Sitting of 21 March 1881

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, £446,000; NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, £210,000; CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1881–2—Class I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS, Votes 1 to 5.
Resolutions [March 18] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—£1,536,571 4s. 2d., Consolidated Fund; £11,819,046, Consolidated Fund.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Dundalk Water, put off.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Inclosure Provisional Order (Thurstaston Common)* [122]; Army Discipline and Regulation (Annual)* [123]; Union Justices (Ireland)* [124].
Second Reading—Poor Law Officers (Scotland) Superannuation [113].
Committee—Report—Local Taxation Returns (Scotland)* [107].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  DUNDALK WATER BILL (by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. A. M. Sullivan.)
    MR. CALLANsaid, he had requested the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Forster), who usually moved the second reading of Private Bills, to lend the aid of his official position to the present stage of the measure. Although that course had not been taken, he had certainly hoped that the hon. and learned Member who volunteered to move the second reading of the Bill would, at the very least, have favoured the House with some of the reasons which, in his opinion, rendered it desirable that the House should pass such a measure. He (Mr. Callan) had given Notice of his intention to move the rejection of the Bill, and it was alleged against him by the promoters of the measure that, although he had given Notice to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months, he did not represent the constituency that was interested in the Bill; but was merely Member for the County of Louth. If that was a fair charge to make against him, it would apply with double force to the hon. and learned Member who moved the second reading of the Bill, seeing that the only connection of the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) with the town of Dundalk, or with the county in which it was situated, was that the solicitor, whose name appeared on the back of the Bill, was the expenses agent of the hon. and learned Member in the county of Louth at the last General Election. Indeed, he found that in consequence of the neglect of this gentleman the hon. and learned Member for Meath had been rendered liable to penalties amounting to something like £500, for not having filed his Election Accounts, and for not having given a complete return of the payments made on behalf of the hon. and learned Member. So far as he (Mr. Callan) was concerned, he believed he would be able to give the House a satisfactory explanation of the course he was now about to take. The authority by which he was
    1486
    acting in moving the rejection of the Bill was the request of a considerable number of his constituents; for many of his constituents in the county of Louth were resident in the town of Dundalk, and among them were the principal inhabitants of that town, merchants and magistrates, the Chairman of the Town Board, all the Town Commissioners, and many other persons officially connected with the locality. He held in his hand a letter, which, with the permission of the House, he would read—
    "At a special meeting of the Dundalk Town Commissioners held to-day, the following resolution was adopted:—Resolved that the Private Water Bill now before Parliament, and awaiting second reading, being, in the judgment of this Board, an attempt to supersede the authority of the Dundalk Town Commissioners as the sanitary body, it is our duty to petition Parliament against the Bill; that the Petition now laid on the table be adopted and forwarded at once to Mr. Callan, M.P., for presentation to Parliament, and that we beg him to do what he can to prevent the passing of the Bill."
    He found that an assertion had been made by the promoters of the Bill that no Petition had been presented against the measure by the Town Commissioners of Dundalk, or the ratepayers of that town. He had not observed that statement until half an hour ago; and in reply to it he had to say that he held in his hand a Petition from the town of Dundalk, largely and influentially signed by the principal ratepayers of the town, which Petition, as well as that of the Town Commissioners, was also against the Bill. It was necessary that he should now state what the facts of the case were. In 1854 the Town Commissioners of Dundalk were authorized to proceed with the construction of water works as a sanitary work; but the machinery had not yet been supplied, and, of course, as the machinery had not been supplied, the Act was not available. In consequence of the expense which attended an application to the House of Commons for a Private Bill, combined with the lobbying and jobbery that went on between the promoters, and solicitors, and Parliamentary agents, Parliament, in its wisdom, passed a general Act in 1878, which provided machinery by which the Town Commissioners in any town in Ireland could promote works for the public advantage, not by going to that House for a Private Bill, but by petitioning for a Provisional Order from the Local Government Board. If, upon such

    1487
    a Petition, a Provisional Order were granted, the local authorities were able to raise the money for carrying out the necessary works, at 3½ Per cent. In the month of August last the Town Commissioners of Dundalk advertised for plans for supplying the town with water, and offered a prize of 100 guineas for the plan that should be selected. He believed that 13 plans were sent in, and the Town Commissioners engaged the services of one of the most eminent water engineers in England—Mr. Hassard. It was to Mr. Hassard that the honour belonged of suggesting the water supply of the City of Dublin, as far back as the year 1854. Mr. Hassard went over to Dundalk to inspect the different plans, and presented a Report upon the subject. He (Mr. Callan) had read that Report, and he could only say that it would appear from that Report that the Bill now submitted to the House was the scheme of a disappointed adventuring engineer, who had, no doubt, had some experience in connection with the promotion of Private Bills in that House, but whose plans were rejected by Mr. Hassard, and who was substantially and in reality the only promoter of the present Bill. After receiving the Report of Mr. Hassard the Town Commissioners of Dundalk applied to the Local Government Board for an inquiry; and the inquiry, which was to be preliminary to the issue of a Provisional Order for supplying Dundalk with water, was held the week before last. These gentlemen, the Town Commissioners, would have come before the House long before this if it had not been in consequence of the declaration of urgency with regard to public measures, which declarations had led to the postponement of all Private Business that was contested. He would now state the grounds upon which the Town Commissioners asked the House to adhere to the spirit of the legislation passed by Parliament in 1878. It was stated by the Town Commissioners, in their Petition—
    "A Bill has been introduced and is awaiting a second reading in your Honourable House to incorporate a Company for supplying with water the town of Dundalk, and for other purposes. The main object of the Bill is to incorporate a Company, and to empower such Company to trade in water, which it is proposed to supply to your petitioners and the other inhabitants of Dundalk. The promotion of the Bill is a pure speculation on the part of the promoters, who
    1488
    have brought the same forward, not only not with the sanction of, but in direct antagonism to, and in rivalry with, your petitioners, who are the local governing body, and who are themselves now seeking from the Local Government Board (Ireland), under the above recited Act and by virtue of its provisions, powers to establish a water supply for the said town and district. The speculative character of the Bill is shown by Clauses 39–48, which empower the proposed Company to sell and your petitioners to purchase the undertaking and powers of the Bill, if the same should become law, on the terms therein mentioned; and your petitioners allege that one of the objects of the promoters of said is to force upon your petitioners the adoption of their pet scheme of water supply, which is not alone repugnant to the great majority, if not every member of your petitioners' Board, who are the sanitary authority, but to the great bulk of the inhabitants whose representatives your petitioners are—and, therefore, to supersede the authority of your petitioners. Another object of the promoters is to make perforce a profit out of this speculation by compelling your petitioners under the above Act, should the Bill pass into law, to purchase up their scheme (which your petitioners bonâ fide believe will prove an abortion), and by that means snake profit on the transaction at the expense of the ratepayers. Under the circumstances above mentioned, and having regard to the whole tendency of modern legislation, which has been to vest the supply of water and gas and market management in the hands not of private Companies, but of the local governing bodies, it would not only be opposed to public policy and against the interests of your petitioners, but also be a reversal of the principles of modern legislation in such matters to pass the said Bill into law."
    No doubt it would be said that the Town Commissioners might oppose the Bill when it came on in the usual form. That was not, however, the case, because, as the petitioners themselves pointed out, they had no power to apply any of their funds to the opposition of any speculative scheme that might be promoted in Parliament by any enterprizing professional gentleman. Having no power to apply their funds in the opposition of a Private Bill in Committee, the Town Commissioners felt themselves called upon to oppose the present measure upon the second reading. He had already stated that there had been an inquiry in Dundalk. That inquiry was held the other day, and one of the gentlemen who was interested in the promotion of the Bill stated distinctly in his evidence that there was no pressing necessity for the measure. He himself (Mr. Callan) was not wedded to any particular scheme for the supply of water to Dundalk. He knew every inch of the country, and what he wanted to see was a satisfactory

    1489
    scheme modelled and cast upon the suggestions of Mr. Hassard. Mr. Hassard's suggestions for modifying the scheme for supplying the City of Dublin with water had the effect of postponing the supply for some years, but had also the effect of securing for Dublin, in the end, one of the best water supplies at present existing in the United Kingdom. He had no doubt that if the House would consent to accept his Amendment for the rejection of the Bill the defeat of the measure would be for the benefit of the town and inhabitants of Dundalk. As he had said, the Petition presented to the House in support of the Bill stated that the hon. Member who had given Notice to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months did not represent the constituency of Dundalk. That was quite true; but he was well acquainted with the borough of Dundalk and its wants and requirements, and had formerly represented it in Parliament. He had not the honour of representing that borough now, having been promoted to the higher position of representing the County of Louth, in which Dundalk was situated. The Bill itself was opposed by the principal owners and occupiers in Dundalk, and the gentleman who occupied the position of lord of the soil had also presented a Petition against it. The Town Commissioners, the Poor Law Guardians, the large majority of the respectable inhabitants, and all the representative bodies in Dundalk, opposed the Bill. Under these circumstances, he would move that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word. "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Callan.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: Generally speaking, I am prepared to admit that it should require a very strong case to induce the House to refuse to allow a Private Bill of this nature to go before a Committee. But in this particular case I cannot help thinking that it would be better to postpone the Bill until another year. I do not say this from anything that I know personally of the matter; but I am informed by the President of the Local Government Board that the position of the case is this—The Town
    1490
    Commissioners of Dundalk, who are opposing the Bill, have applied to the Local Government Board for a Provisional Order, and there has not yet been time to have their application considered. I certainly think that that matter ought to be decided, and that on principle it ought to be accepted, for there are very strong reasons why the Town Commissioners should have such matters as these in their own hands. Under the circumstances, it will certainly be advantageous to postpone the consideration of the present Bill for a year rather than to proceed with it now. It is, I believe, the policy of this House to place all questions of this sort, as far as possible, in the hands of the corporate authorities of a town; and it is quite true that in this instance the Town Commissioners, who are the local authorities, oppose the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he had himself a feeling in the direction just expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and it was one of the reasons why he had abstained from offering any observations to the House in moving the second reading of the Bill. At the same time he thought that, primâ facie, the Bill was entitled to go before a Committee upstairs; but he quite concurred with the Chief Secretary that the local authorities, wherever it could fairly be done, should have the control of the water supply. His only anxiety was to secure a proper hearing of the case before a Committee upstairs; and he would, therefore, point out to the consideration of the Chief Secretary that probably the wisest course would be to defer the second reading of the Bill for a couple of weeks. An inquiry had already taken place at Dundalk, and the decision of the Local Government Board upon that inquiry would be made known in the course of a few days. If it should turn out that the scheme laid before the Local Government Board by the Town Commissioners of Dundalk was an objectionable scheme, he thought it would then be fair that the proposal contained in the present Bill should go before a Committee, where its merits could be discussed; and, if desirable and necessary, the whole matter might be transferred to the local authorities upon an equitable arrangement. He should like to hear a word in regard to this suggestion, which cer-

    1491
    tainly went in the direction of the view expressed by the Chief Secretary, from the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees. A word from the right hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind his experience in matters of this kind, might have considerable weight in finding the opinion of the House.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: I have had the advantage of seeing the promoters and opponents of this Bill this afternoon, and there are certainly some considerable difficulties in regard to it. It is quite true that the Commissioners, at the present moment, have a scheme before the Local Government Board, and it is desirable that that scheme should be considered by this House; but I should be very much inclined to recommend the House to allow the Bill to be read a second time, and also to allow the Provisional Order to be read a second time, and then refer both to the same Committee. But the Town Commissioners, I believe, have lost their right to appear before the Committee. They ought to have petitioned within 10 days after the first reading of the Bill, which took place on the 10th of January; but they failed to do so. The Standing Orders Committee might allow the Standing Orders in this respect to be suspended; but, of course, that is by no means certain. Although I should have been inclined to recommend such a course as I have suggested, still, after the statement made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the intimation he has conveyed of the feeling of the President of the Local Government Board, I am not prepared to say that there might not be great inconvenience in reading the Bill a second time at the present moment. On the whole, perhaps, the best course will be to allow the matter to remain over for another year.
    MR. MELDONwas very much opposed to the principle of preventing a Private Bill from going before a Committee upstairs in order that its merits might be inquired into. There were, however, special circumstances in the present case which rendered it exceedingly desirable that the second reading should be postponed. In the first place, the Town Commissioners of Dundalk had not petitioned against the Bill, and therefore, could not be heard before the Committee in opposition to it; and if the second reading were now assented
    1492
    to, the measure, in the ordinary course, would become an unopposed Bill. Perhaps this difficulty might be met by allowing the Town Commissioners an extension of time for the purpose of presenting a Petition. There was, however, another difficulty—namely, that the Town Commissioners had no power to apply any of the local rates towards the cost of opposing any Private Bill that might be promoted in Parliament. This was a very wise provision, for it would be a monstrous thing that the Town Commissioners should be allowed to go to Parliament and spend the money of the ratepayers without stint in opposing speculative Bills. He felt inclined to ask if such a Bill as this would be for an instant tolerated in England. The whole course of legislation for years had been to vest in the local authorities all powers of this kind, and in England it would not be tolerated that private persons should be entitled to ask for powers directly proposed to the requirements of the Public Health Act, and the other Acts which conferred all powers in regard to sanitary matters upon the local authorities, and in this case it should be recollected that the Town Commissioners were themselves applying for power to supply the town of Dundalk with water. At the present moment their application was under consideration by the Local Government Board, and there could be no hardship in determining that the Bill of a private speculative company like this should be postponed until another year. For these reasons he would support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan).
    Question put, and negatived.
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for six months.

QUESTIONS.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT, 1875— BENEFIT SOCIETIES.
  MR. E. W. HARCOURTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the sufferings endured by many deserving persons through the constant

  1493
  failure of so-called benefit societies; and, whether, in the event of any private legislation being initiated with a view of insisting upon more stringent certificates in the case of all future benefit societies, and of restrictions in the case of intended public-house benefit societies, the Government would be inclined to give such assistance as might be practicable towards the furtherance of these objects?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Without more definite information as to the character of the proposed legislation I am afraid it is impossible to say whether the Government would be inclined to assist it. We have not yet had full experience of the results of the Friendly Societies Act of 1875 with respect to Benefit Societies, and I think we should have clear proof of their necessity before we impose the suggested additional restrictions upon such Societies. So far as I am informed, the failures of Benefit Societies are not more constant than those of other classes of Companies; and it is very doubtful whether any move in the direction of greater stringency would not defeat its own object. As to putting restrictions upon intended public-house Benefit Societies, it must be remembered that in many places there is no other accommodation available for Benefit Societies, and a great number—I hope the large majority—of such societies, are perfectly respectable. It may be interesting to the hon. Member to know that the bulk of the Societies which have reached 100 years of age and upwards meet at public-houses, among thorn the oldest English Society, founded in 1687, and the third oldest, founded in 1708, with others ranging in age from 117 to 194 years.
  MR. E. HARCOURTgave Notice that, in consequence of the answer he had received, he should, on a future day, move for a Return from each Poor Law Union in England, stating the number of the inmates of the workhouses whose presence there was owing to the failure of any Benefit Societies to which they might have belonged.

  POST OFFICE—LETTER-CARRIERS' CHRISTMAS-BOXES.
  MR. SCHREIBERasked the Postmaster General, Whether, by one of their rules, Letter-carriers are "allowed to receive, and indeed respectfully to ask
  1494
  for, Christmas Boxes;" whether, in the Circular Memorandum of the 22nd of March, 1865, the Metropolitan Letter-carriers were reminded that—
  "They received from the public in gratuities at Christmas a sum which, if divided and spread over the whole year, would produce on an average 5s. a week for each man;"
  whether he is aware that these gratuities are, in a great number of cases, asked for and paid with equal reluctance; and, whether, under the circumstances, he is prepared to abolish a system of private gratuities in part payment of public services, and to replace it by an equivalent addition to the weekly wages of the Letter-carriers?
  MR. FAWCETT: It is the case, as stated in the Question of my hon. Friend, that a Circular was issued in 1865, in which it was estimated that letter-carriers received on an average 5s. a-week in Christmas-boxes. I think this estimate was formed on very insufficient data, and I really feel it is impossible for me to say whether the estimate was or was not correct. I believe that in the majority of cases these Christmas-boxes are not given reluctantly. I certainly think that, even if they were prohibited, the public would still continue to give them. Under these circumstances, I am not prepared to advise their prohibition. However, I fully recognize that it would be most undesirable for any letter-carrier to solicit Christmas-boxes with importunity; and I, just before last Christmas, issued a Circular expressing this opinion to the letter-carriers throughout the country. I believe they acted upon it, because not a single complaint has reached the Post Office from any member of the public that they had been solicited with importunity.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE LAND LEAGUE—PROHIBITED MEETING AT ROCKCORRY, CO. MONAGHAN.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he could state why a properly constituted Land Meeting proposed to be held on 18th January last, at Rockcorry, county Monaghan, was proclaimed by an order emanating from four magistrates; and, if the information on which the meeting was prohibited was founded on the sworn evidence of either of the four magistrates above referred to; and,

  1495
  if not, was it on the sworn evidence of any other person?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the meeting at Rockcorry was prohibited by proclamation signed by four magistrates resident in the district. The proclamation was issued on the informations sworn by eight other magistrates that a breach of the peace was likely to occur if the Land League demonstration and the counter demonstration were permitted to proceed. None of the magistrates who signed the proclamation swore informations on the subject.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ALLEGED MISMANAGEMENT OF THE BELFAST WORKHOUSE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the following allegations are well founded:—That at the late sworn inquiry held into the management of the Belfast Workhouse, by Messrs. Bourke and Brodie, Local Government Board Inspectors, evidence was given by a witness named Porter, who had been employed by the guardians as a temporary clerk in the master's office, that the names of 75 persons were enrolled in the workhouse books, for whom dietary was charged, although said persons were not in the house at all; that the inspectors at said inquiry ascertain how long this practice had continued in order to know what loss, or probable loss, the ratepayers may have sustained; that the system of book keeping was so imperfect that the assistant master, with the view to regulating the books, periodically issued to the gate-porter mythical discharge dockets bearing the names of persons who were not in the institution, and their keep charged for; and who, consequently, could not pass through the gate; that the assistant master and the gate-porter referred to, admitted on oath to this system being practised; that neither censure nor rebuke was given to either of these two persons, and that the Local Government Board still continue to permit them to hold office; that at the last stock taking by the guardians deficiencies in stock amounting to about £700 were found to exist, and that although these discoveries have been made several months ago, and the Local Government Board repeatedly informed of the facts, no action has yet been taken; that the Local Government Board has
  1496
  permitted the Belfast Workhouse to remain without a master for a period of two months, although aware that the institution was overcrowded during all this time; that the Limitation Order of the Local Government Board sets forth that not more than 2,500 persons can be accommodated in the Belfast Workhouse, whilst they are in possession of the fact that at the present time and for several weeks past, as many as 3,180 persons, 1,400 or 1,600 of whom are sick and unsupplied with beds, are inmates of the institution; that the Local Government Board have knowingly permitted the school rooms of the Belfast Workhouse to be converted into hospitals; and, if the foregoing assumptions be correct, if he is prepared, on behalf of the Government, to take into immediate consideration the urgent necessity and importance of a re-modelling of the present constitution of the Local Government Board in Ireland?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The hon. Member has asked me 10 Questions in one, relative to the evidence taken at the recent inquiry into the management of the Belfast Workhouse. With respect to the first three or four of his Questions, I find that though no sworn evidence was given on the inquiry tending to show that frauds had been committed in reference to the dietary, still it did appear that the books had been kept in a manner so imperfect and irregular as to necessitate the resignation of the assistant master, and he had resigned accordingly. Deficiencies had been found in the stores, but I am unable to say to what extent. That is a matter which must be dealt with, not by the Local Government Board, but by the auditor of accounts. It is not the fact that the Local Government Board permitted the assistant master and the porter to retain their offices. The workhouse provides accommodation for 2,500 inmates, but new buildings are in course of construction; and, pending the construction, temporary accommodation has been provided for 150 additional inmates. It is not the fact that the schoolroom has been converted into an hospital. The inmates have been supplied with proper bed-clothing, and the house has been cleaned and is free from epidemic disease. The hon. Member's assumptions being incorrect, I am not prepared on behalf of the Government to take into immediate

  1497
  consideration re-modelling of the present constitution of the Local Government Board in Ireland.

  SCOTLAND—OFFICE OF SASINES, EDINBURGH.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the scheme for the improved remuneration of the Commissioned Clerks in the Office of Sasines in Edinburgh has yet been adjusted; what steps it is proposed to take with regard to the Engrossing Clerks; and, whether it will take effect from the beginning of the next financial year?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN): The Report of the Committee is now under the consideration of the Treasury and Home Office, and the Deputy Clerk Register is at present in attendance at the Treasury settling with the officers of the Departments the details of the proposed new arrangements. It is hoped that the Report, with the decision thereon, will be laid before Parliament, if not before the Recess, at all events, immediately afterwards; and the new rules will, if not published before the 1st of April, date back to that day. The question of the position of the engrossing clerks is under the consideration of the Treasury at the present time.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. BAXTERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, On what day he proposes to make the Financial Statement?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I may be permitted, in answering this Question, to make the statement which the House expects me to make to-day as to the probable course of Business, and to state what we propose to do. I assume that to-night we shall dispose of the necessary Business in Supply, as well as, possibly, obtain several Votes which are not so pressing if it should be convenient to the House to consider them. That being so, it is generally understood that the Motion with regard to Candahar will come on on Thursday, and, as the debate is likely to be prolonged to a second night, it is desirable we should endeavour to continue the debate on Friday; that is the arrangement we should endeavour to promote. I will not say anything about particular days next week, excepting that we have the Mutiny Bill on hand, and should that
  1498
  require time for discussion, no doubt the proper time will be found. That carries us to the end of the month, and I should propose to make the Financial Statement on Monday, the 4th of April. I should then hope that on Thursday, the 7th of April, we may be able to introduce the Irish Land Bill. On Friday, the 8th of April, we shall propose to adjourn the House two or three days earlier than the usual time, involving the loss of one day or a day and a-half in business; but, after the very long Sittings of the House, I think that this is an arrangement which will meet with general approval. We shall propose to meet again on Monday, the 25th of April, which relatively is a little late, as the 17th would be the usual date for reassembling. As the Irish Land Bill will have been in the hands of Members and before the country for a considerable time, and as it is desirable not to lose time in the prosecution of it, we should propose—and I am anxious this should be understood in fixing the introduction for the 7th—to commence the debate on the second reading when the House re-assembles on the Monday.
  MR. E. W. HARCOURTsaid, he had a Motion relating to Local Taxation which stood for Friday, which it was proposed to appropriate for the adjourned debate on the Candahar Question. The matter was as important to the British farmer as hares and rabbits and malt liquors, and he had pledged himself to Ids constituents to bring it forward; therefore, before he could express his readiness to give way, he must ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could give the farmers another chance of having the subject discussed?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I hope the hon. Member will be so kind as not to press me for a positive answer until we see our way a little further. Undoubtedly, if hon. Members are asked to allow their Motions to be displaced, that in itself will give plausibility to claims for consideration; but I naturally refrain from giving a positive answer. The hon. Member will see that the Mutiny Act may be a matter of the extremest urgency.

  ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT (RETIREMENT).
  MR. FINDLATERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, having

  1499
  regard to the cases of wounds and sickness which have occurred amongst medical officers during recent campaigns, he will take into consideration the justice of extending to the Army Medical Department the privilege now enjoyed by all combatant officers of counting as full-pay service towards retirement any time on half-pay, not exceeding one year, when such half-pay has been necessitated by sickness incurred in and by the Service; also such half-pay as results from reduction of the Department, not exceeding two years, as laid down in Army Circulars, March 1st 1880?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. Friend, I fear that I cannot undertake to lay down the broad proposition that non-combatant officers are to have all the advantages of combatant officers, unless the converse be also accepted—that is to say, that they are to have all the disadvantages. The regulations as to the retirement of medical officers have been so recently settled that I cannot undertake to re-open the question; but when I have more leisure I will look into it.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SPALDING SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION.
  MR. MELLORasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to a Memorial from Spalding, stating that before the last School Board Election there an agreement had been come to between all parties that the old Board should be returned; that the returning officer, without any notice, treated the chairman, vice chairman, and one other member of the old Board as disqualified, although they were duly nominated, and did this without hearing them in support of their claims, declaring three other candidates duly elected in their stead; and, whether the Department can investigate the matter under section 33 of the Act of 1870?
  MR. MUNDELLA: My attention has been directed to the Memorial from Spalding to which the Question of my hon. Friend refers; but I cannot undertake to make the investigation suggested. I agree with the opinion first expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and followed by my immediate
  1500
  Predecessors, that the Education Department does not possess the machinery necessary for satisfactorily trying Election Petitions; and that any person who complains of the action of the returning officer must adopt the ordinary remedy of an information in the nature of a quo warranto.

  CUSTOMS' BENEVOLENT FUND—THE "BILL OF ENTRY."
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, since the late proprietors of the "Bill of Entry" had secured by their own exertions an advertising connection, any compensation has been made to them for surrendering this part of the property; and, if not, whether the Treasury will consider the expediency of paying to the Customs' Benevolent Fund such amount as upon inquiry may prove equitable?
  MR. J. HOLMS (for Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH): No compensation was given to the Customs' Benevolent Fund at the close of their tenure of the "Bill of Entry," as all their rights in its publication ceased by lapse of time; and I may add that it is probable that advertisements in the "Bill of Entry" will be discontinued altogether after the expiration of the present tentative period of six months.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEasked the Vice President of the Council, If his attention has been directed to the proceedings of a Conference of Burgh School Boards held in Edinburgh on the 24th January last, at which sixteen School Boards were represented, including those of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Perth, Dundee, and almost all the large burghs, and at which resolutions were adopted in favour of further legislation to secure the education of destitute and neglected children in cities and populous districts; and, whether it is his intention to bring in a Bill to make better provision than now exists for the education of such children?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have seen the Report of the proceedings of the Conference of School Boards in Edinburgh, and I find myself in general agreement with the resolutions arrived at. The whole of the questions referred to have

  1501
  been carefully considered by the Government, and I hope they will be shortly dealt with either in a general measure or by separate legislation for Scotland.

  POOR-LAW GUARDIANS (METROPOLIS) —NOMINATED GUARDIANS.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the President of the Local Government Board, What number of guardians in each of the metropolitan unions the Board have power to nominate, and how many gentlemen are now serving as nominated guardians; and, why the Board does not now proceed to exercise the power they possess to the full extent to make such nominations?
  MR. DODSON: The Local Government Board have power to nominate such a number in each Union as would bring the number, together with the ex officio Guardians, to one-third that of the entire Board. My right hon. Friend will therefore see that the number varies with the total number of Guardians and the number of ex officio Guardians in each Union. There are now 29 gentlemen serving as nominated Guardians. The reasons why the Local Government Board have not exercised to the full their power of nomination are—first, the difficulty in some cases of finding qualified persons willing to undertake to discharge the duties regularly; and, secondly, the fact that in other cases the number of Guardians is already quite sufficient, or more than sufficient, for the transaction of the business of the the Union. In the case of Unions where nominated Guardians are really required—and these are, for the most part, the poorer Unions—the Board are always ready to consider with favour recommendations for the nomination of desirable persons.

  JURIES (IRELAND)—LIMERICK ASSIZES.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at the assizes for the county of Limerick on the 14th instant, in the trial of a case before Mr. Justice Barry for taking forcible possession, the jury disagreed, and whether the following is a correct report of what then occurred:—
  "His Lordship—You say that there is no chance of agreement, although the prisoner ad-
  1502
  mitted that he had been put forcibly in possesssion, and that he has retained possession up to this moment. Is that so?—Foreman—Yes, my Lord. His Lordship—Well, I can only say it is another of the discreditable scenes that we have witnessed during this assizes. It is now plain that what has been stated all over Ireland is perfectly true—that trial by jury has become a farce and a mockery in the county of Limerick, and I, as a Limerick man, say with pain, with regret, and with humiliation that the parties who come into the jury-box in Limerick are either perfectly incapable of understanding evidence, or determined, while understanding it, to violate their oaths and not act upon them. It must he for those who have the guidance of the legislation of the Country to consider this state of things;"
  and, whether, if correct, and in view of the repeated similar opinions expressed by other judges, Her Majesty's Government propose to introduce any measures to amend a system which fails to vindicate the supremacy of the Law?
  LORD ELCHOasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following paragraph in the "Times" newspaper of the 18th instant:—
  "At Tralee Assizes yesterday, in a prosecution for remaining in forcible possession of a farm, all the prisoners were acquitted. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald thereupon said to the jury,—'This is your unanimous verdict, delivered by your foreman. All I can say is that it is a verdict against the evidence and against your oaths, and if that sort of verdict continues to be given it will sweep away the present jury system;'"
  and, whether he will take steps to bring about a better administration of the Law?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: In answer to the hon. Member for Leitrim and the noble Lord, I have to say that I have not received copies of the Judges' Charges; but I have no reason to doubt that the learned Judges made the statements referred to. I think it a very serious fact that it should have been necessary for them to make such statements. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether the Government intend to take any steps in consequence of these statements, by which I suppose they mean when we intend to bring in a Bill affecting trial by jury in Ireland. In reply to those Questions I have to say that the Government was influenced by the existence of the state of things spoken of by the learned Judges when they prepared the Protection Bill and the Arms Bill, and the House, no doubt, was also in-

  1503
  fluenced by them in passing those Bills; but though the matter demands the most serious consideration, the Government has not come to any conclusion that would warrant any statement that they would bring forward any further measure on the subject this Session.
  LORD ARTHUR HILLasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he has read the report of the proceedings at the recent Limerick Assizes, and the observations of Judge Barry, as recorded in the "Limerick Chronicle" of the 15th instant, namely:—
  "The jury in Denis Murphy's case came into court and said that they could not agree. His Lordship—Well, I can only say it is another of the discreditable scenes that we have witnessed during those assizes. It is now plain that what has been stated all over Ireland is perfectly true, that trial by jury has become a farce and a mockery in the county Limerick; and I, as a Limerick man, say with pain, with regret, and with humiliation, that the parties who came into the jury box in Limerick are either perfectly incapable of understanding evidence, or determined, while understanding it, to violate their oaths and not to act upon them. It must be for those who have the guidance of the legislation of the Country to consider this state of things. The jury was now discharged. The jury in James Walsh's case having agreed to a verdict of not guilty, His Lordship said, 'Gentlemen, I regret very much that you were not here in Court at the time I was addressing some observations to the jury in the last case on the manner in which the juries of the county Limerick discharge their duties. You have put the climax on the discreditable conduct of the jurors. You are now discharged, and you can consider how you can reconcile your verdict with your oaths and your consciences;'"
  and, whether, in the face of the repeated declarations of Irish Judges as to the impossibility in many cases of finding juries who are "willing to reconcile their verdicts with their oaths," he is prepared, by legislation, to remedy such a state of things?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): I can only refer the noble Lord to the answer just given by the Chief Secretary.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it was not the fact that on Saturday last the Judge, on the application of the Crown Counsel, was obliged to postpone the trial of the remaining prisoners at Tralee on the ground of the state of the jury panel?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): I am not aware that all the cases were postponed; but I am aware that one case of a serious
  1504
  nature was postponed for the reason stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

  RAILWAYS (ENGLAND)—DEAL AND DOVER RAILWAY.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he can state why the line between Deal and Dover has not been opened, although for many months past its construction has been nearly complete; if he can state the latest date for the completion of the line; and, whether, in the event of its not being then opened, the penalties will be put in force?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not received any information which will enable me to say why the line has not been opened. The Companies have to send a month's notice of their intention to open the line, and a second notice of 10 days of the fact that it is ready for inspection. We received the first notice from the two Companies concerned in November; we have not yet received the second notice. The last day for the completion of the line is May 23. If the Companies fail to have it ready by that date they will jointly and severally incur a penalty of £50 for every day during which the line is not open; but it would be a matter for consideration at the time whether the penalties would be enforced.

  STATE OF IRELAND—RIOTOUS CONDUCT OF SOLDIERS.
  THE O'DONOGHUEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lietenant of Ireland, Why the military authorities do not take steps to prevent the soldiers quartered at Castleisland, in Kerry, from night to night assembling in the streets, whirling their belts, and calling on the "Irish cowards to come out and fight;" and, why it is that the police remain passive spectators of proceedings highly calculated to provoke a breach of the peace?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: In reply to this Question, I may just state that a very strong charge is made by the hon. Gentleman against the military and police, without giving the slightest authority for it. He does not even refer to a newspaper article as an authority. I can only that I have no information on the subject,
  THE O'DONOGHUE: As the right hon. Gentleman insinuates—or, perhaps I may say, absolutely states—that I have no authority for putting the Question, I beg to say that I have it on the most undoubted authority that the occurrences stated in my Question have taken place, and also that the police are most grossly neglecting their duty in Castle-island.
  Subsequently,
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid: In consequence of the answer of the Chief Secretary to my Question with reference to the misconduct of the soldiery at Castle-island, I beg to give Notice that I shall repeat the Question on Friday, in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of making inquiries on the subject, and so as not to give grounds for the supposition, which I am sure is not warranted, that he is anxious to screen the military and police.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I may say at once, and I think the House will agree with me, that it ought not to be made a custom to put Questions on the Paper containing serious charges against individuals, without the slightest appearance of an attempt in the Question to give any authority for them.
  THE O'DONOGHUE: I put the Questions on information which satisfied me thoroughly, and which I have no doubt would satisfy the House. I shall renew the Question on Friday.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY ACT, 1881—SERVICE OF WRIT IN KILMAINHAM PRISON.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY (for Mr. SEXTON)asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in the public press, that a writ for rent was served on the 16th instant, in Kilmainham Prison, on Mr. Patrick Fury, a person detained in the prison in question by virtue of a warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, issued under the authority of the Act for the better protection of Person and Property in Ireland; whether, if the fact be as stated, this proceeding took place with the knowledge and sanction of the prison authorities; and, whether it was a legal proceeding?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): It is true that a writ for rent was served on the 16th
  1506
  instant, in Kilmainham Prison, on Mr. Patrick Fury, a prisoner under the Act for the Better Protection of Person and Property in Ireland. This proceeding took place with the knowledge and sanction of the prison authorities, and is quite legal.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) ACT —DRAINAGE, &c., WORKS AT DU-HALLOW, CO. CORK.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What arrangement has been made to secure to the tenants who have effected drainage or other works, the money advanced by the Board of Works, and, with reference to the lands of Islandaff, barony of Duhallow, county Cork, whether he can say how much of the money advanced for those lands has been paid to the tenant, John Daly, and how much has been retained by the landlord in payment of rent; if he will inform the House the rate per English perch allowed by Board of Works' inspector, and how much per Irish perch was allowed the tenant by the landlord; and, whether the landlord who has applied for and been granted advances to supply money to the tenants has the power to refuse from the fact that the tenant is a member of the Land League?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: With respect to the first Question, I have no precise information; with respect to the second, the rate allowed per English perch is 1s. 10 d.; with respect to the last Question, I think the hon. Member has misinterpreted the Relief of Distress Act.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—STRATFORD-ON-AVON SCHOOL BOARD.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Vice President of the Council, If his attention has been directed to a Memorial addressed to the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education by the mayor and inhabitants of Stratford on Avon, praying their Lordships to suspend the institution of a School Board for that town, until inquiry shall have been made into the grounds of the prayer contained in the Memorial?
  MR. MUNDELLA: A Memorial was drawn up by the Mayor and inhabitants of Stratford-on-Avon; but it was received by the Department after the

  1507
  Order for a school board had been issued, and I believe the election will take place next Thursday. But even if the Memorial had been presented earlier, it would not have been possible to suspend the Order, as the whole circumstances of the case had been fully considered before the Order was issued.

  AFGHANISTAN—CANDAHAR.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, considering the importance of the debate on the subject of Candahar, which has been announced to take place on Thursday, Her Majesty's Government could, on their own responsibility, either make a statement or lay further Papers upon the Table of the House, so as to place the House in full possession of all the facts of the case?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I stated on Friday, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that I would to-day, after communication with the Viceroy of India, endeavour to make some statement on the subject of the position of affairs in Afghanistan; and, having made that communication, I may as well take this opportunity of making a very short statement to the House on the subject. Immediately after the decision had been arrived at not permanently to occupy Candahar, communications were opened by the Government of India with the Ameer Abdurrahman, informing him of the intention of the Government to reconsider the arrangements which had been made for the government of Southern Afghanistan, and expressing the desire of the Viceroy to act in the matter in consultation and concert with him. There was great delay in the transmission of this letter to the Ameer, and the answer of the Ameer was also delayed some time on the road. However, when it was received, we found that the Ameer expressed his gratitude to the Viceroy for the communication which had been made to him, and his strong desire for a personal interview in order to confer with him on the affairs of Afghanistan. That, however, on account of the illness of the Viceroy, and for other reasons, was deemed impracticable at that time. The Ameer, however, had subsequently sent an Envoy, General Ahmed Khan, to Calcutta, to confer principally on Cabal matters. He has had several
  1508
  satisfactory interviews with the Viceroy, and he has returned to Cabal. In the meantime, however, in the month Of January, the Viceroy intimated to Abdurrahman that the British Government would contemplate with satisfaction the restoration of Candahar to Afghanistan, and would agree to the extension of His Highness's authority over that Province, recognizing his Government when established, and generally assisting him, as they did at Cabal, by a limited material help. The Ameer has made the purport of the Viceroy's communication generally known at Cabal, and has accepted the offer. The Viceroy has since informed Abdurrahman that it was necessary that the Cabul troops, with a Governor authorized to receive charge from the British officers, should reach Candahar early in April. The Ameer replied that he was desirous to take charge of Candahar at once; that his troops were all ready, his carriage being the principal difficulty, and that he hoped his forces would reach Candahar about the time named. The latest information received from the Viceroy is to the effect that the Cabal troops have started, or will start shortly, for Candahar, and will reach Candahar early in April, and that all arrangements for our withdrawal are completed. At the same time, measures have been taken at Candahar in preparation for the withdrawal of the British troops; and several of the leading Sirdars at Candahar have written to the Ameer of Cabal tendering their allegiance. That, I think, is all the information which it is possible for me to give to the House at the present moment. The House will see that the position is a somewhat critical one, and that to enter into any further detail would not add very much to the information of the House, while it is possible that mischief might be caused in Afghanistan. I am sorry that it is not in my power to lay any Papers on the Table. The Correspondence is in an extremely incomplete state. That would be so under any circumstances; but it is more incomplete than it otherwise would have been in consequence of the circumstance that, owing to some extraordinary accident or oversight, many of the despatches in the Political Department which ought to have arrived by the last and previous mails have not yet been received. Amongst these are the Minutes by Members of the Council,

  1509
  which I expected to have received three weeks or, at the latest, a fortnight ago, and which I had hoped to be able to lay on the Table of the House. Although the Government of India telegraphed that they were sent, they have not yet reached me. Under these circumstances, I regret that it will not be in my power to lay any further Papers on the Table before the debate on the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope).
  MR. BOURKE: The noble Lord will recollect that he promised to lay on the Table Mr. Lyall's Report on Candahar; and perhaps he will inform us whether that is amongst the despatches which have not yet been received. If it has been received, will the noble Lord lay it on the Table?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The noble Lord says there are certain Minutes of Members of the Council which have not yet arrived. Will he have any objection to telegraph to India asking what is the purport of those Minutes?
  LORD ELCHO: I would ask whether the whole of the British troops are to be withdrawn from Candahar as soon as the troops of the Ameer of Cabul arrive there?
  MR. ONSLOW: I would ask whether there has been any communication with Ayoob Khan at Herat with regard to the retention of Candahar?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No communication whatever has been made to Ayoob Khan at Herat with regard to the retention of Candahar. It is not intended that any British troops should permanently occupy Candahar. What will be the precise arrangments for the withdrawal of the troops I am not able at present to say. I have no recollection of having made any reference to the Report of Mr. Lyall at Candahar, or having promised to lay it on the Table. I believe, however, that it has been received, and I will see whether it can be presented before Thursday. I do not think it possible to ask for the substance of the Minutes of Members of the Council by telegraph. Documents of that sort are not generally capable of being abbreviated without losing a great deal of their value.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: I beg to ask whether arrangements have been made for the security and protection of those inhabitants of Candahar who have
  1510
  favoured British rule during the last year or two?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am perfectly aware that that is one of the subjects which have been occupying the attention of the Viceroy and his Government. I am not, however, able to state what the exact arrangements are that have been made for the protection of those persons.

  ARMY—LONG AND SHORT SERVICE.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will allow, in future, that men enlisting into the Foot Guards and the Infantry of the Line may enlist for either long or short service as they prefer?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; I am not prepared to say that the Infantry and Foot Guards shall be in future recruited either for long or short service at the option of each recruit.

  INDIA—MILITARY EXPENDITURE.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary of State for India, To mention the amount of the War Expenditure to the latest date, and to what date; and, for a further series of Papers relating to the Military Expenditure of India, and to the issues from the Treasuries for Military purposes?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: A further series of Papers relating to the war expenditure, and the issues from the Treasuries for military purposes, including the Viceroy's telegram, is now presented to the House. The latest estimate of the war expenditure is that contained in the Viceroy's telegram of the 8th of March, which gives the military expenditure proper as 1,930 lakhs of rupees, or, excluding gain from railways and telegraphs, 1,862 lakhs, to the 31st of May, 1881, besides 487 lakhs on the Frontier railways. Converted into sterling, at 1s. 8d. the rupee, these sums are £15,516,000 for military operations, and £4,058,000 for railways, making a total of £19,574,000.

  AFGHANISTAN—FORTIFICATION OF CANDAHAR.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been drawn to the plans for the garrisoning and fortification of Candahar, which were prepared, under Gene-

  1511
  ral Roberts' orders, by the chief engineer officer of the Cabul-Candahar Army, Colonel Perkins, R.E.; whether, according to those plans, a garrison of the total strength of seven thousand eight hundred men, half to occupy the fortifications, and half to operate beyond the walls, was considered to be ample for the retention of the place; whether the annual cost, as well as the original outlay required under those plans, would not be very much less than the figure stated in estimates which appear to be based upon the maintenance of a garrison of twelve or twenty thousand men; and, whether Her Majesty's Government can lay the plans in question, or any other plans prepared under the orders of General Roberts, upon the Table of the House?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; I have no knowledge of the plans to which the hon. Member refers; and I am also assured that there is no official information on the subject in the Indian Military Department.

  COMPANIES ACTS, 1868—TRINITY COL LEGE, LONDON.
  MR. J. COWENasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any decision has been arrived at respecting the amended application for a licence on the part of Trinity College, London; and, if not, whether the existing licence of the College is in any way affected by the delay; and, whether the application has been referred to the Education Department, and with what result?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, he was not in a position to state officially whether there was an existing licence of Trinity College; but if there was, he did not see how it could be affected by the delay referred to in the Question of his hon. Friend.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—STATUE OF EARL RUSSELL.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the statue of Earl Russell lately erected in the Central Hall is to remain permanently on its present site; whether the site has been approved by the Department of Works, and whether before approval the Department of Works has asked or obtained the opinion of the Royal Institute of British Architects, or of any other competent architectural
  1512
  authority, whether such a statue could be placed in the Central Hall without detriment to architectural effect; and, whether the statue has been set up in the Central Hall at the public cost; and, if so, whether the sum necessary to defray this charge has been included in any Estimate which has been laid before Parliament?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The statue of Earl Russell was erected in the Central Hall in pursuance of the authority given in May, 1879, by the Deputy Lord Great Chamberlain, on the application of the then First Commissioner, the right hon. Member for Rutlandshire (Mr. Gerard Noel). Before that authority was given a model of the statue was erected on the proposed site, and received the approval of a Committee composed of a number of distinguished persons, including the then Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister. The site was also approved by the late Mr. Edward Barry, the son of the architect of the building, and himself a distinguished architect, and who was generally consulted on matters affecting architectural changes in this building. No expense has fallen upon the Government in the erection of the statue. Under these circumstance, it is not my intention to make any suggestion for the removal of the statue of this distinguished statesman.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— THE NEGOTIATIONS.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is in a position to communicate to the House any information with respect to the negotiations between Sir Evelyn Wood and the Boer leaders, or in regard to the position of affairs generally in South Africa?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am sorry to say that since I last said a few words to the House on this subject, we have not received any information of any importance. We are given to understand that there are two causes for this. One is—I cannot say that we know this officially, we merely fall back on what we see stated as the cause—that the rains and floods have greatly impeded the movements of the persons concerned; and the other is that the illness of Mr. Kruger and another of the Boer leaders has prevented their arrival. I have no in-

  1513
  formation in the slightest degree enlarging the means of judgment possessed by the House; and, therefore, I am certain it would be very unsatisfactory that we should have glances and glimpses on subjects of this kind, where everything depends on full and definite knowledge. As the Vote which will be proposed by my right hon. Friend depends on the enlargement of our military means in South Africa, and is perfectly separable from the subject of our policy, although the two might be discussed together, I hope the House may be disposed to postpone altogether from to-night the discussion of policy, unless on any particular point any hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary to state any matter that may occur to him as separable from the rest. I hope there will be a general disposition to postpone it. Of course, I adhere to the pledge I have given, that the information will be communicated to the House at the earliest possible moment at which it can be done without damage to the public interest, and also that we shall be ready, as, indeed, will be our plain duty, to make the best arrangements that may be practicable for the discussion of the subject, should it be desired by the House.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the right. hon. Gentleman whether he contemplates moving a Vote of Credit for 1881–2 in respect of the services in the Transval?
  MR. CHARLES LEWISasked whether the telegraph service was still open with the Transvaal?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked whether the whole of the expenses incurred in the present year were included in the Vote to be submitted that night, or whether there would be another Supplementary Vote?
  MR. CHILDERS: With respect to the last Question, I think the proper time to put it will be when we are in Committee, and I shall then be able to give full information on the subject. With reference to the Question of the hon. Member (Mr. Lewis), I received this morning a telegram of no importance, which I think was dated this morning, but I cannot say so with absolute certainty. As to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, if he refers to the Estimates for the coming year, he will find that they include between £500,000 and £600,000 on
  1514
  account of the Transvaal expenditure, and these items are shown distinctly as money proposed to be voted on that account.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATH—MR. BRADLAUGH.
  EARL PERCYasked, Whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had been called to a speech of the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), setting forth that, while it was his duty to sit and vote in the House of Commons as long as he remained Member for Northampton, he should prefer to resign his seat in order to again test the opinion of the constituency? Also, Whether he had seen it stated in the public prints that the hon. Member had applied for, and been refused, the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No application has been made to me for the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds by the hon. Member for Northampton.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, Whether in case the Votes in Supply were obtained that night, he intended to make his Motion to-morrow with respect to the alleged vacant seat for Northampton?
  MR. GORSTsaid, it had been his intention, as soon as he could do so without interfering with Supply, to take the sense of the House as to whether the judgment of one of the Divisions of the High Court of Justice was to be treated as a complete nullity; but he observed, from the usual channels of information, that an appeal on the subject was likely to be heard very shortly, and as there was some reason to hope that the decision of the higher Court would be treated with greater respect than had been that of the inferior Court, he did not think it his duty at present to proceed with his Motion,

  THAMES RIVER BILL
  In reply to Mr. RITCHIE,
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, as it was probable Friday next would be occupied with the Candahar debate, he should postpone the next stage of this Bill—he hoped for the last time—until the following Tuesday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  PRIVILEGE—THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. O'DONNELL, in rising to call attention to the proceedings in Committee on the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill, on Tuesday March 8th, with regard to Order; and to move—
  "That Mr. Chairman of Committees was under an erroneous impression in informing the Committee that the Member for Dungarvan was disregarding the authority of the Chair;"
  said, that he understood that an hon. Member in his absence had taken occasion to reflect upon the course he had taken in leaving the Motion of which he had given Notice standing so long upon the Notice Paper. He desired, in the first place, therefore, to explain that he had postponed his Motion from time to time purely out of respect for the convenience of the House; and that he should greatly regret if the fact of his having kept his Motion so long upon the Notice Paper were to be interpreted into an act of discourtesy to the Chairman of Committees. He also desired to say that in placing that Notice upon the Paper he had carefully avoided language which could, in any sense, be regarded as conveying an imputation upon the justice or the righteous intentions of the Chairman of Committees. Under the stimulus and spur of the exasperation which he had felt at the most unprovoked and undeserved indignity which was put upon him, he admitted that he did use towards the Chairman of Committees words implying that that right hon. Gentleman had made an unjust and unfair use of the power which was intrusted to him. He now wished that it should be clearly understood that he by no means persisted in that statement, and that he was convinced that the conduct of the Chairman of Committees was not actuated by a desire to act unfairly or unjustly, but that it arose entirely out of an erroneous impression as to the course he was about to take on the occasion. Having regard to the importance
  1516
  of the question, and to the necessity of having it answered fairly, he would state, in as few words as possible, the part he took in the proceedings in Committee on the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill on Tuesday, the 8th of March. So far from taking any active part in the discussion of the 8th instant, he only spoke once during the whole evening, and that was for five minutes, in support of a suggestion of an hon. Member to make an Amendment in the clause before the Committee, and which was substantially accepted by the Home Secretary, who had charge of the Bill. Therefore, upon whatever ground his persistent action against the Coercion Bills might have led to the supposition that he was engaging in obstructive tactics, or disregarding the authority of the Chair, on this particular occasion, at all events, there was no ground for any such supposition. It was in support of the Amendment he had previously spoken to, and in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary—who had, he believed, been most constant in his attendance and most conciliatory in his demeanour to the Irish Members—it was in the temporary absence of the right hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) rose, and it was in connection with the speech of that hon. Member that he (Mr. O'Donnell) came in conflict with the Chair. Directly the hon. Member rose he was received with persistent cries of "Oh, oh!" "Divide!" and other clamorous expressions from hon. Members on the other side of the House. He did not intend in any way to justify the words then used by the hon. Member for Ennis, neither did he intend to contravene the ruling of the Chairman of Committees. He merely rose to a point of Order, nod he believed he would have been able to place some valuable evidence before the Chairman of Committees. He rose, according to the report in the Standard, to speak to a point of Order, and said that—
  "Mr. O'Connell, in this House, applied to Members of the Tory Party (cries of Order). I am speaking to Order. Mr. Chairman said, 'I have already given my ruling that the hon. Member (Mr. Finigan) must withdraw the two words which he has used.'"
  He (Mr. O'Donnell) instantly sat down, although he considered that he had important evidence to give upon the very

  1517
  language which was used by the hon. Member for Ennis, and evidence which would have prevented any serious misconception afterwards. He, however, sat down, and consequently there could be no blame resting on him with regard to his rising on a point of Order. He accepted the ruling of the Chair; but he was still under the impression that if he had been allowed by a cessation of clamour to state his point, the Chairman would have seen the appropriateness of his remarks. The hon. Member for Ennis then sought to offer some explanation of his conduct, and he was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman would gladly have listened to his explanation; because he believed that when an hon. Member was accused of making certain statements, the Chairman of Committees always pushed indulgence towards the accused to the extreme, and allowed him every opportunity of explaining his conduct. The Speaker would recollect that upon a recent occasion he (Mr. O'Donnell) rose to Order with regard to the words applied by the Solicitor General for Ireland to the Irish Members. That hon. and learned Gentlemen had said that some expressions used by Irish Gentlemen were insolent. The Speaker, however, declined to act upon his (Mr. O'Donnell's) statement that such words were used. He asked the hon. and learned Gentleman when he had used the words. It was only on the admission of the Solicitor General that he ruled that the phrase "insolent" was out of Order, and must be withdrawn. In the same way, he was quite sure that the hon. Member for Ennis, if he had succeeded in causing his words to reach the Chair, would have had most courteous indulgence on that occasion. The hon. Member, however, was received, as he, (Mr. O'Donnell) was received a few moments before, by a continuous clamour from a body of hon. Members below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House. Since the adoption of the Urgency Rules, hon. Gentlemen opposite had adopted a new phase in which to express disapproval of the observations of an hon. Member; whenever an hon. Member on the Irish Benches rose they now shouted, "Name him, name him, name him!" Now, that was not only most distracting and confusing to an hon. Member seeking to address the House, but it
  1518
  was most disrespectful and discourteous to the hon. Gentleman who was speaking and to the presiding authority; for it should be left to this authority alone to decide at which moment the penal powers placed in his hands by the judgment of the House should be exercised; and cries of "Name him, name him!" proceeding from every quarter of the House had the appearance of dictation to the Chair. He had, therefore, on that occasion sought to point out to the presiding authority that, however disrespectful and discourteous the language of the hon. Member for Ennis might have been, it had been provoked by the discourtesy and disrespect of hon. Members opposite; and it struck him (Mr. O'Donnell) that hon. Members sitting in their seats ought to be reminded of their duties to the House quite as fully and quite as clearly as any hon. Members who happened to be standing up to address the Chair. On this point, he desired to call the attention of the House to the very clear Rule on this subject, which was dated the 22nd of January, 1693, which was to this effect—
  "To the end that all the debates in this House should be grave and orderly as becomes so great an assembly and that all interruptions should be prevented, be it ordered and declared that no member of this House do presume to make any noise or disturbance whilst any member shall be orderly debating, or whilst any Bill, order, or other matter shall be in reading or opening; and in case of such noise or disturbance that Mr. Speaker do call upon the member by name making such disturbance, and that every such person shall incur the displeasure and censure of the House."
  He thought that those who made uproarious noises while Irish Members were orderly debating questions before the House ought to be reminded that they were themselves at least equally liable to their favourite punishment of being named. When the incident raised by the hon. Member for Ennis had been closed, he rose to call attention to the persistent interruptions as being most discourteous to the Chair and most obstructive to order in the House. In his very first words, on rising to a point of Order, he took care to say he was not in any way going to contest the authority of the Chair. On the contrary, he was going to appeal to the Chair, and was not going to discuss in any way the question which had been raised by the hon. Member

  1519
  for Ennis. His very first words, according to the report in The Standard, were, "Now that that question is settled, I rise to Order." He could quote reports which were even more favourable to his point of view than The Standard report. For instance, The Standard report stated that the Chairman of Committees actually named him; whereas other reports, as well as the recollection of several hon. Members, bore out the statement that in the hurry of the moment the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair forgot the formality of absolutely naming him. However, he was by no means desirous of resting any portion of his case on technicalities. His complaint was that he was never allowed to state any portion of his point of Order. He could not even finish a quarter of a sentence before he was violently interrupted by a continuation of the outcries and uproar which had proceeded from the portion of the House he had before referred to. He was greeted with the loudest uproar, and ceaseless cries of "Name him, name him!" This disorderly shouting accompanied him from the very first moment he rose until he finished speaking. He had gone no further than to call attention to the words "beastly bellowing," admid loud cries of "Order!" when the Chairman said he had already decided as to those words. He (Mr. O'Donnell) then said—
  "Precisely. ('Order.') I am not objecting to your ruling. (Loud cries of 'Order,' and great confusion.) I am speaking to a point of Order. (Uproar.) The Chairman.—The point of order is already settled."
  But that, he contended, was said by the Chairman when it was impossible for him to have caught what was stated, though, of course, the point of Order as to the words "beastly bellowing," had been already settled as long ago as Mr. O'Connell's time. Then the report in The Times continued—
  "Mr. O'Donnell.—I have a new point. (Irish cheers and cries of 'Name.') I am speaking to a new point of Order, and I will conclude in the fewest number of words. I shall be entirely guided by your ruling, but until I state my point no ruling can be given. As to the use of discourteous expressions, Mr. O'Connell in this House—The Chairmen.—That point has been already settled."
  What he wished to do at the time was to call attention to the persistent and most disorderly and discourteous inter-
  1520
  ruptions to which he was subjected, and he, therefore, replied to the Chairman that he rose to a new point of Order—a statement that was followed, according to The Times and The Standard, by violent interruptions and cries of "Name!" From first to last he was hounded down at every syllable by shouts that were contrary, not only to the Order of the House, but to the common courtesy of less august Assemblies; and then, without a single word of warning, without telling him to sit down, and without giving the slightest hint that he was doing anything but what had been done by thousands of Members of the House during all the centuries of its existence, the Chairman said—" I now name the Member for Dungarvan as disobeying the ruling of the Chair." And yet there was no ruling of the Chair at the time, and there could be none, as he had not been allowed to complete his first sentence. If the time of the House had at all costs to be saved, it would have been better for the Chairman to have heard him, and then, if proper, to have decided against him; but, as things were, two divisions, one of the Committee and one of the House, were rendered necessary. The fact was that the Chairman misunderstood him, and he had no opportunity of explaining his point of Order, while hundreds of clamorous deputy chairmen named him unofficially. He had been treated with very great injustice; but he attributed no such intention to the Chairman, who, he was sure, found himself in a very difficult position. He was tempted by the fact that the Home Secretary had moved his suspension for the crime of not being able to finish a sentence to remind the House that that right hon. and learned Gentleman had on a former occasion expatiated on the danger of preventing a speaker from finishing at least one sentence. In the last Parliament, under the courteous leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition, a dispute arose in Committee in the course of the debates on flogging in the Army. It was on the memorable night when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) deposed from his leadership the noble Lord who then sat for the Radnor Boroughs (the Marquess of Hartington), and who held unpopular views on the flogging question. On that occasion, while warmly advocating the

  1521
  abolition of the cat, he had spoken of the assembling of 500,000 men in Hyde Park; whereupon there were cries of "Order!" and a Motion was made to take down his words. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, with all the chivalry that was always at their service until his Party came into Office, interposed, and by an anecdote of George III. illustrated the possibility of finishing sentences in a manner not expected. In the end the Motion was withdrawn, on the assurance that no un-Parliamentary language was intended. Now, however, it seemed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, being in Office, had forgotten his former prudence and wisdom. In repeating the complaint he had to make, and with respect to which he wished it to be clearly understood that he brought no personal charge against the Chairman of Committees, he had only to say that he had risen to a point of Order; that he had distinctly stated that he regarded the previous point of Order as settled; that he was rising to a new point of Order; and that he had professed himself ready to submit to the decision of the Chair. Instead of being allowed to state his point of Order, he was instantly interrupted by a storm of shouts of "Order!" and "Name!" which went on unceasingly until he was named. He thought he might fairly complain, as a Member of the House and as representing an Irish constituency, that in a debate on a Bill specially affecting Ireland, he had been turned out of the House with the most undeserved stigma of having disregarded the ruling of the Chair. If reference were made to his conduct on other occasions, he was sure it would not be in the spirit of the Kerry juryman, who procured a verdict of guilty against an obviously innocent man, who was being tried for murder, and justified his conduct on the ground that the prisoner, though innocent of murder, had stolen his horse at Christmas. He regretted no part of his conduct in opposing the Coercion Bills; he was only doing his duty to his constituents. He was not prepared to make any apology or to lie under the stigma imposed upon him. He had asked one of the most respected Members of the House whether the House would vote fairly, though it was only the Member for Dungarvan who appealed to it, and
  1522
  he was told that it would. In the confidence, then, that that House would act towards him exactly as it would in similar circumstances towards the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition or the Leader of Her Majesty's Government, he would leave his case in its hands.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "Mr. Chairman of Committees, in the proceedings in Committee on the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill, on Tuesday March 8th, was under an erroneous impression in informing the Committee that the Member for Dungarvan was disregarding the authority of the Chair,"—(Mr.
  O'Donnell,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: I have no remark to make except approval for the hon. Member having delayed this Motion, on account of the urgency of Public Business, although it is obvious that a Motion of this character should not be allowed to weaken the authority of the Chair by remaining undetermined. The hon. Member has given to the House his impression of the proceedings on Tuesday, 8th March. This impression is, however, largely formed from the inner consciousness of his intention, and is not that which the Committee or the Chairman received by any audible expression of them. I ask now the House to go back and consider the actual facts of the proceedings, instead of the hypothetical representation derived from the inner consciousness of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. During the discussion an hon. Member used an expression which the Chair deemed to be discourteous to Members sitting opposite to him, and his attention was called to the fact, and to the necessity of using courteous language. The hon. Member did not act upon the advice of the Chair, but increased the strength of his expression, and said that the noise opposite to him resembled "beastly bellowing." That was not the first time those words had been used in the House. They had been applied by Mr. Daniel O'Connell on a well-known occasion, and had then been ruled out of Order. Acting upon that well-known ruling, the Chairman desired the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) to withdraw the expression.

  1523
  Upon that, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) intervened before the withdrawal of the words, and said—
  "Mr. O'Donnell: There is a point of Order, and I wish to speak to it. (Cries of 'Order' and 'Name him.') Mr. O'Connell in this House, replying to Members of the Tory Party—(Cries of 'Order, order.') I am speaking to Order. (Cries of 'Name him') The Chairman: I have already given my ruling that the hon. Member must withdraw the two words which he used."
  After a little resistance the hon. Member for Ennis did withdraw the words objected to, and he was then called upon by the Chair to continue his speech. The hon. Member for Ennis rose to resume the debate; but the hon. Member for Dungarvan for the second time intervened between him and the Chair, and spoke as follows:—
  "Mr. O'Donnell: I rise to Order, now that question is settled. I rise to Order—(Cries of 'Order, order.') On the point of Order—(uproar.) I must remind the Committee that the words 'beastly bellowing'—(uproar.) The Chairman: I have already decided upon those words."
  Again the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) was called upon by the Chair to resume the debate. Upon this the hon. Member for Dungarvan intervened, and said—
  "Mr. O'Donnell (amid cries of 'Name him'): Decidedly. I am not objecting to your ruling. I am speaking to a point of Order. (Cries of 'Order, order.') The Chairman: The point of Order on that subject is already settled."
  Again the Chair called upon the hon. Member for Ennis to continue his speech, but the hon. Member for Dungarvan, spoke a third time—
  "Mr. O'Donnell: A new point is raised. (Cries of 'Order.') I am speaking to a point of Order, and I will in the fewest possible words state the point. I will be guided entirely by your ruling; but until I have stated my point of Order there is no point for the Chairman to decide. With regard to the use of discourteous language, Mr. O'Connell in this House—(uproar.) The Chairman: That point of Order is already settled. Mr. O'Donnell: No, Sir. The Chairman: I now name the hon. Member for Dungarvan, Mr. O'Donnell, as having disregarded the authority of the Chair. Mr. O'Donnell remained on his feet, saying something which was inaudible in the Gallery owing to the din."
  These are the facts of the case, and the report which I have quoted from the Scotsman is, I believe, verbally accurate. I would draw the attention of the House
  1524
  to this circumstance—first, that the hon. Member for Dungarvan intervened between the Chairman's direction for the withdrawal of the objectionable words, and the hon. Member who was called upon to withdraw them. When these words were withdrawn, the debate ought to have been immediately resumed, and accordingly the Chairman twice called upon the hon. Member in possession of the debate to continue his speech; but each time that he did so the hon. Member for Dungarvan intervened between the direction of the Chairman for the resumption of the debate and the hon. Member for Ennis, who rose to continue it. On both these occasions he referred to the expression "beastly bellowing," which had been withdrawn, and was no longer under discussion. The hon. Member for Dungarvan says that he intended to have drawn the attention of the Chair to the unruly conduct on the other side of the House, which had exasperated the hon. Member speaking, and brought forth the expression "beastly bellowing." At an earlier stage of the debate this would have been quite in Order. When, in the first instance, the hon. Member for Ennis was disturbed by exclamations from the other side of the House, it would have been quite competent for him to direct attention to them, and ask the protection of the Chair. And at that time it would have been equally competent for the hon. Member for Dungarvan to direct the attention of the Chair to the alleged disorder, and ask whether it could not be subdued by the action of the Chair. But when the hon. Member for Ennis took the rebuke into his own hands by the use of un-Parliamentary expressions, the Case became entirely altered. When he was called upon to withdraw the words "beastly bellowing," the intervention of the hon. Member for Dungarvan between the Chair and the hon. Member for Ennis became irregular and out of Order, because it prevented that Member from at once conforming to the ruling of the Chair. It was also irregular and out of Order, when the Chair called upon the Member in possession of the House to resume the debate, for the hon. Member for Dungarvan twice to intervene between the Chair and the resumption of the debate, while on both these occasions he spoke with reference to the

  1525
  words "beastly bellowing," which had been withdrawn, and were no longer before the House. There is nothing of which the House is more properly jealous than when Members intervene between the Chairman and a Member who has called forth the censure of the Chair. Such interruptions almost invariably lead, as they did in the present case, to renewed disorder. On several occasions you, Mr. Speaker, have intimated that you would treat such interruptions as disorderly; and on the occasion under discussion, when the hon. Member for Dungarvan not only intervened between the ruling of the Chair for the ultimate withdrawal of the expression "beastly bellowing," but again twice after the Chairman had called upon the hon. Member for Ennis to resume the debate, he appeared both to the Committee and to the Chairman as having the deliberate intention of obstructing the course of the debate. The strong impression upon my own mind, as Chairman, was that the hon. Member for Dungarvan desired to prevent the resumption of the debate, in order that he might have an opportunity of discussing the words "beastly bellowing," to which he referred in all his three speeches. As these words had been declared to be out of Order, and were withdrawn, it would have been a direct defiance of the Chair to permit their further discussion. I had, therefore, with this conviction on my mind, no other course than to inform the Committee that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was disregarding the authority of the Chair. The protection of that authority then devolved upon the House. The House has not given to the Chair any power even to make a Motion for the suspension of a Member when a Member has been named to the Committee. It is for the House to determine whether it considers the case as one requiring the grave punishment of suspension; and it is only upon Motion made that the House is called upon to decide whether the Member named by the Chairman should be suspended or not. The Motion made for suspension in Committee was carried by 127 Ayes to 27 Noes. It was then confirmed by the House itself by 143 Ayes to 32 Noes. The Committee and the House which had heard the original un-Parliamentary language, and listened to the interruptions, thus confirmed the opinion of the
  1526
  Chairman that the authority of the Chair had been disregarded. I may remind the House that on the suspension in Committee beigh reported, the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) took exception to the suspension, not upon the ground now taken, that a new point of Order had not been listened to, but upon the mere technical point that he had not heard the Chairman call the hon. Member for Dungarvan by the name of Mr. O'Donnell. That was an altogether insignificant and unimportant issue, even if it had been true; but it is important to observe that the challenge of the action of the Chair was not that it had refused to listen to a complaint of the disorderly conduct of certain Members; but that the Chairman had failed in a mere point of technicality. In this the hon. Member for Cork City was entirely mistaken, for the words used by myself were—" I name the hon. Member for Dungarvan, Mr. O'Donnell, as disregarding the authority of the Chair." I now have stated the facts of the case as they appeared to myself, and to the great majority of the Committee and the House itself, on the 8th of March. After the statement made to-day by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, I am bound to believe that he intended to draw my attention to disorderly conduct on the other side of the House. He was unfortunate in his mode of doing so, and was out of Order all the three times which he selected for the purpose; and he was additionally unfortunate that he gave to the Committee no hint even of his intention, for in each of his three short speeches he put in the forefront an apparent intention of discussing the words "beastly bellowing," upon which a distinct ruling had been given, and final action had been taken. I have read carefully every report of the speeches which I could find, to see whether any other intention had been expressed that might have escaped my ear in the noise and confusion of the scene; but I have found no such indication. I contend, therefore, that with the evidence before him, the Chairman was bound to use the Rule of the House against the apparent obstruction to the resumption of the debate; and that the Committee, and subsequently the House, which had heard the whole proceedings, were justified in the vote which they gave upon the Motion for suspension.
  MR. BENTINCK, having been present on the occasion in question, must express his conviction that the whole case arose from a misunderstanding between the Member for Dungarvan and the Chairman of Ways and Means. What had just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman showed distinctly that he was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan meant to refer to a subject which had been already under discussion, and upon which he had, from the Chair, already given his decision. If, however, his own impression of what occurred was correct, that was not the object of the hon. Gentleman, who rose to a fresh point of Order entirely apart from the subject which had been discussed; and if he understood anything of the Rules of that House, the hon. Gentleman was perfectly justified in rising to Order. It seemed to him, with all due deference to the House, that the time of the House ought not to be employed in discussing a case which arose entirely through a misunderstanding. He would further express his opinion that, as a matter of justice to the hon. Member for Dungarvan, the decision which was come to under a misapprehension ought to be rescinded.
  MR. CAINE, as one of those who voted against the suspension of the hon Member for Dungarvan, appealed to him whether, after the statement which he had been able to make, he would not consent to withdraw his Motion?
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he was not disposed very much to blame the Chairman of Ways and Means, if at all, because he knew very well that very great coercion was brought to bear upon him by the Ministerialists to get him to give a decision different from what he probably would be inclined himself to give; but seeing that the right hon. Gentleman had, in point of fact, given up the whole case, he thought the House would do well to give its decision unanimously in favour of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan.
  MR. ONSLOWthought this was a very serious matter, as the hon. Member for Dungarvan had been a second time suspended, and the House well knew the severity of the penalty should the hon. Member at some future time commit another offence. Hon. Members ought to support the ruling of the Chairman on
  1528
  every occasion; but the right hon. Gentleman's observations that evening showed that he misunderstood the purport of the remarks of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. There was very good reason why he should misunderstand them. The noise in the House was so dreadful at the time that he defied any Chairman of Ways and Means rightly to have understood what the hon. Member said unless, in the first place, he called the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to Order. Although it would be a strong point for them to vote against the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, yet, as a severe penalty attached to the vote they gave somewhat under a misapprehension the other night, he would appeal to the Prime Minister as to whether they had not better, in all the circumstances of the case, agree to rescind that vote? This would not be casting any stigma on the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman who was in the Chair, for they all knew the difficult position he was placed in—a position at all times one of some difficulty, but which had become this Session still more difficult. He thought it would be desirable not to come to a vote on the present occasion. If the hon. Member for Dungarvan would accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), matters would be very much simplified.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I stand rather in a different position from the hon. Member who has just addressed the House. I was present on the occasion, and I think he was not. I wish to speak of this matter with good feeling, and in the temperate tone with which it has been treated on both sides. As the hon. Member for Dungarvan has correctly stated, when the circumstances to which he referred unfortunately arose, I was not in the House. When I reentered the House, which I had left very quiet, I found it had got into a rather lively condition. I understood that the words "beastly bellowing" gave rise to a great deal of strong feeling in the House. Thereupon, the Chairman of Committees called upon the Member who had used these words to withdraw them; and then, according to my recollection, the hon. Member for Dungarvan interposed. Now, as I understood the hon. Member, he most distinctly rose to point out to the Chairman

  1529
  of Committees that these words were not objectionable, and that he ought not to call upon the hon. Member to withdraw them. I do not think the hon. Member will dispute that.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent me; but I thought I stated clearly in my opening observations that I rose to offer evidence upon a point of Order, and sought by no means to in any way justify the use of the words "beastly bellowing."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: What I conceive is, and I believe I am right in that view of the matter, that if a Member uses words which are objectionable, and the Chairman calls upon that Member to withdraw those words, it would be irregular for anybody to interpose between the Chair and the Member addressing the House, to discuss whether or not the Chairman was right in asking that the words should be withdrawn, and to raise a debate on that subject. The first irregularity I observed was the attempt on the part of the lion. Member (Mr. O'Donnell) to interpose between the Chair and the Member who had used those objectionable words. It was upon that first occasion, as I understood it, that the hon. Member for Dungarvan made his first reference to Mr. O'Connell. I had the impression, and I think every Member in the House had the impression, that the reference of the hon. Member for Dungarvan to Mr. O'Connell's case was to point out, and to lead the Chairman and the House to believe, that these words ought not to be objectionable and not withdrawn. That was the impression produced upon my mind at that time. What took place was this. After the Chairman, having called upon the hon. Member for Ennis to withdraw these words, they were, after all these interruptions, ultimately withdrawn, and there was again that question of Order. Now, mark, the hon. Member for Dungarvan says that he rose to a new question of Order; but there could be no new question of Order, because nothing had occurred. [Mr. O'DONNELL: Yes.] No doubt, the hon. Member for Dungarvan now thinks that there was a point of Order.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I rise to a point of Order. I must respectfully request the Home Secretary not to use the word "now" as implying any insinuation against me.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg the hon. Member for Dungarvan to observe that I made no insinuation at all in the words I used. I pointed out that the words used now are in opposition to what was acted upon by the Chairman of Committees, and that was what the hon. Member then said. What he then said was not an objection to anything taking place below the Gangway on this side of the House. After the Chairman had said "I have already decided on these words," the hon. Member then rose. Remember, nothing had occurred except what came from the other side of the House. If the hon. Member had said there was a clamour on the other side, and called upon the Chairman to put it down, that would have been very intelligible; but he proceeded to call the attention of the House to the use of discourteous language by Mr. O'Connell. Could any man in this House believe, could the Chairman of Committees believe, anything else than that that was a distinct reference to the previous words of "beastly bellowing" which had been used by Mr. O'Connell? What was the meaning of the reference to Mr. O'Connell? It was quite plain, therefore, to everybody, that the words Mr. O'Connell used, and which the hon. Member wished to call attention to, were a going back again upon the old story of "beastly bellowing," and that he wished to invite the consideration of the Committee to something which had been decided. That was the impression produced upon my mind and that of the Chairman of Committees; and I do not very well see how on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman could have interpreted the use of discourteous language, and the reference to Mr. O'Connell, as having anything to do with a new point of Order. It is for the House, however, to determine what it will do under these circumstances.
  MR. PLUNKET: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the House will allow me to say a very few words, which will not, I think, tend to excite any acrimony, as I believe I was the only Member on this Bench on this occasion. I must say that my recollection agrees in every respect with what has fallen from the Chairman of Committees. There was certainly at the time a considerable amount of confusion in the House; and no one need impute any want of good faith to those con-

  1531
  cerned, for it was really difficult to catch anything at all. As to the point whether the hon. Member for Dungarvan was named, such was the noise in the House throughout that, although I distinctly heard the Chairman say "Mr. O'Donnell," hon. Members sitting just behind me did not catch those words. The impression produced on my mind at the time the hon. Member for Dungarvan was speaking was exactly that described by the Chairman of Committees as the impression produced on his mind; and I certainly did believe that the hon. Member was persisting in referring to the term "beastly bellowing," upon which the Chairman had already ruled. He has told us now that was not his intention; and as to that it is not for me to say a word; but at the time no other construction could be placed upon his words. I submit to the House it was impossible for the Chairman of Committees or myself to suppose that, instead of referring to that point, he was about to allude to an interesting Parliamentary incident 200 years old; and believing that the hon. Member was persisting in resisting the authority of the Chair, I, for one, thought it my duty to support the Chair; and if this Motion goes to a division, I shall still be prepared to support it. If I might be allowed to make a suggestion it is, that the hon. Member for Dungarvan, having addressed the House in a way which will commend itself to us all, and having given an explanation of what he intended to do—under all the circumstances, if the Leader of the House can make any proposal to settle this matter, it will be received with general satisfaction.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I feel indebted, not only to the right hon. Gentleman near me (Sir William Harcourt), but to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have kindly, and, I think, usefully and as impartially as I could wish, related to us who were not in the House at the time when the circumstances occurred, exactly their impressions and belief of what took place; and I think that their statements will carry, and justly carry, the greatest weight with the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket) has asked me if I am able to offer any suggestion; and he is quite justified in making that appeal. Unfortunately, as I need hardly state, for
  1532
  myself, I was not in the House at the time when the circumstances occurred, and, therefore, I have been anxiously waiting to gather the most exact impression at which I could arrive as to the nature of these circumstances. I think we have got considerable light, if we can make use of it, in the case before us. The Motion of the hon. Gentleman has led to a speech from him, couched in the most becoming terms, which I do not hesitate to say must carry to all of your minds the full conviction that the hon. Gentleman had not the least intention of disregarding the authority of the Chair. I make that acknowledgment, not as a matter of favour; but that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to it there can be no doubt. But that is very far from disposing of the case now before us. We have now before us a Motion; and we must look at the position of that Motion, and the construction which the adoption of the Motion would naturally carry. I was very glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman who rose to make the suggestion in relief, if I may so say, of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, did not recommend the adoption of his Motion, but recommended its withdrawal. Now, I think that is the course which ought to be followed, and I will give my reason. If we are called upon, as I hope we shall not be called upon, to vote upon the Question before us, I feel no difficulty, because the Motion is that you do leave the Chair for the purpose of going into Committee of Supply, and that the words shall stand part of the Question. Consequently, our first question will not be the pronunciation of any judgment at all upon the Motion made by the hon. Member for Dungarvan. I feel, therefore, that those who might be, perhaps, more prepared than I am to adopt that Motion, may very justly vote for the previous Motion, that the words "that you do leave the Chair," should stand part of the Question. I am bound to say that, with the feeling I have expressed in regard to the hon. Member for Dungarvan—and by no means precluding myself from considering hereafter whether there is any manner by which he can be relieved from the consequences of the position in which he has been placed—I cannot possibly vote for his Motion. I must ask myself what would be the effect of it. He invites us to vote that the

  1533
  Chairman of Committees was under an erroneous impression in informing the Committee that the Member for Dungarvan was disregarding the authority of the Chair. If we rule that the Chairman of Committees was under an erroneous impression, no person can mistake the fact that we should be, although not in actual terms, pronouncing a condemnation upon the conduct of the Chairman of Committees. I am not prepared to pronounce that condemnation. I give my distinct opinion that the adoption of those words is in itself a condemnation of the conduct of the Chairman of Committees. I do not mean to say it is a severe condemnation; but it is an imputation that he acted erroneously. The Chairman of Committees did not, in my opinion, act erroneously, because he acted upon, I think, the just and necessary inference from the words which were again and again placed before him by the hon. Member for Dungarvan. Will the hon. Member for Dungarvan allow me to say that the Chairman of Committees was misled by the hon. Member himself, and that, under those circumstances, it would not be fair or just to record these words? My right hon. Friend near me contends, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket) has stated, that the Chairman of Committees pronounced the only judgment at the moment he could pronounce. If that is so, we ought most carefully to avoid any words which, by the remotest implication, would go to assert that, in the opinion of the House, the Chairman of Committees erred in judgment, when it was the hon. Gentleman himself who supplied him with sufficient evidence, on which he acted. ["No, no!"] That is my opinion, and it was evidence which warranted his action. What the hon. Gentleman now says with regard to his intention is a totally different matter. ["No, no!"] It appears to me that the hon. Gentleman used words again and again which left no option to the Chairman of Committees. I say that as frankly as I say that the hon. Gentleman has convinced me that he unfortunately used these words; and if he had had the opportunity, rightly withheld from him, he would have given an ultimate turn to the matter contrary to all natural and reasonable expectation, and would have showed that he had no intention of dis-
  1534
  regarding the authority of the Chair. It has been suggested that we should rescind the Motion affecting the hon. Member; but I shall be careful about giving an opinion on that subject at the present moment. It is not the proposal before us, and it is one which appears to me to involve difficult points of procedure. Whether it is a matter which can be considered or not—whether there are modes in which the hon. Member can have authentically asserted, what we all believe, that he did not intend to disregard the authority of the Chair—I do not now say; but it is a question to which I should be prepared to give dispassionate and favourable consideration hereafter. I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman in the terms of the Motion, which go to imply a censure on the Chairman of Committees, which was evidently not warranted.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I am, in one respect, in the same position as the Leader of the House. I was not present when this matter took place; but, speaking from what I have gathered in the course of this discussion, I may say that the impression left on my mind is the same as appears to have been left on that of the right hon. Gentleman—that is to say, that the explanation which has been given in the course of this debate by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and which has been given in so excellent a tone, and with so much moderation, is fully sufficient to satisfy us that he had not in his mind the intention of disregarding the authority of the Chair. It is one reason why I should hope we may not have to come to any decision on this question that might seem to imply on the part of those who were not able to vote with the hon. Member that they were not satisfied with his explanation. I, for my part—and I believe I speak the general sense of the House—feel satisfied that the explanation he has given is the true explanation of his intentions, and that, so taken, it is undoubtedly one which acquits him of any intention to disregard the authority of the Chair. But, on the other hand, I feel strongly with the Prime Minister that if we were to pass a Resolution of this kind, it could not but be taken as so far as a reflection on the conduct of the Chairman of Committees as materially to weaken, if not, perhaps, even to destroy, his authority upon future

  1535
  occasions. In these matters, indirectly, we have had too much experience of what takes place. There is a great deal of confusion in the House, a great deal of heat, and a great deal of noise, so that it is extremely difficult for anyone to form an accurate judgment as to what may be in the mind of anyone who may wish to address the House. I am satisfied, however, that the Chairman of Committees on this occasion, as I have seen him do on so many other occasions, did his very best to preserve his authority with strict regard to the rights and feelings of Members. Nothing can be more difficult than the position of the Chairman on such occasions; and from my own experience I would say that it is the duty of the House to support, as far as possible, the authority of its Chairman as of the Speaker. I hope, as the result of this discussion, that hon. Members in all parts of the House will bear in mind that the kind of support they can best give to the Speaker and the Chairman is a quiet support, and a support afforded consistently with the feelings and rights of other Members. I think that occasionally there have been instances of impatience shown to hon. Members on this side of the House which has rendered the matter very difficult. I hope the hon. Member for Dungarvan and those who act with him will bear in mind that if he has been a little harshly treated on this occasion, there have been other occasions when he and his Friends have, perhaps, been more deserving. What I hope may be the upshot of the matter is that, even if the hon. Member for Dungarvan should be made a martyr for it, there will be a diminution of those scenes, and less frequent occasions for them. Meantime, I trust we may not be put to the pain of a division. To me it would be a very painful vote, because it would cast a reflection I have no intention of doing. Whether it may be possible, as has been suggested by the Prime Minister, to find some other way of relieving the hon. Member for Dungarvan from the painful position in which he feels himself to be, and set him at liberty to exercise greater freedom, I cannot say; but I do hope that the matter may close in the same spirit and the same good nature with which it has been conducted till now; that the hon. Member for Dungarvan will be satisfied with the favourable impression that has evidently
  1536
  been made by his speech; and that the Chairman of Committees will rest assured that he has the support of the House in the very difficult position he has to fill.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he was in the House at the time the incident in question occurred, and although there was a good deal of clamour on the Benches opposite, he was able to follow the whole course of the proceedings which then took place. His hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan, he recollected, rose in his place several times, and each time began by saying that he did not do so to dispute the ruling of the Chairman, but to a new point of Order. He made also some reference to the words "beastly bellowing," but not, as he understood, to explain or justify the use of those words, but to point out that words of the kind were provoked by the noise and clamour which prevailed on the other side of the House. If his hon. Friend had been allowed to finish his sentence, he would have explained in a moment what the point of Order was which he desired to raise, and the whole thing would have been at an end. He did not blame the Chairman of Committees in the matter, for he could very well understand the difficulties with which he had to contend; but he was convinced his hon. Friend had no intention of challenging the authority of the Chair. His hon. Friend, however, had been suspended a second time from the Sittings of the House, and there ought to be some way out of the difficulty by which he would be relieved from a most unjust censure, while the authority of the House would be at the same time preserved.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that he quite accepted the explanation of the hon. Member for Dungarvan as to what he intended to say; but the House had to consider, not what he intended to do, but what he actually did. Now, the hon. Member admitted that he persisted in referring more than once to the words already withdrawn in deference to the ruling of the Chair. Under these circumstances, while fully accepting the assurance given by the hon. Member, he did not think that the Chairman of Committees could have taken any other course than that which he actually adopted; and he could not, therefore, concur in any Resolution which in any

  1537
  way would seem to imply any censure of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that having been present on the occasion in question, he believed both the Chairman of Committees and the hon. Member for Dungarvan laboured under a mutual misunderstanding. The latter repeated more than once that he rose to a new point of Order; and the only doubt he himself had was whether the hon. Gentleman was about to refer by name—there having been a most unbecoming noise on the Radical Benches opposite—to the hon. Member for Exeter, or the hon. Baronet the Member for Lambeth (Sir James C. Lawrence). He trusted the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion without receiving any fresh assurance from the Treasury Bench.
  MR. PARNELLdid not rise to prolong the debate. He did not think it would be profitable to inquire whether the Chairman of Committees was right or wrong in supposing that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was going to return to the old point of Order. If it were desirable to do so, he might express the opinion that it would have been better if his hon. Friend had been allowed to finish the sentence in which he proposed to introduce the new point of Order. To-day was the first opportunity the hon. Member had had of making his explanation to the House in reference to his intentions on the occasion in question. It would be unreasonable that the Prime Minister should be asked for an immediate declaration as to what steps, if any, he proposed to take. He would advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion, and leave the question as to how he might be rehabilitated in his right to the consideration of the Prime Minister.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had not asked the House to do anything for him on the ground of what he intended to say, as he might rest his whole case entirely on the fact that he had been misinterpreted. He felt that he had condescended too far in making that explanation. The point of his whole case was that he was interrupted through the misconception of the Chairman, owing to the clamour which prevailed in the House at the time, and was prevented from availing himself of his right and stating fully his new point of Order for the consideration of the Chair. He was
  1538
  happy, however, to accept the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), and to ask leave to withdraw his Motion, leaving to the Government any discretion which they might choose to exercise on the subject. Although he thought a fuller acknowledgment of his position might be given, he wished to thank right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House for the generous kindness and courtesy of their references to him.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Perhaps I ought to say that I will do my best—and no man can do more—in connection with the appeal made. This is a very novel and difficult case; and I am bound to state frankly that I certainly could do nothing in it which could disparage the proceedings of my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees. Beyond that, I should be very glad to consult with those who are most competent to enter into the matter, and if we can tender any suggestion it shall be tendered.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. CHILDERS: I beg to move—
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £446,000, 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 1881, for meeting Additional Expenditure beyond the amounts already granted for Supplies and Warlike Stores for the Army."
  This Supplementary Estimate refers solely to the expenditure in connection with the war now going on in Natal and the Transvaal; and I think that I should best consult the convenience of the Committee if, after what passed an hour or more ago, I made no reference whatever to the policy of the war, but confined my remarks to the military expenditure included in the Estimate. I will state, therefore, in as few words as possible, that the whole of this £446,000 which I ask the House to vote is proposed in connection with the operations in the Transvaal; and under these circumstances:—When Her Majesty's Go-

  1539
  vernment took Office in the spring of last year I found that the Estimates of this current year had been prepared upon the basis of four regiments being employed in Natal and the Transvaal during the financial year which is now about to close. One Cavalry regiment was also to be employed during the first half of the year until October; and the land transport was to be on a peace footing. That Estimate had been so prepared by the late Government before there was any clear idea that a larger amount of force would be required to be kept up in the Transvaal during the year; and so it was only determined to provide for land transport upon a peace footing. If it became necessary to provide land transport on a war footing a Supplementary Estimate would have been required; but when we took Office we came to the conclusion, after carefully considering the recommendations of Sir Garnet Wolseley, and after conferring with Sir George Colley, who had been appointed by our Predecessors, and who went over to the Transvaal a few months afterwards—we determined not to revise the transport arrangements, but to leave them as they had been for some time; and to wait until Sir George Colley made his report to us after he had taken over the civil and military government of the Colonies in question. Sir George Colley was to report what he might consider desirable with respect to the maintenance of the Land Forces in the Transvaal. Sir George Colley did so report the cost of the arrangements that were then contemplated; and even if we had not been engaged in the present war which has, unfortunately, broken out within the last few months, the Estimates, as far as the Transvaal is concerned, would have been exceeded to a small extent. It is right I should state this, in order that there may be no misapprehension whatever as to the intentions of the late Government and the present Government in this matter. In the month of December the occurrences took place in the Transvaal which led to this unfortunate war; and the present Estimate is the Estimate of the expense which we consider it would be necessary to incur at the end of the present financial year, that is, to the end of the present month. A right hon. Gentleman opposite asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, during
  1540
  the time of Questions, whether it was intended to ask for any Supplementary Estimate for the expense of the Transvaal War during the present year? [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: During the year 1881–2.] I beg pardon, during the year 1881–2; and I refer the right hon. Gentleman to his own Estimates for the year, which show a considerable sum would have to be expended during 1881–2; and that the sum so estimated by him, up to the end of January last, is between £500,000 and £600,000, so that the Estimates at present before the Committee amount altogether to the expenditure of about £1,000,000 in connection with the Transvaal War, so far as the expenditure was determined to the end of January last. Of this sum £440,000 are due to the current financial year; and between £500,000 and £600,000 will be expended in connection with the next financial year. Of course, whether this sum is sufficient or not must depend on the result of the negotiations now going on. If the Transvaal War should be continued for a considerable time, it would be necessary, no doubt, in the spring of next year to ask for a further Vote; but it is only my duty, at the present moment, to state what we require in respect of the present financial year. Towards the end of January last we anticipated that the necessary expenditure would be about £440,000. But then, I may be asked, what has occurred since then? We are now some way on in the month of March; and it is necessary to know what the expenditure is likely to be for the current year. This, I need scarcely say, has been my own question to those who advised me in this matter for some weeks past. I have constantly pressed upon the officials, both military and financial, of the War Office to keep me very carefully informed, so that if in their judgment these Estimates are not sufficient, I might at once ask for a second Estimate. But after careful inquiry, such as can be made here, and by telegraph in South Africa, I am satisfied that it would not be proper to ask the Committee to vote a further sum. I do not at all say that it is impossible, when the Accounts are made up, that a further sum may not be necessary; but, as far as we can reasonably estimate, from the information in our possession, we consider that amount to be sufficient.

  1541
  There is one reason why it is not necessary to increase the charge which must be familiar to all who are conversant with Army and Navy expenditure. Since the Estimate was asked it is quite true we have sent out further troops to the extent of several regiments; but, so far from increasing the Army Charges, this fact diminishes the Army Charges, because when the troops are aboard ship they are, in respect of provisions for the men and forage for the horses, at the charge of the Navy, and not of the Army. Such is the financial arrangement between the two Departments; and, taking this fact into careful consideration, after consultation, and after going carefully through the Estimate, and after criticizing it in every possible way, in the judgment of my Military and Naval Advisers, the sum of £440,000 which we ask for now will be sufficient for the expenditure of the year. But there are elements of uncertainty in the matter—for instance, it is hard to know and difficult to guess what is going on in the beleaguered garrisons. The only thing we know is that, being beleaguered, they cannot easily get any money; and, therefore, if some expenditure may be taking place at Pretoria, it is taking place on credit, and the charge may not come into the present financial year. I may add that I have honestly done my best, and I cannot do more, in order to satisfy myself as to whether we ought to ask for more. If it had been necessary to do so, I should not have hesitated to make the demand; but, on the whole, I think the Estimate now submitted is a fair charge. I have one or two words to say on another matter. I wish particularly to answer a suggestion which was made the other day outside this House, in rather a pointed way, in reference to the manner in which the Department over which I have the honour to preside has conducted the war that is being carried on at this moment. It is, whether we have properly complied with the requirements of our commanders in the field, or have stinted and starved them in reference to what they wanted? I am in a position to say that that is not only not the case, but the reverse of the case; every requirement which has been addressed to us from the Cape, whether for food, material, or stores, by the Generals and officers in the Transvaal and Natal, has
  1542
  been complied with, and more than complied with. When the first telegram was received of the impending difficulties, we sent a regiment without waiting for a formal requisition, which, however, we did afterwards receive by telegraph. This was on the 19th December, and on the 24th or 25th Sir George Colley asked for a regiment and a battery. We sent him both, and ordered a further regiment of Cavalry, a regiment of Infantry, and three batteries of Artillery. Sir George Colley asked that if any troops were going home from India they might call at Durban for orders, as he was not quite certain whether he would want them or not. Afterwards he said that he did want them, and he had them. In the same way, on the 4th of January, we complied with a further requisition of the Governor; and on the 29th January, after the unfortunate occurrence at Laing's Nek, within a few hours of a request to that effect, two Cavalry regiments and a battery of Artillery were sent out. I do not wish to take any credit for that promptness on our part; but I think it right, without speaking of myself, that those who are responsible for military operations of this kind should receive the credit of having acted, even beyond the requirements that were made. I have just one word to say as to the manner in which these reinforcements have been sent out. I think it is my duty, having served some years at the Admiralty myself, and knowing something of the difficulties which surround a sudden demand for transport on that Department, to bear testimony to the admirable manner in which the Transport Department has complied, and is complying still, with the requirements of the War Department. There is a standing Committee of officers from the different Departments who work out all the details as to the method of conveyance in all large operations of this kind; and everything was decided after a conference between the Admiralty, the Colonial, and the War Offices, presided over by Lord Northbrook, Lord Kimberley, and myself. We have consulted our different officers, and in this way we have been able to despatch, at three or four hours' notice, the large force which has been sent out to the Transvaal. I hope that I have not taken up too much of the time of the Committee in stating the

  1543
  nature of these Votes. I think that all that has been done up to this moment has been done with great success and promptitude; and I now beg to move the Vote which I have placed in your hands.
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £446,000, 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 1881, for meeting Additional Expenditure beyond the amounts already granted for Supplies and Warlike Stores for the Army."
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am exceedingly glad to hear the full explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the Committee as to the amount of this Vote. It certainly would appear, to an uninstructed person, that the Vote was much smaller than was necessary. The original Estimate of £446,000, which is now before the Committee, was for a much smaller force. Since the Estimate was prepared, certainly more than double the number of men and horses have been sent out, and yet it has not been deemed necessary to increase the Vote. The explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given is, no doubt, a sufficient explanation of the economy with which the whole affair has been conducted; but I confess, for my own part, that I should hardly have thought that the saving in food and forage, during the period occupied in the voyage out to the Cape of Good Hope, would have been so very large as to balance the increased charge for warlike stores, which must be something very considerable, and also the very heavy charge for land transport from Durban up to the scene of operations. I have no doubt, however, that the right hon. Gentleman is sufficiently informed on these points; but I notice with satisfaction that he has reserved to himself the possibility of having to make a further demand for these particular Services. I am exceedingly glad that the right hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary to pay a just tribute to the exertions of the Transport Department of the Admiralty. The course which the right hon. Gentleman has described was pursued by the Admiralty during the three or four years I had the honour to serve there, and I wish to bear the strongest possible testimony to the zeal of the officers of the Transport Department of the Ad-
  1544
  miralty, and to the readiness with which they met the officials the War Office deputed to arrange with them for the despatch of the troops, and the complete and energetic manner in which they sought to carry out the work, and to the efficiency as well as the economy of all their arrangements.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwas sure the Committee would be very much comforted by the statement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. He had certainly experienced the same feeling as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith), and had been somewhat puzzled to know how it was that the original Estimate for South Africa had not been exceeded. At the same time, he was quite sure there would be no disposition on that side of the House to question the accuracy and care with which the Secretary of State for War had framed his Estimates; and, therefore, they were justified in feeling much comforted. The right hon. Gentleman would forgive him if he reminded the Committee that Estimates in regard to war expenses on previous occasions had been fallacious, and that the House was very apt to be sensitive on the subject. The only points on which he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee further information were these—The right hon. Gentleman had said that, if necessary, transport would be imported from abroad; and he (Sir George Campbell) had read, in a Scotch paper, that large purchases of horses and mules were being made in Buenos Ayres for despatch to Natal. He wished to know if that was so, and if the cost was paid in the shape of ready money out of this grant, and whether the enormous expenditure for carriage which must, undoubtedly, be going on in South Africa at the present moment was supplied from money sent from this country to the Military Chest? Was the practice followed now that was followed formerly in South Africa, by which the local military authorities were able to raise money in the Colonies by drawing long bills on this country? It had been sometimes found that by that means a much larger amount of money was expended in the current year than Parliament was asked to pay in the same year, or than they were aware of, Those were

  1545
  the only points upon which he asked for an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman—namely, whether the Government were paying ready money for transport and other expenses now being incurred in and for South Africa, or whether bills of which, as yet, we knew nothing were being drawn upon this country and were being allowed to accumulate, which, unhappily, we should be called upon to pay upon some future occasion? He knew that it would be impossible to give any assurance with regard to the expenses for the ensuing year; but, in reference to the current year, it was desirable the Committee should know whether we were spending ready money or running up bills on credit.
  MR. RYLANDSconfessed that he was unable to participate in the comfort felt by his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) in regard to this Vote. His hon. Friend seemed to derive some comfort from the fact that Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that an expenditure of £500,000 would carry us through these unfortunate transactions up to the end of the present financial year. But Her Majesty's Government at the same time told them that in the Estimates for next year it would also be necessary to provide a large sum, amounting to another £500,000. His hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy, while deriving comfort himself, took care to give very little comfort to anybody else, because he went on to show that, under the late Government, there were large charges in connection with transactions in South Africa that were paid out of the Military Chest, but which did not come to the knowledge of Parliament until some time after they were expended. His hon. Friend wanted the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, here in England, to be able to assure Parliament that expenditure was not going on in South Africa to increase the cost of the war before the 31st of March. He (Mr. Rylands) had no doubt that the Government would take every means in their power to keep down this dreadful expenditure; but with all the anxiety they might show, and with every attempt they might make, if the war went on they might expect to be called upon to provide a very large sum in the future—much larger than any of them were able to
  1546
  calculate at present. He had simply risen to say that, while he could not, under the circumstances, refuse to vote the sum of money now asked for, he should vote with the greatest possible reluctance, and only on the full assurance that an ample opportunity would be afforded hereafter for discussing every matter connected with this expenditure. He was quite alive to the reasonableness of the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, that they should avoid any such discussion now; but, at the same time, in voting as they were about to do, he thought they ought not to deceive themselves by supposing that sum would necessarily cover all the expenditure that might go on up to the 31st of March. What the Government assured them was that this amount, in the form of a Supplementary Estimate, would be sufficient, in their judgment, to place the accounts of the year in a fair position in regard to this war expenditure. He could not say that he was fully prepared to believe that it would cover everything; for he knew that military and naval expenditure in a state of war was like the letting out of water, and that it was almost impossible to control it. He must say, therefore, that he should not rely with perfect confidence on the present Estimate.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was not going to raise any question as to the policy of the Transvaal War. The right hon. Gentleman had put the case very clearly. He asked the Committee not to go into the policy of the war, and deliberately promised that they should have a full opportunity of discussing the question in all its details and in all its varied aspects. But he was bound to say, and he did it with some regret, that they were placed there in a very awkward position; they were not enabled to know what was going on. They had not, however, on that side of the House pressed Her Majesty's Government in the difficult position in which they were placed. Nor was he going to press the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War one inch further than he had already gone. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister must remember that the late Government were not treated with the same courtesy and consideration; and, although the Government were asking a great deal from hon. Gen-

  1547
  tlemen who sat on that side of the House, yet, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, he, for one, at any rate, would not attempt by one hair's breadth to interfere with anything that might now be going on. He would only venture to hope that at the earliest opportunity, not only the House, but the country, might have an opportunity of knowing all the circumstances, which they had certainly not yet had placed before them. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not lose a moment in placing the House in full possession of the facts in regard to the Transvaal.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he noticed his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) shake his head when his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) remarked that the courtesy and consideration now asked for by the Government was not extended to the late Government. He (Lord Elcho) had a strong recollection of something like strong demands—he might even call them denunciations—having been addressed to the Government for not having, at a time when delicate and intricate negotiations were going on, taken the House of Commons into their confidence. He had a perfect recollection that that was the tone taken at the time. He was quite prepared, if the question had been raised now, to discuss it, and he thought it would have been well if the Government had placed the House in the possession of a little further information; but the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War thought it would be contrary to the interests of the country that such a debate should arise, or that any such information should be given. Without desiring to dispute the policy of the course suggested by the Government, he wished simply to point out that the Government, on the question of negotiations in reference to peace, appeared to have two voices in reference to South Africa, because, when negotiations were pending between the Basutos and the Cape Colony, a telegram was read which certainly expressed the views of the Government on the subject. He would not pursue the matter further now than to say that he trusted that in whatever was done by Her Majesty's Government they would maintain the honour of this country and add to the security of our South African possessions. There were only two points on which he would ask
  1548
  for information. He understood that a Commission was to be appointed to settle the terms of peace. He thought the Committee ought to know who the Commissioners would be; and he would express the hope that, at any rate, they would be gentlemen who had not hitherto, in dealing with the matter, been committed to either side of the question. The other point was that the Government ought to state whether Sir Hercules Robinson had been consulted with regard to the terms that were offered to the Boers. These were mere matters of fact, which did not involve any question of policy, and there would be no difficulty in giving an answer upon them.
  MR. GLADSTONE: In regard to the last question of my noble Friend, I have no hesitation whatever in stating that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been in communication with Sir Hercules Robinson in all the negotiations arising out of the painful circumstances under consideration, and I have no difficulty also in stating that Sir Hercules Robinson will be one of the Commissioners. I am unable to give the Committee the names of all the Commissioners this evening; but I hope to be able to do so in the course of a day or two. In regard to that mysterious shake of the head referred to by my noble Friend, I wish to say that I should not have shaken my head at all, or given any sign on this occasion, had the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) been content with stating that, in his opinion, the late Government had not been treated with the wisdom and the forbearance which have been shown on the present occasion. If that had been all I should not have shaken my head at all. The hon. and gallant Baronet is entitled to entertain that opinion; but what made me feel under a moral obligation to shake my head was that the hon. and gallant Baronet said that I should recollect that it was so. That would involve a most awkward admission, which I have no idea of making. I am very thankful to the House for the consideration it has shown. I can only assure hon. Members that it would have been a great comfort and a great relief to us if we could have ventured in some degree to divide the responsibility which has been cast upon us. But from day to day we have considered the question, and from day to

  1549
  day we have found that we could not, without seriously prejudicing the great interests involved, make partial disclosures to the House. That being the case, I have only to mention that since I last addressed the House a telegram has been received, in which we are informed that Conferences were proceeding yesterday. There is nothing to anticipate the result, nor is there anything in the telegram which at all tends to abate any hopes previously entertained.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the estimate of the Secretary of State for War for the expenditure occasioned by the Transvaal War included two items—one of £440,000 this year, and one of £500,000 for next year, or about £1,000,000 in all. He confessed that he had fully expected a much larger sum—probably £2,000,000. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War whether it was likely that any recourse would be had to the old method of accounting for military operations in South Africa? His hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was quite right in saying that under the system which formerly existed the money expended in the Transvaal would not be brought to account in the current year. Certainly a different state of circumstances had arisen, since a Committee had been sent out last year to investigate the matter. He believed that useful results would be obtained from their inquiry; and he wished to know from the Secretary of State for War if we were not now more likely to receive more promptly all the vouchers for the expenditure during the year than we ever were before? He would also express a hope that the Secretary of State for War would lay on the Table a Return of the expenditure for military operations in South Africa in the last 40 years. He (Sir George Balfour) believed it would be found that a sum of between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000 had been expended during that period. He was satisfied that if the country had clearly laid before it all the facts and the cost incurred in acquiring territory in South Africa, it would be most reluctant indeed in attempting the further extension of our territory in that part of the world.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDwould not go as far as the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George
  1550
  Balfour). He did not think they required Returns for so many years back as the hon. and gallant Member seemed to desire; but he trusted that the Secretary of State for War would, as his Department had hitherto done, use every effort to obtain the necessary vouchers for every kind of expenditure incurred in South Africa. They knew from the Public Accounts Committee that their great difficulty had been to secure that there should be a thorough examination of the expenditure. He was satisfied the right hon. Gentleman would continue the efforts hitherto made by the Department. He felt bound to express his hearty concurrence in the course which had been adopted of not debating the very serious questions that might arise in respect of the Transvaal and the Transvaal War at the present time, especially as there would be, as the Prime Minister had pronounced, a full opportunity of discussing the whole question hereafter. Everyone must feel, whatever his sympathies might be in the matter, that it would be extremely disadvantageous to enter into a long discussion at the present moment.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he would not detain the Committee at any length, because, after the course properly taken by the Prime Minister, it was not necessary that they should enter into the general question. He would, however, venture to express an earnest hope that Her Majesty's Government, when the negotiations were going on, would bear in mind the necessity of protecting the Native races.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had been asked various questions which it was desirable he should reply to. He had been asked what course was being taken in regard to the purchase of animals for the Transport Service, and whether the cost would come into the present Account? He might say, with respect to that matter, that the animals would only be paid for when they were delivered at Durban, and that they would not come into the Account before they were delivered. He thought that was a very good arrangement, and that it would work well. We had only had a small experience of it at present; but there was every reason to believe that it would work better than the arrangement which had been previously adopted. He was asked, further, whether they were going

  1551
  to postpone any of the payments, and to adopt the late method of having recourse to the Military Chest. The year before last his right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Stanley), who was then at the head of the War Office, sent out a Committee to investigate that subject on the spot, and he quite concurred in the Report which that Committee had presented. As an earnest of what they were doing, he might say that before the present war assumed large proportions they had sent out a gentleman from the Accountant General's Office to test on the spot the arrangements that were made two years before. They were doing their best to get the vouchers in, and they desired to make the payments as they were made in this country; but in respect to the garrisons there were no means at present of communicating with them, and, as they had no money, he presumed that they must be receiving some credit. The general instructions were to make prompt payments, and he hoped that they would be carried into effect.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN MR. T. D. SULLIVAN moved that the Vote now before the Committee be reduced by the sum of £300,000. He stated that he did so as a protest against this unjust war of oppression and annexation. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House had expressed great objection to the making of this war, and of similar wars in other parts of the world; but their sentimental sympathy amounted to very little indeed, because, when they were asked for money, they were always ready to vote it. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £300,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £146,000, 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 1881, for meeting Additional Expenditure beyond the amounts already granted for Supplies and Warlike Stores for the Army."—(Mr. T. D. Sullivan.)
  MR. CHILDERSthought that, after the understanding which had been come to not to discuss the policy of the war on the present occasion, the hon. Member would hardly wish to press his Amendment. He did not know what the effect on the Government might be if £300,000, which had been spent in perfect good faith on that war, were now to be refused.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it would also be inconvenient to the Committee if a division were taken. He thought, if the Committee were called upon at that moment to enter into the question of the war in the Transvaal, the discussion could hardly be conducted with advantage, especially in the absence of much desirable information. Therefore, he trusted the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion to a division, which course would be contrary to the understanding arrived at.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANdesired to protest against the voting of large sums of money without due consideration. If protests under circumstances similar to the present were more frequent, England would, in his opinion, be involved in fewer small wars. The sword of this country was continually red with the blood of peoples and tribes adjacent to our possessions. He would have no part in voting the money, and would press his Motion to a division, as a protest against a war which he regarded as most nefarious and oppressive in its character.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL, bearing in mind the expenditure in the case of the Abyssinian War and similar wars, desired to know whether any efficient arrangements had been made in the case of the war then going on in South Africa with regard to the institution known as the Military Chest. It had been found on former occasions, that while Parliament voted comparatively small sums of money for Military Chest purposes, that very large sums came from that source, the money being borrowed, and that the advances made to meet the obligations incurred in consequence had never been repaid to that day, and there was very little hope that they ever would be repaid. He asked, Were the payments from the Military Chest now existing in South Africa confined to the expenditure of the sums placed to the credit of that Chest by Her Majesty's Government, or had any military or other authorities power to draw upon Colonial resources?
  MR. CHILDERSagreed with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy in his objections to the manner in which the expenditure

  1553
  from the Military Chest had, on former occasions, been conducted. That sink, however, he hoped, had been effectually stopped by the arrangements made by his Colleagues. The official who had been sent out to South Africa for the purpose of supervising the Accounts had instructions to bring charges incurred at once to account, and to see that the instructions given by the House were strictly carried out.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that to limit the expenditure from the Military Chest was, no doubt, the true course. It was the only way in which they could put a check upon an expenditure which might reach an enormous amount. It was, no doubt, frequently the case that many amounts to be devoted to the Public Service had to be met on the spur of the moment, and even with the telegraph it was not always possible to send home for authority. On the other hand, if there were to be authority in the hands of every Governor of a Colony to draw for what he thought necessary for the Service at the moment, there was great risk of drafts being made, not improperly, but extravagantly, and the country involved in Accounts that might turn out to be extremely inconvenient. A Governor of a Colony found it necessary for him to make preparations on a sudden for the defence of his Government; he had no money in hand; he might have reasons for not going to the Colonial Bank. In that situation he applied to the officer in charge of the Military Chest, who advanced the money, and it then often became a question whether it was ever repaid. Therefore, he should be glad if a limit could be placed to the power which Governors had to draw from the Military Chest.
  MR. CHILDERSpointed out that Her Majesty's Government were now able to communicate by telegraph with the Governor of the Colony, and that stringent instructions had been issued that he was not to draw for the Colonial Military Service without permission, in order to prevent a repetition of what had occurred with regard to the expenditure in previous campaigns.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHthought it was only fair to mention that telegraph communication had been established since the campaigns referred to took place.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 6: Majority 103.—(Div. List, No. 163.)

  NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £210,000, 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 1881, for Extraordinary Transport Services in connection with the Outbreak of Hostilities in the Transvaal."
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he was one of the small minority of Members who, in the last Parliament, had protested against the annexation of the Transvaal, and also against the Act for the Confederation of the South African Colonies. Those two measures were intimately connected and bound up together, and he believed but for them we should not have had any South African War. For, had there been no determination to annex the Transvaal there would have been no Confederation Bill; and had there been no Confederation Bill there would have been no annexation of the Transvaal. Therefore, there would have been no South African War but for these two measures. In 1877, a minority of some 18 or 20 Members opposed themselves to the measures which were supported by hon. Gentlemen of the day and by the Opposition. They were supported by a vast majority of the Members of the House—probably of 10 or 12 or 20 to 1, and yet the result of what had happened since then had most conclusively shown that the very small majority of Members who used all the Forms of the House against the annexation of the Transvaal were in the right, and that the great majority of both political Parties, who used every exertion in favour of those measures, were in the wrong. He believed there was no one in that House who did not now regret the annexation of the Transvaal, and who did not look upon the proposal for South African Confederation as one of those ideas that could never be realized, and which, in the attempt to carry out, had effected a vast deal of evil. It was not, he thought, desirable at that moment to go into the question of the war, which he hoped had been permanently interrupted. As

  1555
  an Irishman, he wished to express his strong sympathy with the gallant people who were struggling for their independence, and who had so truly shown by their courage and devotion that they deserved their independence. He trusted that the result of the negotiations which were then proceeding would be to prove to the world that the present Ministry was not afraid to do what was right, even if they had for a while done what was wrong. He thought it right to take a division against the Vote, as a protest against the application of the present money to the annexation of the Transvaal.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, although on that occasion he was not about to oppose the Vote, the money having been spent, he did not wish it to be understood that in voting the money he was expressing any sanction of what he considered to be the most unwise, unstatesmanlike, and disastrous proceedings in connection with the annexation of the Transvaal.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, at a future time he should be ready to defend the policy of the late Government with respect to the Transvaal; but as he did not think the present a fitting occasion for so doing, he merely rose for the purpose of saying that he entirely disagreed with the opinions which had been expressed by the two hon. Members who had last addressed the Committee.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 10: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 164.)

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1881–2.

    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    (3.) £35,739, to complete the sum for Royal Palaces.
    (4.) £1,797, to complete the sum for Marlborough House.
    (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £90,026, 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 1882, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he had, in protesting against this Vote last Ses-
    1556
    sion, drawn attention to the very large extent of land which was inclosed within Richmond Park, and in answer to inquiries addressed by him to the First Commissioner of Works, he ascertained that more than one-fourth of the Park had been inclosed. To that portion of the Park the public had no access. He found, also, that the inclosures in question were, in a great measure, connected with game preserving, and that gamekeepers were appointed to each of them. He thought the Committee should receive some assurance from the First Commissioner of Works that some limit should be put to the enclosing of portions of the Public Parks, especially as since the Ground Game Bill came into operation there had, he believed, been prosecutions in connection with the hares and rabbits preserved in these enclosures. Unless the First Commissioner would say that the question of putting more of the Park at the service of the public should receive immediate attention, he should be obliged to move a reduction of the Vote.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREwished to point out to the hon. Member for Northampton that, having been but a short time in his present official position, he had not been able to give serious attention to the question raised with reference to admitting the public to the inclosures in Richmond Park. Before next year, however, he would do his best thoroughly to investigate the matter. He thought it right to say that his hon. Friend appeared to be hardly correct in stating the proportion of the Park which had been enclosed. Of the 2,400 acres included in the Park, about 240 were shut off as inclosures for plantations, and there were about 300 acres besides set apart for feeding the deer, which were certainly a very great beauty in connection with the Park, and one that, he believed, nobody desired to do away with. The 240 acres were devoted to the preservation of timber and not of game, and any preservation of game was merely incidental to the main object. He would inquire more closely into the matter before this time next year.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, there was a large portion of the Park now inclosed that might be thrown open to the public. He had found, from personal observation, that many of the inclosures were not for the purpose of preserving

    1557
    timber. For instance, there was a fine wood, from which the public were excluded, as he supposed, for the sake of preserving the game. The plantation in question was an old one; and as it was, perhaps, the most beautiful portion of the Park, he believed the right hon. Gentleman would find, upon inquiry, that it ought to be thrown open to the public.
    DR. LYONSasked if any information could be given with regard to the present state of the disease which had attacked the trees in Kensington Gardens? He had had some communication with the Predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, now First Commissioner of Works, upon this subject. Everyone was surprised at the number of trees which had been cut down.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, it was true that a large number of trees had been cut down; but this had been done after careful consideration, and on the most competent advice that it was really necessary. It was evident that the trees were dying, many of them being in a bad state; and it was therefore determined, with great reluctance, to make a clearance of a portion of the Park. It was felt to be a great misfortune that the trees had not been thinned in former years. The land, which was found to be very much in need of draining, would be re-planted as soon as possible.
    DR. LYONSsaid, he had not called in question the trees that had been irreparably damaged. He was anxious to know whether the disease, by which the trees had been attacked, had been successfully arrested?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREwas not able to answer that question at the moment.
    EARL PERCYasked what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do in connection with that portion of the Park opposite the Marble Arch?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that great improvements were to be made at the portion of the Park referred to by the noble Lord. It had been decided to lay down gravel upon that portion which presented an unsightly appearance, and where, owing to the grass having been so much beaten down, it would not grow. At the north end, the grass was being dug up with a view to relaying.
    LORD ELCHOdid not believe that the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for what had been done in Kensington
    1558
    Gardens, in which a wholesale cutting down of trees had taken place. He understood the reason for this was that the trees were all decayed; but he had passed through the Gardens on a recent occasion, and, having tried the trees with a penknife, he found that they were not dead. The trees being 200 years old, it would take the same space of time to grow others to the same perfection. Any private individual, who valued his park, would, he ventured to think, in a similar case, have saved every tree that was healthy. But anyone, upon the principle which had been adopted at Kensington, might cut down the trees in the Long Walk at Windsor, although no one, he believed, would plant young trees to take their places. There was, however, a mania for getting rid of old trees and filling in new trees, which, if it was not checked, would destroy one of the great features of the park. He was convinced that this practice of cutting down and planting was being carried too far.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSwished to know what an advanced young gardener was?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, referring to the remarks of the noble Lord (Lord Elcho), explained that what had been done with regard to the trees had been done only after the most careful consideration, and with the full conviction that the trees were dead; but there was no intention of carrying the process any further.
    MR. WARTONalso wished to know what advanced young gardeners were, and whether they got the benefit of the evening lectures at Kew? He also wished to know who were the lecturers, and how much they were paid?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he did not know how to distinguish between advanced young gardeners and others.
    MR. WARTONrepeated his question as to who the officers were who delivered the evening lectures at Kew?
    MR. DILLWYNdrew attention to the expensive management of the Parks, and expressed the opinion that a good deal of money must be wasted by growing tropical plants which were not planted out until the season was over. He would not move to reduce the Vote; but he thought the management of the Parks was very costly. He found there were rangers, superintendents under the

    1559
    rangers, deputy rangers, keepers under the rangers, and a bailiff, who received £700 a-year, and also £52 a-year for a house. He would like to know what duties the men had in the Parks. There was no game to be preserved, there were no deer; but there was a numerous staff of policemen and park keepers, who kept the Parks in order. He supposed that the rangers had sinecures, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to look into this matter, and see whether the management was not too expensive.
    LORD ELCHOobserved that, with regard to the Green Park, there were certainly not too many officers. The management of that Park had been expensive, and much of the expense had been incurred in putting in the needless trees to which he had previously referred. Formerly, the Green Park had been under the charge of the park keepers, who, however, went away at night, and so allowed thieves and other people to collect there. The inhabitants of the neighbourhood had remonstrated against that, and the Park was then given over to the custody of the police; but still he thought that in consequence of the absence of the park keepers the Park was not so well kept as it should be. Certain parts were worn absolutely bare, especially near Piccadilly. That was because of boys always playing on the same spot; and, while not objecting to boys going there, he thought they should be prevented from going to the same part of the ground. The turf in the Park required looking to generally.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSwould like to know who the fortunate individual was who, as a bailiff, received £700 a-year as well as £52 a-year for a house?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREexplained that the bailiff was an important officer who had been appointed four or five years ago with the view of exercising some general control over the expenditure of the Parks, and he was informed that that offices had done a great deal in that direction, and that the management was now more effective than it had been. When that officer was appointed his salary was £300 a-year; but in 1879 it was fixed at £700 a-year, including all military allowances. He was a most efficient officer; and, although the expenditure was very heavy on the Parks, the Parks in the centre of the Metropolis must involve great cost.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he failed to see what economy had been effected by the bailiff, seeing that the Estimate was £1,100 more than it was last year.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, these parks were really for the convenience of the inhabitants of London, and he thought that they ought to be maintained from the local revenue rather than from the Imperial Revenue. There was no corresponding advantage enjoyed in Scotland or Ireland, or in any other portions of England; and he thought that the Government ought to devise some plan for transferring the charges for these parks from the Imperial to the local revenue.
    MR. WARTONcomplained, with regard to the bailiff, that the particulars given in the Estimate were misleading, inasmuch as they referred not only to rangers and deputy rangers, but "certain other officers," but did not mention the bailiff.
    BARON DE FERRIERESobserved, that the Parks of the Metropolis were not of service only to the inhabitants of London, but were used by thousands of people from the country; and he therefore thought it would be very unfair to throw the cost of them entirely upon the Metropolitan rates.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEwished to remind the Committee that, however many people came from the country into London, these visitors contributed to the wealth of the Metropolis, and so would enable the Metropolis to maintain the Parks. He therefore thought London might pay for its own Parks; and he remarked that the system of paying for such things out of the Imperial Revenue was growing, and there might be no limit to it. Under local management Parks in the country were much more economically maintained, and he protested against the Provinces having to pay for those Parks. Edinburgh received no help from the Exchequer for its Park, Dublin received only £6,000 or £7,000 for the Phœnix Park, while the London Parks cost the ratepayers of the country from £113,000 to £123,000 a-year If his hon. Friend would divide the Committee, he would draw attention to this injustice in a very emphatic way.
    EARL PERCYsaid, he found in the Votes a sum of £3,233 for the Edinburgh Botanic Gardens, and £1,605 for Holy-

    1561
    rood Park, and he thought any objection to the Vote came very ill from Scotch and Irish Members, who especially enjoyed the advantage of the London Parks.
    MR. RYLANDSreminded the Committee that two important points were raised by the discussion—one, the question of Public Parks and expenditure upon them; the other, the question of the amount actually expended, as shown by this Vote. In former Parliaments he had taken the same view in regard to some of the Votes for Parks as the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), that it was unfair to call upon the provinces, which provided their own means of relaxation for the public, to pay for similar provision in the Metropolis; but it had always been argued, and with some force, that there was from time to time a great influx of strangers into the Metropolis, and that in London there were opportunities of pleasure afforded for numbers of people which were not contemplated by the Provincial towns. It must be remembered that the very fact that the Metropolis did receive this large number of visitors tended to promote the circulation of money in the Metropolis, and to increase the wealth of many persons in London. His own opinion was that, both in regard to the London Parks and to the police, and with respect to other matters for which grants were made from the Public Exchequer, an opportunity should be afforded of a full consideration of the question in a way that had never been afforded before. The more public attention was directed to the charges met by the Civil Service Estimates for purposes which in the country were dealt with by the local rates, the more interest would be taken by the House in the matter, and the more likely would an inquiry be as to whether some change might be made in the interest of the public generally. That, however, was only one point. The other point was as to the expenditure on the Parks. The First Commissioner had appealed to hon. Members to give him time. That was reasonable; but he should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that whether this sum of money was likely to be chargeable on the Exchequer or not, one thing was quite certain—and he was prepared to say it from his own knowledge of the cost of Parks in many
    1562
    parts of the country—and that was, that if any Town Council or Park authority in any large town were to pay for their Park any sum approaching the amounts charged for the London Parks, they would be very properly removed from their position. The expenditure upon those Parks was something enormous, and what did the people get for it? He would call the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) as a witness on the point. The noble Lord said, with regard to the Green Park, that although a very considerable sum was paid to those in charge of it they neglected their duty. £110,000 on those Parks was greatly in excess of what the amount should be; and although he was not prepared to press too hardly on the First Commissioner, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to show, when the Appropriation Accounts came to be examined, that he had effected a considerable saving by getting rid of some of the officials.
    MR. BRADLAUGHwas quite sure the First Commissioner intended to give the fullest information with regard to the bailiff; but he found that the expenditure was larger rather than smaller than it had been, and he would like to know what was meant by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the bailiff had effected a great deal in the direction of economy?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREreplied, that he did not mean that the bailiff had effected a great deal of reduction in the expenditure; but that he had managed the expenditure in an effective manner, so that the money had been spent in generally improving the Parks. He had saved money in one direction and spent it in another for the benefit of the public.
    LORD ELCHOhad no doubt that the expenditure on the Parks could be managed more economically than it had been; but he wished to guard himself against being supposed to find fault with the general management and appearance of the Parks. He had criticized the Green Park as to its appearance; and he thought the hon. Member (Mr. Rylands), if he would go through that Park, would agree with his remarks. But any man who had watched the Parks for the last 20 or 30 years would know that the improvement in them had gone on as the Vote had increased. People could not have such Parks as Battersea Park, Victoria Park, and

    1563
    Hyde Park, without paying for them, and he was certain that the poor people obtained pleasure in those Parks such as they could not obtain but for those Parks. The hon. Member travelled; he went over the world, and had opportunities of enjoying such advantages; and he therefore should not grudge them to poor people who had not the same opportunities. With regard to the objection of the Members from Scotland, he was dead against Home Rule in any form, Scotch or Irish. He was all for London being the heart and centre of this great Empire; and he protested against the view of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie). Hon. Members would bear him out when he said that every year some Scotchman thought it necessary, in the interest of Home Rule, and in order to appear well with his constituents, to advance the claim now made. Sometimes it came from Glasgow, sometimes from Edinburgh, and now, for the first time, it came from Kilmarnock. Those hon. Members seem to forget that there was such a thing as a Metropolis for England; and seeing that Scotland and Ireland received grants for their Parks he thought they had no ground for complaint.
    MR. DILLWYNrecalled the fact that 24 or 25 years ago, when a great deal of money was not only being spent on the central Parks of the Metropolis, but on new Parks being established round the Metropolis, some Members raised their voices on behalf of the country, and urged that the suburbs of London should not have money provided for them from the National Exchequer, for purposes which were met by local rates in the country. The principle then laid down was that there should be some limit, and the practice was put a stop to. No new Parks were created in the suburbs; but it was agreed that the National Exchequer might fairly be called upon for the maintenance of the Parks in the Metropolis proper.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, his hon. Friend had correctly stated the principle that had been laid down. It had been decided that no new Parks should be created or maintained out of the National Exchequer, but out of the local revenue; and that had been acted upon in regard to Finsbury Park, and other Parks round
    1564
    London. The principle had been clearly laid down that the central Parks were not only for the benefit of the Metropolis, but for the whole country.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER, referring to the noble Lord's (Lord Elcho's) remark that this question had been raised year after year by Scotch or Irish Members, said, he wished now to raise it on behalf of the English borough Members. The position of the matter was this. London was the wealthiest city in the world; but its local taxation, with reference to its rateable value, was less than that of other large towns in the country. The City of London was also possessed of enormous private property, which ought to be devoted to public purposes. In every other large town in England—Liverpool, or Manchester, or Birmingham, and in smaller places—the people had to pay for their own Parks, and for every other kind of public amusement, and he objected to taxpayers and ratepayers in Provincial boroughs having also to pay an important share for the maintenance of Parks in London, in relief of the ratepayers of London. It was quite time that the question should be settled whether London was to pay for its own enjoyment or not; and he should therefore move that the Vote be reduced by £10,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £80,926, 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 1882, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
    MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, there were two questions with respect to the Vote. Some hon. Members objected to it because they considered the expenditure on the Parks too great, or that adequate value was not received for the money; others raised the question whether there should be any Vote at all from the Exchequer. It was urged that the cost of the Parks should be borne by the inhabitants of London; but a Vote was granted for Phœnix Park, and Irish gentlemen who came to London during the season enjoyed the London Parks, and, as a matter of fact, the majority of the people seen in the Parks were not the inhabitants of London. They were people who came to London for pleasure, or for duties which devolved upon them,

    1565
    and which they were proud to perform in that House or elsewhere. The Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens were filled by visitors; yet it was contended that they ought to be kept up at the expense of the ratepayers of London for the benefit of people from Ireland and Scotland and the English Provinces. But he would remind hon. Members that the Parks were Royal Parks, and were attached to the palaces, and at one time there were no roads open to the public through them, and they were kept for the exclusive use of the Royal Family. Greater freedom had, however, been granted by the Crown year after year. Workmen were formerly excluded from Kensington Gardens. Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens were now open at 5 o'clock in the morning for the convenience of workmen going to their work. Yet it was argued that these Parks, which were really Royal Recreation Grounds, should not be thrown on the Imperial Exchequer, but on the Metropolitan rates. Hon. Members who urged that forgot that thousands of people came to London to see the various sights, who had no opportunity of seeing Parks anywhere else. They could not go to Wolverhampton or to Kilmarnock, and it would be very unfair to make the Metropolis bear the whole cost of the Parks. It seemed to him rather petty for other localities to say that they did not think anything of the Metropolis, and that, although they liked to come to see its Parks, not a halfpenny from the Exchequer ought to be voted for them. If that principle were acted upon generally the country would bear a very sorry aspect. What would be said if all the public places in Paris, which foreigners so much enjoyed, had to be provided by the taxpayers of Paris? Yet Paris had this advantage over London, it taxed the food of foreigners. There was no tax on food in London; there was no octroi; and he protested against the disposition to treat London as a Provincial town. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion.
    MR. EWARTdeclared that the people in the Provinces were proud of their Metropolis, and glad to see its Parks and other public places kept in the best order. The sum proposed did not strike him as excessive, and he thought anyone who had had experience in keeping up his own grounds would know what an expensive matter it was. At the same
    1566
    time he agreed very much with the hon. Members who had raised the question that something should be done for the country. He would not, however, adopt the policy of levelling down; he would rather level up; and he would throw out for consideration the suggestion that, in the case of places in the country which had no corporate fund and no means of providing Parks for the benefit of their working populations, a sum should be granted from the National Exchequer to enable them to provide such Parks. He did not like Home Rule in any way; but he did not think that Ireland had a claim to consideration in the direction he had referred to, and if an agitation should be promoted for providing Parks in the country in the manner he suggested he should be very happy to support it.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSdid not think the question of pettiness of motive had anything to do with the matter. The hon. Member (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) had based his argument on the fact that a great many people came up to London to see the picture galleries and other places; but the same argument might apply to keeping the streets of London in order. There was, however, one argument which the hon. Member had not used. It would be a sad thing for London if Provincial people did not visit it. London would soon cease to exist as a power if they did not visit it, and nobody could deny the advantages it derived from the visits of so many people from the Provinces. The hon. Member's argument was all very well for those who represented London, for it meant easing the pockets of Londoners; but surely it would be absurd for Birmingham to call upon the people of the Black Country who visited that town, and spent their money there, to pay for keeping up its Parks and streets. The Vote could not be defended, and he was glad the question had been raised. Until he heard this discussion he had no idea there were so many arguments for the abolition of this Vote and so few for its retention. The fact that a mechanic was allowed to go through the Park at five in the morning had nothing to do with the question. The mechanic was thought more of now than he was before the Parks were thrown open to the public, because he now had a vote. There was too much said about the Metropolis in regard to the Provinces.

    1567
    People in the country did not put the Metropolis before the Provinces, and the less they had of this idea that the Metropolis was so superior to the Provinces the better. He believed it would add to the use of Parliament itself if it were to meet in some of the Provincial towns; and that, if anything, would make London more progressive, and cure it of its non-public spirit; it would be a visit of Parliament to some of the large towns in the Provinces. Some of those towns would vie with London in public spirit, and in other things which people in the Metropolis thought Provincial people must come to London for. The strength of the country came from the Provinces, and they did not believe in being taxed for the benefit of London. There was no place so provincial as London, and he hoped the principle now raised would be extended to many other things in London for which the Provinces were taxed.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had frequently protested against the way in which London was petted at the expense of the Provinces, and he had often observed that London had done nothing for itself unless the Thames Embankment, which had been held out as having been done by the Metropolis; but that was out of the coal and wine duties; and these, be it remembered, were paid by temporary residents as well as by Londoners. The hon. Member (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) had said Paris taxed the food of its visitors, whereas London did not; but people who visited London paid abundantly for all they consumed, and although they brought plenty of money with them they did not take much back with them. And although London was the Metropolis, and a great many people visited it, there were millions who did not. Then, as to the argument that the Parks were Royal Parks, that was not so in regard to Victoria Park, Battersea Park, or Kennington Park; therefore the Vote was not confined to the Royal Parks. If it were confined to Royal Parks it would be less intolerable; but, in any case, the amount should be lower; therefore, he would vote for the Motion, which he was glad to see this time would not be supported only by Scotch and Irish Members.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSobserved, that the amount proposed to be knocked off the Vote was exceedingly small in relation to the rate in London; and he
    1568
    drew attention to the fact that although the ratepayers in London contributed an enormous sum every year to the local burdens, the owners of the ground, who got all the advantage of the growth of the Metropolis, contributed nothing. The ground rents were enormous, and yet the owners, under the extraordinary system of local taxation in London, paid nothing. For that reason he should support the Motion.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he had the honour to represent a borough (Sheffield) in which there was a strong feeling that these Parks should not be managed on what he might call the parochial principle. He could answer for a considerable number of his constituents, that when they came up to London and visited the Public Parks, and the many other beautiful places of public resort in the Metropolis, which did not partake exactly of the nature of Public Parks, they would not like to feel that they were receiving this enjoyment and advantage entirely at the expense of others. He found in the list of these Parks, which were kept up at great expense, Hampton Court Gardens, and Kew Gardens, which were museums of horticulture. If they were to maintain that such places were to be kept up at the expense of the local authorities, he did not see why, as a logical sequence, they should not eventually come to the conclusion that the British Museum and the National Gallery should be maintained by the Metropolis.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) had brought before the Committee a subject which did not appear to him to belong to the Vote under discussion. The hon. Member had advanced the proposition that the recipients of ground rents in London contributed nothing to the local taxation, and it was evident from this that the hon. Member was in the position of those Professors who lived in cloisters, and knew very little of what went on in the outside world. He should have thought it one of the most elementary pieces of knowledge that could have presented itself to anyone, that a person before he took a house in London asked what the rates and taxes were before he inquired about the rent. Having informed himself on that point he then fixed upon the sum he would give for the house. If

    1569
    the rates and taxes were high the rent had to be reduced, so that the burden of local taxation did to some extent fall upon the land. ["No, no!"] Well, he maintained the Metropolitan view and not the University or Academic view. He was sorry he had been led into a contest with the hon. Member; but he thought the Committee, if he might be allowed to say so, had been put under an erroneous impression. He doubted very much whether it was really in the power of the Committee to interfere with this Vote, so long as the ordinary principles of good government were observed. Most of the Parks were Crown lands. He did not put it forward as, in any sense, claiming to be an authority, but he rather thought that all these matters were governed by the conditions of the bargain into which we entered with the present Sovereign when she acceded to the Throne. He was not certain of it, but he apprehended that these were all Crown lands. ["No, no!"] Well, he, no doubt, would be corrected, if he were wrong, by someone who was entitled to speak with authority; and if he were wrong he would apologize to the Committee. He understood, as he had said, that these Parks were Crown lands, which the nation took on itself to maintain at the expense of the Votes in Parliament, when the Monarch acceded to the Throne; and it would be practically a repudiation of that bargain if hon. Members were to come down to the House of Commons and say the nation should not pay the expense of maintaining them, but that it should be borne by the locality in which they were situated. The Metropolis had no title to the Parks, and it was not in the power of anyone in the Metropolis to build upon them. No one had any title to the Parks but the Crown and the nation; and it, therefore, would not be just to move a reduction of the Vote, not on the ground of economy, but for the purpose of putting the Parks under the local authorities.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, that even if the argument of the noble Lord were sound with regard to the Royal Parks, there were other Parks on the list—namely, Battersea, Victoria, and Kennington, which cost £21,000; so that the reduction which had been moved was only half the amount expended on these three Parks.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Battersea Park, surely, is Crown land? ["No, no!"]
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, that, as had been stated by the worthy Alderman (Mr. Alderman Lawrence), one would suppose from the tone of some hon. Members that no place was ever visited but London. If strangers came to London, they went to other places as well. Take Edinburgh, for instance. There were more visitors to that city in proportion to its size than there were to London. It had been stated by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) that the principle of this Vote had been settled by Parliament; but it was not for the Committee on a matter of this kind to recognize any principle as settled. It was for the present Parliament and the present Committee to settle it.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKwould not put the case for the Vote on the ground stated by the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), because he did not think it mattered much, as regarded this Vote, whether the Parks were Crown lands or not. If the hon. Member (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had proposed a particular reduction in the case of any one Park, it would have been a matter for the Committee; but when he proposed to reduce the total Vote, the question was one of principle and should be decided by the Committee. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie) had said that Edinburgh did not get a grant——
    MR. DICK-PEDDLE: The hon. Member misunderstood me—Edinburgh does get a grant.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he must have misunderstood the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) had reproached London with being wanting in public spirit; but, if that were so, it was because there were so many people who resided in it temporarily and really belonged to other parts of the country. In London they had not the powerful governing classes in connection with local administration that they had in country places; for if they had there would not be a lack of public spirit. As to the Coal and Wine Dues, he pointed out that the goods upon which those dues were levied were consumed in the Metropolis, or, at any rate, by people residing in the Suburbs. The hon. Member wished to throw part of the expense of the Parks on the rate-

    1571
    payers of the Metropolis; but the Amendment would not have any such effect.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, he rose for the purpose of obtaining information, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie) having stated that there was an interchange of visitors between London and other places and Edinburgh, and that visitors to Edinburgh had the advantage of the Public Parks which were maintained by the locality, just as visitors to London had the advantage of the Royal Parks. Now, he (Lord Elcho) was a Scotchman, and might be supposed to know something about Edinburgh; but he really had to ask the hon. Member what were the Parks in that city which were maintained by the people of Edinburgh? he knew Holy-rood Park, but that was kept up at the expense of this Vote; and he knew the Botanical Gardens. There was also a Park in Princes Street, but that was kept under lock and key, and no one had access to it who did not reside in Princes Street. It was necessary to give an opponent full justice for a fair argument; but of what value was the argument of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), when he said, in effect, that the Parks in London were not paid for by the ratepayers of the Metropolis, although those in the Provincial towns were maintained by the localities? The hon. Member had not quite the courage to say this—"There should be a fair exchange; Members of Parliament and others who come from Wolverhampton and Ipswich to London should be able to enjoy the benefit of Parks maintained by the people of London, just as the people of London who go to Wolverhampton for the Wolverhampton season, or to Ipswich for the Ipswich season, have the advantage of Parks maintained by the local ratepayers." But that was a fair way of taking the argument.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, that, no doubt, his hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) complained that, whilst people in Provincial towns were at the expense of maintaining their own Parks in their own localities, they should be called upon to pay for the maintenance of the Parks of the people of London. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had endeavoured to put hon. Members in a false position in regard to this matter. There
    1572
    Was no Member of the House, He presumed, who contemplated the possibility of allowing the Public Parks of London to fall into a state of confusion and waste. No doubt, technically, these Royal Parks might be said to be Crown lands; but, really, they were the property of the people. Hon. Members were in the habit of making use of certain technical expressions; but there could be no doubt that the Parks were for the enjoyment of the people of the Metropolis. They were also for the enjoyment of the visitors to London; but, while it might be true that the hon. Member could not mention any Park in Edinburgh which did not receive a grant, he could tell the Committee that there were many places in Lancashire and Yorkshire where the Public Parks were kept up at the expense of the local ratepayers. He hoped hon. Members who had not been present all through the discussion would understand two things—namely, that the object of the Motion was to reduce the Vote by £10,000, and also to test the principle as to whether this expenditure for the Parks and other purposes under the Civil Service Estimates should be borne by the State, or whether it should fall on the Metropolis, perhaps not exclusively, but, at any rate, more than it did now. He would put it to the Committee that they might support the Motion for the reduction of the Vote even on the ground of economy, for he had no doubt that, if £10,000 were struck off, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Department would still be able to keep up the Parks properly. The acceptance of the Motion would be an indication of the desire of the Committee that these burdens which fell upon the State should be considerably reduced. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock), he presumed it was not the people of London who paid the dues referred to, but the people who lived in the Provinces.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that one argument advanced was that, as Edinburgh and Dublin received similar Votes, therefore the State should pay for the Parks in the Metropolis; but he did not think the argument was a valuable one. It might have some weight if used against a Member for Dublin or Edinburgh who objected to the Vote; but it could have none as against a county or borough Member from any other part of Ireland

    1573
    or Scotland. People in the country places in Ireland got no advantage whatever from the Phœnix Park. He had visited Dublin several times last year, but had never gone near that Park; and the same would apply to many people who visited Dublin. No doubt, a sight-seer who went to Dublin for the first time in his life would visit the Phœnix Park; but people who frequently went to Dublin on business probably never visited the Park. In a district in Ireland with which he was acquainted, they had bought one Park out-and-out at a heavy price, and were renting another at £1,500 or £1,600 a-year, which rent was paid, together with the cost of maintaining both Parks, by the ratepayers. He could not see on what grounds the worthy Alderman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence)—who, no doubt, was prepared to defend the corrupt Corporation to which he belonged, as all Aldermen of corrupt Corporations would—could argue that the taxpayers of all parts of the United Kingdom should contribute towards the maintenance of the Public Parks of London. It was said that these Parks were for the benefit and advantage of the people. Well, it was true at 5 o'clock the working man could go through them on the way to his work; but would the hon. Member opposite tell him for whose benefit were the walks and drives and flowers of Hyde Park and the other Parks if not for the wealthy? The Parks were used by the wealthy, and the wealthy paid an extra rent for the houses abutting on the Parks. The rates of those houses were paid to swell the enormous income of the Metropolis, which, in this way, was thoroughly capable, if it were so disposed, of paying for the maintenance of the Parks. It certainly seemed to him that the supporters of the present state of things had no reasonable ground for their position; therefore, he should support the Motion for the reduction of the Vote.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, that, with reference to what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill), although he (Mr. Thorold Rogers) was congratulated or sneered at, he could nail his Lordship down to this extraordinary statement, that he considered that all rates and taxes which were levied were really paid by the
    1574
    landlord. If that were the noble Lord's contention, the answer which was to be given to him was obvious.
    EARL PERCYwas surprised at the doctrine expressed by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in reply to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). The hon. Member had talked about "Crown lands" being a mere phrase; but they were more than a mere phrase. The question was not whether the Crown now held the land for its own enjoyment or for that of the people, but whether they had not—or, at any rate, a great part of them—been private property, and had been taken over by the State—remunerative and unremunerative lands alike—in the bargain entered into with the Sovereign on her accession. The bargain was a real and substantial one, and as binding as any bargain into which we could enter. It was one which merely lasted for the Reign; and when the Reign terminated—and he hoped the day would be far distant—it would be open for the hon. Member, or anyone else, to bring forward this question. But to call the "Crown lands" a mere phrase, was the most unconstitutional doctrine he had ever heard advanced in the House. Whatever hon. Members might think of the wisdom of the agreement entered into with the Crown, he believed with those who had spoken with most authority on the question that the bargain had been to the advantage of the State and not to the advantage of the Crown. He trusted that the Committee, on the plea that this was "a mere phrase," would not break from the bargain that had been deliberately entered into between the Crown and the people.
    MR. H. R. BRANDsaid, he was not going to follow the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) into the whole of his argument; but he had seemed to introduce a new contention—namely, that the Parks were managed too extravagantly. The hon. Member had advised the Committee to vote for the Motion, declaring that even if the Vote were reduced the right hon. Gentleman the Commissioner of Works would be able to maintain and manage the Parks as well as he did now. Well, that was a legitimate point to raise; but the hon. Member had not adduced any evidence to support the contention. He considered

    1575
    that a liberal expenditure was justified in the case of the London Parks, which ought to be well kept up for the enjoyment of the public.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwished to point out that hon. Gentlemen were really seeking to deprive the poorer classes of London of a very great enjoyment. He was surprised to find hon. Gentlemen, who usually advocated the interests of the lower classes, now coming forward to deprive them of the means of recreation and enjoyment which they used to so great an extent. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had said the Parks of London were merely used by the wealthy people. Would that hon. Gentleman say that Victoria Park, Battersea Park, and Kennington Park were solely used by the upper classes? He remembered most of these Parks being made; and he remembered, too, that the chief reason for forming them in the distant parts of London was that the poorer classes might enjoy their Sundays and leisure time in the open air, if they so chose.
    MR. GORSTobserved, that the Committee was impatient for a division, and he did not intend to stand between them and the division except for one moment. They ought to have one more speech made upon the subject, and that speech from some Member of Her Majesty's Government. The Government had proposed the Estimates to the Committee; they were responsible both for the principle upon which the Vote was asked, and for the amount of the Vote itself. He would like to hear whether the Government accepted the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler)—namely, that the Royal Parks, some of which, it was true, were situated in London, but most of which were situated at a considerable distance, such as those at Richmond, Hampton, and Edinburgh, should be paid for out of the local rates. If they were not to be paid for out of the Imperial Revenue, he supposed the local authorities would, at least, have the option of undertaking the burden of the maintenance of the Parks. He would ask the Government whether it was not a fact that the Parliament of this country was pledged to the maintenance of these Parks and of other Crown lands; whether the management of all the Crown lands in the country
    1576
    had not devolved upon Parliament; and, whether Parliament was not responsible for their management? If not, on what principle was Parliament asked to Vote this large sum annually?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, if the hon. Member had been in his place a little while ago he would have heard the opinions of the Government upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. It was not necessary to go over the ground again. He quite understood the hon. Member for Wolverhampton wished to raise the question of principle. The Crown lands, however, need not be brought into account, because Battersea Park and Victoria Park were quite sufficient in themselves to question the principle of maintaining the Parks out of the Imperial Revenue. He did not consider, looking at the relation of the Metropolis to the country generally, there was anything unfair in the proposal he now made. It was not a question affecting London only, but Edinburgh and Dublin; and, on the whole, he thought it was only fair that the rule which had hitherto been observed should be carried out now, and the Committee should vote the money. It had already been decided that the principle involved in the maintenance of these Parks should not be carried further; but that, in future, any Park constituted for the benefit of London must be maintained out of the local rates. He denied that the Parks in London were intended for, or used by, the wealthy people only; they were kept up quite as much for the poorer people. Victoria Park and Battersea Park were kept in as beautiful order as even Hyde Park, and these were especially intended for the benefit of the poorer classes.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwould like a distinct answer, whether many of these Parks—Hyde Park, the Green Park, and Hampton Park—were not really Crown lands coming under the original agreement between the Crown and Parliament?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREwould not say whether there was any obligation on the part of the public to maintain the Parks out of the taxpayers' money. If he did that, he would enter on a broader question upon which he was not willing to enter. No doubt, many of these Parks were Crown property,

    1577
    and they had been handed over by the Crown for the benefit of the country, with the general understanding that they were to be maintained by Parliament.
    MR. MACARTNEYdid not believe any body of taxpayers in the United Kingdom would in the least grudge the money now asked. He did not believe that even the Scotch people would consent to have Holyrood Park and the Botanical Park thrown on Edinburgh, or that the Irish people would like to see Phœnix Park thrown upon the ratepayers of Dublin. Every great country was proud of the beautiful and magnificent things to be seen in its Metropolis; and if England was to be the only country in the civilized world where the Parks of its Metropolis were not to be kept in good order at the expense of the nation, it would be behind the opinion of most countries. As to the poorer classes not availing themselves of the advantages of the Parks, he had himself observed that in St. James's Park and the Green Park, to every one rich person there were at least 50 poor people spending their leisure there. Kew Gardens, which was one of the scientific glories of the world, was also included in this Vote; and he asked if hon. Gentlemen meant to propose that they should be kept up out of the resources of the neighbourhood? Was it right that the neighbourhood should be taxed to maintain a great botanical collection which was universally enjoyed? In the same way, was Hampton Court to be kept up by the neighbourhood? All paltry considerations of jealousy between one town and another, or between the rich and the poor people, ought to disappear when a great national object was to be served.
    MR. J. COWENsaid, that, of late, a considerable number of old trees had been cut down in Kensington Gardens. He desired to ask whether it was contemplated to increase the number of trees there, or to cut down more, and not replace them with others?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, there was no intention to cut down any more trees in Kensington Gardens; but it was intended to plant trees in the place of some of those cut down.
    MR. W. H. JAMESasked, why it was that a small piece of ground between Spring Gardens and Carlton House Terrace was enclosed by an iron railing? Formerly, it was an open space; and he
    1578
    would be glad to hear from the Chief Commissioners of Works that at an early date it would be possible to remove the railings he mentioned.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREbelieved that at one time the piece of ground in question was an open space. Bands were allowed to play there; but it was not kept satisfactorily, and was enclosed. Why it was now enclosed he could not quite say.
    MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, his remarks had been entirely misinterpreted during the discussion. His argument was that the Royal Parks were Crown property, and were formerly reserved for the use of the Sovereign; but now they were thrown completely open, and were at all times available for the recreation of the public.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANthought London was big and rich enough to maintain its own Parks. An hon. Member, only a few night ago, spoke of London as being not so much a city as a nation. It was, no doubt, as large and as populous, and far wealthier, than some nations; and, that being so, it ought to be well able to support its own Parks without seeking aid from the poor peasants of Connemara and Kerry. Reference had been made to the Phœnix Park in Dublin, and to the fact that Irishmen were never tired of saying it was finer than all the London Parks. They did take pride in the fact that, in extent, Phœnix Park was as large as all the London Parks put together; but they had no occasion to boast of the grant of money they obtained from the British Government for its maintenance. The expenditure on the London Parks was £110,000 per annum; but that upon the Phœnix Park and a little Park in St. Stephen's Green was only £7,500 per annum. Last year, the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) suggested that the rude wooden palings erected in the Park might be removed, and that in their stead should be erected some tasteful iron railings; but nothing had been done. No one was now proposing that the London Parks should be abolished, or even closed; so that the argument concerning the interests of the poorer classes went for nothing. The argument put forward was, that a large and populous place like London should keep up its own Parks, and not ask for contributions from the Provinces, or from

    1579
    Ireland or Scotland. If English borough Members had a right to protest on this subject, with how much more justice could hon. Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies protest. Ireland was far removed from this country; there was a boisterous sea between the two countries, and the facilities for Irish people visiting London were not so great as those which confronted the English Provincial people. The Irish Members especially had a right to protest against this Imperial taxation—this taxation of the Three Kingdoms, including the poor districts of Ireland—for the beautification of the Parks of the wealthy citizens of London.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had stated that these were Royal Parks. Perhaps the First Commissioner of Works would tell the Committee whether Battersea, Victoria, and Kennington Parks were Royal Parks? It had been said this was an endeavour to prevent the enjoyment of the poor. They were not making any such endeavour; but what they were striving to secure was that the City of London should make provision for the enjoyment of its poor people. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) contended that the town he represented had no right to pay for the enjoyment of the people of the Metropolis, just in the same way as the inhabitants of London ought not to be called on to contribute towards the enjoyment of the people of Wolverhampton. The City of London said they had thrown open these Parks for the benefit of the people. What benevolence and what philanthropy! The mercurial Alderman for the City of London had told them that the Parks were opened to the working people of the City of London; that, as he understood him, they were to stroll and enjoy themselves. Anything more ridiculous than this he could not well conceive. The workman that took an hour in the Park was not of the kind that England could rely upon for its greatness or defence. It used to be the charge against certain classes of the working men that they would only work with one hand. This proposition was a greater outrage on them than even that. For one, he was for the working classes enjoying every mode for recreation that was reasonable; but that should be done by the wealthy of London. The
    1580
    people who came up from the country to visit London were skinned quite enough, without being taxed at home to make Parks, or to keep them up.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, he would like to make but one suggestion, and that was that if it was proposed the people of London should pay the expenses of the Parks, the Parks should, in the first instance, be transferred to the people of London. Directly it was decided that the Parks should be handed over to the people of London, so soon would the people consider whether they would undertake the responsibility of keeping them up. Until the Parks had been transferred it was not competent for the Committee to say that London was bound to maintain them. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton now proposed to lessen the present Vote by £10,000. Suppose the Vote was so lessened, where was the £10,000 to come from? The Office of Works had no control over the finances of London, and he trusted they would not have. There was no machinery in existence by which the Department could obtain the £10,000 from the people of London. It would, therefore, be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to lessen this expenditure on the Parks by this amount. It was well that the Committee should clearly understand the issue.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 150: Majority 116.—(Div. List, No. 165.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (6.) £27,260, to complete the sum for the Houses of Parliament.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, it was perfectly impossible that he could allow this Vote to pass without taking an opportunity for eliciting, as far as possible, the opinion of the Committee in regard to giving better accommodation to hon. Members who used the Smoking Room. He was very glad the subject had come up so early in the year. Owing to the fact that urgency had not been voted for Supply, they had made such remarkable progress with the Votes that they were able now to elicit the opinion of Members of the Committee upon a matter of very considerable importance in respect to the convenience of

    1581
    hon. Members. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that some time ago he put a Question to the First Commissioner of Works which, judging from the applause it received, commanded the general approval of the House. It was to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to grant additional accommodation to those Members of the House of Commons who were addicted to the practice of smoking. The First Commissioner appeared to have taken the subject already into consideration, for he made a statement, in which he told the House that it was his intention to take the room now used as a Tea Room by hon. Members and give that Tea Room to hon. Members who wished to smoke. He further stated that he intended to keep the present Smoking Room as a room to which hon. Members might take their friends to smoke, and that he intended to transfer the Tea Room into the room now used for receiving deputations. That was the plan which the First Commissioner of Works proposed, on his responsibility as a Member of the Government; and he (Lord Randolph Churchill) was bound to say that he thought the responsibility of the Government was very much at stake in the matter, and they would incur censure if they were prepared to abandon their proposal at the slightest breath of opposition from hon. Members who were in the habit of drinking hot tea at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, and who were the only persons who opposed the general wish of the House. Now, what had occurred in this matter? A certain number of Members who were addicted to drinking tea at 5 o'clock in the day appeared to have felt great indignation at the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and they got up a kind of "round robin," which they presented to the right hon. Gentleman. He believed that the practices resorted to in the preparation of that "round robin" were most objectionable. The names of hon. Members were inserted in the "round robin" who had no sympathy whatever with the movement, and every kind of artifice was resorted to in order to procure a number of imposing signatures to the Memorial. When the Members who first moved in the matter heard of this document, they took steps to get up a real "round robin," and the Memorial which they presented—for he would not call it a "round robin"—was signed by some 220 or 230 Members of
    1582
    the House. No doubt, it would have been signed by a great many more if it had not been for the fact that the Memorial was got up at a time when urgency prevailed in regard to Public Business, and hon. Members were being suspended every day in large numbers, so that it was difficult to get their attention to the preparation of a document of this kind. Yet, notwithstanding these unfavourable circumstances, they obtained 230 signatures; whereas he believed the promoters of the counter-Memorial, with all their artifices, which were very unusual and not those ordinarily adopted by Members of that House, were only able to obtain 150 or 160 signatures. One would have thought that after this demonstration of opinion, the right hon. Gentleman who represented the Board of Works would have mustered up sufficient courage to adhere to his original proposal, and that he would have carried it out without delay; but it was not so. The proposal had not yet been carried out, and as far as he (Lord Randolph Churchill) could make out, the right hon. Gentleman had altogether abandoned it—["Hear, hear!"]—and the vaccillation of the Government seemed, as usual, to command the assent of the Radicals. Probably the right hon. Gentleman would explain the grounds upon which he had been induced to abandon his proposal. He had been given to understand, through the kindness of the First Commissioner of Works, that the right hon. Gentleman had other plans in view; that he was anxious to provide for the convenience of those who were in the habit of using the Smoking Room by giving them better accommodation, and that he was prepared with other plans. He thought it exceedingly desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should place those other plans before the Committee, so that they might have an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon them. He understood that they involved the taking of some rooms from the House of Lords. He was not at all prepared to say that that might be a very statesmanlike course to adopt. It appeared to him, from the figures he had seen, that the area occupied by the House of Lords was totally disproportionate to the requirements of that House. Very few Members of the House of Lords were in the habit of attending the debates in that House;

    1583
    yet the superficial area of space devoted to the House of Lords exceeded by several thousand feet the space devoted to Members of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, would be able to correct him if he was wrong; but, at any rate, a very considerable amount of space was devoted to the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman proposed, as he understood, to rectify that disproportion, and to take rooms from the House of Lords in order to add them to the space allotted generally to the House of Commons. It was not intended altogether to limit this space to hon. Members addicted to smoking, but to take into consideration the general accommodation of the House of Commons, not only in connection with the smokers, but also with regard to that little knot of tea drinkers who met at 5 in the afternoon. It would probably be interesting to the Committee to know what had been the progress which the right hon. Gentleman had made with these negotiations with the House of Lords, and whether he found that the House of Lords was likely to give up without much trouble and difficulty the rooms which he deemed absolutely necessary to provide for the convenience of the House of Commons. It was just possible that a matter of this kind might go a little further, and might produce a great Constitutional struggle between the Lords and the Commons. Such a result they would all wish to avoid, particulary hon. Members on that side of the House. They would be sorry to lend themselves to anything which might appear to be an attack upon the privileges of the House of Lords. But at this moment the inconvenience to smokers had reached such a pitch that they were disposed, regardless of the Constitution, to support the right hon. Gentleman in carrying out the promise he had distinctly made to provide better accommodation for the smokers.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the noble Lord was quite correct in the representations he had made in regard to the smoking room. In the early part of the Session, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) received many representations from Members who used the Smoking Room, as to the inconvenience to which they were subjected, and the great want of proper accommodation; and although he himself was not a smoker, he considered
    1584
    it his duty to do all he possibly could on their behalf. He had, therefore, ventured to make a proposition to the House that in lieu of the Smoking Room hon. Members should use the room generally known as the Tea Room; but he was bound to say that that proposition was not received with general approval. Many representations were made to him against such a change, and an Address was presented to him, signed by 170 Members, against it. On the other hand, there was an Address signed on behalf of the smokers, and in favour of his proposition, which contained 230 signatures. It showed, no doubt, a considerable majority in favour of his scheme; but, nevertheless, there was still evidence that a large minority were opposed to the plan he had suggested. It appeared to him that when a change of this kind was proposed, it would not do to bring it about against the will of a very strong minority; and in this case the minority included a considerable number of the older and most important Members of the House. He found that the average age of the non-smokers was about eight years more than that of the smokers. Therefore, it seemed that the older and more experienced Members of the House were generally opposed to the arrangement. However, he endeavoured to make some other arrangement; and in the course of his inquiries he found that it was not merely a question of smoking-room accommodation, but of the general accommodation of the House. The general accommodation of the House, he found, on all hands, was insufficient. Their Dining Rooms were too small; the Library was often overcrowded; the Tea Room was very much overcrowded; and, indeed, all the rooms occupied and frequented by Members of the House at certain periods of the evening were inconveniently crowded. He could not see his way to any further accommodation until some arrangement could be made which should give general satisfaction. It was, therefore, an essential condition of any change to endeavour to increase the accommodation of the House generally. When he pursued his inquiries a little further, he found, as the noble Lord had stated, that the accommodation of this building on the ground floor was very unequally divided between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and that the House

    1585
    of Lords had appropriated to its use, totally irrespective of the public part of the building, the Queen's Gallery and the official residences, an area of not less than 13,000 square feet more than that appropriated to the use of the House of Commons. That arose in a great measure from the fact that the House of Lords was provided with several Committee Rooms on that floor, whereas all the Committee Rooms of the House of Commons were on the next floor above. The House of Lords had five Committee Rooms on that floor, and generally their rooms were larger and more convenient than those allotted to the House of Commons. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him that an opportunity was afforded for endeavouring to make some arrangement with the House of Lords of a somewhat more equitable character as regarded the accommodation of the House of Commons. In pursuing his inquiries a little further, he found that the official residence of the Librarian of the House of Lords contained several fine rooms, which were practically not occupied by the Librarian, and he found that the Librarian was not indisposed to enter into some arrangement, provided that compensation of some other kind was given him. It, therefore, occurred to him (Mr. Lefevre) that it might be possible to induce the House of Lords to make over three of their Committee Rooms, taking compensation out of the Librarian's rooms. Accordingly, he had made the proposition to the House of Lords, through the Lord Great Chamberlain, that they should give up these three rooms to the House of Commons, and in that way the general accommodation of the House would be greatly assisted. It appeared to him that it would be a great advantage to the House of Commons that their accommodation should be increased; and if it could be done without inconvenience to the House of Lords, he did not think the House of Lords would be unwilling to entertain a project of that kind. Accordingly, he had made this proposition to the House of Lords, and he believed it would shortly come under the consideration of the Committee which dealt with these questions. He could not say what conclusion that Committee would arrive at; but he believed that the Deputy Lord Great Chamberlain, Lord Aveland, was desirous of meeting the views of the
    1586
    House of Commons. He did not know that the proposition might take the form he had proposed; but he entertained a hope that the House of Lords Committee would consider the question, with the view of endeavouring to do something for the accommodation of the House of Commons. If he should be able to obtain these three extra rooms from the House of Lords, it would no doubt enable him to increase the accommodation for Members of this House very materially; and, in that case, he should venture to ask the House to appoint a small Committee, with the view of determining how the increased accommodation should be disposed of. He had only again to repeat that it was not only a question of increased smoking accommodation, but of increased accommodation of all kinds. He thought that Members required increased accommodation generally, and that increased accommodation could only be obtained in the direction he had pointed out. Of course, he should not make a proposition of this kind to the House of Lords if he did not think it could be carried out without inconvenience to the House of Lords. A very large amount of the space in this building was occupies official residences, and if there were any officials who did not make full use of their houses, he thought it was in that direction that any increased accommodation should be looked for. At present, he could only say that he had made that proposal to the House of Lords; and after it had been before the Black Rod Committee of the House of Lords, he would communicate the reply he received at once to the House.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the arrangement which the right hon. Gentleman informed the Committee he had suggested to the Black Rod Committee of the House of Lords, might probably satisfy his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill), and perhaps for a limited period a certain amount of extra elbowroom might be given to Members of the House of Commons; but he confessed that he did not take a sanguine view of the negotiations in which the right hon. Gentleman was engaged upon the subject. The Committee must remember that if these negotiations did succeed, the result would be the appropriation by the House of Commons of some rooms which were at a great distance from the

    1587
    place they were now occupying. The rooms to be appropriated to Members of this House must be immediately on the spot, or he doubted whether they would add much to the convenience of hon. Members. At the same time, he quite admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had done all he could to meet the requirements of his noble Friend and others who had pressed this particular question upon him. He was anxious, however, to make a suggestion, and it was this—What they wanted was, really, increased elbow-room in all directions, and this elbow-room would not be found by any slight re-distribution of the space which was divided between the two Houses of Parliament. His noble Friend said that the House of Lords had, at present, an undue amount of space appropriated to them for Committee Rooms; but in view of the urgent Business that was likely to come before the House of Commons this Session, it must be remembered that the House of Lords undertook to transact, in the first instance, a very much larger amount of Private Bill Business than the House of Commons usually asked them to undertake; and, as far as he knew, the Committee Rooms of the House of Lords had been remarkably well filled up to this moment, and there was no Committee Room in the possession of the House of Lords which, at the present moment, could be appropriated to the use of the House of Commons. If that were so, he thought that the House of Lords ought not to be deprived of the rooms which were found necessary for the fulfilment of the duties of that House, in the manner he had pointed out. He was quite willing to admit that the negotiations of the right hon. Gentleman might terminate in some kind of arrangement; but still, in spite of all that could be said in favour of the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, he thought it would be found next year, or the year after, that there would be fresh demands for additional space for the accommodation of the House of Commons. What he was anxious to press upon the right hon. Gentleman was that he should refer to the Report of a Committee presided over some years ago by the late Mr. Headlam. It was a Select Committee, moved for by Mr. Headlam, who was at the time a distinguished Member of the Party opposite. It was composed of Members of
    1588
    very great experience, and, after a patient inquiry, a conclusion was arrived at unanimously, the conclusion being that, for the purposes of the House of Commons, it was necessary that an entirely new House should be erected. There was no difference of opinion in the Committee upon that point. That proposal had not been carried out, and he could not assign any reason for that result except that of expense. No doubt, a very considerable expense would be incurred if the recommendations of Mr. Headlam's Committee were carried into effect; but he was certain of this—that they might tinker the present House as they pleased, give additional seats in the Gallery to reporters, turnt he Members out of the present Tea Room into that miserable hole of a place it had been proposed to assign to them; they might take away the Committee Rooms from the House of Lords—at a most inconvenient distance from the House of Commons—and utilize them for the accommodation of the House of Commons; they might do all this, and a great deal more; but when they had done it, at a considerable expense, they would find the same complaints constantly arising. Members on all sides of the House were complaining that everything was too restricted. The very Division Lobbies, through which they had to pass when they desired to express their views and opinions, were too narrow, and so badly ventilated that when a large number of Members were congregated in one Lobby there was extreme danger of their being asphyxiated. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government should take into consideration the Report of Mr. Headlam's Committee, and see whether it was worth while incurring fresh expenditure in order to alter and tinker the present arrangements of the House; or whether it would not be better, on the other hand, to adopt the recommendations of the Select Committee, and erect a new House capable of permanently affording all the accommodation and requirements that were needed.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, two years ago a deputation waited on the First Commissioner of Works and called attention to the condition of the present Smoking Room, at which time the right hon. Gentleman did everything in his power to remedy the grievances complained of. He endeavoured to get a new Smoking

    1589
    Room for the use of the Members of the House. Estimates were framed, and several suggestions were made; but, for some reason or other, the arrangements fell through. When the right hon. Gentleman now Governor of Madras (Mr. Adam) came into Office, he also took up the subject, and did all he could to attain the object desired. His suggestion was that the court below should be enclosed, and that it should be used as a smoking-room. The right hon. Gentleman who now held the Office, he was bound to say, had met hon. Members in this matter in a very fair spirit. He had taken up the subject almost immediately the question had been brought to his notice; and, although he was himself a non-smoker, he had shown himself willing to add in every way to the comfort of those who were smokers. He believed 75 per cent of the Members of the House belonged to the latter class; and, therefore, he thought their convenience should be taken into consideration. He believed, also, their constituents wished hon. Members to enjoy themselves while attending to their Parliamentary duties in every reasonable way. But the present room at the disposal of Members afforded no convenience whatever—there was no convenience for sitting down, much less for smoking. He, therefore, asked the right hon. Gentleman to give them a room to which Members only could go. He was sure the teetotal portion of their constituents would be glad to find that there was a comfortable Tea Room for the accommodation of hon. Members; and he was equally sure that other portions of their constituents would be glad when they were provided with a comfortable Smoking Room. Therefore, he trusted pressure would be put upon the House of Lords with a view to obtaining the accommodation required, and that they would see the propriety of agreeing with the constituents that they should have every comfort during the Session. The question had been before the Commissioners of Works for many years, but nothing yet had been done; and, therefore, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to state, in a short space of time, that he had been successful in his negotiations.
    EARL PERCYrose to call attention to a subject which would commend itself to the attention of most hon. Members,
    1590
    and especially those of the majority—namely, the ventilation of the Lobbies. It appeared to him that inconvenience was now felt in that respect much more than formerly. The only means of admitting air to the Lobbies was by opening certain windows which were about on a level with hon. Members' heads. He had ventured the other day to open one of these windows, and his movement had been received with execration by many hon. Members in the Lobby. He suggested that a moveable pane of glass should be placed higher up in the windows, or that some other opening should be made in the Lobbies to give hon. Members some little air. He trusted he should be supported in this endeavour to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the great inconvenience which existed.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, it had been pointed out on former occasions, when attention had been drawn to this subject, that the opening of windows interrupted the whole process by which the House was ventilated. For his own part, he had been in numerous divisions during the Session, and had not suffered from want of air. Turning to another subject, he desired to call attention to the inequality which existed in the pay of the police officers who attended the House. He had already, in the course of three Sessions, asked the attention of the Government to this matter, and he had received a promise that it should be put right. He thought it was a pity to make any invidious distinction in the pay of a body of men who were models of civility, without servility; and he trusted the Committee would lend their aid in removing that which existed.
    MR. ANDERSONobserved, that the Votes contained an item for enclosing and laying out the vacant space at the south end of the Houses of Parliament at the cost of £2,400, of which £1,000 was stated to have been contributed by Mr. W. H. Smith, M.P. He wished to know why that statement appeared in the Estimates, and why the money was given? Was it before or after the last General Election? The thing had an awkward appearance on the Paper, and he thought, in justice to the right hon. Gentleman, it ought to be explained. In its present aspect, in his opinion, it looked uncommonly like a bribe to the people of Westminster.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSwished to remind the Committee that the hon. Member for Glasgow was the same hon. Gentleman who, a few days ago, in the absence of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), suggested that his Motion had been postponed, in order to keep on the Paper a Notice hostile to the Chairman of Committees. That made him think that the Question of the hon. Member for Glasgow with reference to this Vote, put in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman for Westminster, might not be altogether so innocent in its intention as it appeared to be.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, as the hon. Member for Glasgow had expressed his opinion that the contribution in question might possibly have had something to do with the General Election of 1880, he would only say that his motive in making the contribution to assist in preserving an open space that would otherwise have been built over, was his desire that the space in question should not be lost to the people of London. At the time the idea entered his mind there was no thought of a General Election. He understood that the Board of Works were not willing to incur the entire cost of the appropriation of the land to the purposes of the public. He did not know that the subject would come before the Committee for consideration, nor was he aware that his name had been mentioned in connection with the matter. That it should have appeared in the Votes at all was to him a matter of regret, and, as he had before pointed out, he had been solely actuated by the desire to preserve a garden which would be of great advantage to the whole community.
    MR. ANDERSONwas very glad to receive the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, who, he thought, would, no doubt, be pleased that attention had been called to the subject.
    MR. CAINEhoped something would be done to increase the pay of the Ushers of the House. The Sessions of this and the preceding year had thrown much unusual work upon these officers, and he believed the suggestion he had made would meet with the approval of many hon. Members.
    MR. GIBSONstrongly agreed with the remarks which had been addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Works on the subject of the ventilation of the Division
    1592
    Lobbies. It was a disgraceful thing that hon. Members could not go into the Division Lobbies without being asphyxiated before the division was concluded. He should certainly, unless some alteration took place before another year, move a substantial reduction of the Vote. Hon. Members spent a great portion of their lives in the precincts of the Houses of Parliament, and took part in a great number of divisions, and yet no satisfactory arrangements were made by those who were responsible in the matter to provide ventilation by adequate means. The existing condition of things he considered disgraceful, and arrangements ought certainly to be made that would be satisfactory to hon. Members who had to take part in the divisions of the House. Turning to another subject in connection with subhead B, he had a letter from Canon Farrar, saying that one-third of the churchyard of St. Margaret's Church was owned by the Board of Works. As the ground was not in a reputable state, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would devote attention to it.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was quite sensible of the want of ventilation in the Division Lobbies, and had already caused some slight alterations to be made. If these were not successful, and if hon. Members would communicate with him further on the subject, he would endeavour to find some remedy for the inconvenience which they suffered. He had himself found difficulty in this matter of ventilation, and on one or two occasions having opened windows in the Lobby, they were shut by other Members two minutes afterwards. The question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) would come on more properly on Vote 2, Class II. The present portion of the Estimates related to the police employed by the Serjeant-at-Arms. As to the question of St. Margaret's churchyard, he had recently received a deputation on this subject, and the matter was now under the consideration of the Treasury, whose decision he hoped to be able to state in a few days. He thought Cannon Farrar was wrong in saying that the proportion of the churchyard vested in the Board of Works was one-third of the area.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERwas glad to see that the hon. and learned Member for

    1593
    Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) had called attention to the pay of the police at the House of Commons. He now took the opportunity of urging upon the Government to consider the question of the position all of the officers of the House, whether high or low.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the Vote for the Officers of the House is not included in the Estimates before the Committee.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEasked, Whether any experiments would be made for lighting the House with the electric light?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that gentlemen connected with the Brush Light System informed him that they would be willing to light the House at their own expense by way of experiment; but they could not do so while the House were Sitting. The arrangements were such that the gas and electric apparatus could not be used at the same time. The experiment would, therefore, be made during the Easter Recess.
    MR. M'COANsaid, there was much room for improvement in the Ladies' Gallery. When it was considered that there were some 650 Members of the House, and that there was only accommodation for 30 or 32 ladies in the Gallery, the inadequacy of that accommodation would be generally admitted. The Ladies' Gallery might, he thought, be very much improved, without any alteration of the structural arrangements of the House, if the grille was taken away and a sort of lower gallery was made to extend over the heads of the reporters. The scrambling which took place for the seats was most disagreeable, there being only 32 prizes, as it were, against 600 or 700 blanks. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to giving further accommodation to ladies, and he might be certain that his efforts in that direction would be highly appreciated.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, although it might be possible to improve the accommodation in the Ladies' Gallery, he did not see how it could be extended. The first claim for accommodation in that part of the House was for the reporters, and it had been pointed out over and over again that the accommodation for them at the back of the Gallery was most inadequate.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSasked, if the right hon. Gentleman could say what would be done in the matter of the unsightly block of buildings in King Street—whether any steps had been taken towards purchasing the buildings for the purpose of making the long-desired avenue from Whitehall to the Houses of Parliament, which had been promised by King Charles the Second?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the next Vote would afford the best opportunity for making a statement on the question just raised.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSadvised that the windows of the House should be kept open for a longer period in the day-time, while Members were not in the House, particularly in the summer.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsupported the suggestion of the hon. Member, and expressed the opinion that blame in this matter was due to the officer in charge of the ventilation arrangements.
    MR. GREGORY, observing that strong appeals had been made to the Government on the subject of the accommodation for smoking, complained of the accommodation for dining. This was a matter of importance, and well worthy of the attention of the Government; and he urged the right hon. Gentleman, in any arrangement he might be making with the House of Lords, to bear in mind the inconvenience Members at present suffered. In his efforts to obtain further accommodation by arrangement with the House of Lords, it might be necessary to give and take; and he (Mr. Gregory) would point out that in consequence of many Bills now originating in the House of Lords, many Bills were dealt with in the Committee Rooms simultaneously in both Houses. But there were some Committee Rooms in the House of Commons which were seldom used; and he would suggest some of those might be given that to the House of Lords in order to obtain further space for dining accommodation.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREassured the hon. Member that the question of dining accommodation was one of the matters he had in view when he made his proposal to the House of Lords, and that if he could get some additional rooms from the House of Lords, he thought one of them might properly be devoted to dining purposes. It might be necessary

    1595
    to give up some Committee Rooms to the House of Lords in exchange; but the hon. Member was not quite correct in saying that the Committee Rooms of the House of Lords were generally occupied at the same time as those in the House of Commons. That did happen occasionally, but very rarely. There were six or seven Committee Rooms belonging to the House of Commons on a higher floor, and if the suggested exchange were made, it might occasionally happen that hon. Members would have to sit in those rooms. That slight inconvenience, however, he thought they might very well undergo for the sake of the increased space obtained.
    MR. CAINEwished to know whether members of the Bar had any prescriptive right to the use of the Strangers' Dining Room, mentioning that, on one Wednesday afternoon, the room was occupied by 36 barristers, and he could not find room for himself. If barristers had no prescriptive right, then they ought to be excluded.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERinquired whether there would be any objection to printing and circulating among Members the Report of Mr. Headlam's Committee in 1867 or 1868, to which the noble Lord had alluded; and also whether, without waiting for any structural alterations in the Tea Room or the Smoking Room, the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to improve the supply of newspapers in the Reading Room, so that they might more fairly represent the different shades of political opinion?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREinformed the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) that another Refreshment Bar was being provided, at which members of the Bar and other persons could obtain refreshment. He believed that barristers had a prescriptive right to use the Strangers' Dining Room, and he should be very sorry to abolish that right. With regard to the Report of the Committee of 1867, he thought it would not be desirable to print it now, because that Report advised the erection of a new House, and the circulation of the Report by the Government would appear to imply that the Government was favourable to the proposal. He would see if anything could be done with regard to the newspapers.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the Report of the Committee did not pro-
    1596
    pose to erect a new House under the present roof, but a totally new House containing larger accommodation—fresh Galleries for the reporters and for ladies, and new Lobbies. The right hon. Gentleman had apparently not studied the Report, and his answer to the hon. Member was unsatisfactory. That Committee collected information, not only with respect to the English House of Commons, but upon every House of Legislature in the civilized globe; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to reprint that Report.
    MR. CALLANsuggested that plans of the House of Commons should be prepared and circulated, mentioning that many rooms which had been allocated to Members were occupied by other persons. One consequence was that Members were obliged to sit in a cold and draughty room to smoke; and he thought that if plans were not produced, it might be the duty of hon. Members to oppose any further expenditure until they were produced.
    MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he was not a smoker; but he certainly thought the smoking accommodation was most wretched. He also sympathized with the ladies in being shut in a gallery in which they saw with difficulty and heard with greater difficulty. He did not see why Peeresses should be allowed freely to see what was going on from an open gallery, and the ladies in the House of Commons should be regarded as so dangerous that they must be put beyond a screen. He urged the First Commissioner to see if something, could be done to improve the Ladies' Gallery.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENreminded the Committee that the question of the Ladies' Gallery had been discussed, not only incidentally upon the Estimates, but on a distinct Motion on two occasions. This was not a question for hon. Members, but for the ladies; and after considerable inquiry, when it had been discussed on former occasions, it had been found that 90 out of 100 ladies preferred to have their gallery private, as it was. That was the reason why the grille had not been removed.
    MR. BIGGARwished to know whether the Caterer to the House provided his own fuel and light?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREI believe not.
    Vote agreed to.
    (7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £99,428, 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 1882, for the Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings in Great Britain and the Isle of Man; for providing the necessary supply of Water; for Rents of Houses hired for the accommodation of Public Departments, and Charges attendant thereon."
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSwished to ask a question on a matter to which he had often alluded to on former occasions. It referred to the Record Office, and the means of protecting that Office from fire? A great many of the Records in the country had recently been brought up to London; and although there was great advantage in having them altogether in London, great danger of fire was involved in placing them all in one building. Some years ago, before the present Master of the Rolls had taken that Office, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had asked a similar question, and the answer was that he might make himself quite easy, because all the appliances of modern invention had been introduced into the Record Office, and everything had been rendered perfectly safe. After the Master of the Rolls had taken that post, he had repeated the inquiry, and the answer he received was that the precautions previously suggested had been adopted. He also wished to know whether the Chief Officer of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade had any sort of control over the arrangements for the supply of water, or any jurisdiction whatever in the matter? His impression was that the matter was taken entirely out of that officer's hands. He thought no better advice could be obtained than that of Captain Shaw as to what arrangements should be adopted, and that that gentleman should have some control over the arrangements. Some years ago he visited the Register Office, Edinburgh, where similar documents were kept; and on making inquiry as to the precautions against fire, he found that after the clerks left all the fires were raked out, and that there was not a single bucket or other precautionary appliance in the place. Through the action of the Treasury that had been remedied; but he was very anxious with regard to the documents in the Record Office.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSdid not think there was the slightest risk of fire in the Record Office, there being no wood in the rooms except some floors. The fires were left open, that plan having been found to be the safest system. The Records were kept in fire-proof safes, which no fire could get into; and he did not think a flash of lightning of the most ferocious character would set the documents on fire. There was no country in the world which had anything like the Records this country possessed, and he was very thankful that they had been at last taken from the hands of the local authorities and placed in safer hands. He believed the precautions adopted were absolutely perfect.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would inquire, and answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) on the Report.
    MR. W. H. SMITHdrew attention to the Vote for the rents of offices used for Public Departments, and asked whether a rumour which had been circulated that the Government intended to build a new War Office and Admiralty Office was correct? He also wished to suggest that some Return should be made of the amount of rent paid by the Government to the Office of Woods under the Votes he was referring to. He believed a large portion of the Votes constituted a contribution to the Revenue, the Woods and Forests letting this property to the Government and paying the money into the Treasury. It would be interesting to the Committee to know how much of this money was received by the Woods and Forests as revenue and paid to the Treasury as a contribution to the Revenue. It was very desirable the Committee should have full opportunity of considering whether it was desirable that new public buildings should be erected on the Whitehall or the Great George Street sites.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was right in saying a good deal of the money voted in the shape of rent was paid to the Office of Woods, and therefore it came back to the Treasury in another form. The right hon. Gentleman, too, was also correct in saying that at the present time the question of the desirability of erecting some new buildings for both the War Office and the Admiralty was now under the consideration of the Govern-

    1599
    ment. He need hardly say no steps would be taken without full communication with the House. The time was now fast approaching when the New Courts of Justice and the Natural History Museum would be completed, so that it would be possible to take in hand other works without exceeding the Votes ordinarily granted for Public Buildings.
    MR. GORSTasked for some explanation of the item of £6,750 for sanitary improvements in Public Offices. He presumed he was right in thinking that the Public Offices were the public buildings of the country; and, if that were so, he must express his surprise that any sanitary improvements were required, because, when the question had been asked—especially with reference to the War Office—the House had been over and over again assured that the sanitary condition was perfect, and that now there was nothing left to be desired. Therefore, one was rather astonished when he found the Government coming down to the House and asking for so large a sum, and that on account, for the purpose of sanitary improvements in the Public Offices. What he would like to have explained was in what Public Offices these improvements were now being made, why a Vote on Account was taken, and whether there was any Estimate, or approximate Estimate, of the amount which would be ultimately required? It was an extremely unusual thing for a Committee of Supply to be asked to vote a sum of money on account, unless they were in possession of an Estimate of the total expense to be incurred.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, that when the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) rose, he rose at the same time to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the very same item, which, in his opinion, was, as it now stood, the most unsatisfactory item in the Estimates. It was a class of item which had always been condemned by Committees of Supply, because the Committee were asked to take a leap in the dark, which might lead to the expenditure of a very considerable sum. They were asked to vote £6,750 without explanation, and in view of an expenditure which was entirely uncertain. Now, if there was any rule which should be more constantly observed in Committee
    1600
    of Supply, it was this—that they ought to insist on having a full Estimate for the particular Service when they were asked to give the first Vote. To show the advantage of that course, he might state that with regard to the very plot of vacant ground in Westminster which had been under discussion on a former Vote, there was, a few years ago, a modest sum of £10,000 put down for the buildings proposed to be erected thereon. He raised an objection to the Vote, because the Treasury had not placed on the Table a full Estimate of the probable cost of the work which it was intended to carry out. It came out in discussion that there had been no very special Estimate made, but that it might amount to many thousands of pounds. The result of his objection was that the sum was struck out, and the building which was then contemplated, and which, while swallowing up many thousands of pounds, would have been entirely unnecessary, was never commenced; but the ground was made use of for its present purposes. They were entitled to know in which of the Public Offices these sanitary improvements were required, why they were required, what the nature of the scheme was, and what steps had been taken to secure that the expenditure should be kept within moderate bounds. He was sure the noble Lord would be able to say what was the probable amount that would be expended in connection with these sanitary improvements.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it was quite natural that the Committee should want to know the probable cost of the proposed improvements; but this was a case in which he was afraid it was absolutely impossible to give an Estimate. It was quite impossible to reckon what works of this nature would cost. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had expressed his surprise that any sanitary improvements at the War Office were requisite, after the repeated assurances given to the Committee that the sanitary condition of that Office was most satisfactory. He (Lord Frederick Cavendish) was glad to say that the War Office was in a satisfactory condition; but he believed it was the only Government Office, or almost the only Public Office, in which the sanitary arrangements were

    1601
    satisfactory. They had had reports recently that Buckingham Palace and the Home Office were in an unfavourable condition, and it was perfectly impossible, in a work of this sort, to tell where it would stop. They had determined this year to take every proceeding to rectify the evils which existed. The Home Office, including some of the Departments in Downing Street, would be first taken in hand; but it would be some years before the work was completed, and great expenditure would have to be incurred before all the necessary improvements were made.
    MR. MAGNIACinquired why the Survey Buildings were continued in South Africa, and why in so inconvenient a place it was determined to expend £3,000 on new buildings for the Engraving Department? Although the question of Survey would come up for discussion on a later Vote, the question of engraving might very properly be raised at this stage of the Estimates. Great delay had taken place with regard to getting out the Survey, and he believed that it was, to a very great extent, due to the want of engravers. Southampton certainly did appear a most out-of-the-way place for a centre of this kind, and he hoped the Government would be able to give some explanation of the matter.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREcould not say why it was that Southampton was originally chosen as a centre of the Survey Department; but it had been a centre for a great many years, and, an extension being necessary, it was thought more convenient to erect the new buildings in Southampton than it would be elsewhere.
    MR. GORSTsaid, the explanation was of so unsatisfactory a character, that he must move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £6,750, which was put down for the sanitary improvements. He condemned the new practice of proposing that the Committee should embark on an expenditure of which it was not allowed by the Government to see the end. It would be quite possible for the Government to take a Vote for certain sanitary improvements which it was intended to carry out during the present financial year, and to put some amount to which the expenditure on those improvements might be extended. He must express his disappointment and astonishment, in which he was sure every Member of the Com-
    1602
    mittee would share, at learning these shocking sanitary defects in the new buildings. He supposed that no private person building a mansion or a public building would tolerate his architect and surveyor if they supplied him with a building that was so deficient in sanitary accommodation as the noble Lord said the Public Offices were. Some explanation should be given why these new buildings, for which the nation had paid an enormous sum, were deficient in those sanitary improvements which every cottage building in these days was required to have. It was quite a satire upon our public institutions that the Local Government Board, which lectured persons and public bodies all over the country upon their duties as to sanitary arrangements, should have its own sanitary arrangements in so shocking a state that a year or two after the building was completed the Government had to come down to the House and ask for more money for sanitary improvements for that building.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £92,678, 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 1882, for the Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings in Great Britain and the Isle of Man; for providing the necessary supply of Water; for Rents of Houses hired for the accommodation of Public Departments, and Charges attendant thereon."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    MR. DILLWYNthought it was not proper to vote on account a large sum like this without having some Estimate to guide the Committee as to the ultimate amount that would be reached. There must have been some Estimate given, and it was most unsatisfactory that the Committee had not got it. He would like to know upon what principle the Government asked for this definite sum of £6,750. The Estimate might be exceeded, and the Committee were bound to know upon what it was founded, otherwise, as had been pointed out, they might be landed—they did not know where—in a continuous expense from year to year. He was not in favour of reducing the Vote by the total sum for sanitary improvements, because if the sanitary state of these buildings was as bad as it had been represented, there was no doubt that these defects must be remedied.

    1603
    But he would suggest that the Vote should be postponed in order that the Estimate and some more satisfactory explanation should be furnished to the Committee. He preferred that to refusing the Vote, because if the money was required it must be voted after more information had been given.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSquite agreed with the general principle which had always been adopted by Committees of that House, that they ought to know the whole cost before they voted any sum on account. That was a very sound principle to go upon, and had been very properly insisted upon for a great number of years; but there was a peculiarity in this particular case. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had said they must know what they were going to enter into before they voted any thing; but, unfortunately, they entered into this matter a great many years ago, and they were only now patching up the rent that was made by the new offices. No one who had not had personal experience—as he unfortunately had had—could tell the condition in which the Public Offices really were. He would tell the Committee what happened in the Home Office. When the Department was ordered to move into the new building the clerks positively refused to go, and gave as their reason that they knew the place was unhealthy, and that if they went there they were quite sure to be ill. Thereupon he refused to go until an inquiry had been made by the Local Government Board. It was then found that the clerks were perfectly right, and the place was not healthy. A great deal was done in consequence of that inquiry, and they did not go into the building until the Local Government Board were satisfied that it had been put right. He was thankful to say that he usually enjoyed very good health; but when he got into that Office he found he was perpetually suffering from severe headaches. He had inquiries made as to the drainage of the place, and when they came to ask for a plan of the drains there was not one to be had anywhere, and about ten holes had to be broken in Whitehall Place before it could be found where the drains were. He was then assured, over and over again, that everything was perfectly sound, and there was nothing wrong with the drains; and it was not until he told the Treasury that he would
    1604
    take lodgings elsewhere and charge it to them that the real state of the case was discovered. It was then actually found that there were two feet in depth of foul sewage in the cellars of the building. The fact was that the great central drain, instead of running out of the building, had got its back broken, and emptied into the building. Therefore it was hardly to be wondered at that he had a headache, or that the clerks were ill. Everything was done at last in order to put the matter straight; but, he presumed, more defects had now been discovered. A more lamentable instance of want of common foresight, whether on the part of the architect or on the part of the builder, never was known in this world. He thought it was a positive disgrace. However, it must be put straight, and the noble Lord was perfectly right in insisting upon that point. He could not say whether it would cost £10,000 or £50,000; but they could not allow their clerks to suffer. Therefore, although he perfectly agreed with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) on the general principle, and with the hon. Member for Swansea in objecting to the manner in which the Vote was brought forward, he, for one, must vote for the immediate expenditure of the money required. At all hazards, risks, and costs, the matter must be put straight. It was not a question of entering upon a new building, and they could not tell what might be necessary to complete the remedy; but he hoped the noble Lord would be able to tell them what buildings it was now proposed to deal with, and how many would remain to be provided for.
    EARL PERCYsaid, he thought the Committee would agree that this matter was very alarming and extremely unsatisfactory. It was a state of things which could not be tolerated. He did not understand that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) had the slightest desire to postpone necessary action in the matter. Of course, the health of the public servants should be preserved as far as possible, no matter what expenditure that entailed; at the same time, he did not understand the reason why this Vote should be taken on account. It appeared perfectly possible to estimate generally the total cost of an undertaking of this kind, and to tell the Committee what were the buildings to be dealt with at

    1605
    the present and in the future. If the Committee were adverse to reducing the Vote, possibly it might be in Order to postpone it, or the Government might agree to report Progress. He would be willing to support whatever course might be most convenient; but some notice should be taken of such a very serious matter, and some fuller information ought to be given to the Committee.
    LORD JOHN MANNERShoped the Committee would not agree to the suggestion that the Vote should be postponed. After the statement of the noble Lord and his right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary, it would really be discreditable and a positive cruelty to the public servants to postpone the Vote. It was obviously necessary that with respect to the Home Office, at any rate, and possibly with respect to other offices, the Vote should pass as soon as possible, and that these sanitary improvements should be immediately carried out. He thought that was clearly established to the satisfaction of the Committee. But with regard to the statement that it was in contemplation to erect new offices for the War Office and the Admiralty, the Committee would doubtless be of opinion that when these great new buildings were erected it would be the duty of the Government to call in the highest sanitary and engineering experience and skill that could be availed of, and that in future any great public building should be erected by no architect, however eminent, without the co-ordinate assistance of the highest engineering skill. With respect to the charges made against the eminent gentlemen who had erected, during recent years, those great public buildings, of which the sanitary arrangements had proved so defective, he would suggest to the Committee that they had probably found the same complaints with respect to their own houses. He thought there was no real distinction to be drawn between the sanitary defects of public buildings and of private dwellings. His own experience led him to say that the deficiencies of engineering science with respect to sanitary arrangements were quite as obvious and quite as mischievous in private houses as in public buildings; and the moral he ventured to draw was that, in future, the highest engineering skill should be employed, whenever a new public building was to be erected.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that money had already been spent upon improving the sanitary condition of the Home Office. The Office was, first of all, built in an unsatisfactory manner, its sanitary condition was then patched up to the satisfaction of the Local Government Board, and now Parliament was asked to allow a fresh expenditure for the purpose of once more patching up the sanitary condition of the building. After the experience they had had, it would be as well if the Government and the Committee were to hold their hands—if the Committee, at any rate, were to refuse to vote this money until the Government had thoroughly considered the matter, and were prepared to lay satisfactory plans before the Committee. He should have been happy to have consented to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) for the postponement of the Vote; but he believed he was right in saying that a Vote which had once been put could not be postponed. He would propose, however, as this was the last Vote before them this evening, that the Chairman should now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. There could be no harm in taking that course, and it might lead to some good, as, before the matter again came before the Committee, the Government could investigate the matter, and lay the necessary information before them. He would not himself move to report Progress, as he had moved the reduction of the Vote; but he would suggest that the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) should himself propose it.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHwas afraid the hon. and learned Member was hardly correct in saying that no harm would be done by postponing the Vote. The work could not be undertaken until the Vote was agreed to, as it was the rule that no new operations should be commenced until a sum had been granted on account. [Mr. GORST: This is not a now work.] The hon. and learned Member might look upon it as an old work; but, technically, it was a new one. He regretted that he was unable to give the Committee full information on the subject; but he would state exactly how the matter stood. The matter had been brought fully before him, and he had found that it was a very considerable one, for no single one of

    1607
    our Public Offices, with the exception of the War Office, was in a satisfactory condition. If the hon. and learned Member would make inquiries, he would find that in this neighbourhood there were a very large number of houses, clubs, and other buildings, which were in an extremely unsatisfactory sanitary condition. To put the matter shortly, water-closets had taken the place of cesspools without the necessary adaptation of drains, and the result was that a large portion of London was in this unsatisfactory condition. The matter having been brought to his attention, he had thought that, so far as the Treasury were concerned, it could sanction the undertaking of the work necessary to alter the condition of things; and, therefore, it was proposed that a substantial grant should be made for the purpose. The Home Office would be dealt with in the first place, and the money would be expended, as far as possible, in improving the sanitary condition of that building. As a matter of fact, the drains and sewers of that part of London near Whitehall were in a disgraceful condition. The architects who had built the dwellings had nothing to do with the drains. He could assure the Committee that, under the new regulations laid down by the Board of Works, the present evils could not exist; and, as the new offices would be constructed under those regulations, there need be no fear in regard to their proper sanitary arrangements. Certain elementary sanitary principles were laid down in the regulations of the Board of Works; and the Board of Works, for the future, would take care that all those principles were attended to. When once these principles were laid down, they seemed so simple that the only wonder was they had not been adopted before. He did not think that, in the future, they would have to blush for the sanitary condition of their Public Offices as they had now.
    MR. W. H. SMITHcalled attention to an item, on page 18, of £1,494 7s. 6d. rent in respect of Board of Trade Offices. The item in the time of the late Government appeared by the Estimates to have been £1,000 less, and he wished to know how the increase had come about?
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURbelieved the bad sanitary condition of the Public Offices was owing to the past neglect of the Office of Works, although
    1608
    he did not think the Government or anyone now in the House was responsible. Connected with the Office there was a Consulting Surveyor, who not only received the handsome salary of £1,200 a-year, but was allowed to carry on private practice. Nine years ago the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) asked a, question about this Consulting Surveyor, and made several assertions in regard to the bad practice of allowing a public officer to carry on private practice; and, in the course of a rather warm discussion that followed, Lord Sherbrooke, then Mr. Lowe, in indignant tones, denied those statements of injury to the public interests. He (Sir George Balfour) would not impute anything to the Consulting Surveyor, Sir Henry Hunt; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Office of Works should prevent an official of this kind undertaking private practice. The Government could not expect to have their work done efficiently so long as the gentleman they employed to do it was allowed to do work for private individuals. He would rather give such a person an increased salary than allow him to carry on private practice. The matter, as he had said, had been mentioned nine years ago; things were, however, allowed to remain as they were, and now they found that the drains of their new public buildings were in a dreadful condition, the health of their public servants injured, and the present Committee called upon to devote a considerable portion of its valuable time to the discussion of the sanitary state of the Public Offices, and of grants of public money to rectify the bad drainage. If they had had an officer entirely devoted to the service of the public, all the evils which now existed would have been prevented.
    MR. MONKsaid, that with regard to the question just put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. Smith), he should like to ask the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) who was responsible for adding up the figures in the Votes? If he would look at page 8 he would find that in adding up the second column a slight error of £1,069 had been made. Though the Estimates bore the signature of the noble Lord, he did not suppose that the noble Lord was in any way responsible for the correct adding up of the figures. Someone at the Treasury,

    1609
    however, must be. No doubt, the £494 referred to ought to be £1,494; but even if that were so, there was still an error of £69.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, a question had been put to him about widening Parliament Street; but it would be seen that the matter was necessarily mixed up with the question of selecting a site for the Public Offices. There were three alternative sites—namely, the Parliament Street and Great George Street sites, the Thames Embankment site, and the site of the present Admiralty. The selection of the site was now occupying the attention of the Government.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, the sum fixed upon in the Estimates, to which exception had been taken, was an odd one. The Government must have had some Estimate; and he would, therefore, ask the noble Lord to make it known to the Committee what that Estimate was, and how the sum had been arrived at. The work was not a new work, and unless some more satisfactory explanation than that which had been given was afforded he should move that the Committee report Progress.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it was impossible to prepare a trustworthy Estimate of the cost of these Works, and he should only be misleading the Committee if he attempted to give one.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSwished to say a word as to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant General opposite (Sir George Balfour). The hon. and gallant Member had made a mistake as to the nature of the engagement upon which Sir Henry Hunt entered the service of the Government, for he had assumed that the Consulting Surveyor had engaged to place the whole of his time at their disposal, which was really not the fact. In return for a very moderate salary—considering his very great capacity and reputation—Sir Henry Hunt had engaged to be consulted by the First Commissioner of Works, if he wished to consult him on any given subject. That was a very different thing to being responsible for the underground arrangements of all the public buildings in the Metropolis. That was a condition that was never proposed to Sir Henry Hunt, and which he never dreamed of undertaking; therefore, the attack of the hon. and gallant
    1610
    Member upon him was altogether unfounded.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the noble Lord had made use of some words which he (Sir George Balfour) could not pass by. The noble Lord had said that an unfounded attack had been made upon Sir Henry Hunt. According to his recollection, the matter had been brought before the House by the hon. Member for Swansea some years ago. No doubt, his memory was not what it used to be; still, he recollected this circumstance. They had then discussed the impropriety of allowing an official, who had a large number of public buildings under his survey, to undertake private practice. [Lord JOHN MANNERS: No, no.] He was simply stating what his recollection was. He had one opinion, the noble Lord might have another. It was one of the most fatal things a Government had ever done to allow a man to serve two masters, the State and a private employer; for the result of his experience was—and, no doubt, that of the noble Lord would be the same—that, under such circumstances, the Public Service suffered. A complaint of Sir Henry Hunt being allowed to receive a salary from the public whilst he was carrying on his private practice had been made, because hon. Members saw the difficulty he must experience in drawing the line between the time he should devote to his public and the time he should give to his private practice; but since that complaint was made he (Sir George Balfour) had studiously refrained from bringing the question forward, because he had not wished to make an attack upon Sir Henry Hunt. He always refrained, both in private and public life, from making personal attacks behind a friend's or an enemy's back; therefore, he protested against the noble Lord's accusation. If Sir Henry Hunt had been present he would say to his face what he had already said to the Committee.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Before any further discussion takes place with regard to Sir Henry Hunt I would point out to the Committee that his salary is not taken in this Vote.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he understood the noble Lord to say that until a Vote on Account was agreed to no money could be applied to this work. Then, supposing it had not been proposed by the

    1611
    Prime Minister to take three months' Vote on Account, and this Vote had not come on until July, what would have become of the sanitary improvement of the Home Office in the meantime?
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that as the Chairman had ruled that Sir Henry Hunt's Office could not be discussed under this Vote he would not now enter into a defence of that gentleman; but he would say this—and, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman opposite would confirm what he said—that it was no part of Sir Henry Hunt's duty to supervise the drains and the arrangements made by the architect for putting the buildings of the Home Office in a proper sanitary condition. It was the duty of Sir Henry Hunt to carefully examine the Estimates put before him, and to see that no unreasonable expense was incurred. When the proper time came he should be quite prepared to meet the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir George Balfour), and to contend, as he thought he could successfully, that the arrangement which had been referred to, which was not entered into by the late Government, nor by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but by a right hon. Gentleman long antecedent to any sitting on the Front Benches, was an arrangement to the public advantage, and that it would be a great mistake indeed to exclude from the Public Service the experience of a gentleman in the position of Sir Henry Hunt.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREcould confirm what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He had frequently derived the greatest assistance from Sir Henry Hunt.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, it was a serious question for the country if, in matters of this kind, enormous public buildings were to be constructed at great expense is without anyone being responsible as to their healthy character. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had given them his own experience of the Home Office, and there was reason to regret that any public servants should have been employed in such a place. There was, seemingly, no assurance that the Vote they were now asked to pass was to be employed under the direction of a person responsible to the House; therefore, he could not see why they should consent to it. They were asked to grant £6,750 for an unde-
    1612
    fined purpose. They did not know whether they would have the Home Office or any one of the Public Offices put in a sanitary condition by the expenditure of the money. He had no wish to refer to what had been said as to the qualities of the Consulting Surveyor; but this he would point out—that if they paid £1,200 a-year to a gentleman, and his services were of no use to them, there was no reference to anyone else who was to do his work. Apparently, they had no one competent in the service of the State to undertake the improvement of either the Home Office or any other public building. It was on that ground that he must deprecate the Committee coming to a resolution to vote the money without an explanation as to the manner in which it was to be expended, and as to whether the result would be satisfactory.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEthought that if hon. Members had had the 30 or 40 years' experience as architects in connection with large buildings that he had had himself, they would not be so disposed to raise these objections. There was nothing so difficult to estimate as the cost of such works as these, especially when there were no plans. It was almost impossible for anyone to make an estimate; therefore, he would advise the Committee not to report Progress now, but to allow the Vote to pass. He would ask under whose charge and care the work was to be carried on? Would it be under the architect of the building or a public official?
    MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him that two officials were very much to blame for the unsatisfactory state of things which had been described—namely, the architect who drew the original plans, and who, no doubt, was primarily responsible for not having drawn proper plans—and the surveyor, who should have examined the plans to see if there were any defects in them. If justice was to be done in this case, either these two gentlemen should be suspended from the position of employés of the Government, or they should be required to bear the expense of making the necessary alterations. If they were made to bear the expense, it would induce them to do better another time. The Committee should report Progress to enable the Government to consider the matter. With regard to the Admiralty buildings, he understood that the

    1613
    lease would soon expire; and he should like to know what arrangement had been made for renewing it.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that no arrangement as to the renewal of the lease had yet been made.
    MR. WARTONsaid there was a sum put down as spent on buildings in the Isle of Man; and he wished to have some information with regard to it. It was true it was stated that the sum was recoverable from the Isle of Man; but it would be satisfactory to have some details of the expenditure, for the people were very heavily taxed by an extravagant Governor. The money was for—
    "Maintenance and Repair of the Government Buildings at Castle Rushen, Douglas, Ramsay, Kirk Michael, Peel, and Castletown, including Rent of Right of Passage, Court House, Douglas, Salary of Surveyor (£20)."
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHstated, that the amount was only £800 in all; and the whole of it was recoverable from the Revenues of the Isle of Man.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could bear his testimony to the efficient and satisfactory manner in which the Governor of the Isle of Man had carried out his duties. That gentleman, he believed, had very materially improved the Island.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [18th March] reported, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Resolution which, upon the 18th day of this instant March, was reported from the Committee of Supply, and then agreed to by the House, be read, as followeth:—That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 134,060, of all ranks, be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, at Home and Abroad, excluding Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882.
  Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide during Twelve Months for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary CHILDERS, The JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, and Mr. TREVELYAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 123.]

  POOR LAW OFFICERS (SCOTLAND) SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  (The Lord Advocate, Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
  POOR LAW OFFICERS (SCOTLAND) SUPERANNUATION BILL.

    [BILL 113.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that as several hon. Members were desirous of making their observations when the Bill went into Committee, he would not say anything regarding it at that stage.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    MR. M'LAGANpointed out that the Bill was drawn upon the same lines as the English and Irish measures upon the same subject, and that the circumstances of Scotland were not of an identical character. He would, therefore, express a hope that there would be some interval allowed between the second reading and the Committee.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday 31st March.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    (1.) Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the years ending on the 31st days of March 1880 and 1881, the sum of £1,536,571 4s. 2d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    (2.) Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, the sum of £11,819,046 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

    INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDER (THURSTASTON COMMON) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the inclosure of certain lands called or known as Thurstaston, in the county of Chester, in pursuance of a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. COURTNEY and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 122.]

    UNION JUSTICES (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. O'SULLIVAN, Bill for the better administration of Justice at Petty Sessions Courts in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. O'SULLIVAN, Major NOLAN, Mr. PARNELL, Mr. RICHARD POWER, and Mr. METGE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 124.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Sea Fisheries (Clam and Bait Beds)* (53). Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Godalming, &c.)* (48).
Royal Assent—Peace Preservation (Ireland) [44 Viet. c. 5].

AFGHANISTAN (MILITARY EXPENDITURE)—CANDAHAR.—STATEMEN
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: With your Lordships' permission I wish to make a short statement on two matters connected with Indian affairs. First, in laying on the Table of your Lordships' House the further Correspondence relating to the Estimates for the Afghan War. It will be in your Lordships' recollection that on the 8th of March my noble Friend behind me (Lord Waveney) asked me a Question on this latter subject, and that in reply I stated that further Papers would be laid on the Table in a few days; but I believed they would show no material difference as to the Estimates from those laid before Parliament in the month of January. That very afternoon a telegram was received from the Viceroy mentioning that the Estimate would be increased. It has been included in the Papers now presented. The revised figures now show an estimated expenditure, to the 31st of May 1881, as follows:—Military operations, 1,862 lakhs of rupees (at ls. 8d. the rupee, £15,516,000); Frontier railways, 487 lakhs of rupees (£4,058,000); total, £19,574,000.
A further statement, which I crave permission to lay before the House, is on the subject of Candahar. The noble Earl, the late Prime Minister, asked a Question on Friday evening of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who in reply stated that he thought he would be able to make a statement on the subject early this week; and my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India is most anxious that your Lordships should be fully informed on the subject. Immediately after the decision had been taken not permanently to occupy Candahar, communications were opened with Ameer
1482
Abdurrahman, informing him of the intention of the Government to re-consider the arrangements which had been made for the Government of Southern Afghanistan, and expressing the desire of the Viceroy to act in the matter in consultation and in concert with him. There was great delay in the transmission of this letter to Cabul, and the Ameer's reply was also detained on the road. The Ameer, however, expressed his gratitude to the British Government, and his strong desire for a personal interview with the Viceroy to confer upon the affairs of Afghanistan; but this, on account of the Viceroy's illness and for other reasons, was deemed at the time impossible. He, however, sent an Envoy to Calcutta, to confer principally on Cabul affairs, who had several interviews with the Viceroy, and has returned to Cabul. In the meantime, the Viceroy had intimated to Abdurrahman that the British Government would contemplate with satisfaction the restoration of Candahar to the dominions of Afghanistan, and would agree to the extension of This Highness's authority over that Province, recognizing his Government when established, and generally assisting him, as they did at Cabul, by a limited material help. The Ameer has made the purport of the Viceroy's letter generally known at Cabul, and has accepted the offer. The Viceroy has since informed Abdurrahman that it was necessary that the Cabul troops, with a Governor authorized to receive charge from British officers, should reach Candahar early in April. The Ameer replied that he was desirous of taking charge of Candahar at once; that his troops were all ready, his carriage being his principal difficulty, and that he hoped his forces would reach Candahar about the time named. The latest information received from the Viceroy is to the effect that the Cabul troops have started, or will shortly start, from Cabul, and will reach Candahar early in April; and that all arrangements for our withdrawal are completed. At the same time, measures have been taken at Candahar in preparation for the withdrawal of the British troops, and several leading Sirdars have written to the Ameer tendering their allegiance. That is all the information which the Secretary of State thinks it possible to give at the present time. The situation is, as your Lordships' will

1483
see, a somewhat critical one; and to enter into further details would not add much to the information of your Lordships, while it might do some harm in Afghanistan. The Correspondence is in an extremely incomplete form, the more so as, by some accident or oversight, a great part of the despatches which ought to have been received by the last two mails has not reached the India Office. Among these are the Minutes of Members of Council, which were expected to have been received three weeks, or at latest a fortnight, since, but which are still wanting.
LORD WAVENEYwas surprised to hear that Her Majesty's Government proposed to take that dangerous course, which had already cost us two armies and two Envoys, and which was likely once more to lead us into difficulties. The Ameer of Cabul, though we might give him every credit for good faith, was in the hands of his turbulent nobles and the people of Cabul. He (Lord Waveney) was not prepared at present to take exception to the course proposed by the Government; but on a future occasion he might consider it necessary to take the sense of the House with regard to it.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I do not think this is an occasion for discussing this matter, and I should not have risen but for the remark of my noble Friend behind me (Lord Waveney). In regard to that I have only to remind your Lordships that the cause of the murder of our Envoys and the destruction of our armies has not been the coming out of Afghanistan, but the going into it.

SOUTH GARSTON DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL.—MOTION.
EARL CADOGAN EARL CADOGAN moved—
"That the order made on Thursday the 3rd instant 'that the Bill be not further proceeded with during the present Seesion' be discharged and the Bill re-committed to the same Select Committee for the purpose of considering the question of awarding costs to the petitioners who appeared before the Committee."
The noble Earl said, that he made the Motion as Chairman of the Select Committee, the Bill having been withdrawn without notice to that body, or to the petitioners who had appeared before the Committee as opponents of the measure. He, however, left their Lordships to
1484
deal with the matter as they might think fit.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, he had received a Petition signed by 72 leading merchants of Liverpool requesting that the Bill should be re-committed on its merits.
THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)thought the Motion should be agreed to as a means of showing promoters of Bills that they could not evade their responsibility for costs by withdrawing their Bills.
EARL CAIRNSpointed out that there was a technical difficulty in the way of dealing with the Motion in consequence of the course taken by the promoters of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLORdid not see how their Lordships could assume an independent jurisdiction as to costs.
EARL CADOGAN EARL CADOGAN moved that the further consideration of the Resolution be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Further debate upon the said motion adjourned till To-morrow.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.