said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has been received respecting the alleged prohibition of Protestant Worship, conducted by a Clergyman of the Church of England in the British Vice Consul's House at Seville; and whether any and what measures have been taken to secure for British subjects in Spain the free exercise of their religion?

regretted to say that information had been received by the Government that owing to the interference of the Spanish authorities at Seville the English Vice Consul had been compelled to suspend the celebration of Protestant worship in the Consular premises, which had been conducted by a Clergyman of the Church of England in accordance, it was believed, with the spirit of the treaties existing between the two countries. As soon as the British Minister at Madrid was made acquainted with the fact by the Vice Consul, he remonstrated with the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs, who at once stated that he would direct inquiries to be made. The hon. Member was doubtless aware that according to international usage Consuls were allowed to hold Protestant worship on the Consular premises; and upon Her Majesty's Government becoming acquainted that an interference with that right had taken place, they also wrote to the British Minister at Madrid, directing him to obtain full information on the subject and report to them the result of his inquiries.

said, that he rose to move,

"That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Commission to inquire into the state of the Public Buildings erected by means of Parliamentary Grants within the last twenty years, and also of the Houses rented for the Public Service; and to inquire whether, by adopting more comprehensive plans of building, greater public convenience, greater economy, and unity of design may not be attained."

He felt less diffidence in bringing this matter before the House because questions connected with the improvement of the metropolis had of late excited, not unnaturally, considerable interest, in proof of which statement he need only mention the Motions brought forward by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory), and by his noble Friend the Member for Chichester (Lord H. Lennox), whose ability and eloquence had attracted the attention of the whole House, and who had achieved thereby a great Parliamentary success. The question was becoming every day of more importance; and he had the less disinclination to introduce it at the present time because he was able to do so without at all reflecting on the conduct of any one of the First Commissioners of Works—whether the late lamented Sir W. Molesworth, Lord Llan-over, his noble Friend the Member for Leicestershire (Lord J. Manners), or the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cowper). He was certain that every one of those Gentlemen had done his best for the general improvement of the metropolis; but, in his opinion, the chief obstacle to any progress was the system at present adopted, and it was therefore to that system and its operation that he wished to direct attention. If the House would extend to him their kind indulgence, he should be able to satisfy them that the present mode of proceeding was most prejudicial to the interests of the metropolis and the most expensive that could be adopted. The House might not be aware of the curious development of that system, nor how long an anxiety for a comprehensive plan of improvement, more especially as regarded the immediate neighbourhood of the House, had been felt. It dated as far back as 1782. Previously to that year the entire power of making any improvement in the metropolis was vested in the Crown, So large a debt had, however, been created, and so little responsibility was felt in relation thereto, that an Act was past precluding the Sovereign from undertaking any such improvement, the cost of which should exceed £5,000, unless with the sanction of Parliament. A Board was then appointed. But very little amelioration of the system followed. The Surveyor General enjoyed the chief benefit of the change, that officer actually having four houses of residence—two in London, one at Kensington, and another at Hampton. The Sovereign still had the almost entire control of the public works. In 1828 a most important Committee sat, and so faulty was the then existing system proved to be, that it was found necessary to reconstruct it, and the present Board of Works was appointed in 1831. The Surveyor General, representing the First Commissioner, then Mr. Arbuthnot, had full power to pull clown any public edifice, and build another on his sole responsibility. In the evidence given before the Committee the importance of having some comprehensive plau, instead of the piecemeal system of improvement, was strongly urged. The Report of that Committee contained a most entertaining account of the extraordinary manner in which the public works were conducted. One of the surveyors proposed to erect a building after a model at Tivoli; another on the model of the temple of Jupiter Stator in the forum of Rome, although he admitted that he had never seen it. Mr. Wyatt, when examined, said that nothing could be more extravagant and expensive than such a mode of proceeding. What was wanted was a comprehensive system. The practice which prevailed was said to resemble the representations of George III., always on horseback and never advancing. In spite of all that evidence and the report of the Committee, the system had never been changed. Only last night there had been a discussion about the Foreign Office; when he asked his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Public Works (Mr. Cowper) to postpone the Vote for the new buildings until after the present debate. It was the intention of the Government to erect the Foreign Office close to Downing Street, and the site had been purchased. The House was probably not aware that so far back as 1839 a Committee sat on that very question, and that the evidence taken before that Committee as to the state of the Foreign Office was quite extraordinary. It was then proved that there were great sinkings in the centre of the Foreign Office, and that the party-walls had sunk down considerably in consequence of the unevenness of the floor. The architect stated that he had put bars under the floor, and beams above, and other beams bolted through the front and back walls, and that the floors were all supported on iron girders. It was thus that the Foreign Office was "hung up." It also appeared that, during a very animated conversation between the Secretary of State and a foreign Ambassador, a portion of the ceiling fell in upon them. Such, then, was the condition of the Foreign Office twenty-three years ago, and yet up to the present hour not one stone of the new Foreign Office had been laid. Everybody must have noticed the piece of waste ground close to Downing Street, which was purchased in 1825, at a cost of about £40,000, for the purpose of enlarging the present site. The ground was still unoccupied, and the whole of the purchase-money had consequently been wasted. He would next instance the case of the Record Office. On one occasion he heard an hon. Gentleman express his approbation of that office; but any one who visited it would be astonished at the manner in which the records were kept. It was true that Mr. Pennethorne built a part of a large structure, but it was only a small portion of it, and the consequence was that all the most valuable records of the country were crowded together in a number of small buildings round the Record Office, and at any time a fire might destroy the greater part of them. He perceived from a letter written to The Times by a gentleman who was in the habit of visiting this office, that the records were thrust into pigeonholes in every nook and corner; and, though each pile of papers seemed ready to fall to the floor on the least addition being made to it, fresh contingents of colonial, naval, Chancery, Welsh, and other records were daily poured into this overstocked and overstacked receptacle. And what did the right hon. Gentleman opposite propose to do? The State Paper Office was built about thirty years ago, and in 1855 it was proposed to add a story to the building. The right hon. Gentleman now told them that it was intended to pull down the State Paper Office; and he believed that already the whole of the records of the State Paper Office had been sent to the miserable hovels, as he might almost call them, surrounding the new Record Office. He understood that only three weeks ago a great part of the wall of the Record Office fell down, from the weight of the documents there. Of course, it might be said that Parliament would not give sufficient money to build adequate offices; but he would reply to that remark presently. The next case to which he would refer was that of the new Inland Revenue Office. An expense of £100,000 odd had been incurred in its erection, and the money had been appropriated without the consent of Parliament by diversion from other Votes. Notwithstanding this, so deficient was the accommodation, that ninety rooms in Somerset House were still occupied by the officials of the Inland Revenue for carrying out the duties of the office, which ought to be conducted underoneroof. These instances proved the very erroneous method in which the business of the Department of Public Works was conducted. Another striking instance of mismanagement was furnished by what had happened in regard to Buckingham Palace. When that question was discussed in the House of Commons in 1857, Earl Russell, in a powerful speech, pointed out the inconsistent and unwise course adopted with respect to that palace. The original Estimate was £240,000; but wings were afterwards added to the building, then a front, and then a ball-room, the result being that £1,200,000 had been expended on Buckingham Palace. The Government did not, as advised by Mr. Nash, at the outset, buy up the surrounding house property at Pimlico, and the consequence was that every subsequent purchase cost five times the amount it might have been necessary to give in the first instance. But, perhaps, the most glaring illustration of the defects of the system was presented by the War Office. Not long ago there were no fewer than seventeen different departments connected with the army scattered all over London; and even now, including the establishments at Pall Mall and at the Horse Guards, there must be ten or twelve. He admitted that much of this evil had been remedied by purchasing houses in the vicinity, but this had been done at great expense. People having business to transact at the War Office complained that they could not find their way through its many dark and miserable passages. Only the other day he heard an amusing account of a colonel who was ordered to embark with his regiment at Southampton; but having to make some previous arrangements with the War Department, he went to the Horse Guards. The Horse Guards referred him to the Admiralty, the Admiralty to the department in Pall Mall, and the department in Pall Mall referred him back again to the Horse Guards. He was thus bandied about from office to office ten hours, and the result was that when he got to Southampton the transport had sailed. That was only one instance of the inconvenience which arose from the non-concentration of the public offices. The Inspector General of fortifications had been shifted about every year. In 1857 his office was in Pall Mall; in 1858 it was in Whitehall Gardens; in 1859 it was in Whitehall Yard; in 1861 it was in Pall Mall; and in 1862 it was in Victoria Street, at a rent of £1,312. He now came to the main question—namely, the remedy for so unsatisfactory a state of things. And first he must refer to the evidence taken before Committees of that House in 1856 and 1858, and also before the Committee on the Miscellaneous Estimates in 1860. Every witness examined by those Committees, without exception, spoke strongly against the erroneous manner in which the business of the office of Public Works was conducted. The right hon. Gentleman told the House last night that the estimated cost of the new Foreign Office was £200,000; but if, instead of being erected as an isolated building, the new Foreign Office were made part of a great plan, one-half of this amount might be saved to the country. There were to be eight façades; and if there had been a comprehensive plan several of these might have been saved. The piecemeal system of executing these public works not only led to great inconvenience, but was also very extravagant. Sir C. Barry, a high authority, stated in his evidence before the Committee that his "great object was to carry out most perfectly the principle of centralization, and no other method presented itself which seemed to him so advisable upon that point as that of concentrating the whole of the public offices in one mass of building." He was then asked, "Then, both on general principles and with a view to the ground with which you have to deal, you conceive that the most sensible course would be to build one palace of Administration as a whole mass?" and Sir Charles answered "I am clearly of that opinion, "He afterwards added that the Administration of the country, like its Legislature, ought to have its own building. Mr. Hunt, another important witness, thought it a most inexpedient mode of going to work to buy ground piece by piece as it was wanted, for the owners of property required by the public would never fail to ask extravagant prices for the sites; whereas, I when a mass of property necessary for the erection of a scheme of buildings was purchased at once, there was no difficulty in procuring good tenants for such portions of property as would not require to be immediately demolished. Sir C. Trevelyan, also had expressed himself in favour of a concentration of the public offices in the vicinity of Whitehall. Lord Llanover, of course, entertained similar opinions, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite who was, perhaps, the best authority he could quote, had stated that the present system of hiring buildings for public offices was both expensive and inconvenient. That was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman in 1858, and therefore it was not likely that he would oppose the Motion for a Royal Commission. The Committee of 1858 reported that the cheapest course in the long run would be for the Government to purchase the freehold of such adjacent property as probably might from time to time be required for the erection of additional public offices, and in the mean time there would be no difficulty in obtaining tenants, so that the outlay need not be un-remunerative. The Committee of 1856 had also reported in favour of purchasing all the buildings in the neighbourhood of the public offices. Mr. Hunt, in a very elaborate estimate, was of opinion that for the sum of a million sterling all the land from George Street to the Thames, from Parliament Street to Richmond Terrace, could have been purchased, and that buildings affording sufficient accommodation for the public offices, and adding greatly to the beauty of that part of the metropolis, could have been erected for a further sum of a million-and-a-half. Of that amount of two-and-a-half millions about £500,000 had been already expended, or was being expended, in the purchase of land and the construction of the new Foreign Office. The House was, perhaps, not aware of the large amount now paid for the hire of buildings, and for repairs and furniture for those buildings — it was no less than £82,000 a year. Thus it would be seen that the money which was now being paid for the hire of buildings would actually pay the whole interest upon the £2,500,000 which he hoped it would be proposed to expend. Since 1851, independently of the Houses of Parliament, and the Royal Palaces, there had been expended for additional public offices no less a sum than £900,000, and he now asked the House to sanction the appointment of a Committee to investigate those figures. The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, was not aware of a circumstance which had come to his knowledge, that it was the intention of the owners of the miserable houses that would face the new Foreign Office when completed to make extensive alterations in them, so as to increase the value of the promises, knowing well that before long the Government would have to purchase them, when they would be able to obtain more than four or five times the present value. A great additional expenditure would be thus imposed upon the public by reason of the want of courage on the part of the Executive to deal with the whole subject boldly and at once. he did not advocate the adoption of any extravagant scheme, and he thought it was a mistake in 1856 to have received estimates which, if carried out, would have involved an enormous outlay—one alone being for £12,000,000, while another contemplated the conversion of the bed of the Thames into a flower garden, and the diversion of the stream on either side, He wished for a plan which would meet the public wants, and by its unity and symmetry contribute to the beauty of the metropolis without causing an unreasonable outlay. The subject should be dealt with at once, because the right hon. Gentleman was now proposing to expend £200,000 or £300,000 upon the Admiralty, and the House might be assured that every sixpence laid out in patching up old buildings would tend to prevent the adoption of a comprehensive plan for the rebuilding of public offices, and would in consequence retard the general improvements of the metropolis. Earl Russell bad in 1857 thus stated his opinion —

"The best course will be to fix upon some site, and then to require the preparation of plans suited alike to the site and to the purposes of the build- ings to be erected, at the same time stating the cost you are prepared to incur. By so doing you will obtain real practical information. What I hope, however, is that the Government will consider what accommodation it is they want, what sum of money they are prepared to propose to Parliament, and then let them obtain plans suited to the expenditure they propose."

His right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), upon the same occasion, said—

"The only safe course is this—let the Government state, This is the accommodation we want, this is the plan intended to provide for it, and this is the area of ground on which we want to put it. The House will then have the whole question before it, and will be able to give a fair answer to it."

It might be asked what did he propose that the Royal Commission should do in this matter. He would propose, that if the House agreed to his Motion, the Commissioners should first decide upon the quantity of ground that would be required for the concentration of the public offices, then that they should appoint an architect to give an estimate of the probable cost of buildings, handsome and of superior character, but not unnecessarily expensive. There should also be a competition to limit the cost to £1,200,000 or £1,500,000, and the Commissioners could then report upon the plans they had received and the amount of money that would be required to carry them out. They should also report as to which plan appeared to be the most conducive to the public advantage. He thought there was nothing unreasonable in those propositions, and he hoped the House would accede to his Motion. He should also propose that the Government should raise the required amount upon the same principle as that upon which it granted advances, so that in twenty-two years the whole would be paid off, and the metropolis would possess handsome and convenient public offices at no greater cost than the £80,000 a year now paid for the hire of incommodious buildings. When thousands and tens of thousands of pounds were being spent, and rightly spent, in the attempt to improve the public taste by erecting picture galleries, and by other means, surely it was desirable that in the centre of the metropolis there should arise some handsome public buildings of which the country need not be ashamed? The cultivation of the public taste was an object which ought not to be discarded by the House of Commons; and he contended that the adoption of some grand and comprehensive scheme of buildings for public offices would do much for the cultivation of the public taste. Even Spain could spend £20,000,000 on such works, payment being spread over a number of years; and that being the case, was it too much to ask that England should devote a much smaller sum for the purpose of effecting such improvements? If it were true that "a thing of beauty is a joy for ever," the converse was equally true, and it was of the utmost importance that the public buildings of this metropolis should be such as reflected no discredit on the Government as caring less than did the authorities of Paris, Vienna, and Munich, that the splendour of the capital city should be commensurate with the importance of the nation. It was the opinion of the late lamented Prince Consort that the site to which he had referred was one of the finest that could be selected for the purpose, and he had always urged them to take advantage of it. The Thames was a river finer —with the exception of the Tagus and the Neva—than was possessed by any other metropolis; the Parks, the Houses of Parliament, and the venerable Abbey were close at hand; and when he had shown that the plan which he proposed would be economical—at least, that the sacrifice involved would be very small—he hoped that the House would not refuse a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject. He asked the Government to act as a gentleman in private life would do. Would any one build a wing of a house without knowing where the centre was to be, or would he commence building in the centre of a populous village without knowing what houses he would require to buy? The right hon. Gentleman, in speaking lately of the Thames embankment, which had been a mooted question for more than two hundred years, said, that it would, if carried out, be the glory of his ædileship. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would add another glory to his ædileship by carrying out a work which would so materially add to the beauty and the grandeur of the metropolis.

seconded the Motion.

said, that although he quite sympathized with the motives which had induced his hon. Friend to bring this subject before the House, and agreed with him in desiring to see the metropolis adorned and embellished by public buildings worthy of the nation. He did not think that the proposition he had made was either reasonable or advantageous. First of all, he objected to any such Commission as was proposed, because it would supersede the responsibility of the Executive Government, and because the only security which the House possessed for the observance of duo economy in the erection of public buildings was the fixed and definite responsibility of the Government who proposed the expenditure. If a Commission were appointed with the general object of inquiring what comprehensive plans should be adopted, the proposals of such a body, far from being based on considerations of economy, would probably submit some of those grand schemes of which the public had often heard, which would involve an expenditure of five or six millions of money. That course would produce a reaction against such proposals, and the attention of Parliament would be diverted from that which was really useful and practicable. Then again, in his opinion, the present was an exceedingly inopportune moment for such an inquiry, for it would only lead to delay. The hon. Gentleman had argued as though the Government had no complete or comprehensive plan upon which to act, whereas the very contrary was the case. They were now occupied in carrying into effect part of a very comprehensive plan which had been under consideration for a great many years; and although the hon. Member was quite right when he spoke of the slowness with which these proceedings had advanced, yet the appointment of a Commission would only increase the difficulty of coming to a conclusion, and greatly retard the proper progress of the subject. But this was not the main ground upon which he relied for asking the House to refuse the Motion. The proposed Commission would really have before them no work deserving the attention of a body so formally constituted. The Motion was for a Royal Commission "to inquire into the state of the buildings erected by Parliamentary grants during the last twenty years." He was unable to find more than one such building—namely, the Record Office, in Chancery Lane. It was true that Somerset House, had been enlarged within the period, but then it would not come within the order of reference, because the wing had not been erected by Parliamentary grant. Then, with regard to the Record Office, he believed it to be in a good state, and to be well managed; and he might say the same with regard to the houses rented for the public service. The third point for inquiry was, "whether by adopting more comprehen- sive plans of building greater public convenience, greater economy, and unity of design might not be attained." In reply to this, he would remark that the present plans were comprehensive, and were founded upon the inquiries of the last twenty or thirty years. Even before the Committee of 1839, Sir John Soane in 1822 prepared plans for the erection of public offices on the site now mentioned. The Committee of 1839 recommended that the Foreign and Colonial Offices should be rebuilt to form part of a general plan, and that recommendation was the foundation of the plan which was at present being carried into effect. In 1854 Mr. Pennethorne prepared a plan to provide for the building of public offices upon the Downing Street site. In 1856 there was another Committee, and in 1862 they were actually laying the foundations of the building which had been discussed during so many years. This at least showed that there had been no precipitancy, no rashness of decision, and there had been sufficient inquiry and investigation. The subject of a comprehensive block plan was fully considered in 1856, when the then First Commissioner of Works, the present Lord Llanover, invited all the architects of the world to compete as to the best mode of laying out the block of land between Downing Street and George Street—between St. James's Park and the Thames. After due consideration the first prize was given to a French architect, whose design was that upon which they were now proceeding. The buildings now being erected on the Downing Street site were portions of the comprehensive plan, which might or might not hereafter be adopted in full. If, however, the public were as liberal as could be wished, and were willing to incur an expenditure which had been estimated at £5,000,000, what was now being done would form an integral and well-harmonized portion of a grand and comprehensive scheme. But his hon. Friend had said that the Government were building on the site in Downing Street a Foreign Office which would be only a single building, and not a part of a plan; and he asked whether that office was to form a portion of a quadrangle. It was. The quadrangle would contain at one corner the Foreign Office, at another the India Office, at a third the Colonial Office; then there would be the pay Office, and then other offices which it might be thought desirable to erect upon the vacant space. At all events, there was a disposable site of 70,000 square feet for the India and Foreign Offices, and that space was now in the hands of the public. But that was not all. There was also, to the north of New Palace Yard, a site which was now partly occupied by the houses on the south of Bridge Street, and which would give 18,000 square feet. Then before long the Law Courts would have to be removed from Westminster Hall, and that would give a site of about 30,000 square feet. Besides, it seemed to be necessary for the concentration of the Naval Department, that the Admiralty Offices should be removed from Somerset House to Whitehall. That would leave a great portion of Somerset House available for other purposes. It might, in fact, be said that the Government had sites of upwards of 110,000 square feet for building purposes, and he therefore thought it a most extravagant and unreasonable proposal to ask Parliament at the present moment to purchase any more land. There was another reason against the proposed inquiry. There were works at the present time under the consideration of the department to which he had the honour to belong which certainly deserved to be called important and comprehensive. First of all there was the erection of the Foreign Office, then of the offices for the Admiralty in contiguity with Whitehall, then of the courts of justice, the cost of which was estimated at £1,500,000, then the great works of the Thames Embankment and the street which was to run from Black-friars to the Bank, the cost of which was estimated at £1,500,000. In short, there were at present works in contemplation which would cost about £4,250,000. It might be ten or fifteen years before those works could be completed, and it would be time enough then to ask Parliament to consider any more. When the site purchased in the neighbourhood of Downing Street had been built upon, if it were found that further buildings were required, a site, he presumed, would be taken in immediate contiguity to the existing offices—he would not say whether in the direction of Charles Street, of the Thames, or of the Park. But in his department the principle was strictly acted upon that any new offices should be erected with a view to concentration; that all new buildings should be placed as near as possible to the old offices; but that any unnecessary demolition should be avoided. Some years ago a very large and comprehensive plan, with the name of Sir R. Bromley attached to it, proposed to pull down all the existing offices—many of them well-built and convenient. The Admiralty, the Horse Guards, the Pay Office, the Home Office, the Privy Council Office, the Board of Trade, and Drummond's banks were all, according to this plan, to be pulled down, and other buildings to be erected on the present Parade in St. James's Park. That was a very comprehensive plan, but the cost of carrying out the same would be so great that no estimate could be made. He thought on that account they had better remain content with the plan on which they were at present acting. The course which he proposed to take had not come before Parliament this year, but probably would in the course of next session. With regard to the Admiralty, the object was simply to erect such buildings as might be necessary in immediate contiguity with the chief department, without altering the main offices, which were strong, well-built, and convenient. It would be perfectly easy, without demolishing the Admiralty, to take in sufficient space from the Crown lands adjoining to enable all the naval departments to be brought under one head. The advantage of such an arrangement was, no doubt, so great that it would be well worth any reasonable amount of expense that might be incurred in carrying it out. With regard to the War Office, the original intention certainly was to rebuild it upon the present site in. Downing Street. The state of the War Office was one of the grounds of complaint brought against the department over which he presided. It was said that the War Office was formerly in fourteen different places, and that now it was in eleven houses. It was quite true that it was in eleven houses; but those houses were so completely concentrated that openings had been cut through the party walls, and passages extended from one house to another. Therefore concentration had been obtained, though there was not that beauty in the buildings which a man of taste might desire to see. The War Department had expressed themselves satisfied, and did not wish for any alteration. Then his hon. Friend had complained of the state of the Record Office. Now, the Record Office which had been built was as admirable and perfect in its arrangements as any one could desire. It was true that a great number of houses were temporarily required to supply the wants of the Record Establishment, the existing building not being large enough; but the Master of the Rolls, who was responsible for the keeping of the records, had always been desirous of getting more records into the present buildings; and the other day, when the determination to pull down the State Paper Office became known, the Master of the Rolls said, "Send me all your records; I have room enough for them." No doubt the proper course would be to enlarge the present Record Repository; and whenever that House was ready to vote the money, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to grant it, that building would be enlarged. If the Master of the Rolls desired it, there was ample space for the records in that House; for in the Victoria Tower they had a building with sixty-four rooms, fire proof, and well adapted for keeping the Records, at least as a temporary arrangement. He mentioned those facts to show that it was no fault of the Government that the Record Office had not been completed. The portion that had been built was constructed on a design which would admit of its being largely extended. A complaint had also been made that the portion of Somerset House which had been built not long ago for the Inland Revenue was not large enough, but no blame attached to the Government for that. His hon. Friend had said that the House ought not to consider his proposal as extravagant, but as economical. He could not understand how his hon. Friend proposed to support that argument. They were told that £26,000 had been voted this year as the rent of the buildings hired as temporary public offices; but of that £26,000 only £11,000 was paid for departments of the Government which could properly be placed in any new building in the vicinity of Downing Street. And then £2,139 was paid for purposes not strictly connected with Government offices, such as the National Portrait Gallery, the Museum of Geology in Jermyn Street, the Patriotic Fund, and other things of the kind. A portion of the money went for the Law Courts and offices. Then there were some buildings that could not be brought to the West end of the town at all, such as the Seaman's Registry Office, which must, of course, be in the neighbourhood of the districts frequented by seamen. There were also the officer, for temporary Commissioners, with respect to which a very good arrangement had been made. Formerly when an office was wanted for one of these temporary Commissions, a house had to be taken for the purpose, often at a high rent. Now, by having in possession a sufficient number of houses, it was not often necessary for the Government to hire one for these temporary Commissions. He admitted it was not desirable that public offices should be lodged in hired houses; but as to the question of economy it would be found that the plan was far cheaper than building. For instance, the premises hired for the temporary accommodation of the Foreign Office were rented for £2,000 a year. New buildings for the same office would cost £200,000, and £100,000 for the site; the total amount, taking 5 per cent on the cost of the building, and 4 per cent on the cost of the site, would give an annual value of £14,000. The temporary arrangement, instead of being disadvantageous in point of expense, was cheaper than erecting permanent buildings. The hired premises were houses that had not been built for public offices, or they were houses not wanted for residences, and were thus obtained at a cheaper; rate. It must necessarily cost much more to erect buildings of large dimensions, constructed, not like houses built on a terminable lease, but in a solid manner, and calculated to last as long as stone and iron endured. On the mere question of economy he did not think a commission of inquiry would gain any more information as to the I comparative expense of hiring and building public offices. Another thing that increased the expense of erecting new offices was having to sink the value of the houses that were purchased and pulled down to obtain a site. They must pay the value of the houses so demolished, and in that part of London the value of houses was considerable. As far, then, as he had been able to follow the hon. Gentleman, he had not made out any case against the plan of hiring offices, to justify an inquiry. Nor had he shown any mismanagement on the part of the Government, or that they were proceeding on a piecemeal plan in the buildings proposed to be erected. He had shown that they were gradually carrying out a comprehensive plan, and they had even looked forward so far that they were actually in possession of land for which the appropriation was not yet made, as for instance the ground on the south side of Downing Street. The course taken by the Government was the one that he believed would be the most advantageous. The more important offices would be erected on the comprehensive plan proposed; the smaller offices, that were not required to be in such close contiguity, might remain in hired premises as long as might be convenient. A very magnificent pile of buildings would be erected on the ground hitherto occupied by the Foreign Office, fronting the parade in St. James's Park, which would make a very handsome termination to that long range of parks — Kensington Gardens, Hyde Park, and St. James's Park—extending nearly three miles. The building would be large in its proportions, and be a very favourable specimen of the Italian style. It would also group well with the other buildings facing the parade; and when the new offices were erected near the Admiralty, they would have in St. James's Park as handsome an effect as they could desire. When the Thames was embanked, a great deal of ground would be brought into use by the removal of houses of an inferior description, and would afford a very appropriate site for several handsome buildings. He agreed with his hon. Friend that the plans should be large and comprehensive: but he thought that any inquiry at the present moment would only produce delay, lead to greater expenditure, diminish the responsibility of the Government to the House, and really retard the object which it was most wished to promote—namely, the embellishment of the metropolis. The present state of feeling on the part of the House on the subject was satisfactory; and, be believed the House would not refuse to sanction any reasonable expenditure in order to secure the erection of public offices alike worthy of the objects to which they would be devoted and of the dignity of this great nation.

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Honiton had recommended the appointment of a Commission as a means of ensuring economy, while his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works contended that the adoption of the Motion would rather lead to increased extravagance. Now, for his (Lord John Manners's) part, he regarded the Motion neither in the one light nor the other; and he hoped the House would think that the light in which he looked on the Motion was the correct one. He regarded it as a proposal for inquiry only. He did not wish to say a word as to the possible results of a Commission of Inquiry. Were the Commission granted, it might lead to a considerable diminution of the public expenditure; or it might lead to a considerable increase. But these were questions that must be met in the future. His hon. Friend, in the able speech in which he had introduced his Motion, had, as it seemed to him (Lord John Manners), shown sufficient ground for their instituting an inquiry into the subject. He had listened with great attention to the counter-statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He could assure him he had not the slightest inclination to cast blame, either on his management of the business of the office he held, or its previous management by others. But when a proposal for inquiry was made, he thought it might be considered without imputing any blame on one side of the House or the other. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have recently discovered that to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into certain important matters connected with a particular department was virtually to supersede the action of that department. He had never thought that the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject of the concentration of the law courts implied any censure upon himself, upon the Earl of Derby who was First Lord of the Treasury, or upon the then Lord Chancellor; and the right hon. Gentleman had been foremost in urging upon the House a very large outlay to carry out the recommendations of that Commission, How the right hon. Gentleman could oppose this Motion upon the score that the Commission would supersede the action of the Office of Works he was at a loss to conceive. It was a new view of public duty, and he hoped it was one which would not find favour with the House. The right hon. Gentleman used two inconsistent arguments—first, he said the Commission would have nothing to do, and then he said it would have such a vast amount of work that the time which would be occupied in the inquiry would retard for a considerable period all public improvements. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, that if he could assure the House that all the hired buildings were in a decent state of repair, there were nothing for the Commission to inquire into; but, in his view, the proposal of his hon. Friend was that the question of a number of public departments being accommodated in hired houses should be considered. The right hon. Gentleman had made a very elaborate and skilful defence of the plan of locating a certain number of public offices in hired houses. That might be an expedient system or not, but there could be no doubt it was one which the authorities which had been referred to were unanimous in condemning. In spite of that general condemnation, however, he was not prepared to say that it was not a good one; and there was certainly a great deal in favour of the view which the right hon. Gentleman entertained upon that subject, especially with respect to a particular class of the public offices so accommodated. At the same time, seeing that such a difference of opinion existed, there was at least a good case for inquiry. Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman told them that it was unnecessary to embark in an inquiry of the nature suggested, because he was at that moment engaged in carrying out the details of a large and comprehensive scheme. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would pardon him for saying that that statement rather alarmed him. They had not heard hitherto what that large and comprehensive scheme was. The various works proposed for the public offices had hitherto been rather of a single and isolated character than part of a large and comprehensive scheme. So far as the right hon. Gentleman had explained any portion of that scheme, he must confess that he heard him with regret, because it included some works which were undertaken contrary to the strongly-expressed views of the House, and of those to whom they looked for guidance in these matters. One portion of that scheme was to devote the space which would be gained by the removal of the houses on the south side of Bridge Street down to Westminster Hall to public offices. He was quite certain that that was not a proposal which found favour with Lord Llanover, who was the originator of the great and comprehensive scheme. Lord Llanover had no intention to convert into a site for public buildings that space which ought to be reserved in order to afford a good approach to the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Hall. Then the right hon. Gentleman suggested that a line of public buildings might be erected on the site of the present inconvenient and incommodious law courts. But if those buildings were removed, the space ought to be continued vacant, for it was the spot from which the Houses of Parliament and; Westminster Hall could be seen to the greatest advantage. According to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman those buildings would be more masked than ever by the erection of a new pile of public buildings. He certainly did not think that the details of such a scheme as that afforded any ground whatever for saying that the inquiry now asked for ought not to be granted. The right hon. Gentleman astonished him still further by saying that one reason why the Commission ought not to issue was that the works which they contemplated would probably extend over something like twenty years, and he enumerated the Thames embankment and the streets arising out of it, together with the sum of money to be expended on them by Parliament.

Not by Parliament. I spoke of the total amount of money which would be so expended. I alluded to the plan and spoke of the money without making any reference to the sources from which it would have to be derived.

said, that in that case he did not see why the right hon. Gentleman might not as well have included the cost of every new street which would be made by the Metropolitan Board of Works. He owned that when he heard the Thames embankment mentioned, the idea flashed across his mind that the right hon. Gentleman was paving the way for the House to regard the Thames embankment as a great work to be undertaken by the office of which he was the head. He thought the Motion of his hon. Friend was entitled to the strongest support; and there was a double reason for entering upon the inquiry when they reflected that portions of the works proposed to be carried out by the right hon. Gentleman had been really rejected by the House; for he could put no other construction upon the Vote to which the House came the other night on the Motion respecting the concentration of the law courts, and the way in which the money was to be provided for that purpose. That was a delicate point, because it appeared to be the opinion of the Government that, notwithstanding that decision, the plan was still to go forward. That certainly was an important statement to come out incidentally in a debate of that sort, and he should like to have a distinct answer whether the Government were prepared to consider the Vote upon that Motion (Mr. Selwyn's) conclusive, or whether they intended altogether to disregard it. At all events whether the Government took the Vote of the other night as conclusive, or whether they disregarded it and set it aside, it was no argument against the Commission of Inquiry moved for by his hon. Friend. He was himself of opinion that no great saving would accrue. He was disposed to think that a number of public offices were not inconveniently accommodated in the present buildings. But, after the strong expression of opinion by many heads of departments, he could not take upon himself to say that it was not a legitimate subject for inquiry. His hon. Friend had done good service in bringing the subject forward in a speech remarkable for its conciliatory spirit. He regretted that the Government had not met his hon. Friend with any concessions, but he hoped that this debate would be a sufficient indication of the temper and feeling of the House to induce Her Majesty's Government to change the views which they seemed disposed to take of the proposal of his hon. Friend.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the head of the Office of Works had practically asserted that his department was so perfect that no inquiry into it could be of any public benefit. Scarcely any more important question than that of public works could be brought before the House; but as regarded the works which had been mentioned, the House possessed no information, either as to their design or cost. During the last twenty years large sums of money had been voted by Parliament for public works; but whether they regarded design, estimates, or any other thing connected with them, there was nothing upon which the mind could rest with any degree of satisfaction. He attributed the repeated failures of the last twenty years to the want of the application of business principles. Who was responsible for the Houses in which they were then sitting? The enormous expenditure upon them was attributed to the action of various Committees and Commissions. But surely the Government ought to have undertaken tome degree of responsibility, and being at the helm should direct the course of the vessel. The proposal before the House could never be entertained unless it was entertained at that moment. He attributed much of the difficulty which occurred in dealing with the public buildings to the fact that the Government schemes were too often considered mere party questions, and, however good a particular plan suggested by one Government might be, no sooner was it out of office than it was thrown to the winds by its successor. For example, the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) was at the head of the Office of Works; he selected a certain plan for the new Foreign Office, but when the present Government came into office it was completely set aside, and another and different set of plans adopted. The management of the public buildings must be of a more stable character before satisfactory results could be obtained. What was wanted was a man of business habits and experience, as the permanent head of the department, who would be responsible to the House for the estimates, designs, and execution of public works. The appointment of such an official would prevent the plans of one year from being completely overturned the next, and would secure both economy and efficiency. Putting the Motion before the House on the very lowest ground, the proposed Commission could not do any harm, and might do a great deal of good. Inquiry was always advantageous when conducted in a right spirit. Of course, it sometimes happened that the Reports of Committees and Commissions were treated as waste paper; but he hoped it would not be so in that instance, if a Commission were granted. The necessity for an investigation into the present system was illustrated by the fact disclosed on the previous evening, that the cost of a work, of which the original estimate was only £800,000, had risen in a short time to £1,900,000. He would even go so far as to suggest that the inquiry should be extended so as to ascertain the expediency of embracing all public works, and not merely the public offices, with a view to placing them under the authority of some responsible Minister of the Crown. If such a department were established, having full power and authority, they would have the satisfaction, when they voted the Estimates for public works, of knowing that the money would be expended under a regular system, and not according to the capricious views of this or that Minister.

Sir, I am one of those who have expressed in this House great dissatisfaction in regard to the insufficiency of our control over the erection of important public buildings, and the absence of proper securities for unity, expedition, and economy in such great undertakings. I am disposed to regard rather the inarticulate expression of dissatisfaction conveyed in the Motion of my hon. Friend than the form of the remedy which he proposes. As a general expression of dissatisfaction, I can sympathize with the Motion; but I hope the existence of that feeling will not lead the House precipitately to adopt a Resolution of this kind without being assured that it is likely to afford a positive remedy. I do not think that the faults which give rise to complaint peculiarly belong to the Department of Public Works. I do not speak of it merely as it exists at present, in contrast with what it has been at other times; but I say that, generally, it has been administered with energy, ability, and discrimination. Faults may, no doubt, be found, but they are only such as are incidental to the whole of our general system of administration. I for one think that the mischief lies deeper—in the constitution itself rather than in the administration of any particular office. The case of these Houses of Parliament is, perhaps, a special one, because jealousies were entertained by the Houses themselves; but when we look at the history of the great questions connected with public buildings within the last twenty years we must acknowledge that their course has been most unsatisfactory. I do not stint or limit that admission. Take, for example, the case of the National Gallery. I think the Parliamentary discussion of that question began with the appointment of a Committee, which was followed by a Commission. Then there was another Committee and after that a second Commission. Thus we had three or four conflicting judgments on the site of the national Gallery. But what is the proper mode of remedy for; these evils? I believe they lie entirely beyond the scope and power of a Commission. The question is a large one, involving the relations of Parliament and the Executive Government, and I believe that to appoint a Commission would only be to tempt that body to indulge in grand recommendations and the contemplation of magnificent projects and enormous expenditure, with almost the certainty that their Report would remain a dead letter. And I am sorry to say that there are a great many instances in which it is quite right that the recommendations of Committees and Commissions should remain a dead letter. The hon. Baronet (Sir M. Peto) says that an inquiry can do no harm if conducted in a right spirit. Far be it from me to say that the inquiries made by this House have been conducted otherwise than in a right spirit. We have had the best intentions and the most excellent spirit, A Committee or Commission is appointed very rarely from factious motives, but almost always with a good object. But it has often happened that they have been appointed with levity, and without due consideration of their competency to cope with the task intrusted to them. It is a melancholy fact that for the last twenty years, with only a few memorable exceptions, such as the Public Monies Committee there has been no portion of the business of Parliament in which there has been so little efficiency and so much dissatisfaction as these inquiries. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper) was misunderstood when he spoke of comprehensive plans. He meant merely that he had endeavoured to give consideration to all the questions connected with public works which are afloat in the public mind, and to ascertain the simplest and most convenient method of providing for them. In that sense comprehensive plans are very good. But there are other comprehensive plans upon which I look with dread. Such was the scheme for converting into a great solitude the whole area between Bridge Street, Whitehall Place, and the Parks, and subsequently covering it with magnificent buildings, at a cost of some £4,000,000 or £5,000,000. That was a plan which was developed in the hothouse of a public office, but which withered and died when exposed to the chilly atmosphere of Parliament. Such plans are very likely to proceed from a Commission. The duty to be performed by a Commission ought to be of a definite character. But this Motion involves the entire functions of a public department, and I believe a good deal more. Judging from the observations of my hon. Friend, I suspect that not merely public buildings, in the ordinary sense, but engineering works, and perhaps even fortifications, would come within the scope of the Commission. These things go beyond the business of the Department of Public Works. The Government has every possible motive for agreeing to a Motion of this kind. If adopted, it would relieve my right hon. Friend in the executive from all responsibility. Until the Commission reported we could bring forward no plans, or make no proposals to the House; because if we did, we should be at once met with the declaration that the House had, after deliberation, appointed a Committee to consider "the state of the public buildings erected by Parliamentary grants within the last twenty years; and to inquire whether by adopting more comprehensive plans of building greater public convenience, greater economy, and unity of design, may not be attained." What proposal could we make as long as such a Committee was sitting? If you have in view a particular question—such, for instance, as the Consolidation of Offices, or of the Law Courts — which lies within certain bounds and limits, it may, under some circumstances, be wise to refer it to a Commission. In such a case, the Commission knows what it has to do, and there is a chance that it will do it; but in this instance we are asked to consent to the appointment of a Commission which is not to inquire into the merits of any definite scheme, but to consider, instead of the House of Commons, and instead of the Government, upon what principles, and according to what methods, the business of a certain department of the State is to be carried on. There would be a sinecure created by this Commission, and that sinecure would be the office of my right hon. Friend. There might be some work for the clerks, who would have to prepare returns and reports for the Commission; but until that Commission reported, my right hon. Friend might fold his arms, and might fairly have leave of absence, if the Parliamentary Secretary would give it to him, to travel abroad and improve his mind, because he certainly would not be required to take a practical part in any of the operations connected with these buildings. I want to know, too, how the adoption of this Motion would bear upon matters which are now in hand. The House may differ from us upon the particular proposals which we make, but we have done this:—We have considered the different questions one by one, have made up our minds upon them, and have made proposals to the House. The House has now got before it the question of the Law Courts, which, if not solved, has made some progress towards solution by the comparison of views and opinions which has taken place in this House. We have proposals to make which will come under the consideration of the House within not many weeks, affecting two public buildings, of the greatest importance, and likewise involving public questions of great interest—one with regard to the enlargement and re-arrangement of the buildings at Kensington, and the other respecting the transfer of a large portion of the British Museum to that part of the town. Suppose that a Commission is appointed, are we to go on with these proposals, or is the British Museum to remain in its present state, unable to accommodate important parts of the collection for some years, until the Commission has reported? There is, also, the question with reference to the Foreign Office. That, I presume, is quite beyond the scope of such a Commission. There are, also, the questions of the Consolidation of the Admiralty and the erection of a Patent Office and Museum, which must likewise remain in a state of suspense until the Commission reports. There are other questions, too, which demand the early attention and decision of the House, such as those of the National Gallery and the disposal of the site of Burlington House. Well, all these questions, as I understand the Motion—and I do not think that its terms are ambiguous —will be suspended for some years, for years it must be before a Commission can report upon these entangled and complicated questions; and when you get the Report, you will find that a Commission is much too weak an organ to deal with such complicated difficulties, and that its authority is insufficient to solve them. The solution of this question as to the mode of managing public works in this country must be worked out in the regular, practical, and constitutional method to which we are accustomed; that is to say, in the daily and habitual relations between the executive Government and the House of Commons. The executive Government must take upon itself the management and settlement of these great questions. The Cabinet must give its judgment upon them, and the House of Commons must deal with them as questions upon which the Cabinet has pronounced its opinion. I have no doubt, that if in that way the authority of the Executive is brought to bear upon this subject, these questions will receive at the hands of the Executive the consideration which they deserve, and by degrees we shall attain to a better system. But, whether that is so or not, I submit that to appoint such a Commission as this, would be to impose upon a body of gentlemen duties which it would be impossible for them satisfactorily to discharge, and likewise to interpose a practical obstacle of a most serious nature to many practical plans of great consequence and importance to the public convenience which are now in progress, and with regard to which the House of Commons will very shortly be called upon to pronounce a judgment. On the ground, therefore, that all the functions of one department of the Government, and indeed something more, ought not to be made over from the Executive to a body of independent gentlemen, thereby relieving the Executive from all responsibility, and substituting for that responsibility something of a character entirely vague and shadowy, I do hope that the House will not agree to the Motion of my hon. Friend.

said, that one of the objections to the appointment of a Royal Commission was that a Commission would not look to economy. For one, he wished that the objection had been entertained before the appointment of the Royal Commission on the Thames Embankment, because the expenditure would be double what it would have been if the Commission had not been appointed.

said, he would admit that there was some force in the objections of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he therefore would propose to amend his Motion by omitting the words "to inquire into the state of the public buildings erected by Parliamentary grants within the last twenty years," and after the words "public service" to insert the words "in the metropolis."

The Resolution being before the House cannot be altered without the consent of the House. The hon. Gentleman may, however, with the permission of the House, withdraw his Resolution and present it in an altered form.

said, that in rising to move for a Select Committee to consider the practicability of consolidating the establishments governed by the Boards of Inland Revenue and Customs respectively, he wished to premise that he had no desire to cast any reflections upon either of those Boards, still less upon her Majesty's Treasury. On the contrary, he had to acknowledge the courtesy with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acquiesced in the appointment of the Committee. He would only, therefore, call attention to a few points connected with the efforts made from time to time to reduce the expenditure, reserving all matters of detail for the consideration of the Committee. According to returns presented to that House the expense of collecting the Customs and Inland Revenue for the year ending the 31st of March, 1861, was £2,317,218, of which the Customs charges were £770,314, and those of the Inland Revenue department £1,546,904. At various times changes had been made in the constitution of the Board of Customs. At one period there existed three boards—one in London, another in Edinburgh, and a third in Dublin, the latter discharging the double duty of collecting the Customs and Excise. At a subsequent period those three boards were abolished, or rather consolidated into a central board in London, the result of which operation was to save the salaries of between 3,000 and 4,000 servants of the Crown, amounting to a quarter of a million annually. A Commission was appointed some time afterwards to inquire into the expense of collecting the Customs revenue, and their labours resulted in a reduction of forty or fifty in the number of officers of Customs, and in a saving to the country of some £16,000 or £17,000. From 1849 to 1860 no material reduction had taken place. In 1841, when Sir Robert Peel introduced his Free-trade Budget there were about 1,000 articles on which duty was required to be paid, and that number was reduced to 515 in 1849; and in 1860, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer carried his Budget, the number was again reduced to something little over twenty. Considerable relief must therefore, have been experienced by the Board of Customs from the time when the articles on which they had to collect duty amounted in number to 1,000. In the interval the Board had likewise been relieved from the administration of the Navigation Laws, which were abolished; from the charge of the Colonial Customs, which were transferred to the Colonial Legislatures; and from the control of the Coastguard, which had been transferred to the Admiralty. The House and the country therefore had a right to expect that some reduction would have taken place in the expenditure; but how did the facts stand? In 1841 there were 5,037 persons in the employment of the Board of Customs at a cost of £614,009, and in 1856 they had 5,713 persons in their employment at a cost of £687,241, being an increase of 656 persons and of £73,232 in charges upon the country. It was due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that since the Budget of 1860 a reduction had taken place in the staff to the extent of 543 persons, and in money of £87,679. But bearing in mind that in 1841, while there were 1,052 articles on which duty was collected, 5,037 people were employed at a salary of £614,000, in 1861, when the number of articles on which duty was paid had fallen to twenty, there were 5,300 people employed, their salaries amounting to £646,602, being an increase between those respective periods of 263 persons, and £32,593. The Estimates for 1862–3 showed an increase which was not large, but was still an increase; it amounted to thirty-eight persons, and £4,475. He should state a few further facts to show to what extent he thought economy might still be carried in the management of the Customs Department, and of the Department of Inland Revenue. By a return presented to the House, he found that there were nineteen ports yielding a gross revenue of £73,736, and at which the cost of collection was £32,621, or 44 per cent of the gross receipts. That was startling; but an analysis of the receipts and expenses at twenty-one ports, the names of which he would state, showed how it was that such a state of things existed. In the following returns the first amount annexed to the name of the port indicated the gross revenue, and the second the cost of collection:—Aberystwith, £245, £617; Cardigan, £65, £422.; Maldon, £272, £875; Milford, 645, £1,337; Padstow, £142, £574; Rye, £278, £661; Scilly, £85, £387; Teignmouth, £655, £666; Wells, £164, £500; Borrow-stoness, £721, £654; Campbelton, £17, £471; Kirkwall, £93, £780; Lerwick, £51, £493; Stornoway, £43, £473; Stranraer, £79, £372; Wick, £1,138, £1,264; Wigtown, £54, £705; Strang-ford. £172, £369; Guernsey, £49. £1,170; Jersey, £154, £1,741; and Middiesborough, £140, £152. The total revenue from these twenty-one ports was £5.262; and the total cost of collection, £14,683, or 279 per cent, He also found that there were seventy-three ports, out of the 128 for which the House had the returns, at which the duties were collected at the rate of 27 per cent. He should, no doubt, be asked whether the trade of these ports was not to be carried on. His reply was that the trade must be carried on; but what he contended for was, that if they had officers of the Customs unemployed at those ports, they ought to employ them in the collection of the Inland Revenue. That was the point to which he would direct the attention of the House and of the Government. The principle of consolidation was not a new one in respect of public departments by which the revenue was received. In 1849 the stamps, the excise, and the taxes were consolidated; and there was quite as much difficulty in that consolidation as there would be in the one which he now advocated. He had not heard it from Mr. Wood, the late chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, himself, but he had reason to believe that he (Mr. Wood) would have carried the work of consolidation still further. The next point to which he wished to refer was that of the multiplicity of forms now used in the Customs and Excise offices. These forms might be very easy to the officers who had each his particular department to attend to, but to the merchant or clerk who had all the forms to attend to they were a mass of confusion. He could not sit down without saying that he entirely concurred in the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few evenings before—that if they were to look to the remission of taxation, that could only be obtained by a gradual but resolute economy in every department of the public service. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a Select Committee.

said, that he rose on the part of the Government to give a cheerful assent to the Motion of his hon. Friend as it then stood; but he was bound to say that it would not have been compatible with his duty to agree to a Motion which would have contemplated as a proper subject of inquiry, and probably of adoption, the consolidation of the Board of Customs with the Board of Inland Revenue. On that subject he would not pretend to give an authoritative opinion; but having had considerable experience arising from a constant connection with the heads of those departments while filling the office which he had the honour to hold, he thought he had the means of forming a judgment on the nature of their functions, and he confessed he had come to the conclusion that these functions were so weighty and so anxious that, in the case of the Board of Inland Revenue, consolidation had been carried to the very furthest point to which it was possible to carry it without great mischief to the public service. His hon. Friend said he understood it to have been the opinion of the late Mr. Wood that consolidation might have been carried further. For the opinion of Mr. Wood, in all questions relating to the administration of the public revenue, he had the most profound respect, He believed that the country had never enjoyed the services of a better officer than the late Mr. Wood; but from his knowledge of the views of that Gentleman he thought there must be some misunderstanding. Mr. Wood might have been in favour of the union of some particular offices; but as to a union of all the boards intrusted with the collection of the entire revenue of this country, with the exception of that derived from the Post Office, into one board, he must express his opinion that such was not the view of Mr. Wood. Nothing but great ability and a more than ordinarily comprehensive knowledge could qualify any man to fill the office now held by Mr. Pressley. That gentleman filled the office of Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue with great advantage, because he brought to the performance of his duties the advantages of a most excellent capacity and of an experience of forty years. To find a successor to him, in the event of his retiring, would be no easy matter. Nearly the same thing might be said of the head of the Board of Customs. It was quite true that owing partly to wise legislation during the last twenty years, and partly to the efficient management of the department itself, the anxieties of the head of the Board of Customs had been very much lightened; but there were still heavy responsibilities attached to the office; and, on a consideration of all the circumstances, he thought it was not the duty of any Government to assent to a proposition for the consolidation of the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments. The question of consolidation was not one of principle, but of degree, and they were justified in carrying it to a certain point, but beyond that point it ought not to be carried; and that point would be reached certainly whenever the mind of man would be overstrained by its being carried further, as he thought would be the case in this instance, if they were to amalgamate the two departments. As the Motion stood, he anticipated nothing but utility from it, and lie was thankful to the hon. Member for giving the House a virtual promise of his able assistance in their important inquiry. The House must not, however, understand from what had been said of the particular ports quoted by the hon. Member, where the cost of collection bore an outrageous proportion to the revenues levied, that the comparison was fair and complete, without reference to other considerations. No doubt there were several ports where it would be in one sense the interest of the State to abandon the revenue and the collection. The establishments, however, were maintained at these places, because the officers had other very important duties to discharge besides the collection of revenue. The Customs officers were the instruments of carrying out various laws that were not revenue laws, and it was also necessary to maintain establishments at these ports for the purpose of preventing the introduction of contraband goods. The figures taken by themselves would therefore be fallacious. At the same time, he agreed that the state of those establishments was a fair subject for inquiry, and that it was possible arrangements might be made advantageous both to the revenue and the establishments themselves. It would, however, be a breach of duty, while on that subject, if he permitted the assent of the Government to the Motion to be construed as implying any unfavourable opinion of the manner in which the great revenue departments in question were now administered. His opinion was that those two departments were pervaded by a spirit of energy and purity, of anxiety to accommodate the public and to discharge their duty at the smallest cost, which was highly honourable to them and a pattern to all public servants. The manner in which the revenue of the country was collected was a subject of very agreeable contemplation. In 1848 the cost of collecting the Customs Revenue was £5 15s. 3d.; in 1857, £4 12s. d.; in 1860, £3 11s. 6d.; in 1861, £3 6s. 9d.; and for the year ending March, 1862, £3 2s. 6d. per cent. That was a gradual and very great practical diminution in the cost of collecting the revenue. The cost of collecting the Excise Revenue was, in 1842, £6 15s. 7d.; and in 1857, £4 15s. 9d. The whole cost of collecting the Inland Revenue, including both the direct and indirect taxes, was only £2 15s. 6d. per cent. In France the cost of collecting some of the taxes was not less than 16 per cent, and the cost of collecting the Customs duties in the United States was 8 per cent. The greatest inducement to inquire into the subject was the system of receiving and paying the money, which it would be desirable to simplify and to treat as pure matters of revenue and account. He would not say whether the union at which the hon. Member hinted would be found to be practicable, but it would not be safe to suppose that the appointment of the Committee would be followed by great and sweeping changes, or that large savings would be effected. With these remarks, he gave a cheerful agreement to the motion.

said, that he had placed a Motion on the Paper for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the petty charges on commerce imposed in 1860. He had given notice of that Motion, with a view of proposing an inquiry into the whole of the petty and vexatious charges imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the financial arrangements of 1860. These were six in number:—1. The imposition of 5s. percent on every payment for Customs duties, which had proved to be a most annoying and vexatious tax, yielding an enormous amount of trouble and increased clerical labour for a revenue of £60,000. 2. The charge of 1d. per package on every article imported into the United Kingdom, which had proved fertile in obstruction and annoyance, while it had utterly dis- appointed the calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. 3. The tax on bills of lading and shipping bills of 1s. 66. each, which was also a subject of general complaint. 4. The penny tax on delivery orders. That impost was probably the cause of severer annoyance, uncertainty, and difficulty than either of the preceding; two Acts of Parliament had been passed, and still the incidences of the tax were full of uncertainty, while the amount the revenue gained by it was absolutely insignificant. 5. Tax on dock warrants of 3d. each, which, instead of producing the anticipated revenue of £100,000, had only produced from £8,000 to £10,000 per annum, and was now gradually declining. The tax was applicable wholly to the port of London, and was tending to throw into disuse a very valuable and important document. 6. Tax on brokers' contracts, which, although limited in its operation to Stock Exchange transactions, had proved another failure, both in its general application and in the amount of revenue derived there from. Under these circumstances, and feeling sure that the proposed inquiry would be highly beneficial to the general interests of the trade of the kingdom, it was with extreme regret that he narrowed his Motion to the limits which he now had to propose. Four of the subjects appertained to the home trade; the other two to the imports and exports of the country. It had been intimated to him that the Government would oppose the general inquiry, but were willing to make an inquiry in regard to the import and export trade. That was a serious limitation of the original proposition, to which he assented with extreme reluctance, its main merit being that it dealt with about £180,000 of the revenue which had been raised under those impolitic and ill-advised petty taxes, leaving less than £100,000 from the other four sources to be dealt with at some future period. However, most reluctantly as he adopted the proposition of Her Majesty's Government, he would beg leave to move that a Select Committee be appointed.

said, the Government were willing to accede to the Motion of his hon. Friend in its altered form. His own opinion was that the charge upon goods entered inwards did not justify the practical burden which, in the shape of labour, it imposed upon persons engaged in trade. Some of the other changes, however, were useful for the purposes of statistical information, and the question for consideration was whether the statistics collected were worth the trouble involved in the collection. Upon the subject of entries inwards as well as that of bills of lading outwards different classes of persons entertained different views, and he thought the proposed Committee would afford a fair opportunity of hearing and comparing all those views, and of bringing together a mass of information bearing upon the question how far it was right or necessary to impose upon those engaged in trade the very considerable labour which the collection of statistics involved. He should have preferred an inquiry under the authority of the Crown; but being desirous to meet his hon. Friend in a spirit of conciliation, and knowing that the House always liked to have the conduct of such inquiries in its own hands, he cheerfully acceded to the appointment of a Select Committee.

said, he wished to ask whether the inquiry would embrace the colonial as well as foreign trade?

said, it would have no bearing upon any trade except that to and from the ports of the United Kingdom.

Including the trade from colonial ports?

Certainly.

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the present scale of Sugar Duties, with especial reference to their assessment upon a classification according to the quality of the Sugar. As his Motion had not only the support of the Government, but was not opposed by any Member of the House, he would not detain them for more than a few minutes. The sugar duties were levied in 1854 upon the principle of appraisement of the quality of the sugar according to standards in the possession of the authorities. In the period which had since elapsed sufficient experience had been acquired to test the validity of the objections expressed with respect to that system when it was originally proposed. There was, however, considerable difference of opinion upon the subject. On the part of some interests with which he was himself connected—the growers and producers of sugar in the East Indies—great objection was taken to the principle of appraisement of the quality of the article. That objection was concurred in by the producers in the Mauritius, and also by some in the West Indies, more especially in the colony of Demerara. On the other hand, certain domestic interests were quite content with the present state of things. The refiners objected to any alteration, but the consumers, represented by the wholesale grocers, wanted a change. Not long ago representations on the subject, both for and against an alteration, were addressed to the Government, and it would be recollected that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, invited an examination of the question before a Select Committee. That invitation was accepted by the parties concerned, and it was at their instance that he submitted his Motion. Though closely connected with the East India trade, he did not forget that he represented, as one of the Members for the City of London, a variety of other interest, and it was therefore his wish that the inquiry should be as full, fair, and free as possible. He proposed that the Committee should inquire into the operation of the sugar duties, and by their operation he meant the effect produced by the classification according to the quality of the sugar. All parties engaged in the trade would have an opportunity of appearing before the Committee and explaining how their interests were affected. The inquiry, of: course, would not embrace the general policy of the Sugar duties as constituting a large item of the revenue of the country, but it would necessarily extend to the question of refining in bond. He would conclude by moving his Resolution.

said, he thought that the only objection which could be taken to their proceedings was, whilst they had negatived one Motion for a Committee of Inquiry, they had acceded to three such Motions for Committees to investigate commercial subjects. He thought, however, that the Motion before them was a very proper one, and though the appointment of such Committees would tax the strength of the House, he hoped that they would use their best endeavours to conduct simultaneously the three inquiries. It was desirable also that the country should understand that the proposed Committee was not to inquire into the expediency of reducing the sugar duties considered as an engine for raising money to meet public expenditure. All were agreed that a reduction should be made as soon as possible, but that was not a matter to be investigated at that time. Nevertheless, a very important question remained for the consideration of the Committee, and he trusted that his hon. Friend and the other Members of the Committee, whatever might be the interests with which they were connected, would contribute their joint efforts to the production of information which would be of great value upon confessedly one of the most difficult subjects within the whole range of their fiscal laws.