Sitting of 20 April 1868

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED—For Cockermouth, v. John Steel, esquire, deceased; for the Parts of Kesteven and Holland, in the County of Lincoln, v. Sir John Trollope, baronet, called up to the House of Peers; for Kent (Eastern Division), v. Sir Brooke William Bridges, baronet, called up to the House of Peers; for Radnorshire, v. Sir John Benn Walsh, baronet, called up to the House of Peers; for Leominster, v. Hon. Arthur Walsh, Manor of Northstead.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN—Hon. William Henry Peregrine Carington, for Chipping Wycombe; Henry Charles Lopes, esquire, for Launceston.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Class I.
PUBLIC BILLS — Second Reading — Boundary [78]; Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland)* [57]; Ecclesiastical Buildings and Glebes (Scotland)* [58].
Committee—Petty Sessions and Lock-up Houses* [75]; Prisons (Compensation to Officers)* [80].
Report—Petty Sessions and Lock-up Houses* [75]; Prisons (Compensation to Officers)* [80].

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

INDIA—IRRIGATION OF PUBLIC LANDS.

  RESOLUTIONS.
  MR. SMOLLETTsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the very unsatisfactory manner in which certain joint-stock companies had, for the last

  947
  eight years, performed the functions entrusted to them of supplying irrigation to public lands in India — from their own funds—so far as the pecuniary results of their operations had been communicated to Parliament. The Question he had to submit to the House was, Whether the Secretary of State for India ought to be permitted to advance to private adventurers enormous grants of public money for the prosecution of schemes which were hopelessly discountenanced by all financial societies and bankers? He thought he should be able to show in the two instances to which he would refer that, while schemes involving an outlay of something like £4,000,000 had been undertaken by private adventurers within the last few years, for their sole profit, these works had been aided by profuse grants of public money without any sufficient security for ultimate re-payment. This course had been pursued, too, at a time when the Financial Secretaries whom we had sent out to India during the last few years had been cudgelling their brains to devise new taxes to impose upon the people of India, and although the Governor General had protested in the most emphatic manner against those adventurers being assisted in enterprises which created great complications, and embarrassed the general policy of the Government. The House would recollect that, at the commencement of the Session, he (Mr. Smollett) asked the Secretary of State for India whether he was a party to the offer to purchase the stock of a company called the East India Irrigation Company at par, with the full knowledge that that stock had For the last two years stood at 25 per cent discount, and had become almost unmarketable. The right hon. Baronet gave him an evasive answer, stating that an offer somewhat in the terms indicated had been made, but that he could not then tell precisely what it was. The right hon. Gentleman further said, upon that occasion, that the offer could not have been an exorbitant one, inasmuch as it had been declined. He (Mr. Smollett) demurred to the opinion that the offer could not have been exorbitant because it was declined. He admitted that the offer was refused; but why, he asked, was it refused? Because certain astute gentlemen in the City of London were prone to regard the Secretary of State as being made of very soft and squeeezable materials, when they found him offering a high price for stock which was practically unsaleable in the
  948
  market. Those astute gentlemen were not deceived. The Answer of the right hon. Baronet was very evasive; because he forgot to mention the fact that he had been for two months negotiating a large loan of the public money to those adventurers. Now, as he was one of those who considered that to lend the public money to such persons was a much greater act of impropriety than if the Government had purchased the whole concern outright, he had felt constrained to bring the matter forward and, if be did not obtain a satisfactory explanation upon this matter, he was determined, if that moribund House would give him any support, to press the Motion be was about to make to a division. The principle of conceding to private adventurers the public duty of carrying out improvements on the lands of the Government in India was one which had only been admitted in recent times. About fourteen years ago, some unscrupulous adventurers at Bombay proposed to embark in works of this nature, but the Marquess of Dalhousie, the then Governor General of India, set his face against the project. Indeed it was the opinion of all practical men, excepting some scheming engineers, that concessions to private adventurers for the carrying out of works of this character were simply mischievous, and should always be discountenanced. No one had enunciated this proposition more forcibly or more frequently than Sir John Lawrence. If he (Mr. Smollett) were permitted to give his own opinion upon the matter, having had some experience of such works, he would say it was absolutely impossible for any company of adventurers of the City of London to carry on enterprises of this character to a successful issue. The necessary arrangements which they involved could only be made by the Government establishments on the spot, acting under definite rules and definite powers. From his own experience of the country, he felt certain that it was impossible for any body of men in London to organize a collection of water-rates or water-cesses from 500,000 or 600,000 poor cultivators in India. That collection could only be made by a Government establishment armed with adequate authority. But he would not argue this point at length; for the experiment had been tried on a large scale, under the most favourable auspices, and it had proved a gigantic failure, and would, he believed, never be repeated. An impulse was given to the adventures of these joint-stock companies

  949
  by the publication, in 1854, of a Madras blue book, purporting to be the Report of the Public Works Commissioners at Madras. That book was composed very much in the style of a romance, and in fact it was a romance. The Commissioners reported on all the irrigation works which the Madras Government had been engaged in during the previous twelve years, and asserted that, though some of them were failures, they had in the aggregate given an average return of 100 per cent from the date, not of their completion, but of their commencement. They selected for special laudation the prosperity of the irrigation works on the Godavery, and stated that, although they had cost £200,000, and took four years to construct, they had yielded a return of £300,000, in some mysterious manner, during the process of construction and before irrigation was applied to the soil, thus re-paying the cost of construction and placing £100,000 in the Government Exchequer. But the Commissioners went on to state of this work that if the Government only charged one-tenth of the value of the water it supplied for irrigation purposes, it would continue to receive a profit of £300,000 per annum, upon an outlay of something less than that sum; while the people whose lands were irrigated would be benefited to the extent of £3,320,000 per annum by the increased value of their produce. When calculations of this sort — calculations not merely of grandeur, but approaching to sublimity—were published by the Madras Government, it was not to be wondered at that the cupidity of certain gentlemen in London was excited, and that they should yearn to embark in enterprises like those to which he had referred, which seemed to offer such stupendous returns from a comparatively insignificant outlay. But the Madras Government, he regretted to state, continued to publish the most deceitful statements of profits derived from irrigation works in India. He held in his hand a Return which had been placed on the table of the House at the instance of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith)—a Return of the Works of Irrigation executed in the Madras Provinces during recent years. It appeared, according to the statement contained therein, that the whole cost of one of these works was about £23,000, and that the Returns in the years of 1853–9, amounted to £159,000, being a net profit of 664 per cent, and in 1859–60, £175,000, or at the rate of 720 per cent per annum. Now,
  950
  he (Mr. Smollett) took the trouble of sending to Madras to ascertain whether those Returns were true or false, and, in reply, he was furnished with official documents, informing him that they were entirely false and fallacious. Without pursuing this particular subject, the unravelling of which would consume much time, he should pass on to the consideration of those particular works which were the immediate objects of his Resolution. These schemes, although they were both under one managemement, coached by the same financier, yet, as the accounts were kept separate, he should treat them separately. The first of those works was the Madras Irrigation Works, which came into being in the following way:—At the end of the year 1858, a deputation of adventurers waited upon the then Secretary of State for India, at his office in Cannon Row; they brought a prospectus with them, which purported to show that the proposed works would yield at least 100 per cent per annum, and, that as the Government were then busily engaged in the effort to suppress the rebellion in India, and therefore could not turn their attention to the carrying out of those works, they were ready to invest £2,000,000 which they had at their command in their execution. This deputation represented that before spending so large a sum of money for such a purpose it would be absolutely necessary that they should obtain a concession from the Government, and a contract by which their rights would be defined. The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), who was then Secretary of State for India, received that deputation of adventurers with great unction, and lent a willing ear to their proposals. Now, if Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to appoint him (Mr. Smollett) Secretary for India—and greater numskulls than he was had been appointed to that office — he would have treated that deputation in a very different way from that in which the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn had dealt with them. He would have told them that if their prospectus were true, and that by an outlay of £2,000,000, they would become the greatest millionaires in the City of London, he should require from them a very large bonus indeed for the concession which was to place them in that condition. On the other hand, he would have told them if their prospectus were false that the matter required the most mature consideration

  951
  of the speculators, and that this question should be well-considered before they again applied for assistance to the Government. That would have been businesslike advice, but noble Lords and right hon. Baronets were not men of business. The noble Lord told them he was ready to use any influence he possessed to get them the concession, and under the auspices of the noble Lord this concession was granted gratuitously, and the required contract was entered into. According to the terms agreed upon, the Company were to enjoy this concession for a period of twenty-five years—to draw and enjoy all the profits of the works up to 25 per cent per annum, The Government were kindly permitted to enjoy any profits above that percentage, and to have the right of purchasing back the concession at the end of the twenty-five years by buying the whole capital stock of the Company at the average price at which the shares had stood for one year previous to the offer of the purchase. In addition, the Indian Government granted a supplemental concession, by which they had charged themselves with the payment of 5 percent upon the first £1,000,000 spent on those works, and this was not to continue merely for a year or two, but was to be continued until the speculation yielded more than that amount. In May and June, 1859, Sir Charles Wood, who had succeeded the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, as Secretary of State for India, went even further than the noble Lord, for he offered, on the part of the Government, to pay interest at the rate of 5 per cent on the first £1,000,000 proposed to be invested, not from the date of its being spent on the works, but from the date at which it was paid into the public Treasury. Although, up to that time the credit of the adventurers was below zero, yet as the credit of the Government stood high, the whole £1,000,000, or nearly so, was in a short period paid into the public Treasury, and the Company then broke ground in the district of Kurnool, in the Presidency of Madras. Amongst the first works executed was that of a stone weir across the river Toomboodra. But it was found to be so faultily constructed that the Company were compelled to remove it. They made channels into which the water would not flow; because their engineer appeared to be ignorant of the fact that water would not run up a hill. No blunders of this sort were, however, allowed to transpire. On the
  952
  contrary, it was stated from the very commencement that these works were proceeding in a most favourable manner. He (Mr. Smollett) had long taken a great interest in works of irrigation in India, and from the beginning he had not hesitated to express the opinion that those particular works would come to grief. He had believed that the project was a great swindle, and he now knew it. On the 22nd February, 1865, he asked Sir Charles Wood, the then Secretary of State for India, how the Company was progressing; and the reply he received was that the Company were carrying on their works prosperously, having expended about £700,000, and dug channels and irrigation works extending sixty or seventy miles. Sir Charles Wood added, however, that he regretted to state that as yet no profits had accrued—there never were any profits from this sort of works—but that he still had every expectation that the money advanced by the Government would be recovered, for he was credibly informed that there were 10,000 acres of land then under irrigation. In 1866 Sir Charles Wood was pitchforked into the House of Lords, and his mouthpiece in this House was the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) who was then Under Secretary for India. He (Mr. Smollett), put a number of questions to the Under Secretary upon the subject; but when a man had a very shaky case he was generally very taciturn in answering Questions; and the hon Member for Halifax, who was a perfect master of fence, gave the shortest and most curt replies. On the 11th May, 1866, the hon. Gentleman stated that the works were going on successfully; that £200,000 had been advanced by Government in interest; that the total sum expended had been £1,214,000, but that there had been no profits. The 10,000 acres of land, of which so much had been said fifteen months before, had vanished. From the terms of this Answer he felt persuaded that something was in preparation, and he was not deceived; for, on the following day, a notice appeared in The Times' City article, that this prosperous Company had entirely collapsed. Astonished at the announcement, he asked the hon. Member on the 15th of May whether the statement was true, and he replied that it was perfectly true. The Company had announced that they were not prepared to advance the second £1,000,000, on the faith of which amount being forthcoming the Government had given the

  953
  guarantee on the first £1,000,000, and that they could not sell a single share in the City. They, therefore, requested that they might be aided from the public purse to carry on their joint-stock speculation. The Secretary of State for India, finding himself in this unpleasant predicament did the best he could under the circumstances. He offered, in lieu of a guaranteed stock, to give the holders of this security £1,000,000 of Government paper, with 5 per cent interest, if the Company would hand over to the Government of India the works which nominally belonged to them, but which had really been executed with public money. But those crafty gentlemen declined to accept that offer. And why? Because the chairman, the directors, and the secretary were well-paid officers, and they knew they would have lost their salaries if they had assented to the transfer. They therefore declined to do anything of the kind, and again demanded to be subsidized with cash. The Secretary of State foolishly yielded to their demand, and the Under Secretary informed the House on the 15th May that a contract had been signed that afternoon before he came down to the House, by which the Government undertook to find £600,000 of the public money for the support of this private adventure, from which the shareholders were to derive 25 per cent profit, and the Government to get nothing. It was a very strange proceeding, to say the least of it. The money was to be advanced in the shape of debentures for five years, at 5 per cent interest, secured upon works which up to 1865 had not returned 1s. profit; which had yielded no receipts up to the present time, and which, from private accounts he had received from Madras, he believed never would return a profit. He would undertake to say that if the Secretary of State had advanced £600,000 on debentures to the London, Chatham, and Dover Company, financed by Peto, Betts, and Co., he would have made a better speculation than in advancing the money to the Madras Company. The reason the Secretary of State for India was able to do those things was because that House took no interest in the finances of India. Those things were done in secretary and silence. This was a gross job. It was perpetrated on the very day the Question was to be put to the Secretary of State, and it was only known to the country when the jobbery was consummated. By
  954
  the end of 1871 no less a sum of public money than £2,250,000 would have been advanced upon this private adventure. The Government had become responsible for £1,000,000 sterling. They were paying 5 per cent, interest on this sum, which would amount to £600,000 at the end of 1871, and by that time they would have besides advanced £600,000 on debentures secured on works that do not yield 1s. profit. The Resolution be intended to propose would stigmatize that transaction. He would now turn to the East India Irrigation Works, the twin adventure with the Madras Works. The East India Irrigation Works were certainly in a better category than the Madras, because some effort was made to start it on the principle of a real and bonâ fide joint-stock company 50,000 shares of £20 each were taken, making a paid-up capital of £1,000,000. Of that sum about £740,000 had been expended in works, and £150,000 had been spent out of capital to pay interest on advances for calls made to carry on the works. It was, however, unguaranteed; and unguaranteed works had always a shady look on the Stock Exchange. Monied men disliked amazingly enterprises which it was said would yield 100 per cent per annum, and consequently the stock had always been at a small discount. The discredit of the stock gradually increased till 1866, when it reached 25 per cent, at which price he believed it was in the market in May, 1866. On the 15th May—the funds of the Company exhausted and its credit shattered—he (Mr. Smollett) enquired of the Under Secretary of State what arrangement he proposed to make with the adventurers? In reply, the hon. Member for Halifax explicitly stated that there was not the smallest intention on the part of the Secretary of State either to purchase the works or to supplement the Company with Government money, and for the obvious reason that it was an unguaranteed company. From the terms of that Answer he believed that the Company would be left to stand or fall according to its own resources, or he should have brought the matter before the House, but he was deluded and befooled. Twelve months after there was a new Government, and a new Secretary of State for India came into office, who was as unscrupulous in dealing with the finances of India as his predecessor. He (Mr. Smollett) found that an offer was made by the Government to purchase the works; not at the price they

  955
  bore in the market, but at 25 per cent above it, and when that was not accepted, a negotiation was entered into for granting a sum of money to this Company, in the same manner that was adopted in the case of the Madras Company. The offer was made in this way. It appeared that on the 16th of May, 1867, the Governor General wrote from Simla a despatch, which was signed by every member of his Government. In that despatch Sir John Lawrence stated that he had never concealed the fact that he looked on concessions granted to private parties for irrigation purposes as mischievous; that they gave rise to the greatest complications. Unless the Government had on absolute control, it was impossible to carry on the works. He had supplied the Company, he said, with upwards of £100,000, otherwise the works would have come to a perfect standstill, and the establishments have been dispersed over the country. The time, Sir John Lawrence said, had arrived when something should be done in the matter; and as the Company was in a state of utter ruin, having no credit in India or England, he thought the opportunity was favourable for the Government to propose mutually advantageous terms with them. Sir John Lawrence's proposition was that the Secretary of State should endeavour to purchase the stock at par, and give the directors £50,000 by way of bonus, to enable them to wind up creditably. That, in his opinion, was a munificent offer. It was, in fact, an offer to put £250,000 into the pockets of the shareholders, with £50,000 more if they accepted the offer. The letter containing the proposal came to the India Office towards the close of last year, and he would do the Secretary for India the justice to say that he appeared to have acted with a great deal of forethought and honour in that particular instance. The right hon. Baronet kept the despatch a profound secret, thus preventing the jobbing which might have occurred on the Stock Exchange (at that time the stock was at 25 per cent discount), and he only communicated the offer to the public through the medium of The Times newspaper on the 18th or 19th of November. The effect was electric. The stock immediately jumped up to par, which was tantamount to putting £250,000 into the pockets of these adventurers. Surely the munificent offer of the Government ought to have been accepted with gratitude, and accepted as it would have been, if the right hon. Baronet the
  956
  Secretary of State for India had had the courage of a mouse, and had declined to enter into negotiations with those adventurers—if he had told them, "This is our offer; it is the only one we will make, so you may make up your mind." Had he done this, they would have accepted the offer. But Parliament was sitting at the time, and the right Hon. Baronet entered, unfortunately, into negotiations with the directors. Public and private interests were brought to bear upon the right hon. Baronet, and no doubt a great deal of "lobbying" went on. Afterwards the right hon. Baronet was induced to give way and to offer other terms which he will possibly explain to the House—terms which the Company consider more advantageous to their interests than an absolute purchase. Independently of any public or private pressure, letters were inserted in the public prints setting forth the claims of the Company to compensation. On the 13th of January a letter appeared in The Times, from the practised pen of a gentleman who was supposed to exercise a great deal of influence in Indian matters, and who was known in Manchester as a great authority upon all matters connected with irrigation and the spending of money—he meant General Sir Arthur Cotton. That letter was written in a tone of arrogance which deserved exposure; and he would endeavour to expose it. The munificent offer of the Government was actually denounced by General Cotton as a conspiracy to defraud the noble band of adventurers of the profits to which they were legitimately entitled — as a plot, boldly contrived to drive away all interlopers from India, and to reverse the policy inaugurated by Lord Canning. Now, who was the arch plotter; who the base conspirator? — why, the Governor General of India, a man whom Sir Arthur Cotton spoke of with scorn, describing him as the last possible Viceroy of the "Old Indian School." Sir Arthur Cotton proceeded to assail the Indian Secretary and his Council in similar terms of abuse; he spoke of them as worn-out and contemptible functionaries, whose existence could not be prolonged beyond the present spring; men who must be forcibly removed and their places filled by gentlemen whom he almost designated gentlemen of the "Young Indian School," men who looked up to Sir Arthur as "their guide, philosopher, and friend." God protect an office filled with pupils of Sir Arthur Cotton! And why was all this vituperation levelled

  957
  at Sir John Lawrence? Simply because that high functionary had made a suggestion which had had the effect of putting £250,000 into the hands of the shareholders. This was the head and front of his offending. But Sir Arthur knew well the faint-heartedness of the Home Government of India. The gentlemen of the India Office quailed under his castigation. They kissed the rod he had applied so mercilessly to their posteriors, and they gave these adventurers better terms than the Governor General had proposed. Acts of such great impropriety and injustice ought not to be tolerated. He had shown that works that were brought forward as calculated to pay cent per cent had not yielded anything for the last five or six or seven years, and that they were brought forward in the first instance under false pretences. He had also shown, in the course of his speech, that the first works, which were declared to be works brought forward by private enterprise, had cost the Government £2,250,000, for which they had no security but the works themselves, which were either valueless or were works from which, if they should ever prove remunerative, the private adventurers would receive dividends at the rate of 25 per cent, while they had been constructed without the expenditure of a shilling raised at the risk of the speculators. With reference to the East India Irrigation Works the offer to purchase stock at par had never been withdrawn; and probably, at no distant day the Government would take the works at that or at a larger price. He thought these were acts of great impropriety, and therefore he should move the following Resolution—not an abstract one, but one which went direct to the point:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the advance of £600,000 of public money on loan to a private company of adventurers styling themselves the Madras Irrigation Company, granted on the 15th day of May 1866 for their sole benefit, and likewise the offer of a large loan on similar terms announced by the Secretary of State on the 20th day of February last as contemplated to be given to the East India Irrigation and Canal Company, are acts of impropriety, are mischievous in policy, and should be discontinued."
  He offered that Resolution, not in the spirit of party or of faction, but in the interest of honesty and straightforward dealing, of which he saw very little in the conduct of these adventurers. He offered it also to protect the just power of the Governor General of India, whose suggestions and recommendations had been set aside to
  958
  suit the private policy of these people; and he proposed it in the true interests of the India Office, which was surrounded by jobbers, from whom the Council of the Secretary of State were unable to free themselves, and whose importunities they could not resist.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the advance of £600,000 of public money on loan to a private company of adventurers styling themselves the Madras Irrigation Company, granted on the 15th day of May 1866 for their sole benefit, and likewise the offer of a large loan on similar terms announced by the Secretary of State on the 20th day of February last, as contemplated to be given to the East India Irrigation and Canal Company, are acts of impropriety, are mischievous in policy, and should be discontinued,"—(Mr. Smollett,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he regretted that the hon. Member had changed the terms of the Resolution he had placed on the Paper. He regretted that the hon. Member had done so without giving notice of his intention to call attention in such a specific manner to the transaction which he had in the first instance referred to—namely, the loan of £600,000 to the Madras Irrigation Company. He regretted it the more because the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) was not in the House, and he had some reason to believe that that hon. Gentleman was under the impression that this particular transaction was not to be called in question.
  MR. SMOLLETTsaid, he had acquainted the hon. Member for Halifax with his intention of bringing in the matter under the notice of the House.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that if that were so it was not his hon. Friend's fault that the hon. Member for Halifax was absent. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) could only say that he was less able to give an explanation of the transaction than the hon. Member for Halifax, under whose authority and that of Earl De Grey and Ripon the loan was made; but he believed that the circumstances were substantially as follows:—The Madras Irrigation Company was originally established as a company guaranteed by the Government. It was formed for the

  959
  purpose of undertaking a work of very great importance to the interests of India, and the House should bear in mind that the work performed by these Irrigation Companies ought to be measured, not by the amount of the return they immediately produce, but by the amount of the benefit they confer on India by the accomplishment of works of an important kind for the improvement of agriculture and the better sustentation of the people. That was a point which the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Smollett) had too much overlooked. Now, looking at the matter from this point of view, it was not so necessary for the Government to ask whether this or that work would be immediately remunerative, as it was to ask whether it was a work which it would be desirable to encourage, for the general interests of the country committed to their care. There could be no doubt that it would have been well worth the while of the Indian Government to incur considerable loss in the direct pecuniary expenditure, for the sake of accomplishing great works which would be advantageous to the country. No one, for instance, would have found fault if the Government of India had undertaken to construct canals and irrigation works out of the public money, in the same way that they had constructed roads, for the general benefit of the country; and no one could doubt that those works would, in the long run, he extremely remunerative to the Government and to the people of India, though it was quite possible they might not realize the sanguine expectations of those who undertook them. He supposed, however, that the House had no desire to enter into a discussion of the merits or demerits of works of irrigation; for he believed all who had paid attention to the subject concurred in admitting the advantages arising from them. The only question for consideration, therefore, was the best means of carrying out such works. As the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Smollett) had truly remarked, this Company was established in 1858, under the auspices of his noble Friend the then Secretary of State for India; but he believed that, in point of fact, the system dated from a somewhat earlier period, and that it was under the old Court of Directors that the first Resolution was passed to the effect that works of this kind might be entrusted to a private company. As the House was aware, the finances of India were frequently
  960
  overburdened by the claims upon them, and great difficulty was experienced in finding money out of the taxation of the country for carrying on works which were not likely to be immediately remunerative; and it was felt that, if irrigation was to be carried on on a really satisfactory footing, it would be desirable to introduce private capital and private enterprise into India, for the purpose of executing works, which would certainly be advantageous to the people, and which might be profitable to the individuals who undertook them. This Company was therefore formed by gentlemen who looked, no doubt, to a large remuneration from the capital they were about to expend, but who, he thought, had also other and higher objects, as they believed they were undertaking a work which would tend to the advantage of a most important portion of the population of India. They advanced a sort of moral claim on the Government for such assistance as the Government could give them. They asked for a concession and for a guarantee. It was not his present duty to discuss whether the Government were right in giving them that support or not. Under all the circumstances, he hardly ought to say that the Government were wrong, though he confessed that his own opinion, formed on a good deal of experience during the last few years, was decidedly against the system of granting guarantees. Under such a system, if the works turn out very profitable, the company have all the advantage; while, on the other hand, if they prove unprofitable, the Government have to bear the loss. That was the rationale of the system of guarantees, which he should be glad to see either restricted or abolished. When, however, this question was brought forward in 1858, experience had not been acquired in respect to the guarantee system, and the Government had then to consider the mode in which they could best facilitate the object of bringing private capital and enterprise into India. They were told that if they gave a guarantee it was probable that the works would prove so profitable that other companies would follow the example of this, and would, without guarantee, bring private money into India and be able to execute these great works of irrigation. In this respect he believed the scheme was not unsuccessful, for it was in consequence of this Company having begun to work, and having at first held out encouragement to the public, that the second

  961
  undertaking referred to by the hon. Gentleman was set on foot without any guarantee. And certainly we owed to the gentlemen who took part in the formation and promotion of the twin Companies a debt of gratitude for the exertions they made in raising a sum approaching £1,000,000 of capital without any guarantee on the part of the State. We are also bound to acknowledge our obligations to them for the character of the work they had accomplished in Orissa, and, he believed, in the Madras Presidency; for the two Companies were, in fact, one, although it had two distinct and unconnected undertakings. After the Company had commenced their works and carried them on to a certain point, they made the unfortunate discovery that they had not capital enough to carry them on further in a proper manner, whereupon they asked Lord Halifax (then Sir Charles Wood) for assistance; but he declined to sanction an alteration which they wished to introduce into the terms of the guarantee. Subsequently, however, Lord De Grey and Ripon consented to advance them a loan on the security of their works, which were admitted to be good and well-executed works as far as they went. In taking the works as a security the Government were of opinion that they were making a very good bargain. Indeed, if the Government had not done so they would have been placed in a position of great difficulty. They had undertaken to guarantee the Company, and were paying interest; and the question was whether they were to be relieved from the payment of that interest. It was clear that the Government could not be relieved till the Company made profits; and it was made clear to Lord De Grey that the Company would not make any profits without further assistance from the State. Lord De Grey therefore thought it was for the interest of the Government that he should advance the loan. On this point, however, the hon. Member for Halifax would be better able than he to give an explanation. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) believed Lord de Grey had exercised a sound discretion; and he felt sure the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire did not mean to impute anything like jobbing or improper conduct to his Lordship or to the hon. Member for Halifax. With regard to the other undertaking, and the transaction in which he (Sir Stafford Northcote) had been himself engaged, it was of course due to the House, after the statement of the hon. Gentleman, that he
  962
  should offer an explanation. The second undertaking was divisible into two. There was an undertaking by the Company, called the East India Irrigation and Canal Company, to irrigate a portion of Orissa, and there was the further undertaking to irrigate a portion of Behar. Now, the hon. Gentleman had lost sight of an important clement in one part of the transactions—namely, the concessions made to this Company with regard to the irrigation at Behar. While objecting upon principle to Government guarantees generally, he particularly objected to guarantees in the matter of irrigation works; because, by allowing a company to undertake them, Government exposed itself to difficulty and embarrassment, and it was the duty of Government to keep them in its own hands. Otherwise, difficult questions bearing upon the land revenue, the condition of districts irrigated, and the relations between and landowners and between landowners and the Government, were infinitely complicated by the obligation of Government towards an irrigation company. Any one who would follow up the matter would see that it was almost impossible satisfactorily to work a system of irrigation in a large district—especially in one in which there was no permanent settlement of the revenue—by means of a company. The questions raised, such as who was to have the control of the water, what was to be the price fixed, and what were to be the stipulations with the Zemindars as to the alteration of the assessment, were in themselves so difficult and involved such delicate considerations, that it almost amounted to a dereliction of of duty on the part of Government to give up the control of an irrigation system to a company, and particularly to a guaranteed company. He meant no disrespect to the Company in question by expressing these views; and his great regret that that Company had obtained the concessions and the position it had obtained in Orissa and in Behar, and more particularly in Behar, because the Company had the exclusive right to irrigate a very important district, and they had not the means of doing it. They simply kept others out, and prevented the Government from undertaking the works. The Company, having obtained its concession, laid out a large sum in works which had been warmly approved by the authorities and by the independent investigators of the Orissa famine, which was, no doubt, locally mitigated by the works, while the Company's officers behaved with great

  963
  liberality and did much to alleviate distress. These facts, and the necessity of finding some employment for the people of Orissa, at the time of their suffering, were the occasion of the advances to which the hon. Member referred. Having been told in the House that the Company was not to be assisted, the hon. Member seemed to think he had been deceived by the Secretary of State, and his council; and he seemed to think that that was owing to some proceedings on his Sir (Stafford Northcote's) part, but the advances were made by the Governor General in India without consulting the Secretary of State, and it seemed to him that they were rightly made, seeing that there was a means of profitably expending the money. If employment had not been provided in this way it must have been done by setting the poor to dig holes one day, and fill them up the next. It appeared to him that having the machinery ready to hand for the profitable expenditure of money the Government were quite right in so laying it out. Accordingly, about £120,000 was advanced on the understanding to which he had referred. When the Company were asked to undertake the work they said they were ready enough to spend the money, but they did not wish to make the additional outlay on their own account. They, in fact, found that their water was not taken so rapidly as they expected, and that their works were not producing a profit; and therefore it was not in their power, in the then state of the money market, to go on with their works. They, therefore, proposed to lie on their oars, and wait till the works which they had executed began to be profitable, when the public would come forward and provide the funds necessary to complete the works. The Government said that might be perfectly legitimate on the part of a company, but it did not at that time meet the wishes of the Government, who could not wait; and it was under these circumstances, and looking to the circumstances he had mentioned, that the Governor General wrote the despatch the hon. Member had referred to. This brought up the history to the point at which it became the duty of the Secretary of State in Council to act. The Governor General had written an elaborate despatch, pointing out that the Company had failed to realize the great profits they had looked forward to, referring to the complications that had arisen between the Company and the Government, and proposing to buy up the interests of the Company, not at par, but
  964
  in 5 per cent stock, which was then at 110, terms which would have been the means of increasing the value of the Company's stock considerably more than the 25 per cent which the hon. Member had spoken of. That despatch came into his (Sir Stafford Northcote's) hands, and the Council decided that it would be right to offer to purchase the Company's works; but that conclusion was not come to without much hesitation, and after full consideration of all the circumstances he had stated. The Government felt that it was important for India that these works should be carried on, though the Company had not the means of carrying them on with activity and success; and her Majesty's Government resolved not to entertain the question of a guarantee. There was such great force in the argument of the Governor General, as it related to the works that were not completed in Behar, that they would have been prepared to offer almost any terms to get them into the hands of the Government; but with regard to Orissa it was of less importance to the Government to purchase the Company's lights because a considerable amount of work had been actually executed. On careful consideration of the whole question, they came to the conclusion that the terms proposed by the Governor General were excessive. The hon. Member had said that the Secretary for State was—he would not repeat the elegant expression of the hon. Member—but he was weak, and his council was at the mercy of jobbers and speculators, and that they had made an extravagant and improvident bargain. But looking to the Correspondence, which was in the hands of the public, he could see no evidence whatever to support such a charge. The Governor General proposed the purchase on certain terms. The Government determined not to offer those terms but lower terms. They said, "We will give you the amount which you have expended, and £50,000 over." It was said that the stock of the Company was at a large discount, and that those terms were therefore unreasonably high. But it should be borne in mind that the Company had bonâ fide raised this money, that they had expended it in good work, and that, though it was not now profitable, the Government had reason to believe that when the system was completed it would become profitable. They, therefore, thought it fair to give back to the Company the whole amount they had expended, with a certain sum over and above to compensate them for any inconvenience

  965
  which might result from parting with a portion of their establishment, and in consideration of any just claims they might have arising from the expectation of future profit. There was no doubt that, as far as they had gone, the Company had done a good work for India; though whether they had done a good work for themselves was another question, into which he would not enter. Having made this as a final offer, after full consideration, the Government thought it right to make known on the same day, through the public Tress, before even the directors had received the official communication, the nature of the offer that was made. The effect was that the shares, which had been at a discount, rose to par; but he was told that this was nothing more than a nominal quotation, and that, pending the proceedings, little or no business was done. It had been stated that the offer of the Government was not favourably received by the Company. He did not know whether it had been refused or not; but he had heard that the offer was received at the meeting of shareholders as not only unsatisfactory but insulting. Indeed, quite as strong language as had been applied to him by the hon. Member (Mr. Smollett) had been applied to him by the shareholders. He had received letters from various persons, in which he was accused of a desire to "rob" the shareholders; and he did not know what motives had not been imputed to him, or what language had been used to describe his "audacity" in making an offer which the hon. Member had fairly admitted to be very liberal. He was told, "You know the position of the Company, and you are going to take the profits out of our mouths and transfer them to the Government." The directors had been instructed to ask the Government to alter the terms; but the Government had always refused to do so, and would not give a guarantee. But they also said that they neither had the means nor the wish to force the Company to sell to them; that they made the offer from no feeling of ill-will or wish to disparage what had been done by the Company. There, however, was the fact—while in Orissa the Company had done a good deal, in Behar they had done nothing; and it was the duty of the Government, for the interests of the people of India, to carry these works on either themselves or through others. If the Company were able to carry on these works, let them do so; if they were not
  966
  able, the Government were prepared to complete them, and it was their duty so to do. In Orissa the Company might possibly be able to carry on the works; but in Behar there really seemed no chance of their being able to raise money and carry on the works for a long time, if at all. Meanwhile, here was a large and important district from which the Government was excluded because this Company had got a concession which they could not use. Under these circumstances the Government said, "If you will give up the Behar works we will make no further proposal respecting Orissa; but we will assist you to complete these works by lending you £500,000, at 5 per cent, upon the security of the works." Now the works had cost £700,000 or £800,000, and it would be a condition that the loan of £500,000 should be further expended upon the works. If the Company were to make default in payment of the interest or in re-payment of the principal, the works would, no doubt, be a perfectly good security for the advance. But, so far as he had been informed, the directors did not consider these terms acceptable, and thought it would not be reasonable that they should give the works as security for the loan. In that case, of course, it was for them to refuse the loan. A meeting was to be held very shortly, and then the proposals of the Government would be considered, and they would receive a final answer. Meanwhile, it was right that there should be no mistake. The Government had made an offer which would still hold good as far as the Indian Council was concerned; they had never varied the terms of the offer, and did not intend to do so. It would be for the Company to consider whether these terms were fair, and, if not, what course they would take; the Government, recognizing in them fellow-workers in the performance of a most important duty, had no wish to interfere with any fair profits they might derive from works which they undertook, no doubt, as much from patriotic motives as from a wish to make a good investment. But he was sorry that the Government had ever entered into engagements with private companies. If they had kept these works of irrigation in their own hands they would have avoided great complications. For a length of time, however, the Government had great difficulty in finding money to carry on such works. It was not easy to extend taxation in India, and

  967
  it was only lately that the Government had adopted a decided policy in borrowing money for works of this kind. Now, money would be borrowed freely for works which could be shown to be of a good, substantial, and profitable character; and he earnestly hoped that, whether through their own agency or that of others, this great and important field of labour would be properly cultivated. He had no wish on this occasion to trespass further upon the general question which the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) proposed to raise hereafter, in connection with works of irrigation. He would only say with regard to the Motion that he hoped it would not be pressed. It was one which would be delusive in its character, and probably the object of the hon. Member would be sufficiently attained by the discussion which it would elicit.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that they had been accustomed in that House to some of the older Members, such as the late Colonel Sibthorpe, assuming a certain licence of speech, and using sometimes offensive expressions in which none of the other Members indulged. But he was surprised at the repetition of this by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Smollett), who had employed language in that discussion which it was hardly proper to use in that House." The hon. Gentleman had talked of "adventurers;" and had said that the Madras Irrigation Company was "a great swindle." Upon reflection, he would, he was sure, regret that he had been led into the use of such language. The hon. Member had also attacked by name the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) who was then Secretary of State for India, and under whom the scheme of irrigation had been carried out. But the House knew very well that of all those who were engaged in the conduct of administrative Departments under the Government of Lord Derby there was none more able or more painstaking than the noble Lord who was then Secretary of State for India; and he (Mr. Kinnaird) believed that the noble Lord retained now precisely the same opinion, which he held when in office, as to the wisdom and propriety of promoting works of irrigation. The immense advantage of these works was not so generally admitted at that time as it was now, and therefore the noble Lord deserved the greater credit for what he had done. Was it a proper thing, then that the Gentlemen who had forwarded
  968
  these works should be accused of "lobbying?" He hoped the House would not treat those who had done such service to India in the spirit the hon. Member had done, And were they going to refuse any guarantees for irrigation works, after all the millions that had been advanced in spreading railways over India, and when everyone acknowledged now that under no other system than that of guarantees could India have been so effectually and speedily covered with those great works? The hon Member had read an extract from a despatch of Sir John Lawrence, from which he had made it appear that the Governor General undervalued the works in question; but he (Mr. Kinnaird) would like to read two extracts which would show that the contrary was the case, and that in the frightful famine which came upon Orissa it was the Governor General who made the first offer to the Irrigation Company. And what did the Commissioners' appointed to inquire into the causes and extent of the late famine in Orissa report, and especially Mr. Campbell? They bore testimony to the admirable nature of the Company's works, and to the fact that if such works had been earlier attended to, the loss of nearly a million of lives during the famine would never have occurred. The Governor General, in the despatch to which he had referred, said—
  "You are aware that, notwithstanding the strong opinions which we hold as to the inconvenience of the arrangement that has been entered into with the Company, it has been our earnest wish to do all in our power to facilitate the operations of the Company, and to act fully up to the spirit of any actual, or implied engagements entered into with them in past years. If it be necessary to adduce any distinct proof of this disposition on the part of the Government of India, we would refer to our recent resolutions to in to this Company the execution of the Soane Canal project, and to make grants of money to aid in the construction of the works in Cuttack, the Company's funds having proved insufficient to secure their prosecution with that activity which, in the altered condition of this province, we deem so desirable. And we may assure Her Majesty's Government that it will continue to be our desire to act in this same manner so long as the present arrangements between the Government and the Company shall be maintained.
  "But the terrible calamity which has recently fallen on Orissa and Western Bengal has forced upon us the consideration of the question, whether we can any longer with propriety permit the existing arrangements to continue in force, if it be possible to induce the Company to give up their right under their contract.
  "We entirely disclaim the intention of making any reflection on the Company for the manner in which their operations have been hitherto carried out, or for the mode in which they have raised or

  969
  applied their capital. It is incontestable that a large sum has been raised and spent, and it is even probable that had the Company not come forward, the Government would, up to the present time, have done much less than has been done towards the construction of irrigation works in Cuttack. But the position of the Government with relation to the execution of irrigation works has, within the last year, become entirely changed, and our business is no longer with the past but with the present, and the immediate future, and it is impossible for us to avoid the conclusion that, for the reasons we have above given, the means of the Company henceforth will not only be relatively far inferior to those of the Government, but absolutely insufficient for the real necessities of the country."
  And as to the nature of the works the Governor General said—
  "We may mention, however, that the works have been visited by Colonel Morton, R.E., an officer of great experience in irrigation works, and also by Colonel Nicholls, R.E., the Chief Engineer of Bengal. Both these officers and also Mr. Crommelin, the Superintending Engineer in the service of the Government at Cuttack, agree in stating that the works are good. These statements have not been made on any critical examination nor in any official Report; but we are satisfied that, in a general way, they are correct. In the same way we learn that in point of actual cost—that is, of the actual outlay upon the works themselves—they are cheap. So far, then, we have some grounds for believing that the Government would not pay any extravagant sum in taking over the works as proposed."
  The Governor General, therefore, it would be seen had spoken highly and fairly of the Company's acts, and on the authority of two engineers had stated that the works were cheap; and yet the hon. Member had thought proper to denounce them in the strongest possible language. The hon. Gentleman was surprised that at a time of great commercial distress an enterprize of this kind had not paid, and he seemed to expect that the works should be remunerative the first year. But everyone knew that until irrigation works were complete they could not fairly be expected to be so. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) knew that the whole thing was done openly and above-board. He would not enter upon the other topics adverted to by the hon. Member except as to one point. The hon. Gentleman had been pleased to speak in a way which was derogatory to Sir Arthur Cotton. But it was well known that Sir Arthur Cotton was a man of great practical ability, as well as that he had great enthusiasm in the work of irrigation; and unless great enterprizes were taken up by men of sanguine character they were not likely at first to be prosecuted successfully. Sir
  970
  Arthur Cotton had been honoured by his Sovereign for having been one of the first who had directed attention to the necessity existing for these great works of irrigation, and the House would, he was sure, regret if, when such a man was attacked, no one had risen to defend him from false aspersions. Sir Arthur Cotton was perfectly unconnected with the company, he did not hold a share in it, and if he took an interest in works of irrigation it was solely because he was sensible of their great value in such a country as India.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he did not agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Smollett) in his views on the subject of irrigation. On the contrary, he believed that such works would be alike profitable to the Government and beneficial to the people of India. He had always contended that works of irrigation ought to be undertaken solely by the Government, and not by private individuals or companies. His reason for holding that opinion was this:—The land in India belonged to the Government and the number of tenants on the land to be irrigated was very great. It was therefore impossible to collect the water rates except by the instrumentality of the Government, and as these works yielded great profit the Government were acting as agents for, and were collecting large sums of money merely to hand over to private individuals. What he had long complained of was the dog-in-the-manger policy of the Government — namely, that they would neither execute the great irrigation works, which were so necessary to the welfare of India themselves, nor allow others to do it. At length, however, the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) made the experiment of granting a great work to the Madras Irrigation Company, and he was disposed to think that, at the time, this was a judicious course, as it afforded the opportunity of comparing the system of private works and Government works. He congratulated the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India on the conclusions at which he had arrived—namely, that the construction of works of irrigation were of the highest value and importance to the people, and profitable to the Government of India—that it is most advantageous to both that they should be executed by the Government; and that for this purpose they should abandon the uncertain policy hitherto pursued of making reproductive works out of surplus revenue instead of raising public loans for this

  971
  specific object and carrying out the works with as little delay as possible. This he (Mr. J. B. Smith) believed to be a sound course, and it was the one which he had advocated in that House during the last fifteen years.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CONDITION OF CEYLON.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. WATKINthen rose to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the condition of Ceylon and the action of its Government. He hoped for the forbearance of the House, as Ceylon was not a very popular subject; but if he wanted any reason for asking the House to agree to this Inquiry, he would find it in the fact that the population of the country, if the Government Returns were to be trusted, had been reduced from 2,300,000 in 1863 to 2,000,000 in 1866, and this in the face of the other fact, which also appeared in these Returns, that there was an increase of births over deaths, which would show that the decrease was owing to emigration. When this question was brought forward on former occasions, the reply of the Colonial Secretary was that the island ought to be annexed to the continent of India. It was only a few years ago, however, that this question was fully discussed by a Committee of the House of Commons, and they came to the unanimous opinion that the circumstances of India and of Ceylon were so different that it would be highly inexpedient and unjust to annex the one to the other. The particular reasons he had for bringing this question before the House he might very shortly sum up. The Chamber of Commerce at Colombo and the Planters' Association at Kandy, both of them influential bodies, had requested him to take the matter up, as representations had been sent from the inhabitants of Ceylon, strongly backed up by the Press, unanimously urging that their grievances should be inquired into, and those representations had not been treated with respect. They did not ask the House to interfere until they had for many years vainly asked the Colonial Office to do them substantial justice. For the last ten years scarcely two had passed without memorials having been sent over from the Legislative Chamber, signed by official and non-official members alike, and often supported by the Governor, asking that they might have that control over
  972
  the public works, and over the income and expenditure of the island, which was promised them in 1848 by Earl Grey, who stated that the time had come when full control over the expenditure should be given to the Council of Ceylon, and promised at the same time that a despatch should be sent out, laving down rules with reference to the taxation, the military expenditure, and other subjects of complaint. It had been said that the whole of the complaints arose from the desire of the colonists to shirk their fair share of colonial military expenditure, and to expend their whole income upon local purposes, leaving the defence of the colony to be defrayed out of Imperial taxation. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not to-night use, or repeat any such argument. In justice to the men whose energy and enterprize had built up that noble dependency, he was sure it would not be urged by the right hon. Gentleman that their grievances were only traceable to the mean selfishness of seeking to avoid the payment of the military expenditure of the colony. On this subject he would read a letter from a gentleman who was formerly a Member of the House, and who was well known for his solid judgment and his intelligence (Sir James Elphinstone), who had large interest in Ceylon. In that letter he pointed out the necessity for railway extension and for a revision of taxation, and expressed a hope that he (Mr. Watkin) would persevere in his Motion for a Committee. Sir James stated that the colonists did not object to pay for a sufficient force for the protection of the island; what they did object to was that Ceylon should be treated as a garrison for Imperial purposes, and that they should have to support that garrison on a scale far beyond what was required for the purpose of internal or external defence. That they were denied a line of railway into the coffee districts, and that the rates on the railways now open were too high; a large duty was laid upon rice, which was the staple food of the people, and the taxes on land were so levied as to act as a discouragement to agriculture. In addition to this, Ceylon was called upon to maintain establishments at Galle and at Trincomalee which were for purely Imperial purposes. The disparity of numbers between the European and the Native population was no reason for witholding local self-government, since it was on the former that the prosperity of the island mainly depended. He felt assured that the House

  973
  would weigh the strong opinion of Sir James. In the last three years there had been great depression. He did not mean to contend that that depression arose from causes all of which were under Government control. There had been great deficiencies in the crops; but most of the depression was caused by an injudicious system of taxation, and by incompetent government and Governors. Ceylon was the only country in the world where the greater portion of the revenue was raised from taxes on food. Now, taxing food in Ceylon was like taxing raw material — wages to a great extent were paid in food, and anything which advanced its price diminished produce and crippled industry. One-fourth of the revenue of Ceylon was derived from the tax on grain alone. The production of food in the country was decreasing, and this was traceable to the land tax, and to the gross neglect of irrigation. At one time Ceylon was the granary of the East; but it had not only ceased to be so, but it could not support its own population. There was this further evil, that taxation upon Native-grown rice was to this day collected by farmers. The vices of farming taxes were well known, and they had it upon the authority of Sir Emerson Tennent that, in Ceylon, the amount of taxation levied was double that which found its way to the Treasury. Then there was the question which they had already been in another case debating—the question of irrigation. Under the old Native system, works for the purpose of irrigation were kept up almost as roads were in England, under the "Rajah Karia" system—every district being compelled to keep its own irrigation works in repair. It was true there were abuses connected with that system; and under the English rule this forced system of labour was put an end to, and the irrigation works were left entirely to the good will and pleasure of the Natives. But the Natives had no capital with which to meet engineering difficulties, and unaided, could not combine, and hence important works were rapidly falling into disuse and decay; and from that cause there had been a falling off in the production of food of one-half or three-quarters; cultivation in some districts having in fact entirely ceased. Since agitation had commenced on this subject, efforts had been made to enable the right hon. Gentleman to say—as no doubt he would say—that Government was engaged in restoring these works. Yes, but what was the proposition by which the new system was to be maintained?
  974
  It was to be met by a new tax on the food of the Natives; by increasing the burdens upon the labouring population. The unfortunate paddy-growers were already taxed to the extent of one-sixth of their gross produce. The planters of Ceylon had submitted to export duties on their produce, in order that the public works might go on with efficiency. That fertile island imported half its grain, and almost the whole of the labour employed in the cultivation of coffee; and its taxation amounted to nearly one-third of the gross produce of cultivation. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentlemen the Under Secretary for the Colonies would contend that as the revenue of the colony had increased it must be in a prosperous state. He had shown the House under what circumstances the increase had taken place, and for his part he thought that if the revenue of the colony had been diminished it would have been a better sign of prosperity than an increase, under such circumstances. Our revenue was increasing during the Russian war; and high taxation and prosperity were not synonymous. The right hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) the other night slated that Ceylon had the happiness to be governed by a man of the highest knowledge, capacity, and intelligence; but it should be remembered that the Governor of the island told the Colonial Office that, as far as regarded all the material parts of the complaints of the colonists, there was great foundation for every one of them. Surely that showed the case was one demanding an investigation. He knew that all official people were averse to inquiries; but he hoped the House would consider that the repeated complaints of the people, suppported in many cases by the opinions of the Governors themselves, made out a case for an inquiry. Year after year the colonists had sent home memorials, asking that the promises made them by Earl Grey, in 1848, should be carried out; year after year these memorials had been refused. Yet the colonists had never ceased to be loyal and true to the country and to the Crown. Last year Her Majesty was advised not to grant the prayer of the memorialists, and it was said that these planters wanted constitutional Government. But, in fact, they only asked for the fulfilment of the pledge which was made to them in 1848 by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The mode of doing this they left entirely with Her Majesty. In the Governor's despatch Mr. Wall was not fairly treated.

  975
  He was a loyal and an able man, and well capable, if in that House, of pleading the cause of the island. The wishes of the colonists having been for so many years refused by the Colonial Office, they had at last come to that House for redress. Our distant dependencies, he believed, could be retained by us in a satisfactory manner only through the cultivation among their inhabitants of two sentiments — namely, first a feeling of loyalty to the Crown and Government of this country, and next a conviction that, whenever they had real grievances to complain of, and failed to obtain redress for them in other quarters, that House would at least do them the justice of granting inquiry. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Motion of which he had given Notice.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the condition of Ceylon and the action of its Government,"—(Mr. Watkin,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin) asked that House to grant a Select Committee to inquire into the state of Ceylon upon two grounds. The first was, that certain complaints had reached this country from that island; and the second was, that the institutions of the island were decaying, and its population and prosperity were falling away, and that general misgovernment existed there. Now, as far as the complaints were concerned, they were amply discussed only four weeks ago, when the hon. Gentleman called the attention of the House to the petition which had been forwarded from Ceylon to this country. The hon. Member had not adduced any fresh complaint. Four hon. Members interested in Ceylon took part in that discussion. He (Mr. Adderley) then stated the views of the Government upon the subject, which were fully indorsed by the right hon. Gentleman the late Colonial Secretary, and the House seemed to think that no case whatever had been made out in support of the petition. The hon. Gentleman had now put forward statements of his own, alleging that the island was in a general state of decay. But he submitted that the hon. Member had altogether failed to change the issue of the discussion which had already taken place upon Ceylon. The sole ground of complaint
  976
  was the military contribution which that colony had been called upon to pay. Now, the fact was, that the contributions which the colony had been called upon to make had been recommended in the Report of a Select Committee, who were of opinion that Ceylon ought to contribute towards the cost of the troops kept in that island. The hon. Member intimated that the colonists did not so much complain of the military contributions as of the number of troops. [Mr. WATKIN: I said nothing of the kind.] He had certainly understood the hon. Member to say so; and of the number of troops which ought to be maintained in Ceylon Her Majesty's Government was the proper judge. It was only when Ceylon was called upon to pay the military contribution that they heard of any complaints on the part of that colony. The statements of the hon. Member with reference to the mis-government of Ceylon and the decay of the prosperity of that island were not borne out by the reports which had been received in this country upon the condition of that colony. When it was proposed to place Ceylon under the Indian Government, there was a general outcry against the proposition. The hon. Gentleman stated that the population had fallen off. Now, the fact was that it was rapidly increasing, being 13,000 more than last year. Last year the births were 48,000, and the deaths 39,000.
  MR. WATKINsaid, that the colonial blue book showed that in 1863 the population was 2,342,098, whilst in 1866 it was only 2,088,027.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had, perhaps, selected a year in which there was a great mortality; but the last accounts showed a great increase in the population. The hon. Member had adduced the increase of the revenue as a proof of decay, inasmuch as he attributed that increase to the imposition of new taxes. The truth, however, was, that it was due to no such cause, but to the growing prosperity of the colony, for the taxes there remained the same as those which had been levied for the last ten years. The next complaint of the hon. Member was that the Government had unwisely interfered with the railway speculations of the colonists, and prevented railways being made into the coffee districts; but that, too, was a statement which was not supported by the facts of the case. When it was shown that the state of the funds for making the railway referred to was satisfactory,

  977
  it was sanctioned by the Government. The hon. Gentleman also complained that large taxes were levied upon rice grounds; but these taxes had been brought under the consideration of the Government, who had ordered that an inquiry should take place with a view to ascertain whether a reduction in them might not be effected. The tax upon rice was a tax per bushel, and therefore the increased produce of the tax showed an increased production. [Mr. WATKIN: The tax is in proportion to the value.] The tax had not been altered. The question whether the naval stations for the purposes of the colony should be maintained at the cost of the British taxpayer he did not think it necessary to discuss. He had frequently heard the hon. Gentleman complain of the burden thrown upon the English taxpayer to maintain such stations for colonies, many of which were richer than England. Why should not the people of Ceylon bear their share of the taxation of the Empire? Was all the expense of the Empire to be borne by a particular part of it? [Mr. WATKIN: Certainly not.] Under all the circumstances of the case, he did not see any good that could be derived from granting the proposed Committee. Since the Report of the Military Commission in Ceylon, the colonists seemed to be perfectly satisfied with the terms which had been come to, and that Report, he believed, would be strictly adhered to. He did not, he might add, at all agree with the views of the hon. Gentleman as to the government of Ceylon. While the Governor was responsible for the good government of the colony, he must have ample discretion in the management of its affairs; and if, as the hon. Member proposed, the majority of Members in the Council were to be elected, the Governor would no longer be in the position which an autocratic governor ought to occupy, who, being fully responsible, should have the power of conducting his own policy. The hon. Member had also fallen into a mistake with respect to the intention of Earl Grey, whose despatch contained no such promise as that indicated by the hon. Member. Earl Grey expressed a wish that the colony might become more able to take a part in its own financial affairs, and it was rapidly exhibiting greater capacity in that respect, for it frequently controlled votes on financial questions. The hon. Gentleman talked, not in the interest of the great population of the colony, but in the interest of a small section — the English planters—who had
  978
  ample influence in the Council. He thought that no case had been made out for the inquiry which the hon. Gentleman asked the House to sanction.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKtrusted that the Motion for a Select Committee would be agreed to. The Under Secretary for the Colonies had objected that the complaints came only from Englishmen in the colony; but Englishmen constituted the life and soul of the colony; and, if they complained, they ought to have a fair hearing. With regard to the population of the colony, it was true, as stated by the hon. Member for Stockport that its amount had diminished since 1863, though there had been some increase of population in 1866 over the amount in 1865.
  MR. GORSTthought the House had not only failed to dispose of the grievances of Ceylon, but had failed in understanding what those grievances really were. It was ridiculous to say that the matter had been fully discussed on a former evening, when, in point of fact, only four Members took part in the debate. Moreover, both the Under Secretary for the Colonies and the right hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) had misconceived the real ground of complaint. Although the statement that the military expenditure was not the real grievance had been proved during the former discussion, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) had repeated his former statement. The grievance was not confined to any particular expenditure. It referred to the general system pursued by the Colonial Office; and the complaint was that the Colonial Minister of this country expended £1,000,000 per annum without the slightest check or control from any person in the world. [Mr. ADDERLEY: No, no!] Well, was that expenditure controlled by the House? The state of the House when colonial matters were brought forward showed that hon. Members did not take the slightest interest in them; and it was almost impossible to discuss them except when a Vote was proposed in Committee of Supply. On the previous discussion the House would have been counted out but for the accidental circumstance that the Government wanted to pass a Vote in Supply, and the result would probably have been the same on the present occasion but for a similar reason. Not only was there no control by the House over the expenditure in Ceylon, but there was no control whatever. Now, what was wanted was that there should be an efficient control vested in the colony itself. It was

  979
  quite true that there was a Legislative Council, and that money votes were brought before that Council; but of the sixteen Members who composed it ten were official servants of the Government, who were compelled to vote according to instructions sent out from this country. He strongly urged the Government to consider the question, and to devise some means for checking our colonial expenditure. He believed that representative institutions had been granted far too soon in many of the colonies, and there was great danger lest the refusal to redress real grievances might lead to an extension of that practice. There was first a refusal to listen to just complaints, and then violent agitation having been excited, extravagant concessions were made for the purpose of allaying that agitation. He did not believe that the Colonial Office was at all ill managed; but he did think that at a time like the present, when the House of Commons took no interest in colonial affairs, it was desirable to provide some machinery by which the action of the Colonial Office in expending a sum of £1,000,000 per annum should be effectively controlled.
  COLONEL SYKESobjected to the assertion of the Under Secretary of State that the governors of the colonies must be autocrats. They could not expect any body of Englishmen to submit to a system of Government which deprived them of all real control over their expenditure. But that was precisely the state of things at present in Ceylon. There was a Legislative Council, but the Government officers by their votes rendered popular control impossible. He would ask, why were these Crown Colonies kept in the hands of the Colonial Office? The answer was, because of the patronage they brought in the appointments of governors, and judges, and others. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin) was undoubtedly right in the view he had taken of this matter, and in bringing it before the House.
  MR. CHILDERSagreed very much in the spirit of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Gorst) that it was almost hopeless to discuss any colonial question in the present state of that House. He also agreed with much that had been stated by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin). Ceylon had not undergone that rigid inspection by the Colonial Office which from time to time was required; and he strongly urged the desirability, if a Committee were not granted, of sending out a Commission to Ceylon to look very
  980
  thoroughly into the whole system of administration there. Such a course would, he was convinced, be most beneficial not only to Imperial but Colonial interests. He believed the Government of Ceylon was not well administered; from careful inspection of official documents he could say that a great deal ought to be done with respect to the finance of the colony. But he should feel considerable difficulty in voting for this Motion, because it must be considered in connection with the Papers which had been laid on the table; and he was bound to say that those Papers disclosed such extraordinary doctrines that the House could not allow itself to appear to give any sanction to them. The whole of this movement was based on a Paper which emanated from the gentlemen who called themselves the Ceylon League. That Paper had been laid on the table, and he would quote only this one sentence from it—
  "The public of Ceylon will, at present be satisfied with such a concession as will give them the enjoyment, through their Representatives in Council, of the constitutional right of full control of the local revenues, freed from the dictation of the Governor or the Secretary of State."
  The meaning of that was, that representatives of the white population, consisting of 3,000 should have entire control over the revenues without reference to the wishes of the Native population, amounting to 2,500,000. He thought such a position would be monstrous, and he trusted no one on either side of the House would support such a doctrine. But if the Committee were moved for on the ground of the bad Government of Ceylon, he thought there was ground for supporting it. The secret of the matter was this. Until within a few years there was no agitation on the part of the people of Ceylon with respect to the financial administration of the colony. There had been a considerable surplus, which was accumulating. Some years ago a Committee of this House reported that the colony did not bear anything like its proper share of military expenditure, and that that share ought to be increased; and the Government wrote to the Governor to the effect that there being a large surplus every year a portion of it should be applied to relieve the military expenditure. The planters then urged the Governor to expend more money, and the real object of the agitation has been to obtain for them not the power of refusing expenditure, but of increasing it in spite of the Government. Now that was not constitutional.

  981
  Even in that House they could not force upon the Government any particular course of expenditure. It was such a system which broke down the Government of Jamaica. The agitation going on at Ceylon was that of a minority to force the expenditure of money in the colony, and thereby to reduce the surplus, so that the colony should not have funds out of which to bear their share of the military expenditure. It seemed to him that, by countenancing such a movement Parliament would be adopting a retrograde policy. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might properly object to the Motion; but he hoped the Government would consent to send out a Commission of Inquiry.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had hardly done justice to the Paper which he had quoted. The paragraphs preceding the extract which he had read considerably modified that passage. The spirit of the Paper referred to was this:—That the Government officials in Ceylon had an absolute majority in the Council with regard to the control of expenditure. Ceylon was too large an island to be placed on the same footing as some small West Indian islands, and the people of Ceylon wished that un-officials should have a majority in the Ceylon Council. They wished that should be effected in one of two ways—either by increasing the number of the unofficial men, or by diminishing the number of the official men. He thought that was a very fair proposal. A remark of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that only a small minority supported this proposal, put him in mind of an anecdote which was related to him by Mr. Abercrombie, a former Speaker of the House. Mr. Abercrombie told him that at the commencement of the anti-Corn Law agitation a division took place in which only twelve Members voted in the minority, and that when he (Mr. Abercrombie), one of the minority, was marching out of the House to give his vote, he heard one of the Members of the majority say, "There are just a dozen of them, and they have not an acre among them." That, no doubt, was thought a conclusive argument by the Member who adopted it. He believed it was true, that the twelve had not an acre amongst them, but they had brains; and they inoculated the country with the truth of the proposition that they advocated. That truth prevailed; the majority of the House adopted it, and there was now no one on either side of the House who would say that they
  982
  did not arrive at a right conclusion. It was vain to say as an argument against the demand of the Ceylon League, that only a minority were in favour of it.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, that if the hon. Member did not go to a vote upon this question, he should, in future, walk out of the House whenever the hon. Gentleman brought forward any other Motion of a similar nature. He protested against the House being turned into a mere debating society. Hon. Members brought forward Motions of this description, and after they had impeded the progress of Public Business they withdrew them and the matter ended in smoke. He hoped that the hon. Member would press the question to a division. The very fact that the Under Secretary for the Colonies, and an Under Secretary under the last Administration, had combined in defending the present state of things in Ceylon, convinced him that there must be something rotten in the Ceylon Government.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that having spent some time in Ceylon, and having had in former times a pecuniary connection with the island, he felt an interest in its condition. Ceylon was a conquest of the Crown, and whatever might be the opinion of the gentlemen represented by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin), it was the duty of the Government to take care of the 2,500,000 of Natives, and not of the 3,000 Europeans only. In order to protect the Natives of the island, the supreme Government should be vested in officers who were responsible to the Crown, and not in a mock popular Council, selected from a few commercial European inhabitants. To place the supreme power in the hands of the Natives would only give rise to false hopes, and would be likely to lead to sedition and insurrection.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  MR. WATKINdesired to state that he had said "Aye" to the Motion which involved the rejection of the Committee for which he had moved in the belief that he was supporting his own proposal. He had certainly intended to press the matter to a division.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEstated that all the Members in his neighbourhood had shared in and acted under the same misapprehension.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £59,920, 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, 1869, for the British Embassy Houses, Chapel, Consular Offices, &c. at Constantinople, China, and Japan."
MR. MONKcalled attention to the proposed expenditure of £9,920 for British Consulate and Embassy houses at Constantinople. A new Embassy house was proposed to be built at Therapia. A most extravagant system was being pursued with respect to the Embassy house at Constantinople; and it was the duty of Parliament to take steps for the reduction of the sums charged upon the country for the purpose of maintaining that establishment. He would quote the following figures to prove how the expenditure had gone on increasing, and to show the enormous sums which had been voted for our Ambassador's houses at Constantinople during the last few years. In 1863–4 the estimate was £4,352, subsequently reduced by a sum of £400; in 1864–5, £3,200; in 1865–6, £3,455; in 1866–7, £3,000; in 1867–8, £4,000; and in 1868–9 it has reached the grand sum of £9,920. He pointed out that last year Parliament had voted a sum of £350 for iron shutters for the building at Therapia, which, if the present proposal were carried out, would be money thrown away. Twenty years ago upwards of £80,000 had been expended in building an Ambassador's palace at Pera, and since that thousands of pounds had been spent in keeping it in repair. He had been at the palace at Therapia, which was very pleasantly situated on the Bosphorus. He thought it was quite unnecessary to spend so large a sum for a new palace, and he hoped the Committee would not sanction the proposal. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £6,000, the sum proposed for the new Embassy house at Therapia.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Item of £6,000, for the Embassy House at Therapia, be omitted from the proposed Vote,"—(Mr. Monk.)
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that the reduction now proposed was microscopic. There
984
was an enormous increase in the Civil Service Estimates this year. They were divided into seven classes, and there was an increase in every class except two. In the first class there was an increase of £198,000.
THE CHAIRMANcalled the hon. and gallant Member to order. The Motion before the Committee is to omit an item from Vote 1, and the discussion must be confined to that item.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he had expected an explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury in introducing the Estimates. Failing that, he had asked the Speaker whether he (Colonel Sykes) could make his comments when the first Vote was moved, and the right hon. Gentleman had told him that the Chairman of Committees would decide. There was an increase in the Estimates this year of upwards of £1,200,000, and the country should be made aware of the fact.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
COLONEL SYKES: Then, Sir, I shall not speak at all.
MR. LABOUCHEREfeared that the matter was not fully understood by the Committee. Not only at the Embassy house at Constantinople and Therapia, but at the Consulate houses, everything was in an exceedingly bad state of repair, and the real reason why Parliament was so often asked for money was that we had not adopted the best and cheapest course by pulling down the old houses and building new ones. His hon. Friend near him had spoken of the "summer palace" at Therapia. He (Mr. Labouchere) had had the misfortune to live in that palace; and the fact was that so far from being in reality a palace the buildings in question were simply three sheds, nothing better than an old farmhouse, and in exceedingly bad repair. When he resided there he could hardly sleep in consequence of the number of scorpions with which the house was infested. Those who had been much in Turkey knew that when houses became old and full of holes the scorpions multiplied with great rapidity. He believed, in fact, that the thin sheds at Therapia were by this time quite uninhabitable, and that instead of a few hundreds to buy shutters, it was far cheaper to spend £10,000 in one sum, not to build palaces, but a habitable house for the Ambassador's residence in summer. He would, however, ask the Secretary to the Treasury to defer the vote until after some communication with Contantinople,

985
because he (Mr. Labouchere) thought he could show how the necessary house could be built without cost to this country. The Sultan had given to this country a tract of land, on which the present dilapidated sheds stood, with a large frontage to the Bosphorus. Now a frontage on the European side of the Bosphorus resembled in comparative value a frontage in a fashionable London street, and this particular frontage was a quarter of a mile in length. No Turk ever thought of occupying so large a frontage as this by his garden; he would place his villa on the borders of the Bosphorus, and let his garden extend in the rear. He thought he was not wrong in stating that when Sir Henry Bulwer was Ambassador at Constantinople, he proposed to sell a small portion of this frontage, which he estimated would fetch £10,000, and with that sum to build a new house. The only feasible objection urged against that plan was that the land was the gift of the Sultan; but he had consulted many Turks as to what their habit was when the Sultan presented them with estates, a thing which frequently occurred, as the Sultan, being heir to all who died intestate within his dominions, had annually a good many estates on his hands. They told him that they sold these presents; that it was the custom of the country, and that there was nothing in the act derogatory to the Sultan. On the contrary, they thought it would be complimentary to the Sultan to replace the three sheds by a handsome building, reared at the cost of a small portion of the outlying grounds. In fact it would be more complimentary to the Sultan to build the Ambassador's house out of funds so obtained than out of money sent from this country. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would not press his Motion, but that the Secretary to the Treasury would defer the Vote until he had had the means of communicating with Constantinople.
MR. KARSLAKEsaid, that as one who had spent much time in Constantinople, he knew of no Vote which the Committee should more readily sanction than this. If the Turks had been left to judge of England's power by what they saw among themselves before the Crimean War, their estimate would have been very low. England had nothing in the country to compare with the handsome buildings of the Russians; and though England's prestige had been lately re-established in the East, he thought it would be only prudent to
986
make a little display in the shape of a respectable dwelling for an Ambassador.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that the sum spent on the iron shutters would not be thrown away, as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) complained, because they would be used in the new building. Touching the question generally, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Labouchere), that the buildings referred to could not be called a palace; they simply formed a country residence of most unpretending character for the British Embassy; and, in answer to the question why they were not pulled down, and replaced by an entirely new and substantial building, he answered that this was precisely what the Government proposed to do, although the operations might extend over two years. At this distance from the locality, which was from personal experience quite unknown to him, he was prepared neither to accept nor reject the proposal referred to by the hon. Member for Middlesex; but he pointed out that, however worthy of attention the suggestion might be, it had no material bearing on the question at issue, because if, on inquiry, it was found prudent to sell surplus land and devote the proceeds to building the houses required, the sale could be effected at any time hereafter, and the Treasury could then recoup itself from the sum realized; the building must be paid for out of a Vote, and then credit might be given for the proceeds of the surplus lands in the Estimates next year. The question before the Committee naturally divided itself into three branches—Was a house at Therapia necessary? Was the present house in a proper state of repair? And, presuming these questions to be answered in the affirmative, was the proposed mode of dealing with the question sufficiently economical? Respecting the first point, he believed there could be no doubt. We had always had a house at Therapia; because Pera was very unhealthy during the summer, and because it would be extremely inconvenient if our Embassy remained at Constantinople during the summer, when the Government of the country and all the other embassies had removed to Therapia. On the second point—a Report received last autumn from the English Ambassador at Constantinople, stated that it would be hardly possible for the gentlemen of the Embassy to continue to inhabit the buildings unless something was done to them; and, as regarded the servants' portion of

987
the building, it was simply unfit for human habitation. A recent Report, by Colonel Gordon, clearly showed the present house at Therapia was past all repair. With regard to the manner in which those repairs were to be executed, all he could say was that a gentleman had been sent out from the Treasury, especially charged with the duty of investigating them and other kindred matters, and the Government had simply abided by his Report.
MR. POWELLsaid, that if the ordinary repairs were on so large a scale as £2,600, it was evident that the buildings must be in such a condition as to render their total re-construction not only wise but economical. Having visited the Bosphorus during the past autumn he could testify that the houses were worn out, and that their condition was such as to render them a byword among the native population. The buildings had been handed over by a former Sultan; and the Ambassadors had suffered some inconvenience with regard to them on account of their possessing certain features of antiquarian interest.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKobjected to the building of a palace for a country house. He feared that if the Committee voted £10,000 for the purpose this year, they would be called upon for further Votes for decoration and furniture next year or the year after. They had much better give the Ambassador a proper sum and let him provide his own house.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERthought it desirable that the Vote should be postponed until the noble Lord had inquired whether the statement made by the hon. Member for Middlesex, to the effect that a sufficient sum could be obtained, without calling upon the House at all, by the sale of part of the land at Therapia, was well founded.
LORD STANLEYsaid, even if it were determined that a portion of the land at Therapia ought to be sold with a view of recouping the nation for the expenses incurred in building, it would not the less have been the duty of the Executive to submit this Vote, in order to bring the expenditure under the notice of the House.
SIR GEORGE BOWYER: But will the noble Lord undertake to enquire whether we can recoup ourselves in the manner suggested?
LORD STANLEY: I have no objection to make the inquiry.
MR. AYTOUNasked, by whom the plan for the new palace had been drawn, and whether it was by an officer in the Royal
988
Engineers, his opinion being that officers in the Royal Engineers were incompetent to erect buildings of this character; also, whether an opportunity would be afforded to Members of acquainting themselves with the details?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the plan had been sent home by Colonel Gordon, an Engineer officer appointed by the late Government to superintend the Consular buildings and other works belonging to this country at Constantinople. The total estimate was £10,000, and, as it was supposed that the building would occupy a year and a half, it was proposed to take a Vote of £6,000 this year, with the intention of following it up next year with a Vote of £4,000.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, nobody would suppose for a moment that the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs would waste the money of the country, but there could be no objection, he thought, to postponing the Vote. He believed that if the Embassy at Constantinople were made to understand that the building of the new house would be contingent upon their finding the money, there would be a much better prospect of the money being provided in the way he had suggested than if the House of Commons voted it ill the first instance. Part of the land is now used as a kitchen garden. People in their senses did not think of having kitchen gardens on the Bosphorus. The surplus land might be sold for the full amount of £10,000. As to the suggestion that a Minister should hire a house at Therapia, there must first be a house to hire. Those Ministers for whom houses had not been built at Therapia were obliged, at great inconvenience, to go to Prince's Island.
MR. MONKsaid, he wished to know whether the plans had been drawn by Colonel Gordon himself, and whether the specifications were at the Treasury? Last year the House was informed that the Government had given this matter their careful consideration, and had come to the conclusion, that as the Ambassador was at Therapia only a short time in the year, a new building for a summer residence was; not necessary. He asked the House to pause before giving its sanction to a proposal nominally to expend £10,000, but really to commit itself to an unforeseen expenditure.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the plan sent home by Colonel

989
Gordon he presumed was his own drawings; at all events, he was responsible for it. He did not think there were any specifications at the Treasury; but an estimate had been sent home by Colonel Gordon, and they were acting on his advice in the matter.
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEcontended that a large expenditure of this nature ought not to be sanctioned before the assembling of the new Parliament. He despaired of the present Parliament doing anything really practical or useful with respect to the Estimates.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the House having, in 1863, negatived the Vote for the employment of a civil architect at Constantinople, the buildings there were practically not under the charge of anybody with professional experience. When he came to the Treasury in 1865 he found that very large estimates of work to be done had been sent home, yet there was nobody to whom application could be made for information, the clerk of the works having of necessity been brought home and pensioned off, at considerable cost, in accordance with the Vote of the House. After careful inquiry Colonel Gordon, then Major Gordon, an officer of Engineers, who had other employment at Constantinople, and who was certified to be perfectly competent to superintend these buildings, was appointed with a salary of £300 a year, and was instructed to go thoroughly into all questions of repairs, and see whether it was proper to preserve the old palace at Therapia or not. Having made that appointment, be left the Treasury long before Colonel Gordon's Report was received, and knew nothing of what had happened since; but, knowing that if Colonel Gordon had not been appointed there would have been no one to do the work at all, and presuming that the Government had acted upon his Report to the best of their discretion, he could not oppose the present Vote.
MR. MONKasked, whether the noble Lord would not postpone the item till plans and specifications were before them?
LORD STANLEYsaid, he was anxious to consult the convenience of the House, but he did not think this was a case for postponement. The feeling of the Committee seemed to be that the preservation of the house at Therapia was desirable. It was admitted that the premises were tumbling to pieces, and it followed that some part of the expense of re-building ought at once to be voted.
MR. AYRTONsuggested, that perhaps his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) would be satisfied if the Government engaged not to embark in this expenditure till they knew its extent. The history of those buildings at Constantinople was a somewhat curious one. Some years ago a statement was made to the effect that it was necessary to take some means to secure the Ambassador against the danger of being burnt in the conflagrations which sometimes took place in that city. Upon that a house was begun at a sum of £14,000—enough to build a fine mansion; but the work went on until the Government had spent £80,000 and upwards. Then there was £10,000 for furnishing, and finally the expenditure reached £100,000. The amount spent annually in keeping the house in decorative repair was as much as the salary paid to some of our diplomatic agents at minor Courts. We had appealed to the eye of the Turks by providing the largest Embassy house in Constantinople, fine Consular buildings, a prison, and a hospital, and if in addition to all this the Ambassador was to have a country house rivalling the other palaces on the Bosphorus let Parliament first be satisfied that the estimated cost would not be exceeded.
MR. M'LARENsaid, they could not have an estimate without a specification. An officer of Engineers had sent in a plan, and, according to his idea, the house would cost £10,000; but another man might have quite another idea—might think the house should be finished and decorated in quite a different way, and the house might cost three or four times the amount now talked of. Without a specification the estimate was a sham.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he presumed that the estimate of Colonel Gordon was made upon certain data, though the specifications might not be in the Treasury; and it would be a most unusual thing for a Committee of Supply to require a specification to be made out in detail for any public buildings. The Government had no intention of exceeding Colonel Gordon's estimate.
MR. OTWAYsaid, that although it was not usual to ask for specifications, it was the duty of the Minister before proposing a Vote to ascertain that the charge was a proper one. Officers of Engineers were the most expensive gentlemen to be found for the construction of any work, and their employment had cost the country millions. When a Royal Engineer was appointed to

991
superintend a work another person had to accompany him to take out the quantities. They had no reason to suppose there was any specification in this case, and from the experience at Constantinople they might look for an expenditure of £40,000 instead of £10,000. He should recommend the hon. Gentlemen to divide against the item.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 37: Majority 17.
Original Question again proposed.
COLONEL SYKESwished to have some explanation of the item respecting Consular buildings in China.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKalso wished to hear some explanation respecting the sums asked for Consular buildings abroad, especially in China and Japan. He objected to the present arrangement of the Estimate, which was very puzzling and prevented hon. Members from knowing precisely what they were asked to vote. He doubted the propriety of laying out the money which was asked for Consular buildings in Japan, and as an illustration of the necessity for mature consideration in regard to expending money in the country he referred to a paragraph in The Times' City Article of that morning, which mentioned that there was a town near Yohokama which was magnificent for a settlement, and was on the shores of a lake as large as the Lake of Geneva. Unless details were forthcoming he should divide the Committee on the item respecting Japan.
MR. CHILDERSobserved, in reference to a remark of the last speaker, that the Estimates were now arranged in accordance with the provisions of an Act of Parliament passed a few years ago, and in accordance with the advice of the Public Accounts Committee. As to this particular Vote, in 1865 the Treasury, finding that large demands were made from the Foreign Office for Consular buildings in China and Japan, determined not to sanction at that time any additional expenditure; but merely took a Vote to finish the works then in hand, and sent out an officer to visit the different stations and report as to the requirements of each. That being so, it was much to be regretted that the old fault had now been again made of not giving distinct details in the Estimates of the sums required in each case. He might add that when the consular Vote came before the Committee he should take the opportunity
992
of criticizing it. He believed they were retaining Consular establishments in Japan which were outrageously extravagant. With respect to this Vote he thought the House ought to have further information before it voted so large a sum. It was almost impossible to express an opinion upon a lump Vote of £179,000.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, that the Government ought to be prepared to furnish some information as to the places where and the objects for which the expenditure was to be incurred. There was one source of expenditure of which the Committee ought to be made aware. We had succeeded in getting China thrown open to foreigners, and some of the most disorderly characters from Europe had gone there. It was absolutely necessary that there should be some British authority to control these persons. If by admitting them we destroyed the authority of the Native Government, we ought in some degree to replace it, at least to the extent of keeping our own countrymen in order.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he held in his hand a list of thirteen places in China and three in Japan at which the money would be expended. Of the total of £179,000, £50,000 was the estimated cost of new buildings at Shanghai alone. In addition new buildings were required at Canton, Foochow, Ningpo, and other places. The principle of this expenditure had been already sanctioned by the Treasury and by previous Votes of the Committee; and the total Vote was submitted this year on the principle that if the expenditure was to be incurred, the sooner the money was spent the better, for then the Government could dispense with the services of the gentleman who was superintending the outlay — Major Grossman, who had proved himself to be a useful public servant, had been sent out to Canton, and was responsible for the way in which this money was spent in China and Japan. There was every reason to suppose that he would conduct the business with due regard to economy. He might remind the Committee that large sums had been realized by the re-sales of land at Shanghai, at prices beyond its original cost; the aggregate gain would perhaps be £50,000 or £60,000, and therefore this outlay was not altogether one of money out of pocket.
MR. CHILDERSthought the Secretary to the Treasury was mistaken in one respect; for he did not believe that the House was committed to this expenditure. On

993
the contrary, his impression was that no sum had previously been named as the total required, and this was the first year that that total appeared in the Estimates. Certainly it did not appear in the Estimates for which he was responsible; for he refused to adopt any sum until he received the Report of the officer sent out to visit nil the stations in China and Japan, and report upon their requirements. Upon that the Treasury and the Foreign Office were to be responsible for the expenditure recommended in each case. The officer selected, Major Crossman, had, he believed, made very considerable reductions upon the schemes of the Consular authorities, sometimes to the extent of one-half of what they proposed. More distinct information ought to be given as to the intended expenditure at each place.
COLONEL FRENCHasked, if any Report had been made with reference to the matter under discussion?
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that the Chinese Government had never parted with the freehold of the land required by the English Government; they had simply let it to us at a rent. It was hardly credible that such large sums could be necessary.
MR. OTWAYsaid, that an Engineer officer had been sent out on a roving commission, who said they would require to expend £179,000, but did not inform them on what they were to lay it out. The Secretary to the Treasury had said that the Committee were pledged to the Vote by what had taken place last year on the subject. Now, he was informed that there was no Estimate of this kind last year. Would they commit themselves to sanction a Vote of £179,000, by voting a portion of it now?
MR. AYRTONsaid, that the Vote furnished an illustration of the way in which the House drifted into expenditure of this kind. Several years ago a distinct understanding was come to that the Government should never incur expenditure on public works in excess of the amount of the Vote proposed unless the full extent of the intended expenditure was stated. In this matter, last Session, the Government simply proposed a Vote of £20,000 for Consular buildings in China and Japan, and there was no suggestion that they were embarking in further expenditure; and yet it was now said that the Vote of £20,000 was a mere Vote on account, and that they were committed to an expenditure of £179,000.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the alteration in the form of the Estimates this year, in consequence of the passing of the Exchequer Audit Act, made it difficult for hon. Members to follow the Vote from last year to this. From the Estimates of last year it appeared that in the year 1866–7 a Vote was taken of £20,000 under the heading "Buildings at several Consular Stations." A similar Vote of £20,000 was taken last year under the same heading. On that occasion the Committee did not require a list of the stations at which these buildings were to be erected. He was willing to admit it would have been better if they had been given. The omission had now been supplied by the Secretary to the Treasury. It appeared that they included Canton, Foochow, Ningpo, Tien-tsin, and other places, the names of which, however, would not afford much information to hon. Members unacquainted with the country. Major Crossman was sent out to China and Japan expressly to control the expenditure on these Consular buildings; for it had been found by the late Government that the Consular authorities were more anxious to study their own convenience than economy, and were proposing works regardless of their cost. To put an end to this, his hon. Friend opposite sent out a person in whom he had confidence, to report what was really necessary. Reports had been sent home of the requirements of the different stations, and the expenditure necessary was estimated at £179,000. Of this, £50,000 was required for the Supreme Court at Shangai, leaving £129,000 for the twelve other stations. When an officer was at that distance it was difficult to specify at which stations the building should be begun; and he was therefore instructed to begin building at such stations as it would be most convenient for him to superintend. It was difficult also to find out at such a distance where the money would be spent during the current year. The Government, therefore, could only act generally, and they came to the conclusion that it would be best to leave the control to Major Crossman.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that this expenditure had been going on for several years, and although on the face of these Estimates, the House was supposed to have voted only £40,000, it had really voted much more. Having regard to the small number of Europeans at Chinkiang and another place, he thought it would be unwise

995
to have these expensive Consular buildings there. He had great confidence in Major Crossman, and it would be well that his Report respecting past and future buildings should be placed on the table.
MR. LABOUCHEREasked the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, whether it was contemplated to build at Pekin?
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that some details should be given of the expenditure at Japan, and meanwhile moved that the Vote should be reduced by £15,000, the proposed expenditure there.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Item of £13,000, for Consular Buildings in Japan, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Lusk.)
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that the Committee was left in the dark as to the mode in which this expenditure was to be distributed, as regarded the several Chinese ports. He would suggest that the Papers supplied to the House should state the number of European subjects residing at the places where these Consular buildings were required.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he must point out that in Japan you could hardly hire houses; for you could not hire the houses of the Daimios, and there were hardly any others that were fit for the residence of Europeans. Moreover, the system of hiring instead of building was exceedingly expensive. As the Committee were aware, two new ports were opened at Japan, and when new ports were opened it was necessary to have Consuls and Consular residences. In China we were at present paying £8,000 a year for buildings occupied for Consular purposes, and even then complaints were frequent respecting the accommodation. £8,000 capitalized represented a sum of £200,000, and the expenditure on buildings must not therefore be regarded as wasted, but rather as a reproductive investment.
COLONEL FRENCHasked, if there was any objection to produce the Report of Major Crossman?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, there would be no objection to produce Major Crossman's Report. At all events a statement should be made showing the distribution of the money which it was proposed to spend.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKinquired, whether it was intended to build an Embassy house at Pekin?
LORD STANLEYsaid, that there was a very extensive, and he believed a very good Embassy house at Pekin. He did not undertake to say that it might not want repair, nor that some additional buildings might not be required; but there was no intention to undertake building on a large scale there.
MR. WATKINcomplained that they had no information as to the total amount which had been voted from the beginning in reference to Constantinople and other places.
LORD STANLEYobserved that a Return had been moved for which would give the information.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he wished to know whether £15,000 was all that would be required with respect to Consular residences in Japan? Last year the House voted £20,000 for Consular residences in China; and this year the House was told that, because it voted that amount, it bound itself to vote £179,000 for Consular residences in China, for the purpose of completing the business. He wished to know whether the £15,000 now asked for Consular residences in Japan was only a portion of a greater sum, as in the case of the Consular residences in China?
MR. CANDLISHsaid, the Committee need not expect that by granting, money for the building of Consular residences, they would get rid of annual charges with regard to the residences of our Consuls abroad. He observed that there was an item of £2,000 for ordinary repairs of the Consular residence at Constantinople. The buildings at distant stations seemed always to want repairing, and he thought that in such places it would be better to hire than to purchase houses. He hoped the hon. Member would insist on a division.
MR. CHILDERShoped the Government would give some further explanations.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the House had voted last year the sum of £10,000 for these Services under the head of buildings required at certain stations, and £7,000 the year before that, and besides this there was last year £5,000 for building in Japan. Major Crossman had sent over a Report with respect to the buildings which would be required in Japan, and he believed the sum of £15,000 would have to be spent upon them. The detailed Report, however, had not been sent home as yet. Unless the Committee would trust the Government

997
in this matter the consequence might be they would have no money to go on with, and that, owing to the distance. Major Crossman's time might be, to a great extent, thrown away. The Committee must be aware that, in dealing with matters of this sort at so great a distance, it was impossible to have the same particulars and details as might be had in the case of buildings nearer home. A great deal must be left to the discretion of Major Crossman, who was on the spot, and it was therefore wholly impossible to give the Committee all the information they might desire. The late Government had acted very judiciously in sending out Major Crossman, and he trusted that the Committee would not, by its Vote on this occasion, render that officer's mission of no avail.
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEinquired, whether Major Crossman was not at this moment in England?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was not; he was abroad superintending these works. He had recommended that expenditure should be incurred at thirteen places.
MR. NEATEurged that the Committee should trust the Government. The amount was not a very large one, and as they knew they had not a very flourishing Budget, it was the interest of the Government to be as economical as possible. His experience was that there was an excessive cutting down of the Estimates at the Treasury.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2.) £8,000, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Fire Brigade.
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £8,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1869, for the purchase of Ground and for the Erection of a House for Her Majesty's Mission at Teheran."
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he decidedly objected to this new Vote; because if it were agreed to, no doubt it would be followed in future years by larger Votes. Next year they would be told that the Committee had voted so much this year, and so the thing would go on. He wanted to nip the matter in the bud, and therefore he moved that the Vote be disallowed.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had always been under the impression that there was a very good house at Teheran. He agreed with those who thought it far better to build than to hire a house; but he thought that the Committee ought to have some definite information as to how much money it would be necessary to expend upon it. Were they, for instance, going to send out European furniture? If they were it might cost as much as the house itself.
COLONEL SYKESwished to know, if it was proposed to erect a new mission-house in Teheran, this never having been considered necessary before? We had had a mission to Teheran for half a century, and our Chargé d'affaires used to find a house for himself.
LORD STANLEYsaid, this was a great mistake, as there was a mission-house which had been built in the early part of the present century, and the land on which it stood was British property. Of course, it was very unfortunate that houses should tumble down and fall into such a state that they could no longer be inhabited, but so it was. The matter had been inquired into by two engineers on the spot, who reported that the mission premises were partly uninhabitable and partly in need of extensive repairs, and that the site was unhealthy. On these representations it was thought desirable to remove the residence to a somewhat healthier quarter. The old house and land would be sold, and the sum obtained by the sale would defray a considerable part of the expense of the new buildings, which were not intended to be in any way superior.
MR. LABOUCHEREhad the same objection to this Vote that he had had to that respecting Constantinople. It was for the purchase of land for the new house; and before the Committee was asked to grant £20,000 for that purpose, he really thought that it should be told what was the price that the old site was likely to fetch. He believed that the present house was unhealthy, and he desired to know, what superiority the new site would possess over it in that respect?
LORD STANLEYsaid, a conjectural estimate might, no doubt, be furnished of what the land would sell for, but this would be of no practical value, as the price of land at Teheran could not be estimated beforehand, as it might be in London. The old site could not be disposed of till the new house was built.
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he considered that the House was sitting to no good purpose, after the Vote of the other night. He thought they ought to finish up their concerns, garnish their house, and set it in order for the new Parliament, which he hoped would be more economical than any Parliament they had ever seen. It was very wrong of the Government, when they hardly knew that they were any Government at all, except on suffrance, to insist on pressing new Votes. The best thing they could do was to complete the Votes already partly taken, and shut up shop as fast as they could.
MR. CHILDERSsuggested to the noble Lord, as a large deficit in the Revenue was unavoidable this year, it would be better to postpone this Vote to another year.
LORD STANLEYsaid, no doubt it might be possible to keep the present buildings in repair for two or three years longer; but the price of land in Teheran, both for letting and selling, was rising every year. Ten years ago that which it was now proposed to do might have been done much more cheaply. He did not put this as a matter of extreme urgency; but from all the information he had, and the best judgment he could form, he believed the expense would be greater the longer it was delayed.
MR. GOLDNEYthought they ought to pass this Vote, after the explanations given by the noble Lord.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that if the price of land at Teheran was rising, the value of the old site might be expected to rise in proportion.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Treasury had accepted the proposition to build a new house at Teheran with very great reluctance, and only on the ground that it was by far the most economical step that could be taken. It was extremely undesirable that the Vote should be withdrawn; because they would have to spend a great deal of money in keeping the old house in repair.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that in that case he hoped the Vote would be agreed to. If it was intended to build a new house in two or three years' time it would be mere folly to spend £2,000 or £3,000 in tinkering up the old buildings.
MR. GREENEthought it bad taste for the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) to remind people who were going to die of the fate that was
1000
before them. He supported the Vote on economical principles.
Question put: The Committee divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 25: Majority 45.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) £103,675, to complete the sum for certain Harbours of Refuge, &c.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKcalled the attention of the Government to the fact that in the case of Alderney there was some discrepancy to be explained. Of the total amount of £1,274,000 voted, £1,226,861 had been expended, leaving a balance of £47,000 of which £9,000, excess of former Votes, was to be surrendered; whereas it was now proposed to vote £56,000, which would exceed the total.
MR. GRAVESsaid, the sum asked this year for Alderney was £56,000, or an increase of £13,800 upon the amount voted last year. He confessed he had great doubts as to the propriety of any large expenditure upon Alderney. He had visited the place recently, and was quite unable to ascertain what we shall gain from the large and increasing outlay which went on there. The impression he had derived from his inspection was that they might as well throw the money into the sea as go on with the construction of that harbour, further than the most simple and speediest completion.. It could not contain more than four or five first-class ships, and it would take a garrison of 10,000 men to defend it. It was desirable to bring the expenditure upon these works to an end.
MR. CANDLISHpointed out that the sum proposed this year for Holyhead Harbour, together with the amount previously taken for it, would exceed the estimated cost of the works there. The Estimate had also been exceeded at Dover. He wished to inquire of the Government, whether any idea could be given of the total expenditure which would be required to complete the works at those Harbours?
MR. STEPHEN CAVEwas not going to defend what had been done at Alderney. For the works at that place £1,300,000 had long ago been estimated as the sum necessary. When they had gone so far with those works it was requisite to go a certain length further, and not leave them in an unfinished state, which would be really dangerous to shipping. Whether the works would be advantageous to shipping under any circumstances was a point

1001
on which he was not called on to express any opinion; but the increased Estimate this year for Alderney was simply owing to the works being pushed on with greater rapidity, and not to any proposed extension of them beyond the point to which the original Estimate had been cut down. There was no intention of going beyond that; but it was of great importance, in an economical point of view, to have the works finished as soon as possible. He hoped the Estimate of £1,300,000 would not be exceeded. If it were exceeded, the Government would have to explain the cause of it; and if any fresh works should be proposed they could not be carried out without the previous sanction of Parliament. There was, however, no prospect of anything of the kind, and he trusted that the works at Alderney would shortly be brought to a close. At Dover there had certainly been some excess over the Estimate, because it had been found necessary to extend the pier and build a new pier-head, and to provide protection for the rest of the work. As to Holyhead, considerable expenses had to be incurred in consequence of a breach made by a heavy storm last year at that important harbour. It was necessary to repair the breach at once, and it had been done as economically as possible,
COLONEL FRENCHconfirmed the statement of the right hon. Member (Mr. Cave) with respect to the breach at Holyhead, and said it was absolutely necessary to expend the money in repairing it.
MR. CHILDERSasked, whether, in consideration of the accommodation provided for the mail packets at Holyhead Harbour, by the expenditure of the sum of £6,500 mentioned in the Vote, the Post Office and Treasury had agreed with the mail contractors as to certain conditions with respect to time, which had been the subject of much correspondence; and, if not, what was required to be done before the Post Office would be in a position to impose fines upon the mail contractors for not keeping time?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, it was necessary to expend the sum asked for at Holyhead. He would make inquiries relative to the question of the hon. Member for Pontefract.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKcomplained of this continual outlay upon the harbour of Holyhead, which was simply used for a few steam packets.
MR. GRAVESsaid, he could tell the
1002
hon. Member for Finsbury that it was not an unusual thing to have as many as 300 vessels in Holyhead Harbour at one time. He wished the expenditure upon all their harbours was as profitably laid out as that upon Holyhead. He found that a sum of £496 was asked for Portpatrick Harbour. A very large outlay had been made on that harbour, with a view to make it a packet harbour, but he understood that idea had been abandoned; and if that were the case, why should the harbour be kept up?
MR. BONHAM-CARTERsaid, that it was greatly to the interest of Ireland that they should obtain the best means of communication between Portpatrick and Ireland; and when the necessary amount had been expended it would ensure accuracy of service.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked, if the reason why the penalties had not been enforced against the packet company at Holyhead was because that company alleged that the contract for the execution of the necessary works had not been completed in a proper manner?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHbelieved that there had been a long dispute respecting this matter, and he would take care to inquire into it. He believed there was also some point of dispute as to time. It appeared that a sum of £9,000 would be surrendered to the Exchequer, but that sum had not yet been surrendered.
MR. CANDLISHremarked, that no answer had yet been given with regard to the item which appeared in the Vote respecting Portpatrick.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped that this was the last time an item in connection with Portpatrick would appear in the Estimates; for he was glad to say that it had been decided to abandon that place as a port of departure for the mail packets. The difficulty had arisen in consequence of a Treasury Minute of 1856, in which the Government of that day undertook to make a harbour suitable for packet services. On the faith of that Minute the railway company spent a large sum of money, and the object of the Government had since been to come to some arrangement with the company on the subject. It had at last been arranged that the Government should lend the County Down Railway Company the debenture capital at a lower rate of interest than that which they were now paying, and that Portpatrick should then be finally abandoned

1003
as a mail-packet station. As regarded the Portpatrick Railway Company, although the proposition which they lately made was still under consideration, yet they had at last agreed to give up Portpatrick as a point of departure. They still asked, however, that the spirit of the Treasury Minute should be carried out, and that they should retain the privilege of conveying the mails from some other point. He believed that the whole sum asked for in the Vote for Portpatrick would not be required, inasmuch as it was likely that the staff would be got rid of in the course of the year, although it might be necessary to continue the salary of the superintendent until the repair of a breach which had been made in the pier in January was completed.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) £37,310, to complete the sum for certain Lighthouses Abroad, &c.
MR. CHILDERSdesired some explanation respecting a sum of £11,650, which was put in the Vote for the Little Basses Rocks (at Ceylon) spare lightship. Was it the case that this lightship had answered?
MR. STEPHEN CAVEwas afraid he could not give any more definite answer to this question than that which had been given by previous Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the Board of Trade. After careful consideration, they had come to the conclusion that it would not be justifiable, in the interests of navigation, to take away these lights, and that was all he could say about the matter. The advantage of a light was, of course, negative; and it was impossibly to say how many shipwrecks had been prevented by it.
MR. CHILDERSrepeated his inquiry as to whether the existing arrangement had been found satisfactory or not? Three or four changes of mind on the part of the Department had occurred, but the House had as yet no information that the light was satisfactory.
MR. STEPHEN CAVEbelieved that a lightship had been considered to be the best and must economical plan, though proposals had been made for a permanent construction. The spare ship was necessary in case the other broke adrift.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKdoubted very much whether they knew what they were doing. He did not know why they should take money unless they wanted it. He could not understand why they should take
1004
money away from one Department, and give it back through another.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENwished to know whose duty it was to report to the Board of Trade as to the advisability of these lights? Was it the Admiral on the station, or any other responsible person?
MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that the report was made by the agent to the Trinity House. In the case of a colony, by the Colonial Government.
Vote agreed to.
(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £51,238, 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 1869, for the Maintenance and Repair of the Royal Palaces."
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, this Vote was increasing year by year, and some explanation was necessary with regard to it. There was this year an increase of £14,293 over the amount of last year's Vote. He considered the expenditure enormous. He also noticed that the money spent on palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty was very large. £8,000 was charged for Windsor Castle, and the sum asked for Hampton Court Palace stables and outbuildings, including orangery and vinery, amounted to nearly £8,000. He believed that a certain class of persons were lodged in that place who did not wish to pay their debts; and an action had been brought in the Court of Exchequer against a sheriff for putting the law in force in the case of one of the inmates. He should like to know at whose expense that action was brought. He did not think it was creditable to ask the taxpayers of the country to pay such large sums to keep up these palaces.
MR. CHILDERSasked for some explanation respecting the item for the expense of the re-construction of Romney Lock and Weir, and for the removal of Old Windsor Lock. He believed that in consequence of Romney Lock falling into ruins, some of the water arrangements connected with Windsor Castle were interfered with, and it was originally intended that the expense of the repair of the lock should be only advanced by the Treasury, and repaid from the funds of the Conservancy raised under a Bill before Parliament; but it now appeared that it was to be defrayed by the present Vote.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, when the Conservancy Bill was passed £5,000 was given up to carry out certain drainage improvements, and power was given to impose a certain rate upon the owners of property, for the purpose of diverting the drainage. They were now asked to vote a sum of £15,000 to accomplish the same object, and they ought to see that it was not paid twice over. It ought also to be seen whether they were not in this Vote dealing with the drainage of the whole town.
MR. BENTINCKdrew attention to the item of £500 for cleansing and restoring pictures in Hampton Court Palace. They were not, it appeared, the property of the nation, but of the Crown, and the Crown ought to pay the expenses connected with them.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he could state that no part of the sum asked for in respect of Royal Palaces was devoted to the drainage of the town of Windsor. He thought we had a great deal too many palaces. The palaces which were not in the occupation of the Crown cost about £50,000 a year. The orangery, vinery, stables, and outbuildings of Hampton Court Palace cost £7,313. Now, those who resided in that palace were, from early association, lather reckless in their habits, and in order to point out to them the excellence of economy, he should move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £5,000. £2,313 was quite sufficient for Hampton Court Palace.
LORD JOHN MANNERSexplained that, under the Act of 1866, the Conservators of the Thames gave notice that the drainage of Windsor Castle should no longer find its way to the Thames; it was necessary to divert it at a cost of £8,000, and there was every reason to believe that the plan suggested for the purpose would be found to work well. With respect to the sum necessary for the removal of the lock and other works connected with it, the Conservators had applied to the Government for a contribution towards defraying the expense of the works. Their request was that one-half the sum to be expended should be re-paid by Government, in consequence of the importance of the works for the water supply of Windsor Castle. The expenditure was estimated at £11,000, but the Government only proposed to contribute a sum not exceeding £2,500. In addition to that, the Government had been called upon to divert the drainage of Hampton Court Palace from
1006
the River Thames, and be hoped the plan under consideration would effect that in a satisfactory manner; it would cost £4,500. Under the head of Buckingham Palace there was also an item of £2,150 for cleansing the ornamental water. This explained how the excess on the present Vote had arisen. It would be found that all these additional items together amounted to £17,152, while the excess of the Vote over that of last year was only £14,293. With respect to the pictures at Hampton Court Palace, there had always been a small Vote for cleansing and restoring them. The collection was increasing from year to year; and was under the management of a very competent person, who bestowed great care and attention upon them; and when the hon. Member for Finsbury said these palaces were of no advantage to the public, he could only say that Hampton Court Palace was open to all the world, and the pictures were arranged in such a manner as to render a visit to Hampton Court not only extremely agreeable, but instructive. As to the gardens, they too were open to and much enjoyed by the public. A great portion of the inhabitants of the metropolis habitually derived the greatest possible pleasure from visiting the palace.
MR. CHILDERSremarked that there was no claim on the Government for the lock referred to. There was only a claim for the machinery which sent the water up to Windsor Castle; and it could not cost £2,500 to put the machinery in order.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, the Vote contained many objectionable items, but there was one he considered particularly objectionable—namely, that of upwards of £7,000 for St. James's Palace. He could not understand the use of this palace. Her Majesty did not reside there or hold Her Courts there. Recently Her Majesty's Courts had been held at Buckingham Palace; and if Buckingham Palace was not large enough for the purpose, he should be in favour of additional expenditure in order to make it sufficiently large. He could not conceive why they should sanction the extravagance of keeping up St. James's Palace, when at most it could be used only two or three days in the year, and when there was another palace in the neighbourhood. Everybody who had ever been at a Court at St. James's Palace agreed that it was a most uncomfortable palace for the purpose. He believed that the state of the finances, as it was to be described next

1007
Thursday, would be most disastrous; and he therefore gave notice that, after the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex (Mr. Labonchere), he should move that the vote for St. James's Palace be reduced by £5,636.
MR. LABOUCHEREquite agreed with the noble Lord that great pleasure was derived by the people of the metropolis from visits made to Hampton Court Gardens, and that money could not be better expended than in their maintenance. But he found that under Vote 9, ample provision was made for that purpose, and the Vote of £7,000 odd, which he proposed to reduce by £5,000, was spent, not in the maintenance of those gardens, but upon the stables, vinery, &c. He should like to know who used the stables of Hampton Court Palace. The Court never visited there. He must therefore press his Amendment.
THE CHAIRMANinformed the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Faweett) that if he intended to make his Motion, he must do so before the hon. Member for Middlesex moved his Amendment, as the item to which his Motion refers comes first in the Votes.
MR. FAWCETTthen moved that the sum of £5,636 for Palaces partly in the occupation of Her Majesty, be omitted from the proposed Vote.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Item of £5,636, for Palaces, &c. partly in the occupation of Her Majesty, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEcomplained of the annual increase in the amount of these Votes. It was said the people went to Hampton Court Gardens; so they did, but they had to pay to see the vinery. They went to Kensington Gardens; but that was no reason for spending so much on Kensington Palace. Then there was a vote of £200 for incidental expenses, which was never there before; he should like to know what that was for. He would support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton.
MR. OTWAYwished to call attention to two inconveniences which attended the visits of the people to Hampton Court Gardens. The first was the small number of seats in the gardens and in Bustier Park. He must say he knew no man who was more disposed to attend to the convenience of the public than the noble Lord, and he hoped he would take this matter
1008
into consideration. The next was a matter that especially degraded us in the eyes of foreigners — he meant the meanness of charging a penny for permission to enter the vinery. He hoped the noble Lord would take this matter into his own hands, and make such arrangements as would remove this paltry toll so offensive to the visitors of the vinery by next Sunday.
LORD JOHN MANNERSthought that the number of seats in Bushey Park might be advantageously increased; but he must remind hon. Members that additional seats could not be supplied without an expenditure of money. He hoped, if there was a slight increase in the Votes next year to supply this want, no hon. Gentleman would get up and complain of the extravagance of the Government in reference to it. With respect to the observation of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Guilders), he had been informed that it had been found utterly impossible to throw the whole expense of repairing the lock upon the Conservators, and therefore the Crown had been compelled to contribute its quota proportionately to the benefit it derived from the water supply at Windsor being kept up. With regard to the penny toll on entering the vinery at Hampton Court, he was not ashamed to say that he was not aware of its existence; but now that his attention had been drawn to it he would make inquiries upon the subject.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, the House never complained of any increase in the Votes that were intended for the comfort of Her Majesty, or the convenience of the public, but they did object to expenditure that was entirely useless. There was no justification whatever for the expense now incurred for St. James's Palace. There were few levees held there which could not be held as well in Buckingham Palace, where Her Majesty now held her drawing rooms.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 82: Majority 74.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. LABOUCHEREmoved that from the sum of £7,313 for Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty, the sum of £5,000 be disallowed.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Item of £7,313, for Hampton Court Palace, Stables, and Outbuildings, with Orangery and Vinery, be reduced by the sum of £5,000."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEunderstood that, as he wished to move a still larger reduction, he must do so before the Amendment of the hon. Member for Middlesex was put. He therefore moved the reduction of the whole Vote by £15,000.
THE CHAIRMANstated that he Amendment could not be put, inasmuch as it had been proposed to reduce certain items in the Vote. After such proposals had been decided, it was not in the power of any hon. Member to move a reduction Of the Vote itself.
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEhad taken care to propose his Amendment in time; and was disappointed to find that his submission to the ruling of the Chairman had rendered the proposal of his Amendment irregular.
THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member for Portsmouth that his Amendment could not, in any case, have been put, inasmuch as it had been previously proposed to reduce an item in the Vole, and the House had divided on that proposal.
MR. AYRTONhad always understood that the rules by which the deliberations of the Committees were guided precluded any Member, after any particular item had been decided, to move any reduction in an antecedent item. He had, however, never heard that, after the Committee had decided on particular items, it was incompetent for any hon. Member to move a reduction in the entire Vote, and, as he did not see how their proceedings could be carried on under the rule just laid down, he should take the liberty of moving that the Committee report Progress.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that he had acted under no rule of his own framing, as the following Resolution, agreed to by the House on the 9th of February, 1858, would show—
"That where it has been proposed to omit or reduce items in a Vote, the Question shall afterwards be put on the Original Vote, or the reduced Vote, as the case may be, without Amendment."
MR. BENTINCKasked, whether the pictures at Hampton Court were the property of the Crown, or of the nation. Were they not maintained by sums voted from the Consolidated Fund?
MR. FAWCETTsaid, he wished to ask, whether in the opinion of the Government, it would be possible to adapt Buckingham Palace for the holding of drawing-rooms and levees, so that the cost
1010
at present incurred in the maintenance of St. James's Palace might be saved, and the site of that building might be turned to some useful public purpose? If he were not satisfied on this point, he should bring the matter before the House on a future day, and move for a Select Committee.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the Question of the hon. Member for Brighton was one to which it would be imsible to give an off-hand answer. It was only after the most minute and careful inquiry that the possibility of adapting Buckingham Palace for the holding of drawing-rooms and levees, and the cost of such an undertaking, could be ascertained; and he was not, therefore, then prepared to give the hon. Gentleman the information for which he asked. In answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck), with respect to the pictures at Hampton Court, he apprehended there could be no doubt that the pictures were the property of the Crown.
MR. FAWCETThoped that the noble Lord would make the necessary inquiries respecting the point upon which he had asked for information.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he felt it his duty again to advert to the question of Order already raised. If the rule laid down by the Chairman were permitted to stand, it would amount to a complete estopping of their privileges, as it would make it impossible to move anything but the reduction or omission of particular items. This was a question of such importance that the sooner it was brought under the consideration of the House the better, with a view to its being cleared up. In former times, there were no explanatory items; but now these were so numerous that the effect of the rule might be to cause their whole proceedings to be stopped by the most trivial Motion. For instance, if a Member chose to move a trifling reduction, say of £5, on an Estimate and divide the House upon it, no other Member would thereafter be permitted to move the reduction of the Vote, however weighty might be his reasons for so doing. The question was so grave in its nature that he begged the Committee not to proceed further until an explanatory Resolution had been come to by the House.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERfully concurred in the view of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets. It was most important that the Committee of Supply should have the fullest liberty

1011
in dealing with the Estimates. They should be able to discuss the Votes in the gross, as well as in their items, with a view to the proper control of the expenditure.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Resolution read by the Chairman was founded on a very distinct principle—namely, that the House should not divide twice on the same question. If the wish of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) were complied with, a very unsatisfactory state of things might occasionally arise. One Member might move a reduction of £5,000 in an item and, though he might be unsuccessful, another Member might immediately afterwards move that the whole Vote be reduced by £5,000, which would be virtually seeking a decision twice over. Then, another case might arise. One Member might unsuccessfully move a reduction of £5,000 on one item, a second might move a reduction of £10,000 on another item and be in a minority, and a third might propose a reduction of £7,000 and be in a minority also; yet, the three sections of the Committee who had supported these several Motions might combine, to reduce the whole Vote by the three sums taken together. That state of things would cause great confusion, and prevent the Government from ascertaining with clearness what was the opinion of the House upon the question involved. For these reasons, he thought the Resolution of the House should be adhered to.
Mr. AYRTONrepeated his belief that the rule would place an unreasonable restraint upon the action of Members in Committee of Supply. He insisted on the light of every hon. Member to question the expediency of any vote as a whole. In a Vote of £175,000, there might be, as as in ibis case, an item of £1,219 for "Albert Road." According to the ruling, if one hon. Member who objected to the odd £19 made a motion to that effect, another hon. Member who wished the total amount reduced by £25,000 would be precluded from what was his undoubted right. To object to particular items was unwise, and generally useless; the constitutional policy was to move a general reduction of the amount, leaving it to the Government to reapportion the smaller sum among the different items. The construction now put upon the Resolutions must deprive the Committee of one of its most important powers, and rendered it absolutely necessary that a supplementary
1012
Resolution should be passed upon the subject.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he would ask the Committee to suppose a case where one Member wished to reduce a Vote of £200,000 by one-half, while another Member wished to move the total omission of the Vote. If the Member in favour of the omission of the Vote moved first, the other Member could not be heard; and if on the other hand the Member in favour of the reduction of the Vote by £100,000 moved first, the other would, according to the ruling of the Chairman, be precluded from bringing forward his Motion.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he might answer the hypothetical difficulty raised by the hon. Baronet by saying that it would be his duty to decide such a question when it arose. Of course if the whole Vote were affirmed it would be too late to move any reduction; but the hon. Baronet had fallen into on error in supposing that any one could move the omission of an entire Vote. There was no such Motion. It would be a mere negation of the Motion that the sum of £200,000 be granted to her Majesty.
SIR GEORGE BOWYER: That is no answer to my objection. When once an Amendment has been moved to any item of a Vote the Vote must be put, it is now stated, without Amendment. This pre eludes any Member who wishes to move that the whole Vote be omitted from doing so.
THE CHAIRMAN: If a Motion be made for reducing a Vote, and that be negatived, any other number of Motions may be made afterwards. The hon. Baronet talks of a Motion for the omission of a whole Vote. I say that no such question is put from the Chair. The question is put from the Chair that the whole Vote be granted, and the Member who desires to see it omitted says "No." But the rule is that when once a Motion has been put from the Chair for omitting or reducing an item forming part of a Vote, after that the reduction of the Vote itself cannot be moved. That is the Resolution of February, 1868, and it is in plain and express terms.
MR. GOLDNEYthought the position of the question was this. A Vote might be proposed in its total amount which any Member might move to reduce. If that Motion were negatived it would still be open to him to move the reduction of any item. The ruling of the Chair seemed to him perfectly

1013
clear. Supposing a Vote of £70,000 was proposed. It was competent for any hon. Gentleman to move its reduction by £30,000, and if this were negatived Members might move Amendments on the ten separate items of £7,000 of which the Vote was made up. But after these items had all been disposed of it was not competent to go back upon the whole Vote, and move a reduction upon it. The Amendment might be taken in the first instance against the total amount of the Vote, or against any portion of it, and if it were negatived it was still open to move a reduction in a particular item; but after the items were passed a Member could not move a reduction upon the whole Vote.
COLONEL FRENCHheld that the ruling of the Chairman was correct.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, the practice of setting forth a great number of items in a Vote had grown up since the Resolutions were adopted, and therefore it might be wise for the House to consider whether some alteration might not be made in the Resolutions. But he did not see what good could be gained by prolonging the present discussion, since they had no power in Committee to alter the Resolutions.
MR. SANDFORDsaid, he had never listened to a more monstrous argument than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Different sections of the House might be defeated in turn upon special Motions, and yet they might concur in thinking that the Estimates as a whole had not been framed with a due regard to economy. He thought some alteration of the rule was necessary.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that when the House next went into Committee of Supply he should move a Resolution to amend the Resolution read from the Chair, and to the effect that any hon. Member should have the power of moving the reduction of the whole Vote, notwithstanding that a Member might previously have moved the reduction of a particular item.
MR. SERGEANT GASELEEentered his strong protest against the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Since he had had the honour of a seat in the House he had never heard from a Member of the Government such astounding language.
Question put and negatived.
MR. AYRTONmoved that the Chairman report Progress.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Ayrton,)—put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

BOUNDARY BILL.— [BILL 78]
(Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir James Fergusson.)
BOUNDARY BILL.— [BILL 78]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. GATUORNE HARDY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that as any discussion of the measure would probably be on details, such discussion could best take place in Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)
  MR. HEADLAMdid not wish to oppose the second reading, but thought it right to tell Her Majesty's Government that in some parts of the North of England strong objections were entertained to the machinery of the Bill, especially so far as it related to North and South Shields.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEobjected to the principle of the Bill, which was to take away voters from the country and place them in the towns, thus eliminating the town voters, who were really the Liberal voters. Without going the length of moving the rejection of the Bill, he thought there should be further discussion on this stage, and therefore moved that the House do now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Serjeant Gaselee.)
  MR. CANDLISHdid not think any one could object to the principle of the Bill, which was simply that boundaries should be altered.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday, 30th April.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.