said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether a Notice which was given by his Department to terminate, as on the 1st of April last, the monopoly which has for many years existed, and still prevails, in the supply of Malt Liquors to the Troops at Shorncliffe Camp has been withdrawn; and whether it is intended to continue such monopoly?

said, in reply, that the Notice given to terminate the monopoly in the supply of Malt Liquors to the Troops at Shorncliffe had not been withdrawn, and it was not intended that the monopoly should be continued. Negotiations were in progress for purchasing the rights of the person having the monopoly, but some little time would probably elapse before the question would be settled.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, The number of Lieutenant Colonels who have commanded the 86th Regiment since January, 1862; the number of different Stations at which the 86th Regiment has been quartered during the last three years, including removals at the Cape of Good Hope and Mauritius; whether it be true that the sum of five shillings a-day, allowed for sixteen days to the Officers of the 86th Regiment on arrival at Algoa Bay, to compensate for unavoidable expenses and loss of mess, has been since stopped out of the pay of the Officers by Orders from home; whether the Colonial allowance of 1s. 6d. per diem allowed at the Cape of Good Hope has been since stopped, and Officers compelled to re-fund that sum; whether it is not the fact that the admissions into the Hospital in 1868, of Men, Women, and Children of the 86th Regiment were in January 370 men, 45 women, 68 children; February, 320 men, 39 women, 61 children; March, 257 men, 35 women, 47 children; April, 175 men, 27 women, 38 children: whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House Copy of the Correspondence of Medical Officers at the Cape of Good Hope and Port Elizabeth, shadowing forth what would happen if the Regiment was sent to the Mauritius; and all Correspondence between the Medical Officers and the authorities at the Mauritius regarding the landing of the Regiment during the epidemic; and, whether it be true that it is contemplated sending the 86th Regiment to India in its present reduced and sickly state?

, in reply, said, he would give the best Answer to the seven Questions that he could. The number of Lieutenant Colonels who had commanded the 86th Regiment in the term specified was five; and the Stations at which it had been quartered in the last three years were Gibraltar, the Cape, and the Mauritius. It was not the case that the allowance of 5s. per day had been stopped from the Officers' pay, but a smaller allowance, known as the Field allowance, had been stopped, and that was probably the origin of the hon. Member's Question. The Colonial allowance of 1s. 6d. per day at the Cape was stopped under a misapprehension, but it was now to be re-commenced. With respect to the admissions into hospital, he regretted to say that he believed the numbers given in the Question to be substantially correct. He should be very unwilling to produce the Correspondence referred to in the latter part of the Question, and he hoped the hon. Member would not press for it. In answer to various Questions that had been put, he had always stated the exact position of affairs with respect to this Regiment at the Mauritius, and, amongst other things, that in consequence of the circumstances under which the Regiment landed, the Commander-in-Chief had sent out an Order for a Report of the circumstances to be forwarded. That Report had been received and submitted to him (Sir John Pakington), but he was reluctantly obliged to concur in the opinion of his Royal Highness, that that Report was not satisfactory. In consequence of that decision, the Commander-in-Chief had communicated to the General commanding at Mauritius, his opinion on the subject. Justice had been done, and he thought no good effect would be produced by reviving the subject. There was no intention of sending the Regiment to India, nor did he believe that such an intention had ever existed.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a report stating that the Leominster Magistrates have recently fined some boys 1s. and costs, or in default seven days' imprisonment, for playing cricket on Sunday and, whether he considers such conviction in accordance with the Law?

, in reply, said, that the clerk to the justices at Leominster had written to him to explain that there had been no conviction before them of boys for playing at cricket on Sundays. A great number of boys had been in the habit of playing at cricket in a field of growing grass, and some were brought before the magistrates and fined 1s. and costs, which fines were immediately paid. The offence had nothing to do with its being Sunday, for they would have been equally summoned for playing in this field on any other day. With regard to such a conviction being contrary to law, the hon. Member would find in the 71st volume of Hansard, third series, an opinion given by Sir Frederick Pollock on this subject.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, When the Correspondence, moved for on the 22nd March 1867, relative to the grant of the Medal to Troops and Police engaged in suppressing the Mutiny and Rebellion in the Bombay Presidency during the years 1857, 1858, 1859, &c. will be laid upon the Table; and, whether, taking into consideration the services performed by the Troops and Police so engaged, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to order the Grant of the Medal to them?

, in reply, said, the Papers alluded to by the hon. Gentleman had been received from Bombay. They formed three very large volumes, which it would be impossible to produce to the House in full; but Mr. Lushington, the late Commissioner of Police at Bombay, had now the volumes in his possession, and had undertaken to mark the despatches which it would be desirable to produce. He might inform the hon. Gentleman that he had written a despatch by the last mail to India, with respect to the question of extending the grant of the Indian Mutiny Medal. He had resolved that it should be given to all persons who had performed service against the mutineers or rebels, including amongst the latter all who had made common cause with them. The word persons would include Police, and he hoped the settlement of the question would be satisfactory.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will lay upon the Table a statement of the particulars and results of the experiments in the Refining of Sugar conducted at Cologne previous to the Convention of November 1864, the same having been already published by authority in Holland?

said. In reply, that no publication of the details of these experiments had been sanctioned by the Commission; nor was anyone authorized by them to make experiments. He heard that a Mr. Lottman, who was employed by the Dutch to watch the proceedings, did make private experiments and had published the results; but he understood that these were performed and published entirely on his own responsibility and not on that of the Government of Holland. A blue book would shortly be issued by the Foreign Office, which would afford all the information that could be given in regard to the experiments at Cologne.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether paragraph 165, of the Queen's Regulations, 1868, "the Commander-in-Chief will in all cases select the senior officer who may have qualified for promotion to the higher grade," will in all cases be complied with?

said, in reply, that if the hon. and gallant Member would refer to the paragraph in question, he would find it applied only to the cases of the promotion of officers who had neglected to pass the necessary examination. He had no reason to doubt that the Commander-in-Chief would carry out the regulation.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to certain experiments recently conducted on a large scale at Tottenham, for disintegrating the impurities of Sewage Water by an admixture of alum; whether the Government have called the attention of the Metropolitan Board of Works to the successful results of these experiments, with a view to the remedy of the evils complained of at Barking as arising from the system of Metropolitan Drainage; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any Report of these experiments, and Copy of any Correspondence which has taken place upon the subject?

said, in reply, that the experiments at Tottenham had been carried on by the local authorities who had sent him a letter, from which he gathered that the experiments had not been so satisfactory as his hon. Friend seemed to suppose. He thought he should be going out of his way if he were to express an opinion on the subject. Two experiments had been made by different persons, and, as far as he could gather, they had not been so successful as experiments made with lime. At present the fertilizing properties of the residuum had not been ascertained. No Report on the subject had come before the Government.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been drawn to a statement lately published calling in question the accuracy of the Board of Trade Returns of Foreign Ribbons imported into this country; what is the system pursued by the Customs House authorities in order to ascertain the net weight of silk and satin ribbons imported; and, whether the Returns of those articles, as published by the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade are to be looked upon as substantially correct or not?

in reply, said, his attention had been called to this statement by the hon. Member for Coventry, and he had, in consequence, caused inquiries to be made at the Customs. He found that the Customs authorities obtained their information with regard to silks, as in the case of other articles free of duty, from the person who cleared the goods for the merchant and passed the entry. The net weight was taken from the gross weight, allowance being made for tare. When duty was charged this computation was, of course, accurate, and in the case of velvets, where the same method of packing continued, the Returns were still very correct. They were so, too, when made by some one acquainted with the custom of the trade, but when made by mere carriers they were, no doubt, less accurate. It did not, however, follow that, because two parcels of the same gross weight were returned at different net weights, there was necessarily inaccuracy, because some were packed in wood, others in paper. The Customs did their best to obtain precision, and sometimes opened parcels and insisted on amended entries. When the unit of entry system prevailed Returns were more accurate, on account of the penny stamp, but this had been given up, as an impediment to trade. The invoice was of no assistance, as silks and ribbons were not sold by weight, but by the piece or length. These Returns were so far useful that they enabled a pretty accurate comparison to be made between the imports of different years. The Statistical Department of the Board of Trade could, of course, only be responsible for compiling correctly the Returns in the Customs registry, the accuracy of which they had no means of testing.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If the Treasury have the power to authorize the granting of Loans to Grand Juries on the security of the County Cess for the erection of Militia Stores and Barracks; and, if not, whether it is the intention of the Government to apply to Parliament for such powers?

said, in reply, that it appeared, by a recent Report from the Board of Works in Ireland, that there was no power to advance money for the erection of Militia Stores and Barracks by presentments from the Grand Juries in Ireland, as there was for the erection of Court Houses. He was not aware that any inconvenience had arisen from this disability; but as he found it was a matter of considerable interest and importance, he should inquire whether it would not be possible to amend the law in that respect.

said he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government have come to a decision as to the exemption of schools and charities from the recently declared liability to the payment of poor rates, on which subject the present and the late Government have received important representations, and to which they have promised attention?

said, in reply, that this matter had been under the consideration of the Government, and they had come to the conclusion that they could not treat it as an isolated question. The whole subject must be dealt with if any question were raised respecting the exemption of charitable property. The subject would give rise to a great deal of discussion, and it would be impossible to deal with it in the present Session.

said, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Hereford, What progress has been made with the inquiry entrusted to the Irish Church Commissioners; has the inquiry been concluded, and, if not, what subjects have been investigated, and what yet remain to be investigated; if the inquiry has been concluded, why the Report, which the House was led to expect would be presented in the early part of the Session, has not been presented before this; is it intended to present the Report in such time as to admit of its being printed and circulated amongst the Members of the present House of Commons?

The delay, where there has been delay in London, has been entirely caused by the necessity for several of the Commissioners sitting in Dublin, there to get up the statistics. The Report has been completed, and it is not necessary for me to go into the subjects that have been investigated and the subjects that have not been investigated; for none remain to be investigated. The Schedules of this Report—the draft of which I hold in my hand—are very voluminous and complicated, and require extensive examination and close revision. That examination and revision have been going on within the last few weeks in Dublin. That accounts for the Report not being issued, and there is reason to hope that in less than a fortnight the Report will be in the hands of Members. Two more sittings are all that will he necessary; the Commissioners will be in London to-morrow, and in a fortnight from that time I have reason to expect the Report and Schedules will be presented to hon. Members.

added: The Report has not been conclusively adopted, and there must be one or two more sittings of the Commissioners, but there is hardly anything to be done.

Has any fresh inquiry been taken up by the Commissioners within the last two months that has tended to prolong their labours?

I am not aware that anything new has taken place since that time. The delay, as I have already stated, is almost entirely due to the voluminous nature of the Schedules.

Mr. Speaker—Sir, in rising to call attention to the recent appointment of Architects for the New Public Buildings in the Metropolis I make no apology, as the question has been already considered in "another place," and as the buildings, when completed, will either be amongst the greatest eyesores or the greatest ornaments of the metropolis. It is well therefore that the House of Commons should know what is going on; it is well it should consider the application of the public money, and should see that faith has been kept with the competing architects. An announcement was made in The Times a few days ago that Mr. Street had been appointed architect to the New Law Courts, Mr. Barry to the National Gallery, Mr. Scott to the continuation and completion of the Public Offices in Downing Street, and Mr. Waterhouse to the new erections at South Kensington. Last year I brought the result of the competition for the National Gallery to the notice of the House; now I desire to direct attention to that for the Law Courts. The history of the proceedings with regard to them is shortly this—By the Courts of Justice Building Act 1865, the duty of superintending the building was assigned to the Treasury with the advice and assistance of certain Commissioners who were appointed in the same year, and who were a mixed body some fifty in number. The next step was that in February 1866, the Treasury, with the consent of the Commission appointed five Judges of Design, Sir Alexander Cockburn, Sir Roundell Palmer. Mr. Gladstone, Sir William Stirling-Maxwell, and Mr. Cowper. But at the same time the Commission laid down this condition—that "the plans ultimately adopted should receive the final confirmation of the Commission by the signature of the Chairman being attached to them when the contracts should be entered into." And this condition was confirmed by a Treasury Minute, dated December 23rd, 1865. Further, Messrs. Shaw and Pownall, surveyors, were appointed by the Commission to report upon the designs, and to see whether they complied with the Instructions as to internal arrangement, ventilation, access, &c., &c. At a much later period those two gentlemen were added to the number of Judges; in fact, it was after they had prepared their Report. Another surveyor (Mr. Gardiner) was named to test the estimates of cost given by the competing architects. Such, then, shortly were the arrangements made to judge of the designs. The next question to consider is—what were the conditions of the competition? The Judges of Design decided that it should be limited to six architects whom they named; but by a Resolution of the House of Commons the number was increased to twelve. Of the twelve requested to compete one subsequently retired; so that eleven actually entered the lists. This matter settled, the Treasury issued Instructions, which had been most carefully prepared by the Commission, and which entered minutely into all important details. Therein it is laid down that—

"The arrangement of the Courts and Offices is of vital moment; on it mainly depends the success or failure of their concentration, and its importance cannot be over-estimated."—[Sec. 21, p. 7.]

Further, they state at Sec. 41, p. 12, that—

"The chief points to be kept constantly in view, and to be treated as superseding, so far as they may conflict, all considerations of architectural effect, are the accommodation to be provided, and the arrangements to be adopted, so as in the greatest degree to facilitate the despatch and the accurate transaction of the law business of the country."

And Sec. 54 that—

"The comparative cost of carrying out each design will be an important element in determining the competition."

And finally it is declared that each unsuccessful competitor is to receive £800, and that the successful one is to be employed to erect the building. Everything in these Instructions appears so careful and accurate that one might hope that there could be no difficulty in deciding clearly the relative positions of the contending architects. But the result did not prove this to be the case; for on the 30th July, 1867, Mr. Cowper, on behalf of the Judges, informed the First Commissioner of Works that—

"The design of Mr. Barry was the best in regard to plan and distribution of the interior, and that the design of Mr. Street was the best in regard to merit as an architectural composition."

Thereupon Lord John Manners consulted the Commission, who recommended him to refer the matter back to the Judges of Design as they had decided without considering the question of cost, and before receiving Mr. Gardiner's Report. This advice was followed; but the Judges replied that Mr. Gardiner's Report contained nothing to affect their previous decision. In accordance with a recommendation of the Commission, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was then taken upon the points arising under the original Instructions in consequence of the double award, to which several of the architects had objected on the ground that they had been invited to compete against each other singly, but not against any two conjointly. The Attorney General held that, as no competitor had gained pre-eminence and been named singly, the competition had failed, and the Government were at liberty to appoint any architect they chose. And, accordingly, by a Treasury Minute, dated the 30th May, 1868, they appointed Mr. Street—an appointment to which, for various reasons, some of the competitors objected. One would have thought that this was complication enough, but there was more, for other tribunals had been appealed to. The Commission had appointed two sub-Committees, one of barristers and the other of solicitors, to consider the designs. They soon amalgamated and presented a joint Report which was substantially in favour of Mr. Waterhouse, and which gave the next place to Mr. Scott. This Report was subsequently confirmed by the Commission. Moreover, the Commission passed a Resolution in favour of a central hall, such as Mr. Waterhouse and Mr. Sheet had provided; whereas Messrs. Shaw and Pownall, who first drew up a Report as mere ordinary assistants, and were subsequently appointed professional Judges, disagreed with this Resolution, and especially found fault with Messrs. Waterhouse's and Street's central hall. Nor was this all. There was yet a further complication; for the Judges and Officers of the different Courts and Departments to be lodged in the new building had been requested by the Commission to report on the accommodation provided for them, and out of sixty-four such Departments, forty-three reported. They gave in twenty-eight cases the first or second place to Mr. Scott, and in twenty-nine the first or second to Mr. Waterhouse; whereas to Mr. Lockwood they gave sixteen, to Mr. Street nine, and to Mr. Barry also nine. Now twenty-one offices did not report; and Messrs. Shaw and Pownall gave, in seventeen out of these twenty-one, the palm to Mr. Barry, which is most extraordinary, considering the relative numbers he obtained in the other offices. And it must be added that subsequently the Commission refer to the decision of Messrs. Shaw and Pownall only to disagree with it. Moreover, in two remarkable instances the opinion of the Judges and their officers was decidedly against all the competitors except Mr. Waterhouse. The cases were those of the Probate and Divorce Courts and the Courts of Appeal. With regard to the former Sir J. Wilde says that the only admissible plan is Mr. Waterhouse's. Now, Sir, I think I have shown by this statement that the task the Government had to perform was one of no ordinary difficulty, and that though dictated by the most conscientious desire to do justice their decision could not fail to cause much heartburning. There was an embarrassing number of different awards—namely, that of the Judges and Officers of the Courts, in favour of Messrs. Waterhouse and Scott; that of the Commission and its sub-Committees, in favour of Mr. Waterhouse; and that of the Judges, in favour of Messrs. Barry and Street. And, finally, there was a Report of Messrs. Shaw and Pownall, drawn up before they were appointed professional Judges, which was strongly in favour of Mr. Barry. Doubtless the Government, on looking into the cases of the four gentlemen—Messrs. Barry, Street, Waterhouse, and Scott—observed—1. That Mr. Barry's designs exceeded the given area, had no system of ventilation, and, according to Mr. Gardiner's Report, immensely exceeded his own estimate of cost—namely, by some £400,000; and that his claims rested on the award of the Judges, which was well-known' not to have been unanimous, and on Messrs. Shaw and Pownall's Report, of which the Lord Chancellor had said—

"That it was disagreed with by all the various bodies of the profession, who after all were those best qualified to decide with respect to internal accommodation."

2. That Mr. Street's design was not wanting on the points just referred to; that his internal arrangements were defective; and that his claims also rested on the award of the Judges. 3. That Mr. Water-house's designs were approved by the Commission and its Committees, and by the Judges and Officers of the various Courts; that his estimate of cost was exceedingly accurate; and that he had shown his powers by building the Manchester Assize Courts. 4. And lastly, that Mr. Scott's plans were commended by the Officers of the Courts; and that he had been successful in much former public work. Now, as I have stated, the Government must have been greatly perplexed, actuated as I am sure they were by an earnest desire to act fairly towards all the competitors. As a way out of their difficulties, they adopted what would appear to the public to be a system of compensation, by making the four appointments I mentioned at the commencement of my statement. But the announcement of these appointments was not correct; for that of Mr. Waterhouse was made by the late Government in 1866. Consequently, as far as he was concerned, it was no compensation. Mr. Barry says, through the right hon. Member for Calne, that he has an equitable claim to build the new Law Courts and others will doubtless through other friends in this House put forward their rights. Now, Sir, I do not quarrel with the appointment of Mr. Street; but as it has been stated that the public faith has not been kept, I think it is a question the House of Commons ought to investigate; and if, as I believe, the Government have endeavoured to act fairly between the competitors, they can only court such an inquiry. In whose favour soever may be the result, I hope that a building worthy to be called our great Palace of Justice and one of the greatest ornaments added in modern times to the metropolis may be erected; and at the same time, that there may be no well-grounded reason for complaining that the public faith has not been kept with the competing architects. For these reasons I beg to move—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the recent appointment of Architects for the New Public Buildings in the Metropolis."

seconded the Amendment.

said, that having been one of the Judges of Design, he was not disposed to give a vote on the Motion, but he could not absolve himself from the duty of expressing an opinion on the subject. His hon. Friend had stated the case very luminously and impartially, but he was inclined to demur to the proposition of his hon. Friend that there was sufficient reason why a Select Committee should inquire into the matter. His hon. Friend had pointed out the great difficulty the Government were placed in with respect to the decision they arrived at, and every one must admit that it was impossible for the Government to arrive at any decision which would not be open to plausible, and even more than plausible, objections. In his opinion the Government were perfectly free from blame in the course they had taken with reference to the difficult question with which they had to deal, and he could only express his regret that he and those who acted with him had so entirely failed in rendering effective aid to the Government in this matter. He was persuaded that, upon the whole, the Government had come to a recommendation which the House would do no good in endeavouring to disturb. The House in this matter was, if he might so speak, a rude instrument for a delicate process. To appoint a Committee upon this subject would be to re-open from the beginning an operation which had been found to be extremely laborious find complicated, and to re-commence the labour with even less chance of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion than they had when the matter was first started. The only prudent course was to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, for them to act upon their own responsibility.

said, he wished, in the first place, to state that he had not the honour of the acquaintance of Mr. Barry, except with respect to this matter, and he had no intention of expressing himself or of asking the House to express any opinion upon the respective merits of the different Gentlemen whose names had been connected with this subject. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Gladstone) that it would be most improper to re-open this question from its commencement by appointing a Committee to inquire into it. The only charge that he intended to make against the Government was that under very difficult circumstances they had missed their way, and had not adopted the best course which was open to them. They had put too violent a construction upon the failure of the Judges to make an award, and they seemed to think that the whole proceedings were rendered void ab initio, and they therefore set at nought the contract which they had entered into with the architects. In making this statement he had no desire to cast reproach or blame upon the Government, his object being simply to point out to the House that there was a course now before the Government which they might adopt without re-opening the question from the beginning. It had been stated by the Lord Chancellor in "another place" that Messrs. Shaw and Pownall were not appointed Judges, but in making that statement the noble and learned Lord was inaccurate. There was no dispute about the facts of the case. There was, most undoubtedly, a contract of some kind or another entered into between the Government and the competing architects, and when it was found that the Government, in consequence of the course taken by their agents, could not carry into effect the terms of that contract, the Government should do all in their power to carry into effect the spirit of that contract. The Treasury determined to appoint certain eminent persons as Judges, and caused Instructions to be prepared for the competing architects, the number of whom was limited to twelve. Out of these twelve one was to be selected on account of the design, and not upon any other consideration. The Government, however, were not pledged to adopt the design, but the successful architect was to prepare another for actual use. A copy of the Instructions, signed by Lord Cranworth, the then Lord Chancellor, was sent to each of the competing architects. One of the provisoes in the rough draft of these Instructions was that, in the event of none of the designs being adopted by the Judges, the Government would be quite unfettered in the selection of an architect, and though this was subsequently withdrawn, in consequence of an objection raised by Mr. Barry, the fact of its being originally inserted was a proof that the Instructions constituted a contract of some nature or other between the Government and the architects. He maintained that the Judges were not arbitrators, but rather agents and delegates of the Government, exercising a duty which the Government could, if it had chosen, have exercised itself. The Judges could not agree upon an award, and they therefore certified to the Government that Mr. Barry's design was the best as regarded the interior, and Mr. Street's the best as regarded the elevation. The Attorney General was thereupon consulted, and advised the Government that the Judges were not authorized to appoint two architects, and that consequently no architect had been appointed at all. This opinion being communicated in due course to the Judges, they replied that, unhappily, they could come to no other conclusion, and so the matter terminated. Now, as far as the Government were concerned, he had no fault whatever to find with their conduct up to this point, and he believed the Attorney General had given them good advice; but it seemed to him that they were wrong in arriving at the conclusion that they were set perfectly at liberty by the failure of the Judges to make an award, and that the whole proceedings had been rendered void ab initio, What he contended was that, although the Judges had not given such a decision as was expected of them, that fact did not relieve the Government from all the obligations they had entered into with the architects, who, it should be borne in mind, had incurred great expense, and who had been guilty of no fault. Under the circumstances it was the duty of the Government to fulfil the contract as far as possible, or, as a lawyer would say, cy près, because they were bound by what they had done themselves as well as by what the Judges had done within their legitimate authority. It was true that the failure of the Judges did not give Mr. Barry a right to bring an action at law against the Government, but, at the same time, the Government were bound in good faith, and in some degree also by law, to stand by their contract. Of course the view he took of the matter excluded all the competitors except Messrs. Street and Barry. The professional Judges (Messrs. Shaw and Pownall) made out a table containing the number of marks they gave to the competitors on the different matters of arrangement. The total number of marks was eighty-eight, and of these Mr. Barry gained forty-one, or nearly half; Mr. Gilbert Scott, who came next, obtained twenty-five; while Mr. Street obtained only three, and these were upon tramways and upon comparatively unimportant matters. In all the principal things which the Instructors contemplated—namely, ample and uninterrupted communication; light, air, and quiet—Mr. Barry was thought by these professional Judges to have succeeded. But, although the Judges did not give effect to this Report by recommending Mr. Barry's plan, the Government would have done rightly and wisely if they had selected it, because the points upon which the selection was to turn had been best accomplished by Mr. Barry. The Lord Chancellor, in "another place," said that the competition having failed or miscarried, it became the duty of the Government to undertake the responsibility of saying who should be the architect. But how did the competition miscarry? Not through the fault of those who were prejudiced by the selection of the Government. The effect of what had occurred would be not only to throw discredit upon the Government, but to put an end to the system of architectural competition. The object of competition was to get the best man, but the effect of what had occurred was to prevent the best man from coming forward. The very highest authority on this subject, Lord Cranworth, who, as Lord Chancellor, signed the Instructions to the architects, stated in "another place" that the Instructions were to attend almost exclusively to matters of internal accommodation, convenience, and arrangement. Lord Cranworth, like himself, was personally unacquainted with Mr. Barry, but, like him, argued this subject not on the question of merits but of Government faith.

said, he had the misfortune to be one of the Judges of these designs who were appointed to render what assistance they could to the Government; and he should feel it unbecoming in him to express any opinion as to the architects except this, that many of them manifested very great merits. His right hon. Friend who had just addressed the House, had taken an entirely different view of the duties of the Judges, and of the meaning of their award, from that which the Judges themselves took. No doubt it was a main and leading point in the Instructions to the architects that they were to attend to the important uses of the building, and that so far as these might conflict with architectural beauty the internal accommodation was to be preferred. But it was never considered that the competition was to be decided by reference to internal matters only. On such a principle, there would have been no elevations wanted at all. The contract of the Government with the architects was to submit their plans for a consideration of their relative merits to the appointed Judges, who were in no sense agents of the Government except in the event of their reporting in favour of one particular competitor; and if they failed to report one competitor as better than all the rest they had no power to bind the Government by any opinion which they might have expressed, and in common sense, as well as in law, the matter was wholly at large. To argue that the void award which had been made took out of the hands of the Government the responsibility of making the appointment seemed to him perfectly wild and extravagant, and it might involve the greatest possible injustice to other architects whose names the Judges had not mentioned. You could not for a particular purpose detach a particular opinion from its context, and adduce it for a purpose for which the Judges never brought it forward; you could not base anything upon the unauthoritative expres- sions of opinion of those who had failed in their character of Judges. If all the Judges had been of the same opinion as Messrs. Shaw and Pownall it might then no doubt have had great effect; but it was not so; and the barristers and solicitors, who were the best judges of what was wanted, preferred to the plans of Mr. Barry those of nother gentleman who was not named by the Judges. The Officers of the Courts, he believed, either concurred in this opinion, or preferred the plans of Mr. Scott. These gentlemen were as well qualified as Messrs. Shaw and Pownall to form an opinion as to the nature and character of the accommodation to be provided in the building, and of the arrangements by which the transaction of business might best be facilitated; and other architects might just as well say that the Government was bound to accept the opinion of the lawyers and Officers. It was not the opinion of the Judges that Mr. Barry had by his internal arrangement placed himself upon such a pinnacle, that they, without taking into consideration other things, could recommend him; and it was a fallacy to say that, because of the Report of Messrs. Shaw and Pownall, Mr. Barry ought to be appointed the architect.

begged to take part in the discussion as representing a class which not yet been heard—namely, the entire art-loving public. He had devoted many hours to the study of the designs when they were exhibited at Lincoln's Inn, and he felt justified in begging the hon. Member not to press his Motion to a division. He was satisfied that the appointment of a Committee would only lead to further complication. It would unsettle the little progress that had already been made, and come to no result, working out, as it would have to do, against the grain, within the few hours still left of the; active life of the last old Parliament, a most perplexed problem. Those who had preceded him in the debate had spoken as if the question would only lie between four given architects; but, in fact, if it were re-opened at all, it must be re-opened completely, and the claims, not of those four only, but of all the eleven would have to be considered. His hon. Friend had dropped the name of Mr. Brandon. Well, the grandiose design of that architect would have to be considered, so would the striking one contributed by Mr. Seddon; so also would the design which all who were not lawyer, but experts in architecture, with a singular unanimity pronounced to be a model both of learned labour and of vigorous genius—that of Mr. Burgess. Mr. Street's design was no doubt a very good one, by a most competent and distinguished architect, and it would, of course, in its remodelling be materially improved. Against his friend, Mr. Barry, he was very unwilling to say a word, but he feared that if that gentleman succeeded in obtaining the inquiry which he was seeking, other reports, as authentic as those of Messrs. Shaw and Pownall, and not so favourable, might come out; one, for instance, from the Probate- Department, which as he had heard rumoured, would virtually put Mr. Barry's entire plan out of court. On the whole, then, he said "Let welt alone." That "well" no doubt might be better, but it might also be worse, and as he was convinced that the only result of a Committee would be completely to throw back the whole scheme of re-building the Law Courts for an indefinite period, he hoped the Government would not consent to it.

said, that the Government having selected eleven of the best architects in England—he might say in Europe—to enter into a competition for designs for the new Courts, it was a great misfortune that they did not find themselves in a position to adhere faithfully to the bargain which was made. He had the highest possible opinion of the four gentlemen whose names had been introduced into this discussion. They were an honour to the country. It was much to be regretted that some architects had not been placed upon the Commission, which was composed almost entirely of lawyers. After a long discussion, the names of two of the competing architects—Messrs. Street and Barry—had been bracketed together. It was very unfortunate that when the Judges had bracketed two gentlemen together, as of equal merit, one excelling in interior arrangement and the other in the exterior design, and when a course had been agreed upon acceptable to those two gentlemen, that course had not been carried out. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, as a man of honour and desiring to act fairly between them—the system of joint architects having been objected to—gave the erection of the National Gallery to Mr. Barry; but he adjudged the enormous prize of the erection of the new Palace of Justice to Mr. Street. On account of this great inequality, it was most desirable, he thought, that some compro- mise in the matter should be arrived at, and what he would suggest was that, as the present site was declared by competent authorities to be too small for the erection upon it of all the Courts of Chancery and Common Law, the land reclaimed from the Thames should be turned to account. If that were done, the new Chancery Courts might be built on the present site, and Mr. Street might be appointed as the architect. There would not be the least difficulty in making a communication by a gallery between those Courts and the new Common Law Courts which might be erected on the Thames Embankment, and the erection of which might be committed to the hands of Mr. Barry. The enormous expenditure requisite to extend the existing site would thus be avoided, and a tolerably satisfactory arrangement arrived at; for two architects had been more than once known to work conjointly at the same building with perfect success.

said, he hoped the House would abide by the decision to which it had already come with reference to the site of the new Courts. The often contemplated project for the fusion of law and equity would be likely to be indefinitely postponed if the new Chancery and Common Law Courts were to be kept separate in the way which the hon. Member who had just spoken suggested. The proposed Committee would, in his opinion, find itself wholly unable to solve the problem which would be submitted to it. If they selected the design of Mr. Street, a truly noble design would be chosen, in which, according to the opinion of Judges, members of the Bar, attorneys, and suitors, all the requirements for Courts of Law would be well provided for; but the Committee, if unfit to decide the problem proposed to be submitted to them, would be still more unfit to determine the question of law, and he thought that the House should abide by the decision of the Law Officers of the Crown.

said, he did not attribute to the Government any object but the appointment of the best architect they could find; but he considered, at the same time, that, desiring to get rid of a very complex subject, they chose rather hastily to cut the knot, and did not show the patience necessary for untying it. He should not have objected if, in the first instance, the Government had appointed an architect and given no reasons for the appointment; but it was important that strict justice should be done in these matters, and when the Government had entered into a distinct contract with certain individuals it should be religiously observed. That had not been done in the present instance. Five Judges of the designs were appointed, and it was declared that their award should be final, and that the successful competitor should be employed as the architect of the building. The Judges recommended two designs. Now, it was obvious at the first blush that each competitor might be willing to compete with the other competitors individually, but not with two combined. The award was not within the terms of the competition, and if the Government were of opinion that the award was invalid, why should individual architects be made to suffer by it? In matters of this description it was absolutely necessary that the public faith should be observed to the very letter. The confusion that had arisen was entirely owing to the circumstance that Messrs. Shaw and Pownall had been raised from the position of assistant architectural clerks to that of Judges. This step had been taken in deference to the Trades' Union feeling of the London architects, who anticipated that this addition to the number of the Judges would neutralize the chance of the competitor from Manchester being successful. The result of this increase in the number of the Judges was that the two Judges who were in favour of Mr. Barry united with the two who were in favour of Mr. Street against the three who were in favour of Mr. Waterhouse, who had succeeded so admirably with regard to the Manchester Law Courts. One of the conditions of the competition was that the element of cost would be taken into consideration. It was stated that the sum of £750,000 had been fixed upon as the limit. Mr. Street's offer was £193,000 outside the amount specified, Mr. Barry's £330,000, and Mr. Waterhouse's only £1,600. But this was not known when the Judges made their award. If some steps were not taken to insure justice being done in this instance by terms of the contract being adhered to, competitions of this kind would be put a stop to entirely. It was already difficult to induce gentlemen of first-class position to enter into them. The honour of Parliament was involved in little things quite as much as in great things, and it was desirable that strict faith should be kept in this matter. He should support the Motion of the hon. Member for a Select Committee, not with the view of obtaining ft decision as to the merits of the plans, but in order that it might be ascertained how this miscarriage arose, and how it could be remedied.

said, that this question stood in a different position from any other question relating to public buildings. The new Law Courts were not to be erected at the cost of ordinary Votes of this House but mainly from balances of Fee Funds and charges specially imposed upon suitors; and the Bill would never have passed had not the responsibility and authority to carry on the work been expressly given to a Royal Commission conjointly with the Treasury. Yet no sooner did they begin to take any action than the House of Commons stepped in and interfered with that responsibility. First, his hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck) carried a Resolution increasing the number of architects, then the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Lanyon) forced the Government to add to the Judges; and the result is the unsatisfactory and inconclusive award of these gentlemen. At the same time, as practically the Judges had bracketed two architects as equal, he regretted that Government had not made a joint appointment, but he was not at all prepared to advise the House of Commons for the third time to step in and interfere with their responsibility; and he trusted the matter would be left as it stood, and would not be relegated to a Select Committee. He hoped the suggestion to have two buildings would not be listened to, and as to putting the Common Law Courts in one, and the Equity Courts in another half-a-mile off, his hon. Friend had probably not considered that perhaps the distinction between Common Law and Equity Courts would not last another Parliament.

said, he thought that as, according to the Instructions, utility was to be more regarded than ornament, the Government ought to have selected Mr. Barry as the architect. In the opinion of the architectural profession, Messrs. Shaw and Pownall were the Judges most to be relied upon, and, sitting as assessors, their opinion could not but exercise great weight with the other Judges. He was sorry that hon. Members had not had an opportunity of inspecting the designs before being called upon to say whether the decision of the Judges was correct. He would not pretend to say whether the design which had been adopted would prove satisfactory to the country; but with re- gard to the appointment of a Committee, he felt a great objection to it, and on the whole he thought it would be better for the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Goldsmid) not to divide the House upon his Motion.

said, he had been told by Mr. Street that he had done him an injustice, when speaking on this subject on a former occasion, by representing that he had exceeded the estimate by £300,000, instead of £193,000. Mr. Street was entitled to the benefit of the correction. The truth was that the cost had been put very much out of view, and almost all the architects except Mr. Waterhouse had greatly exceeded the original estimate. Mr. Barry was out by £330,000, while Mr. Waterhouse was only £2,000 in excess of the estimate. Whatever celebrity Mr. Street possessed as an architect was in connection with church architecture; but this was not the style they required in the Law Courts. They wanted no "dim religious light" to be introduced there, but that the light of justice should illuminate the judgments to be delivered there.

thought that this was a case, of all others, for a Select Committee. The decision of the Government was entirely unsatisfactory to the House and to the public out-of-doors, and it was remarkable that not one hon. Member who had spoken concurred in the appointment of Mr. Street. Messrs. Shaw and Pownall, who were called in as surveyors, were desired to go through the detailed plans. They were eminent and honourable men, whose characters were above suspicion, and who had no prejudice in favour of one candidate over another; and their judgment in favour of Mr. Barry, on the score that he had complied with the requisitions, ought to have been conclusive. Mr. Street was only entitled to be mentioned with regard to elevation. He could not help saying that when certain details had been sent to the competing architects, and when elevation was the condition placed last, it was a hard case that the Government should finally say to Mr. Barry, "Although you have been most successful in that which we principally demanded, you shall not have the execution of this great work." The leading architects would not have entered into a competition for the mere bagatelle of £800, if they had not felt certain that the most successful competitor would have been appointed to erect the building; and there having been a failure with regard to all who competed, it was unjust to all to make the compromise which the Government proposed, which was an awkward and a weak one. He ventured to predict that the thing would be a failure; the building would be commenced, and when the mistake was found out the answer would be that it was too late to interfere, because the works were already too far advanced. It was impossible that a worthy Palace of Justice could be erected on the site which had been cleared, and he believed there was a growing opinion out-of-doors that it ought to be built to front the river. He should vote for the appointment of a Select Committee, and he wished to urge upon the Government the postponement of all other proceedings as the only means of securing a grand, a suitable, and a useful building.

said, he must compliment the hon. Member for Honiton on the judicial temper with which he had introduced the subject; but the proposal to inquire into the appointments of architects during the last few months or years was too considerable to be entertained this Session, and on the part of the Govern-he must take exception to it. There had been considerable misapprehension on the subject; and he might, therefore, state that two or three years ago Mr. Waterhouse received from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper) the appointment of architect of the new buildings at South Kensington that were to receive the Natural History Collections from the British Museum; and fresh instructions with reference to the preparation of plans had recently been sent to him. With regard to Mr. Gilbert Scott, he had within the last few weeks been appointed architect of the proposed Colonial and Home Offices that were to complete the quadrangle now partly formed by the Indian and Foreign Offices. The right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) did not agree with the hon. Member for Honiton as to what was to be referred to the proposed Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman held that nothing ought to be referred, but whether or not there was a contract between the Government and the competing architects, and whether, in spite of the admitted failure of the Judges to make a binding award, there was not that amount of legal obligation upon the Government which would compel them to adopt, not the recommendations of the Judges, but a certain portion of them with which he happened to agree. The right hon. Gentleman based his opinion not upon anything in the award of the Judges, but upon something that had previously occurred. But it was clear from all that had been said that evening that the Government might, if they chose, have called for a fresh unlimited competition, and that they might have appointed anybody to be the architect of the new Law Courts, without legally violating the contract which had been made. He must entirely dissent from the opinion that the Government should be guided more by the recommendations of Messrs. Shaw and Pownall than by that of the committee of barristers and solicitors. The object which the Government had in view under the circumstances was to arrive at a conclusion which, upon general principles, should be fair to the competitors in the various competitions, and which should secure that the architects selected for the erection of the great works in contemplation should be such as to render it probable that those works would be worthy of the nation. After considering all the circumstances they had appointed Mr. Street to build the new Law Courts, and in so doing they believed they had taken the wisest course open to them; and further, he was glad to think, from the tone of the debate, that that was the opinion of the House of Commons. He quite concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in the opinion that the Judges were bound to take into their consideration the question of internal arrangement; but then it should be borne in mind that a protest against the plan of Mr. Barry had been sent in by the principal Officers of the Probate and Divorce Court, to whose use one-fifth of the space in the new Courts would have to be allotted, and that the Committee of the Bar and solicitors, whose views were endorsed by the Commissioners, also objected to that plan. Now, when it was borne in mind that the architect appointed would, in conjunction with some of those very gentlemen, have to carry out the necessary internal arrangements, it was quite clear that the views of men who would have to use the building, and who possessed a practical knowledge of the requirements of such a building, must prevail over that of any single individual; and under these circumstances the Government wore justified, he must contend, in not selecting Mr. Barry, from whose views, as to internal arrangements, those gentlemen differed. If the Government had appointed Mr. Barry to be architect of the interior and Mr. Street to be architect of the exterior this result would have followed—Mr. Street would have been able to carry out his part of the design, while Mr. Barry would have had the mortification of finding that his plan for the interior would have to be materially altered before it would give satisfaction to one important branch of those using the new Courts. The Government then had to take into account the other great competitions in which Mr. Barry was concerned; and, finding that in the opinion of the Judges of the National Gallery competition he had produced the design which showed the greatest architectural skill, they had appointed him to be the architect of that building; so that they had, he thought, come to the fairest decision possible as regarded the two competitions, both of which had failed so far as the legal obligations went. As to Mr. Street's appointment, the Commission had not expressed any opinion; but they had been in communication with Mr. Street as to the preparation of the final plan, and there was no reason to believe that the Commissioners objected to Mr. Street's appointment. Several suggestions had been made as to the course which Government should pursue. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) had ventured on the suggestion, which was not likely to find favour with legal authorities, that the Courts of Law should be divided into two great groups, and that one should be confided to Mr. Street and the other to Mr. Barry. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Winterbotham) had suggested that a Committee should be appointed more for the purpose of considering the claims of Mr. Waterhouse than for anything else; and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Goldsmid) took an enlarged view, and suggested an inquiry which would probably last to the end of next Session. All such inquiries would only result in adding to the confusion and complexity with which the subject was already invested. He believed that the Government had made the best decision in their power; and when the natural feelings of disappointment which generally followed all these competitions had subsided, all parties would probably admit that a wise and sound decision had been arrived at.

explained that he had not intended to suggest that any wide inquiry should be entered on, but that what he wished to be investigated was the question whether the public faith had been kept.

, in moving "That this Bill be now read a second time," said, in the course of the autumn Session the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Viscount Enfield) put some Questions to him respecting the numbers of the police, to which he replied that it was manifest that the police were shorthanded, and that they were overworked, and that it was desirable that they should have that amount of rest without which no force could remain efficient. At that time the men in the police force had only one day's rest in every five or six weeks, or even less, while their duties at the same time were most arduous and difficult. It was under these circumstances that he had determined to add 1,000 men and 120 officers to the force—an addition that did not raise its numbers to the same proportion to the population and the acreage which it bore to them when it was first instituted in 1830. At that time there were only twenty acres to each constable, whereas there were now fifty-seven acres to each constable. The population of the metropolis in 1830 was only 1,496,000, whereas it was at the present time somewhere about 3,506,000. The police force consisted at its first establishment of 3,300 men, officered by two Commissioners; but in 1856 Sir Richard Mayne became the sole Commissioner with two Assistant Commissioners. In 1856 the number of buildings in the metropolis was 368,000; but that number had since I been increased to 472,000. The force for the protection of the Thames and of the dockyards was a separate body, and was not paid out of the police rate. Great difficulties had been experienced at one time in keeping up the numbers of the Metropolitan Police; but these difficulties had now disappeared in consequence of the addition that had been made to their pay at the instance of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) in the course of last year, and since then a good class of men had come into the force. Owing to the favourable regulations that had been made, the numbers of the force were now complete within 200 or 300 men. The pay of the force, however, even now was by no means excessive, and was lower than that of the City Police force, which had, moreover, several privileges not enjoyed by the Metropolitan Police. The lowest pay of the police when they entered the service was 10s. a week; but that was only for a week or two, during which they were being trained. The next pay was 19s. a week for the third class, and £1 3s. for the second class. The pay of the officers according to rank was in proportion. Last autumn his great desire was that the men should be allowed one day of rest in the seven; and he was glad to say that by the augmentation of the force that object had since been attained. An Order had been issued to insure them that rest, and to allow them, as far as possible, to choose the day themselves. It had been stated in the newspapers that too much of the time of the police was occupied in drill; but the fact was that they were only drilled during a portion of the year, and the drill—which was company drill only, not battalion drill—occupied only one hour in the week in the case of full constables. The exaggeration on this subject had been very great. The only objection to the Bill, so far as he was aware, was that it would necessitate a slight increase to the rates of the metropolis. It was, of course, necessary that some additional sum should be raised, and the ¾d. in the pound which he had determined to take was the smallest sum which could supply the needful funds. The police rate was now equal to 8d. in the pound on the rental, but 2d. was paid by the Treasury, so that in fact the metropolis was only rated to the extent of 6d. in the pound. He was anxious to observe the greatest economy possible; and under this Bill it was proposed to add ¾d. in the pound to the police rate, and ¼d to the proportion to be paid by the Treasury. In case no addition were made to the amount raised there would be a deficit of £82,212. The additional cost would be £88,100. The extra 1d. would raise £72,247, and there would be a surplus in hand at the end of this month of about £15,000, after providing for the pay of the men and for pensions. It was necessary, he might remark, to keep a good balance in hand, as the payments amounted to about £10,000 a month. The estimated cost of pay and clothing for 1868–9 was £616,707. It was necessary to provide a large sum to meet the cost of pensions and superannuations, which amounted this year to £58,836, and was likely ultimately to rise to £100,000. There was a necessity for additional buildings and stations, which were especially demanded for the married men. There was also in the Bill a provision for the increase of the salaries of the two Assistant Commissioners from £800 to £1,100 a year, which he thought only just, considering the great increase of their duties, and the augmentation of late years in the rents of houses and the keep of horses. Considering the manner in which those gentlemen performed their duties, he thought the House would not grudge them this additional remuneration, especially when it was considered that Colonel Fraser, who had a much smaller force to command in the City, had a house and £1,000 a year.

said, he thought that the inhabitants of London had great reason to complain of the conduct of Government with regard to this Bill. From the first moment of its introduction they had sought to obtain from the Secretary of State for the Home Department some statement of the grounds upon which he proposed the imposition of this additional burden upon them; but he had steadily and sedulously refused to give this information, and even the statement he had now made was inadequate in the last degree. The House ought not, on a mere statement from a Minister of the Crown, without any inquiry being made, to pass a Bill of this kind imposing special taxation. What was the history of that measure? He believed that it originated in a mere panic, arising from events which alarmed the Secretary of State and the public. But what were the facts? He found from the Census that the population of London had increased at the rate of about 18 per cent in ten years; and on turning to the police he found that, without taking into account the Dockyard Police, they had during ten years increased rather more than 18 per cent, whilst the increase of expense in their maintenance had amounted to no less than 48 per cent. Why did they propose that increase? No doubt the police were now governed by a man of great experience; but it was certain that a time came when a man's experience became so great as to be hardly compatible with activity. He did not blame the Chief Commissioner for holding on to his office at present; for if there were any truth in what was said as to the pressure put upon him to induce him to resign, and what would happen when he did resign, he believed that he had rendered great service to the metropolis by clinging to his office. He, however, was assisted by two Assistant Commissioners, whoso salaries the Bill proposed to increase. One of the Assistant Commissioners was said to be in ill-health, and the other employed himself in promoting what he called the military organization of the force, and the waste of time in carrying that idea into effect was equal to one-fifth of the power of the force. The Metropolitan Police, moreover, whilst it spread over far too large an area in the surrounding counties to be worked efficiently, had yet to maintain a costly rivalry with another force actually in its own midst. The Metropolitan Police and the City Police were bidding against each other for men, and this rivalry was equivalent to an additional charge on the metropolis of not less than £25,000 a year. Last year a Committee of that House reported that in their opinion there ought to be only one police force in the metropolis. If the Chief Commissioner would surrender his rural charge to the police of the rural districts, he would be much better able to perform his duties in the metropolis. It was not numbers that make a useful police force, but intelligence; and within the past year we had had painful experience of the insufficiency of the Metropolitan Police force in this respect. There had been a panic about the doings of certain Fenians; and what was the real foundation of the panic? It appeared that there were about a dozen drunken tailors who were engaged in emancipating Ireland from the dominion of England. All London was alarmed at the doings of these drunken tailors, and the Home Secretary swore in 25,000 special constables to protect the metropolis against them. The cause of the panic was that there had been no intelligent pursuit of the real criminals, when these men were guilty of certain acts of violence, and rumour was thus allowed to amplify their power. We had at that time 7,000 police, but they had not intelligence enough, when these men were about to commit a great crime, to prevent the commission of that crime, although they had previous information respecting it; and even after it was committed they only succeeded in securing the conviction of one of those engaged in it. No stronger proof could be given of the incapacity of the police of the metropolis. Before asserting that the numbers of the police were insufficient, the Secretary of State ought to have shown that crime had increased, and the cause of that increase. But he had given no such information. It was not easy for a private Member, without the assistance of a Committee, to inform the House on that subject, but he believed that within the last seven years there had been a great increase in the vagrant class, and a disproportionate increase in the number of persons committed for criminal offences to the Sessions; but the number of persons summarily convicted before the magistrates had hardly increased at all. It was quite necessary there should be a searching investigation into the causes of that increase of crime and of vagrancy before any steps were taken to increase the numbers of the police. The House was now asked, however, in a most hurried and inconsiderate manner, to impose a permanent charge on the metropolis, greater than had been found necessary before during thirty years. Latterly the increase in expense of the police had been greater, in proportion to its numbers, than ever it had been before. If the right hon. Gentleman had committed himself in regard to expenditure let him pass a Bill for a year; but the right hon. Gentleman was not entitled to ask the House to pass a Bill creating a permanent increased charge on the metropolis until there was authentic evidence before the House that means had been taken to re-organize the police in accordance with recommendations of Committees of that House. On these grounds he thought it his duty to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

seconded the Amendment. He cordially concurred in that portion of the speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in which he had expressed regret at the proposed increase of the taxation of the metropolis. The proposal to increase the police force because the numbers were insufficient to protect the metropolis, and to give the necessary rest to the men, was a very different question from that involved in the Bill, which sought to impose a permanent tax on the metropolis. If the Secretary of State had so far committed himself as to make such a Bill necessary, it ought to be limited in its operation to one year. There was no kind of necessity for increasing the taxation of the metropolis by means of that Bill because the rapid increase in the number of houses supplied an increase of rates that ought to be amply sufficient. There was no rate imposed upon the metropolis which the ratepayers so much objected to as the police rate, because they had no control over it, and did not know how it was applied. All they had to do with it was to pay it. Crime was continually committed at their very doors, but unless they offered a handsome reward, the police gave no assistance in discovering the perpetrators. They objected also to the absurdity of drilling the police as a military force, and believed that but for such drilling a smaller body of men would be required. The inefficiency of the police had been shown during the recent Fenian alarm. The present time, therefore, seemed most inopportune for increasing the emoluments of the Assistant Commissioners. Efforts had been made, but in vain, to obtain Returns of the police expenditure, such as were made by the Government offices of their disbursements. The rateable value of the Metropolitan Police area had largely increased, and it seemed incredable that the increased cost of the police should have absorbed the rates collected upon the augmented valuation. He held in his hands Returns of the increase in the rateable value of the metropolitan area between 1856 and 1868, which showed that that value had increased from £9,188,070 in the former year to £14,355,068 in the latter. At 8d. in the pound that increase would give to the police an addition of £134,556 between 1856 and 1868. In any case, the taxation sought to be imposed by this Bill was not yet necessary; for the county assessment as between 1847 and 1864 showed an increase in the police rates of £159,033, and if, therefore, the Government only waited until the county of Middlesex was re-assessed, as the county of Surrey had been re-assessed, they would obtain a great deal more money for the police than they wanted. But how would the ratepayers then get back the tax it was proposed to levy on them by this Bill?

said, he believed that the failure in the prevention of the Clerkenwell explosion was due rather to mismanagement than to any inadequacy in the numbers of the police. What was wanted was organization, not increase in the force, and even if increase were required, it should not be made without full inquiry for the satisfaction of the ratepayers?

said, he regretted the tone in which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had spoken of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He (Viscount Enfield) thought the greatest good faith had been displayed by the Secretary of State in dealing with the question under discussion, and he thanked him for the courtesy he invariably exhibited in connection with matters of metropolitan interest. Nothing was easier than to sneer, after the danger was past, at the alarm which had been excited by the Fenian outrages of last winter; but he did not think the hon. Gentleman's constituents would approve of his remarks. The Secretary for the Home Department had, he believed, only done his duty in making an addition to the police force. He would point out that while in 1830 there were 3,274 men in the Metropolitan Police their duties extended only to ten miles round Charing Cross, and that the population which they had to protect amounted only to 1,500,000. In 1839 the area was extended to fifteen miles from Charing Cross, and at the present day a force of something under 8,000 men of all ranks had to protect a population of 3,400,000. But it should not be forgotten that out of those 8,000 men a considerable number were incapacitated for duty by illness and wounds, and that 1,200 were draughted off for special duty in connection with the palaces, museums, and other public buildings. In the City Police there was one man to two-and-a.-half acres of district, and 284 in population. In the Metropolitan Police the proportion was one man to seventy or eighty acres of district, and 600 of popu- lation. He contended that the increase in the police force was necessary, but he felt some difficulty with regard to the expense, because the Metropolitan Police force were frequently sent to the country on duty, and the metropolitan ratepayers had to pay for them. He thought that the Imperial Treasury might fairly contribute one-half towards their expenses. When we employed men in the discharge of important duties, they were, he thought, fairly entitled to be paid, and if the right hon. Gentleman opposite would promise to institute a full inquiry next year into the entire organization of the police, he believed the public would be perfectly satisfied. Meantime he would give him his cordial support.

said, he rose for the purpose of pointing out that this Bill was not a just and proper one, for it departed from the principle of the 4 & 5 Will. IV., in which Act it was laid down that the ratepayers of the metropolis were only to be required to pay 6d. in the pound police rate, and that whatever additional sum might be wanted was to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Why should an alteration be made, and a further sum be levied on the metropolis for police purposes? Fenianism was a national evil, and why should the ratepayers of London be called upon to pay a larger sum for putting down Fenianism than the inhabitants of any other portion of the kingdom? It was said in justification of this Bill that more police were required as the area was increased, but the increased area would return an increase of rates.

said, he saw no objection to the police having a holiday once in every seven days, but he thought the money required should not come out of the pockets of his constituents, but from the Consolidated Fund. The Act referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) fixed the police rate in the metropolis at 6d. in the pound, but the right hon. Gentleman asked the House to give more money. It was generally supposed that Sir Richard Mayne, of whom he wished to speak with the greatest respect, was only remaining in office for another year to entitle himself to a pension, and he thought it would be better to wait until they could make some permanent arrangement than to increase the salaries of the sub-Commissioners. He should vote against the second reading unless the right hon. Gentleman told them it would be referred to a Select Committee. He protested against the Bill going on without further inquiry.

said, a statement had been made to the effect that the population of the City of London was only 112,000; but he wished to point out that there were daily in the City some 600,000 or 700,000 persons, who had to be protected or looked after by the police. He also remarked that nothing was contributed to the support of the City Police Fund out of the Consolidated Fund.

said, he thought it would require a good deal more than had been stated by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) to induce the House to reject the Bill. The measure was only to provide for the additional charge rendered necessary by an increase in the number of police which everybody admitted to be necessary. It was no fault of the Government that the Bill was brought on at so late a period of the Session; and as to having a Select Committee to inquire into the police system, no necessity for it had been proved. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets had not stated any facts to warrant the rejection of the Bill, nor was there in his (Sir James Fergusson's) opinion any ground for the attack which had been made upon Sir Richard Mayne. The police force called forth the admiration of the whole country, and much credit was duo to the Commissioners for their efficiency. As to drill, the men were only drilled one hour a week, and that only during the summer months; and, as to the increase of the vagrant class, surely if there were such an increase the number of the police should also be increased.

said, he hoped the House would not take upon itself the responsibility of rejecting this Bill. An increase of the police force had become necessary, not on account of Fenian outrages, but on account of the enormous increase of the metropolis, and for the protection of life and property, and the question rather was out of what fund they should be paid. The new regulation under which a holiday of one day in the week would be given to the force had met with general approval. It would doubtless conduce to the efficiency of the force, and would induce better men to enter it; but its operation was to require a certain increase of the number of police. The Treasury only paid the same proportion of the expenses of the Metropolitan Police as of the County Police. It was said the Government ought to pay more because of the special services rendered to Government property, but these services were paid every year by a special Vote for the police in the Estimates, which amounted to between £50,000 and £60,000. Something had been said about their military organization, but their training was not carried to any excess. If large bodies were to act together it was necessary they should have some organization, and it was impossible to have this unless they received some training and drilling. If a Committee sat in reference to the police system, he believed it would be the means of removing much apprehension, and of showing how efficient the force was.