said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Why the third instalment of the Delhi Prize Money has not been paid according to the recommendation of the Prize Committee, and when it will be paid?

, in reply, said, the Commissioners had considered the advisability of making a third distribution, but they found that a number of claims had not yet been preferred, and of course, if they made the third distribution, they would not have had the means of meeting those prior claims. The payment had been suspended only until these outstanding claims had been disposed of.

, in rising to move a Resolution on the subject of the inadequate remuneration of Postmasters, said, he wished first of all to clear himself from a charge which might be brought against him, and to answer by anticipation an objection which was usually made against Motions of a similar character. The charge was that he was aiming at an increase in the taxation of the country. Of course this was the case indirectly, insomuch as it diminished the surplus revenue of the Post Office, but he submitted that the Post Office was not to be considered a branch of the revenue, but an establishment for giving every convenience to the country within the scope of the Department, provided it could be done without loss. Now, according to the last Report of the Postmaster General, there was a surplus of £10.000 to the credit of the Post Office savings banks account. He had heard it, indeed, doubted whether that was a correct statement of account, and it had been said that the savings banks had worked at a loss. He trusted that this was not the case, and, at any rate, he had a right to assume that the surplus stated was real, and it was out of that surplus that he thought a fair payment should be made to those who worked the system. So much for that objection. The other was that there was never any difficulty in getting the work done on present terms, and that, in fact, there were many applicants for every vacancy. He would not go into the abstract question of the propriety of a Government setting the example of giving inadequate wages, but the real fact was that a great majority of Postmasters gave merely their spare time to the Government. They made their livelihood in other ways. Hon. Members had heard of the individual who advertised for a pensioner as hall-porter, because the wages he gave were insufficient without the pension, and they knew that the slopsellers kept needlewomen's wages at a starving point by introducing the competition of the convents, the inmates of which were supported in other ways. But then, of course, the question arose whether the retail shopkeeper, who had his hands full of other work, was the proper person to work Government savings banks, and, still more, the new system of Government annuities. So that the question was not only the narrow one of increased pay to certain people, but also the more important one whether, under the present rates, the work was properly done. There was scarcely an office under Government which might not be filled at a less charge. People with full confidence in their own powers would, no doubt, accept the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer or Secretary to the Treasury, at one-tenth of the present cost to the country, but the country would scarcely gain by the economy. He thought it necessary to say so much by way of preface, as he quite admitted the inexpediency of such Motions on general grounds, and that almost every branch of public servants would complain of their salary if they thought their complaints would be heard. He had originally intended simply asking a question at the request of a country clergyman; but after placing the notice on the paper he had received so many complaints from all quarters, and his correspondents had stated so many cases of hardship and mischief arising there from, that he felt justified in altering the question into the present Mo- tion. He would not detain the House long, but he begged hon. Members, especially those who sat opposite, to remember that he was advocating the cause of a class deprived of the franchise, and therefore, according to their views, entirely unrepresented in the House; who lived, moreover, in such dread of incurring the displeasure of their official superiors that some had written anonymously, and others had expressed the greatest fear of being supposed promoters of his Motion. He objected, as contrary to public policy, to encouraging public servants to make complaints of their superiors. He had, therefore, sought for information chiefly from independent sources, clergymen and others who were interested in the question on public grounds, and though he trusted that his statement might lead to a fairer treatment of an important class of public servants he had also in view the impediments caused and likely to be caused by their discontent to the operation of those useful measures, the Post Office Savings Bank Act, and the Government Annuities Act, which latter was also, as they were informed by a paper laid lately upon the table, to be worked through the Post Office. He might state that he had received information from the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Sussex, Devon, Gloucester, Somerset, Lincoln, Salop, Northampton, Herts, and others, but for obvious reasons he should not mention the exact localities. It must be evident to all that within the last three years enormously increased work had been thrown upon the keepers of post offices. According to the Postmaster General's Report for the past year the deposits which had been paid into the various post offices had amounted, with interest, during the interval between September 1, 1861, when the Act first came into operation, to March 31, 1864, to nearly six millions, and the net profits of the Post Office to more than £10,000. Before this time Postmasters were not overpaid, when it was considered how much additional work was entailed upon them by the growth of the system of money orders and the book and pattern post. What, then, was the additional remuneration received for the vastly increased trouble of the savings banks—trouble in no way connected with the business of carrying the correspondence of the country, nor indeed to have been anticipated, for the Postmasters might as reasonably have expected to be turned into Govern- ment tailors as Government bankers. There seemed to be certain classes under which postmasters might be ranged in reference to payment. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury might possibly explain the principle of the classification. He found that the most fortunate received £5 for every 1,000 transactions. That seemed to him a reasonable arrangement, as the trouble of large and small deposits was the same, and he thought it sufficient in amount. Others were paid at the rate of 1d. for every deposit, which might possibly be sufficient also, because though some grumbled others seemed satisfied, and one of the recipients expressed his opinion that the Post Office was just though stingy. After these two, however, came three classes which were much more hardly treated. The first received one halfpenny per deposit, and 1s. per cent on the amount the first year, but afterwards nothing. The second, certain apparently arbitrarily fixed small sums the first year, since then nothing. The third was most illused of all, for they had never received anything; but they had been led to expect something eventually, and lived in hope. Meantime there were complaints that the bonds had been enlarged, and the percentages on money orders and postage stamps reduced, and there was apprehension expressed that the Postmasters would have to work the Government annuities scheme gratuitously also. He had stated that he had advocated the cause of these officials because they were helpless and incapable of resistance. He had heard, however, that one in London had thrown up his office and published his reasons on a large placard exhibited in a shop window, couched in terms by no means complimentary to the authorities. But a still more important part of the question was its effect upon the public service. He was an advocate of Post Office savings banks and Government annuities, and wished them success; but the course taken in respect of these salaries militated against it. One Postmaster wrote that he should discourage Government annuities because he got well paid by benefit societies; another stated that the old savings bank in the town paid an actuary £100 a year for keeping the office open for an hour or two once a week. A clergyman wrote—

"I can plainly see the Postmaster discourages the issue of 'books,' and what he does in all probability others do. The trouble is very considerable, and all the same whether 4d. or £4; as I was mainly instrumental in getting the savings bank established here, I feel somewhat guilty in having entailed so much upon him with so little return."

He could multiply cases of this kind, but would not weary the House. Early in 1862 the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. P. W. Martin) asked a question on this subject, and the Secretary of the Treasury replied that there was, doubtless, an increase of trouble, and that the remuneration was under consideration. This was also stated in the Postmaster General's Report, so that the Postmasters had been living in hope, which alone induced them to put up with the present scale of payment. He would not enlarge on the immorality of underpaying those who held offices of trust; because, though there had been defalcations, yet it was infinitely to the credit of the class whose cause he advocated, that of the vast amount of valuable property of every description which passed through their hands so little miscarried. The subject of salaries in every department of the Post Office was a most important one, but he had preferred confining his remarks to one branch, and feeling as he did that no more time should be lost in placing these payments on an adequate, fair, and uniform basis he should conclude with the Motion which stood in his name.

said, that when the Bill for the establishment of the Post Office savings banks was under discussion he had ventured to suggest to the House that the difficulties of the scheme would commence with its success, and that it would not be so easy to conduct it as some hon. Gentlemen seemed to suppose. It had occurred to him that those who had the conducting of the business of those banks would view matters in pretty much the same light as they were regarded in public offices generally, and think that very little ought to be done and a large salary paid. He had foreseen that as soon as people began to deposit their money, a large amount of discontent would grow up. The House had now before them the first appearance of the difficulties arising from the attempt to establish a national bank for the savings of the people. No doubt there was a great deal of truth in what the hon. Member had just stated, and that the Postmasters were grievously discontented at having so much additional work and no additional remuneration. It was difficult to persuade people who had been employed to discharge one duty that they ought to perform another, and he believed the Postmasters had not only to do that, but to receive an enormous amount of abuse into the bargain from those who deposited money. It was not an uncommon thing for a Postmaster to find himself assailed by a depositor, who, on examining his book and finding the interest to amount to so much less than he had anticipated, accused the unfortunate Postmaster of fraud and robbery. He thought, however, the House ought to proceed with caution, and be slow to accede to the Motion of the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Cave). They had hardly sufficient experience in the matter to venture on any expression of opinion. He would suggest that before any step so decided was taken it would be necessary to appoint a Committee to inquire into the working of the Act. No doubt the Postmasters had been encouraged to make this application by the Returns which had been laid on the table, and been commented upon in the newspapers. When those Returns appeared the people were congratulated on the success of the Post Office savings banks, for they showed that there was a very considerable balance on the profit side of the account—he believed £21,000. He was afraid, however, that when matters came to be examined a little more closely they would wear a different complexion. The House knew that certain joint-stock banks had showed they were able to pay 10 per cent, and, what was more, had actually paid it; but those establishments failed afterwards, and then it appeared that they had neither capital nor profit. In the accounts of the Post Office savings banks laid on the table of the House, as he understood, no notice was taken of the important fact that a considerable amount of the funds was invested in terminable annuities which had not a great many years to run. Therefore, though the interest paid on those investments was not only enough to pay the current expenses of the banks, but also to leave a profit, it was in reality merely nominal, for it was a part of the capital which was being wasted. He had moved some time ago for a Return of the depreciation in consequence of the lapse of time, and it appeared from the figures which had been laid upon the table that the amount was now £81,000. If, then, they deducted that £21,000 of apparent profit from the loss by depreciation, there was an actual loss up to the present time of £60,000 on the Post Office savings banks, instead of there being a gain of £21,000. This might be remedied at a future time through increase of deposits and other causes; but it showed that the House ought not to encourage any increase of expenditure at present. Should those persons who performed the duties of postmaster be unwilling to conduct the savings banks without additional remuneration, it was evident that Parliament would have to subsidize those banks out of the Consolidated Fund if it meant to carry them on. But it was much better that there should be a thorough inquiry into the whole subject before any decided course was taken. It was scarcely fair to make that inquiry at present, as the Post Office savings banks had not been established a sufficient time for them to get into thorough working order. Probably in a year or two the question would be ripe for discussion, and he hoped the House would then thoroughly sift the matter, and, in case it should turn out that the savings banks could not be carried on without a loss, take into consideration the advisability of entering into some new arrangement with regard to them. In the meantime, however, it would be highly improper to force Government to spend the public money, which, unfortunately, they were always ready enough to do. The House had better perform its proper function of endeavouring to keep down the expenditure, rather than afford the Government any excuse for extravagance.

said, he entirely sympathized with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the embarrassing position in which he was placed by Motions of that description. He had received no communication from any Postmaster on the subject, but the present proposal was so exceptional a one that he felt bound to give it his support. The increase which had of late years taken place in our Post Office system must have imposed a large amount ef additional duty on the Postmasters, and that increase of duty was not, he believed, accompanied by a proportionate augmentation of their salaries. He must remind the House of the multifarious duties performed by the Post Office, and that in order to discharge them properly the Postmasters and Mistresses had to rise by candle light in the morning. When additional duties were imposed upon already hard worked officials it was incumbent upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether, with a due regard to the public revenue, he could not increase their remuneration. He should be sorry to move for a Return which would undoubtedly be very interesting—namely, a Return of the number of Postmasters and Mistresses who had been dismissed for dereliction of duty. He was afraid it would show that, owing to the very small emoluments attached to the duties, a very inferior class of persons had obtained the situations. He should add, however, that as far as he could learn the profits of the Post Office Department were not as great as the public general imagined, and many persons were in consequence led to make demands on it which it could not be fairly expected to meet. The gross revenue of the Post Office was £4,100,000, and as, on the other hand, the only expense entered against them in the public accounts was £870,000 for the packet service, many persons imagined that they must have a surplus of over £3,200,000. But that was not the case, and they had many other large charges to defray. In his opinion, it was very desirable that the public should be made acquainted, if it were possible, with the net revenue of the Department. But he repeated that he thought the present proposal a fair one, and he hoped it would meet with the favourable consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, it would be establishing a very bad system for our public servants, were we to pay them according to the amount of surplus realized by the office in which they were engaged, instead of according to the value of their services. The proposition of the hon. Member who moved the Resolution seemed reasonable enough—namely, that, if additional duties were thrown upon a class of public servants, they ought to receive additional remuneration. The principle involved in that proposition had, however, always been recognized and adopted by the Post Office. The question of remuneration of Postmasters had received a great deal of attention, and the desire always had been to remunerate them in proportion to the amount of work they performed, while taking care to avoid offering them any inducement to favour any class of depositors in order to improperly increase the amount of deposits and withdrawals. He did not think it would be desirable to pay them in proportion to the amounts deposited with them, because they would in that case have an interest in developing the business of the larger class of depositors as compared with the smaller class; and it should be remembered that it was essentially for the benefit of the humbler portion of the community the system had been established. The Post Office savings bank system was carried on by about 3,000 Postmasters in 800 head offices and 2,200 sub-offices. More than one-half of the business was transacted in the sub-offices, the masters being remunerated according to the amount of the work performed; exactly in the same manner as they were paid for the money-order business, with the single exception that they received £5 in the former, instead of the £4 for every 1,000 transactions which they received in the latter. In other words they received 1s. for every ten transactions. The work they had to do as between themselves and the depositors was to receive the money from the depositor and to enter the amount in the depositor's book. As between themselves and the General Post Office in London, they had to forward a memorandum, showing the amount of the deposit and the name and residence of the depositor, the whole of the accounts being kept in the Central Office in London. As the amount of remuneration varied with the quantity of work done of course it was but small at present, but in a few years it would probable equal that which the Postmasters received for the money order business. The total amount of remuneration at present derived on account of the savings bank business between the 2,200 sub-Postmasters was £4,000, as against £22,000 for the money order business. The remaining 800 Postmasters did not receive any special allowance for their labours either in the savings bank or the money order department; and the reason was that their salaries were fixed, and were fixed in proportion to the whole amount of the busi- ness it was thought they would have to discharge. The salaries might have been fixed before the additional duties were cast upon these Postmasters, but they were continually undergoing revision. It was open to any Postmaster who thought that he was underpaid to apply for a revision of his salary; that revision, if granted, would have special reference to the increased work which had been east upon him by the money order and savings bank systems, and his new salary would be fixed with reference to the whole amount of duty which he had to discharge. To show how continually this process of revision had been going on, he had been informed that the salaries of thirty of these 800 Postmasters had been revised since the commencement of the present year. Of course, in revising the salary of a Postmaster, it was necessary to consider whether the duties discharged by him in person had been increased or not. As regarded one-half of these 800 Postmasters, the work of their offices was done by clerks who were paid directly by the Post Office, and of course, if there was additional work to be done, it was provided for by increasing the number of clerks. They were the masters of the more important Post Offices in the country, men enjoying good salaries, and also receiving considerable, in some instances, very large sums indeed, as commission or poundage on the sale of stamps. The only class of Postmasters to whom the proposition of the hon. Gentleman could apply, so far at least as it implied that something had not been done that ought to have been done, were the other 400 masters of the minor head offices, whose salaries were small, and who had to do their work themselves, just as the Postmasters of the sub-offices had, and whose salaries had been fixed originally without reference to the increased duties which had devolved upon them since the establishment of the savings banks. In many of these offices, however, the extra business which had up to the present time fallen upon the Postmasters was very trifling, and all that they could claim would be an addition to their salaries at the rate of £5 for every thousand transactions. The addition which had been made to the salaries which had been revised had been at a higher rate than that. In case of a revision, it was sought to fix the salary with reference to the business which might be expected to fall upon the office within a reasonable time, and consequently the present addition was generally rather larger than was received by those whose extra remuneration was calculated according to the number of transactions. He did not say that the proposition of the hon. Gentleman was other than a reasonable one, but he assured the House that the Post Office were now acting upon it as far as they could.

said, he was glad the subject had been brought forward, as it appeared to him the Postmasters in several instances were not sufficiently remunerated. He wished also to call attention to the inconvenience and delay which were often experienced in Post Offices where there was only one clerk to perform all the duties of the office, and expressed a hope that such a state of things would be remedied.

said, he wished to ask for an explanation of the remarkable statement which had been made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets that there had been a loss of £60,000 upon the investment of the funds of the Post Office savings banks, which did not appear in the account. If that was the case there must have been gross mismanagement. The Government only paid 2½ per cent, and they were receiving interest at the rate of 3½ per cent. The money might, in his opinion, be so invested as to pay 10 per cent. It might be the theory that whenever work was increased an addition was made to the number of clerks employed; but such had not been the case in the Post Office with which he was best acquainted. He thought that as the Government had made a considerable profit upon the deposits invested in savings bunks, they might make a more liberal allowance to the Postmasters who had to conduct the business. He hoped the hon. Member would persevere with his Motion.

said, that although the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) did not exactly make his mouth water, he certainly greatly astonished him when lie talked of investing the money deposited in the Post Office savings banks so as to earn 10 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman could realize what he had promised, he believed that he should be quite safe in asking the House to grant him a sum of money in acknowledgment of so great a public service. When these Post Office savings banks were established, the Government cer- tainly held out the hope that they would be self-supporting; and he was bound to say that if the facts were before the House he believed he could show that no such egregious error had been committed as was supposed by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton.) He would not, however, venture to state upon his own responsibility that the House could safely assume the existence of the surplus to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cave) who introduced the Motion had referred. If the process which he had recommended was to go on, some inroad might be made upon that surplus. The fact was, the system was so novel and so complex that it was as yet impossible to ascertain the precise nature of its results. If or, indeed, ought the existence or non-existence of a surplus to have an appreciable effect upon this discussion; because, in considering how such a surplus should be disposed of, the first question would be whether the Government could not increase the rate of interest to the depositors. He could hardly imagine that there was among the depositors in these banks such discontent as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets—who had indulged his old grudge against them by having a kick at them that night—had described. The effect of discontent would, he should imagine, be to diminish the number of depositors; but the fact was, that they were continually and incessantly increasing. He did not suppose that the hon. Gentleman opposite intended to take the opinion of the House upon this abstract proposition, to which, as an abstract proposition, no one could refuse his assent, especially as it had been shown by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Peel) that it was the great desire of the Post Office to act upon the principle which he desired to affirm. No less than 2,200 Postmasters were paid according to the amount of work which they performed; and the cases of those Postmasters who were not so paid, and on whom any additional duties were imposed, were undergoing constant revision. The cases in which extra work might have been imposed upon Postmasters to whom no extra remuneration had been given were those in which they received salaries, and the work was done by clerks paid by the Post Office. The only method in which those cases could be dealt with was by a revision general in principle, and applied to each case in succession. Though he quite concurred in the prin- ciple of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member, he believed that even the hon. Member himself would acknowledge that it was not possible to inaugurate any wholesale and sweeping change in the present system.

Sir, I hope the House will not lend an indifferent ear to the short statement which I have to make tonight, under the impression that the subject is one simply of local interest. I can assure the House it is one of general, and so far as England is concerned one of universal interest, for it concerns every Board of Guardians in the kingdom. The House will agree with me that it is important there should be a clear understanding as to the relative duties of the Central Board and the Boards of Guardians throughout the country; for unless there is that clear understanding there is necessarily a chance of great confusion in the public business, and great neglect occasionally of the public interests. In the case I am about to bring before the House there appears to have been considerable and injurious neglect. I cannot pretend that I have not myself formed an opinion as to what body that neglect is to be attributed; but I will say to those representing the Poor Law Board to-night that, so far as I am concerned, I bring this question before them in a spirit of candour, in order to give them an opportunity of entering into explanations which may remove a strong sense of discontent and indignation now existing in a considerable district; and if the explanation is satisfactory I shall not hesitate to admit that it is so. The Wycombe Union consists of thirty parishes in the southern part of the county of Buckingham, and contains a population exceeding 35,000. The union house, which is a new structure, built within a few years from the design of Mr. Scott, is at Sanderton, and about six or seven miles from this union house, at a place called Bledlow, there is the union school. Within two or three years a person named Harold Stallwood was appointed master, and his wife matron, of the union school at Bledlow. He was apparently a man well qualified for the post, of fair fame, very good talent, and considerable experience in connection with the administration of the Poor Law, because he had been a relieving officer in one of the districts of the county before this appointment. Although there was this distance between the union house (the central point of the union) and the union schools, I am bound to say there has been, as far as I can form an opinion, a satisfactory system of visiting and inspecting the schools. There was a system of periodical and continuous visiting by committees of the Board of Guardians; and also, which is of importance, the schools at Bledlow had been frequently and constantly visited by the Poor Law Commissioner of the district. At Bledlow, besides these union schools, there had been an industrial school, which rendered the frequent attendance of the Commissioner necessary. He was a man by education and position fitted for and active and zealous in the discharge of his duties. I mention this, because, as the House will see, under his inspection, which gave general satisfaction to the community, occurrences happened which were hardly to be expected under a system of efficient inspection but, at the same time, I am bound to express my opinion that no blame is to be imputed on the score of neglect either to the guardians or to the Poor Law Inspector. We all know that in much higher places than union schools, or institutions of that kind, very often practices come to light highly to be reprobated, but which have continued for a long term of years under critical and conscientious administrations. We know also that crime in authority has great advantages for securing secresy. First of all, a kind of terror is exercised over subordinates, and that, accompanied by ingenuity, will baffle the otherwise disinterested vigilance of those who, under ordinary circumstances, might discover the offence. At the beginning of the year a rumour reached the guardians of the Wycombe Union (who on the whole possess the general confidence of the district), that an act of great barbarity had been practised at the school at Bledlow—that a boy had been punished in a manner which no circumstances could justify. So strong was the feeling of the mother of the boy who was herself an inmate of the union house at Sanderton—she became so alarmed by this rumour—that she absolutely claimed her discharge from the union house, and went to Bledlow to ascertain the truth for herself. She there learned enough to induce her to claim an audience of the chairman and some of the chief guardians; and the result was that a general meeting of the guardians was called at the school at Bledlow. There in the course of forty-eight hours they were all assembled. The question of the punishment of this boy was investigated. The evidence also of several of his companions who had been treated with extraordinary cruelty was taken from their own mouths. It came out in the examination that these severe punishments on the part of the master were rather, it seemed, produced by a desire to establish a system of terror than from any abstract practice of cruelty. It appeared that the boys had heard rumours of indecent conduct of the master with female pauper pupils in the institution, who, of course, were mainly under the direction of the matron. The boys had heard of these things and talked of them among themselves; and the master had recourse to these severe punishments, which were of an outrageous character—threatening even the lives of the boys by holding a knife to their throats and menaces of that kind—evidently for the purpose of by terror suppressing the conversation of the boys, and not from any habitual cruelty on his part. This led to a further examination. It was necessary to examine the girls. That was done on the 13th of February, when a great deal of evidence was taken showing that a system of profligacy of a very heartless and heinous description had been practised for a long time by the master of the school. It is not necessary to go into details because there is no controversy between the Board of Guardians and the Poor Law Board as to the nature and character of this offence of the master. It is agreed that his conduct was most profligate and indefensible. The guardians passed that day in taking evidence. The evidence taken cannot be called ex-parte, because Stallwood was present, and he was permitted to make observations if he pleased; but generally speaking he kept a strict silence, and merely denied the whole affair, saying that the boys were telling lies, so that what fell from him threw no light on the subject. The guardians were of opinion, after consultation, that the evidence should be forwarded immediately to the Central Board in London, who should be asked to send down some person to investigate the matter. I am perfectly willing to admit that it would have been better if the Board of Guardians had acted on the moment with more decision; if, for example, they had said, "There is sufficient evidence of indecent assaults to bring this man before the magistrates and have him committed for trial." So far the thing might have been met immediately. But that is not a view of the case which can be urged by the Central Board in London. They never took that view. This, however, must be said for the Board of Guardians. All boards, we know, act with hesitation, and no board is so timid as a Board of Guardians, because, though intrusted with very great administrative duties, their absolute authority is very slight. In this very Board, though their affairs are administered with ability, and although generally they possess the respect of the community, it was not very long ago that a subordinate officer having behaved in an unjustifiable manner (not in a manner so heinous as the present case) was dismissed. In that case these very guardians received a severe reproof from the Central Board, and were told they had no authority to dismiss their subordinate officer. I am not mentioning that as any charge against the Central Board, whose legal authority must be obeyed; but the guardians remembering that, and acting perhaps with rather more hesitancy than they otherwise would, feeling that this affair at Bledlow was of a more extensive and deeper nature than it first appeared, and alarmed to find that all the subordinate officials were under the influence of the man Stallwood, an able man, and were disinclined to give information; feeling that the matter ought to be dealt with authoritatively, and that the evidence which was to be the basis of a criminal indictment should be precise and authentic, and that it would not be satisfactory to have it taken by a mere Board of Guardians, which could not administer an oath or conduct such an investigation with the acuteness and authority that were indispensable—influenced by these considerations, they were extremely anxious, and urged that a person of authority should be sent down from London to conduct the inquiry. They accordingly forwarded that evening, or the following morning, all the evidence which had been given, and earnestly urged the Central Board to take up the matter and institute an investigation. That letter was written on the 14th of February. No answer was ever received to that letter. This case, of course, created considerable excitement in the neighbourhood. Rumours spread, and the want of precise knowledge caused them to be exaggerated. The general effect produced was one of much alarm and disquietude. Guardians belonging to different villages, and frequenting different markets, were anxious to know whether any communication had been received from the Central Board in London in answer to the letter which had been sent up. Days flew over; a week elapsed; and on the 20th, which would be the next meeting of the guardians at Sanderton, they had the mortification of finding that they had no answer. A letter, however, awaited them from the schoolmaster, Stallwood, whose conduct had been so much impugned, and who was placed in so remarkable a position; and this letter was a resignation of his office on the plea of the illness of his wife, and contained a request that the guardians would give him a general certificate of good conduct. Well, the guardians were in a very embarrassing position. A week had elapsed without any answer being received from London, and they felt at last that they must act. They had the man called in and informed him that they could not accept his resignation, but they suspended him from his office. They then wrote up to London within an hour, sent to the Poor Law Board the schoolmaster's letter of resignation, and announced the course they had taken in suspending him from his office. That letter must have been written on the 20th, but no answer wa3 received to the urgent communication from the Board of Guardians on the 14th, or to the letter of the 20th. Besides suspending the schoolmaster from his office, the guardians, as it was necessary to make provision for carrying on the schools, appointed a committee of their body for the purpose. The committee made arrangements to visit Bledlow daily, to report to the union house how affairs were going on, make temporary arrangements for conducting the school, and, of course, report to the Board of Guardians at their next meeting, which would be on the 27th. During this period the guardians received no answer to their letters. But at last the Poor Law Board sent down the Poor Law Inspector of the district, a gentleman of the name of Cane, but he did not apply to the guardians, he did not apply to a portion of them, he did not even go to the usual place where they met—the union house at Sanderton, but he went to Bledlow, and there on his own authority, directed the schoolmaster and his wife, the matron, to send their immediate, written, and unconditional resignation of their offices to him. A meeting of the guardians, whether casually or by arrangement, had taken place to make arrangements for temporarily carrying on the educational establishments—both the industrial school and the union schools. Mr. Cane told them that the affair was finished, that the resignation being complete and unconditional, the places of the schoolmaster and matron were vacant, that the guardians had no further authority over the individuals; and that all that they had to do was to accept the resignations on his advice and responsibility, and to make temporary arrangements. I do not know what were the motives of the Poor Law Inspector, but of course I sincerely give him credit for the best motives. The best motives, however, in point of feeling, may be most erroneous in point of policy. I do not understand that the case of Mr. Cane was an exception to that principle. It was possible Mr. Cane might have thought, "This is a grave scandal; an investigation into these circumstances, as suggested by the guardians of the Wycombe Union, will lead to evidence most offensive to the public taste and to public morality; we shall have details of a very disgusting character; and the best thing, therefore, I can do is to hush it up." He may have been—he probably was—influenced by that feeling. Now, hushing up a private scandal may be an act of wisdom or of charity, and an act of charity is generally an act of wisdom. But when you come to a public scandal, it is a very different thing. Generally it is not wise to hush up a public scandal. It is more than a questionable, nay, it is a foolish act, because in the nature of things, enough always is known in a public scandal to attract great public attention, and unless matters are investigated they assume, in the imagination of the public, larger and more horrid features than they really possess. Nothing can be more inconvenient, nothing more distressing in any society, especially in society of the innocent character which generally pervades a quiet rural district, than an investigation into such charges as I have intimated, charges of gross immorality to be spread about in every village in the union. But, in order to avoid such consequences and such inconvenience, and, in a certain sense, the injuries of such a course, would you lay it down as a principle that a criminal is to be left with impunity because the proof of his crime may produce indelicate and distressing details in the society which he has outraged? It seems to me quite impossible to sustain such a position. Then where are you to stop? where draw the line? When the investigation involves details that are contra bonos mores are you to say that these crimes, the most offensive to society, shall be treated with impunity? If Mr. Cane was influenced by a wish to hush up the matter, though I give him credit for amiability of feeling, I I do not think it is a course which ought to be approved of by the superiors of the Department, or by the authority of this House. It may be said that these peculiar cases, though capable of moral proof, are not always capable of that legal proof which is necessary to obtain a conviction. For instance, there can be no doubt in the present case that this schoolmaster had treated many of the boys with barbarity, and inflicted on them punishment which no circumstances could justify. But then an ingenious advocate in a court might appeal to a jury and dilate on the wholesome severity which is the privilege of a pedagogue, and he might so confound the witnesses and so mystify facts as to obtain the verdict of the jury in fa-favour of his client on that point. Then, again, in the more heinous part of the case, it might be shown where you depend on evidence, and that evidence given by young people, and uneducated people, and people unused to all the pomp and circumstance of public courts, that if there was not consent there was no resistance, and that no resistance involved consent, and though it might appear a very bad case it would be very doubtful whether it could be proved to the satisfaction of a jury; and on that ground Mr. Cane might have considered it best to have nothing to do with criminal justice, but to take the course he did. But then, how does the Central Board—for I do not wish to fix personal responsibility on Mr. Cane—justify their conduct in acting contrary to the wishes of the Board of Guardians by recommending the resignation of the schoolmaster and his wife? I must call attention to the peculiar consequences of the resignation of office under these circum- stances. By the Poor Law the power of the Board of Guardians is so limited that they have not even the power of dismissing their subordinate officers. The Board of Guardians could not dismiss a schoolmaster. The House must also remember this, that there is a provision in the Poor Law Act to the effect that any person once in the employ of the Poor Law Board, and who has been dismissed, should never, under any circumstances, be employed by the Poor Law authorities again. The Board of Guardians were most anxious that the resignation of this man should not be accepted, because the moment he resigned his office there was not the slightest reason whatever that he should not be a candidate for office in another union, as soon as the circumstances that had happened had been forgotten, or in a place where they were not known. The central authority, by not only recommending, but by sanctioning and proposing the resignation of this person, absolutely screened him from the only penalties he would incur if he were not prosecuted for his heinous conduct, and sent him forth to the world without the slightest stain on his character. The Board met for the third time on the 27th February, with two important duties to discharge. In the interval a new charge had been made against the schoolmaster. A young woman, Ann Allen, who was about to leave the union house at Sanderton, when making her farewell visit to the master and matron communicated to them that she was in the family way, and that the father of her impending child was the schoolmaster—that she had been a pauper pupil some years of her life in that school; that he had seduced her there; that he had retained his connection with her, and that she had often visited him at the school. This was a case aggravating the offence of the man. The evidence was taken down, and it was determined to send it to the Central Board, from whom the guardians had not yet received a single letter. They had then to receive a report from their committee, and that committee informed the Board that the master and matron had resigned; that their resignation had been accepted by the central authority, that their places were vacant, and that they were no longer under the authority of the Board of Guardians. The Board of Guardians refused to confirm the report of the committee, who had no right whatever to accept any resignation, and they addressed to the Central Board a statement of the case of Ann Allen, accompanied by a remonstrance, pointing out the effect of the acceptance of the schoolmaster's resignation, and an earnest appeal for an answer to their various letters, and some instructions as to the course which they were to pursue in this difficult business. At last they received an answer dated "Poor Law Board, Whitehall, March 4"—

"I am directed by the Poor Law Board to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th ult., forwarding a copy of a resolution passed by the guardians of the Wycombe Union, at a meeting held on that day in reference to the resignation of Mr. and Mrs. Stallwood, the master and matron of the school, together with a copy of the evidence taken by the guardians in reference to his conduct towards Ann Allen, formerly an inmate of the school. The Board have also received your previous letters of the 14th and 20th."

This was how the business of the Board was transacted—

"In reference to the charges against Mr. Stallwood, I am directed to state that the Board have received a report from the Inspector, Mr. Cane, from which it appears that the master resigned his office unconditionally, and that Mrs. Stallwood resigned at the same time. Under these circumstances the Board direct me to point out that the acceptance of Mr. Stallwood's resignation by the guardians is not necessary to give effect to that resignation and as Mr. Stallwood is no longer responsible as an officer either to the guardians or this board, and that the Board can take no steps with regard to his alleged misconduct."

What other interpretation could a body of well-meaning, honest men, used to the duties of their rural office, give to this letter, but that after all that had occurred they were now apprised by the central authority that there were no means whatever of obtaining redress for the great injuries which the society to which they belonged had sustained from this individual. I need hardly call upon the House to frame in their minds some opinion as to what must be the effect in a large rural district, containing upwards of 35,000 inhabitants, among every portion of which this story, in the course of a month, must circulate. The House can easily conceive what effect would be produced in such a society as I have described, by whom this affair had been discussed at fairs, markets, and all other public resorts. The feeling was naturally one of great indignation; they felt that they had no redress for the outrages they had suffiered. I do not believe that so much feeling had for a considerable period been excited in that part of the world. Any one would have supposed that the business had terminated with the letter from which I have just read an extract; but the matter was mentioned in this House, and the Board of Guardians expressed by resolution their dissatisfaction with the communication which they had received from the central authorities, stating that they looked upon it as "altogether unsatisfactory," and informing the Poor Law Board that they should consult their representatives and take their advice as to the course they ought to pursue. And, certainly, I do not see why men should have Members of Parliament, or why we were elected to represent the interests and feelings of the community, if such things as this can take place with impunity, and not be mentioned in this House. Rather more than a week after the date of the letter to which I have already referred, the guardians received another communication from the Poor Law Board. It was addressed to the clerk of the guardians, and was dated October, but there could be no doubt that that was a mistake for March 15. It was written, by the way, as if there had never been any communication between them on the subject. Referring to the misconduct of the late master, it called the attention of the guardians to the 93rd section of the 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 76, which provided that if any master or any other workhouse official should in any way abuse or ill-treat or be guilty of any other misbehaviour, or otherwise misconduct himself towards or with respect to any poor person in such workhouse, he might be brought before a magistrate, and if the offence was proved might be fined £20. Then, attention was called to an Act of the Queen, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 59, which provided that it should be lawful for the Board of Guardians to pay out of the funds in their hands for the apprehension and prosecution of any officer charged with the maltreatment or abuse of any poor person. And the guardians were told that it was for them to decide whether they could produce sufficient evidence to secure a conviction, and that if they found it necessary they might offer a reward for the apprehension of the accused. The letter was signed "R. B. Cane, Poor Law Inspector." Those are the facts of the case; and the general feeling which they have produced is such as I have described; but the House will not be surprised to hear that a portion of the general discontent and indignation has naturally, though undeservedly, been visited upon the guardians of Wycombe Union—a fact which has made them still more anxious that the matter should be brought before this House. What they complain of is, first of all, that their letters of the 14th and 21st of February, when they first sent up the evidence, were never noticed at all; secondly, they complain that the Poor Law Inspector, without conferring with the clerk or any of the guardians, went down to the school and forced the resignation—no not "forced," for the man, I dare say, was happy enough to give it—occasioned the resignation of Stallwood and his wife. Thirdly, that they informed the guardians in the letter of the 4th of March that no proceedings could be taken in the matter, and then by the letter of the 15th informed them that they might prosecute, and, if necessary, offer a reward for his apprehension, which certainly was very necessary, because the House will be prepared to hear that long ago Stallwood had absconded. He had watched the course of events no doubt with great interest, and for a long time thought he should be able to baffle both guardians and Commissioners. But after the case of Ann Allen came out he thought that, on the whole, it would be the wisest thing to abscond. If no further proceedings are taken he may some years hence, when the evidence is almost forgotten and the witnesses scattered, return to the neighbourhood without a stain on his character. He could say that, when a public officer, he had tendered his resignation to the authorities, who courteously accepted it; and he might become again a relieving officer or perhaps a schoolmaster. Fourthly, they complain of the conduct of the Poor Law Board, because through their mysterious silence and neglect in not giving them the slightest information or advice till a month had elapsed, and the chief offender had disappeared, the Board of Guardians has itself been accused, certainly undeservedly, of neglecting the interests of the pauper children. This is the case which from a sense of duty I have brought before the House. I shall listen with interest to any explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, for it does appear to me to be a case which requires ample explanation at the least from Her Majesty's Government, and I shall be glad if my conclusions should prove to be unfounded. I have omitted to mention that on the 27th, when the Board of Guardians sent up the statement of Ann Allen, and protested against the conduct of the Poor Law Inspector in arranging the resignation of the schoolmaster, they also sent a letter, which was addressed to them by a pauper then in the house, and which shows how keen was the feeling among the humbler classes on the subject. This letter, written after consultation with the other paupers, the writer being the best penman among them, was as follows:—

"Gentlemen of this country; we poor paupers ask for justice on the part of our poor children. We should like to know why the master's conduct is not exposed to all the world. If we were to put a rope around a child's neck, or draw a knife across its throat, or if our little females were treated in an indecent manner—if we were to do acts of such brutality, we should be tried and punished. Is there the same law in this land for one as for another? Why are our feelings to be outraged? We appeal for justice. Your humble servant, William Hoare, a pauper in the house."

The wording may excite a smile, but that letter shows what is the feeling of the paupers themselves, and that feeling is shared also by the poorer inhabitants. I do not wish to bring before the House details which would be inconvenient and are not requisite, and I, therefore, only move for a copy of the letter of the Poor Law Board, signed by H. Fleming, Secretary, dated March 4, 1865.

said, he had nothing to complain of in the right hon. Gentleman's manner of bringing forward this case. He had done so with his usual clearness and courtesy, and if there had been any inaccuracies in his statement either of the law or the facts this was due, no doubt, to the instructions he had received. As he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) was totally unaware of what was going to be brought before the House, he was not prepared to meet all the details into which the right hon. Gentleman had gone. He had marshalled his facts for the purpose of producing a particular effect, but the question involved seemed to be one with respect to the particular powers conferred by the Legislature on the guardians and on the Poor Law Board respectively. The Legislature had provided for the protection of the inmates of workhouses, and for the removal of any person who might maltreat them; and the powers necessary to accomplish this object had been differently distributed—some being given to the Poor Law Board, and others to the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to find fault with the course which the central authorities took in not having acted up to their powers, and seemed to think that the guardians had been badly treated, that great scandal had been produced, and that there had been some miscarriage of justice. It did not appear to him that the law required any communication from a Local Board of Guardians to the Central Board before it could inquire into the conduct of any of its officers; but a communication had been made by the guardians of this union to the Central Board concerning certain irregular proceedings that had taken place at this district workhouse school. This was the course usually followed by the guardians if they had a complaint against their officers, and the course prescribed to the Central Board was to inquire into the truth of this matter. The usual course was followed in this case—namely, the papers forwarded to the Central Board were immediately transmitted to the Inspector of the district, and he was instructed to ascertain whether the charges were well founded. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the papers were sent on the 14th; but they were received, he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) had been informed, on the 16th, and on that day they were transmitted to the Inspector, whom they reached on the 17th. The Inspector was at that time engaged in other business connected with his office; but, however, he lost not a moment, but proceeded as soon as possible to the spot, which he reached on the 21st, and did that which was daily done by Inspectors. He called upon the man charged to appear before him, stated the communications which had reached the Central Board, and informed him that he had been appointed to inquire into the facts of the case. The man was told that an investigation would take place, and that his course would be either to appear before the Board, examine witnesses, and make what defence he could, or state what he could in extenuation, or to admit his guilt, and immediately resign his situation. The course pursued by the Inspector was precisely that which the law prescribed, for by the 46th section 4 & 5 Will. IV., the Central Board were directed to appoint competent persons for the administration of relief, &c., to the poor, and it was further enacted that the Board was empowered, upon the complaint of the guardians, to order and direct a competent and tit person to proceed to the place at which the alleged offence was committed, to make inquiry. The Central Board was also empowered to remove any master or officer whom they should deem unfit to discharge the duties of his office. Such was the limited duty of the Central Board. They were directed to see that no unfit or incompetent person should remain in any office; and therefore when a person was charged with misbehaviour they might cither call upon him to submit to an inquiry or to resign. But with respect to the punishment of guilty persons, the law had provided that that matter should be in the power of the guardians. If anybody misbehaved in any way the Legislature had distinctly provided that the proceedings to be instituted with a view to the infliction of punishment should be in the hands of the guardians. The right hon. Gentleman had made light of that provision, but it seemed somewhat important in the consideration of this case. The 93rd section of 4 & 5 Will. IV. distinctly provided that any officer who might have in any way misconducted himself might be taken before two justices, and upon conviction fined in a sum not exceeding £20, or in default committed to prison for a term not exceeding six calendar months. If the right hon. Gentleman knew as much of guardians as persons who were brought into daily contact with them, he would know that an inducement to proceed against offenders was held out to them by a provision which laid it down that it should be lawful for any Board of Guardians to pay out of the funds in their hands all costs for the apprehension and prosecution of any person who might be charged with misbehaviour or misconduct. A distinct provision was made in 7 & 8 Vict. for costs under such circumstances. Well, then, what had happened in this matter? The Inspector having proceeded to the spot found there a Committee of the Board, of Guardians appointed to make arrangements for the superintendence of the school in consequence of the suspen- sion of the master. They communicated with the Inspector, who informed them of what had been done, and that he had been instructed at once to proceed in the matter. The Committee, who had been appointed by the whole body of the guardians, were extremely glad to accept his services, and conferred with him for some time. The Inspector then went out and communicated with the master. He returned in a short time and informed the Committee that the master had tendered the resignation of his office unconditionally and absolutely. The Committee made no objection to that course, and the Inspector left on the same day, believing that he had done what the Committee wished and all that he had been deputed to do. The man had resigned; he had been told to quit the place without delay; a new master might be appointed, and the guardians had it in their power to punish the offender if they pleased. He would read a letter which the Inspector had written to the Poor Law Board to inform them of the mode in which he had executed his task. [Mr. DISRAELI: What is the date?] He presumed it was the 21st of February—it might have been a day or so after. The right hon. Gentleman then read the Inspector's letter, which stated that he had received the master's resignation, that he had advised the Committee as to what further was required to be done, and that he was not aware that it was the practice of the Board to take any steps under such circumstances. Some time afterwards, when a question was put in the House, he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) inquired as to the nature of the offences, and why the matter had been left in the state it then was. The Inspector gave an explanation which appeared plausible, if not conclusive. He said—

"I have had great experience in examining painful cases of this kind in which children are concerned, and I have frequently had reason to doubt their veracity. Not that their intention is to deceive me, but they are brought out of the ward of a workhouse, they know what they are expected to say, and I am aware of nothing which is more shocking than the disgusting details which are given by those children. I avoid, therefore, entering on such investigations when it is possible."

But there was another reason. The nature of the charge made it a fit subject for criminal proceedings. The schoolmaster was charged with an assault upon certain children, and what was the position of the Inspector under such circumstances? The guardians supposed that the Poor Law Board would proceed almost judicially, not only in hearing the case, but in passing judgment and inflicting punishment. The Inspector, no doubt, had the power of taking evidence, and the witnesses were sworn; but the doubt was how far the Inspector was entitled to put the schoolmaster on his oath and take evidence which might be used against him at the next assizes. Most persons would say that was an improper thing to do, and it was certainly inconsistent with the general principle of law in this country. The Inspector was, therefore, obliged to use his power very carefully, and the inquiry was, in fact, rather an irregular proceeding, instituted in order that the Central Board might know whether they were called upon to act, and whether the officer ought to be called upon to resign. He wished to request the attention of the right hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Disraeli) to the position of the Inspector in the present case. He obtained the resignation of the officer, and he left it open to the guardians to proceed in the regular way in making out the charge which they said they had evidence to establish. There was, he thought, no ground for complaining of any tardiness on the part of the Poor Law Board in its communications with the guardians. They were fully aware of the state of the law and of their power under it, and were somewhat offended with the Inspector for unnecessarily reminding them of it. The wonder was not so much that the Central Board did not act more promptly, as that the guardians did not exercise their powers. They had not the slightest doubt that they possessed the power of proceeding. The question was still asked why they did not even now proceed criminally against this person for the offence with which he was charged. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to wish the House to believe that it was in consequence of the shortcomings of the Central Board and the course taken by the Inspector that justice was not satisfied, and he intimated that this man might some day or other again fill some situation under the Poor Law Board. That, however, would be impossible. The man had not absconded. He believed it was known where he might be found, and it was clear that the guardians might offer a reward for his apprehension and proceed against him. But with regard to his future employment, a record was kept at the Poor Law Board of the resignation or discharge of any officer. The charge against him, his resignation, and the circumstances under which it was offered, were all recorded in the books of the Board. He could not be appointed without the sanction of the Board, and they would not give that sanction without a reference to their books. He confessed he did not know precisely what the guardians had to complain of. They were of opinion, no doubt, that there might have been a communication made to them immediately; but the Board thought it would be much more satisfactory to send the papers and instructions at once to the Inspector. He went down immediately to the spot. He received the letter on the 17th of February, and he was upon the spot on the 21st of February. The right hon. Gentleman would have the House believe that between the 14th of February and the 4th of March no communication from the Poor Law Board was received by the Board of Guardians or their clerk. That could hardly be the case if the Inspector was on the spot by the 21st of February, and in communication with the Committee who carried the resignation to the rest of the Board of Guardians. He did not see that, under those circumstances, the guardians had any reason to complain of any want of consideration or punctuality. He would not pretend to say that the Inspector had taken the very best course, because it would perhaps have been better if he had left the guardians to take proceedings against the schoolmaster before a court of justice. But the Inspector was a most honourable, intelligent, and experienced man, and had acted from the very best motives. There was something like unfairness in imputing to the Inspector a desire to "hush up" the matter. This was rather an odious imputation, and implied complicity. But nothing the Inspector did evinced any intention to hush up the matter. He had no acquaintance with the schoolmaster, he had no quarrel with the guardians, and he had no possible connection with the place or with any person that should lead him to deviate from the practice pursued by himself and the other Inspectors in similar cases. It could not be said that he hushed up the matter when he forced the officer to resign, and told the guardians they might proceed against him either at the assizes or before the justices. He trusted that after this explanation the right hon. Gentleman would be of opinion that there had been no neglect on the part of the Board, nor any misconduct on the part of the Inspector in the course he had pursued in this matter.

said, that he objected to several of the items in this Vote, on the ground that they ought to be included in the Army Estimates, instead of the Estimates for the Civil Service. Not only were they asked for money for the maintenance and repair of the Chelsea Hospital and the Tower of London, both military charges, but the rents of the Army Medical Inspection office—Delahay Street and Delahay Mews—were also charged under the Vote, in addition to which there were large sums charged for the rent of the War Office. He regretted to find that a practice had sprung up within the last few years of charging the public with rent on buildings which were practically Crown property. He should also be glad to know why the Geological Museum, in Jermyn Street, was not included in the Vote this year? He wished to know why these items were omitted, and whether they appeared in any other Vote?

said, it had been the desire of the Government to place the various expenses of each Department, as far as possible, together in the same Estimate. The item for the Geological Museum had, therefore, been transferred to the Science and Art Department, and also the items for the furniture of the museums. With respect to the Tower of London, the portion for the expenses of which a sum was asked in this Vote did not come under the control of the military department, but, being a portion of an ancient palace, was managed by the Office of Works. With regard to Chelsea Hospital, although it was in one sense a military establishment, it had always been treated differently from such purely military buildings as barracks. The building was occupied by the Commissioners of Chelsea, and the cost of repairs came properly under this Vote.

rose to put two questions to the First Commissioner of Works. At present persons wishing to pass from Bayswater to Knightsbridge were compelled to do so by traversing three sides of a square, and he thought that an alteration might be made which would greatly conduce to the public convenience. He fully appreciated the beauty and the charms of Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park, but he believed that a sunken road might be made from Bayswater along the eastern side of Kensington Gardens, and carried on by a widening of the existing bridge over the Serpentine, and then be continued under Rotten Row to Knightsbridge. Such a road might be made without causing inconvenience or creating an eyesore. With regard to the second question, he would observe that equestrian exercise had now become so general, and especially with ladies, that it might be termed an English institution. It appeared to him that the ride might very easily be continued from Rotten Row round Kensington Gardens without at all interfering with the public enjoyment of those beautiful gardens. He was fully aware of how much the public was indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the improvements he had made in the parks, and for the manner in which they were kept. He believed that no capital in Europe could boast such beautiful public gardens as we possessed. He would, therefore, ask the First Commissioner of Works to consider whether it was practicable and desirable to make a cart and carriage communication from Victoria or Buckhill Gate, Bayswater, to Knightsbridge, by means of a sunken road, the bridge over the Serpentine being widened, and a tunnel under Rotten Row, and to ascertain at what expense it could be done; and, whether it would be desirable to prolong Rotten Row, so as to form a road for riding all round the exterior of Kensington Gardens, like that lately made in Birdcage Walk.

said, he thought that the Committee were bound to give the right hon. Gentleman credit for the admirable way in which the parks were kept. He hoped, however, that the general acknowledgment of that fact would not stimulate him to expend more money upon them, £30,000 was, after all, a good sum to pay for keeping up St. James's Park, the Green Park, Hyde Park, and Kensington Gardens.

said, he hoped that well-intentioned suggestions would not induce the right hon. Gentleman to destroy the real charm of the public parks. Those who lived in the metropolis must pay some price for the enjoyment of the parks. Either they must be kept as places of recreation, or they must be cut up for roads for the public convenience. The right hon. Gentleman ought to exercise the greatest jealousy with reference to all proposals for increasing the traffic across the parks. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would steadfastly adhere to his principle of preserving a great portion of the metropolis for the purpose of promoting the public health as well as for recreation. He (Mr. Powell) was glad to find that the parks were becoming year by year the resort of working men and their children, as well as of the higher and more educated classes, who some years since might be said to be the exclusive visitors of them. He felt bound to pay his tribute of admiration to the right hon. Gentleman for the improvements he had effected in those parks. He hoped, however, that those improvements would not be carried to an extreme by any attempt to give them the character of gardens instead of parks.

said, he thought that a sunken road from Bayswater to Knightsbridge, across Hyde Park, might be made, which would be a great convenience especially to the residents at those places, and which would not in the slightest degree interfere with the objects to which the parks were primarily dedicated. The right hon. Gentleman deserved the greatest credit for the care which he took of the parks. It seemed to him that the House had become a great deal too fond of cutting down the expenditure upon the metropolis. Now, although they need not imitate the immoderate expenditure upon parks they ought not to allow themselves to be influenced by that parsimonious feeling which had been creeping in of late years. People who came to London from all parts shared in the enjoyment of these parks, and it was an object, therefore, to which the country at large ought to contribute.

said, he did not deny that the parks were very tastefully kept, but thought that every Member not actually connected with the metropolis ought to look with the greatest jealousy at this expenditure, and he should like to have an explanation of the circumstances under which they appeared on the Votes. Five additional parks had "cropped up" of late years. Battersea Park was one of them. It was understood that its expenses would be paid by the inhabitants and out of some fund mentioned at the time it was opened. Kennington and Victoria were also now parks. No doubt the arrangement and management of them all were admirable, but he wished to know how much each contributed to the Treasury.

said, he thought that a great reason for the expensiveness of these parks was the ornamental gardening, A large garden establishment, with hothouses and expensive plants of all kinds, had recently been commenced at Battersea Park, the cost of which had increased upwards of £2,000 this year. It would be well if the Treasury would put a check on the exuberant fancy of the right hon. Gentleman. He should like to have an explanation of the Ranger's Department, as distinguished from that of the Board of Works. If a Ranger were not needed for Kensington Gardens, what did Hyde Park or St. James's Park want with one?

said, the Committee might at all events rest satisfied that sufficient money would be expended upon those parks so long as the metropolis was represented by such able Gentlemen as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lewis). It appeared by a foot-note in the Votes that the income derivable last year from the Royal parks and gardens, and which was paid into the Consolidated Fund, was £3,584 odd. Now a whole crop of parks had lately burst upon us. He wished to know how many of them contributed towards the amount of income to which he had referred.

said, he agreed with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney) that it would be very desirable to enable carts and omnibuses as well as cabs to go across from Bayswater to Kensington during the day and night, provided that object could be attained without any sacrifice of the pleasure and enjoyment of the parks. The matter was thoroughly discussed in 1862—the Exhibition year—when it was proposed to make a sunken road across Kensington Gardens, and strong objections were urged against making a gash, as it was called, across Kensington Gardens. The reception which the proposal met with was not an encouragement to repeat it. That scheme, however, was much less objectionable than that now proposed by the hon. Baronet, which was to have two tunnels or sunken roads, one on each side of the bridge. One would have to pass under Rotten Row, and would make a disagreeable feature in that part of the park. His hon. Friend had pointed out the disadvantage to which Rotten Row was exposed by not leading anywhere; and, no doubt, it would be very desirable if Rotten Row could be prolonged round the outskirts of Kensington Gardens. It had been considered, and was feasible, but he was not prepared to do anything at present. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Dunne) had studied the Estimates more carefully, he would have seen that there were no new parks. Battersea Park was fifteen years old. The expenses of making it were defrayed out of a loan of money made by the Public Works Commissioners, and would be repaid in the course of time. When the land set apart round the park for building purposes was built upon there would be an ample sum to repay the money advanced. The delay had arisen from the slowness of building operations in that part of the town, and perhaps also from the fact of there being a loll bridge there. He did not remember the date of Kennington Park, but certainly no new park had been made since he was in office. This was not an increasing Vote, and though it was slightly higher this year than last, it was lower than it had been in previous years. The expenses in the way of gardens and hothouses really formed a very small part proportionately of the whole expense. The great burden lay in the expense of maintaining the roads and watering them, and in keeping order by constables. There were seven miles of road in Hyde Park, and seventeen miles of walks. He was glad to find that the House was of opinion that the parks should be kept up in a perfect state. They were enjoyed by people coming from all parts of England, Ireland, and Scotland, they belonged to the Crown, were used by the nation, and ought to be worthy of the Empire. The £3,584 set down in the Estimates was the amount of receipts for grazing sheep in the parks. The grazing had the double advantage of improving the herbage and producing some revenue, and he must say that Battersea Park had contributed its full quota in that respect.

said, he wished to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the ornamental water in the Regent's Park smelt so badly in hot weather that it was injurious to the health of the neighbourhood.

said, that the £99,000 was all for the metropolis, with the exception of £2,000 for Holyrood Palace. There was nothing for Ireland in the Vote, though there was a magnificent park of between 6,000 and 7,000 acres in extent, close to Dublin, and though the Government were at this moment about to make a gross infringement on the public rights by handing over the Curragh of Kildare to the War Department.

said, he wished to know which of the metropolitan parks was self-supporting, and which of them contributed something towards the sum of £3,584 referred to.

said, that all the Royal parks contributed something to this amount, though not one of them was self-supporting, When they came to the Votes for Ireland it would be found that a sum would be taken for Phoenix Park.

said, they paid much more money than they got back.

said, that it would appear that none of the metropolitan parks were self-supporting, and that while some of them contributed a small sum towards their maintenance, the others were entirely kept up out of the public purse. He was glad to get the admission from his hon. Friend that they annually voted a large sum out of the public purse for the benefit of the metropolis. He hoped to live to see the day when there would be a successful resistance to this Vote.

said, he wished to ask for explanations on two or three points connected with this Vote; and first as to the clock tower, and the mode in which it was to be completed. Part of the original design was a large enclosed square between Westminster Hall and Bridge Street, and it was intended that the clock tower should form part of the block of buildings instead of rising from the ground independently. In consequence of the view of Westminster Abbey which was obtained from the open space in New Bridge Street it had been determined to depart from the original design of Sir Charles Barry, and have the clock tower springing from the ground instead of rising from a square, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) would give some explanation of the plans for the modification, and name the architect who was to carry it out. He considered, too, that plans of the proposed change should have been submitted to the view of hon. Members. The next question he wished to ask referred to the Peers' Robing Room and its decorations, especially, "Moses Coming Down from Mount Sinai," and the "Judgment of Daniel." He wished to know what was the arrangement between the Government and Mr. Herbert with respect to the "Judgment of Daniel." Had Mr. Herbert received full commission for the completion of the design? Were they in future years to have a painful controversy respecting the sum which should be paid to that most distinguished of modern artists? Had any negotiation been entered into with reference to the completion of the full design for the decoration of the Robing Room? Two other pictures having been planned by the artist, he wished to ascertain whether any arrangement had been made in reference to the entire execution of the comprehensive plan first conceived? Another question he wished to ask referred to the Royal Gallery—namely, whether Mr. Maclise's picture of the "Battle of Trafalgar" was nearly completed?

said, it would be in the recollection of the House that after the discussion last year respecting the remuneration of Mr. Herbert a Commission was appointed to consider the whole subject of remuneration for the wall paintings. That Commission recommended that the payment of Mr. Herbert for "Moses delivering the Law on Mount Sinai" should be raised to £5,000; and it also recommended that the agreements for those wall paintings should be cancelled, as they were inapplicable to present circumstances. The Government had acted on these recommendations, and were prepared to propose to Parliament the Vote now necessary in order to raise the payment for "Moses delivering the Law on Mount Sinai" to £5,000. They had asked Mr. Herbert what sum he should expect to receive for his next picture, "The Judgment of Daniel," and he named £4,000, which sum the Government were advised would be a proper one to give him; accordingly, an agreement had been entered into with Mr. Herbert for that amount. The design for this picture had been approved by the Fine Arts Commission, and was a fine composition, and there was every reason to hope that the next picture would equal the former in power, and expression, and impressiveness. Mr. Macliso had nearly finished his picture, and would shortly be entitled to receive payment, which was to be raised from £3,500, as it stood under the original agreement, to £5,000. The future paintings of Mr. Cope and Mr. Ward were to be raised by £100 each, according to the recommendation of the Fresco Commissioners, and each picture would in future be made the subject of a distinct agreement. The sum proposed for completing the clock tower and New Palace Yard was intended to be spent in this way:—The side of the clock tower which was now imperfect would have the same front as the sides towards Westminster Bridge and towards the river. It was proposed to take advantage of the higher level of the ground in Bridge Street to make a subway, by which Members proceeding from Palace Yard might escape the danger of the present passage, and reach the other side of the road without crossing the causeway. This subway would open into the station of the Metropolitan District Railway, which was proposed to be made on the other side of Bridge Street, so that persons coming to and from Westminster would be able to pass into and out of the station without crossing the road. With regard to the open space, he would not adopt the suggestion of Sir Charles Barry of converting New Palace Yard into a quadrangle. It was proposed not to erect any more buildings around New Palace Yard. He preferred the grand effect of combining New Palace Yard and Parliament Gardens in one large open square, laid out as a whole, and securing a good view of the Abbey. The whole extent of space would therefore remain open; but it was proposed to put an iron fence where the wooden one now was, to cover the sloping ground with green turf, and to plant it with trees, for trees would flourish there if they were of the proper sort and well taken care of. Some expense would be incurred in levelling Palace Yard. In another year the arrangements would be completed for laying out Parliament Square, he had not been able to include all that in the Estimates this year. The architect intrusted with these matters was Mr. Edward Barry, who had shown much of the talent and power of his father, and the Department had entire confidence in him. The hon. and learned Gentleman would see clearly what was to be done from what he had stated. He had no specific plan to exhibit; but the plan the Government proposed would be gladly shown to the hon. Member.

said, one question he had asked had not been fully answered, with regard to the pictures for the Peers' Robing Room. He had asked what arrangements were made with Mr. Herbert for the paintings to decorate that room, and whether the "Judgment of Daniel" was to be executed on the walls of the room, or on canvas, to be fixed after its execution.

said, the Fine Arts Commission had estimated for eight pictures, but Government were unwilling at present to commit themselves for that number. The last agreement was for the picture of "The Judgment of Daniel;" but the complete series would, of course, be painted by Mr. Herbert. He had prepared designs, and they had been approved by the Fine Arts Commission. Although, therefore, the Government had not asked the House to commit itself by the approval of a new agreement for many pictures, yet it was generally understood that there was no intention to deprive Mr. Herbert of what the Fine Arts Commission had committed to him—namely, the completion of that room, whenever Parliament provided the funds. "The Judgment of Daniel" was not to be executed in the room, but in Mr. Herbert's studio, on canvas, and to be placed on the wall when completed. This arrangement had been submitted to Sir Charles Eastlake, who entirely approved it.

said, he was glad to think there could now be no doubt as to the future intentions of the Government, that Mr. Herbert should have the opportunity of completing the other pictures pointed out by the Fine Arts Commission in the room in which he had already achieved such success.

said, he wished to ask, if the Government were determined not to allow a station on the Metropolitan Railway near the House of Commons? It had formerly been proposed to construct a railway close to the Houses of Parliament, but an objection, he understood, had been raised that it would interfere with the rights of the Crown. He wished to have some explanation upon this point?

said, he wished to know, if Mr. Herbert had abandoned fresco and adopted canvas?

said, that the room in the Lords where "The Judgment of Daniel" was to be placed required by the Peers, who could not give it up to enable Mr. Herbert to paint the wall; the only alternative therefore open to him was to paint on canvas and carry it into the room after being completed. Mr. Herbert, who was the best judge of what his pencil could execute, had told him that the new painting would exectly harmonize in colour, tone, light and general appearance with that now on the wall. The Government had not objected to the station of the Metropolitan Railway, but to the railway taking possession of the tunnel from Palace Yard. The station would be not in Palace Yard, as was proposed, but opposite the tower, on the other side of Bridge Street. The railway company had power to take the houses on the north side of Bridge Street, provided they obtained the assent of Government, and that assent would only be given on the condition that any houses which might be erected in lieu of those to be pulled down should be built in a style which would harmonize with the architecture of the Palace.

said, he wished to ask, whether the houses were to be built in the Gothic style?

said, that they would be in the Tudor, not in the Gothic style.

said, he wished for information as to the large sum asked for the housekeeping expenses of the Houses of Parliament, amounting to £22,761. There was a sum of £4,775 for gas, the greater part of which, he understood, was consumed in the private residences in the Palace. This appeared to be an enormous sum for the purpose, and he was desirous to know whether the amount of gas was accurately measured by proper persons appointed for the purpose, as he thought there must be great waste somewhere?

said, that the large amount of gas consumed had been already brought under his notice. Dr. Percy, under whose superintendence the Houses were lighted and warmed, had been making a careful measurement of the amount consumed, and they were rather surprised at the office to find how much gas was used in the private residences. The attention of the occupiers of the private residences had been called to the fact, and a considerable saving had already been effected. He had no doubt that next year they would be able to make a further reduction.

said, he wished to ask what amount had been expended in the restoration of St. Stephen's crypt. There was an entry of £2,055 only in the Votes for that purpose, but he understood that it had, in fact, cost £30,000.

said, that the chief expense connected with the crypt at present was incurred in lighting it with gas, and the gasburners would be expensive, as they were obliged to be in harmony with the rest of the structure. He could not say exactly what the restoration had cost, as it was included in contracts for the whole building; the stone work had been calcined in the fire, and had required to be renewed. He should say that a sum of £3,500 would cover the cost of the decoration in painting, marble, and in painted glass. The charge for painting and gilding was £630.

What is to be the use of this crypt?

It is a place of worship, and I presume it will be used as such.

said, he wished to draw attention to the letters which appeared in the Standard, from a former officer of the House, complaining of the state of the boilers, and the danger likely to ensue from the want of proper superintendence. There were four steam boilers, connected with the warming and ventilation of the House, immediately underneath where they were sitting. He wished to know whether they were under proper scientific superintendence. He might also say that the ventilation of the House was most unsatisfactory, it being alternately either too cold or too hot. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to direct the officers of the House to attend to the matter, and, while he was seeking to surround hon. Members with the fine arts, would not altogether forget their comforts. Hon. Members on the Government side of the House often suffered considerable personal inconvenience.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would attend to the health and convenience of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches as well as of those occupying seats on the Government side of the House. The fact was, there were frequent complaints as to the ventilation on both sides of the House; for from some mysterious cause between the hours of four and six in the afternoon many Members were in a state of semi-asphyxia. He believed it was owing to the imperfect state of the ventilation.

said, that the hon. Member need not have the slightest fear respecting the boilers, as Mr. Fairbairn had reported as to their entire safety, and had undertaken to keep them in order. He was sorry if the drowsiness of hon. Members were attributable to the ventilation, but everything possible should be done to supply pure air and to prevent hon. Members feeling any unpleasant effects from bad ventilation.

said, in answer to a question, that the buildings in Doctors' Commons stood in the way of the proposed new street from the Mansion House to Blackfriars, and would have to be pulled down. No expense would be immediately occasioned by pulling them down, because the Metropolitan Board of Works, which would purchase the property, would be bound to supply another registry, to which the deeds would be transferred until they could be removed together with the whole of the probate registers to one building in the proposed new courts of justice. Then the site of that registry would be for sale, when owing to the opening of the new street it would be more valuable.

said, he wished to ask whether the same style of architecture would be adopted for the enlargement as in the present building, and whether there would be adequate provision made against the casualty of fire?

said, that one complete design had been made of the whole building, and this Vote would enable one wing and also a tower to be completed. The reason for proceeding with the tower in preference to the other parts was because it would give them a reservoir for water, which would be available against any outbreak of fire in the buildings in Rolls Court.

said, that there were very large estates the funds arising from which were applicable to the building of Westminster Bridge, but those estates had been taken by the Government, and were now merged with the other estates under the management of the Office of Woods, and the present expenses of that bridge would far exceed anything which those estates would yield. The history of the new bridge illustrated the unfitness of Government for the execution of such works. The contractor having failed the Government undertook to build it themselves by measure and value. He thought what had been done showed that the Government were unable to construct a work which required skill. It cost a very large sum, and was certainly a very handsome structure; but although the bridge was a wide one, it was divided into narrow roads, along which it was intended that the traffic should go. Those Government grooves were so inconvenient that the police had great difficulty in compelling the public to keep to them; and now the trams were being taken up. The level of the bridge had also been altered, and some hundreds of tons of useless material with which the arches had been loaded were now being removed at an expense of nearly £10,000. He hoped that there would be no Vote of the same kind in the Estimates for another year. Moreover, there was a further expense to the State of £2,500 per annum for watering, cleansing, and lighting the bridge. As the bridge had been built at the cost of the country, it was surely not too much to expect that the local districts should pay for its cleansing, watering, and lighting as in the case of country bridges.

said, he was glad to hear the hon. Member admit, although he said the Government could not construct a bridge that required any skill, that Westminster Bridge was a handsome structure. He declined to be responsible for what the hon. Member termed "the Government grooves," or trams on the bridge, because from the beginning he thought it a mistake to place them in the middle of the road, and they were now being removed to the sides. His motive for not at once insisting on the correction of the mistake of the engineer in that respect was, that it would have delayed the opening of the structure to the public. The present Vote would cover all the expenses that could be incurred for these alterations. The change in the level was required through Mr. Page the engineer not having strictly adhered to the Parliamentary plan. It would be very desirable that the parishes should undertake to pay for the cleansing and lighting of the bridge, but they could not easily be induced to do so. The answer of the parishes on that point was, that since its erection the bridge had been maintained out of trust funds. Although the item of £2,500 might be an annual one, yet the State had received trust property which amounted, when taken, to £11,000 a year.

said, that the designs for the lions for the column could not have been intrusted to better hands than those of Sir Edwin Landseer, but a long delay had taken place, and he wished to inquire when it was probable that the lions would be completed.

said, that Sir Edwin Landseer had been fastidious in doing this work, for feeling how much was expected of him, he was not content with anything which would fall short of the standard of excellence which he felt his genius could attain. He was happy to say that the model of the first lion was completed, and now in the hands of the casters, being put into metal, and he hoped that the others would follow very rapidly, so that, probably, next year they might see the whole four.

said, it had been proved before the Select Committee of last year that the Patent Office was crowded and insufficient for its purpose, and he thought that spending any more upon it was like throwing good money after bad. It would be better to take the bull by the horns, and erect a suitable office and library at once.

said, he wished to know if there was any present intention to carry out the recommendation of the Committee as to the patent library? With reference to the museum, he desired to be informed whether it was to be a museum confined to patent inventions, or including mechanical arts generally? Was the museum to be continued at Kensington, and was it to be upon the pattern of that in America or of the one in Paris?

said, that the Committee were unanimous that the Patent Office should be near Chancery Lane. They also thought that it was not desirable that the Museum should be in close proximity to the office. They also thought that it might be a museum of general mechanical inventions. The Government felt that accommodation should be at once provided for the Patent Office, while they thought that the museum might wait for further consideration. They also thought that no better site than the present could be had for the Patent Office; and they therefore would continue it in the present building, to which, however, they would add another storey for a library room and for the convenience of reference. A portion of the house in Southampton Buildings, which was used for other offices, would soon be given up to the Patent Office, As to the Museum, the Government had not yet come to any decision upon it.

said, he thought the building in which the patent models were at Kensington was extremely inadequate for the purpose, and asked whether the Government would extend it.

said, that this building would soon be removed, but another might be erected.

said, he did not agree that the Museum should be at Kensington.

said, he believed it to be the general opinion that the duty of extinguishing fires in London ought not to be left entirely to the insurance companies, however meritorious their efforts had been, and however ready they were to assist in saving property, whether insured or not. It might be very desirable to establish a central fire brigade in the metropolis, but he thought it would be well if some explanation were given by the Government of this novel item amounting to £10,000.

said, that the £10,000 would only be made use of if the House assented to a Bill which he should ask leave to introduce next week for the formation of a metropolitan fire brigade. At present the protection of the metropolis from fires was entirely in the hands of the insurance companies, which had proved efficient brigades for their own purposes; but the Committee of 1862 reported that the means now in existence were quite inefficient to protect the metropolis. It was, therefore, proposed to place the duty in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The insurance companies had agreed to contribute £10,000 a year towards the new brigade; the Metropolitan Board would levy a rate of not more than a halfpenny in the pound within the metropolitan area for the same purpose; and, in consideration of the large amount of Government property and of public buildings which would enjoy protection, it was thought not unreasonable that £10,000 per annum should be contributed in aid of the brigade from the general taxation of the country, that being the same proportion which was contributed to the cost of the metropolitan police. The total cost of the brigade would be £50,000 a year.

said, there could be no objection to the imposition of a tax on the metropolis for the protection of the property of its inhabitants. But he saw no reason why the country generally should be required to contribute to such a charge. Were not the public buildings insured, and if they were insured, was it not the business of the insurance companies to provide against their destruction? That was a matter in which the great question of general and national, as distinguished from local and metropolitan taxation was involved, and he held such decided views upon the subject that he should feel it his duty to oppose the Vote.

said, that the proposed payment was not in aid of the local rates of the metropolis, but in respect of the protection which would be enjoyed by public buildings in which the whole country had an interest. They were in London because London was the scat of the national Government. It was only reasonable that the Houses of Parliament and public offices in which the whole business of the country was transacted, should be protected from fire by the help of the public funds.

said, that the rate would be paid all over the metropolis, and why should not the Government pay as well as everybody else for the protection which would be afforded to the Government buildings?

said, that the explanation of the Home Secretary was more remarkable for ingenuity than for candour. He said that this Vote was for the protection of public property. But the proposed fire brigade was for the protection of property generally in the metropolis; and the protection of the public buildings was only a collateral circumstance. This was another attempt to dive into the public purse for the benefit of the metropolis; it would add to the profits of the insurance companies, amounting to a grant to them, so that they also would share in the general taxation of the country. There was no pretext for the Vote.

said, that the House was not asked to vote the whole sum required for the protection of life and property in the metropolis, but only to contribute to the general charge in respect of the property of the nation, such as the Houses of Parliament, the Palaces, the public offices, and Woolwich Arsenal and Dockyard.

said, he should support the Vote, believing it to be a step in the right direction. He thought the Government ought to contribute their fair proportion towards the rates of the country.

said, if the Vote were agreed to, other large towns would ask the House to make them grants for the establishment of fire brigades. The reduction of the fire insurance duty would greatly improve the business of the fire offices, and there was the less reason for subsidising them with this Vote of £10,000 for that was the real object of the Vote.

said, that the existing brigade was supported by those who insured their property; the State did not insure, and it was not right that those who did, should have to bear the cost of protecting the national property. In Manchester and Glasgow the fire insurance offices did not provide brigades, but they were provided by the town.

said, he wished to know, whether the contribution of £10,000 would be repeated in future years? He thought it too large.

said, he wished to inquire, what would be the character of the brigade which was about to be established?

said, that the Government could not attempt to bind the House of Commons in future years. The sum which was now asked for was intended as a contribution towards the establishment of a fire brigade of a more extensive character than that which now existed. That brigade would be placed under the management of the Metropolitan Board of Works; the insurance companies would contribute a sum towards the general expenses, and would hand over their plant and engines; and the brigade would be supported partly by a general rate and partly by a contribution from the insurance offices and a grant from the public revenue in consideration of the protection which would be afforded to the national buildings.

said, that hon. Gentle men talked of the necessity for insuring the Houses of Parliament, but they had already done that by a Vote of £1,650 which the Committee had passed that evening.

said, the Vote which had been already passed was merely for means for the extinction of fire within the Houses of Parliament; but the £10,000 now asked was to provide for fire brigades outside. One of its purposes was to secure fire engines for the security of property on the banks of the river, including docks, such as those at Woolwich; and a Government contribution was necessary. When hon. Gentlemen considered what the loss would be if Woolwich Dock yard were consumed by fire; and the various public offices, barracks, arsenals, that were to be preserved, they would not grudge the sum required.

said, that £10,000 a year represented an insurance upon £4,800,000, and he thought this a most expensive method of insuring public property. He wished to know why the brigade was not to extend to all Government establishments throughout England?

said, he hoped it would be remembered that it was not merely buildings, but valuable records and public papers that were to be preserved.

said, he wished to ask, whether this included the purchase of the block of houses extending from opposite the Duke of Buccleuch's house towards Westminster Abbey?

explained that he had intended to introduce a Bill for the purchase of the property opposite the Duke of Buccleuch's house and down to Upper Charles Street. Arrangements could not be made in time for the introduction of a Bill this Session, but he hoped that it would be submitted to the new Parliament.

said, he wished to ask for some explanation of its objects.

said, the Bill was framed to remedy an anomaly which now existed in regard to chief rents and quitrents arising out of property in the north of England.