said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether any, and what, steps are being taken for the more speedy relief of Regiments at present serving in India, which proceeded thither for the suppression of the Mutiny in 1857, and have not returned home since?

replied, that in consequence of the large number of regiments sent out to India during the Mutiny in 1857 and 1858, it was found impossible, as only five regiments could be relieved per annum, to bring home all the regiments. But in selecting the order in which the regiments should return home, his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief had shown the greatest consideration to them. By continuing the relief at the rate of five regiments per annum, all the regiments which went out in 1857, with the exception of two, would be relieved by the end of 1871, and by the end of the following year all the regiments which went out in 1856 would be relieved. If, however, more than five regiments were relieved every year, a hardship would be inflicted upon regiments serving upon other foreign stations. In conclusion, he must remind his hon. Friend that, although the battalions had remained in India during this long period, there were very few officers or men left there who went out in 1857.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the office of Clerk of the Crown has not hitherto been regarded as patronage appertaining to the local Members for the County when supporting the Government; whether the joint recommendation of the Members for the King's County has not been disregarded in the late appointment; whether such disregard had arisen from any deficiency in personal character, or of any want of professional aptitude to fill an office involving the performance of nominal duties, or if it had arisen from want of social status or professional standing? Would he state his reasons for supposing Mr. Bergin deficient in these respects; whether Mr. Dalton, the gentleman now Clerk of the Crown for the King's County, is connected otherwise than by his appointment with the King's County; and, if he has been recommended by Members of Parliament or Members of the Government, will he state who they are who have interfered with the County Members' patronage; and, whether Mr. Bergin, who was recommended by the County Members, received a certificate from the head of the legal profession in Ireland—the Lord Chancellor—through his Lordship's Secretary, which was forwarded to the Chief Secretary?

Sir, in answer to my hon. Friend I have to say that the patronage of the office of Clerk of the Crown pertains to the Lord Lieutenant. It is, of course, usual to consider the wishes of the County Members supporting the Government, and those wishes were very carefully considered on the present occasion. It was, indeed, a matter of deep regret to the Lord Lieutenant and myself that in this particular case we were not able to agree in the view taken by the Members for the King's County; but I must remind my hon. Friend that the wishes and recommendations of Members of Parliament, however important, do not bind the discretion of the Executive; nor can they do so, inasmuch as they in no degree relieve the Executive from the responsibility which falls on the Lord Lieutenant in filling up public offices. With respect to the next part of my hon. Friend's Question, I must say that I regret he should have thought it necessary to ask it, and I must decline to answer it, because it requires me to explain in the minutest detail the reasons which have influenced the Lord Lieutenant in the performance of a most responsible duty. Such an answer would be one which it would be as improper as invidious in me to give. As to the next part of my hon. Friend's Questions, I have to state that I do not know that Mr. Dalton is connected with the King's County beyond the fact that he was the conducting agent of one of the Members for that county at the late election—the Colleague of the hon. Baronet. In reply to the next part of the Question, I have simply to observe that I am not aware that anyone has committed the crime of having interfered with the County Members' patronage. So far as I know, in the first instance Mr. Dalton recommended himself, but the Lord Lieutenant, on full inquiry, was perfectly satisfied that in choosing him out of the list of candidates before him he had done what was best for the public service, and, to put the matter on a lower footing, even what was best for the general interests of the party with which my hon. Friend and myself are connected. As to Mr. Dalton's want of connection with the county, I must remind my hon. Friend that it is by no means an unprecedented event that clerkships of the Crown, particularly in counties, should be filled by gentlemen not otherwise connected with the county. In the case of the King's County itself, the last occupant of the office but one—who, I believe, was appointed at the request of the hon. Baronet, at a time when Lord Lieutenants and Chief Secretaries were more fortunate than they happen to be at this moment, and than, I hope, they will be in future, in being able to comply with the request of my hon. Friend—had no connection with the county except that he was his own conducting agent at the previous election. In answer to the last part of the Question I have to state that a letter has been communicated to me, written by the private secretary of the Lord Chancellor, which is of a most formal kind, and does not at all come up to the description of a certificate.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been drawn to a Letter in the "Times" newspaper of the 25th June, from Mr. Forsyth, in which it is stated that, owing to the want of a sufficient staff of translators, a period of four or five years generally elapses after the admission of an appeal from India to the Privy Council before the report reaches England, and that at the present moment there are between two hundred and fifty and three hundred appeals from the Presidency of Bengal alone awaiting transmission to England; and, whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State for India to direct any measures to be taken to expedite the transmission of appeals to this Country?

said, in reply, that the Secretary of State in Council lately called the attention of the Bombay Government to delays in the transmission of appeals from the High Court there, and he intended presently to address the Government of India as to the expediency of hastening the transmission of appeals from all the High Courts.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to the question of the construction of Railways in India, If he will include, with the Despatches to be laid upon the Table, the Minutes of the Members of Council thereon?

said, in reply, that his hon. Friend was evidently under a misconception. It was not the practice for Members of Council to write Minutes on despatches. They had the right to record dissents from proceedings in Council, and these dissents were entered in a Minute Book. None had yet been entered with reference to this railway question. If his hon. Friend was pointing at anything which existed he must be pointing at certain confidential opinions, given long before these despatches arrived, to the Secretary of State by Members of Council for his information. These were private documents, just as private as anyone's private letters.

said, that by the indulgence of the House, he wished to be allowed to make an appeal to his right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir Henry Bulwer), in whose name a Notice stood on the Paper for to-morrow evening, to the effect that he meant to call attention to the recent negotiations between the Government of this country and that of the United States, and to move an Address for Papers. He must, in the first place, render his acknowledgments on the part of the Government to his right hon. Friend for the considerate manner in which he had hitherto regulated himself upon this subject, he having more than once postponed the Motion in consequence of representations made to him on the part of the Government, founded on what they believed to be the public interest, and a period of the Session had now arrived when his right hon. Friend was in a position to ask either that they should offer no further impediment to his Motion—even in the shape of an appeal to postpone it—or give sufficient reasons why they thought it would not be advisable to bring it forward. He hoped his right hon. Friend would receive favourably the overture he was about to make, and would come to the conclusion that he could best serve the interests involved in this great question by refraining from asking the House to discuss the question at this period. The grounds upon which he made this appeal were these—The House was well aware that it was the general rule of Parliament not to discuss matters of foreign negotiation while they were in progress. Some months ago the important matter in question reached a new stage by the rejection of the treaty originally framed between the two Governments, and at first sight this had the aspect of the cessation of the subject. The Government of the United States brought on that cessation; but Her Majesty's Ministers had no reason to believe that the United States Government regarded the question as having been definitely dropped, because it was known to Her Majesty's Ministers that the Government of the United States thought it highly desirable that some interval should elapse, in reference to the state of opinion and feeling in that country, before any negotiations on the subject should be resumed. He was inclined to think that it was their duty to concur in that sentiment of the Government of the United States, and to favour the prevalence of the view upon which they had acted. He might also observe that that was not only the view of the Executive in that country, but it was the fact that this important and delicate subject had not been made the theme of discussion in either of the branches of the Legislature of the United States. He was well aware that a speech of great length was delivered, expressing the views of the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and that speech, delivered in confidence, was afterwards published by license of the Senate, but no general debate had been held in the two Houses of the American Legislature on the question. Under these circumstances he felt —and he thought the House would sympathize with him in the feeling—that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Ministers, as it was their anxious desire, to endeavour that nothing might occur to impede the resumption of the negotiations between the two Governments with favourable prospects at the proper time. It therefore became his duty to renew the application he had on former occasions made to the right hon. Gentleman, and to request that he would refrain from now asking the House to enter on the general discussion of this case, which was still substantially pending between the two Governments.

Sir, I am sure the House will feel that I am most desirous, on personal and public grounds, to comply with any request made by my right hon. Friend, who is the head of the Government and responsible for its acts. But, Sir, I think I may say without presumption that I am, perhaps, not altogether unqualified to form an opinion for myself. I have wished to form an opinion conscientiously, and I have been somewhat strengthened in the opinion I have formed by looking j back to those which I have previously expressed, and finding that they have been found correct Now, Sir, I say this, because upwards of two years ago I had a conversation, which I think I may repeat, as it relates to a public matter, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), who is not now in his place, on these very affairs of America; and everything I said at that time has proved true. When my noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) accepted the appointment of Minister of Foreign Affairs, I took the liberty of requesting an interview with him, and from my experience in the affairs of the United. States, and of the Constitution of the United States, I impressed upon him my opinion that the negotiations which we were then carrying on with Mr. Johnson in this country would not be brought to a successful close. Now, Sir, I say, with the same confidence with which I expressed that opinion to my noble Friend at that time, that I am convinced that if we leave the question as it now stands between us and the United States of America, we shall have cause to repent our silence and inaction. I am for leaving well alone, but I am not for leaving ill alone.

I rise to Order. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be discussing the subject, though there is no question before the House.

I think the House will allow to the right hon. Gentleman a reasonable latitude; but I think also that I must lay emphasis on the word "reasonable."

As I desire, if necessary, to put myself in conformity with the forms of the House, I might say that I would conclude with a Motion; but, after having this Notice frequently before the House, and having stated that I would bring it under discussion, I think, in justice to myself and my feelings, and in justice to my duty to my country, I should be allowed to state why, if I do give way to the wish of the Prime Minister, it will be with extreme reluctance.

I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that it would be contrary to the rules of the House that he should enter now upon the discussion of a question on which he proposes a discussion on a future day. He is limited to an answer to the question which has been put to him, with a reasonable latitude for explanation.

I perfectly understand that, and I have not the least intention of speaking on the general matter. All I wish to address myself to is the suggestion of my right hon. Friend. Am I in Order? ["Hear, hear! "] Well, then, I give as my reason for thinking that this matter ought to be discussed, that without discussion it is in a very unsatisfactory condition. I do not attach much importance to the speech of Mr. Sumner, to which my right hon. Friend has alluded, or to the rejection of the Treaty by the United States; but what I do attach great importance to is, that, as the question now stands before the public, one country thinks it has suffered a great wrong for which no redress has been offered, whilst the other considers that a most exaggerated demand has not been abandoned, but merely suspended, to be brought forward at any time, when it would be as dishonourable as now for us to grant it, and more dangerous for us to refuse it. When I refer, moreover, to past negotiations in which our Government has exhibited almost every variation from the extreme of resistance to the extreme of concession, I cannot but feel that it is time for this House to steady the policy which we should henceforth pursue, and leave no doubt with the American people as to the feelings of the people of Great Britain. At the same time, I admit that it is for the House itself to judge of this matter, and I should be exceedingly sorry to bring before it any subject which it was not well disposed to receive, and which, exercising the same judgment as myself, it thought it was inexpedient at this time to discuss. Of course, I cannot expect any very great party support, because all parties were mixed up in these matters, and perhaps some of the acts which they committed I should not be indisposed to condemn. But I shall bow to the general sense of the Gentlemen around me; and if it is the general desire that I should not now bring this question forward, certainly I shall not do so. But then I must add, that if I am so unfortunate as to prove a true prophet—as I have done on one or two occasions before—I must throw the responsibility on my right hon. Friend, and feel free to add to the observations I have to make on the past conduct of preceding Administrations those which I may feel myself called on to make on the conduct in this instance of the present one.

said, the General Post Office in St. Martin's-le-Grand was not equal to its requirements, and an entirely new office was to be erected opposite to the present building.

asked what was to be done with the present building? Was any part to be utilized for extra offices that would now be required for telegraphic purposes?

said, it would be kept up. The new building was to be in addition to the existing one.

observed that last year the Committee was told only a few thousands more would be wanted; he could not, therefore, understand why demand was here again made for £22,000. The original Estimate for Alderney Harbour was £755,000; but £1,324,000 had been spent upon it.

said, this was the last Vote that would be required for harbours.

said, he was delighted to hear it. In the North of England people were going begging for means to improve really useful harbours, while vast sums were being frittered away to no purpose, comparatively speaking.

said, it was worthy of notice that this harbour had cost £14,000 less than the original estimate.

said, that while the whole Vote for four years past had only amounted to £27,000, it was this year £2,000 more. Moreover, an office seemed to have grown up in connection with the Vote, and that office and the salaries it involved cost £900 a year. He wished some explanation about this office, or he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £900.

assured the hon. Member that he was in error in his reading of the Votes. The rates, during some years past on Government property, amounted to £36,000, and the different appearance the Vote assumed now arose from a transfer of part of the charge to another Vote. The total charge on this account amounted, as the explanatory Vote showed, to £39,175, which, however, was not a real increase on recent Votes. The Government long since agreed with the House that it would decide at what rate public property should be assessed to local rates, instead of leaving the matter in the hands of local officials. To carry out this arrangement an officer in the Board of Works was appointed with assistants, as described in the Vote; but the arrangement led to a vast amount of circumlocution in cases of rating property belonging to the Army and Navy, and it appeared to him that it would be better to have the officer in the Treasury, and settle the matter without departmental correspondence. It had been decided to charge the rates to the Department whose property was rated, and next year the items would appear in the Army and Navy Estimates. He could not say he liked separate establishments, and hoped in time to get the officer and his assistants incorporated in the Treasury; but Departments were sometimes stronger than reformers, and prevented beneficial changes.

said, he did not know what the hon. Member meant by "Departments being stronger than reformers," and he did not know to what Department he referred; but the Office of Works had nothing to do with the rating of Government property, and had become mixed up in the matter only because the Government, in casting about for an officer to superintend and control that novel service, found Mr. Austin, the then secretary of the Office of Works, who was experienced in rating and had also gained experience in the office of the Poor Law Board, and appointed him to the office. When Mr. Austin retired from the Office of Works the connection between that Office and this Vote ceased.

said, that his objection was not to the largeness of the Vote; but that the public offices did not contribute their fair share to the taxation of the metropolis. He wished to know upon what principle offices occupied by the Civil Service were entitled to exemption? The Home Office and the new Foreign Office had the advantage of good drainage, but they did not contribute anything towards it.

said, he was glad to hear that some reform was contemplated in the matter of this Vote. It appeared to him that the Government offices, as well as all other offices, should pay a fair proportion towards the local rating. As to the Departments being stronger than the Treasury, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was all-powerful in that Department, and surely an inspector, his clerk, and an extra clerk were not too formidable for the prowess and courage of the hon. Gentleman? He hoped that the item for the salaries of these officers, who existed to investigate claims for contributions, would disappear from the Votes, and that we should have a general rating Bill, applying to every species of property, not excepting Sunday schools.

said, that the Government property in Edinburgh was not rated, and no contribution was made at all by it. That principle he considered to be most unjust. Government property everywhere should be placed on the same footing in regard to rates.

said, Government establishments ought not to be exempt from rates, for in many instances they contributed largely to pauperism. No doubt there were many large establishments that would like to appoint their own officers to determine what rates they should pay, as the Government did; but he hoped the Government officers would be abolished, whether they were compensated or not, and that all Government establishments would be subjected to all rates, local and Imperial.

said, that Salford contained a large extent of Government property, and received nothing, although the streets around the barracks had been paved. He should, therefore, like to know on what principle contributions were made?

complained of the Vote being increased over that of last year. He should move that it be reduced by £1,000, unless some satisfactory explanation was given by the Secretary of the Treasury.

said, he had not the rules with him, but there were rules, and they were strictly administered; but the chief consideration was the proportion which Government property bore to the whole amount of property in a parish, and it was in cases in which, a certain proportion was exceeded that a contribution was made. When the system was re-arranged each Department would be responsible for the expenditure which belonged to it, subject to the control of the Treasury.

said, he was not satisfied with this explanation. He thought that Government property, wherever situated, should be made liable to the payment of its fair proportion of local rates.

trusted that the Government would, at some future time, explain to the House the rules by which these matters were regulated.

said, that this was a large Vote, and contained a vast number of items. He desired to know how and by whom these Estimates were prepared, and what machinery existed for thoroughly analyzing them before they came into the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury? He observed £46,362 for New Works and Alterations in Ireland. Although there was a reduction in the sum total from the. Vote of last year, there was a considerable increase amounting to £7,788 in sub-sections B C D E and F. Believing that the Department would not suffer if the amount granted did not exceed that asked for last year, he should move the decrease of the Vote by £7,788.

asked the meaning of the £500, which for the first time was asked for on account of "contingencies" in connection with Phoenix Park, Dublin? It was, of course, impossible for the House of Commons to investigate such Votes as these, complicated as they were by so many items; but he could not help thinking that the question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland was a very pertinent one, and that was, under whose supervision were these Votes prepared, and who guaranteed the accuracy of the sums which the country was thus called upon to pay?

asked an explanation of the item of £170 for Irishtown Church, and the item of £18 for furniture and fittings of the said Church? He believed that in the Army Estimates a Vote was taken for the salary of a clergyman, a clerk, and a sexton of the Irishtown Church.

said, he thought the item of £14,835 for furniture for the public buildings in Ireland a very extravagant one. Last year the amount under the same head was £10,168, making a sum of about £25,000 for two years. No such amounts were ever asked for public buildings in Scotland, though that country contributed £2,000,000 annually to the Imperial Revenue more than was contributed by Ireland.

called attention to the item of £1,777 for maintenance and repairs of metropolitan police courts and stations in Dublin, in addition to the large sum voted last year. The total amount required for courts and stations was £7,916. He found that for the Chief Secretary's lodge and gardens in the Phœnix Park £1,432 was required, though £1,465 had been voted for them last year.

said, he did not know that Scotland contributed more towards the Imperial Revenue than Ireland, but he did know that Ireland had more inhabitants than Scotland, and he presumed, therefore, that the Irish required more furniture than the Scotch. It was a subject of complaint in Ireland that the people there did not receive enough of the public money. Since he entered Parliament he had. frequently been asked by his constituents and others to whom was to be attributed the Imperial stinginess towards Ireland. He thanked his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury for enabling him to answer the question. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk) would show the same economical spirit when the Votes for this metropolis came to be considered as he was manifesting in the case of those for the Irish metropolis.

said, he hoped that the expenses of the police courts in London would receive the attention of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk). He thought some explanation was required as to why the expenses of the six prisons had been placed in this class, rather than in the one to which the prison departments more properly belonged.

inquired how it was that all educational Votes for Ireland did not come under the general educational Votes?

remarked upon the large sum, £3,165, required for furnishing the Dublin police courts.

said, that the offices in Dublin must regularly sell their furniture on the last day of December and purchase new on the first day of January each year to require £14,000 per annum for movables.

said, it was quite impossible for him to carry in his head the details of all the items of the Vote, which had been considered at the time. With regard to the item for furniture, to which his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) so strongly objected, he might remind him that fittings as well as furniture were included, such as glass cases for museums and the fittings of new buildings. Under the system which prevailed in Ireland, all requirements for buildings, furniture, and fittings were placed under the Irish Board of Works, and it therefore became necessary to group them in some such way as they appeared in the Estimate. With regard to the item for the Church he had not taken upon himself to commence the work of disestablishment, and therefore he had continued the Vote which had been annually granted ever since the Union. Dublin was supplied with water under an Act of Parliament which fixed the amount of the rate to be charged.

complained that no account had been rendered to the Audit Office of the expenditure of the money voted for 1868.

asked, why it was that there was every year a re-Vote of some £10,000 or £20,000; and he also asked whether it was the Board of Trade or the Trinity House that was responsible for spending this money?

replied that the Board of Trade spent the money, though the Trinity House was occasionally employed to render services. The contracts were made abroad, and that often led to delay, and caused a re-Vote of the money. The cause of the accounts of expenditure not having been furnished for 1868 arose from some delay on the part of the Indian Government.

observed that a large sum was asked for year after year for the Embassy House at Paris, and he thought it better that a certain fixed amount should be allowed the Ambassador for repairs.

said, that if they went on spending money in this fashion on the Embassy House at Paris the building would soon be full of nothing but furniture. A clerk of works was also constantly employed at the Embassy House, at a salary of £185 a year. To bring these things under the notice of the Committee, he would move that the Vote be negatived.

said, he thought that the sum of £1,787 for the repairs of the Embassy House at Paris was more than they should vote. For an annual rent of that amount an excellent house for the purpose might be obtained.

said, that the Embassy at Paris required a house of a high character, and some years ago, as the charges for the Embassy House were great, the Government undertook to make whatever changes in it might be necessary gradually. However, it was one thing to spend money for repairs and another to keep an officer in Paris as clerk of the works; and if these works were carried on by contract, the permanent officer in Paris might be dispensed with, and an officer of the Board of Works might occasionally visit Paris to survey the works, providing himself with a return railway ticket for a month.

said, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) was greatly mistaken in supposing that a fit house could be obtained for a rent of £1,700, for in Paris the rents were higher than in London. He had been over to Paris lately, and he was thoroughly ashamed of the state of the furniture in the upper rooms of the Embassy House. It was an expensive house to keep up, and constantly required repairs, and perhaps the best plan would be to have a new house. A clerk of the works had been appointed for some years, because the House desired that there should be some one in Paris to look after the expenditure; but he would consider whether arrangements might not be made for sending a person to Paris occasionally to inspect the building.

said, he thought the statement just made was discouraging. There was £3,600 spent in 1868, £1,900 in 1869, and now £1,700 more was asked for. He should like to know what security they had that the sum they were asked to vote for that building would not be exceeded.

said, he thought that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works with respect to the state of the Embassy House in Paris was discreditable to the Ambassador. They had been annually voting £1,600 or £1,700 for the building, and yet it appeared that it continued in a very dilapidated condition. Some years ago it was said that economy would result from having a clerk of the works always at Paris, but the consequence was that there had been an increase of expenditure.

said, it seemed to him extraordinary that they should every year have to vote that sum. He suggested that the Vote should not be rejected, but that the Government should be asked to give some details; so that the House might be able to judge what the expenses consisted of, and whether they were likely to go on year after year to the same amount. No facts had. been stated on which this Estimate was founded.

said, they had last year voted on that account something like £2,000, and they had no assurance that by granting a similar sum this year they would not be throwing good money after bad. He attributed this continual expenditure to the clerk of the works at Paris, who would generally find work to do.

said, that subject had engaged the very serious attention of the Committee up-stairs. That Committee had called for a detailed account of the expenditure under that head; their Report would soon be published, and he had no doubt that when hon. Members read it they would be very much surprised, as the Committee had been, by its details. That expenditure had often been discussed in the House, but he did not think it had been understood; and when it was understood he believed that hon. Members would see the significance of the statement made by his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works that an inquiry would be instituted into the outlay with a view to the introduction of a new system. His right hon. Friend had told him that the subject would be carefully considered by his Department, and after that assurance he (Mr. Ayrton) hoped they would be prepared to pass the Vote.

agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Hermon) in attributing the chief part of the expenditure at Paris to the presence of a clerk of the works in the Embassy House there, and said he should move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £185, the allowance of this officer.

, said that every sort of system had been tried to produce economy in the two Embassy Houses of Paris and Constantinople, and all alike had failed. But he certainly believed that Lord Lyons, the present Ambassador, did not deserve the censure which had been cast upon him by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk). He had himself always found in Lord Lyons a zealous co-operator in every attempt to keep down the expense of the Embassy.

expressed his surprise at the description given by the First Commissioner of Works of the discreditable state of the Paris Embassy House.

said, the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) had told them that every plan had been tried for keeping down the expenditure. But there was one plan they had not yet adopted, and that was to discontinue the Vote. It was absurd to suppose that £2,000 could be really required every year to keep that house in repair. He believed it was all to be attributed to the appointment of a clerk of the works, for while they had such an officer he would naturally be always finding something to do. He was persuaded that, if they discontinued the Vote of £185 for the clerk of the works, and employed an eminent Parisian architect, the expenditure under the present head would be diminished by at least one-half.

said, he thought it was very undesirable that they should vote separate sums for every kind of petty work at the Paris Embassy House, because such a system was sure to tend to careless and extravagant expenditure. He would suggest that that system should be abandoned, and that, for the future, the Ambassador should receive a lump sum which should cover the entire of his outlay.

said, the Embassy House at Paris was a very large and expensive one, and from its size and condition must always require a considerable amount of annual expenditure. He could corroborate what the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) had said of Lord Lyons, than whom there was no man more disposed to economy or more likely by observation to prevent any improper expenditure on the house in which he lived.

thought, with reference to the observations of the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton), that the Committee should have means of understanding the Vote before they were called upon to pass it, and it should rather be deferred until this information was supplied.

said, that a reduction had been made a few years ago in the Vote for the Embassy at Constantinople by expunging from it the salary of the clerk of the works. Whether owing to that reduction or not he could not say, there had since been a decrease of £1,335 in the Vote for that Embassy, and, perhaps, an equally satisfactory result would follow if the item were struck out in the present instance.

suggested, that as the present Embassy House in Paris was an old tumble-down building, it should be sold and a new house obtained in its stead. The public would, he thought, be gainers by the transaction.

said, he saw no great objection to having the office of clerk of the works done away with, which he believed was established at the suggestion of the House. If, however, the Committee would leave the matter in his hands, he would take care that it should be looked into, and if he found the abolition of the office was likely to lead to economy, the charge for it should not appear in the Votes next year.

said, that being satisfied with that assurance, he should not press his Amendment.

said, that the balance which the Committee was asked to vote was less by £10,000 than the original Estimate.

said, he was not aware whether any part of that reduction referred to the Embassy House at Constantinople. Presuming that it did not, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury to explain — for he knew that, as an independent Member, he objected to the sums which were expended on some of our foreign Embassies—how it was that the sum of £10,000, which had been voted for the purpose of building a country house for our Ambassador at Therapia, had been exceeded by £3,000? He desired also to call attention to the large sums which year after year the House was asked to vote for the Embassy House at Pera, in building which a sum of £80,000 was not many years ago spent. It was true, as had been stated by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes), that the office of clerk of the works at Constantinople had some time since been abolished; but then he found that there was a salary for a superintendent put down in the Estimates, and he wished to know whether he was not much the same functionary as a clerk of the works, for he had a very strong suspicion that such was the case? He desired further to say that there appeared to be two sets of plans for the house at Therapia, the original plans of a local architect having been superseded by those of Colonel Gordon, whose plans, he understood, had since been modified by those of some other official at Constantinople. He hoped his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury would inform the Committee which of those plans had been finally fixed upon.

said, he entirely sympathized with the dissatisfaction which his hon. Friend seemed to feel at the expenditure which was incurred in con- nection with the establishments which we kept up at Constantinople. It had, however, been the policy of this country for some years to keep up great establishments in that city. His hon. Friend was right in stating that he (Mr. Ayrton) had constantly protested against so large an expenditure; but he was obliged to take matters as he found them, and to accept the expenditure which was deemed to be necessary for the purpose of making our Ambassador comfortable. Not only had he a mansion at Constantinople, but a country house at Therapia also provided for him at the public expense. Provision had, besides, to be made for his secretary, as well as for the maintenance of an hospital and courts of justice. The whole of the expenditure for keeping up these and other establishments amounted to £32,816, the item of £4,000 being for the completion of the building at Therapia. It was impossible for the Government, dealing with this question in the advanced stage in which they found it, to do more than they had done. The expenditure was as final as expenditure usually was. He did not know what demands might be made from Constantinople another year; all he could say was he would do his best to resist them.

observed that previous to the change of the clerk of the works the Ambassador had no control whatever over the expenditure. The clerk of the works made a job of the whole business. It was found very advantageous to do away with the clerk of the works altogether. As to the house at Therapia, he should like to have some idea of the work done and what there was still to construct. He thought that the house now provided would not be a very satisfactory one. He did not think the expense would be confined within the £10,000, and there would be always a constant and useless expenditure upon it.

said, he was altogether at a loss to understand how there! had been a diminution under this Vote of £10,000. There was a great fallacy in the statement of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury as to that reduction. He strongly objected to the sum of £174,000 proposed to be taken for the purchase of land in China and Japan. He was very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman below him (Sir Henry Bulwer), who had occupied so distinguished a position in Constantinople, that the clerk of the works had not been restored, and that subsequent to his dismissal a considerable saving had been effected.

begged to inform his hon. and gallant Friend that the Treasury had. sent out an extremely able and economical public servant (Major Crossman) to make inquiry with reference to the erection of the proposed consular establishments in China and Japan. He had very nearly completed his inquiry and survey to ascertain the cost, and had given the Government information on which they reduced the demand for the present year. He also informed them that, unless the demands were sifted, criticized, and reduced, they would lead ultimately to a considerable increase above the original estimate. Major Crossman had asked for leave of absence, and it was deemed advisable to comply with his application, consult with him personally on the subject, and devise some means for the reduction of the Estimate. He was expected daily to arrive in England; it would be his duty to communicate with him on the subject, and he could assure his hon. and gallant Friend the Vote would not remain at its present amount unless he were satisfied it should.

said, he had always understood it was the duty of the Secretary to the Treasury to consider what sum was necessary before proposing a Vote; he was therefore rather surprised to hear it stated that the proposed sum was as final as expenditure usually was, and no hope was held out that it would not be ultimately exceeded. Unless some Member of the Government gave a more satisfactory explantion he should move to reduce this Vote.

said, he had stated that this money was required to complete plans and estimates made before the present Government came into Office. At the same time he must say he did not admire the policy of keeping up an expensive establishment at Constantinople.

said, he had never heard a less satisfactory explanation of a Vote; for if any one could explain those Votes it was always the Secretary to the Treasury. He hoped some assurance would be given that no more money would be asked for.

said, he thought the Committee had a right to know whether £4,000 would be enough to complete the buildings. Last year he had taken the sense of the Committee on this subject, but he had been beaten by 2 to 1.

gave credit to the Government for a general intention to be economical, but he had no confidence in their power of being economical at Therapia. The clerk of the works who used to be there was paid, not by fees, but by salary, and being responsible only to the Office of Works it was his business to enforce economy. What machinery had the Government for enforcing economy, since the Vote of the House would disestablish him? If matters were left to the local architect or to an engineer officer, that would account for the fact that no one knew what the new buildings at Therapia would cost. At so great a distance the Government at home could exercise no control, but they ought to have some one on the spot.

said, there was a superintendent at £300 a year, who was responsible for the expenditure. The sum now to be voted was to complete the house and to furnish it. Of course, demands were always made for keeping up these establishments, but it would be the duty of the Government to resist any further expenditure for these buildings.

said, he would like to know something about the expenditure in China and Japan. Last year the Government asked for £37,000 for Japan, without giving any explanation as to what it was for; and now £10,000 more was asked for buildings, but no one knew anything of the details, which were yearly promised but never given.

said, he was sorry to hear the remarks made by the right, hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Bulwer) with regard to the clerk of the works at Therapia. His differences with that officer were tolerably well known. [Sir HENRY BULWER: I never disagreed with the clerk of the works, but I did not approve what he did.] Well, the clerk of the works was not there to explain. His position was felt to be incompatible. He was necessarily a man of comparatively humble position, and no great amount of good was likely to flow from his efforts to keep down expenditure. The abolition of his office was therefore rather beneficial than otherwise. He had been succeeded by a simple superintendent, and perhaps it would be advisable if some explanation were given from the Treasury Bench as to the relationship subsisting between that superintendent and the Embassy. His own opinion was that at present there was no connection between the Office of Works and the Embassy House at Constantinople, and that it lay either with the Foreign Office or Treasury to decide what money was required for the Embassy House. The Secretary of the Treasury had given the Committee to understand that although it had been his duty to defend the Vote, he had no great sympathy with it, and that, indeed, he rather disliked the whole system which regulated our international affairs at Constantinople. That, however, was a large question of policy which could not be discussed in Committee of Supply. He thought the Committee need have no difficulty whatever in agreeing to the Vote under discussion, because it was only intended for the carrying out of the plan sanctioned by the House last year.

said, that in his time the clerk of the works appeared to have entered into many unnecessary expenses; but when the office was abolished a much smaller sum than was previously expended was allowed the Ambassador, within which he was to keep the outlay. During the year he had the management of that sum he left a considerable balance unexpended. He thought it a far better and simpler plan to have one man who was responsible than to have a person sent out from the Board of Works, at very great expense, over whom the Ambassador had no control, and over whom it was impossible for one residing in London to have any.

inquired whether the superintendent really performed the same duties as the clerk of the works had done. When the clerk of the works had disappeared it looked very much as if a new office of the same kind had been created. He wanted to know how the superintendent differed from the clerk of the works?

said, the clerk of the works was sent out by the Board of Works, and had the entire control and management of the expenditure; the superintendent, who in his time was suggested by the Ambassador, and confirmed, of course, by the Government at home, was appointed at a much less salary; his business, no doubt, was to keep down the expenditure, and to go over the accounts, but he had not the unlimited control that the other possessed.

said, he agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Henry Bulwer) that a great deal of good would be done if a fixed sum was granted for all the European Embassies. The sum asked for was not very large, but it was a constantly increasing expenditure. He could not vote for the proposed reduction; but there was one item which required explanation—that of £800 for "adapting old buildings. "When we were erecting new buildings, why were not the old ones sold?

asked whether the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth would add this further information, who this superintendent was? "Was he the old clerk of the works transmogrified?

said, he could speak only for what had occurred in his own time. The superintendent that he suggested was an Englishman and an architect. He was certainly not the same person as the clerk of the works.

said, the superintendent was the Vice Consul at Constantinople.

wished further to know what qualifications he had for the discharge of the duties to which he had been appointed?

said, he had not been appointed by the present Government; but he presumed that those who had selected Mm were satisfied with respect to his fitness for the office. It was no doubt a difficult task to know how to meet all the requirements of Consuls and Ambassadors, but the policy in question did not begin with these Estimates. Her Majesty's Government, on assuming Office, could not undertake to solve all the difficulties. As to the £800 to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Muntz) had referred, it was for putting part of the former house into a state fit for occupation by the secretary, because when the Ambassador went to Therapia he was accompanied by his secretary.

said, the Govern- ment were not satisfied with the present arrangement in connection with the Embassy at Constantinople, and that the charges would not appear in the Estimates next year without some modification. He would make the same statement with respect to the Embassy Houses in China and Japan. Colonel Grossman had been sent out specially to report upon the subject, and was now on his way home with information for the direction of the Government. He could assure the House that the charges in connection with the Embassy Houses in these countries would also be revised before the Estimates were made up next year. With respect to the new buildings at Teheran, that was an arrangement made by the late Government, and, as far as he could judge, it was a reasonable one. A proposal came home as to the old buildings, which were in an extremely bad and ruinous condition, and would cost £15,000 to repair. But the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) thought that a better site could be chosen, upon which a new residence could be built, while the old property might be sold. It was important to have a good supply of water, and that would be obtained at the new site, and he had reason to believe that the Estimate of £20,000 would not be exceeded.

asked for some explanation of this Vote. For some years, when there were a large number of Private Bills before Parliament, the House of Lords had more than sufficient to pay its expenses; latterly the reverse had been the case, but he wished to know what had been done with the surplus of those years. Among the items requiring explanation he noticed two principal door-keepers, £900, one of whom was a receiver of fees with another salary; and there was a "necessary woman," with a salary of £208.

inquired whether the sum of £4,000 paid to the Lord Chancellor was intended as his salary as Speaker in addition to his salary as Lord Chancellor; how it happened that the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords received£2,500, while the Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons received but £1,500; and what salary Black Rod received in addition to an amount of £90 for fees mentioned in the Votes?

said, he hoped the Committee would view with satisfaction the appearance of the particulars of this Vote for the first time in the Estimates; the demand of the Upper House could now be compared with the charge on account of the House of Commons. As the salaries would, no doubt, be reviewed as vacancies occurred, there was a chance of the Vote being reduced. He could not explain the language describing an official referred to; but believed the designation justified the appointment, since she was described as "a necessary woman." The surplus funds had been carried into an account to secure superannuation allowances for retired officials of the House of Lords, in accordance with the wish of the Committee of the House which dealt with such matters. The payment of £4,000 to the Lord Chancellor as Speaker was in addition to the payment made to him out of the Consolidated Fund as Lord Chancellor. The salary of Chairman of Committees in the Lords was fixed a long time ago, and it was not for the Treasury to require the reduction of such salaries under the circumstances. With reference to the item for the Usher of the Black Rod, the salary paid to him was very small; but he was an officer belonging to the Household, and as Usher he was placed by Her Majesty in the House of Lords, receiving certain fees for the performance of his duties. He did not know what the fees amounted to, but whenever the office became vacant the present system would be discontinued. The Treasury had been in communication with the Lord Chancellor with the view of fixing a certain salary for the Usher of the Black Rod, instead of payment partly by fees and partly by salary. The arrangement would be a considerable saving to the public.

observed that they were upon the first of forty-one Votes in Class II., in twenty-seven of which there were increases amounting altogether to £386,000. He was sorry to find this increase under an economical Government when two great Departments—namely, the War Office and. the Admiralty—had managed to retrench. The prospect of twenty-seven wrangles drove him to despair, and he gave it up.

thought if they compared the Estimates for the two Houses those for the Lords would favourably contrast with those for the Commons.

wished to know whether the receiver accounted for the whole of the fees, or for those that remained after certain payments were deducted—whether, in fact, he accounted for the gross or the net amount of the fees?

said, that under the new system he would account for the whole gross amount of the fees.

wished to know why the salaries of the Speaker and the Serjeant-at-Arms were not included in this Vote?

replied that they were charged on the Consolidated Fund.

asked for an explanation of the charge for four Referees of Private Bills at £1,000 each?

said, that by the lamented death of Mr. Hassard a vacancy had occurred in the office of one of the Referees.

said, that the vacancy which had occurred would not be filled up. There would, of course, be no objection on the part of the Government to re-consider the amount required for Referees of Private Bills. The expenditure of that money was, in fact, not under the Treasury but under the House of Commons itself. The exact sum that was necessary for the services of the Referees during the present Session could be ascertained before the Report was brought up.

said, it would depend on the Report of a Committee now sitting whether there would be established a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons upon Private Bills; and in that case it was very probable that the office of Referee would be done away with. Until, however, that point was decided, he thought the Speaker should have a discretionary power as to the number of Referees to be appointed to assist Committees on Private Bills.

condemned the system of paying officers of that House by fees, and animadverted especially upon the item of £1,500 for fees upon Private Bills.

said, there were great complaints of the enormous cost of carrying Private Bills through that House; but as the amount put down for those fees was only £17,000, he could not understand why the cost of such Bills should be enormous.

said, the fees to counsel in the case of Private Bills were often exceedingly heavy; and the Parliamentary expenses of certain small railway companies, with which he had been connected, actually amounted to no less than £4,000 per mile; or, as nearly as possible, about what ought to have been the natural cost of constructing their lines. That was the result of the House retaining the existing tribunal for dealing with those questions.

explained that the item of £1,500 for fees on Turnpike Bills was merely a matter of account. In regard to the fees paid to the officers of the House, the fees were not received by those officers for their own benefit. The officers of the House were paid by salary.

said, the fees were paid by the public on Bills partly of a private and partly of a public character, and they were accounted for to the House.

asked for information relative to the Vote for ventilation.

stated that the Establishment charges of the House of Commons were not regulated by the Treasury, but by a Committee of this House, who forwarded the Estimate to the Treasury, and who, he presumed, carefully considered the requirements of the House before making the Estimate.

said, there was no such Committee appointed by the House.

said, the expenditure was regulated by statute, and a Committee was appointed by the statute, consisting of the Speaker, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Home Secretary.

said, he was not aware of the existence of such a Committee appointed by the House.

said, he saw this item in the Votes—one of £724 and another of £500 for messengers. He wished to know whether the Votes included the salaries of the men who de- livered the Votes and Papers at hon. Members' residences, and whether they were so insufficiently paid that they had to ask hon. Members for gratuities?

wished to know who was responsible for the Vote for lighting and ventilating the House, as the present and late Secretaries of the Treasury differed in opinion upon that point?

said, the Speaker, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Home Secretary were a Committee for that purpose, and they were appointed by statute, and they were responsible for the salaries, and not the Treasury.

asked for an explanation of the item of £500 fees to the clerks for attending divisions. He objected to the clerks being paid by fees.

said, it was a sum paid in addition to their regular salary, for their attendance at the divisions of that House. They had, of course, to remain so long as the House sat, and. this sum was distributed amongst them for those extra and special duties. To them it was an extremely arduous service, because they did not take the same interest in divisions that hon. Members did.

asked for an explanation of the sum of £460 for audit clerks.

asked for an explanation of the item for the salaries and office of the Parliamentary draftsman. Although an increased sum had been awarded to that Department, he still found an item of £1,000 for additional services.

replied that it was quite impossible for one or even two persons to draft all the Bills required by the Government, and the arrangement now made was this— the counsel for the Home Office was appointed Parliamentary counsel for the whole Government, and was provided with as much extra assistance as was necessary for drawing all the Bills for the different Departments. There was some economy in this arrangement, as compared with the old system; but, what was of still greater importance, there would now be uniformity in the drafting of the Bills of the Government. Last year, while the Parliamentary counsel of the Government had £2,000, another counsel, not regularly employed by the Government, had £3,500. It was time to put an end to such a system; and the fresh arrangement, by which all the work was put into one hand, would he believed, be found both more economical and more efficient than the old one.

said, the new system did not appear to get rid of the anomaly of engaging other counsel to assist the Parliamentary draftsman of the Government, who did not therefore appear to have gone far enough to make his department complete in itself.

said, the object now was to keep the fixed establishment of the draftsman at the lowest possible point, and obtain extra help when it was wanted. In answer to the hon. Member's (Mr. Dillwyn's) question, he had to state that the clerks referred to did not audit accounts, but they examined the accounts before they were sent by the Treasury to the Audit Department.

said, that in this Vote there was included a sum of £14,000 for the salaries of the First Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Third Lord of the Treasury, and two Junior Lords; a third Junior Lord serving without salary. Now, he was not about to object to that amount, which he thought a moderate one; but, on the contrary, what he wished to bring under the notice of the Committee was the objection which existed to the principle of accepting the services of one of the Junior Lords without a salary. For the Marquess of Lansdowne he had the greatest respect. He believed it was notorious that his Lordship had devoted himself with much zeal to the duties of the office which he had undertaken, and that he had done so with considerable advantage to the country; but, notwithstanding the hereditary claims of the noble Lord, and his own estimable character, he thought the Government ought not to have accepted his services as a Lord of the Treasury, without insisting on his receiving a salary. The receipt of a salary by a public servant made him more directly responsible to the State. Besides the precedent of allowing a member of one of the great families who could afford to fill a public office without a salary to give his services gratuitously would destroy the principle of competition. Lord Grey had refused to allow a noble Duke to hold office in his Government without salary. He believed Lord Grey had adopted a constitutional course in acting in such a manner, and he thought the present Government would have done well to have adopted the same principle.

called attention to the fact that £5,000 or £6,000 was charged for expenses connected with the Local Government Act. Cities and towns applied to the Home Office for assistance in borrowing millions of money, and they obtained it without expense and without stamps. He disapproved of this practice.

thanked his hon. Friend for bringing this important matter before the House. When the Public Health Act was passed it was thought undesirable to prevent local authorities seeking advice and assistance from the Home Office by fixing a scale of fees. But now the time had come to re-consider this question, and say whether localities, whose work was done by the Home Office, should not be called upon to make some contribution to the expenses. A scheme had been for some time under consideration in order to effect this, and in due time it would be laid before the House.

remarked that this subject was an old one. He was glad to hear that the Government intended to move in the matter. There were half-a-dozen other departments in connection with the Home Office and the Treasury which ought to be considered with a view to an arrangement similar to that referred to by the hon. Member for Greenwich.

called attention to the question of travelling expenses allowed to the Poor Law inspectors and the inspectors of schools. In the case of the Poor Law inspectors their travelling expenses were commuted for a payment of £300 a year each; but the school inspectors, who had much more travelling to do, and who were paid their actual expenses, averaged only £91 a year each for the cost of travelling. He suggested that the Poor Law inspectors should also be paid their actual travelling expenses; and then it would be seen whether their inspections were really made, about which sometimes some question was raised.

said, the school inspectors were paid a fixed salary of £250 over and above that which they otherwise received for all expenses incurred during absence from home, other than travelling expenses; and it was a fair matter for consideration whether that was the best arrangement, for it acted at present very unfairly, as some were necessarily more frequently and for longer periods absent from home than others. The question of applying the same system to mine and factory inspectors had been under the consideration of the late and the present Government; but it was found that the variety of their circumstances was so great that it was found impracticable to arrange any uniform system of fixed payments in lieu of travelling and other expenses.

said, he thought that all inspectors should be placed upon the same footing, and that the owners of the factories, mines, or salmon fisheries inspected should pay the expenses of the inspectors.

said, that in the case of mines and factories the inspectors were appointed in the interest not of the owners, but of the people working in them, and that, therefore, it would be unfair to call upon the owners to pay the expenses of the inspection. The case of the salmon fisheries, however, was different; the expenditure of the Government in that respect conduced to private advantage, and if a way of doing it could be found, it would only be just and equitable to make the owners pay.

called attention to the Vote for the superintendent of roads in South Wales, and asked why that payment was kept up.

said, a great experiment was made in South Wales in the turnpike system, and he hoped the time would come when it would be followed in this country. The money advanced by Government would be re-paid in about ten years.

said, the experiment tried in South Wales had been thoroughly successful, and he did not see why turnpikes should not be put an end to altogether.

said, he merely declined to bring in a Bill on the subject in the present Session.

moved that the Chairman report Progress, as it was not customary to go on with the Estimates after twelve o'clock.