rose to postpone until Monday his Motion relative to the expenditure for diplomatic agents abroad.

would take the opportunity of reminding the hon. Member for Stafford, that he had on a former occasion spoken disrespectfully of General D'Aguilar, Colonel Brotherton, and Brigadier General M'Doughal. He thought the hon. Member was not justified in speaking in such terms of disparagement of those who served their country, by serving in the armies of her allies.

Mr. Speaker, I will assure the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, that he is perfectly correct in the statement that he has made regarding myself: he has hit the right nail on the head. It is precisely the part I have taken in the affairs of Greece, that is the origin of those conclusions which the hon. and gallant Gentleman says I have been so persevering in placing before my countrymen. He will recollect that these circumstances occurred in my early life; but they are the key of my future conduct. It was the share I had in that war, and the instinct of its injustice, that first led me to investigate this great subject; and when I did discover the delusion under which I had laboured in common with my fellow-countrymen at this particular time, I did feel myself oppressed with a load of shame and guilt, and I have been impelled unceasingly to labour to awaken others in like manner, and thereby to recover the sense of law and right among a nation from whose breast within a single generation it has utterly passed away. The hon. and gallant Member seems very needlessly sensitive at once, and contemptuous in refer-once to certain epithets which I have used, and which he chooses to say, and says justly, apply to myself no less than to those in reference to whom I had used them. But if I remember correctly, and if I have read aright, discussions which took place in former years in this House, the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not merely characterized as a Pirate, but as a Condottiere; consequently if the hon. and gallant Gentleman now says that he is indifferent to such an allegation as coming from me, I am not at all surprised. The words which I have uttered here have not been uttered for the first time, nor has the picture which has been drawn the merit of originality. These charges have been asserted repeatedly, without exciting the hon. and gallant Gentleman's sensitiveness. As to General D'Aguilar, I entertain peculiar respect for his personal character; but the hon. and gallant Member will see that the question raised is a great and public matter; he will see that it is nothing less than that whole subject which has produced the volumes of Suarez, and Vattel, and Grotius, and all the great authorities upon international law; he will see that we are touching no less a question than the lawfulness or the unlawfulness of the acts of one nation in regard to another. This question was raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself. I did not rush unexpectedly forward and tumble a correspondence upon the table. I was listening to the details of the Army Estimates, without the remotest intention of taking part in the discussion, when, in reference to the Caffre war and the officers engaged in it, the hon. and gallant Member himself called the attention of the House to the services rendered in China. Upon that occasion I said that there was a line to he drawn between the one and the other, because in the one case the officers had acted under lawful and in the other under unlawful orders. My observations were consequently directed, not against the officers employed, but against their employers. [Lord John Russell here entered the House, and took his seat on the Treasury Bench.] I am glad at length to see the noble Lord in his place. I invite the attention of the noble Lord, who is a constitutional authority, to the question we are now discussing, of the lawfulness of orders for making war. I had not in my mind, on the occasion to which I refer, any individuals; but certainly it was my duty as a representative in this House, before voting money to be expended for such purposes, to do my best to call the attention of the Government and of the House to the possible lawlessness of the service on which those men might be sent; and this was an act of mercy to them to prevent them as well as the nation from being subjected to the disgrace and guilt of such acts. My observations, moreover, were addressed to the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department; and yet the hon. and gallant Officer brings the charge against me that I had taken the occasion of his absence to make such statements and allegations. I trust I have satisfied the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I was not guilty of what he attributed to me; I trust, also, that I have made it clear to him, both from what I have stated regarding the motives which have led me to enter upon this investigation, as well as from the particular reasons which induced me to make the remarks in question on the Army Estimates, that I have no personal feeling in this matter; that I am moved by no other feeling than that of deep shame for my country's guilt, and by a desire at all events to rid my own conscience from a share in it. I may further add, that if there could be one circumstance which I could have desired to be my fate and fortune, it would be to have been an officer employed in any one of those unlawful expeditions, that I might, by bearing testimony to the law by my own blood, have redeemed the nation from this delusion. I further say. Sir, that I have not lived in vain since I have raised this question—the legality of war—in the Senate of this nation, and denounced in its own face its crimes in the hour of its guilt and folly. Sir, the question of the lawfulness of the order depends not upon the authority from which it emanates, but on the character with which it is invested. The order to a military man to draw a weapon or to shed blood in a foreign land, must he the act of the Crown, accompanied with all the legal formalities which the wisdom of our ancestors has deemed necessary to surround and to check so awful a prerogative.

Sir, the hon. Gentleman is raising a very large question. We wish now to go into Committee upon the Navy Estimates, and I trust the hon. Gentleman will allow the Committee to proceed.

Sir, the noble Lord was not present when the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind him made the observations to which I reply. The noble Lord was not present when I gave way with every desire not unnecessarily to interfere with the public business, and postponed my Motion. I therefore deserve, I think, the indulgence even of the noble Lord. I had characterised certain acts in a certain manner, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman tells me that I had no right do so; but he has not so much as touched on the ground of that qualification. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says these officers acted under lawful authority, and he does not know what lawful authority means. He says that he would act in obedience to a superior. An order has to be lawful in itself before it can be lawfully obeyed; and I appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, would he, as a military man (and I believe that military men understand much better than civilians their rights and duties, and have some sense of discipline which civilians have not), take upon himself the responsibility of firing upon a crowd not offending him unless the magistrates had interfered, and unless the Riot Act had been read? Is he so little of a soldier as not to know that he is responsible for every act he does? and that when he has not the due warrant he cannot touch one of his fellow-citizens in the streets, nor use the weapon that is hanging by his side? Is he to suppose that any authority is to justify him when he goes forth with thousands and tens of thousands to attack a whole people, and that such an act is not horrible unless sanctioned by the law and with the warrant of the Queen? If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will answer me one question, I am content to leave the subject. If he will say that he has the right at home to use his weapons without warrant, I will not add a word more; and on the other side I shall not add one word more if he says, "I know I have no authority to act as a soldier unless I am authorised by the civil power." That position no military man will deny in regard to home affairs, and the same rule must hold with respect to foreign affairs. That which is the Riot Act at home is the proclamation of war abroad.

The hon. Member says he will be satisfied if I answer his question; I therefore tell him that I should not act against a crowd unless the Riot Act were read.

Sir, I close now my argument. I have here the judgment of Chief Justice Tindal in reference to the affairs of China; but I prefer the judgment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has no crotchets such as might be attributed to that learned Judge or to myself.

Sir, I rise to order. I do not think we need have a chapter of Grotius or Vattel read. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Order!"]

Sir, I do not agree in every particular with my hon. Friend (Mr. Urquhart), but I nevertheless go along with him to a great extent. I think the observations which have fallen from him of very great importance, and I think that he ought to bring on this subject separately, and not mix it up with these Esti- mates, because the operations, as far as the Navy concerns have been conducted, are regulated under lawful orders. The question to be considered is the conduct of those who have issued the orders; and I promise my hon. Friend that if he will bring the subject forward as a separate Motion, I will give him my assistance. I think it better not to mix up this question with the Navy or Army Estimates. If the Navy or Army have acted wrong, they may have done it with no idea of its being illegal. I apprehend that those who have acted illegally in the first instance ought to be brought to justice, and not the gallant officers who have carried the orders into execution. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a question of vast importance, involving as it does the law of nations; I therefore hope he will postpone his observations now upon these Estimates, and take another opportunity of introducing them by way of Motion. I dare say he will find an opportunity before the Session is over.

Sir, I am very much indebted to my hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) for his suggestion. If my hon. Friend had attended to what I have said, he would have seen that I was proceeding not to quote the authority of Grotius or Vattel, but that I preferred the authority of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans). The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) two nights back gave me an answer with which I was forced then to be content, and which I wish now to record. I stated to the noble Lord that I should divide the Committee on every item of the Estimates, unless I had the assurance from himself that the Navy would not henceforward be employed unlawfully; and the noble Lord on the third occasion of my asking made this answer—that the Navy "would not be employed except according to the law of nations." I believe that this was the statement of the noble Lord, and if I am wrong I beg to be corrected. Now, then, I beg that the fact may be borne in mind—I have obtained that assurance from the noble Lord, that the troops of Her Majesty are no longer to be employed in violation of the law of nations. From the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, I have got the judgment that the Riot Act is required to legalise force. Now, I assert, in like manner, that it is against the law of nations to draw a weapon against a fo- reign Power without a formal declaration of war. Subject at an end.

moved a vote of 139,350l for salaries of officers and contingent expenses of Her Majesty's naval establishments at home.

observed, that in very many of our dockyards the salaries of the superintendents and petty officers exceeded the amount of money paid to the actual workmen; and he concurred in the opinion of Sir J. Barrow that our dockyards were overstocked with superintendents and petty officers. A great deal of money, too, was spent in building ships, a great many of the ships so built never going to sea at all, but being kept rotting in ordinary.

said, the present Board of Admiralty was most anxious not to incur any expenditure without producing desirable public results. The larger class of French ships had made it necessary, looking to the possible contingency of a rupture, to make successive changes in the class and rating of our ships, so as to enable our sailors to meet a gallant enemy fairly on equal terms in case of aggression. He hoped when they again mot, hon. Gentlemen would find that every recommendation of the Committee which could be safely adopted would be carried out and acted on. Our power in sailing vessels was indisputable; but we might have an irresistible fleet of sailing vessels lying wind bound and absolutely useless without steamers to bring them to bear on a hostile force. The invention of steam had brought other countries more on a level with us; and if we had not placed ourselves in the position we now happily occupied by a large increase in our steam navy, it might truly have been said, as it was said by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden), that "the invention of steam was a curse instead of a blessing to this country." Thanks to the exertions of two successive Boards of Admiralty, we could now bid defiance to any foe.

could by no means admit that the invention of steam had placed other countries on a level with England, abounding as she did with iron and coal, which formed the chief elements of efficiency in that arm of the naval service. It was utterly ridiculous for the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty to state that the invention of steam had placed this coun- try relatively in a worse position than our neighbours.

thought it would be very desirable that the Chairman should resume the chair at five o'clock, without reporting progress, in order to avoid the discussions which might take place on the Motion of again resolving into Committee of Supply. Chairman left the chair. House adjourned till five o'clock. At five, House again in Committee of Supply.

having resumed his place, put the question that a sum of 557,213l. be granted to Her Majesty for the expense of naval stores, and for the building and repair of ships.

wished to call attention to the course which had been taken in Committee to-day. After the suspension of the sitting, the Chairman, without having previously reported progress, had resumed the chair. His object in calling attention to the subject was merely to afford the noble Lord opposite an opportunity of stating that this was an extraordinary case, in order that it might not be drawn into a precedent. He believed that, if the business of the House had proceeded in the usual course, it had been the intention of an hon. Gentleman near him to put an important question to the President of the Board of Trade with reference to railways.

observed, that a general desire had been expressed at the early sitting that the Chairman should resume the chair in Committee at five o'clock, in the same way as was done by the Speaker after the morning sittings of the House. He had consulted the Speaker to ascertain whether there was any objection in point of form to such a proceeding; and that right hon. Gentleman expressed his opinion that the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House might resume the chair under such circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman said, however, that he was not aware that there was any precedent for such a course, and that if there was any objection, the better plan would be not to press it. There did not seem to be any objection on the part of any Member of the House to such a course being taken; but if any objection was felt, he (Lord J. Russell) would at once move that the Chairman report progress.

called the attention of the House to the case of commanders and lieutenants. From the state of the half-pay list, promotion was absolutely at a stop as far as the great bulk of those deserving and meritorious officers were concerned, and they saw themselves excluded from all hope of rising to a higher grade in their profession. There were 879 commanders, 96 of whom were on full pay. The first 150 on the list received 10s. a day, the remainder 8s. 6d. The fifty commanders who retired as captains under the Order in Council, in 1840, on 10s. 6d. a day, ought to receive something-like the upper class of masters, say 12s. 6d. a day; and he would suggest that to the fifty senior commanders of the 150 who had retired as such, a similar allowance of 12s. 6d. a day should be awarded. With respect to the lieutenants, he would abolish the difference between the two classes. He would have both lists amalgamated, and to all he would grant a respectable retiring allowance. He suggested that the money now paid to admirals and captains as freight on money should be appropriated to this purpose. There was another class of officers—the paymasters and pursers—who were fairly entitled to a favourable consideration. They were 300 strong, and yet the retired list only numbered thirty. He would increase that list to fifty, and give them all a decent allowance. He threw out these suggestions with the best possible intentions, and he hoped that they would be received in a corresponding spirit.

gave the gallant Officer credit for the best intentions, but was not quite sure that his plan would be found very practicable. As for the lieutenant-commanders, he did not think that they were quite as badly treated as the hon. and gallant Gentleman appeared to suppose. It should be borne in mind that those of them who retired as commanders in 1815, did not serve one day in that capacity. They received their promotion and their half-pay allowance accordingly, in full acquittance of all claims. Of those who had retired as lieutenants, 116 had served less than one year; 102 less than three years, and 109 less than four years.

regarded this vote as one that ought to receive particular attention. It was a very serious thing to the public interest that the perpetual half-pay should be very nearly equal to the whole of the active pay; and if the ordinary service were reduced to what it was in the year 1845, the whole of the active full pay would little exceed the half-pay of the present time. By a rule of the Admiralty, passed in 1830, the promotions were to be restricted to one for every three vacancies that occurred. Now, according to a return which was laid before the House on the 30th February, 1847, it appeared that 245 vacancies for flag officers had occurred, and instead of 81 promotions, which was the proportion allowed by the Admiralty's rule, 189 had actually taken place. Why, he asked, should the rule have been broken through in this manner? Again, 316 vacancies for captains had been filled up by 365 promotions; whereas, the proportion, according to the rule of 1830, ought to have been only 105. What was the use of laying down rules if they were to be violated in this way? Again, 315 commanders had died within the same period, and no less than 685 promotions had been made; which, instead of being one for every three, as required by the rule, was actually in the proportion of two for every one that died. Again, 1,049 lieutenants had died, which, including 48 for the coastguard, would have called for, agreeably to the rule, only 397; but what was the fact? Why, as many as 1,224 had been made from the date of the order to limit the promotions. There could be little use for rules if they were to be set aside in this manner. He did not, however, blame any particular Admiralty, because all Admiralties were the same. Their political situation unfortunately obliged the Government to reward services by an addition to the pension list. Every promotion in the Navy was an addition to the pension list. The Committee had recommended that they should be reduced from 150, the present number, to 100; but the Admiralty, he understood, were not disposed to adopt this recommendation. At present only 14 admirals were actually employed; and he believed that even to leave 100 upon the list would be a larger number than was necessary.

said, the hon. Member for Montrose's figures were incorrect; and in fact the rule relative to promotions had steadily been adhered to.

said, the hon. Member for Montrose had omitted from his calculation those officers who had forced themselves into promotion by gallant services in every quarter of the globe.

moved the first of these estimates, which was for 40,923l. to complete the sums necessary to defray the expenses of works and repairs to public buildings, furniture for various public departments, the maintenance and repair of royal palaces and gardens, formerly charged on the civil list.

said, considerable sums had already been voted on account, and the remainder was so small that the House was hardly in a position to make any reduction. Since the original estimates were presented, however, a considerable reduction had been effected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and the whole must come under review next Session. Generally speaking, the result of the inquiry by the Committee over which he had the honour to preside was, that in all the public departments there was wanting a proper financial check upon the expenditure. Where or whence that check could be obtained it was difficult to say; but he trusted that in the recess the subject would occupy the deliberate attention of the Government. That reductions could be effected in the miscellaneous expenditure was proved by the fact that since these estimates had been presented, they had been reduced very nearly 250,000l There was a want of supervision on the part of the Treasury before the estimates were produced; but he must say, as at present constituted, the Treasury had a great deal too much to do. A large part of the expenditure, too, was practically exempt from Parliamentary control. This was a subject requiring consideration. Another subject also requiring consideration was the amount of public salaries. There had been an indisposition on the part of the Committee to deal with individual salaries, considering that regard should be had to them as a whole. He hoped to hear from the Under Secretary of the Colonies that a great deal of the expenses of the colonies might be borne by themselves, and that less might conse- quently devolve upon the mother country. He hoped to hear likewise from his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer what portion of the recommendations of the Committee on the Miscellaneous Estimates would be adopted by Her Majesty's Government in future Sessions? In what department would they make revisions? And what portions of the recommendations of the Committee, if any, would be rejected?

said, he always thought that when a Minister of the Crown wanted a vote for the miscellaneous estimates, he came down to that House and made a statement. They really never stood more in need of explanation; for the report before them, whoever drew it up, was most unsatisfactory. After setting forth the salaries of the Ministers and high officers of State, it recommended merely that the salaries of a few clerks should be reduced; and upon the subject of Ireland, one of the recommendations was, that Queen's plates should be abolished. So much for the report; as to the item under consideration, it was the most disgraceful estimate that was ever brought before the House. They found in it Windsor Castle, the Horse Guards, and the Hackney-coach office in Essex-street, Strand, all mixed up in most inextricable confusion. There was one item in it, too, regarding which he wanted some explanation. They ought to know what was meant by the museum of economic geology. He wanted more details. Any gentleman would be ashamed to have such an estimate regarding his own private establishment presented to him. He said it was a fraudulent estimate; and when they came to the item of the palm-house, at Kew, he would prove it. He hoped the House would not pass the estimate in its present shape; and he trusted that some Minister of the Crown would tell the Committee that at least for the future they should have the estimates presented in a different way.

would not follow the hon. Gentleman's example in "badgering Her Majesty's Ministers;" but, in duty to his constituents, he should offer a few observations. He was called upon to vote upon a document on which it was impossible for him to form an opinion; he not having the means of forming an opinion upon any single item on the paper. He would just draw attention to one item, in which two matters most incongruous were placed together, and which had struck him only that morning. It was this, "oil and gas lights for the Houses of Parliament, and St. Martin's public baths and washhouses." It was all carried out in one sum. The hon. Member also objected to many items of the estimates, that they concerned the private expenses of the Royal Family. He knew there was no one so ill served, and no one so grossly cheated with things which they were pledged to pay for, as the Crown. Some years ago he had been at Windsor, and he there saw a stable which had been built for Her Majesty, and which was not larger than many similar buildings belonging to noblemen. He inquired the cost, and was told that it was 70,000l. He believed any one would have paid dearly for them at half the money.

, with regard to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex, must say, that in his experience of Parliament, which was somewhat longer than that of the hon. and gallant Officer, he had never heard of a Minister or a Chancellor of the Exchequer coming down to that House and making a statement on the miscellaneous estimates. There were no less than 113 different items in the estimate he held in his hand; and it would be impossible to make any general statement with regard to them. As to the remark of the hon. Member for West Surrey, there were items still more dissimilar in character than those he had mentioned to be found classed together. But had the hon. Gentleman exercised a little of that common sense for which his speeches were generally distinguished, he would have seen that they were by no means so incongruous as at first sight might be imagined. As to the report of the Committee of which his right hon. Friend behind him (Mr. V. Smith) had been Chairman, he thought it of considerable value. But he candidly admitted that out of the mass of matter presented to them for consideration, it would have been impossible for them to have made a perfect proposition. Still it was quite clear that a great reduction of expenditure might be made by the Executive Government. And he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had said, when moving the appointment of the Committee, that that appointment would not relieve the Government from their responsibility. With regard to the checks that should be exercised by the Treasury, he observed that the miscellaneous esti- mates were not presented in detail to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) before they were first presented to the Committee. When they came before him he pared them down, and he thought he might have credit for the pretty vigilant control which he had exercised; and almost the first thing he had attended to was the sums charged upon the Consolidated Fund. But the pressure of Irish affairs, and the business of Ministers in that House, had so occupied their attention, as nearly to prevent them attending to anything else. With regard to any particular items on which special information should he required, he thought it better and more satisfactory that they should be dealt with separately, than alluded to in any general statement. That was the mode in which the miscellaneous estimates had been hitherto always treated, and it was the only way in which they could be properly dealt with. And he, and the Under Secretary to the Treasury would be, he trusted, found prepared to give the utmost satisfaction on each item as it should be brought forward.

said, he wished, as a Member of the Committee, to explain that there was no part of the estimates in which it was possible for the Committee to have entered into details. Under each head there were ten or twenty different topics that ought to be inquired into. There were in all, he believed, 116 special subjects referred to the Committee; and of these there were sixty or seventy that would each have required all the time that the Committee had been able to devote to their whole task. The inquiry had served to convince him the more strongly of the truth of Lord Congleton's remark, that until Parliament were able to control the whole amount of the public expenditure, and got possession of the whole of the public receipts, financial reform on a grand scale could not possibly be effected. Under the circumstances the Committee could not possibly have produced a satisfactory report. In the item before the House, for instance, how were they to know how much of the vote should he given for Buckingham Palace, and how much for Windsor or other royal residences? If they could have visited the localities, and looked into the contracts, they would have made their report more satisfactory to themselves and to the House. They were thus necessarily compelled to leave the details in the hands of the Executive. The persons who came he-fore all such Committees were invariably the officials who were desirous of getting the full amount of their estimates. The details were thus thrown upon the Treasury, which was overwhelmed with work, and unable to devote the necessary attention to them. The right hon. Baronet had admitted that evening, that for the last two years the Treasury had been absolutely broken down with business that poured upon it from Ireland. Another great evil was the absence of any central accountancy. There were no books existing to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could refer, in which he would find the whole receipts and expenditure of his department set forth, as a banker or merchant would have for his private business. Parliament ought to have before it the whole receipts of the year in every department, including the expenses of collection and the amount of fees received in the courts of law and elsewhere. Such a system ought to be introduced, and it should be a rule that none of the receipts could he applied to any purpose whatever without the previous sanction of Parliament being obtained. While making these remarks, he begged to say that he should be unworthy of a seat in that House, unless he bore testimony to the great kindness and attention shown by his right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee throughout the inquiry, and to the willingness with which he had listened to every suggestion that had been thrown out by the other Members. But still there was no denying hut that the report, as regarded its practical results, was most unsatisfactory. It was so, however, not from any fault of the Committee, or from any failure or inattention on the part of the Chairman, but from the impossibility of going into the details. On some of the subjects that had been referred to them, separate Committees had been appointed; and on others, more especially on the whole question of the Exchequer, he hoped that a full investigation would be instituted. However unsatisfactory the report of the present Committee might he, there were, at all events, some important improvements suggested in it which he hoped would not be lost sight of.

did not think that it would be a convenient course, with respect to the miscellaneous estimates, to follow the example of his hon. Friend the Secretary for the Admiralty, as regarded the Navy Estimates, as the former involved so much matter of detail, so that it would be better to give every explanation that might be required upon each particular item. It was very proper, however, with regard to the Admiralty, as the expenditure in that department affected a great branch of the public service. If, however, they attempted to go through an introductory explanation of the various items of the miscellaneous estimates, it would involve considerable delay as the heads of several departments, as well as his hon. Friend the Secretary for the Treasury, would have to enter into explanations. The hon. Gentleman had complained that a number of votes was placed on the Consolidated Fund which ought to have been inserted in the estimates. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already stated that during the vacation he would consider the votes which should be placed on the estimates, and the charges which should remain on the Consolidated Fund. He thought that it would be unadvisable that they should at present do more than proceed to consider the different items in the estimates, instead of calling for general explanations from each department. The hon. Gentleman had said that each vote should be more fully considered; but at this period of the Session, with the number of Bills which they had before them, as well as other business which hon. Members brought forward, he did not conceive that there would be time to carry any measure if in every instance they were to stop for consideration. With respect to salaries, in 1831 a Committee sat on this subject, and he thought that they had settled the matter in a satisfactory manner.

said, that the House was not to blame that there was a delay in voting the estimates, for the Government had taken their own course as to the time of bringing them forward. He should dismiss all complaints as to the delay created by objections, as if the estimates had been brought forward in the month of February instead of the month of August. Among other charges, he found one for the Pavilion at Brighton; but every one knew that it was no longer in a condition for the residence of the Royal Family; and certainly, from what passed some time ago they ought to have reason to believe that that property would be made a matter of revenue instead of expense. Then, again, the charge for providing temporary accom- modation for the Houses of Parliament appeared to be most enormous. He found that one of the charges was "for the probable expense that will be incurred for taking up haircloth, mats, &c, and cleaning dirt from under the House, which will be required from time to time to make good what is worn out, 1,150l.;" and this, with the hire of chandeliers for the temporary residence of the Speaker, amounted to 1,410l. Then, again, the Government were taking into their occupation large houses in the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament. Such was the case with Gwydyr House, and several other mansions formerly occupied by noblemen. No adequate advantage to the public was derived from the occupation of such places. The whole matter involved a series of expenditure which might be checked without the slightest injury to the public service.

agreed in the report of the Select Committee, that all the particular buildings which were the subject of this vote should be enumerated, and that they should put down the specific sum allotted to each of the Royal Palaces, so that the House might know what sums were expended for the comfort and accommodation of Her Majesty, and what for the innocent recreation and enjoyment of Her subjects in those places which were thrown open to the public. With respect to the Pavilion at Brighton, it was not intended to expend upon that building any more than was necessary to keep it tight, and to keep the rain out. It was now cleared of all its furniture, and the Office of Woods and Forests had called for and obtained a report upon the best mode of disposing of the site. It appeared that there was some difficulty in giving a proper title, which might render the intervention of Parliament necessary. An undertaking was on foot to repair the very interesting and beautiful ruin of Lanercost Abbey, in Cumberland, with a view of preserving from ultimate ruin and decay this, among other interesting specimens of antiquity in the possession of the Crown. A small sum was therefore voted in aid for the repair of Lanercost Abbey; and it was intended, also, to vote a small sum for Carisbrooke Castle and Caernarvon Castle. With reference to the number of buildings engaged for the accommodation of the different offices and commissions, for which rent was paid, it did amount to a great sum, because the increasing business of the country required an additional number of buildings devoted to these purposes. It was thought necessary that these offices and houses should be in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament; and the houses in that neighbourhood, as they all knew, fetched a much greater rent than in the remoter parts of the town. A large sum was annually demanded for the expenses of these offices and commissions, and he sometimes felt that the vacant space of ground near the Foreign Office would be well devoted to an edifice capable of accommodating in a simple and substantial manner these various offices and commissions. In the present state of the finances, however, it would not perhaps be advisable to incur the expense of such a building now, whatever the ultimate saving of such an edifice would be. It was not, therefore, thought right to propose a large sum for any building not absolutely required; and it was considered better for the present to go on paying rent for the houses required for offices and commissions.

thought it very desirable that the large and at present unsightly area on the south side of Downing-street should be appropriated for the erection of a plain, solid, substantial building, for all the commissions appointed, so that it should not be necessary to have recourse to the occupation of houses in George-street, or elsewhere, for them. There ought also to be a building more worthy of the important business transacted in the Foreign and Colonial Offices; it was to be hoped it was not generally known that the Foreign Office of England consisted of five separate private dwelling-houses, in such a ruinous state that the documents of the department had to be removed a floor lower because the weight of them would hazard the stability of the building.