been put forward for a root and branch reform of the War Office and the Horse Guards, and we were led to believe that one of the results of the present organisation of the War Office was that the millions voted by this House year after year, and which, I regret to see, are increasing year after year, are, to a large extent, wasted, and that the country does not get value for them. Men, without distinction of Party, and experts on both sides of the House, have filled columns of the Times in pointing this out, and that there could be no security for an efficient Army, and that value would not be given for the money voted unless there were a complete root and branch reform of the War Office.


The reform of the War Office does not arise on the business before the House.


Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware of that. I was not going into the matter at any length. I think it is a very cruel thing for any Government to ask this House for two and a half millions of money—when they do not propose any reform in the War Office—to build a new War Office for these gentlemen. I think they are beginning at the wrong end. I think they should reform the War Office before building a new War Office, and I think that is not unreasonable. I had no idea of entering at length into the condition of the War Office, but I think it is not an unreasonable demand that before the country pays two and a half millions it should be assured that the business is properly and effectively done. What assurance have we that it might not be possible, by reforms in the War Office, to obtain more than sufficient money to pay for the building of a new office? And if that be so, I think we ought to hold back the money for the building of a new office until we see the work is done as efficiently and cheaply as possible. Now, there is another item to which I take exception on its merits. I refer to the item for £800,000 for the Science and Art buildings at South Kensington. I do not pretend to know, or to have any technical knowledge, or any knowledge as to the requirements at South Kensington, and I should be the last man to grudge the money to make these art treasures safe; but I protest on behalf of other cities in the Kingdom—on behalf of Dublin, Belfast, and Cork—against this House being asked to vote £800,000 of the taxpayers' money on building gigantic structures, and spending those gigantic sums while giving nothing at all to provincial cities.


The hon. Member need not trouble to appeal on behalf of Belfast.


A great many people in Belfast have more confidence in me than in the hon. Member. My experience of Belfast is that it is just as anxious to have money spent there as anywhere else, but the Government can strike out from my proposal any grant made to Belfast. What I do think is that some explanation is due to the House. I think that when the Government are going to make a great demand for science and art in the city of London they ought to consider, at the same time, all those other cities in the Kingdom—Manchester, Edinburgh, Dublin, and Cork—I leave out Belfast—where any grants are given for science and art museums, and that a reasonable proportion of the sum required by London should be offered to these other cities at the same time. If they want £800,000 for London, I think they ought to give a fair sum in proportion to the grants already given to other cities. I think £800,000 is entirely too large a sum. I should like to ask where are the Votes for the new Admiralty building to come to an end. We had the original Estimate, which was immensely increased by, it was said, the foundations. Now we have an additional Estimate. Last year it was said we had completed the Admiralty building. Now we are informed the building will require £275,000, although no part of that money is required for the site, as I believe the site for the proposed addition is already in the hands of the Government. Now there is to be an additional Vote for the Admiralty, and the only explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that this was in consequence of the enormous increase of the Fleet, which necessitated an additional staff of clerks, and therefore they would require a large addition to the Admiralty. But surely no addition of clerks and officials to the Admiralty, consequent on recent additions to the Fleet, could possibly require an expenditure of £275,000. I think the House is entitled to some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. These are the opinions which I desire to express on the items, but I rose chiefly for the purpose of protesting against the policy of the Government in seizing on the surplus of the year, and spending it all in the City of London, while there are people starving—actually starving—in Ireland, a country which has contributed fully £200,000 to this two and a half millions. I beg to move.

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

formally seconded the Motion.


Mr. Speaker, as the Chairman of the Committee which is considering this question, I may be allowed to say a few words. I must first of all congratulate my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works on having taken in charge this great task. The condition of our public departments has been, during many years, not only a great scandal to this country, but also a great source of expense, extra cost of administration, and leakage in various directions to a very large amount. This is one of those questions which in one sense bears delay, because there is not any particular moment, any exceptional pressure or crisis; but the evil grows, and will continue to grow, except it is arrested by a master hand, and I am glad that it has fallen to the lot of a Conservative Government to introduce this large and comprehensive reform. My observations will be confined entirely to the subject of the museum, and here I am glad to find my right hon. Friend has dealt boldly with the subject. The amount of £800,000 is a magnificent contribution to the art and science collections. I believe there can be no doubt whatever of the great value of these collections. There has been ample evidence laid before our Committee, and we have ventured to embody the result of those recommendations in one sentence, which I will read to the House— They feel bound to express their sense of the importance of completing the building on the east side of Exhibition Road with a view to the safe deposit and satisfactory exhibition of the art collections (including the Indian section now on the west side of the road in a hired building) at South Kensington. They desire the extension of the building, first, on grounds of safety. I believe it is not a safe thing that these valuable treasures should be massed together as they are now. No doubt it is the case that by vigilant management on the part of the police, and a desire to observe order on the part of the crowds which visit the collections, little damage has been done up to the present time. But there is still danger, and it is certainly the opinion of those who have examined the subject that these specimens of great value are exposed to considerable risk day by day, and that except some means are taken by giving more area, more floor space, and the like, great injury may take place at any time. But there is another question beyond that of safety. That is exhibition. The collections are now so crowded that they cannot be seen by the ordinary visitor, and I believe it is no exaggeration to say, as some of the witnesses have said, that a better exhibition of these articles will be a new revelation to the public, who are by no means aware of the precious treasures at their command. But we have to deal not with the public only, but with that most important section of the public who are likely not only to visit the collections, but to make careful study of them also. At present it is impossible that a large number of students can duly examine these magnificent and delicate objects. It is quite certain that those in command of the museum do allow every facility in their power. In fact, when a student shows knowledge and a desire to extend his information, he is permitted, in many instances, to take specimens from the cases, and is allowed to make copies in the room of a responsible officer. But this should not be conducted under such conditions. It ought to be perfectly easy, and there ought to be no difficulty in obtaining information. Coming back again to the value of the collections, I may refer to the memorial presented by a number of most distinguished men, including the President of the Royal Academy, all of them practising various branches of the arts as a profession, to the Vice-President of the Council. They state that the South Kensington Museum was founded in order that— All classes might be induced to investigate those common principles of taste which may be traced in the works of excellence of all ages. The extent to which the museum has stimulated an interest and educated opinion in Art matters in the country, and the profound impression it has made on the progress and revival of what may be termed the industrial arts, is well known and acknowledged by all those in position to judge not only in this country, but on the Continent and America, where the South Kensington Museum has been avowedly taken as a pattern on which to found various National Museums. Then they proceed— We share the opinion that no more fitting national memorial of the 60th anniversary of the accession to the throne of Her Most Gracious Majesty could be made than the completion of a museum which owed its existence to Her Royal Consort, and which Her Majesty has declared that she has taken under 'her special and personal protection.' Now, Sir, that quotation is a sufficient justification for what has been done. The hon. Member who spoke last made the complaint that this exhibition was of use to England and Wales only. We have had, however, valuable testimony of the services rendered to several districts by the circulation of works in their midst. The hon. Member, no doubt, takes an interest in Donegal, which I also know as an English visitor, and he will find among the evidence in favour of the value of the circulation conducted by the South Kensington Museum, the following expression of warm thanks from Donegal— I am directed to tender yon the sincere thanks of the Committee of the Donegal Art Class Exhibition for your kindness in lending the collection of works of art for which application was made to your Department. That county has gained by the circulation of works of art from South Kensington, and Belfast has also shared in the same advantage. Therefore, the benefits of this collection are now enjoyed by Ireland as well as by England and Wales. We have not yet received any evidence with reference to science. That part of the investigation is still before us, but we have other testimony on former occasions. There was a Departmental Committee in 1883 which spoke in high terms of the science collection. That Committee stated that it was badly accommodated, and that it required the most careful attention, with a view to its proper exhibition. If that were the case in 1883, it is still more the case at present, for the years since that Committee reported have been years of expansion and growth, and I venture to say that that growth and expansion must continue, because the circulation is increasing. I desire the country to have the advantage of that circulation and distribution of objects of art, and it is quite impossible that it can be conducted without increased space for complicated machinery of distribution. Then the Committee feel great anxiety that the eastern side of the museum should be confined to art. It does not follow that every room is to be fully occupied now, but, at the same time, there must be opportunity of adding new specimens as occasion arises and circumstances demand. Some of us feel anxiety as to the housing of any part of the science collection on the western side. The science collection is intimately connected with the schools, and, if delicate machines have to be carried from one part of a great building to another, there is not only great cost of transport, but risk of injury. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works will give a fuller explanation, if not to-night, at any rate at a future time. I hope he will be able to state that it is not part of his plan that so large a sum as £2,500,000 should be placed at the command of the Government without the House having an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the subject. I think also that those who manage these collections ought to have the plans submitted to them, if not in detail, at tiny rate in their main outlines. They ought to have an opportunity of explaining how far the plans commend themselves to their better judgment, and how far in some particulars they are capable of improvement. These, however, are questions of detail, and I certainly do feel grateful to the Government for having undertaken this task. I think it will result in the progress of industrial, and also of decorative, art, and I feel sure that a great step will be taken not only to increase the material wealth of this country, but also to promote the spread of that refinement which tends so much to promote the culture, comfort, and happiness of the population.

MR. JAMES BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

I do not wish to discuss the general question raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo, but to call attention to one particular point which I hope the House will think fit to consider; I mean the desirability of making provision in these new blocks of public buildings for a comprehensive library which will serve the needs of a great department, and, to some extent, the needs of the public. The House is no doubt aware that nearly all our great public departments have libraries—the Foreign Office has a library; the Indian Office has one, which is extremely valuable, but seems very often undergoing a process of reconstruction; the Education Department, too, has just formed a library; the Treasury has a very good legal library, stowed away in a rather inconvenient place; and the Board of Trade has one. But all these libraries are insufficient. There is not one of them which meets the needs even of its own department, and there are many branches of knowledge which are very imperfectly represented even by all the departments taken together. I have known a case in which Members of the Government had occasion to consult a very important publication, and it could be found in no library within reach nearer than the British Museum. But even in cases where libraries exist they are inadequate, and the rooms are dark or otherwise inconvenient. This is specially the case with the Privy Council Library, which ought to be a legal library, but is not, so that the judges who sit there have to borrow books from other libraries at considerable inconvenience. It would, therefore, be eminently desirable if the First Commissioner of Works could find room in these plans for such a library as I suggest. It would be useful for the department, and, of course, it is for the department that provision ought to be made. The library would also be valuable for that section of the public that is specially interested in the business of legislation. There are many organisations located in this part of London which have occasion for a convenience of this kind. The representatives of the Colonies, for instance, have frequently occasion to consult books on Colonial law, but they have not a library available, although such a one as I contemplate might be very useful to them, and to some sections of the public, although not thrown open to the public generally, but only to persons interested in these matters. It might be desirable also to provide a few consultation rooms, one for the use of the public and the other for the department. The books would, of course, be primarily Government publications, and we might also receive in exchange for our own Blue Books copies of the publications issued by the Governments of the Colonies and of the United States, as well as the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, and other countries of Europe. I am not aware of any place in this country where such a collection of legislative publications exists; it does not exist even in the Law Courts. A large number of statistical books and a considerable number of publications on various branches of economics might also be kept in such a library as I have described. The space we have available in the Houses of Parliament for our Blue Books does not permit us to extend our library in this way, but the creation of a library such as I have suggested would be greatly facilitated by the transference to it from the existing libraries of the Departments of many of their books. A sum of money might be set apart for the purchase of such books of general interest as might be useful, and, of course, the Colonies and foreign countries will be quite willing to exchange their Government publications for ours. It would be worth while doing that if we had proper accommodation, but the space for the library I am contemplating would not be very large, and so many improvements have been made of late years in the method of disposing books that probably three or four rooms of moderate size would be sufficient for the purpose. I may add that a library of this kind exists at Paris, attached to the Ministry of Justice, and I am told it is found of very great service by the public as well as by the Department. The Congress at Washington has a similar library, but very much larger, corresponding rather to the British Museum Library, and a much greater building than we have space available for erecting in connection with our public offices. At the same time I hope the First Commissioner of Works, in any rearrangement of the rooms in the Houses of Parliament, will see that no space is encroached upon that can be saved, that will provide for a union of the libraries of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and an extension of both. I shall not enlarge upon the question of a library common to both Houses. I trust, however, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works will consider the advisability of providing a library such as I have endeavoured to describe, which, I think, the Department will support, and which, I believe, can be done without any great expenditure of space or money.

MR. T. W. LEGH (Lancashire, S.W., Newton)

I understand the intention of the First Commissioner of Works with regard to the Admiralty is to harmonise the old and the new buildings. What I fear will happen is that the right hon. Gentleman, in order to secure space, will fill up the courtyard with a hideous square block that will spoil its architectural effect. I would suggest, if additional room is required, the utilising of the official residence of the First Lord of the Admiralty. I do not suggest that there ought to be an eviction of the First Lord, but there is no more reason why the First Lord of the Admiralty should have an official residence than should the First Lord of the Treasury. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works will consider this point worthy of his attention. I submit it will be a great improvement upon the plans suggested, and will preserve the harmony of the buildings. As a member of the Science and Art Committee I join in the regret expressed by the Member for Battersea, that, while we were about it, we were unable to secure the whole of the Great George Street site. At the same time I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works upon the fact that his name will be associated in the future with the greatest improvements that have taken place in London for a considerable time.

MR. JOHN J. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

I am opposed to this Bill, but in the first place I desire in say that I cannot sympathise with the hon. Gentleman opposite, who apparently wants to make the First Lord of the Admiralty sleep in his own office. [Mr. LEGH: I said, sleep outside of it.] I cannot sympathise either with the remark of the late President of the Board of Trade, or the hon. Member for Aberdeen, who desires to build a library for Blue Books. My opinion is that, instead of building a library, we should despatch these books to the Crematorium at Woking. As to this building scheme, if the proposal were to erect these offices at the expense of England alone, I would have no objection. I do not care what offices you build, provided you build them at your own expense. Ireland is asked to contribute a quarter of a million towards building new offices in London. But Ireland does not want a War Office, she has no Army, and has no need of a War Office; she has no interest in the Far East, and has no need of an Admiralty Office. If you want these offices for yourselves, build them at your own expense, but do not ask Ireland, whom you have plundered for the last ninety years, of at least two millions a year, to contribute towards the expense. I see that there are six proposals in this Bill; and, first, with regard to the War Office, I desire to say this: If we are to have a new War Office, I think we ought to have a War Office in Dublin; and I will give the reason why. There is at present, I believe, an Army clothing factory in Ireland, and as you have only a War Office in London and not in Dublin or in Ireland, it has been the custom from the time when this Army clothing factory was established in that country, to have sent up from Limerick specimens of the clothing to Pimlico before it was accepted or approved of. If you had a War Office in Dublin, it would be able to approve of these articles there; and, therefore, I say—though otherwise Ireland wants no War Office at all, so far as I can see—if you are to have a War Office here, you ought to have an establishment in Dublin, and the Government ought to have a branch of the War Office there. Well, Sir, in the next place, I see there are £800,000 to be spent on an addition to the South Kensington Museum. Sir, one of the great grievances of Ireland for the last 10 or 15 or 20 years, has been the despotism exercised over Ireland in regard to the matters disposed of by the management of the South Kensington Department. Year after year, during all the time I have occupied a seat in this House, complaints have been made again and again—complaints which were never answered—about the insolent action of this Department to Ireland whenever they asked for any favour from the South Kensington Department. I wonder there is not something asked for the British Museum. I fully expected there would be a proposal for the extension of that institution in another part of London, but what benefit we gain from the British Museum or from South Kensington I fail to see. A short time ago, as the House is probably aware, some interesting Irish antiquities were sent to the British Museum—[Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise on this Vote.] Well, Sir, it was only by way of illustration that I was going to mention it. The matter is only an illustration of my general point—namely, that these British institutions are of no earthly use to Ireland at all, and that to ask Ireland, therefore, to contribute a single penny towards their cost, is really one of the greatest grievances any country can endure. Well, Sir, the last item in this Vote is for Post Office buildings (Queen Victoria Street and West Kensington), £300,000. Now, I understand that one of the buildings, the building to be erected at West Kensington, is for the Post Office Savings Bank Department; and, really, I wish the House to understand that there is a grievance here in which, even if they have not sympathised with the observations I have already offered, they will probably think there is something. This Savings Bank Department is a department for the whole of the United Kingdom, so that it comes to this, that a depositor in Dublin cannot get his money out until his book and application are sent on to London. The same thing happens with regard to Cork, and every other town in Ireland, and the same thing happens with regard to Scotland; and, really, it is the most preposterous and ridiculous thing in the world to imagine that there should not be a department in Dublin for Irish investors where their applications might be entertained on the spot. But, on the contrary, Irishmen and Scotchmen both have to have their little accounts made up in this great City of London, where, I understand, there are miles and miles of passages devoted to the storage of these pass-books in a department to which you must apply if you want to get out 1s. 6d. in Ireland. Why, Sir, the thing is perfectly ridiculous, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite will speak candidly, they will admit, at all events with regard to this item, that there ought to be in Dublin, and I venture to say also in Edinburgh, a branch at least of the Savings Bank Department which would be able to deal on the spot with all these matters, Irish and Scotch, which are now dealt with in London, and must be dealt with in London alone. It is because the Bill proposes expenditure from which Ireland will derive no share whatever that I oppose it; and may I point out, in conclusion, the result of all expenditure of this sort upon our financial relations? The Bill involves an expenditure in London of £2,550,000, which will go into English pockets; English lawyers will be employed, English architects will be employed, and English working men will be employed; every single penny of this money will go into English pockets. If it were admitted in the annual financial accounts that this was English expenditure, I would not complain; but what is done? In the accounts showing the financial relations between England and Ireland, this expenditure, which goes to English purposes, and goes into English pockets, is put down as Imperial expenditure. I say that is an instance of the manipulation and cooking of accounts with which I do not think any respectable person would sympathise in his heart; and for this reason, as well as those I have already given, I repeat that I regret that I cannot vote against this Bill, because I have "paired."

*MR. H. J. GLADSTONE (Leeds, W.)

I have many points of sympathy with the hon. Member in regard to Irish finance, but I draw a great distinction between this Bill and the question of the financial relations between England and Ireland, which is one that is to be threshed out hereafter. I desire to give my support to the Second Reading of this Bill as a very practical and comprehensive scheme, on which I gladly congratulate my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works. I understood him to say, Sir, that the exterior design for these new buildings would be entrusted to an architect outside the Office of Works, while the interiors would be constructed by the Office of Works. I will go a step further, and beg him to reconsider the question of designing the exterior, and see if he cannot induce Sir John Taylor to undertake the charge of designing the whole building. Sir, I believe every First Commissioner of Works has had the fullest confidence in Sir John Taylor as one of the best public servants we ever had, and as a most capable architect. Many attacks have been made on the Office of Works with regard to public buildings, and those attacks have been largely made under a misapprehension. The other night the Office of Works was held to be responsible for all the atrocities of the Law Courts, but I imagine that the personages who really ought to be held responsible for those atrocities were Her Majesty's judges for the time being. The funds were not provided by the country, but they came out of Chancery funds, suitors' fees, and certain payments by the Treasury as representing the value of the old Law Courts at Westminster. The judges, I imagine, were wholly responsible for the selection of the architect, the approval of the design, and the carrying out of the work. The design was subject to open competition. Mr. Barry was first for the interior plan, and Mr. Street for the elevation, and the judges actually proposed that those two architects should carry out the work together. Mr. Barry refused, and Mr. Street, therefore, carried out the whole work. The Office of Works was certainly not responsible, and I say that if they had been they would have made a much better job of it. Sir John Taylor, if anybody desires to see specimens of his work, has designed Bow Street Police Court, the new Bankruptcy Court building in Carey Street, and the last addition to the Record Office in Chancery Lane, Every one of those buildings is admirably designed for its purpose. They have an excellent external appearance, and my belief is that the new addition to the Record Office is one of the best and most handsome buildings erected in London during the last 50 years. I believe Sir John Taylor would design the buildings for the new front in Parliament Street in harmony with its great surroundings; and, knowing as he does better than anybody else what mistakes have been made by architects in the buildings previously erected by the Government, he would not err in the same manner.

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

Was Sir John Taylor responsible for the new Admiralty buildings?


No; Sir John Taylor did not design the new Admiralty buildings. I beg my right hon. Friend to keep a free hand in this matter as far as he can, and to beware of interference by eminent individuals and by committees, and even, I would respectfully say, by the Cabinet, When any considerable number of eminent individuals begin to interest themselves in questions of this sort, the result generally is one of muddle and chaos, and that is illustrated by the external appearance, although not the internal fitness, of the new Admiralty buildings. There is mess and muddle in regard to the external design of those buildings, which are only saved from the doom of failure because the Office of Works had so much to do with the internal arrangements. Now, Sir, in regard to the front in Parliament Street, I wish to say a word or two. As that matter was originally put forward in 1894–95, when I had the honour of holdding the office which the right hon. Gentleman now occupies, personally I formed rather a strong opinion that the best treatment would be to set the west side of Parliament Street at an angle, and I still hold that view. But that was considered by the Sites Committee, and that Committee took a pretty unanimous view contrary to my own; so I suppose that question must be considered to be disposed of. But the Committee also decided that the new front should align absolutely with the front of the Home Office. Now, personally, I hope that that will not be adhered to, and I have some reason to think that my right hon. Friend may find that it is desirable to recess the frontage behind the line of the Home Office. I do not know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have to say to that proposal, for I am aware, of course, that it entails additional expenditure. But I have three reasons for hoping this, and I may say further that the plan of recessing was put forward by the Association of British Architects as being superior, architecturally, to that of alignment. In the first place, I hold that the more you can open up Parliament Street as you move to the south, the better will be the approach, and the finer the view of the Abbey. In the second place, the mere widening of the street to the width of the present street in Whitehall will cause it to abut very awkwardly on Parliament Square Gardens; while, certainly, the new street will contrast very awkwardly with the very much narrower street which will be its continuation. And, thirdly, Sir, there is the question of the traffic. It is proposed to abolish King Street. Hon. Members generally are, perhaps, hardly aware of the amount of traffic which passes through that thoroughfare. The whole of the traffic will, of course, in future have to go through the widened part of Parliament Street, and while the police say that they are quite capable of managing the traffic even in a merely widened street, they say the wider the street can be made the better it would be, and it would be all to the good if, in the street so widened, the traffic could be divided into a double current, so as to keep the Westminster Bridge traffic distinct from, and independent of, the Victoria Street traffic as it comes to and from Charing Cross. I hope that will be borne in mind, and the great importance of adding an extra width of 15 or 20 feet by the recess on the west side of Parliament Street. If that is done, I believe it will be a great advantage. Now, I have one or two questions to put to my right hon. Friend. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not come to any decision as to the character of the frontage until the ground is cleared, and the whole of the block of buildings at present between King Street and Parliament Street has been cleared away. Hon. Members will then be able to see for themselves what the position is, and what will be best suited for the west side of the street. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend what decision has been come to in regard to the police station in King Street, and whether it has been decided to locate that police station in the building now occupied by the Civil Service Commission, and whether the Civil Service Commission will be transferred, as was originally proposed, to Millbank? There are two or three questions I should like to ask my right hon. Friend about South Kensington Museum. I understand that the South Kensington buildings will be now concentrated on the east side of Exhibition Road, and that the whole of the Science and Art Departments will be housed on the east side of Exhibition Road. In that case, a good deal of space will be set free, and I should like to know how much ground will be in the hands of the First Commissioner, and whether there is any scheme for using that ground. And I should also like to know what arrangements are to be made about the galleries, which were leased in 1891 for a term of 50 years. At the present time I think the Government pay from £3,000 to £4,000 a year for the use of the east and west and north galleries. I take it that those galleries will not be used when the new buildings are erected, and I should like to know what arrangement is proposed to be made in regard to those galleries. I should also like to ask whether the Geological Museum in Jermyn Street will be removed to the new buildings at South Kensington. I have no other questions to ask, Sir, but I am glad that my right hon. Friend is enjoying, financially, a much better time than I had when I was at the Office of Works. He has fallen on fat times. My lot was a very different one, though I am very far from casting any imputation in that matter on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, of course, could only act according to the means at his disposal. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having had a much better time, and I think he has made very good use of his opportunity.

MR. J. DALY (Monaghan, S.)

Mr. Speaker, I feel that in this country I am an exile, and if for no other reason than that I should feel bound to vote against the granting of this money for the extension of the libraries at the House of Lords and at the House of Commons. It is my wish, and the wish of the hon. Members who sit with me on these Benches, to get out of this House as soon as we can, and get into a House of Commons of our own in Ireland, and I hope my hon. Friends from Ireland will resist by every means in their power the spending of this large sum of money on increasing the libraries at the House of Lords and the House of Commons. With regard to the widening of Parliament Street, I submit that that is a matter entirely for the London County Council. I have no objection to English money being spent in widening Parliament Street, but I strongly object to one farthing of Irish money being expended for this purpose. Under these circumstances, I shall give every opposition to this expenditure. I have no doubt a great many English Members are glad to get rid of King Street, and would like to have it forgotten in the history of this country. So far as South Kensington is concerned, I see that £800,000 is required for the Science and Art buildings. That compares very unfavourably with the manner in which the Dublin Museum was treated in 1896. Whenever there is an opportunity, and it makes no difference which Government is in office, of taking a slice off Ireland in any shape, the opportunity is never lost; and while there is the sum of £800,000 to be voted now for South Kensington, the sum of £900 was taken from the Dublin Science and Art Museum in 1896. The expenditure of so large a sum on South Kensington will, I think, be opposed by every Irish Member. I hope, Mr. Speaker. I shall not be out of order if I read a Report from Mr. Walter Armstrong, director of the National Gallery of Ireland, as follows— By your instructions I recite the following Resolution passed unanimously by the Board at a meeting held on August 6, 1896—namely, 'In adopting the Directors' report for the year 1895 the Governors and Guardians are compelled to again press upon Her Majesty's Government the imperative necessity for an extension of the Gallery Buildings—an increase which has been urged yearly upon the Treasury since 1890, and becomes daily more indispensable through the accumulation of works of art which cannot be exhibited.' Hon. Members from Ireland have year after year urged the Government to give some small grant for the purpose of enlarging the Museum premises in Dublin, but our entreaties and requests have fallen upon deaf ears. I saw it stated the other day in some of the Irish papers that the right hon. Gentleman who gives the replies to questions on this subject in this House knows very little about the subject. I do not think any right hon. Gentleman could know all the details with regard to the various Departments in Ireland that he would have to answer for, but the replies that have been given have been "cooked" in such a manner as—


called the hon. Member to order, and said he was now indulging in generalities.


I think we are entitled, when Ireland is asked to contribute £200,000 for buildings with which the majority of Irish Members in this House have no sympathy, to strenuously oppose the Vote. If the right hon. Gentleman can tell me that the claims of Ireland, with regard to the Dublin Museum, will be entertained and immediately considered in conjunction with this Vote, it may be that this Bill will get an easier passage than will be the case if he does not give a favourable reply to my hon. Friends who have raised this Debate. I have now put my views before the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will be in a position to say that a large share of the money that is asked to be voted to-day will be applied to Dublin, especially as report after report has come from the Dublin Museum asking for money to enlarge the buildings, which are in a very congested state at the present time. The officers in Dublin are not so well paid as officers in London or Edinburgh occupying similar positions, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will also consider that matter.

MR. C. E. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.)

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the House for more than a few minutes. While looking after the interests of England and London, I think we should also favourably consider the claims of Ireland. I heartily approve of the projects of the Government for the concentration of the public offices in Whitehall, which will, in my opinion, make the various Departments more easy of management. I am delighted to think there is a prospect of seeing the buildings at South Kensington erected within a reasonable period. At present the many treasures of the nation are very badly housed. When we visit other capitals of Europe, such as Vienna and Paris, we see buildings worthy of the nation, and I hope when these new buildings are put up we shall have reason to be proud of them, and that they will be adequate for the purposes for which they are intended.


I rise for the purpose of asking the First Commissioner of Works one question. He proposes in this Bill to erect a large building for the Savings Bank Department of the Post Office. Last year I asked the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, to consider whether it would not be an economy to decentralise the Post Office Savings Bank, and to do the Irish business in Ireland. Personally, I believe it would be an economy. I am not going into the question now, I only bring it up on the Second Reading because, unless the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to consider it before the Committee stage, the whole question may be prejudged. All I ask now is that, before the Committee stage of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will get the Post Office to report as to whether the decentralisation of the Savings Bank, as proposed, will not be an economy.

MR. J. H. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)

I am anxious, Mr. Speaker, to ask whether, in the new buildings to which the Education Department is to be transferred, room will be made for future extensions of the Department in the administration of certain phases of public education not now distinctly under its control. I cannot conceive but that eventually there will be transferred to the Education Department the control of the officers and staff of the Science and Art Department, as distinct from the Museums, and also the officers and staff of the Endowed Schools Section of the Charity Commission. The Royal Commission on Secular Education made that recommendation, and I hope I may be only pushing an open door in urging that accommodation such as I have mentioned will be provided. A great deal of the present chaotic condition of education is due to the disjointed, separated habitats of the various bodies concerned in its administration. There will be economy of time, expense, and labour by associating the various bodies together, and I hope the plans for the new buildings will keep that in view.

MR. T. R. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E.)

I should like to ask a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Do I understand that this £2,550,000 is to be paid out of the surplus of the year, and will then be put to a separate account in the Treasury, and stand there on interest for the purpose of this Vote. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER nodded assent.]

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

Mr. Speaker, I only want to say one or two words. I think the opposition to this Bill comes with very bad grace from the Irish Members. The provision of proper accommodation for the War Office is for the benefit of the whole country, and not for the benefit of England alone. Many of the chief officials of the War Office, the Admiralty, and the other Departments have been Irishmen. Moreover, English Members have never grudged Votes for light railways or local government in Ireland, and I think it comes with very bad grace from hon. Members opposite to vote against this Bill. I hope the result of the scheme will be to give London some buildings of an ornamental kind, and that they will be sufficiently protected from fire.

MR. J. P. FARRELL (Cavan, W.)

Mr. Speaker, I have taken some interest during the last Session of Parliament in this question of procuring public sites for public offices, and I would like to address to the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Measure, a question as to the position in which this Bill puts us. I see from the records of the House during the last Session that we discussed and passed a Measure in which a sum of £500,000 was voted by this House for procuring public sites and erecting public buildings in Whitehall. Now, I see it is proposed to expend a still further sum of £475,000, making in all nearly a million of money on procuring public offices in Whitehall. I should like to have from the right hon. Gentleman an explanation as to the increase in the Vote, and why it was he did not ask for the larger sum when dealing with this matter last Session? Sir, I think Members from Ireland have a right to speak upon any question that is before the House, and I think it is very bad taste indeed for hon. Members opposite to deny us that right. The hon. Member who spoke just before me put another construction upon the matter. He appears to be aggrieved at our questioning the outlay of such a large sum of money as this, but, we are interested in the Vote to the extent of £1,000,000, and when we are getting no direct benefit from its expenditure I do think we ought to be allowed to criticise it. I think this Vote ought to be opposed tooth and nail, because it is one step further in the direction of centralising the Government. You are bringing everything to London, and making all the public offices have their heads here, so that the smallest thing cannot be done in Ireland without instructions from London. What does that mean? Simply that it is back office officialism—the officialism which finds its existence in small back offices of Government Departments in London—which rules Ireland at the present day. Some of my friends here have instanced the Post Office Savings Bank. I think that is a matter of extreme importance to Ireland. In some parts of the country, where there is not a limited mail, daily service applications for the withdrawal of small sums sometimes take four or five days to pass through before the depositor can withdraw the small sum which he requires from the Savings Bank Department. It seems to me ridiculous for the Government to maintain a large and expensive staff in Dublin, and give them no power whatever to deal with twopenny-halfpenny matters of this description. Now one of the things which the Irish people complain of very seriously indeed is the manner in which the Science and Art buildings in Dublin have been neglected. I do not myself live in Dublin, and I make no special demand for expending money in my own district, but when you are spending such a large sum in beautifying and decorating this city, to the improvement of which I do not personally object, when you are spending so large a sum of money in building here in London, I think you should give some attention to the sister island. Irishmen have done as much for Science and Art as others have done in London, and, as the House may know, there is a Commission of Inquiry now sitting to inquire into this matter, and through that Committe it was revealed that very great complaints existed as to the manner in which the interests of Science and Art in the city of Dublin are neglected. I think we are justified in adopting the attitude which we do; in dealing with this Bill we derive no direct benefit from the vast sum of money which is going to be expended. The poor people of the north-west of Ireland are dying of starvation, and this great Imperial assembly would not vote them a penny of relief and referred them to their own pockets upon the principle, I suppose, of feeding a dog on the end of his own tail, and now you are going to beautify and decorate your own city, and spend upon it two millions and a quarter sterling.


I am grateful to the House for the way in which they have received this Bill. I have always endeavoured, in answering questions upon the scheme, to give all the information on behalf of the Government I could. There are a few questions which have been addressed to me to-night which I will deal with to the best of my ability. My right hon. Friend has called especial attention to the widening of Parliament Street; with regard to that there were three proposals brought before the Sites Committee. There was the proposal put forward by the Government to widen Parliament Street, and make it the same width as Whitehall. Then there was the proposal put forward by my right hon. Friend opposite which was to leave the whole space open; and then there was the alternative proposal put forward by the Institute of British Architects, which was to diverge slightly from the parallel line, and so to give an increased effect to the existing Home Office. The Committee eventually came to the conclusion that both for the sake of artistic effect, and also to secure proper buildings, they should maintain the parallel line. If we had adopted the proposal put forward by my right hon. Friend, by which Parliament Street was to be finished off with an obtuse angle, the architectural effect would be bad, and we should have to pay for land left vacant £108,500 over and above what has been thought necessary by Sir John Taylor, on behalf of the Government, and by the majority of expert gentlemen who gave evidence with reference to the proposals put forward. Then the scheme put forward by the Institute of British Architects would cost £20,000 more than the proposal put forward by the Government, because in that case they would not be able to build on so large a site. My attitude in this matter will be guided by the advice of the architect who carries out the building. I quite agree that we cannot follow the exact line of the Home Office, and that must be decided when we come to consider the architectural design, when I shall be prepared, if it be considered necessary, to recommend a sum slightly in excess of the Estimate, if by so doing we should secure a better architectural effect. With regard to the question of the architect, my right hon. Friend urged the Government to press Sir John Taylor to accept the appointment, but while there is no man in this country who has a higher opinion of his ability than myself, I am afraid I shall not be able to persuade him to undertake, at his time of life, and after his long service, so onerous a duty. I have, fortunately, been able to secure his services for another three years, in order that we may benefit by his assistance as assessor in carrying out the plans of these buildings. It is our proposal that Sir John Taylor should have a very large discretion in the arrangement of the buildings. I am desirous here to correct an expression I used the other evening when I said that it was the intention of the Government to arrange the plans of the interior of the building. I regret that there should have been any misapprehension, but what I meant was that the Government thought that, as Sir John Taylor knows more about what is required in the interior of public offices than anyone else, he should have control, and should work with the architect who is preparing the elevations. We have been also fortunate in securing another assessor in the person of Mr. Aitchison, R.A., who is the President of the Institute of British Architects, Professor of Architecture at the Royal Academy, and an acknowledged authority on classic architecture. My right hon. Friend asked me a question with respect to the police station in King Street. With regard to that, it has been arranged that it shall be removed to the premises of the Civil Service Commission in Cannon Row, and the Civil Service Commission will be removed to offices already taken for them in Victoria Street. The right hon. Gentleman also asked me with regard to a scheme for the re-arrangement of the buildings at South Kensington. We have succeeded in finding a scheme by which the whole of the new buildings required for Science and Art will be erected on the east side of Exhibition Road. Last year a Committee on the Museums of the Science and Art Department, presided over by the hon. Baronet behind me, came to the conclusion that official residences were a source of danger from fire to the collections of Art. When we have taken down these buildings and other buildings which the Committee condemned, it will be found that we have a much larger space at our disposal than we originally anticipated, and we have therefore decided to group the whole of the new buildings on the east side of the road, and we think that in those buildings accommodation for both Science and Art will be found for many years to come. The buildings on the west side of the road will be retained. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen asked whether we could find room for a comprehensive library for public departments. Well, Sir, I am afraid the sites at our disposal will not be sufficient to provide for housing so large a collection. Although I am hardly prepared to say that I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who suggested there should be a library containing a copy of every Blue Book of this and other countries, I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope that we can find room for such a large collection of documents as he desires. The hon. Member for Dublin, and several other hon. Members for Ireland, have called attention to the question of decentralising the Savings Bank. I think that is more a question of administration than of building, and although I do not think it comes within the scope of this Bill, as there seem to be some grounds for grievance in the direction pointed out by hon. Members, I will undertake to bring the matter to the notice of the Postmaster General. The hon. Member for Nottingham asked me whether we had sufficient space for the housing of the staff of the Education Department. In answer to that I say yes. We have already allowed for housing the administrative branch of the Science and Art Department as recommended by the Secondary Education Commission. There will be further room there than is actually required at the moment, which will be utilised for the further expansion of the office as required. It does not rest with me, but with the Education authorities, to say how they will make use of the room at their disposal. Then I was asked as to the housing of the extra staff at the Admiralty. There has been no decision yet arrived at as to how they shall be housed, but I will take care, when that question is finally decided, that any suggestions shall be considered. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last asked a question as to why we required more money for the War Office, and pointed out that we asked for £500,000 last year in respect of the works there. What we did last year was to obtain from the House of Commons the money for the purchase of the site. This year we are asking for the money to erect the buildings. I think I have now answered all the questions put to me; and I would ask that the Bill be now read a second time.

MR. M. J. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)

Last year, when this question was before the House, I felt it was my duty to raise a protest. I have listened with a good deal of patience and expectation; and I have not been able to discover what Ireland is to receive for the amount which she is going to contribute to this vast sum of money. We are not interested in the architectural beauty of the buildings which are going to be erected here, or what style of architecture will be employed; but we are to contribute about a quarter of a million of money towards them. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the generosity with which this House treated Ireland; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the good of giving three-quarters of a million with one hand if with the other—


Order, order! The hon. Member must confine himself to the subject-matter of the Bill.


I was not going, Sir, to discuss the Local Government Bill. I merely wished to point out that whilst on the one hand we are receiving three-quarters of a million of money, upon the other hand £250,000 is being taken away. I should like to know why we should be compelled to contribute towards this outlay when we have people starving in Ireland. When we appeal in this House on behalf of our people, the appeal will no doubt be listened to, but it will not be answered. I certainly say it is our bounden duty on this side of the House to protest against this unjust contribution towards these buildings; and it is also our duty to protest against every single Vote that comes before the House of Commons in which Ireland receives no direct benefit.

MR. T. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

I cannot associate myself on this occasion with any attempt to drag in the national question of Ireland.


It is not a national question: it is a question of money.


There are two reasons why this subject should not be dragged into the Debate. In the first place, Dublin has a very handsome building erected in connection with the Science and Art Department—a much more handsome building than there is in London. In the second place, these buildings are very much wanted in London, and I do not think my hon. Friends have adopted a very practical course; the question they have raised could be better dealt with on another occasion. I want to put a question or two to the right hon. Gentleman on this most important matter. He spoke of improving the Science and Art building at Kensington on the east side of Exhibition Road. I think it is a most stupid arrangement that some of those buildings, used as a scientific school, should be associated so closely with such a most valuable art collection. I should like the assurance that while due accommodation will be made for a Science School it will be provided in a separate building, so that the Art Collection should not be in any way endangered by the constant use of part of the building as a school. The right hon. Gentleman did not make any allusion to this subject, and I think it is a great pity. While I think that there should be ready facilities of entrance into the art collection, at the same time I believe that a building devoted to scientific subjects should be entirely separate. If some assurance is possible on that point I shall be glad. I should like also to call attention to the finance of this Bill. I heard with some alarm the explanation the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to my hon. Friend. It is an entirely new step in our finance—if it is not, I should like to hear of a precedent for it—that simply because he has a large surplus it is not to be used for the reduction of the National Debt, but is to be handed over to the First Commissioner of Works for him to spend as he pleases. I do not think that any Minister was ever treated in that royal way by this House before. But, unfortunately, a precedent of this kind is likely to be followed in future years; we shall have Chancellors of the Exchequer making arrangements, when they have large surpluses, to hand them

over to a particular Minister, giving him carte blanche to do as he pleases with them. I make an appeal to the right hon Gentleman, who has this great responsibility thrust upon him in the way of spending money, to give us as much information as he possibly can before anything definite is decided upon. I am not aware that he has had to face any great difficulty on account of the criticisms he has received. Some of the existing buildings have been found fault with, as in the case of the new Scotland Yard, which, I think is not only a beautiful building, but certainly more suitable for its purpose than some other Government buildings in the neighbourhood. If he would adopt some means of giving the House of Commons and the public generally every opportunity of making themselves familiar with the scheme of the new buildings, then less fault would be found with them. I hope my friends from Ireland will take a reasonable view of the remarks I have made, and that they will allow the necessary work to be put through.

Question put— That the word 'now' stand part of the Question.

The House divided:—Ayes 202; Noes 19.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Burns, John Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden Burt, Thomas Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph
Arnold, Alfred Butcher, John George Donkin, Richard Sim
Ascroft, Robert Caldwell, James Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cawley, Frederick Doxford, William Theodore
Baden-Powell, Sir G. Smyth Cayzer, Sir Charles William Drucker, A.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W. Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.
Baird, Jno. Geo. Alexander Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Dunn, Sir William
Baker, Sir John Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.) Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart
Balcarres, Lord Charrington, Spencer Evershed, Sydney
Baldwin, Alfred Clare, Octavius Leigh Fardell, Sir T. George
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch.) Clough, Walter Owen Fenwick, Charles
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Grld W. (Leeds) Cochrane, Hn. T. H. A. E. Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.)
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Coghill, Douglas, Harry Finch, George H.
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l) Cohen, Benjamin Louis Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Beckett, Ernest William Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Fisher, William Hayes
Begg, Ferdinand Faithful Colston, C. E. H. Athole Flannery, Fortescue
Bethell, Commander Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Folkestone, Viscount
Billson, Alfred Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Forster, Henry William
Blundell, Colonel Henry Cubitt, Hon. Henry Forwood, Rt. Hn. Sir A. B.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc S. W.) Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.) Fry, Lewis
Brookfield, A. Montagu Dalkeith, Earl of Galloway, William Johnson
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Dalrymple, Sir Charles Garfit, William
Bucknill, Thos. Townsend Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)
Bullard, Sir Harry Dickson-Poynder, Sir Jno. P. Goddard, Daniel Ford
Godson, Augustus Frederick Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Goldsworthy, Major-General Leng, Sir John Rutherford, John
Gordon, Hon. John Edward Lewis, John Herbert Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon Llewellyn, Evan H. (Som'rst) Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles
Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swnsea) Schwann, Charles E.
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Gretton, John Logan, John William Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Greville, Captain Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool) Simeon, Sir Barrington
Griffith, Ellis J. Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. Lough, Thomas Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W. Lowe, Francis William Spencer, Ernest
Hanson, Sir Reginald Loyd, Archie Kirkman Spicer, Albert
Hazell, Walter Lucas-Shadwell, William Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Helder, Augustus Macdona, John Cumming Stevenson, Francis S.
Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arth. (Down) Maddison, Fred. Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart
Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampst'd) Maden, John Henry Stone, Sir Benjamin
Holden, Sir Angus Marks, Harry H. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)
Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)
Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Thorburn, Walter
Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Monckton, Edward Philip Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) Monk, Charles James Wanklyn, James Leslie
Jacoby, James Alfred More, Robert Jasper Warr, Augustus Frederick
Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Johnston, William (Belfast) Morrell, George Herbert Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Johnstone, John H. (Sussex) Muntz, Philip A. Wharton, Rt. Hn. Jno. Lloyd
Joicey, Sir James Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Grhm (Bute) Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea) Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)
Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Myers, William Henry Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U. Newdigate, Francis Alexander Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)
Kemp, George Nussey, Thomas Willans Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)
Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H. Pease, Jos. A. (Northumb.) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Kenrick, William Platt-Higgins, Frederick Wills, Sir William Henry
Kenyon, James Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace Curz'n Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)
King, Sir Henry Seymour Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wodehouse, Edmond R. (Bath)
Kitson, Sir James Pryce-Jones, Edward Wylie, Alexander
Knowles, Lees Purvis, Robert Wyndham, George
Lafone, Alfred Renshaw, Charles Bine Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Laurie, Lieut.-General Richards, Henry Charles Yoxall, James Henry
Lawrence, Sir Ed. (Cornwall) Richardson, J. (Durham)
Lawson, John Grant Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanc.) Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir M. W. Sir William Walrond and
Robinson, Brooke Mr. Anstruther.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) Flynn, James Christopher O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H. Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Hogan, James Francis Tanner, Charles Kearns
Daly, James Holburn, J. G.
Davitt, Michael Macaleese, Daniel TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Doogan, P. C. M'Dermott, Patrick Mr. Dillon and Mr. T. P.
Farrell, Jas. P. (Cavan, W.) MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Q's. C.) O'Connor.
Flavin, Michael Joseph M'Ghee, Richard

Resolutions agreed to.

Forward to