said, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Dungarvan, Whether it is his intention to move the Second Reading of the Industrial Schools (Ireland) Bill this day; and, if not, whether he will state his future intentions with respect to that Bill?

said, that it was his intention to move the discharge of the Order for Second Reading, as he thought he could proceed more effectively with the measure next Session. He should, therefore, move the discharge of the Order.

said, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, If he has now ascertained whether, in the compulsory removal of Rebecca Kearney from Glasgow to Ireland, the several proceedings required by Law were duly fulfilled?

said, he hd received from the Clerk of the Parochial Baord of Guardians in Glasgow a copy of the proceedings in the case referred to. It appeared to him that they were perfectly regular. He should lay those Papers on the Table in addition to what were already ordered.

said, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he has received a letter containing a Protest against any reduction in the number of Directors of Convict Prisons; if so, how long that letter has remained unanswered, and whether he has since held any communication with Captain Crofton, with a view to the reconsideration of the question?

said, the first proposal was that Mr. Lentaigne should be a Member of the Local Board. Thereupon, communications passed with the Castle of Dublin, the result of which was that, owing to the objections taken, partly by Captain Crofton and others, it was not effect. He (Mr. Cardwell) found from the letter which he had received from the Directors, dated the 7th of May, that on the 3rd of May General Larcom wrote to them that His Excellency did not intend to fill up the vacancy until sufficient time had elapsed to afford the means of judging whether such appointment was necessary. On the 24th, a letter containing the proposal made respecting Captain Barlow, was written to him officially, and as soon as he received the sanction of the Treasary to the arrangement he wrote to the Convict Directors, expressing a wish to receive a statement of the working of the arrangements when a sufficient time had elapsed to enable them to give the results of their experience.

rose to move that in the opinion of the House it was not desirable that the new Foreign Office should be erected according to the Palladian design now exhibited in the Committee room of the House. The question to which he was about to direct the attention of the House was one of considerable importance—it was this—whether a large sum of public money was or was not to be properly expended? He owed an apology to the House for having taken up the subject; he had not, like his noble Friend at the head of the Government, made architecture his study, and there were many hon. Members much more competent to deal with the question than he was. The question of the nature of the building to be erected for a Foreign Office was not a new one, but it appeared before them now in a new phase. The question was no longer what should be the architecture of the new Foreign Office, but the special design which had been sent in by the Prime Minister himself. He thought he should be able to show that what he stated was a fact. The drawing was not, indeed, the production of the noble Lord's own hand, but it was as much his work as any Despatch ever written by the hand of a Foreign Office clerk when the noble Lord was at the head of that Department. In 1856 a Committee was appointed to consider the whole question of the Government public offices, the Foreign Office being then, as now, in a very dilapidated state. That Committee recommended that an enlarged view should be taken of the question, that the public offices should be concentrated as much as possible, the new Foreign Office being the nucleus round which all the others should be congregated. And they further recommended that there should be a general competition for designs. Architects from various parts of Europe competed, and a very large number of designs—upwards of 200—was sent in. Subsequently a Commission was appointed to consider those designs, and it recommended that premiums should be awarded to seven of them. Of those premiums four were awarded to Gothic, and the remaining three to Italian and other designs, including, he believed, a Renaissance. After that Mr. Pennethorne, architect of the Department of Works, was consulted, and entrusted with the preparation of a design—a decision which had justly given rise to a great deal of discontent among those who had received prizes; and this state of things led to the appointment of a Committee of that House, of which he had the honour to be a member. That Committee declined to give any opinion as to the style which should be adopted—they merely inquired into the comparative cost of the different styles—but they made this recommendation—that in the selection of the architect a preference should be given to the successful competitors. At that time the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire (Lord John Manners)was at the head of the Board of Works, and he took upon himself to decide the question of style, and declared himself to be in favour of the Gothic design of Mr. Scott. The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), who was then at the Indian Board, communicated with the First Commissioner of Works on the subject of a new Indian Office, and thinking it desirable that the two buildings should be similar in their style of architecture, he decided also in favour of Gothic. The public were thus naturally led to think that the question was so far settled, and that the Indian Office and the Foreign Office were to be built in the Gothic style of architecture. But the Government of Lord Derby was turned out of office, and his noble Friend (Lord John Manners) of course went out with it. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) came into office, and his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper) became the First Commissioner of Public Works. With this change of men in office came a change of plans. The whole thing was at sea again. what had been done by his noble Friend (Lord John Manners) was opposed by his noble Friend now at the head of the Government. Indeed, it looked as if the House of Commons was not to be consulted on the subject at all, and as if it had been resolved by the Treasury and the Board of Works to set aside, by their own authority, all that had been done by their predecessors. In these matters of art and architecture we suffered in this country from what were in other respects a great blessing—our free institutions. In Governments where there did not occur these changes of office—as at Paris, for example—a man remained so long in a particular department that something like consistency and a consecutive course of action was pursued with regard to public buildings. But in this country, from the frequent changes that took place, our public works were often proceeded with in a very unsatisfactory manner. what one man did another man undid, and the works when completed were unsatisfactory. This subject was brought before the House by his noble Friend opposite (Lord John Manners) two years ago, when a very warm discussion took place on the question whether the Gothic or the Pal-Indian style of architecture was the best. His noble Friend at the head of the Government objected to Mr. Scott's Gothic design, and wished him to give in a Palladian or Italian design instead. Mr. Scott accordingly produced a design that was considered to be Italian; but his noble Friend did not consider it sufficiently Italian. Mr. Scott was then compelled—and he (Lord Elcho) thought he made a great mistake when he did so—he was compelled to consent to become the draughtsman of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and they now had the result in the design exhibited on the walls of the tea-room. He was justified, therefore, in saying that that design was practically the design of the Prime Minister, and not the design of the architect, who had in reality been compelled to draw it. His noble Friend had a horror of Gothic architecture, and therefore it was that he had insisted on Mr. Scott producing an Italian design. Undoubtedly people would differ on these matters of taste. He (Lord Elcho) would not express any strong opinion of his own one way or the other with regard to Gothic or Palladian architecture, but with a view to refresh his memory as to what had passed in Parliament on the subject, he had run through Hansard, and would give in as condensed a form as he could the arguments against Gothic which had been used by his noble Friend and other speakers. He would thus save House, as it would be unnecessary for the opponents of Gothic to repeat their arguments. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham) said that Gothic architecture gave "a maximum of cost with a minimum of accommodation"—that it gave "no light" and was, moreover, "a barbarous style;" and the hon. Member added that "we did not live in age of darkness, "and that the Gothic style was "ecclesiastical and peculiar to a sect." He supposed that when the hon. Member for Brighton used the word "ecclesiastical," he referred to Mr. Beresford Hope, who was then a Member of the House; but he must ask the hon. Member, when he spoke of the style being "peculiar to a sect," to what seet in par- ticular he referred? He remembered that two years ago a deputation in favour of the Gothic style of architecture being adopted waited on the Prime Minister, and that one of the gentlemen who composed the deputation was the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease). He did not know that Gothic was a style of ecclesiastical architecture peculiar to the sect to which the hon. Member for South Durham belonged. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite), the architect of the Royal Exchange, said that the Italian style was "more suited to the wants of common life, that the Gothic gave no light and no ventilation," and this he illustrated by a reference to the Committee Rooms of the House of Commons. Now, he hoped the House would not be run away with by any argument drawn from the abuse of the Gothic style of architecture. Undoubtedly, there were very great defects in the building in which they sat. There was, as the hon. Member for Brighton had said, "a maximum of cost with a minimum of accommodation," and this was an evil from which Gothic architecture suffered. The minds of Members were apt to be prejudiced against it, on account of the abuses of it which they saw before their eyes, and to be led away by the idea that the style was necessarily inconvenient and costly. The hon. Member for Bath further said, that the Foreign Office should correspond in style with the genus loci. Where that was to be found in the neighbourhood of the Foreign Office he (Lord Elcho) could not tell; but the hon. Member for Bath had no difficulty in discovering the genus loci, for the said "the Foreign Office should harmonize with Montagu House." Now, Montagu House might be a very pretty building, but he (Lord Elcho) would rather that it was not taken as a genus loci in this instance. He now came to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The noble Lord, always gay and cheerful himself—

"Quem jocus circumvolat, et Cupido"—

said that public buildings should be gay and cheerful outside, and light and airy in their interior. "The Gothic," he said, "might be suited to monastic buildings or a Jesuits' College, but it was not suited to the purpose to which it was proposed to adapt it. He did not know what the peculiarities of Lombardo-Gothic were, but it combined all the modifications of barbarism," Now, the Committee of 1858, though they gave no opinion as the style that ought to be adopted, went thoroughly into the question of cost, and it was distinctly proved by Mr. Hunt, the Surveyor of the Board of Works, that in regard to cost there was no difference between one style and the other, the estimate for the Gothic structure being, if anything, rather lower than the other. Then, in respect to convenience, the Gothis was shown to be quite as convenient as any other. As to inches, it was proved that the Gothic design of Mr. Scott admitted of more light than would be found in any public building in London in the Palladian style. AS to the objection that the Gothic was "ecclesiastical," he might pass that by, merely reminding the House that in North Italy nearly all the ancient public buildings were Gothic, and most beautiful they were. As to Gothic being barbarous and foreign, what was the Italian? Did not its very name import that it was foreign? Hid noble Friend wound up his speech and argument by declaring that he did not know the peculiarites of Lombardo-Gothic, but "he supposed it combined all the modifications of barbarism." He was surprised that his noble Friend, who spoke Italian like an Italian, should speak thus of Lombardo-Gothic. But in Northern Italy some of the most beautiful edifices were in this style—for instance, the Doge's Palace, and many other palaces in Venice, the hospital at Milan, and others. If these were modifications of barbarism he should like to see a few such buildings in this country. They would be a great improvement on the buildings which we were in the habit of constructing in this country. It was said that on grounds of congruity it was desirable to adopt the Italian syle. But the most beautiful towns were not the most congruous. Congruity was, indeed, often only another name for monotony. Look at Chester, Heidelberg, Venice, and other towns with gable ends and other irregular and picturesque features; it was this variety that gave these cities their charm. Instead of being built all of one style it was highly desirable that there should be a variety in our public buildings. He had endeavoured to refute the arguments urged against the Gothic style; but he did not wish to pledge the House to adopt that style for the new buildings. But before they sanctioned the expenditure of half a million or more of money, he only asked them to go into the tea-rooms to see the plans of the building now proposed to be built. He spoke with some diffidence on a matter of taste, and he did not wish to express himself too strongly, but he must say that since the plan had been exhibited his noble Friend had succeeded in uniting those who had never before agreed; for those who differed as to Gothic and Palladian united in condemning the plan which his noble Friend approved. In fact, his noble Friend's Foreign Office was as faulty as his foreign policy was sound. He, therefore, wanted the House to pause before they adopted a public building which would not be a credit or an ornament to the Metropolis. Great as our success had been in many things it could not be said we had succeeded in our public buildings. Any one who stood on London Bridge, and looked first upon the southern side and then passed to that street of palaces, as it had been called (New Cannon Street), could not fail to be struck by the unutterable meanness and want of originality of our street architecture. What would happen would be this. If his noble Friend came down and asked for a million of money to erect a large public building in the Italian style, no doubt a most imposing structure would be built; but that building would give the keynote to other buildings. Our street architecture would degenerate. The building would be imitated in plain, mean, brick houses; or, if not, they would have things of stucco—a sham which pretended to be what it was not, and which was almost the worse of the two. No doubt the Gothic style had this advantage, that it permitted every variety of play of fancy and the use of any materials whatever which could be had in London on the spot. The Houses of Parliament were built of stone. They had lately been obliged to paint the building, and they had thus made it look like one of the buildings with stucco fronts. Let them put whatever paint upon it they pleased, however, there was something in the atmosphere of London so hostile to stone that paint could not save it, and a Committee were now sitting to see how they could prevent the Houses of Parliament from crumbling into the Thames. Buckingham Palace, too, had lately had a new stone front. But no sooner was it constructed than they were obliged to paint it. The same thing had happened, he believed, in other buildings. This, then, was a very strong argument against the adoption of the pure Italian, which could not be carried out in that variety of style and colour of which the Gothic would admit. With terra cotta, for example, which was the most durable of all things, they would have variety of colour and ornament, by means of the introduction of serpentine, Cornish granite, &c. Where they had a building all of one colour, it soon became a dead dull gray and then black, as might be seen on one side of Spencer House. On the contrary, where they had a variety of colour, the surface might be discoloured by smoke and dust, like a picture in London, but yet a variety of colour could be discerned beneath the surface. If they were to judge of public feeling by the buildings in hand there could be no question that the classical or Italian was at a discount, and that the style which admitted of a play of fancy, but which his noble Friend described as abounding with all sorts of monstrosities, was predominating in London. He did not mean those mansions which were in course of building for young couples in Belgravia and Tyburnia, with plain stuceo fronts. The other day a party who took an interest in this question took a tour through London. They invited his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) to join them, but he declined. He was sorry for that, because his noble Friend might have changed his mind in consequence. They saw an insurance office near Blackfriars Bridge, which was, he thought, a happy illustration of what he had advocated. It was built in the style which his noble Friend so much abused; and on the right and left of it were two stueeo fronted houses in the Italian style. A photograph had been made of them, which he supposed might be bought, and which described the house on one side as which described the house on one side as "Palmerston ornate," and on the other "Palmerston pure." The middle building was designated as "What London would be if Palmerston would allow ti." [The noble Lord here handed a copy of the photograph to each side of the House.] He would take two large buildings which had sprung up lately—one opposite Buckingham Palace, called the Palace Hotel, which was pure Palmerstonian; the other was the Victoria Hotel; and could any one doubt of the superiority of the latter over the former? There was no comparison between them. One was in the classic style, and the other admitted of variety and fancy, and was a very fine building, thought it wanted colour. They found, in going through London, that this sort of building was cropping out in all di- rections; and if his noble Friend succeeded in erecting the Foreign Office according to the Palladian design in the tea room, all that would be shown would be that the House of Commons was not acting in accordance with the feeling and spirit of the country and of Europe in general on the question of architecture. He begged pardon for having so long trespassed on the attention of the House; but he felt strongly on the subject, and he was anxious that the House should not, by sanctioning the erection of the noble Lord's last design for the new Foreign Office, be led into a mistake which it could not remedy. The noble Lord was all-powerful and all-popular. He hoped the noble Lord would but abuse his popularity and power by attempting to force on the House a design of this kind. Let the House recollect the Duke of Wellington's statue. The Duke of Wellington's popularity prevented that monstrosity from being pulled down while he was alive; and Duke of Wellington's popularity, now he was gone, prevented any Member of Parliament from moving an Address to the Queen praying that the statue might be pulled down, as being a disgrace to the arts and to the taste and common sense of the people. Let the House take care that the same mistake was not committed in reference to this Palladian design for the Foreign Office, and that the noble Lord's popularity and power did not prevent it from doing that which it ought to do—namely, agree to the Motion with which he should conclude. The hon. Member for Bath, in a former discussion, said that the House of Commons, when it made a mistake in legislation could bring in a Bill to amend the mistake; but the House should take care not to make great mistakes in costly monuments of granite and marble.

seconded the Resolution, and said he rose rather to confirm than add to the remarks just made by the noble Lord. The Palladian design, against which the noble Lord had spoken, might have great merit, but he found it allowed on all hands that one merit it did not possess—the merit of being beautiful. Every one agreed that it was—he would not say ugly, but dull. There was in it nothing original or striking. No human being would ever be so deluded as to look up at it with that keen intellectual delight which was awakened by a really noble building. In repeating these general remarks he was not disparaging Mr. Scott. Every one allowed that the Gothic design which that eminent architect had prepared, though its outline might be amended, was radiant with grace and beauty. It glowed with thought and imagination, and would kindle the minds of those who looked at it. This difference was natural. Mr. Scott was a man of genius, but his genius lay in Gothic. In setting him to Palladian they went against his mind's grain; and he was glad to find that many hon. Gentlemen who did not love Gothic, yet said that if Mr. Scott was to be the architect it would be only good sense to give his genius its own sphere, instead of forcing him to work for which he was unfit. He was not going to compare the merits of the Gothic and classic styles. In fact, he had drawn so much enjoyment from both of them that he had no wish to assail either—though in passing he might remind the House that Palladian was not classic, but a bastard daughter of the classic style. But he hoped they would be guided by the plain common sense of the matter. He would not address himself to the good taste of the House, but to its good sense and judgment. And, keeping strictly to that ground, let him try to dispel the illusion that experience in that House showed the inconveniences of the Gothic style for a secular building. It was true that that particular Gothic was inconvenient; but the reason was that it was bad Gothic. We had made great progress in the Gothic style in the twenty or thirty years since that House was commenced, and has ventured to say that in Mr. Scott's Gothic design there would be precisely as much air, light, and freedom from soot as in his Palladian design. There would be none of this absurd folly of large mullions and small panes, and windows opening by pulleys, or not at all. As to expense, the Committee reported that the style would make little or no difference. But now there seemed to him to be one decisive argument against a Palladian design; that was that the Palladian style had already lost, or was quickly losing, all hold on popular affection. This could not be denied. A thousand things showed that every year public feeling was becoming more and more averse to that style. In all architectural publications it was found that Gothic and other intermediate styles were advocated in preference to it. All young architects, if let along, forsook it. Scarce a single recent building was in pure Palladian. Lately a great edifice was built at Manchester by a committee of mercantile men, with a Quaker chairman, and they would have it in Gothic. Most striking of all, only last Thursday the Premier himself rode twenty-two miles in a flood of rain to lay the foundation stone of a Gothic building, and told the company he had had great pleasure in doing so. All this might show bad taste in the British public; but it was the fact. Men above sixty still loved Palladian; men of taste below sixty hated it. Nor was that strange. Since Queen Elizabeth's time we had had nothing else. No wonder the world was growing dead-sick of it. It was a style, too, that had little range. It did not, like Gothic, admit of infinite adaptation and variety. Uniformity was its soul. Naturally it palled at last on the eye. Now, he appealed to the noble Lord, whose common sense was the admiration of his countrymen, whether it would be good sense to set up a great mass of building in a style of which the world was fast growing weary. Surely in such a matter the old should a little yield to the young. It was by the men of the future that this building would be enjoyed or execrated. Let it be built as they would wish it built. And of this he assured the noble Lord, that if he built it in Palladian it would not be enjoyed but execrated by the rising generation of men of taste. He put it respectfully to the noble Lord whether he would not generously sacrifice his own prepossessions in order to let this building harmonize with the feelings of the rising rather than the setting generation of men.

said, he was glad to hear his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) as well as the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Resolution disclaim any very decided partiality with respect to the Gothic, Italian, or Renaissance style, he inferred from that disclaimer that they were not really convinced that the public opinion, of which they spoke so boldly, was in their favour. His noble Friend had used expressions of contempt towards this selected design, and assumed that public opinion had declared against the against the design by Mr. Scott which was now exhibited in one of the Committee rooms, and for which a Vote would be proposed in the Committee of Supply. People were apt to attribute to the public that opinion which happened to be their own. Possibly a knot of eager partizans of a particular style had congregated around his noble Friend, and by their constant buzzing had kept from his cars all remarks made by individuals of a different taste; for it so happened that he (Mr. Cowper) had found a different opinion on the subject, not only among ordinary persons to be met with in the streets—men who had superficial notions and slight interest about architecture—but also among persons practically versed in the science of architecture, and, competent to pronounce an authoritative judgment, and the opinion he had heard from illustrious architects who had practised the Italian style was that Mr. Scott's design did that gentleman the greatest credit, and was better than any of the Italian designs exhibited in 1857. It the House should come to the conclusion that the new Foreign Office should be built in accordance with the proposed plan they might, he thought, rest satisfied that we had procured the best design in that particular style which could be obtained. Mr. Scott, who stood so prominent as a Gothic architect, had done himself credit by the manner in which he had succeeded in dealing with architecture of a style with which he was not so familiar; and when his noble Friend who introduced the subject to the notice of the House described the design to which he had called attention as emanating from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he was paying the noble Lord a compliment more flattering, perhaps, than was intended. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, representing what he believed to be the views and preferences of the majority of the House and of the country, had asked Mr. Scott to prepare an elevation for a new Foreign Office in the Italian style. It would not have been to the credit of Mr. Scott had he said, "I am an architect only in one style: I can do nothing without the pointed arch, and I, therefore, decline to undertake any other"—but Mr. Scott, being conscious of his own ability to deal with whatever style the country might prefer, submitted to authority, and undertook the commission. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire seemed to be much pleased at having found certain buildings in the Metropolis which were not in the prevailing style of architecture, and had mentioned an insurance office in Bridge Street with satisfaction and triumph. The House, however, should bear in mind that the money lavished on the outside of assurance offices was intended to attract attention, and that notoriety was obtained more readily by strangeness and peculiarity than by conformity with the prevailing taste, Either a novel or an exploded style would serve as an advertisement and allure business. He was surprised to hear his noble Friend still claiming the Gothic as the national style. If the epithet were understood to denote what originated in the nation, or what exclusively belonged to it, was not more national than the Gothic, the Italian, and Stonehenge or the Irish cabins, were the best examples of the national style. But if the epithet implied that which was adopted by the nation, and prevailed to the greatest extent in the country, it certainly belonged to the Italian style. It must be manifest to anybody who used his eyes that London as a city was built not in the vertical and pointed but in the horizontal or Italian style; and the House of Commons ought in making a selection of a design for a new Foreign Office, to give preference to a style which would be best adapted to a public building, and which would combine the largest amount of internal convenience with an elevation calculated to produce great architectural effect without unnecessary expense. The style best adopted for a public office, and most available for modern construction, was the Italian, nor did the warmest advocates of Gothic architecture assert its superiority over the Italian in these respects. Assuming, then, that upon practical grounds the Italian style was that which it was desirable to select for the new Foreign Office, the next consideration by which the choice in architecture ought to be guided was that of association Action upon that consideration, churches were built in the style of the early Christian ages for the sake of preserving in the minds the worshippers the associations of ancient times. And for the same reason the architect of a Wesleyan chapel looking to the associations of the Eighteenth century, built in the style of George III. rather than in that of Edward I. It was also natural that when the present Houses of Parliament were about to be erected, a style should be chosen connected with the period when the House of Commons first acquired its liberties, and thus associate the past with the present. In the case of the new Foreign Office, however, he saw no reason for mediaeval associations. No hon. member wished, be presumed, to associate the transactions in that office with those of by-gone times, nor would he desire to see the foreign policy of the present day correspond with that of the days of King John. On the contrary, the association to be desired was that of the period in which we lived, and the Italian style was that which by its breadth, simplicity, and symmetry best represented modern sentiment and aims. It was a matter of importance that the style, whatever it might be, should be of such a character as would make the new building group well with those in this vicinity. A building of any description standing alone had only its peculiar architectural merits to depend upon; but when there were a number of buildings contiguous to one another, much of the beauty of the entire group, taken from any particular point of view, depended upon the harmony of the whole. Now, he saw no prospect of the plan of clearing the houses between Charles Street and Great George Street, which was a few years ago contemplated, being carried into execution, and the new Foreign Office would therefore be seen in conjunction with the Treasury, the Horse Guards, and the buildings in Whitehall. Any person going from Regent's Park to Pall-mall would find Palladian elevations along the route; and copies from the best models of Italian architecture in Pall Mall. He would find the same style continued through Trafalgar Square and Whitehall, and the Foreign Office should be the culminating point of this long series of buildings. Another object which was sought to be attained in choosing the design, was to afford as much pleasure to the public who would look upon it as possible. It had been asserted that by many persons in this country the Palladian style was execrated; but, for his own part, he was of opinion that for one person who took delight in the pointed, there were twenty who derived greater satisfaction from the Italian style of architecture. The latter was the style which now prevailed in Paris and the Continent. The erection of the new office ought not only to afford satisfaction to those who had a taste for art, but should be the means of furnishing an example and a model of what builders ought to copy. For one person who would profit by the example of a building in the Gothic style, there would be twenty who would profit by the example of a building in the Italian style. He thought these grounds were sufficient to justify the Vote which the Government were about to propose, and which would be for the erection of a building on the last design prepared by Mr. Scott. The noble Lord, the Member for Haddingtonshire, evidently wanted to exclude that design. That design, however, was the best which could be obtained in the Palladian style, and he was sure the House would never regret its adoption.

thought it was strange that in this nineteenth century we had made so little advance in the art of architecture. The principle of architecture of the present day, as far as public buildings were concerned, appeared to be to imitate as closely as possible something that had gone before, and was as little applicable as possible to the real wants of the age. That House, for example, was a Gothic building. The exterior had much of the beauty of the Gothic style, but the interior had all the inconveniences which characterized buildings in the time of our forefathers. So with modern classic buildings. We had beautiful exteriors in the classic style, but the interiors, for the most part, were such as prevented us from enjoying—what we all wanted—the light of Heaven. That House moreover, swarmed with hideous and grotesque monsters, which, though called lions and unicorns, resembled nothing so much as the gorillas lately discovered on the west coast of Africa. He believed these frightful animals had even crept into the apartments occupied by the Speaker. Yet they did not necessarily belong to Gothic architecture. In the British Museum, on the other hand, we had a classic building, but we had spoilt it by erecting a great colonnade which rendered a whole series of halls almost useless. When these things were mentioned reference was always made to authority—as if authority alone were sufficient to reconcile us to monstrosities. Take the monument lately erected by Mr. Scott himself in the neighbourhood of Westminster Abbey. Some considered it a very fine monument; but although it might be justified on authority it could not be justified on common sense. On his column Mr. Scott had put a number of Kings and Queens, and on the top of all had placed a George and the Dragon. That was not consistent with common sense. What we wanted was a building adapted to our pre- sent wants. The noble Lord at the head the Government objected to Gothic on the ground that it was an ecclesiastical style—the style of the Jesuits. Everybody knew that the Gothic, instead of being the style of the Jesuits, was the very style which the Jesuits destroyed. The Jesuits introduced a tawdry renaissance style, which utterly destroyed that grand Christian style of architecture which was then developing itself in Italy. Again, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite), who was himself an architect of no inconsiderable eminence, objected to the Gothic style, because it excluded the light. There was no foundation for that objection. They might have the whole side of that chamber one mass of light if they liked. In classic architecture there was something to prevent the admission of light. Classic architecture sprang up in the South, where one great object was to exclude the light and heat of the sun; as far as the admission of light was concerned we could not get a style more adapted to it than the Gothic which originated in the north where more light is required. The President of the Board of Works had said that the Gothic was not in use on the Continent. Mr. Scott had recently erected one of his finest Gothic works in Hamburg, and everybody knew that the Town halls on the Continent presented magnificent specimens of Gothic architecture. The charge of ugliness had been brought against the Gothic. At one time that might have been true; but the Italians had done much to take away all ugliness from the Gothic, and in one of the most beautiful monuments in Florence the Gothic was combined with the classic style in the most exquisite manner. He believed, indeed, that if the Jesuits, to whom the noble Lord at the head of the Government attributed a love of the Gothic, had not interfered, Italy would have given us, in a modification of the Gothic, one of the most beautiful and most Christian forms of architecture which the world had ever seen. It was a mistake to suppose that Palladio, who was a man of genius, confined himself to one style. Palaces at Vicenza in the Italian Gothic style are attributed to him. He most decidedly objected, however, to what was called in this country the Palladian style, and he thought the design prepared by Mr. Scott a mean design. He had no wish to cast reflections upon Mr. Scott; on the contrary, he thought he had produced a fair plan, all things considered; but Mr. Scott was not a classic architect; his whole time and study had been directed to Gothic architecture, and hence he excelled in that branch, and not in another. It was scarcely fair to that House, or to the country, to accept the classic design prepared by Mr. Scott; because that gentleman won his prize by a Gothic and not by a classic design, and classic architects ought to have been allowed to compete with him in their own style. His objection to the Palladian style was that it was a mean style in London, where it could not be carried out properly. The design in the tea-room looked to him like some of the new terraces in Regent's Park, which, like all large masses of renaissance buildings, were exceedingly monotonous. The monotony of classic buildings could only be broken by porticoes and colonnades—the very things which ought to be avoided in this country, where light was indispensable. With classic buildings we could not that ornamentation which was always necessary. The ancients painted and sculptured the exterior of their classic buildings, and so produced a very fine effect; but we could not have the same delicate painting and sculpturing in London, because the atmosphere would destroy all that kind of decoration in a very short time. The President of the Board of Works had referred in terms of praise to Paris. Everybody knew how monotonous Paris had recently become. The new streets were most oppressive and tiresome, and one was glad to take refuge in the old parts of the city. In Paris might be seen how architecture illustrated the political condition of a people. A stranger seeing Paris for the first time would at once say "A despotic powerdom could execute such works!" The whole was built on one plan. One day he observed a peculiar commotion going on in the Rue Rivoli. From one end of the long street to the other scaffolding poles were erected, and hundreds of people were engaged in scrubbing and scraping. On asking the meaning of it he was told by a person who did not speak English very well that all the people had been ordered to "scratch their outsides." Such was the system in Paris. Everything was done by one person, and monotonous. What we wanted, on the contrary, was variety, beauty, something that would interest people, not a repetition of the same thing. He did not altogether approve of the Italian Gothic design in the room; but he thought the third plan deserved great consideration. It possessed great beauties. The Houses of Parliament were erected at a time when the Gothic was little known in this country, and they were consequently overloaded with expensive and tasteless ornaments. Nevertheless, Sir Charles Barry deserved great credit for what he had done, for he was a classic architect, and it was not fair to require him to erect a Gothic building. Excessive ornamentation disfigured a Gothic building, and took away from its dignity. He would suggest that the designs of Mr. Scott should be referred to a Select Committee. In ancient times, when great public buildings were to be erected, the architects were always placed in communication with the leading men of the State. He had not the honour of knowing Mr. Scott, but from all he had heard of his character he had no doubt he would be prepared to meet a committee of gentlemen, and, if anything objectionable were pointed out in his plans, to make what might be considered improvements in them. He thought the Gothic plan should be accepted, on the understanding that some changes should be made in it; and then they would have a most magnificent building. His right hon. Friend had talked of the great improvements in taste which had taken place in the City of London. He quite agreed with him in that respect. Everywhere they saw magnificent buildings arising, if not of pure Gothic, of an English character—that is Gothic adapted to the wants and manners of the times. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) made an extraordinary admission with reference to the Fire Insurance Office, when he said it was built as an advertisement to attract people. The fact, then, was that it was thought that that style of architecture would be so attractive to the people that they would thereby be induced to insure their houses and persons in that building. A Gothic building in this country would admit what was most required—colour, by the introduction of terra cotta, red granite, and coloured marbles. It admitted of all varieties, and might well be made worthy of the country and the times in which we lived.

thought the proposition which had just been made one of the most extraordinary he had ever heard. He must certainly challenge the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) to point out any building of distinction which deserved the character of Gothic except in Lombardy, in which coloured materials were to be found. Even in Lombardy, the best specimen, the best Duomo of Milan, was built entirely of marble homogeneous in colour. What would be the effect of York, or Canterbury, or Amiens, or Antwerp disfigured with terra cotta or coloured materials. The introduction of terra cotta or coloured marble into structures of a Gothic character would be a great mistake. There was terra cotta work in buildings in Milan in the Palladian style— but they were Italian buildings in every sense of the word. He had certainly heard a very strong opinion expressed with regard to the design in the tea-room. He had no desire to insist on his own opinion, though he must have wasted his time for forty years if he did not know something about the matter. His friend, Mr. Scott, had as much distinguished himself by Italian as by Gothic designs; and an architect who was well informed in the pursuit he embraced might, without any great difficulty, succeed in one style as easily as in another. Sir Charles Barry did so, and the faults of that House as to cost, darkness, and want of ventilation were not his, but incidental to the style. If they took Mr. Scott's Gothic design, with its large window-heads, the whole upper part of the rooms must be in darkness. What was wanted was a square window up to the ceiling, so that the light might come in freely, and, the sash being let down, that natural ventilation might be available. With regard to the genius loci, he must say, the magnificent Banqueting House of Inigo Jones on the one side, the new buildings of the Treasury on the other, and the mansion of the Duke of Buccleuch, when finished— which was of classical architecture in a certain sense— would not harmonize well with a Gothic Foreign Office. Towards the close of 1859 a large body of the leading architects did him the honour to request him to introduce them to the noble Viscount at the head of the Government. Among them were men of the highest character, such as Smirke, Donaldson, Cokerell, Godwin, and others. They waited on the noble Lord, and expressed to him their obligation for his determination against carrying out the Gothic plan in the new Foreign Office. They thought the application of Gothic architecture to the Foreign Office an entire mistake, and they expressed a hope that the noble Lord would persevere in his determination. Sir Charles Barry himself when examined before the Committee said he did not think we should introduce Gothic architecture here— it would be wrong in his judgment; it ought to be Italian. And then it should be recollected that of the 218 designs only 15 were Gothic; and all the first premiums were given to Italian architecture. He knew no better authority on the subject of the beauty of Italian architecture than Mr. Ruskin— a man who by his Stones of Venice and his Lamps of Architecture had done more than any other to make architecture understood aesthetically. What did Mr. Ruskin say?—

"Of all the buildings in Venice, later in date than the final additions to the Ducal Palace, the noblest is, beyond all question, that, which having been condemned by its proprietor, not many years ago, to be pulled down and sold for the value of its materials, was rescued by the Austrian Government, and appropriated—the Government having no other use for it—to the business of the Post Office, though it is still known to the gondolier by its ancient name—the Casa Grimani. … This Palace is the principal type at Venice, and one of the best in Europe, of the Central Architecture of the Renaissance Schools; that carefully studied and perfectly executed architecture to which those schools owe their principal claims to our respect, and which became the model of most of the important works produced by civilized nations. I have called it 'Roman Renaissance,' because it is founded, both in its principles of super-imposition and in the style of its ornament, upon the architecture of classic Rome at its best period. The revival of Latin literature both led to its adoption and directed its form; and the most important example of it which exists in the modern Roman Basilica of St. Peter's. It had, at its renaissance, or new birth, no resemblance either to Greek, Gothic, or Byzantine forms, excepting in retaining the use of the round arch, vault, and dome; in the treatment of all details it was exclusively Latin; the last links of connection with mediaeval tradition having been broken by its builders in their enthusiasm for classical art, and the forms of true Greek or Athenian architecture being still unknown to them. The study of these noble Greek forms has induced various modifications of the Renaissance in our own times; but the conditions which are found most applicable to the uses of modern life are still Roman, and the entire style may be most fitly expressed by the term 'Roman Renaissance.' It is this style, in its purity and fullest form—represented by such buildings as the Casa Grimani at Venice, built by San Micheli; the Town Hall at Vicenza, by Palladio; St. Peter's at Rome, by Michael Angelo; St. Paul's and Whitehall in London, by Wren and Inigo Jones,—which is the true antagonist of the Gothic school."

To that opinion he entirely subscribed. He thought the House would do wisely and well to leave the matter in the hands of the Executive Government. The result, he had no doubt, would be a building which would in no sense prove a disgrace to England, but a splendid building adopted in all respects to the purpose for which it was intended—the Gothic style of architecture was the right thing in the right place; but that place was not the Foreign Office.

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down condemned the Gothic style, but he must not quarrel with other Gentleman if they analyzed the reasons which he gave for the opinion at which he had arrived. His objections simply amounted to this—he condemned the Gothic because it was inconvenient, and because a sufficient body of light could not be admitted through the windows of a building in that style. Now, the House must bear in mind that the hon. Gentleman was a member, and, of course, a leading member, of the Select Committee which sat three years ago on this very question. Witnesses of the greatest authority were examined, and those who disputed the views entertained by the hon. Gentleman were subjected by him to a minute cross-examination; and yet at the close of a prolonged inquiry the Committee unanimously reported that, having very carefully considered the two styles with reference to cheapness, commodiousness, and facility of ventilation, the result of their inquiries led them to the belief that in those respects no material preference existed on either side. Yet the hon. Gentleman, who was an assenting party to that decision, now called on the House to reject the Gothic style as inconvenient, and precluding the entrance of a sufficient body of light. The hon. Gentleman himself as an architect had defied any architect to make handsome Gothic windows which would open in a satisfactory manner. But what was said by Mr. Scott, of whom the hon. Member entertained a high opinion? Did he admit that those windows would not open or admit sufficient light? On the contrary, he stated— and his assertion would be borne out by every practical man— that his windows were

"Larger than any public building in the opposite style in London, and that the mode of opening and shutting them was the same as in the most recent public and private buildings; they were glazed with large sheets of plate-glass, and were in every way up to the full point of practical improvement which up to the present time had been effected in buildings of whatever style."

And he would show the House that during the last two years the hon. Gentleman himself had practically shown his approval of the Gothic style by the buildings which he himself had invented or sanctioned. But before he came to this he wished to impress upon the House to deal with this subject apart from the question of taste, and on the ground of common sense. What was the position of the House and the country with reference to the Foreign Office? The architect had been appointed; for, though the noble Lord had questioned and cavilled at the appointment, he had at last frankly admitted, both privately and publicly, that Mr. Scott was appointed in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee, and with universal official practice, and, therefore, that he could not be removed from the position of architect to the new public offices. It being admitted that Mr. Scott ought to have the appointment, he put it to the House, as men of business, what was the necessary inference as to the style which should be adopted? Mr. Scott was the greatest Gothic architect, not in England only, nor even in Europe; his fame was spread over the whole habitable globe. Having selected him to erect a great public building, ought they not, as reasonable men, to leave him free to act, and to give him a fair chance for the development of his talent in erecting a public building worthy of his fame and satisfactory to the country? But the noble Lord, although he admitted Mr. Scott should be the architect, said "No; you shall only erect a building in that particular style of architecture which has found favour in my eyes." Such a course was not fair to Mr. Scott; it was not fair even to the noble Lord's own colleagues, and they all recollected the annoyance felt by the late Mr. Fitzroy when the whole subject was removed from under his cognizance. It was not fair even to the two distinguished architects who in the great competition of 1856 obtained premiums for the Italian or French style of architecture. The hon. Member (Mr. Tite) declared the Gothic style was so little approved in 1856 that only fifteen architects thought it worth while to compete in that style; but about this there could be no doubt, that of the seven architects to whom premiums were awarded four received them for Gothic de- signs, and the other three for plans in different styles. It was not fair to those three gentlemen that Mr. Scott should be compelled by the noble Lord to erect a building opposed to his own feelings, to the convictions of his professional life, and to the bent of his genius. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had astounded him by the declaration that it was necessary to adopt this Palladian architecture, because it was the only style which found favour in the eyes of a discerning public. He took most emphatic ground in contradicting that statement. The House had already made a short tour through London, and he would ask hon. Gentlemen to take their stand in imagination on Waterloo Bridge. Casting their eyes up the stream they would see the familiar towers of Westminster; but looking in the other direction, after passing the level but in some respects beautiful elevation of Somerset House, they would see the high-pitched roof and picturesque exterior of the new liberary ["Oh, oh!"] which had just been built by the Society of the Middle Temple—gentlemen who would certainly condemn reactionary designs in Church and State; and, going to the quarter occupied by the other society, that of Lincoln's Inn, they would find that in its newer buildings the style which found favour was not the Palladian, but an adaptation of the English national Gothic architecture. The House had been told that, whatever might be the case in London, at any rate in the great provincial towns such was not the case. No city could be more free from reactionary or mediaeval tendencies than Manchester; but in the architectural room of this year's exhibition, next to Mr. Scott's amended design of the Foreign Office was a plan in what might be called ultra-Gothic of a great public hall of justice now in course of erection in the city of Manchester. Had this been ordered by any private individual? Had favouritism been shown to any particular architect? Quite the reverse. The design was the result of public competition; and in the verdict in its favour not merely the city of Manchester, but, if he was rightly informed, nearly the whole of the county of Lancaster took part. Looking to other portions of the provinces, he found the town of Northampton, which had always returned two Liberal Members to Parliament, within the last few months had occasion to erect a public building. The design was thrown open to public competition, and the gentle- men of that town, in order to be on the safe side, applied to the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Tite) to give his advice and to act as arbiter. The hon. Gentleman examined all the plans, and recommended two as the most suitable for the purpose of this building. [Mr. TITE: It is not built yet.] No; but he had seen the tenders for it. The noble Lord read a newspaper paragraph stating that—

"The Northampton Town Council met again on Monday last, and decided the important question of the Northampton Town Hall. Mr. Tite selected three out of the sixty-nine designs submitted to him; one had the motto Circumspice attached to it, and another Non nobis, Domine. The first was of the Italian order of architecture; the second of Gothic. On the whole, Mr. Tite's bias seemed to be in favour of the Circumspice design, on account of its distribution and artistic effect; but he also spoke in high terms of the Gothic design; as to which he stated that a remarkable degree of talent was exhibited in the management of the style, and that if carried into effect it would be an ornament to the town."

The Town Council, it seemed, took the advice of the hon. Gentleman, and by a majority of twelve to three adopted the Gothic design; and within the last few days he had had the pleasure of seeing in a local paper the details of the tenders for its erection. So wide, in fact, was the spread of the taste for Gothic buildings that he had recently been in a large railway station in Perth erected in that style, which he was told had been commenced by the hon. Member for Bath. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) said that the Wesleyans and other Dissenters were not in favour of the Gothic style, and that they only built their edifices in the style which found favour in the reign of George III. This was mistake. The Baptists were building their college at Rawden in the Gothic; and a number of Dissenting chapels had been built in the same style. During the last two or three years a great number of buildings of various kinds had been erected in this style. He might instance the town hall at Nantwich, public buildings at Cardigan, town halls and corn exchanges at Alston, Sutton Coldfield, and Leominster; the Royal Victoria Asylum, Wandsworth; the Equity Life Office, Lincoln's Inn Fields; workshops and warehouses in Endell Street, the Crown Assurance Office in Bridge Street, and the London Printing Company's Offices in St. John's Street, in support of his proposition that the Gothic style was increasing in public favour. He presumed that the object of the London Printing Company in adopting the Gothic was not to attract customers at the sacrifice of their own convenience in the business which they had to carry on. In Edinburgh and Glasgow there were some splendid buildings in the Gothic style; and on referring to the Colonies they found that the Parliament House in Canada and the University in Australia were to be Gothic. In Hamburg there were some fine buildings in the same style. So that at home, in the Colonies, and abroad they found a growing taste for Gothic architecture. The noble Lord was now asking the House of Commons to go back half a century, and build the modern Foreign Office in a style which would have found favour with those who lived fifty years ago, but which would not find favour in the eyes of the majority of those who were living now, or of those who were to succeed us. He should sum up what he had to say in the words of a writer in the review to which he had before referred—

"Secular Gothic appears to be making way, and we may look as surely for the town halls assize courts, and the like, which may be erected during the next few years, to be Gothic in character (not English Gothic, however), as a few years back we might have reckoned on their being Greek. The first great step in that direction has been made in the selection of an intensely Gothic design for the assize courts at Manchester, the city par excellence of Italian Renaissance."

He would, before sitting down, make a personal appeal in the matter immediately before the House, to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. In 1856, when the noble Lord was Prime Minister, the First Minister of Public Works invited candidates to compete for these buildings, and rumours went abroad that there were those high in authority who were against the Gothic. So prevalent was the rumour that when Lord Llanover received the architects of London, the question was distinctly put to him. He was asked whether there was any bias on the part of the Government, or whether all styles would have an impartial consideration. He answered that there was no bias, and that all styles should be considered with care. On the faith of that reply four of the architects who gained prizes sent in Gothic designs; but since that time the House had heard declarations from the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury which had given rise to a suspicion that under no circumstances did he intend, when the competition was entered into, to permit Gothic buildings to be erected. That must be regarded as a most un- fortunate suspicion; and he, therefore, appealed to the noble Lord to give him an assurance that, whatever his own views on the subject might be, he would not bring his influence to bear on his own colleagues, or any one else, in order to set aside the decision of the House of Commons. He trusted they should hear from the noble Lord that he would take every step in his power to give effect to the verdict of the House, and in their hands he was content to leave the issue.

was not at all surprised at the inaccuracy into which the hon. Member for Bath had fallen with respect to the new offices which had been referred to in Bishopsgate Street, when he heard him quoting Mr. Ruskin as an authority in favour of classical architecture. He (Mr. Fortescue) was tolerably well acquainted with Mr. Ruskin's works, and he could state with the utmost confidence that if there was one writer who, more than another, had condemned the use of classical and advocated the adoption of Gothic architecture, it was Mr. Ruskin. He could, if necessary, point out innumerable passages in his works in proof of this assertion. Now with regard to the admission of light to a building in the Gothic style, so far from it presenting any obstacles it was well known to all had studied the subject that that style allowed of a more ample admission of light than any other, that in fact the supply of light was practically unlimited; in proof of which he need only refer to some of the recently erected buildings in the City to which allusion had already been made, in which the rooms were literally flooded with light, to a degree very rarely to be found in the hearts of this crowded Metropolis. The great superiority of the Gothic over the classical style consisted in its perfect readiness to adopt the exterior of a building to its interior requirements. Every one is aware that the interior of a house is not all divided into equal parts, nor in any way corresponds to the symmetrical regularity of a classical exterior. In one part, varying with the size, the depth, the aspect, the uses of a room you require a totally different provision for the admission of light from what you do in another. Take as an instance the case of some of the Clubs in Pall Mall, no one would contend that the same size or number of windows was required for the south front which looked upon the open space of Carlton Gardens as for the side looking upon the narrow streets which separates the Carlton and the Reform Club, but the classical style in which they were built took no account of the difference— the whole wall surface must be divided into equal spaces whether the building faced north or south, whereas a Gothic building could be adapted to admit a greater or less amount of lights as might be required. The right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Cowper) had observed that in these days people did not build their houses in the Gothic style; now, on this point, he begged to differ from him altogether— not to go beyond the walls of that House, he saw about him several Members, among others the Members for Kerry, for Maidstone, for South Hants, for Winchester, who had all built their houses in the Gothic style. It was quite true that the generality of London houses were not of Gothic architecture, for this reason, that they could hardly be said to have any architecture at all about them, being for the most part long lines of brick shells run up by speculative builders with a certain amount of cheap ornaments worked up in cement; but in the case of individual buildings in the City, for the designs of which architects, instead of builders were employed, there was, as had been pointed out by the noble Lord who opened the debated, a decidedly increasing tendency to adopt the Gothic style. He need not refer again to the instances quoted by other hon. Gentlemen in proof of this, but he would wish to direct attention to two buildings with which he had been especially struck, one a large warehouse erected within the last two years in a street adjoining Smithfield; and the other, the new schools for St. Giles's in Endell street, which really deserved the most attentive examination. It is a brick building, for stories high, with about the same frontage as the Travellers' or the Athenaeum, and the whole building which would be an ornament to any part of this Metropolis, he was assured had not cost more than from £12,000 to £13,000. He would not trespass farther on the patience of the House than to say, that as they had secured the services of an architect of first-rate genius, one whom he, for one, would not be afraid of comparing with the greatest architects of bygone times, who, at all events, had carried off the prizes for important public buildings on the Continent against every competitor, and who had shown by the Government designs, where he has beaten his rivals on their own ground, that he was a master of classical as well as Gothic architecture, and this architect, after studying the subject profoundly for some years, having arrived at the conviction, that for beauty, convenience, and adaptation to meet every possible requirement, no style was to be compared with the Gothic, which he (Mr. Fortescue) would suggest was that they should take their architect's advice by rejecting the Palladian, and adopting the Gothic desige.

promised the House one thing— that he would not say one word about architecture. When the noble Lord (Lord John Manners), in the innocence of his heart, deprecated this being made anything like a party question, it might not be made a party in question in the usual sense of party questions in that House; but he believed that since the celebrated feud between the Montagues and the Capulets there had been no feud like this between the Palmerstonian and the Lombardo-Gothic styles of architecture. He could not conceive a worse assembly for discussing a question of this kind that the House of commons. That House had been tried in the balance and found wanting on questions of this kind. But he did not intend to enter into these disputes at all— he wished to speak to a matter in which they had undoubtedly been found wanting. Let them look at the House in which they were now sitting— a building which he had never considered a Gothic building at all. The original estimate for that building was £750,000, and it had cost £2,500,000. And then Gentlemen came there and talked of the different styles— the horizontal and the perpendicular— when the country was looking to something else—they were looking to what the building would cost. In 1855, Mr. Pennethorne, the Government architect, was called on to submit a plan for a new Foreign Office. He did so, and the estimate for the cost of the building only was £60,000, and £30,000 was to go for the purchase of ground. The House of Commons of that day was so singularly sparing of the public money that when they were asked for this Vote they refused to give it, and gave £10,000 to patch up the old buildings. Now there was an estimate of £200,000 for the Foreign Office. But did the House believe it would be built for that whatever style was adopted? His hon. Friend below him (Mr. M. Milnes) undertook to do it for less whether it was Lom- bardo-Gothic or classical. If so, he would advise the House to give it to his hon. Friend. He did think the question has been properly treated by the House. When competition was thrown open for designs it was thrown open to the whole world, and £5,000 was the total sum for the whole of the premiated designs. The gentlemen who gained the first prizes were Messrs. Coe and Hofland, and Messrs. Bankes and Barry; but, in consequence of Mr. Scott, who was a celebrated Gothic architect, being second for furnishing a plan of the Foreign and War Offices, he was by some hocus-pocus of the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire put forward before the gentlemen who had the first prize. If the House were to treat this subject properly some one would move an Amendment in the spirit of "A plague on both your house," and he (Mr. Osborne) would vote with him. Reject both the Palmerstonian and the Scott plan, re-open the question, and give the building to the man who gained the first premium. He expressed no opinion upon either style—he was so afraid of being a party to the enormous expense which was about to be incurred. He thought the whole question ought to be re-opened, and that these gentlemen ought to have the benefit of the position which they had fairly gained in 1855. He should take no part in the division, but he advised the House to be on its guard and remember always that the estimate for the Houses of Parliament was £750,000, and the actual cost £2,500,000. They were the worst Building committee in the world, and they stood disgraced in the eyes of Europe as men of business. The cost of this undertaking would, he believed, in like manner swell into a million, and if any Gentleman would move that both plans be rejected, and the thing thrown open as at first, he should be happy to vote for it; but he would say nothing of the merits of the Palmerstonian style, the Manners style, or the Gothic.

Sir, the battle of the books, the battle of the Big and Little Endeans, and the battle of the Green Ribbands and the Blue Ribbands at Constantinople were all as nothing compared with this battle of the Gothic and Palladian styles. I must say that if I were called on to give an impartial opinion as to the issue of the conflict, I should say that the Gothic has been entirely defeated. The noble Lord who sits opposite (Lord John Manners) made it a reproach to me that whereas he, an ardent and enthusiastic devotee of the Gothic style, appointed Mr. Scott as architect, superseding those who had won the highest prizes—thus stepping out of the usual way of selection—and appointed him—I will not say solely and entirely, because he was a Gothic architect, for Mr. Scott has, no doubt, high professional merits, but mainly on that ground—and that whereas when I succeeded to office, and confirmed Mr. Scott's claim as architect, though I did not also agree with him in adopting the style of architecture which he approved, I was bound to adopt not only the noble Lord's architect but the noble Lord's style with him. It is, I think, rather too much for a person who has left office to expect that his views in all things shall be followed by one who comes into office after him. It has sometimes been made a reproach to a new Government that they have adopted the measures of their predecessors; but it is surely no reproach to me that I did not adopt the views of the noble Lord with respect to the style of architecture that we ought to use. The noble Lord alluded to the practice of large towns in respect to architecture; but he forgot to say that some of the noblest edifices in our large towns are in the Italian or Roman style. He adverted to Liverpool. Did he forget St. George's Hall in that town? [Lord JOHN MANNERS: I did not refer to Liverpool.] Then the noble Lord took care not to mention Liverpool, or that noble building St. George's Hall. But he spoke of Manchester, though he did not refer to the Free Trade Hall, a splendid building in the Italian style. Then look at Leeds. Does the noble Lord forget the large and handsome building which is so justly considered the ornament of that town, and which is also in the Italian style? Here are buildings of great magnitude and beauty, and costing large sums of money, erected lately by the people of these towns, and I say these are indications of the taste which prevails in these towns. Then, the noble Lord went further, and saddled on the city of Edinburgh—the modern Athens—upon Edinburgh, which has adorned the Calton Hill with an imitation of the Parthenon—not being satisfied with the Italian, but going back to the Greek—the imputation of having been converted to the Gothic style. Why, Sir, I call upon every Scotch Member to repel that gross calumny. Well, objections have been made on the ground that these plans have no originality. It is said, in the first place, that Italian—I will not call it Palladian, but the Roman classical style—is not a national style. But is the Gothic national? I never heard of the Goths, the Vandals, or the Saracens doing much in this country. I have been told in my early years that the Romans were in this country for a considerable number of years, and it is probable, therefore, that they have better claims to have established in this island a system of architecture that may be considered English than those people who never came here at all. My noble Friend has talked about the real ancient architecture of England. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) suggested that Stonehenge must be the style intended. But I will go further, and say that the real aboriginal architecture of this country was much huts and wicker wigwams. These were the original styles of those who first inhabited this island When, too, we are told that the Gothic has been practised at certain periods, I reply, so also was the Italian. When we are asked what is our national architecture, we might, I think, very reasonably, inquire who have been our most distinguished architects, and what style they have practised. Well, who were the most distinguished architects, of this country? One of them was Vanbrugh, who, although it was said of him that he "laid many heavy loads" on earth, yet has given us some very fine buildings in the Roman or Grecian style. Then we have Sir Christopher Wren and Inigo Jones. They were great men who constructed great works which to this day excite the admiration of all who behold them. Do not tell me, therefore, that Gothic architecture is the characteristic architecture of this country. It there was one characteristic style of architecture more prevalent than another it was that employed in the castellated mansions which were erected for purposes of defence, and which we now find all over the country. But the reasons why these buildings were erected have ceased to exist, and we may, therefore, dismiss that style of architecture. The noble Lord told us that there was no style that gave so much light as the Gothic. We have heard, however, of

"Great windows that exclude the light,

"And passages that lead to nothing."

That, doubtless, was in the Gothic architecture. My noble Friend and my hon. Friend very kindly invited me to take a morning dive with them—an invitation Which I regret I was unable to accept. They went through the streets of London to test the public taste, and they found a certain number of edifices in the Gothic Style, forgetting, however, all those fine buildings, such as St. Paul's, Somerset House. [An hon. MEMBER: The Post Office.] Yes, the Post Office and others. It is very much as if a gentleman were to drive through the streets of Rome, and, seeing a great number of children with their arms broken and their legs out of joint, exhibited as beggars for the profit of their parents, and forgetting all the well-conditioned, stout, and able-bodied people that he saw, were to say "Let us go home and make our children like them, for that is the taste and habit of the Roman people." My noble Friend would reverse the boast of the Roman Emperor. He objects to stone, and would make these buildings of brick. Well, we know what the colour of brick becomes after it has been some time exposed to the London smoke. We know that it becomes the most dingy and gloomy colour that can be imagined. I am afraid of quoting an Italian authority against my noble Friend, or I might quote the opinion of Canova, a man versed in the arts, and supposed to be a very good judge. He told me, talking of London, and speaking with Italian hyperbole, "If London were only whitened it would be a real Paradise." But my noble Friend, instead of making it a real Paradise, would make it a real—something else, with the gloominess that he would scatter over all the streets that he had the power to command. His great objection is the want of variety. Well, no doubt it is well known that error is infinite and truth is simple. Bad taste is infinite, and good taste is simple, and, therefore, it is perhaps that the Gothic admits of an infinite variety. But nothing will satisfy my noble Friend but the invention of some new order of architecture. Mr. Nash, a great architect, tried that experiment, but had not much success. We all remember the story of a gentleman who, walking along Regent Street, and being struck with something very irregular in one of the house being constructed, said to the clerk of the works, "Good Heavens! what order of architecture do you call that?" The man said, "Oh, Sir, that is Mr. Nash's positive order." Well, I should like to see the "positive order" of my noble Friend. If my noble Friend wants to invent a new order of architecture, and if it be worth while, let us offer a premium for it. But for Heaven's sake, seeing that we want a Foreign Office, that the Foreign Office is tumbling down, that the Colonial office is following its example, that we want a new India Office, that the State Paper Office is crammed full and has not space for two years' more papers, I hope he will not call upon us to delay providing for these buildings until he or somebody else shall have invented a new order of architecture that shall be approved by the House of commons—which is not a very likely thing to happen. It is quite true that I did object to the first plan of Mr. Scott, as being Gothic, and on that account not suitable. Gothic architecture is very fit for churches and other edifices, but I hold it to be very unfit for street architecture in a town where unquestionable a great number of out buildings are of a different character, and we want to combine external appearance with internal arrangement. Objection has been taken to the Italian style on the ground of monotony. But the new plan and the old are of an entirely different character; and I hold that, whether in external appearance or-internal arrangement for offices, the Gothic, on the whole, does not admit of the same easy subdivision internally, and is not the proper style. Then Mr. Scott brought me an amended style. Which appeared to me Gothic in disguise, with pointed windows rounded at the top. And then he brought me another style, Saracenic or Byzantine. I said then "I know you are capable of excelling in any style; now, do for Heaven's sake go and bring me something in the Italian style!" Mr. Scott did bring me an Italian style, and we have heard from the noble Lord that it has been admired by the very best judges. I do not myself pretend to be a judge of the scientific merits of architecture, but it seems to me a very beautiful plan, and one which combines with sufficient beauty and ornament great moderation of expense. I think that is an important point. If we adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend, and adopt different colours and different marbles—with Cornish granite and serpentine outside, which would be costly to get and to work—I say the expense would be enormous. And, after all, let us recollect what the site is to be. The front towards Parliament Street will be seen, the front towards the Park will also be seen; but the side towards Downing Street will not be much seen, while the other side will not be seen at all; and, therefore, it would be a waste of public money to throw away a great deal in constructing a highly ornamented building for a Foreign Office. For these reasons I determined that Italian should be the style submitted for the approbation of the House. The building is to comprise the India Office. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, who is to build his portion out of the Indian funds, greatly approves the style last prepared by Mr. Scott. If we were to make out part Gothic and his Italian, I do not think we should add much to the beauty and ornament of the whole. I will only now answer the appeal made to me personally be my hon. Friend. he has had the kindness to give me credit for some common sense. He said I had lately shown the possession of the quality by going down to Harrow to lay the first stone of a Gothic building there. Well, I think that did show common sense. I am not fond of the Gothic, but, having been applied to to lay the stone of a Gothic library, the plan of which was approved by the proper authorities, which was in harmony with a Gothic Chapel close to which it was to be placed, and also in keeping with old john Lyon's school-house, I waived my objection to the Gothic style in attending on that occasion. Now, I ask my noble Friend and my hon. Friend to show the same good sense on this occasion. I ask them to waive their prejudices, and to agree to lay the first stone on an Italian building; and I am quite sure that when they see that building rise they will have the same feeling that I shall experience when I see this Gothic library—namely, one of great pleasure in having contributed to its erection.

wished to know whether any estimate had been made of the entire expense to be incurred by the erection of the new office?

said, a general estimate had been made, as far as it could at pre- sent be calculated, of the whole expense of the building, which was £200,000. But tenders would be asked for, and no building would be commenced until they had a contract in gross of the whole sum. The £30,000 now asked for was the amount which might be expended during the present year.

thought the Government ought to name a sum beyond which they would not go in accepting tenders for the erection of the new offices. He made this suggestion because he feared we should go again through precisely the same process as had been gone through in regard to the new Houses of Parliament. In the first instance, a sum approximating to what the whole expense was supposed to be was named; but the Government of the day said there were some uncertainties in reference to details which it was impossible to define at the outset; but great hopes were expressed by the treasury Bench that beyond a certain amount the expenditure would not extend. What, however, were the facts? Year by year greater expenditure was incurred, so that the cost, instead of being confined to £700,000, the original estimate, rose to £2,500,000; and the building was still unfinished. He hoped the Committee would take every precaution against any similar waste and extravagance. It ought to insist upon an absolute pledge from the Government that a certain amount of money would not be exceeded; and that the Government should be held responsible for any unauthorized changes in the design of the building in volving an augmentation of the expenditure originally agreed upon.

complained that there was no unity of design so far as the proposed buildings were concerned, and thought an estimate of the whole of the improvements which it was intended to make in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament should be furnished.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works evidently did not under stand the question put to him by the hon. Member for Evesham — namely, whether this sum of £30,000 would be the whole expense of the new office. In the course of the recent debate the sum of £200,000 was spoken of.

said, that the total estimate was £200,000. The sum now asked for was that which it was proposed to expend during the present year. With regard to the remarks of the noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) in reference to the augmented expense of the Houses of Parliament, he might observe that there was no security for a definite expenditure so good as a contract. When Sir Charles Barry was architect to the Houses of Parliament there was no contract in gross for the whole building, and no security taken that the approved plan would be adhered to. The plans were altered and enlarged from time to time, and after the first block of building had been erected, the only contract was for a schedule of prices. The course intended to be taken in the case of the new public offices would be different, inasmuch as he intended, having procured plans and specifications to put them out to tender, and then to enter into a contract providing for their construction for a gross sum. Such a contract would be superseded only in the event of a departure from the original plans, which could only take place on the responsibility of the person holding the office which he occupied. He had no reason, therefore, to suppose that those buildings would not be erected for a previously ascertained sum, or that the amount of the original estimate would be exceeded.

asked the right hon. Gentleman to inform the House upon one point. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government incidentally let fall an observation, to the effect that the President of the India Board was anxious that the building should be commence, in order that there might be a grant obtained. Now, he (Mr. Osborne) wished to know whether this sum of £200,000 included the building of the Colonial, Indian, and Foreign Offices?

No; only the Foreign Office.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered one important part of the question, namely, whether the Committee was to receive any guarantee from the Ministers of the Crown that a certain amount to be named as the expenditure for this new building should not be exceeded.

said, it was utterly impossible for the Government to do more than cause an estimate to be made, to apply for a Vote founded upon that estimate, and to give instructions that the contract should not exceed the sum stated. But everyone knew that in spite of every care estimates of that kind would be exceeded. Should that happen the only course the Government could take would be to bring the excess under the notice of the House. The House could then inquire into the circumstances, and if they did not approve of the additional estimate, they could revise it. The Government could not go beyond the money voted by that House. It was impossible to say that unforeseen circumstances might not arise to make an increase of the Vote necessary. All they could do was to take every precaution that such should not be the case.

said, he could not accept the reply of the right hon. Gentleman as satisfactory. There were so many instances of the estimates having been greatly exceeded, and architects seemed to have such capacious notions, that although the Minister might not intend to spend more than £200,000, the building might be commenced upon proportions which would render it impossible to stop at that amount; and then the House would be asked to vote large sums in addition, in order to prevent the first outlay being made to no purpose.

said, he understood that the buildings were to be constructed by contract. That involved the question, what was the limit which the House would assign to that contract? He begged, therefore, to move that the vote be deferred until the tenders be received by the First Commissioner of Works.

said, the course taken with the Houses of Parliament was that which he was anxious to avoid. The course which he proposed to pursue in the case of the new Foreign Office was that which in the case of ordinary buildings was usually adopted. Tenders would be invited, but what the amount of those tenders would be he could not, of course, pretend to say. The present estimate was founded on a tender sent in two years ago from the design which had received the approval of his department believed that the estimate now before the Committee would cover the expenditure, and the sufficiency of the Estimates would be ascertained when he received the tenders. He could not say what a future Chief Commissioner might do with respect to any excess of expenditure, but he was decidedly of opinion that no excess should be incurred without the knowledge of the House. It was money till they had the tenders; but how could the Government get substantial tenders when Parliament had not sanctioned the Vote?

said, if they could ensure that his right hon. Friend should remain at the Office of Works, he would be content to leave the matter in his hands, for he well knew his zeal and perseverance. But suppose that the right hon. Gentleman should, by some dispensation of Providence, be removed from his present office, how could they tell what might be the character of his successor? They might get a Gothic Commissioner instead of a Palladian; and the House might hereafter be of a different temper from what it was now. As matters, therefore, stood, they had no guarantee whatever that the expense would be confined within the present estimate. The Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Pease) would postpone the estimate for a year; and he would gladly support it on that ground, for the was of opinion that they were going into this matter without sufficient consideration.

said, every gentleman engaged in building knew that the cost was likely to exceed the original estimate; and this was more likely to happen with a public building than a private one. But he did not think that was any reason for postponing the estimate. The great object ought to be to get the plans made out as perfectly as possible, and when the contracts were taken to have them laid before the Houses. It would then be the duty of the House to see that these contracts were not exceeded.

asked what was the estimated expense of Mr. Scott's Gothic design?

stated that the Gothic building first designed by Mr. Scott would have cost £230,000; but by diminutions in the amount of accommodation provided and otherwise that sum might have been reduced to £200,000.

thought it would be unsatisfactory to vote the money until they had some further information as to the plans and interior arrangement of the building. These matters of seemed to have been regarded as matters of altogether secondary consideration.

thought that they could not postpone this Vote, and that, in reason, they ought not to do so. The argument on the other side appeared to be that they should not spend what was admitted to be necessary now for fear they might afterwards be called to expend what was not necessary. Now, it was admitted on all hands that they could not bind their successors, and, therefore, all they could undertake to do was to study economy in the most rigid way, and thus guard themselves and set the example to their successors to guard against the extravagance that in former times had been practised.

thought it was obvious that the chief Commissioner could not pledge any future Government or any future House of Commons. There would be no use, therefore, in postponing the Vote for one year, or even for ten years. They could only go upon reasonable expectations. The internal arrangements had been much considered. Some time ago the Under Secretary and other persons connected with the Foreign Office went over the whole subject, and the interior accommodation was found satisfactory. The only opinion he had himself expressed was that he thought it would be unnecessary to provide any residence for the Secretary of State. He believed the plan had been curtailed to that extent.

submitted that the working place ought to laid before the Committee. It had been assumed that we ought to spend £200,000 upon the Foreign Office alone. He denied that that so large an expenditure was necessary, and stated that many Members had gone away under the impression the £200,000 would build, not only the Foreign Office, but, likewise, the India Office and the Colonial Office. The Select Committee said that £90,000 would be sufficient for the Foreign Office. Until they had seen, not only the elevation, but the plan of interior arrangements, the Committee would not do its duty if it voted this Estimate; the proposal of the hon. Member for Durham was, therefore, a reasonable one. If they knew they were in the hands of a great architectural genius—some Sir Christopher Wren, who would produce a work that would be a credit to the country and to the age—they might leave him to expend the public money with something like confidence; but everybody condemned this plan, and the only reason the was given for proceeding with it was that they were tied hand and foot to Mr. Scott, Why did they not pay Mr. Scott a sum of money for his trouble, and then procure a proper plan for the erection of the building that might be worthy of the country? For his own part, he thought that plan was the best which provided the requisite accommodation at the cheapest rate—for no plan of great beauty had been laid before the House. Mr. Pennethorne had erected the Museum of Practical Geology in Jermyn Street: it was a very simple building; everyone admired it; and he offered to build the Foreign Office for just one-half the sum Mr. Scott required for a most common place building, which had only been accepted in the block in the hope that it might be susceptible of improvement in the details. Nothing could be done until next Spring, and he thought it a very reasonable proposal that this Vote should be postponed in the meantime.

Certainly my hon. Friend proposes a method of securing that there shall be no criticism on the foreign Office, because if his proposal be adopted it will never be built. That is the only way in which you can prevent criticism on the Foreign Office, by not having it at all; because in regard to architecture, as in regard to every department of the Arts, it is impossible for the genius and ingenuity of man to invent anything which shall not be criticised. Now as to the elevation—buiding is a more ambiguous word—but after the discussion which has take place it may be assumed the elevation is decided upon; and I may venture to say this, my hon. Friend thinks it is not sufficiently ornamented. It is not so ornamented as other elevations, and, therefore, it costs less. It may not be a splendid and magnificent piece of architecture, but it is handsome enough for the purpose, and I am quite sure it will be constructed at less cost than any of the other elevations. My hon. Friend has talked of Mr. Pennethorne's—a very handsome elevation; but, if I am not very much mistaken, there was a great deal more ornament in it than it the elevation of Mr. Scott. Well, now, with regard to the ground-plan, my hon. Friend wants the drawings and distribution of the interior to be laid before the House. Now, how can this House form any judgment as to the working plans and internal arrangements? My hon. Friend says when a man builds a house he requires an architect to submit plans as to the distribution of the interior. He is quite right to do so, because he means to live in the house, and he naturally wishes to know whether the arrangements of the interior will suit his convenience. But the House of Commons is not going to live in the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office has been examined by the persons who are going to inhabit the building, and they have informed Mr. Scott what extent of accommodation will be necessary for them, and how it should be given. As to the capacity of this House to judge advantageously and economically of plans of distribution, we all know that the distribution of this building was very much looked to by Committees of the House; I cannot say that the result has been exceedingly satisfactory. With regard to expense, that depends on the amount of space covered by the building, and the elevation to be given to the building. The amount of space is a fixed quantity; the elevation we have seen, and the fault found is that it is not sufficiently handsome. That is a fault which economists cannot urge. I think it is quite handsome enough. It will be an ornament to the Metropolis; but if we go on postponing from year to year providing the money for it, the Foreign Office will never be built. It is now only lodged in a temporary manner in a building hired for the purpose. Nothing can be got by delay. The sooner the building is begun the sooner we shall obtain out object, and save inconvenience and expense.

said, they would gain this by delay—they would gain some guarantee for the expense, which they had not at present. He did not care much about the style of the building himself; but he knew that Mr. Scott could not give them very accurate estimates, for Mr. Scott was a Gothic architect, and to get a Gothic architect to build a Palladian Structure was about as reasonable as to employ a landsman to build a man-of-war.

said, that the manner in which the plan had been brought before the committee bore every mark of haste. he thought it was only reasonable that the Government should state distinctly what they were going to do, for of late years they had been erecting public buildings at an expense greatly exceeding the estimates.

observed, that Mr. Pennethorne had offered to build the Foreign Office for £60,000, while Mr. Scott's plan was estimated at an expense of £170,000. Why should they give Mr. Scott the difference? By obtaining an estimate of the proposed building hon. Members would be able to determine whether it was likely to be erected for the sum named. He wished to explain that he had never said that this design was not sufficiently ornamented; but that he disapproved of the ornamentation proposed.

said, although a majority of the house had decided in favour of Palladian architecture, they were wholly without information as to the ground-plan of the building. The former plan contemplated a ball room 150 feet in length, and a supper room 50 feet in width; he trusted that on this occasion such absurdities would be avoided, and that in the building only the actual requirements of the public service would be contemplated. In the absence of a model, or of some reliable details, the House was proceeding with unjustifiable haste. He thought they ought to have some security as to the way in which the money was to be expended, and he, therefore, hoped the Vote would be postponed.

thought he could gather that the Committee was not prepared to withhold its confidence from the Government on the matter; and, therefore, he would not divide the House. It was only due to the First commissioner of Works that he should have some authority to strengthen his hands. It would be found that this discussion on the Estimates was only like the drops before the thunder storm, if they proceeded with the reckless expenditure of the public money they was now going on.

asked, whether the present Vote was to be expended with a definite object, or whether it was but the first step by which the House would be drawn into an indefinite expenditure, as in the case of the Houses of Parliament, which commenced with an estimate of £700,00 and gradually swelled to £2,000,000? If it was to be supposed that by voting for this sum they were pledging themselves to an expenditure of £200,000 he would not vote for it. He should greatly like to know on what foundation the present calculations were based.

said, the plan proposed was very mush objected to; and, therefore, he trusted the noble Lord would consent to some delay. There was also a fair claim for the postponement of this Vote from the circumstance that many hon. Members had left the house under the impression that it included not only the Foreign Office, but an expenditure upon the Indian Office, and a residence for the Secretary of State.

wished to know, did the £230,000 include the pur- Chase of the land as well as the erection of the building?

said, that the total of the Estimate was £200,000 and not £230,000. That was for the works only and did not include the purchase of the land. He did not see how hon. Members could justify the impression that the India Office was included; because his noble Friend had distinctly stated that the India Office would be paid for out of the revenues of that country. He was surprised at the charge of haste in this case, seeing that the subject had been under discussion for the last four years, and had been carefully examined by two Governments, and he could not see how matters would be improved by delay. The plan of Mr. Pennethorne, which had been referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Poole, was made before the competition for the foreign Office, and formed part of a general plan for public offices. It was not adopted at the time, and would, if it were now submitted, be found totally inadequate to the demands of a Foreign Office. There was a large space in Downing Street lying waste, and in a condition that was disgraceful to the Government. He did not see that any advantage could arise from detailed plans of the interior of the building being submitted to the House; for it would be impossible for the House to go into them. The Vote now before the Committee would authorize the Government to ask for tenders. He could not now foresee exactly what the tender would be. It was impossible for him to bind himself to any sum; but he would undertake that tenders should be asked for on a complete plan, from which there need be no departure.

believed the Committee would be lucky if they got the Foreign Office erected for £200,000. He rejoiced that the House had decided in favour of the Palladian style of architecture, but he deplored that the building was to be erected by a gentleman whose great renown had been obtained from his designs of Gothic buildings. The best thing that could be done would be to pay Mr. Scott a premium, and then to engage a good architect who had fully studied the Palladian style of architecture.

explained that he found the estimate of Mr. Pennethorne— £60,000—in the Report of the Select Committee, and that that estimate was submitted to the House by the responsible Government of the day.

wished to ask again how the architect would be remunerated, and how the land had been paid for, or possession of it obtained, and whether any part of it appertained to the Land Revenues of the Crown?

said, the architect would receive the ordinary Commission on the cost of the work. The Government did not intend to depart from that custom. A portion of the land which formed the site formerly belonged to the Woods and Forests Department; but an arrangement was come to whereby an exchange of property took place between the Board of Works and the Woods and Forests, and the whole of the site was now vested in the Board of Works.

complained that there was no detail of the estimate for the House of Lords.

explained that it was not usual for that House to consider the application of the sum voted for the expenses of the other House.

complained that there was no room in which a Member could see a stranger who had business with him, and he wished to suggest that a waiting-room should be provided for distinguished strangers visiting the House, who at present were obliged to wait in the lobby.

suggested that the latest telegraphic intelligence should be supplied to the reading-room. He also thought that messengers of the House should be allowed to enter the House to deliver to Members the cards of strangers wishing to see them, as was done in the House of Lords.

observed, that the access to the house was very difficult owing to the number of person in the lobby. He thought that one of the libraries, that on the right hand upon entering the House, could be applied to the use of Members wishing to see strangers. The want of accommodation for strangers was a subject of general complaint.

replied, that all the accommodation had alreaddy been appropriated, and the only place he could think of would be one of the libraries, if that would not interfere with members who were reading there. He did not think it would be well to relax the rule and allow persons not Members to cross the floor of that House. The number of messages was so great that the admission of messengers would interfere with the debates.

remarked that the difference between the numbers usually attending the two Houses rendered any comparison between them quite out of the question.

asked for explanation concerning the balances for former years. The hon. Member also animadverted on the system of employing "temporary, supplemental, and extraclerks" in the Government offices. Vacancies in the permanent staff ought, he thought, to be filled up from the list of temporary employes. There should also be a better classification between those who did head work and those who were mere copyists. The practice of employing men of superior attainments in mechanical drudgery led to discontent, slovenliness, and useless expense.

said, that the balances were given as they stood on the 31st of December, in consequence of the recommendation of the Committee on Miscellaneous Expenditure to that effect. He did not know how a better arrangement than that at present existing in regard to the clerks in the Government offices could be adopted. The business of registering and copying papers was not performed by the superior class of clerks, because it would be a waste of power for them to do so. In the Treasury there were about twenty supplemental clerks, with salaries ranging from £120 to £500, and it was only in exceptional cases that they rose to the superior class. They knew the footing on which they entered their situations, and he was not aware that any dissatisfaction existed among them. The temporary clerks were appointed to meet an occasional extra pressure of work.

complained of the number of messengers in the Treasury. There were sixty-three clerks and twenty-four messengers. In the Lord Advocate's office there were three messengers.

said, a great many messengers were required in the Treasury. In the Lord Advocate's office one of the messengers acted as clerk.

said, there were five or six gentlemen in the Foreign Office—the chief clerk and the senior clerks—who were receiving from £1,000 to £1,200 a year each, who were allowed to act as agents for consuls and persons engaged in the diplomatic service abroad, and receive fees for so acting. He considered that such a practice was at variance with the rules laid down for the guidance of the clerks in public offices. This matter had been discussed before the Committee on Consular Services. In the course of the examine-he asked Mr. Alston, one of the gentlemen who acted as agent, what he did for those for whom he acted? He replied that he drew the salary and took charge of the letters; and on being further questioned he said, "I believe I stand their friend in all things. I endeavour to be so, and do all I can for them." Now, this might be attended with prejudice to the public service. As "their friend" he would naturally do what he could for them in the way of promotion, in privately advising them of any vacancies, and so forth. And suppose that he (Mr. Lindsay) were to complain of a consul for not having attended to his duty in reference to one of his ships. He brought the matter before the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who referred the question as likely enough it would be one of detail, to a clerk in the Department. It might so happen that that clerk was the agent of the consul complained of, and of course he would endeavour to put the case in a favourable light for his client before the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. If he did not get a satisfactory explanation he should consider it his duty to move to reduce the Vote by £3,000, which, he believed, was about the sum these clerks received for these services.

as Chairman of the Committee that was sitting on the Diplomatic Service, felt himself called upon to make an observation or two on his subject. At first sight it might appear to be inconvenient, and a practice liable to abuse, that the clerks at the Foreign Office should be allowed to act as agents in the way that had been described. Before he took part in the inquiries of the Committee he had formed that opinion; but he came out of the inquiry with a contrary conviction, and with a belief that the custom had sprung up naturally and inevitably out of the relation that subsisted between the Foreign Office and the diplomatic and consular services abroad. These services were, in fact, a portion of the Foreign Office, performing its functions all over the world. The gentlemen employed in these services found it convenient to be brought into connection with the Foreign Office by means of some persons connected with it, without the necessity of having to apply to the Foreign Secretary on matters on which the chief clerks were in possession of all the information; and he must say he was unable to find that any abuse had ever occurred from the fact of these gentlemen acting as agents for them. The relations, also, between the officials of the Foreign Office were of the most confidential kind, and it would be productive of public inconvenience if strangers were permitted to interfere between the Office and its agents. The question which, in his opinion, the House and the public had to consider was whether any Foreign Minister had ever complained of the system as one that interfered with the right discharge of the duties of clerks in the Foreign Office, and whether it in any way detracted from their usefulness as public servants. So long as no complaint could be made on those heads he thought it would not be right for the House to interfere.

said, this was a matter upon which evidence had been taken before the Committee on the Diplomatic and Consular Service, and on which they could report if they thought fit. For his own part, he thought there was no public wrong done by the chief clerk and the senior clerks holding these agencies for our Ministers abroad. Those Ministers sometimes would be glad to receive information for which they could not write to the Secretary of State, and they could not with propriety get some agent out of the Office to go to the Foreign Office and obtain it for them, because the nature of the service in the Foreign Office was of the most confidential kind, and it required that there should not be reports spread abroad as to the changes likely to take place, or leave of absence, or anything of that kind. The chief and senior clerks could give the information privately to the diplomatic Minister without employing a great deal of time. There were certain hours, and certain duties that must be performed, whatever the hours might be, and he could not find that those public duties were neglected in consequence of these agencies; while, on the other hand, he believed the public service was benefited by the arrangement.

said, that at the War Office and Admiralty there was no objection to afford information to agents of officers of the army and navy, and he did not see why there should be objections to an agent visiting the Foreign Office.

could confirm what had been stated by his noble Friend (Lord John Russell). He had certainly in the first instance entertained the doubts which had been expressed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Lindsay) as to the expediency of the arrangement in question; but inquiry had satisfied him that it was a desirable and proper arrangement to be continued. The Foreign Office was totally different from the Admiralty or the War Office, inasmuch as it had to do with very delicate diplomatic transactions; and if our Ministers and Consuls abroad could appoint persons not in the Office as agents, they must have the run of the Office, and they would thus often obtain a knowledge of facts which, put together by persons out of the Office, might be of very serious inconvenience to the public service by enabling persons to further their own interests in a manner which it was not proper to encourage. He had himself been sometimes engaged in difficult and delicate negotiations upon which foreign Ministers took a different view to that which he himself took; and those persons might consider it of great importance to know when a messenger was going to leave, the hour of the day, or the day of the week. The knowledge of that simple fact might be of great importance for thwarting the object in view. His hon. Friend said that the system might lead to favouritism; but from the practice pursued in the Foreign Office he thought that this was not likely. He could assure his hon. Friend that this system of agency could not lead to any indulgence to any particular diplomatic agent abroad.

said, that what he had heard from the two noble Lords had in no way altered his opinion of this arrangement. He made no charge against the honour of these gentlemen, but if they occupied any portion of the time between ten and four o'clock in their correspondence with the Ministers they were occupying upon their private concerns time for which they were paid by the nation. Why should there not be some person in the Foreign Office, not paid by the Crown, who should do all this business?

thought that the matter was deserving of consideration, and that the hon. Member had put it before the Committee clearly and without any partiality; but at the same time he should remember that there was a Committee sitting upon the Diplomatic Service, which Committee had investigated this matter, and were about to report to the House. Probably, under these circumstances, the hon. Member would not think it necessary to ask the opinion of the Committee. He must, however, express his regret that the Chairman of that Committee (Mr. M. Milnes) should have thought fit to favour them with the foregone conclusion of the Committee upon this subject; it would have been far better if he had stated that the Committee were still receiving evidence, and, of course, had not concluded their labours.

said, that this was a question which did not necessarily or even naturally come within the purview of the Diplomatic Committee; and, therefore, he could not accept the reproach of the right hon. Gentleman.

considered he was bound to answer the question put by the hon. Member — namely, whether he thought the public lost the salaries or time of the senior clerks by these agencies. He had to reply that the public service did not suffer thereby, and he should have left an unfavourable impression if, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, he had declined to answer the question until the Committee had made their Report.

moved that the Vote be reduced by £2,150, the salary of the Lord Privy Seal and his Secretary. He expected that some member of the Government would have told the Committee what were the duties of the Lord Privy Seal. He believed he had no duties to perform. The Commissioners of the Civil Service, the paymaster General, and other officials received no salaries, although they had onerous duties to discharge, while the Lord Privy Seal had nothing to do and received a salary.

said, that as the hon. Gentleman gave no reasons for moving the reduction no explanation seemed necessary. It did not follow that the public officers to whom the hon. Gentleman had referred received no salaries from the public, the fact being that they held offices for which they were paid conjointly with others which they discharged gratuitously. The subject was discussed last year, and it was then explained that as a member of the Cabinet the Lord Privy Seal had very useful duties to perform; inasmuch as it had been found very advantageous that there should be one member of the Cabinet who would have time to attend to any miscellaneous business that might arise.

observed, that as the Commissioners were unpaid he could not see the necessity for so many clerks and other officials.

said, that the clerks had a great deal to do in examining the returns of the candidates.

said, there was no establishment with regard to which it was less necessary to make inquiry as to the expenses it entailed. A great amount of collateral business sprang up upon the vast number of examinations which took place annually, and no department of the Government was able to give a better account of its services.

inquired whether it was intended to make the office of Paymaster General really effective? As he understood the matter, the Paymaster General did not give any pecuniary recognizances; and the duties of the office devolved on the Assistant Paymaster, who had no legal status whatever. He thought the head of a Department should be its responsible officer.

said, he was not surprised that, after the recommendations of the Select Committee, the hon. Gentleman should bring this subject forward. But with respect to the office of Paymaster General, it was one of the cases in which it would be impossible to obtain recognizances of such an amount as would cover the pecuniary risks involved. That, however, was a separate question, and might very properly be considered by any Member of that House who was desirous of raising the question. The Government believed that the present arrangement, which did not depend on recognizances, but on mutual checks, was perfectly sufficient for the purpose; and since it had been in operation he did not believe there was any reason to suspect that any fraud had taken place, or could take place. With regard to the question put by the hon. Baronet, he had to state in reply that it was not the intention of the Government to make any change by substituting an effective Paymaster for the present nominal head of the office. The Paymaster General was a political officer of importance and an unpaid servant of the Crown, and the practical duties of the office were discharged by an accountant of the highest skill and ability. If the Paymaster General were abolished, the change, as far as salary was concerned, would be nominal, and in making the Deputy Paymaster the head of the office the Government would be obliged to make a difference in the salary of that officer; but he was not aware that any other alteration would thereby be effected.

thought that there were grave considerations involved in the question, for the Paymaster General was intended to be a control in certain matters on the Treasury.

said, he was not aware that the Committee on Public Monies had ever given the smallest countenance to the doctrine that the Paymaster General should be made a check on the Treasury; but he should protest against such an arrangement as being destructive of the responsibility of the Treasury.

inquired, why the Paymaster of the Civil Services in Dublin was abolished, while the Paymaster in Hanover was still retained?

said, that the office of Paymaster in Hanover was connected with military duties which had to be discharged on the part of the British Government; but there were great hopes that the office would be abolished very shortly. It was a question whether it might not be convenient to make use of this officer in reference to the Stade Dues, the English portion having to be liquidated in German money, and the Paymaster in Hanover might be kept alive for conducting the operation. With respect to the Paymaster in Dublin, the occurrence of a vacancy in the office offered an opportunity for reviewing the whole establishment, and the result had been an arrangement which would conduce to the effective discharge of the public business in conjunction with a considerable reduction of the public charge.

said, there was nothing to which the Irish people were so much opposed as the system of centralization, and it ought to be clearly shown that the arrangement effected would be both economical and efficient for the public service.

asked, whether the recent changes would not allow of the whole business of issuing Exchequer bills being performed by the Bank of England?

agreed that it would be desirable the whole business and manufacture Exchequer bills should be placed in the hands of the Bank of England. There were, however, various other points connected with the duties of the office of the Exchequer standing for consideration and decision, and the Government had, therefore, thought it convenient to postpone handling with this matter until the Report of th Public Monies Committee could be considered, rather than to deal with it piecemeal.

asked, what was the difference between the duties of the Assistant Surveyor of Works in, and those of the Assistant Surveyor of, Works out of London?

said, it was the duty of the former to examine works in London, and of the latter to examine those beyond that limit—such, for example, as Windsor, Hampton Court, Kew, and Frogmore.

objected to the large amount of fees paid to the solicitor employed in this office—amounting to almost as much as the sum now asked for—and also to the fact, that he was employed in other Government Departments, for which he received extra fees and commissions. Each Department of the Government requiring a surveyor ought to have attached to it a regular surveyor with a fixed salary. It was impossible, in his opinion, that the officer in question could perform such multifarious-duties efficiently. Another gentleman was paid for similar duties in another Department a much lower amount. In fact, most competent officers could be obtained, who would do the work for much less payment, and he objected to such a waste of public money. The charge, too, for legal expenses in Scotland was monstrous. It amounted to about 10 per cent of the whole revenue for Scotland. The solicitor for Ireland received but £250 per annum, while the revenue from Ireland was double that of Scotland. In order to test the feeling of the House he would propose that the Vote be reduced £1,000—a reduction which he considered should be made upon the amount paid to the solicitor in Scotland.

contended that the Committee were not in a position to enter into the question of this Vote. By the 11 & 12 Vict., c. 102, sec. 8, it was provided that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests should lay on the table of the house a full account of their expenditure for the year within three months after the termination of each financial year. This they did, but the statement was kept back until the latest possible moment. Last year it was June 29, and this year it was June 25 before the statement was made. The instant, however, it was placed on the table it was whisked away to the printer, but who whisked it away he did not know. He had endeavoured to get a sight of it, but found this to be the case, and he was unable, therefore, to gain any information about the matter; and further that the probability was the statement would be delivered to hon. Members somewhere about the middle of the recess. It was perfectly impossible under these circumstances that the House could proceed to discuss a Vote with regard to which they really knew nothing. The gross revenue of the Woods and Forests appeared to be £417,000. The expenditure of the establishment was £142,000, making the net revenue £275,000. The expenditure over which the house had no control was, in round numbers, £100,000, in addition to £16,000 percentage paid to surveyors. He wished to have some explanation on those points from the Secretary of the Treasury, and to know whether those charges were increasing. Now, in respect to the Parks, which were in the department of the Woods and Forests, he observed that for Windsor Park the receipts last year were £6,000. This fact showed the folly of a nation farming. It cost for the oxen upon this park about three times their real value. The expenditure on this Park last year was £18,000. The document showing the receipts and penditure of the Parks was a very curious one. There was another point connected with this subject to which he wished to call attention. There was a great financial movement going on in reference to this public property, under the authority of the 10 Geo. IV. In the last year it appeared that there was £60,000 of the public property sold, but there was £180,000 of new property purchased. Now he confessed he could not see the advantage of those changes which entailed great losses of the public money, and a considerable expenditure for surveyors and valuers. He wished the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury to give the Committee some explanation upon those points. There would be no occasion to trouble the right hon. Gentleman if the proper papers were before the House. He was compelled, therefore, to ask the Secretary of the Treasury the following questions:—Whether there had been £100,000 expenditure out of the revenue of the Woods and Forests before any balance went into the Exchequer? Whether £16,000 and upwards were paid in the shape of commission? Whether £65,000 had been obtained for the sale of pieces of land here and there? Whether upwards of £100,000 were not invested in other portions of land in the United Kingdom? And where the public advantage was in this system of buying and selling land?

objected to the Vote altogether, because the House had no cognizance whatever of the expenditure of this Department, which he believed would prove to be far greater than the hon. Baronet supposed, the practice being to account only for the balance between income and expenditure. The Committee on Public Monies, which sat four years ago, recommended that this department should be brought under Parliamentary control, but nothing had been done to effect this object; and while the Commissioners of Works had to come to the House for its approval of the smallest sums, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests expended much larger sums on precisely similar objects at their discretion, which he held to be highly undesirable. They should have Estimates laid before the House of all the expenses connected with this Department as well as with every other Department.

said, that the large sum of £173,000 had been expended by the Woods and Forests, and he could not understand why this further sum of £25,700 should be asked for. If the Crown estates were properly managed he felt convinced they would produce an amount equal to the Queen's Civil List. They might spend £38,000 on the management of the Crown property and the residue would be equal to the Civil List. It seemed to him that £38,000 was a large expenditure on a property producing £400,000 a year.

said, this Department had been carefully inquired into by a Treasury Committee, and they had reported that it was in a most efficient state. As to the large amount of legal expenditure in Scotland, he did not believe that £2,200 was more than was likely to be expended. He would not enter into the constitutional question, as to whether the expenditure for the management of the Crown properly ought to be submitted to and voted by the House; but he believed the present arrangement was in accordance with the compact made with the Crown at the commencement of the present reign. It was not surprising that, with so large a property, opportunities should constantly occur for advantageous sales and purchases, but they were never made without the sanction of the Treasury. Ten years ago this property produced £350,000, and it now produced £417,000 a year. The increase of £60,000 or £70,000 in the rental was proof of how well the property was managed. There would be no objection to giving a Return, showing the cost of management during the last five years.

wished to know why the expenses of the management of the Crown property in Scotland exceeded the cost in Ireland in the proportion of eight to one?

said, the whole sum asked for was £25,707. The share of Scotland was £2,200, and that of Ireland £2,000, being as excess of Scotland over Ireland of £200. It was true that the probable amount of the Irish solicitor's expenditure was £250 as against £2,200 for Scotland; but in Ireland there was a machinery of salaried clerks for carrying on the business, while in Scotland the solicitor's charge included the cost of his clerks, counsel's fees, and other expenses. Many questions had arisen in Scotland as to rights of the Crown in the foreshore and salmon fisheries, which, if not insisted upon, would have ended in a great loss of revenue; but they had entailed considerable legal expenses.

said, that, in addition to the £2,200, there was a further sum of £6,000 for Scotland. The expenditure was £8,000 to get a revenue of £27,000 a year. He believed that an unnecessarily large amount was spent in litigation in Scotland.

said, that the clerks in Dublin were not connected with the legal proceedings, but with the management of the landed property. Ten per cent for legal charges on the whole amount of receipts was surely exceptional.

said, the Secretary of the Treasury had not noticed an inquiry as to the expenditure of £500 to feed game at Windsor. Last year when he called attention to the great distress in Ennis he was told that it was absurd to ask this House to vote money to feed the poor. As they were not to vote money to feed human beings, he should like an explanation of £500 expended to feed game.

said, it was perfectly competent for hon. Members to investigate any of the charges incurred in the management of the Crown lands; but this Vote was for defraying the expenses of the office of Woods and Forests, and it was no more possible effectually to examine into the charges of management when debating the expenses of the office than it would be possible to discuss the Army Estimates in voting the expenses of the War Depart- ment. The mode of dealing with the Crown estates had been settled at the beginning of the present century by express contract. At the commencement of the reign a contract was entered into with the Sovereign, and the Sovereign in pursuance of that contract had made over the right to receive the net proceeds after all the charges connected with the management had been defrayed. No estimate could possibly be submitted to the Committee for its previous sanction of those charges without an alteration in the law. At the same time he did not intend to imply that they were removed from the control of the House, but that control could not be exercised by proceedings upon the Estimates. The Act of parliament passed in 1851 gave the Treasury control over the proceedings of the Woods and Forests, and the House of Commons, therefore, might challenge the conduct of the Treasury in regard to the proceedings of the Woods and Forests, and call on the Treasury to show why those proceedings should not be altered.

said, the management of this property did not rest on any compact between the Crown and Parliament, inasmuch as very important alterations had been made in the arrangements by the Act of 1851. The 8th section of that Act directed that the accounts of the Woods and Forests should be laid on the table within three months of the end of the financial year; but they never were presented until the last moment, and then were whipped off to be printed, so that when this discussion came on Members were totally in the dark as to these charges. These establishment charges were put upon the Estimates for the express purpose of giving an opportunity for discussion, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would promise that for the future the accounts should be laid on the table at an earlier period, so that hon. Gentlemen might have an opportunity of inspecting them before this Vote was brought forward. There was a tendency in the Woods and Forests, as in all other departments, to extravagance, and he complained that this was the only opportunity afforded to the House of discussing the question and getting at the real facts.

said, the expenses of the War Department were brought forward along with the Army Estimates, and in like manner, when the establishment charges of the Woods and Forests were to be voted, the House ought to have before it the other accounts of the Department.

said, that when he brought forward a specific Motion some time ago relating to the management of a Crown estate in Essex, on which, though it was only 1,900 acres in extent, £67,000 was expended, the Secretary to the Treasury asserted that the extent of the estate was 17,500 acres. He was so taken by surprise that he was not prepared at the moment to prove the truth of his own statement; and when he came down afterwards with proofs he was stopped on the point of order. This Vote was the only real opportunity the House had of discussing the management of the Woods and Forests.

thought the House was placed in a difficulty by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He admitted that the House had control over the expenditure, but not in the way of estimate. But they had an estimate of £27,000 now before them. He wanted to know what were the other charges, or why, if one class of expense was met by estimate, the other class could not be the same? He wanted to know farther, whether the solicitor's expenses for Scotland could not be met by salary, as in England, instead of being paid by bills?

said, he was not able to give an opinion upon the question whether it was expedient to defray the law charges in Scotland by salary. With regard to the Woods and Forests, it was enacted that salaries of the Commissioners and other expenses of management should be defrayed from time to time by Parliament. He had referred in his observations to other charges which could not be dealt with by estimate unless an alteration were made in the law. He had never attempted to deny the right of the House to deal with those charges, but he had said that they were to be dealt with otherwise than by estimate. He could not give a specific answer to the question of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Willoughby) as to the accounts, although he agreed with him that the accounts ought to be laid before Parliament in the shortest possible time.

said, he did not think any satisfactory explanation had been given by the Lord Advocate of the greater proportionate expense charged by the solicitor in Scotland than by the Solicitor in Ireland. It appeared that great complaints were made in Scotland of the amount of litigation which had been going on in connection with the Department.

had no doubt the duty might be paid by salary, but it was not usual. There had been considerable litigation in the Department, but the solicitor acted only on the instructions of the Woods and Forests, and made an annual report to them. The proceedings which had been taken might not be popular, but since these actions had been raised there had been a considerable increase of the Crown revenues in Scotland. It would be very easy to obtain a return of every item of the expenditure, and he had no doubt it would be found to have been perfectly authorized.

said, he must divide with his hon. Friend, if the Committee went to a division; because he had found, when an account was given of the salary of this officer, an additional charge was always found to have been made for clerks in the Department. He believed that many of these claims on behalf of the Crown were most vexatious.

thought that some means should be taken to prevent excessive expenses being incurred in litigation of this kind.

said, that he was sorry to find that the efforts of the Crown to obtain its rights by legal proceedings appeared to be distasteful to the Scotch Members. He thought at the same time the work might be done more cheaply.

expressed his intention to divide with the Lord Advocate upon this question.

moved the postponement of the Vote.

said, it was not competent for an hon. Member in Committee of Supply to move the postponement of a Vote.

said, in that case he should have no alternative but to oppose the Vote altogether, on the ground that the Committee had no sufficient account of the expenditure.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his remarkable speech, seemed to support both sides, and completely mystified the Com- mittee. It would be a wholesome example to reject the Vote.

said, this Vote included an item of £1,500 for forming abstracts of State papers, including editing. He wished to ask whether the post lately filled by the gentleman who was turned away on account of his religion had been filled up; and, if so, whether the testimonials of Mr. Turnbull's successor had been submitted to the criticism of the Protestant Alliance?

said, that Mr. Turnbull was not turned away; he resigned his appointment, and his resignation was accepted. A trial connected with the case was going on, and the result would probably be known to-morrow; and, therefore, he would not discuss it further.

deprecated importing into the discussions in that House matters that were now sub judice. The hon. Member for the King's County put his question intending to raise the issue which he supposed existed between Mr. Turnbull and the Protestant Alliance; and it was only right that he (Mr. Newdegate) should inform the House that Mr. Turnbull had taken proceedings against the Secretary of the Protestant Alliance, and it would not be befitting for the House to go into a question that was before the courts of law. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would delay any further observations he might desire to make until the case had been decided, when, no doubt, there would be Members in that House ready and willing to answer him.

objected to the administration of the Poor Laws in Ireland, and moved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,200, the salary of one of the Commissioners in Ireland. All the members of the Irish Poor Law Board were Englishmen, but he submitted that there ought to be at least one able to inform his colleagues as to the feelings and habits of the Irish people. Moreover, one of them ought to be a Roman Catholic; and one of them ought to be what was called a Parliamentary Commissioner, that was to say, a Member of Parliament, so that he might always be ready to answer any questions as to the adminstration of his department. It was true that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was an ex officio member of the Board; but he did not hold himself responsible for the acts of the Commissioners, but simply exercised a general control over them. The only result was to shelter the Board from the criticisms of the House. He (Mr. Butt) had joined in a vote of censure on the Board last year. but he should certainly have refrained from so doing if he had thought he was including his right hon. Friend in the Vote. He trusted that the Chief Commissioner, whose salary, like that of the President of the English Board, was £2,000, would in future sit in Parliament.

said, the Poor Law Board in Ireland was composed of two Englishmen and one Irishman. He would be glad to see more Irishmen upon the Board; but it must be remembered that the Poor Law was an ancient institution in England, but a recent one in Ireland, and it had been deemed most important to have persons who were practically acquainted with the working of the system. A Committee had recently sat upon the subject of Poor Law, whose Report had just been delivered; but he believed no suggestion had been made by any Irish Member of the Committee to alter the constitution of the present Board. That Report would also convince the House of the zeal and ability with which the present Commissioners had performed their duties.

denied that there was any foundation for the allegations made by a certain portion of the Irish press against the constitution of the Board of Commissioners, whose labours had been most arduous and had been crowned with entire success. So far from being unacquainted with the habits and feelings of the people, one of these gentlemen (Mr. Senior) had had probably more experience than any other man in the country. No doubt the Poor Law Commissioners made occasional mistakes, but so did every one else, including even the Judges on the bench. It was not easy to see how the Chief of the Irish Poor Law Board could discharge his official duties and at the same time attend that House as a Member of Parliament. No important step was taken by the Commission without consulting the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the present system, therefore, insured perfect Ministerial responsibility. The Irish public had no right to be dissatisfied with the Commission; and if fewer Irishmen were connected with the Board than some might desire, it should be remembered that, as the system was a comparatively new one in Ireland, it was necessary to obtain men of experience to work it wherever they could best be found. Moreover, Irishmen were sometimes similarly employed on account of their superior qualifications in other parts of the kingdom; and one of the most intelligent witnesses examined before the Select Committee on the Poor Laws was an Irishman holding the office of Poor Law Inspector in Scotland.

inquired why the medical officers in Ireland were not placed upon the same footing as in England?

replied that when the arrangement was made by which certain local charges were placed upon the Consolidated Fund, a much larger sum was taken from the local charges of Ireland than from those of England; the whole of the charge for rural police in Ireland being placed on the Consolidated Fund, whereas in England only one-fourth of such charge was transferred.

moved that the Chairman report Progress, and stated that the Government proposed to fix Supply for to-morrow evening, after the other Notices.

called attention to a deviation that had taken place that evening from the ordinary course of proceeding in regard to the Estimates. It was the usual practice for the Government to submit the Estimates for discussion in the exact order in which they were printed; but that night Vote No. 5, for the Colonial Establishments, had been taken before Vote No. 4, for the Foreign Establishments. That had probably happened through mistake, but it would be highly inconvenient if allowed to be drawn into a precedent.

explained that the irregularity referred to had arisen purely from mistake.

asked, whether the Government intended to propose that the House should adjourn over Wednesday next, on which the Sovereign's birthday was to be celebrated?

said, that as Her Majesty would be out of town, and there would be no Drawing Room on Wednesday, there seemed no reason why the House should not meet on that day as usual.

proposed to omit, in page 2, line 21, of the clause having reference to polling places, the word "Pontefract," for the purpose of inserting "Wakefield." As this was purely a Yorkshire question, to which neither the ingenuity nor the malice of man could give a party character, he hoped hon. Members would give their votes irrespective of party considerations. Not being connected with Pontefract or Wakefield, either in a representative capacity, or by ties of family, property, or marriage, he came into court with clean hands; and he asked the House to give effect to the wishes of the Yorkshire Members, as expressed in the only division which had taken place on this question, in the proportion of five to one. Unless for some good reason shown, Wakefield, the old county town, ought not to be deprived of its ancient privilege. He held in his hand a list of twelve polling places which were nearest to Wakefield, while only seven were nearer to Pontefract; and, of the electors, those who were nearest to Wakefield were 13,325, and those nearest to Pontefract only 4,564, or in the proportion of three to one. He had consulted Bradshaw, and found that the trains from every direction which went to Pontefract, with two exceptions, went to Wakefield also. It was true that by the Government Bill of 1854 Wakefield was incorrectly represented on the map as at the outskirts of the county; but, truly represented, Pontefract was much nearer the outskirts of the southern division than Wakefield. He thought that the House would agree to his Motion, the Government, in the first instance, having given notice of a clause in which Wakefield was substantially adopted.

said, the gentry and inhabitants generally of the southern division of Yorkshire would be awkwardly situate if the House arbitrarily set aside the arrangement which Her Majesty's Government had sanctioned, after careful consideration; for it was evident that a place which was perfectly central, as long as the division remained intact, must find it itself on the borders as soon as it was divided. He bore no possible ill-will to Wakefield, where his family had resided for years; but he could not shut his eyes to the fact that it was a place which, in electioneering periods, became the resort of tumultuous gatherings. Believing that Pontefract was on every ground more advantageous, he supported the clause as it stood.

said: Wakefield being unrepresented, thanks to Her Majesty's Ministers, it behoved all Yorkshire Members to support its interests. It was, perhaps, not generally known that the hon. Member, who had spoken so enthusiastically in favour of holding elections for the Southern Division of the Riding in Pontefract, possessed a large estate in its immediate vicinity, and much house property in the town of Ferrybridge, which forms part of that borough. Under these circumstances, and considering how long the hon. Member has been its representative, he would be unworthy the trust reposed in him by the electors, and the property he possessed in the district, had he taken any other course. The House, doubtless, would be of opinion that the influence which the hon. Gentleman had acquired in his borough was sufficient already, without according to him the prestige he would naturally claim by getting £2,000 or £3,000 spent at every general election amongst a certain class of voters, which must be the case were his proposition carried. From time immemorial Wakefield had been the town at which the nomination and election of the candidates for the West Riding had been held, and he saw no reason why its privileges should be transferred to Pontefract. The objection that Wakefield was frequented by multitudinous assemblages at election times was, in reality, not a valid argument, because Pontefract was but a few miles distant, and there were complete facilities for reaching it from all points of the Riding by railway. The hon. Member for Pomfret was wrong in stating on a previous occasion that the borough had more railway accommodation; on that score Wakefield was infinitely preferable, as their lines north, south, east, and west there converge to a common centre. He hoped Wakefield would be selected by the House. It was the old county town, and more convenient to a large majority both of electors and population. The head quarters of the West Riding constabulary—the place where all the public offices were situate, and where every accommodation could be had for the electors. The hon. Member for Pomfret after announcing his conviction to the House that all the principal proprietors and men of position in the southern division preferred Wakefield to Pomfret, must have been somewhat startled to find that twenty out of twenty-six Yorkshire Members went into the lobby against him immediately afterwards.

said, that he and the people of the southern division were very much astonished that Pontefract had been selected by the Home Secretary. Did the right hon. Gentleman know that it was the most inconvenient place in the whole division? A district of 17,000 people would be inconvenienced by its adoption. It was thirty miles from Sheffield; and to get to it a great number of electors would have to travel over three lines of railway. Sheffield was the place. It was a town with 185,000 inhabitants; besides which it was the centre of a district which contained a population of 400,000. The selection or rejection of Pontefract might affect enormous interests of the hon. Member for that borough, but he (Mr. Hadfield) had to defend the interests of a town with a population of 185,000. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would select some more convenient and accessible place than Pontefract, which was the most corrupt place in the whole West Riding.

said, that not-withstanding the solemn denunciation of the electors of Pontefract by his hon. Friend who had just spoken, the rejection of the word "Pontefract" from the clause under consideration would place the House in a very painful position, for they would then have to decide between the rival claims of Wakefield and Sheffield. The hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment, proposed that "Wakefield" should be substituted for "Pontefract;" and his hon. Friend who had just spoken would not hear of Wakefield—he must have Sheffield. Some hon. Members proposed Wakefield and others Sheffield; but the best thing to be done was to follow the plan pursued by the lawyer in the fable, and give one shell to Wakefield and another to Sheffield, reserving the oyster for Pontefract. The matter had been fully discussed on a former evening, when a considerable majority appeared to be in favour of Pontefract.

asked if there was not some mistake in inserting the words "chief magistrate" in the Bill, such term being unusual in municipal Acts?

had no objection to omit the words, leaving it that "the mayor have precedence."

moved the omission of the words, "or other persons," which might be understood as giving the mayor a right to preside at voluntary meetings, or meetings other than those of the magistrates. He was surprised that an Act of Parliament should be necessary to give the mayor proper precedence in any borough, and could not help thinking that the objects of this measure were too petty to be dealt with by Parliament.

said, that these little things were great to little men. He had received numerous representations upon the subject, and there were persons in many boroughs who took an interest in the question which appeared rather disproportioned to its magnitude. The Bill had been rendered necessary by a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, that the precedence given to mayors by the Municipal Corpo- rations Act meant only social precedence. The object of the clause was to give to the mayor precedence at meetings of magistrates, the words "or other persons" being only intended to include other persons who might be present at such a meeting, and he had no objection to their omission.

moved the insertion of words providing that when a meeting of country justices upon county business took place within a borough the mayor should not take precedence at such a meeting.

resisted the Amendment, as precluding the precedence of mayors in cities and counties. He had a competing Amendment on the paper, which he would move.

objected to vice-chancellors of universities having precedence of mayors.

said, that the words were found in an old Act of Parliament, and he had retained them.

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that Oxford University was not placed first in the Bill.

said, Mr. Massey, the time is now come when I trust that I may be permitted to state the objections which I entertain to this clause—objections which are felt by the justices of the peace in a great number of boroughs in this country. And first, I would observe that the occasion of difference which has led to the introduction of this Bill unhappily arose in the borough of Birmingham. I do not, however, wish to trouble the Committee with the personal questions which gave rise to the difficulty. Suffice it to say that a person was elected mayor for that borough to whom the justices objected when he proposed to take the chair of right at their meetings, owing to certain circumstances which were connected with that person's character, and which I had hoped would now have been forgotten. The difference originated in these circumstances: the attempt on the part of that mayor to take the chair as a matter of right compelled the justices, from a sense of duty, to resist his claim. Now, although the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department says that this is a little question affecting little men, I must beg the House to consider that for the first time we are asked to enact that whoever may be elected mayor of a bo- rough, whether he be an alderman or a town councillor, is to be entitled to precedence as chief magistrate for that borough. If hon. Gentlemen will take the trouble, as I have done, to look through the Act of 1835, the Municipal Corporations Reform Act, and the debates which preceded the passing of that Act, they will find that in no one part of that Act is the mayor termed chief magistrate.

These words are omitted. They are struck out of the clause.

But the provision is retained that the mayor shall, of right, take the chair at all meetings of the justices for the borough. Well, practically, that is the point at issue, because the term chief magistrate was merely descriptive and illustrative of the claim which was resisted for the reasons that I have described. According to the Bill in its original form, there were words in the preamble setting forth that doubts existed as to whether the mayor had this right or not. But, Sir, there never existed any reason for doubt at all. When the first attempt was made by the Mayor of Birmingham to take the chair at the meetings of the magistrates as a matter of right, and was resisted, he did not think fit to take the question before a court of law. His successor, however, was induced to do so; and the unanimous decision of the Court of Queen's Bench was that the mayor had no right to take the chair at the meetings of the magistrates. I have referred, in passing, to the Municipal Corporations Reform Act. Well, in every portion of that Act the distinction between the administration of municipal law, which rests with the mayor and town council, and the administration of the criminal law, is carefully preserved. In the 5th Section the mayor is termed the chief officer of the borough. By the 57th Section he is constituted a justice of the peace for the year of his mayoralty, and for the year next succeeding. But by the 99th Section provision is made for the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate, if the council of the borough shall think that appointment requisite. And, by the 103rd Section, the mayor is expressly debarred from presiding at the quarter sessions for the borough, because a barrister of not less than five years' standing is to be appointed Recorder, and that barrister is the real chief magistrate of the borough. He is to have of right the position of Judge at quarter sessions, and his precedence is settled as next to the mayor on all occasions. Now, I beg the Committee to believe that I do not seek to detract in any way from the dignity of the office of mayor. I do not seek, by opposing the retention of this clause, to take anything from the mayor. On the contrary, I wish the dignity of the office to be preserved as fully as possible. But I put this to the House—will it be consistent with the wholesome government of our municipal boroughs, will it be consistent with the dignity and the position of mayor, that mayors, without the slightest knowledge of criminal law, that persons who have never acted as magistrates, that persons without the slightest acquaintance with the laws of evidence, that persons elected to the office of mayor for every reason in the world but their competency as magistrates, should be suddenly invested with the position which their being of right chairmen of the bench of petty sessions must give them? I say that, if ever any device had been thought of calculated to bring the office of mayor into contempt, it would be the forcing of persons who are known to be incompetent into the position of presiding in criminal jurisdiction at petty sessions; and this is a provision which can apply to incompetent mayors only—I mean to mayors only who are incompetent as justices. For it is not denied, and it cannot be denied; it was so stated before the Court of Queen's Bench that, in no case where the mayor was competent, had the justices not willingly elected him their chairman. But they value the power of choice, because in petty sessions each magistrate is individually responsible for the decision of the whole bench; and, therefore, having a great mass of business to transact, perhaps having to act in troublous times, they do feel that that responsibility would be most unfairly enhanced by their being compelled to accept as their chairman an officer whom they would themselves have chosen, if he were competent, but whose pretensions they have resisted only when they believed him to be a person unfitted to discharge the functions of their chairman. Now I say that the House should do one of two things: it should either insist upon such qualifications for mayors as shall render them surely competent by previous acquirement and experience to the discharge of these functions, appoint a prefect at once, or else the House ought not to fetter the discretion of the justices in the choice of their chairman, when each justice is personally responsible in petty sessions, by forcing upon them a chairman whom you take no security shall be either mentally, or by acquirement, or by character, competent for the situation. I only ask the House not to sweep away at one stroke all the carefully considered provisions which were introduced into the Municipal Corporations Reform Act in this respect; and I beg the Committee to allow me to show them that that Act was passed on the faith of those provisions being strictly observed. In introducing the Bill the noble Lord the Member for the City of London stated that nothing would be done by that Bill which would in any way establish or promote the establishment of a system of elective magistrates. The noble Lord said—

"With respect to the 129 boroughs, the town councils are to have the power of recommending to the Crown certain persons whom they think proper to receive the commission of the peace within the borough; but they are not to have the power of electing magistrates in such sense as that the assent of the Crown shall not be necessary to perfect the election."

Now, if you pass this Bill, leaving the other provisions of the Corporation Reform Act untouched, one of which is that the mayor shall be elective, and shall be a justice, by virtue of his election, though only for two years, you virtually make him superior to the other justices, all of whom are appointed by the Crown for life, or during good behaviour, which is the same as for life. You not only appoint an elective justice, but you make that elective justice necessarily chairman at every meeting of the justices, than which I cannot imagine any more direct contravention of the understanding upon which the Municipal Corporations Reform Act was introduced and passed. But, further, the noble Lord said—

"I am of opinion that the town councils will take care not to recommend to the Crown any persons but such as the advisers of the Crown can with safety appoint to the magistracy."

But the mayor is appointed under the Act of Parliament as magistrate, and although he is placed in the commission of the peace, he is placed there by Act of Parliament, not by the independent discretion of the Lord Chancellor as the representative of the Crown; and this is the magistrate to whom the House is asked to give this additional power. The noble Lord continued, speaking of the smaller boroughs—

"These magistrates will not have the power of sitting in quarter sessions, and, as I have already stated, they will have nothing to do with granting alehouse licences. But there are a considerable number of these boroughs of the largest size, in which it may be proper to have a court of quarter sessions, in which, indeed, there is a court of that kind already established, and in which there is a Recorder perfectly fit for his situation."

Remember the summary jurisdiction which you have given by recent Acts to the justices in petty sessions; and here you are about to control the justices who are appointed for life by the Lord Chancellor by appointing them a chairman, not of their own free choice, but against their choice. The mayor is an elective magistrate, the only elective magistrate, and elected for only two years; and in presiding at petty sessions he must virtually act as Judge. The noble Lord said—

"It seems to me better that the power should be in the Crown, it being understood that the person (the Recorder) to be appointed shall be a barrister of five years' standing at least, than that there should be anything resembling the popular election of a Judge. The Recorder will be appointed during good behaviour, and will not be removable at the pleasure of the Crown; and it may, therefore, be expected that he will exercise his functions independently and fairly?"

Now, what are the securities that the Recorder shall "exercise his functions independently and fairly?" First, that he is competent to those functions, for he must be a barrister of not less than five years' standing; secondly, that he is approved by the Lord Chancellor; and next, that he is appointed for life. Now, if you put the mayor in this position, and it will apply only to the mayor whom the justices do not consider competent, and who is not a justice for life, but for two years; whenever he acts as Judge, or sits in that position, he does so in contravention of every condition which the noble Lord deemed to be essential in the appointment of a Recorder. I think I cannot better express this than in the language of the Lord Chief Justice—["Move, move."] Some hon. Members who exhibit impatience may have come down to vote on the Bill in obedience to a certain pressure. I trust, however, that the House contains many other Members who, when such a change of the law is proposed, will not be inclined to disregard the unanimous judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. The Solicitor General having observed, "I apprehend, if our construction of the statute is right, there is a duty cast upon the parties to perform:"

"The Lord Chief Justice said, as I understand it, it is something more than mere precedence. This is a right claimed to preside as chairman.

"The Solicitor General: Yes; to preside.

"Mr. Justice Wightman: It may be requisite for the due performance of the magisterial business that the chairman should be a more experienced magistrate than the rest.

"Mr. Justice Hill: The ordinary justices of a county take precedence according to the date of their appointment; yet they exercise the right of choosing their own chairman.

"The Solicitor General: It is a question we are anxious to have an opportunity of arguing, and having it decided.

"Mr. Justice Hill: It is manifestly inconvenient to allow a man who is not a magistrate, who becomes mayor for a year, and is a justice of the peace ex officio, to preside over magistrates who have been accustomed for years to deal with most difficult cases.

"The Solicitor General: It is found from inquiry that in nine-tenths of the boroughs the mayor presides without question or challenge.

"Mr. Justice Wightman: That might be; and here the justices of the borough say they are perfectly willing to allow the mayor to preside as a matter of courtesy.

"The Solicitor General: Yes. It is a question arising on the 57th Section, and whatever decision the Court comes to will settle the matter.

"The Lord Chief Justice: I agree in the propriety of the mayor, who is called the chief magistrate, having precedence everywhere, and to preside; but there may be reasons in individual cases why men generally conversant with magisterial functions should preside. All that the Act says is that the mayor shall have precedence, such as the order of going into a room, &c.; but I do not think it means that he shall take precedence in all magisterial duties. It appears from the Act that the Legislature never intended him to do so, or they would have said that he should have precedence of all persons and justices.…. The terms of the section are plain; it refers to social and not magisterial precedence."

The result was that the Court refused to hear any further argument on the case. The law, then, is perfectly clear. The intention with which the law was framed is perfectly clear. And all that can be effected by this clause is, that when a mayor is not, in the opinion of the justices, competent to preside, the Legislature will force him upon these magistrates as their chairman, induce him to examine in chief with perhaps no knowledge whatever of the law of evidence, and place him in the position of having to announce decisions without the slightest acquaintance with the first principles of the law, and even when there are reasons connected with his personal position that render it highly improper that he should pronounce the decisions of the Court and give their warnings. And for what reason? Merely because a certain number of the mayors of England have, upon solicitation, consented to support the Mayor of Birmingham, whose claim being illegal, was resisted by the magistrates, and this, after the justice of their resistance has been confirmed by the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. Sir, I move the rejection of this clause from no wish to diminish or impair the dignity of the mayors, and from no disrespect towards our municipal corporations, but because I am perfectly certain that if the clause be agreed to it will produce instances of incompetency which will tend to degrade the position of the mayors, and to bring our municipal institutions into contempt.

moved the adjournment of the debate. The Bill was most unpalatable in the country, and contained an important principle which ought to have been discussed on the second reading.

hoped the Government would agree to the Motion for adjournment.

did not believe the clause had the great importance attributed to it, because, as they well knew, the mayors were persons of respectability. He had no objection to the adjournment.

moved the second reading of this Bill.

moved that it be read a second time that day six months.

moved, as an Amendment, that it be read a second time this day three months.

doubted whether there was any necessity for the Bill at all.

urged that it was too late, at a quarter past two, to proceed with the debate on this Bill. He should move the adjournment of the debate.

thought the Bill had already received sufficient consideration.

was of opinion that as the principle of the Bill was somewhat novel, and one in regard to which much might be said on both sides, the discussion could scarcely be taken at that hour.

said, it was utterly impossible for any private Member to bring forward a Bill except at that hour.

said, that his own seat having been made the subject of contest, he had deemed it more becoming to abstain from taking part in the discussion on this subject. There had been discussion on the details, but not on the principle of the Bill. The Bill introduced great novelties into the law, and it could not be discussed at that hour of the morning.

submitted that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had intended to oppose the third reading of the Bill, he should have given notice to that effect.

moved the adjournment of the House.

said, the Bill had been amply discussed, and he hoped it would be now read a third time and passed.

said, he had no intention to move the rejection of the Bill, but he wished to have an opportunity of stating his objection to some of its provisions.

opposed the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

said, the Bill had been entirely altered in Committee, and it now embraced a principle unknown to the law and practice of the country. He thought, therefore, that an opportunity should be allowed for its discussion on the third reading.

said, that those who had introduced the measure had great reason to complain of the course taken by the Government in opposing the further progress of the Bill after it had been so long before the House and so often discussed, without giving any notice of their intention. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who represented one of the Universities, ought to have had his attention particularly directed to the Bill.

said, that if the Government really wished to discuss the Bill, and not to burke it, they could have no objection to give a day for the discussion.

pointed out that the point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to raise was disposed of in the Committee by a large majority.

moved the Adjournment of the Debate.

expressed his astonishment at the Government not fixing a day on which the discussion might be taken. By doing so, they would at once remove the whole difficulty.

proposed that the hon. Gentleman should put the Bill down for Wednesday week ["Oh, oh!"] and if he were unsuccessful in bringing it on then the Government would give him an early day. ["No, no!"]

refused to accept the noble Lord's offer. He would take any clear day the noble Lord could give him before Wednesday week.

moved the Adjournment of the House.

then offered Friday next for the third reading of the Bill.

said, he would accept that day.