said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the Habitual Criminals Act of 1869, Clause 16, the date 1861 was not inserted in error for 1866; and, whether this error has not rendered the Clause inoperative; and, if so, whether he will this Session amend it?

said, that owing to the haste with which the Habitual Criminals Act was passed, several errors of omission and commission were allowed to pass in the Bill. The Home Secretary, however, intended to introduce a Bill during the present Session to remedy these inaccuracies.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any steps to furnish the Irish Public Record Office with copies of such ancient English Records as relate to Ireland?

, in reply, said, the subject had been under the consideration of the Treasury on more than one occasion. At present the resources of the Record Office were entirely absorbed by the work in hand; but as soon as that business was all disposed of, there would be no difficulty in complying with the terms of the request.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If it is true that the Commanding Officer of the Regiment, now quartered at Knightsbridge Barracks, does not allow the band of his Regiment to perform upon the platform erected for that purpose in Hyde Park in the same manner as the bands of the two last other Household Cavalry Regiments?

I doubt, Sir, whether my hon. Friend has clearly apprehended the bearing of this Question. The Army Estimates furnish the pay of the musicians for military purposes; but it is no part of their military duty to perform upon the stand in Hyde Park. The costly instruments which constitute the band are the property of the officers. I have understood that the officers are extremely courteous in extending to those who have no right to claim it the pleasure which the band affords; but I have not felt at liberty to make any official inquiries respecting the rules by which their courtesies are regulated.

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the unsatisfactory working of the regulations in force to secure the humane intentions of the Legislature in behalf of the Homeless Poor, consequent on the practically indiscriminate distribution of relief given to the whole class of applicants, criminal or not criminal, impostors or genuine poor; and, to move, That vagrants applying for shelter and food shall be put under the protection, regulation, and management of Police, said, that a reference to the original Poor Law institution of England, as based on various Acts passed between the reigns of Henry VII. and the 7th year of James I. showed that the evils that had then to be contended with arose from the fact that large numbers of dissolute and restless idlers, disbanded soldiers, and quondam lawless retainers had been thrown loose upon society. In the attempt to disintegrate the mass a division into three classes was made. The first consisted of the maimed, the diseased, and the impotent poor, for whom the Maisons Dieu, infirmaries, and hospitals were provided; the second, of the infant poor, for whom schools were built; and the third class, the idlers, the dissolute, the vagrants, and the incorrigible beggar, for whom Bridewells and institutions for correction were supported. This division had been the result of the constant preaching of Latimer, Ridley, and the most popular divines of that period; and it was felt then that it was requisite and essential to the good government of the State to separate from this mixed mass of pauperism this third and dangerous class, which then as now threatened the well-being of society. There was, then, nothing new in the proposal to place I this vagrant class under the supervision and regulation of the police, for that was the original and primal basis of the Poor Law institution of the country. That was still the law and practice of every other European State. No one had ever attempted to review the policy of the Legislature in respect to vagrancy without referring to an Order in Council passed in 1349, the year subsequent to that of the terrible plague called the "black death." That Order in Council was as follows:—

"No person shall give anything to a beggar that is able to labour, because that many valiant" (that is strong) "beggars as long as they may live on begging do refuse to labour, giving themselves to idleness and vice, and sometimes to theft and other abominations. No one upon said pain of imprisonment shall, under colour of pity or alms, give anything to such which may labour, or presume to favour them in their sloth and idleness, so that thereby those vagrants may be compelled to labour for their necessary living."

That Order in Council was not passed into an Act until the succeeding reign, in consequence of the terrible state of disease under which the metropolis was labouring. It appeared to have been the result of the knowledge and intelligence of the celebrated man, well known to every lawyer in the House, John de Thoresby the Chancellor, the author of the celebrated Statute of Treasons, and like the Statute of Treasons, it went to the very root of the matter, by punishing not the man who received, but the man who gave the alms and thus made the mendicant. Just as in the case of the Statute of Treasons, the statute founded on the Order in Council he had quoted was undoubtedly passed before men's minds were sufficiently advanced to give the sanction of conscience to obedience to the statute, and, consequently it fell to the ground, the first offender in all these cases being, of course, the King, who was followed by the Church and Court to the detriment and scandal of the whole country. The next reign was celebrated and sullied, as the reign in which commenced a series of barbarous and novel enactments against beggars and vagrants, totally excluding from the operation of their sanctions, those who were the beggars' tempters and abettors. The Acts became impotent simply because they were outrageous and impossible. In more recent times, the introduction of machinery into agricultural and manufacturing pursuits did undoubtedly withdraw multitudes of labourers from one locality and attract them to another, and hence the migratory character stamped upon vast bodies of the agricultural and manufacturing population tended greatly to modify, if not to revolutionize, the sentiments of society generally and ultimately to reverse the policy of the Government in relation to vagrancy. In the sympathy which was felt for this class, the danger of vast bodies of agricultural and manufacturing workmen herding in large cities and in this great metropolis with the vagrant, the idle, and the dissolute, was lost sight of, until the vagrant, from his intractability, his immobility, and his ponderous apathy, became what was called master of the situation. The evil was increased by the number of charitable institutions intended for the relief of distress, but conducted without discipline, without classification, and without labour, whether as a means of education or as a test of condition. In 1856 there were in London 530 charitable institutions and nightly refuges and cognate societies, and the returns of the annual expenditure of the former class alone was £1,805,635. The returns of the night refuges and institutions of that description were then, as now, very defective, and, more than that, very unsatisfactory, and of their income we had no account. Of the working generally of these institutions those who had most deeply studied this subject for years, as it affected this metropolis, felt that what John de Thoresby said in his day was true also in this, for under colour of pity and giving alms, these institutions were simply provocative of the very evils which they were intended to mitigate and allay. The number of vagrants in London in 1856 was 1,205, which was supposed to be a seventh, or, more nearly, a sixth, of the entire vagrant population of England and Wales. The whole night admissions in every institution for the year were returned as 143,000. He had himself taken great pains, by the help of I men who had been all their lifetime employed in investigating the subject, and occupied in relieving the poor, to obtain, certain information as to how many of these admissions were wayfarers, or travelling mechanics and agricultural labourers, moving from place to place, seeking work, between 1856 and 1864. Now, though undoubtedly the number varied, not only according to the period of the year, but more especially according to the locality, if they put aside the night before the Derby, and the night before the Oxford and Cambridge boat race, they would find that the number of real wayfarers was never 6 per cent, and rarely more than 1 per cent. It would be remembered that in 1858 a very strong outcry was raised upon the subject of the homeless poor and vagrant classes in consequence of two children having wandered from their homes and taken refuge in a certain institution not far from Hatton Garden. In the year 1864 the number of night admissions rose, from 143,000 in 1856, to 216,549. The number of individuals making applications did not rise in proportion, but the recurrent admissions of the same individuals greatly increased. In fact, the casual character of the applicants was gradually lapsing into that of habitual vagrancy. Seven out of the 42 parishes to which he applied could give him no returns, because they had kept no books. Therefore their number, whatever it might be, must be added to the 216,549. But in the years 1863, 1864, and 1865 a vehement and continuous onslaught was made upon the metropolitan guardians for not supplying sufficient accommodation for the "casual" poor. Unfortunately, that word had done all the harm. If it had been the casual poor the guardians would have richly deserved it; but it was not the casual poor, and the erroneous use of that term had got them into all that trouble. In 1864 an Act was passed for distributing over the whole metropolitan area the charge incurred in providing food and accommodation for the wayfarers and the foundlings. Now that phraseology would not only not cover the whole mass of the applicants, but would touch only 1½ per cent, composed, as that vast aggregate was, of professional tramps, convicted thieves, and habitual vagrants who constitute the great proportion of the vagrancy of London, and of every large town where the vigilance of the police slumbers. Consequently, another Bill was passed in the following year, 1865, extending the provisions of the former Act beyond the wayfarers and the foundlings to wanderers and other destitute persons; but as the measure excluded all proper means of ascertaining the true character of the applicants, it really embraced all wanderers and all persons who preferred living at the expense of the public to maintaining themselves by monotonous industry. It was entitled the "Houseless Poor Act"—not the homeless poor, but the houseless poor, a very different thing. When he had spoken of the title and the provisions of that Act to his Continental friends who were engaged in dealing with vagrancy, they exclaimed—"England provides for the houseless poor; then we suppose she will next make provision for the landless poor." And when they found that was to be done without inquiry by the police into the character, antecedents, and modes of life of those classes, they added—"We know that England is very rich, but she must be very rich indeed to deal simply by the force of her money-bags with the part of any population which is the most difficult of all to govern." He had asked one eminent man, well known to the House, whether he was not astonished that men and women should yearly be found starving in the streets of that great metropolis; and his answer, which went to the root of the whole matter, was—"Not at all. The wonder is, that whole families of the humbler, self-supporting, labouring men, are not beggared and do not die of want with such a weight on their shoulders: and, as for the really destitute and those fallen into distress, what decent poor man or woman would mix with such a ruffian lot as in your vagrant wards must nightly congregate?" His friend referred him to the causes of crime, which were the same in England as in France and in Germany, and said that the records of the prisons showed that, next to drunkenness, the generality of crime arose from the desire to acquire property with a less degree of monotonous labour than the ordinary industry required to obtain it honestly. That statement corre- sponded with the confession of criminals themselves, which proved that among the pauses of crime, next to drunkenness, was the desire, as they expressed it, to "shake a free leg," which means intolerance of control, love of ease, sloth, and sensuality. From those causes proceeded the large number of our convicted felons, who were inextricably interwoven with our vagrant population. In Mr. Doyle's Report for 1866 there was this passage—

"As a general rule in this district the casual ward of the workhouse, so far from being the temporary refuge of the deserving poor, is a place of rendezvous for thieves and prostitutes, and other vagrants of the lowest class."

The Houseless Poor Act he conceived to have been a complete reversal of all the legislative policy of this country, not only because it gave to persons who called themselves destitute, but of whose destitution they had no proof whatever, a primal right or lien on property, but also because it gave to a man who had no house a right prior to, and greater than that of the self-supporting labouring ratepayer; for, as everybody knew, the rates were due in advance, and the law had no scruple about selling the bed, the chair, and the table of the honest working man to meet the collector's demand. The Houseless Poor Act excluded all possibility of such a check or guarantee against imposition as was contemplated even by Socialism, and it required the vagrant wards to be open from 6 o'clock in the evening to 8 the next morning, so that the persons admitted to them came there and remained during the hours of the day when the best or only chance of getting employment, if they really wanted it, presented itself. Thus they, as it were, actually initiated the inmates of those wards into habits of idleness by their system. He had himself conversed with occasionally respectable vagrants in a casual ward, and they had told him that the institution was simply a herding together of the helpless and the accidentally indigent with the worst and most depraved portion of society. The most alarming feature of the operation of this law was afforded by the Returns he had received from every parish and union in the metropolis on the following four points—first, the number of men, women, and children admitted in the year ending Michaelmas, 1869, compared with those admitted in 1864; secondly, the proportion of those admitted in 1869 whose settlements were believed to be in the country or abroad—this belief being not based simply on the statement of the applicant, but on the knowledge and experience and investigation of the officials; thirdly, the proportion of those who, within the same period, were believed to be of the criminal class; and, fourthly, the supposed proportion of recurrent admissions. The total number of admissions in the metropolitan area in casual wards, exclusive of night refuges and other charitable institutions, was 614,088. Taking, then, the number of vagrants in England and Wales as 6,692, the admissions in the casual wards of the metropolitan workhouses alone would give to all the vagrants 92 nights' lodging in 1869. But the calculation was, that in all cases of wayfarers and non-professional tramps, including casual sickness, 30 nights a year for each was an ample and most sufficient average. But this was very far short of the real state of things. The admissions into hospitals, night refuges, charitable institutions, and prisons into which the London vagrant found his way swelled this average into not less than 120. But we knew that, although the number of vagrants might be diminished in certain counties, yet all the vagrants of England and Wales had not spent the year in London. It was simply undeniable that the following conclusion must be drawn:—First, that the operation of the Act had worked notable increase in the number of vagrants; and, secondly, that the number of habitual vagrants, vagrants who continued vagrants, and made vagrancy a trade was correspondingly increased. Of the proportion which immigrant vagrants bore to the whole of the admissions, he could not give a perfectly accurate table, because in 273,939 admissions only, out of the total 614,088, had the officers of 42 Unions and parishes taken the precaution to observe and report. He had divided the parishes into two; the first batch of 147,003 gave 116,939 not belonging to the London vagrant classes; the second batch of 126,936 gave the number not belonging to London as 106,938. This, therefore, would give in 273,939 only 50,062 to London vagrants properly so called; but it must be borne in mind that the accommodation in night refuges and cognate institutions for vagrants was omitted. It was no part of his object to strain matters; but he contended that the Act had allured to London and to a vagrant life in London a very large proportion of those who found nightly admission to the night wards, and this had operated on a scale of such magnitude that if the estimated number of nights for wayfarers were applied in the calculation, the number of ascertained vagrants would have risen to 20,453, and that from prisons and other refuges to 11,000 or 12,000 more. But this deduction was opposed to the direct testimony borne in respect of night refuges in the metropolis; the recurrent admissions varied from 9–10ths every three months to 1–8th. But some most intelligent officers stated to him—"They see throughout the year the same faces, the admission suspended only during the term of imprisonment." But the now very nearly accurate information as to the external character of the vagrants and the number of night admissions proved that the wayfarer was a very rare bird indeed—that the vagrant was now the habitual, and unless instant action be taken this incorrigible class would be not simply dangerous but a stigma to civilization. Of the proportion of convicted thieves among the vagrants he had no accurate returns from the vagrant wards; but of their existence in dangerous numbers, especially in some Unions, he had very clear and valuable evidence. In St. Mary's and St. John's, of 23,605 admissions—15,199 men and 6,861 women and 1,545 children—50 per cent were of the criminal class. In St. Luke's, Middlesex, a somewhat lawless quarter, two-thirds of the vagrants were ascertained to live on plunder, and had been convicted of theft. In St. Pancras the number of that class was only 15 per cent; in the Strand it was 25 per cent. In St. Olave's the account was less favourable still. In Rotherhithe the proportion was 50 per cent. In Wandsworth it was 33 per cent. As regarded the City, the account of a most intelligent officer contained this statement—"There are few who are not more or less belonging to this class." In Kensington also the account was unfavourable. In St. Mary's, Islington, Mr. Hicks bore the same testimony as was borne of the vagrants in the City. In Holborn, where the number of admis- sions had risen from 2,631 to 15,882, petty thieves constituted one-half the admissions. In Hendon things were similar. In St. Georges Hanover Square, 25 per cent of the vagrants had been convicted of crime. In Fulham, while 30 per cent had been in prison, 15 per cent had been committed for felony. In Clerkenwell the criminal class was but 1 per cent, and in Brentford it was 5–16ths. He did not want to unduly press these statistics on the House; but as many Members might, as he had done, frequently visit vagrant wards, and have given much attention to this subject, the evidence adduced in these returns would probably show them that of which he had taken much pains to convince himself—namely, that a proportion dangerously great for public safety of the dangerous classes was mixed up with the vagrant proper. Having then shown that the vagrant class in London had been vastly augmented, he would state in two Lines the actual magnitude of the number. In the tables of the population of London from 18 to 39—the ages which included by far the largest proportion of male vagrants—there were 478,500 males. In the night admissions of the year 1869 the male admissions numbered 370,413. They must take away from 478,500 all men in the metropolitan prisons, all in hospitals, and all in nightly refuges, all in charitable institutions of all classes of this age, and then see whether 370,413 admissions into workhouse vagrant wards of the male population was not something alarming enough. It was a fact unparalleled in Europe. No metropolis could endure the like, and yet in England the consumption of solid food per head of the whole population exceeded that of France, Prussia, Spain, Belgium, as well as that of the more Southern States, in the following proportion:—In Prussia the consumption of bread per head of the whole population was, according to the tables of Professor Kolb, 324lb. per annum; in England, 450lb.; in France, 495lb. The consumption of animal food per head of the population was in Prussia, 35½lb.; in France, 46 3–10lb.; and in England, 136lb. per annum. Professor Entemann, of the Lower Chamber of Berlin, had told him that in that metropolis, estimated in 1864 as possessing 633,749 inhabitants, a vagrant population was never allowed to exist as a permanent incubus upon the people, and, in fact, not 60 individuals coming under that description existed. No country except England would undertake to provide for the nightly accommodation of a wandering population. Taking the smaller towns of the North German Confederation, he found that in Lübeck the number of vagrant poor in 1862 was 46; in 1864 it was 57; in 1867, just after the War, it rose to 74; but in 1868 it had again fallen to 34. The vagrant population in that country was regarded as so closely connected with the criminal population as to form one of the dangerous classes. The returns he had obtained from France were not stated with sufficient clearness to be of much use in supporting his view of the question; still they showed that the police in Paris were in the habit of treating vagrants as belonging to the dangerous classes. The course adopted in that city was to educate the vagrants by means of hard and useful work, and every care was used to prevent the children of such persons from following in the footsteps of their parents. It had been stated that the French law did not recognize pauperism, and that no provision in the way of rates was made for the maintenance of paupers; but the various charities for the relief of the poor in that country were supported largely out of the communal revenues, which were principally derived from the octroi and similar imposts. He had intended to enter at length into the details of a scheme he had drawn up for the regulation of our vagrants; but he felt that the state of the question and his own position in that House would render such a course on his part both offensive and presumptuous. He did not think, under these circumstances, that his Motion would be objected to as being a mere abstract Motion, because he had pointed out the existence of a serious evil, and had indicated its source and the remedy that lay in the hands of the Government. He had shown the necessity that existed for placing these undisciplined, unclassified, and ungoverned persons under a uniform discipline, an accurate classification, a firm government, and for imposing upon them a labour test. He had forborne to lay before the House an immense mass of matter relating to the counties and affecting the larger towns of England, because there were so many hon. Members in that House who had devoted much of their time to the study of this subject, and who might take that opportunity of putting the House in possession of their views. But he believed he had amply proved the necessity that existed for the unfortunate and dangerous class to which he referred being taken in hand by the direct Executive of this country, and not left under local management—that the remedy involved elements too complicated to be entrusted to any but the Executive authority of the State. Steps should be taken to separate the accidentally poor from the professional vagrant living by crime. Such a protection was absolutely needful for the safety of the country no less than for the progress of civilization. What was especially needed in this country was organization and unity of action. He thought that the House would agree that the utter absence of all control, of all attempts at reclamation, and of all efforts to get at the children of these unhappy men and women constituted a danger which local agency could not cope with, and he would conclude by moving his Resolution.

, in seconding the Motion, said, that he wished to make a few observations as to the operation of the law, especially in his own part of the country. The Macclesfield Union a short time ago published a statement as to the increase of vagrancy during the last few years. They stated that the number of vagrants in Macclesfield was in 1860, 378; and that in the following years to 1864 the numbers were—416, 1,154, 4,934, 4,229; in 1865–6 the numbers were nearly the same; in 1867, 4,036; in 1868, 5,785; and in 1869 the number reached was 8,245. Now, as to the treatment that might be supposed to have brought about this state of things. The guardians, in reply to the circular letter of the Poor Law Board upon vagrancy, stated that at one period they had tried a strict system, and at another a lenient one; and the result was, that they had come to the conclusion, that no system, be it humane or strict, harsh, and severe, would operate as an effectual check to vagrancy. This coincided with a very able Minute of Mr. Charles Buller, in 1848, in which he said that experience had shown that the roughness and coarseness of fare only inflicted hardship upon the really meritorious and destitute, and did not counterbalance the inducement that the certainty of food and shelter held out to the dishonest vagrant. These were important facts, and showed that the treatment of such a vast amount of vagrancy must be a matter of great difficulty. It was all very well to place vagrants under the control of the police, but something more must be done to stop the evil effectually. In his (Mr. Bromley Davenport's) opinion, future generations must be looked to; and though it might be too late to turn the adult vagrant from his evil courses, yet the country ought to adopt measures to prevent a fresh brood of paupers from being produced every day. The children of vagrants, in order that they might be prevented from following the bad habits of their parents, should be educated in a special manner, so that their vagrant and predatory instincts might be eradicated. He had himself proposed several years ago to place the whole class of vagrants under the police, and the proposal met with the favourable consideration of the House; but the plan was never carried fully into effect, and he now hailed with satisfaction a proposition to effect the same object.

said, that at the commencement of this Session he expressed his regret that the Government had not mentioned the great subject of pauperism in the Queen's Speech; but since then he had somewhat modified his opinion in consequence of seeing the large amount of business that the House had undertaken, for he should be sorry to see such a question as this entered upon without an adequate prospect of their being able to deal with it in some efficient manner and arriving at a proper end. At the time to which he had alluded he had also expressed the hope that the Session would not be allowed to pass by without some private Member bringing the matter before the House, and in his opinion they were much indebted to the hon. Member opposite (Dr. Brewer), who had done so in so able a manner. In the course of last Session he (Mr. Corrance) himself undertook to introduce the whole general question of pauperism, and when he placed his Notice upon the Paper it was certainly his intention to have given some prominence to the question that they were now discussing. But it might have been observed that he really treated this matter as but a subordinate part of the question, and he had reason for doing so, for when he came to enter more fully into the subject it seemed to him that this question of vagrancy scarcely entered into the general question of pauperism itself, but stood almost completely apart from it. This opinion was greatly confirmed by further researches in the same direction. It seemed to him that this question of vagrancy was never thoroughly contemplated in the Act of 1834, but was introduced only collaterally, as forming a subordinate part of the measure; and indeed in succeeding times there was very little mention of it. In 1866, Mr. Cave, one of the Poor Law Inspectors, stated that—

"Although the Commissioners laid down very exact, and even minute regulations for the management of the permanent inhabitants of a workhouse, they issued no regulations for the treatment of vagrants; and Guardians were left to treat the casual poor in any manner which seemed expedient to each Local Board."

The first system of the Poor Law Board was based upon local settlements and removals and a very strictly defined system of local administration, and it scarcely embraced the case of such a large and erratic class as the vagrants. At first also there was not sufficient central power, and the powers of the Commissioners were renewed from year to year until 1839. At that time the wants of the vagrant class became apparent, and in 1844 the District Asylums Act was passed in reference to London to meet the most pressing wants. The operation of that statute was very much like that of the Houseless Poor Act of the present day, and it attracted a large proportion of homeless men to London. It seemed to have been a failure, for in 1848 the Minute of the Board, to which reference had already been made, was issued, and in it they said—

"The Board are unable to suggest any additional test or punishment that shall prevent the abuse of relief indiscriminately extended to every stranger who may represent himself as destitute. A sound and vigilant discrimination in respect of the objects of relief, and the steady refusal of aid to all who are not ascertained to be in a state of destitution, are, obviously, the most effectual remedies against the continued increase of vagrancy and mendicancy."

The Minute went on to state—

"The Guardians must, therefore, encounter the responsibilities of their position, and entrust the business of administering relief to officers who shall possess sufficient discrimination to distinguish those whose urgent destitution gives them a claim to relief from those who throw themselves habitually on public charity because it is extended to all who choose to ask it."

This showed that the Board was utterly incompetent to prescribe remedies to meet this case, and tasks were imposed upon the guardians which they could not perform. They had not efficient officers for this work, and how were those officers to ascertain the condition of the casual wayfarer? The system itself precluded this, for it was essentially a local system. The result was that Boards of Guardians acted more or less upon their discretion; and about 10 years afterwards there were some unpleasant symptoms, though there was nothing that brought the matter to direct issue. Towards 1860, however, there were circumstances which took place in London that gave rise to considerable scandal. Some Boards of Guardians had acted with humanity, and others with the greatest severity; and it happened that people applied, were refused admission, and died. This attracted the attention of the House. A Committee sat in 1864, and the result was the passing of the Houseless Poor Act. The Report of that Committee was very interesting, and speaking of vagrants it said that this class was a distinct and separate class; that their habits were predatory, and that their means of living were means of robbing. In 1868 the next official notice of the matter took place; and it would be pretty evident from this document that the Poor Law administration had, under ordinary circumstances, been found to be thoroughly deficient and incapable of exercising efficient control over this class of people. He believed that the Poor Law Board had done its utmost in this direction— that it had issued good Minutes founded upon correct information, but that the guardians had not been competent to carry them out. That Department, however, was not the only one concerned, for representations had also been made to the Home Office, as he should show—no later than last year—in a correspondence with the Chief Constable of Cumberland and Westmoreland. The Chief Constable wrote—

"Chief Constable's Office, Carlisle,

"1st February, 1869.

"Dear Sir,—In reply to your communication I have much pleasure in enclosing for your information an extract from my Report to the last Michaelmas Quarter Sessions, in relation to tramps and vagrants. The police of these counties have orders to use their utmost exertions to apprehend persons found committing offences against the Act 5 Geo. IV. c. 83. No doubt they experience pretty much the same difficulty in tracing out this class of offenders as is found to exist in connection with the discovery of crime generally. However, they did succeed, as you will see from my Report, in apprehending 524 persons. I need hardly say that the police would not be justified in apprehending persons simply because they bore the appearance of tramping vagrants. As to there being any difficulty in tracing out offences committed by tramping vagrants, I can only say that no insuperable difficulties have been in these counties, and, since the magistrates have uniformly enforced the law there was in the two counties during the year ending on the 29th of September, 1868, a decrease of 6,935 tramping vagrants, while various petty larcenies, burglaries, and other crimes decreased in a most remarkable proportion. My opinion is that a large proportion of tramps go about the country for the purposes of plunder, and I feel persuaded, from the experience we have had in these counties, that if the law were generally carried out professional tramping' as a profession, might be very speedily and successfully grappled with.—Believe me to be, dear Sir, always very faithfully yours,

"(Signed) J. DUNNE, Chief Constable of the Counties of Cumberland and and Westmorland.

"To J. B. B. Baker, Esq., &c, Hardwicke Court, Gloucestershire.

"'Your Committee consider it necessary to specially draw the attention of the Court to the great public evils that arise from the habitual depredations committed by tramps and vagrants. A large majority of the crimes in the county are committed by such persons. The daily average number in Westmorland was this year 35, showing an increase of 10 as compared with last year; and your Committeee are of opinion that it would be greatly conducive to the public interests if the laws in regard to those persons were in every case most strictly administered.'"

He believed that he was right in saying that the Home Office had taken very little notice of that communication, or of further representations made to that Office by General Cartwright in his Re- port; and, at all events, it had produced no corresponding action. Were the Home Office authorities waiting for the Poor Law Board, or the Poor Law Board waiting for the Home Office, or was it a case of divided responsibility? He believed that the Poor Law Board had done its best, but the Home Office had done very little, and not taken any prompt or efficient measures to meet the necessities of the case. He was inclined to think that if the Home Office had co-operated more frankly and freely with the Poor Law Board the result might have been much more satisfactory. The facts to which he had alluded were the data upon which he came to the conclusion that this matter was scarcely one which the Poor Law Board could deal with if left to itself. There was a great deal of collateral evidence upon this point; and some of it referred to the horrible places in which tramps lived. In reference to the tramps' lodging-houses in Bristol it was stated—

"Any person of respectability resorting to these places would be the exception and not the rule. Remaining there above two or three nights would raise the strongest presumption against any man's character, and any man residing there for several nights may safely be considered a rogue or a scamp of some sort or other. There does not appear to be much difference in those frequenting them. The class appears to be tramps, low thieves, receivers of stolen property, begging letter writers, and rogues of every description. All those frequenting them are ruined, dead ruined—all lost as if they did not belong to humanity. They are so lost that they cannot be reformed. Those places are schools for ruining the souls and bodies of all children entering them. The general opinion seems to be that some of these houses are frequented by particular classes of rogues."

In answer to another question it was said—

"They are not brothels in the usual acceptation of the word, but every man or lad bringing a woman or young girl there would unhesitatingly be received and no questions asked. How could they be asked? It makes me sick at heart when I think of the prostitution going on among the children."

Mr. Barwick Baker, of the Manchester Statistical Society, had published a paper in reference to these classes, and showed what was a very serious matter, that the number composing them had of late years very greatly increased. No doubt the casual visitors were likely to be over registered by being put down two or three times; but still allowing for this the figures were very serious. Mr. Baker stated that the numbers of vagrants and tramps from 1858 to 1867 were as follows:—22,559, 23,353, 22,664, 24,011, 29,504, 33,182, 29,114, 33,690, 33,191, and 32,558. And what made the matter even worse was that the proportion of vagrants to tramps had greatly increased. He would remind the House that the two classes—vagrants and tramps—embraced all houseless wanderers, and that there was one class of wayfarers—namely, those who were looking for work or changing their residence—who were properly entitled to relief. Mr. Baker said—

"The next thing which strikes us is the varying proportions of vagrants to tramps. In 1851 the vagrants were one-tenth of the whole, and with some variation continued so till, in 1866, they became one-eighth, and in 1867 one-sixth of the whole. This may be fairly explained when we come to the history of the last two years. It should, however, be noticed that the increased number of tramps since 1856, as distinguished from vagrants, cannot have been caused by Poor Law regulations, seeing that they are entirely independent of them. Yet from 1858 to 1865, when they reached their highest point, the tramps—exclusive of vagrants—increased from 20,317 to 30,190, or by nearly one-half; and since then, while the vagrants have been largely increasing, have receded to 27,481."

There could be no doubt whatever that the vagrant class was a criminal class; and the House would from these figures perceive the correctness of the proposition with which he started—namely, that such a class could not possibly be dealt with by means of a merely local administration. And as the guardians of the poor could not exercise proper supervision over such a class, they had acted on the plan of getting rid of them and passing them on to another parish. Mr. John Lambert, the author of an ably written pamphlet on the subject of The Vagrancy Laws and Vagrants, quoted Shakespeare in one part of his work, where he puts in the mouth of Dogberry words which Mr. Lamberts says has since formed the practical code for the guidance of Bumbledom—

"Dogberry.—This is your charge: you shall comprehend all vagrom men; you are to bid any man stand in the prince's name.

"2nd Watch.—How if he will not stand?

"Dogberry.—Why then take no note of him, but let him go; and presently call the rest of the watch together, and thank God you are rid of a knave."

The great anxiety of the authorities appeared to be to get rid of the troublesome vagrant, who was everything that was disagreeable and objectionable, and who could not be said to be clean even when washed. With regard to the local magistrates, he was afraid matters were not much better. He confessed he had often found it hard to send a man to prison for sleeping in a barn or under a hedge. If humanity was called forth on such occasions, how much more was it strengthened when the offender was a woman? He had recalled to memory the words of Crabbe, in his poem entitled The Hall of Justice. In speaking of the vagrant, the poet puts this plea in the mouth of a woman—

"My crime!—This sickening child to feed—

I seized the food, your witness saw;

I knew your law forbade the deed,

But yielded to a stronger law.

"Know'st thou to Nature's great command

All human laws are frail and weak?

"I saw the tempting food, and seized—

My infant-sufferer found relief;

And, in the pilfered treasure pleased,

Smiled on my guilt, and hushed my grief."

He thought there were many magistrates who, in answer to that plea, would say—

"Receive our aid, and then again

The story of thy life disclose.

"For though seduced and led astray,

Thou'st travelled far and wandered long;

Thy God hath seen thee all the way,

And all the turns that led thee wrong."

Now, he had heard several suggestions from both sides of the House, as a remedy for the evils complained of. Education had been urged. He only asked the House this question—how was it possible to get at the class of vagrants in order to apply that remedy? It was simply impossible to bring education to bear upon the vagrant class. He should have much greater confidence in a system of strict and accurate supervision. Let the vagrants first be found out—then let them be labelled and ticketed by the police, and handed over to be dealt with by the Poor Law Board or by the Home Department.

said, he viewed this subject as one of great and increasing importance. The reforms that were taking place in other Departments increased the difficulty of applying a remedy to vagrancy. The more careful the Government were in selecting men for the Army and Navy, the greater were the difficulties with which his right hon. Friend at the head of the Poor Law Board had to contend. In former times the idle spirits of the country, and those who, from bad character, were unable to obtain work, found refuge in the Army or Navy; but now that both of these services were exhibiting greater care in the selection of the men they admitted into them, they were, in effect, adding considerably to the army of vagrants. It would, no doubt, be very beneficial if some plan or system were established by which those persons could be reformed. But any such plan, he was afraid, would be so extremely difficult and expensive to carry out that he was hardly sanguine enough to hope to see it put in operation. In the meantime, however, something effectual might be done to check the great evil of which they complained. That something must be done through the Home Department. And here he thought they suffered much by that system of divided authority which at present existed. At night the vagrants went for shelter to the Department of his right hon. Friend, and in the daytime they betook themselves to the practice of begging in the public streets. Unless, then, the beggar was effectually put down, this army of vagrants would go on increasing in numbers. If we had an efficient police, determined to put a stop to begging, a great blow would be struck at the root of this evil. At present the police did not seem to think it was part of their duty to interfere with mere beggars, unless they were actually given to them in charge; and, of course, private persons were very reluctant to give beggars in charge. It was the duty of the Home Department and the municipal authorities to see that the existing law in reference to this subject was fully carried out. If vagrants understood that they could not, on being discharged from the vagrant ward, spend the day in begging with intimidation, they would be obliged to take work if they could get it, and if they could not, it was better that they should become permanent paupers.

said, he thought the practical experience of guardians of the poor for rural districts would lead them to view with favour the Motion of the hon. Member for Colchester (Dr. Brewer). There was no doubt that vagrants, as a class, were semi-criminal; and, therefore, it was for the police, rather than the guardians of the poor and the relieving officers, to grant them casual relief. In all those Unions where the police had been made relieving officers for the vagrant class, a certain amount of improvement had taken place. It had been said that no treatment could possibly reduce the number of vagrants; but he was quite sure that if a uniform labour test and the cold bath were regularly applied they would have a good effect. There was nothing vagrants disliked so much as cold water; but the misfortune was that in the rural workhouses there were not officers enough to impose upon the vagrants this penal ablution. The House would agree with him in saying that ever since the President of the Poor Law Board took office he had done all he could to reduce the number of vagrants. If, however, the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abolish hawkers' licences were carried, the flood-gates of vagrancy would be opened in the rural districts, and they would be inundated by vagrants whom there would be no power of checking or means of punishing.

said, he thought it something foreign to the duties of the police that they should be turned into relieving officers, and that to invest them with these functions would be attended with consequences which were scarcely appreciated. The Poor Law Guardians ought to be better instructed in their duties, and the auditors ought to be directed to disallow the large sums which were now expended upon vagrants—an expenditure which was entirely illegal and unauthorized, and which was almost the only cause of the present difficulty, and of the alarming increase of vagrancy. The hon. Member for Colchester (Dr. Brewer) did not sufficiently recognize the legal distinction between vagrants and casual poor. Vagrants were persons who could give no satisfactory account of the way in which they got their living; they included idle and disorderly persons, rogues and vagabonds, and incorrigible rogues. There was nothing better known to the law than the offence of vagrancy. Vagrants wilfully threw themselves upon the chances of begging and illegitimate modes of obtaining a livelihood, while a pauper was a person who, although in want of sustenance for the time, could distinctly account for that circumstance when called upon to do so. The place at which he (Mr. Whalley) lived was upon the highway, between two labour districts; and it had come to be recognized by guardians, magistrates, and police, that it was an excuse for vagrancy that a man was in want of work. It had now become a recognized excuse for vagrancy that a man was out of work. But no man had a right to wander about in search of work at the expense of the country. The Poor Law Guardians had allowed themselves to drift into a system of tolerating vagrancy; and the magistrates in many cases disregarded their duty and the law they had to administer in their suggestions how tramps should be provided for. The magistrates ought to treat vagrancy as an offence, and one of a grave character, seeing that it lay at the root of so many other offences. Their excuse was the want of accommodation in our prisons, and the expense to the county of committing vagrants. But in districts where magistrates had taken cognizance of the law, and had instructed the police to deal with persons who could not give a reasonable account of how they got their living, vagrancy had almost entirely disappeared. This was so in Merionethshire; and in Montgomeryshire and Denbighshire the same results were beginning to flow from the same system. The Poor Law Board should direct the guardians not to apply the money of the ratepayers for the support of this criminal class of the population, but should require the police to interfere in all cases except that of the casual poor, which was a distinct class, and should also require the magistrates to enforce the law against vagrants.

said, this was no doubt a very grave question for all who had a share in the administration of the Poor Law. During the last few years there had been a great increase in the number of persons relieved in the casual wards, and he believed it was generally admitted that the present system tended rather to increase than suppress vagrancy. In the opinion of gentlemen of great experience it was doubtful whether Poor Law Guardians were the persons who should be entrusted with the duty of dealing with vagrancy. In the country they generally held their sittings only once a fortnight, and their officers had not the knowledge which should qualify them to distinguish between the criminal and the really deserving vagrants. The question was how should this discrimination be exercised, and the suppression of vagrancy be at- tempted. His hon. Friend (Dr. Brewer) had referred to the system, in France; but had not alluded to the dépôt de mendicité outside Paris, where these classes were treated. Falling into the hands of the police, vagrants were regarded as guilty of an offence against the law and were sent to this depôt, where they were detained for varying periods and were immediately set to work, the employment being suited to the capacity of the weakest and the most ignorant. At his visit one fact struck him as of great importance. Here was the one workhouse of Paris, containing no more than 900 persons of both sexes—little more than half the number in the casual wards of London—and it acted as a great educational institution. Eight or nine different industries were practised there with success, and all the inmates were compelled to labour if they were capable of using their hands in any way whatever. Thus they acquired the habit of working, and when discharged they received 20 francs, sometimes more, and were told that with this sum they must either go home or put themselves in the way of getting work; and if they came there again they were detained for a longer period. He saw there persons who in England would be considered wholly incapable of any kind of labour; but at this institution labour of some kind was found for them, and that labour was most beneficial to them and, in its after results, to the community. An able Minute written by the late Mr. Charles Buller had been quoted; but one passage had been omitted which deserved consideration. He said—

"The task work prescribed and found useful where it has been properly applied has, from its being only occasionally enforced, exercised no general influence as a test; and the laws against vagrancy and disorderly conduct have failed to produce the effect of repression."

Now, those words, used in 1848, were, he thought, quite applicable to the year 1870. The truth was, the machinery for the repression of vagrancy was wholly inadequate. The question of vagrancy was, he might add, not properly speaking a Poor Law or charitable question. Means might be found even under police administration to provide that those who became accidentally destitute, or who were honestly endeavouring to work for a living, should be taken care of with the tenderness which their misfortunes might justify. He held in his hand, however, a report which was not long ago made to the Guardians of the Whitechapel Union by the clerk of the Union, who was a very competent authority on the subject. In that report he stated that 64 persons were relieved in the casual wards on a certain night, and that of those only one could be said, in the strict sense of the word, to be a wayfarer; and 54 had no present place of residence to which they could resort as such. They might very fairly, he thought, be classed as professional vagrants. The same gentleman, in a more recent report, said—

"When it is stated specifically that of the 71 vagrants relieved last night, Monday, the 25th of October, in the houseless poor wards, 55 were, upon observation by my instruction, found to be personally known to the superintendent as persons who had been one or more times relieved in the same ward, and, generally, that fully two-thirds of the vagrants there relieved are personally known to the superintendent as habitual wanderers or professional vagrants, it will be apparent that the increase is in the more worthless class, and that, in the main, the increase is attributable to the attractiveness of the relief itself. This is even more strongly illustrated by the fact that during the year ended the 29th of September, 1860, no fewer than 205 vagrants were convicted from the wards of this Union for refusing or neglecting to perform the task of work required from them or for destroying their clothes—several having been convicted more than once, and one four times."

He had himself paid a visit to the vagrant poor in that part of the town, and he found it was the custom to issue tickets for the vagrant ward at 7 o'clock in the evening; but he observed that those tickets were not used until 12 o'clock. The fact was that many persons used the vagrant ward as their hotel, and spent the evening at the public-house or the theatre. As soon as that fact had been ascertained other regulations were made; but he ventured to say that no regulations would prove of any avail short of a labour test and detention in dealing with a population to whom any amount of deprivation was preferable to honest work. He earnestly hoped, therefore, that the Poor Law Board would direct their attention to the subject, and endeavour to frame some measure by which, at all events within the metropolis, a great institution should be established which would apply the educational labour test to our casual poor.

said, he could not help thinking that if the Acts now in operation were stringently enforced, we should soon arrive at such a weeding out of those who might be regarded as belonging to the criminal classes as to leave very few difficulties in our way. One great evil was, that there was not any general test adopted throughout our workhouses with respect to those who went to them, and he had little doubt that if a line of demarcation were clearly drawn between the criminal classes and those who might be regarded as our pauper population—those who were the really houseless poor—much would be done to provide a remedy for the state of things of which we had at present to complain. He should, however, be the last man to say that a wayfarer, strictly so called, and a man easy to be distinguished from the professional mendicant by those who had any fair aquaintanceship with the appearance and manners of each—such an one going from place to place in search of work, should not be regarded as following a reasonable occupation. During the cotton famine men were at perfect liberty to go to such places as London or Leeds in search of work, and the argument of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) was therefore, he contended, founded on erroneous premises. At the same time that class of paupers who spent one-half of their time in prison, and the other half out, and who used their time out of prison in qualifying themselves for a return to confinement, ought to be looked after by the police. Until the line of distinction which he indicated—and it was not one difficult to mark out—was drawn and kept up by very stringent regulations, the class of professional beggars would, he was afraid, continue to increase—alike to the detriment of the country and of themselves.

said, there was no doubt that vagrancy was becoming an organized profession among certain classes of the community, and he could add nothing to what had been so ably expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) with regard to the necessity of putting it down by such means as it could be most effectually dealt with. He must, however, enter his emphatic protest against the doctrine which had been put forward by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) that every man who could give no account of himself, except that he was going from place to place in search of work, should be laid hold of and sent to gaol. He himself had met persons of that class who had stopped him on the road, and who, when he had asked them what they were about, replied that they had been travelling on the look out for employment for so many weeks from distant parts of the country. He had taken them at their word and had given them work, and he was bound to say that they had done it as honestly as any other labourers on his estate. To speak of such men, then, in the wholesale manner in which the hon. Member for Peterborough had spoken of them—as being only fit for gaol—was, he thought, neither in accordance with the liberty of the subject nor with common humanity. He would mention to the House the plan which he himself had adopted in the absence of any better means of dealing with the question, and it was one, in his opinion, deserving of consideration. He had made a rule never to give relief to "tramps," as they were called, whom he found begging on the roadway. When he came across a man in that position he gave him a note to the superintendent of police of the nearest town, with instructions to the policeman to inquire into the case and find out whether it was one worthy of relief. That plan he had found to answer perfectly well. A rule of that kind might be adopted in the absence of any legal provision to meet the difficulty which at present existed, but he hoped his right hon. Friend at the head of the Poor Law Board would provide such a mode of dealing with cases of this kind, as would enable persons whether resident in the country or in towns to feel themselves conscientiously at liberty to decline altogether to give money to this class of people.

said, it would have been more satisfactory to him to have seen this subject of vagrancy dealt with in a Government Bill, had the pressure of business allowed of the introduction of such a measure, instead of its being brought under the notice of the House by the present Motion. The question had seriously occupied the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and himself, and they were aware that there were several important points connected with it which ought to be, and they hoped would be, dealt with by the Government. His hon. Friend the Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) asked whether there had been any co-operation in regard to this subject between the Poor Law Board and the Home Office, assuming that there was divided responsibility and divided action. He could, however, assure his hon. Friend that such was by no means the case; but that, on the contrary, the two Departments had been in constant communication with a view to devising some scheme by which the evils complained of might be remedied. Yet he would frankly state that the co-operation of the Home Office and the Poor Law Board was not sufficient to put down vagrancy, for there was another power which could contribute far more effectually to put it down—namely, the public themselves. Unless the public co-operated it was impossible to hope to deal satisfactorily with the subject. His hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Dr. Brewer) had spoken of the effect on the houseless poor of opening the private refuges in London, and, indeed, those refuges had as much influence on the spread of vagrancy as the casual wards of the workhouses. "When no provision was made for the houseless or homeless poor of the metropolis—as his hon. Friend preferred to call them, there was every reason why benevolent individuals should encourage private refuges, as many harrowing stories were told, and told truly, of accidents happening in consequence of persons coming to town and being unable to find a lodging for the night. It should be borne in mind, however, that in the refuges there was no discipline and no test whatever, and it was curious to observe the effect which the opening of these establishments during the winter had upon the casual wards. Anybody who glanced at the statistics of pauperism in the metropolis would perceive that about December when pauperism increased, there was a sudden decrease in the number of those who frequented the casual wards. The reason was, that they transferred themselves to the more comfortable wards of the refuges, where there was no labour test. Vagrants always selected days and places with remarkable care. Thus their favourite day for going into the casual wards was Saturday, because there was no task of work to be performed on the Sunday morning. With much of what had been said concerning the evils of casual wards it was impossible not to agree, but it was necessary to choose between them and the evils which would arise if they did not exist. It could not be denied that there was a large class of persons who slept in the wards instead of going to lodging-houses, and he might mention that as he was walking home one night past the workhouse of St. George's, Hanover-square, he heard one vagrant say to another—"Hullo! where is the hotel?" There were a number of vagrants who regularly went their rounds night after night from one workhouse to another. The same class slept in the lodging-houses as in the casual wards. Sometimes when they were in possession of a certain number of pence and were anxious to be out early in the morning they went to the lodging-house instead of the vagrant ward. But what would be the result if these casual wards and refuges did not exist? He might state, as a matter of fact, that in 1844 and 1846 as many vagrants were maintained in the metropolitan workhouses as at the present moment. And here he must say a few words respecting the mode in which the statistics of vagrancy were kept. There was a great deal of fallacy in casting up the number of admissions, as was constantly done. Suppose, for instance, there were 1,000 permanent paupers in the metropolis, they would change their quarters every night, and, as there were 365 days in the year, the number of admissions would be 365,000. Of course, anyone who examined the question with care, as his hon. Friend the Member for Colchester had done, would distinguish between the admissions and the number of vagrants; but some persons failed to draw this distinction and, in consequence, made the grossest exaggerations. In point of fact the actual number of vagrants was not so great as was popularly believed. The returns lately made showed that there were between 1,200 and 1,600 in the metropolis, and he hoped, therefore, that the figures cited by the Member for Colchester respecting the number of admissions would only have their proper weight on the public mind, and that nobody would run away with the idea that there were hundreds of thousands of vagrants in London. The vagrants in the metropolis consti- tuted a large portion of the total vagrancy of the country. Memorials had been sent to the Home Office and the Poor Law Board stating that the vagrants in the whole country might be I counted by hundreds of thousands; but here, again, the mistake had been committed of confounding the number of vagrants with the number of admissions. In truth, the number of vagrants had been accurately ascertained by reckoning up the numbers admitted into the wards on two nights in the year, and it appeared that the whole number of vagrants, including the metropolis, varied from 6,000 to 7,000. It might be said, however, that, according to the police returns, the number was 32,000 or 33,000, but it should be remembered that they included persons who were tramps and vagrants, but who slept in lodging-houses at their own expense, and who, consequently, were not vagrants at all in the sense in which the Poor Law Board used the word. The police included under the term vagrant all professional tramps or persons without visible means of subsistence and no fixed place of residence, and who slept within the police district on a given day; and a great many of these were simply tramps, who moved about from place to place, sleeping in common lodging-houses at their own expense. The hon. Member for Colchester had alluded to the heavy burdens which the metropolis had to bear in consequence of vagrancy, but, as a matter of fact, the actual cost of the vagrants to the metropolis was only about £6,000 for the half-year, or about one-sixteenth of a penny in the pound for the whole year. He admitted, however, that there were serious questions connected with vagrants apart from the mere cost. No doubt many of them became permanent paupers; for when a vagrant fell sick he went into the workhouse, choosing the workhouse and infirmary where he thought he would be best treated. In London there was a certain class of permanent casuals, who, though varying the ward where they slept, never thought of migrating from one part of the country to another; whereas in the country there were numbers of tramps gaining a livelihood as hawkers, or by other trades, and who, when they fell sick or failed to procure work, applied for a night's lodging at the public expense. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Bromley Davenport) spoke of various plans which, had been tried in order to check vagrancy in the country, and seemed surprised that, notwithstanding the bad fare and miseries to which the casuals were exposed, they should persevere in that mode of life. These vagrants did not mind going into a very bad casual ward at night if they thought there were soft-hearted people in the neighbourhood who would assist them on the road. Therefore it was impossible, by laying down stringent rules respecting the casual wards, to put down vagrancy unless the public co-operated by refusing to encourage vagrants during the day. Revelations had been made as to the manner in which the London casuals spent their day. Every hon. Member, indeed, must have seen men loitering about the parks without any apparent object. These men went about from ward to ward for their night's lodging. The proposal now before the House was to transfer the charge of vagrants from the guardians to the police. But that proposal involved other considerations, and it was important that these should not be lost sight of by the House. There were two principles from which we never departed in this country—one was respect for the liberty of the subject, and the other the recognition of the right which the law had conceded to every man to be supplied with the first necessaries of life at the public expense. As long as those two principles were maintained in England it was useless to establish comparisons with other European countries, as in scarcely any one of them were these principles in fall force. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had spoken of various remedies that had been tried, and of one which had not been tried. For his own part he confessed that there was one remedy which he felt strongly disposed to try and that was the power of detention. But the House must not blind itself to what was meant by the power of detention—it would be called a kind of imprisonment. Hitherto, in this country Parliament had only been willing to permit the detention of vagrants for a period of four hours, though in Scotland, he believed 24 hours' detention was possible. He believed that it was by looking more to stringent powers of detention than to any change of the body which administered the law, that a remedy would be found for the evils which were complained of. A power conferred upon the guardians of detaining paupers would be a stronger measure than the administration by the police of the law as at present existing. When persons talked about the police dealing with vagrants they might mean one of two things—either that they considered the police more likely to discover whether the applicants for relief were criminals or deserving objects, or that they were willing to give to the police more effectual powers of dealing with the vagrant class than those which now existed. But as matters at present stood there was no adequate power of detention, and the provisions of the law which had been quoted by his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) were in one sense so exaggerated and in another so defective, that the police were unable to prosecute and secure the conviction of vagabonds. In many parts of the country magistrates had not, indeed, done all which they might have done in the way of punishing vagrants, being deterred by the charges which would be imposed upon the county if the vagrants were detained for any time. The most, therefore, had not been made even of existing legislation. But there could be no doubt that, with regard to persons having no visible means of obtaining a livelihood, and with a fancy for sleeping in barns and outhouses, there was either no available means of reaching them by law, or else the provisions which might be appealed to were so stringent that it was almost impossible to apply them. As a matter of fact it was not an offence, under the law, to be without any visible means of obtaining a livelihood; but the offence was to be wandering about at night, or sleeping in a barn or out-house without any visible means of existence. It might be useful to consider the expediency of adding to the definition of "rogue" and "vagabond," so that a certain number of applications for relief, or the passing of a given time in casual wards might, when these circumstances were brought under the notice of a magistrate, constitute an offence under the Act. It certainly appeared to him (Mr. Goschen) that this indiscriminate practice of using the accommodation which the Legislature had provided for quite a different class might be treated as an offence. He candidly avowed that if Parliament were inclined to concede power to detain paupers for a longer time than they were now detained, and to keep them at work, he believed that would be a very effectual means of diminishing vagrancy and pauperism. The House would remember that a pauper using a workhouse stood in precisely the same position relatively to the workhouse as a vagrant. The pauper must be taken in at any time when he applied, and could not be refused relief, and he could equally discharge himself at any time, the authorities being powerless to control his movements. It frequently happened that a particular workhouse was full of men and women for a long time, and then, when harvest-time came, they all took their discharge; not a single able-bodied person was left to discharge the necessary duties, and the guardians were actually obliged to hire servants for the purpose. There was no reciprocity—if he might use the phrase. The pauper had it all his own way; he came in when he liked and went out when he liked; and it was notorious that if there were a fair or any other proceeding in the neighbourhood in which the paupers took an interest, they would, as regularly as possible, discharge themselves in the morning and present themselves for re-admission in the evening. This was an abuse which had frequently been brought under the notice of the Poor Law Board; but it would be effectually checked if Parliament allowed paupers to be detained for a longer time. Of course, such a power must be discreetly used, or it would be very liable to abuse; and in former times it was said that to compel a man to remain a certain time in the workhouse and not let him go out when he chose was something exceedingly like imprisonment. But it might be fairly argued that a bargain was made between the pauper and those who supported him—that he was to be at liberty to enter the workhouse or the casual wards, but if he did enter that he was to remain for such and such a time. It was often supposed that paupers did not like the accommodation provided for them in the workhouse; but the fact was the standard of accommodation fixed by the humanity of the Legislature was higher than the casuals themselves cared for. As long, however, as the doctrine was held up that we were to provide lodgings for all that were homeless, that state of things would continue; and rightly so, for he did not believe that mere discomfort would do any good; the only way, in which valuable results could be hoped for, was to interfere with the roving habits of the vagrant class, by detaining them longer than at present within the workhouse walls. As regards the employment of the police, there were certain difficulties which he must point out. The hon. Member for Colchester had very fairly raised the question, and everyone who heard him must have felt that he had devoted an enormous amount of time and labour to this investigation. But it was idle to talk of organization such as existed in Prussia or in France. Our police were not like the police of those countries, and, train them as we might, they never would be. Besides, our public opinion was different; our principles of law and the whole of our social arrangements diverged so widely from the Continental model that we could not hope, we could not even wish, to follow that model in all respects. It was said, however, that the police would be able to discriminate better than the present officials between the different classes of applicants. Let him put before the House the circumstances as they would happen. At 7 or 8 o'clock in the evening a casual would apply for relief and say—"I am totally destitute." How was it possible at that hour to discriminate as to the class to which he properly belonged? In the morning such discrimination would be possible, and the power of detention, if granted by the House, would enable an offender to be dealt with accordingly. In London, where a great many vagrants were known to the police, it might be possible to discriminate at first sight; but in the country neither the guardians nor the police knew until morning what the character of the vagrant was. If the principle were laid down that the deserving vagrants were to be relieved by the guardians, and the undeserving vagrants and semi-criminal classes by the police, this would require two establishments in every Union, would lead to serious expenditure, and it was by no means certain how it would work. If the plan, which had been sketched out, of handing over the relief of vagrants to the police were adopted, it would be necessary to build from 700 to 1,000 vagrant wards over the country at large, because it would be necessary that these should be at certain distances from each other. There ought at present to be vagrant wards in every Union; but those existing were often distant 15 or 20 miles from each other, and it would be impossible to diminish their number. He left it to the House to say whether it was desirable that there should be separate establishments for vagrants, quite apart from the workhouse, in every Union—establishments, moreover, which must be on a capacious footing; for it was impossible to tell beforehand on any day whether the numbers would be 20 or 100. The police might co-operate with the guardians, and this had been done with good effect in some cases. As regarded the metropolis, he had been in communication with the Chief Commissioner, and ascertained that there would be no great difficulty in the police and representatives of the ratepayers working together. But in the country attempts of a similar kind had been made in many Unions, and in several instances had been abandoned. At first, the joint system proved very effective; but when it was found that the police were merely "harmless scarecrows," and were, if anything, easier than the relieving officers, the good effects wore off. It was against experience that the police, in the distribution of relief, were at all discriminating. They had to be specially educated for the duty before they could discharge it with efficiency. At the same time, he did not reject the idea of utilizing the police as far as possible. In many Unions, there were cases in which it would be useful if the vagrant ward were at the police-station, and not at the workhouse; that was to say, where the staff of the workhouse could not successfully cope with the numerous vagrants. In Wales, where their numbers were exceedingly large, frequent complaints had been made that the staff, consisting probably of a feeble old porter and another officer, were quite unable to enforce anything like discipline. There were also other cases in which the co-operation of the police would be useful; but he was satisfied that, to put the vagrants under the police throughout the country would, in the first place, be very expensive, and would not lead to that discrimination which all admitted to be exceedingly desirable. But he relied more on the power of detention than on any other alteration of the law. He had, he hoped, said enough to show that this subject seriously occupied the attention of the Government, and that they were alive to the evils which existed, which, indeed, had existed throughout English history, and sometimes to a greater degree than at present. The hon. Member for Colchester, in his historical retrospect, spoke of the harshness of the law againt vagrants; but these old laws were not only harsh against vagrants, but against people who gave them alms. Thus, in the reign of Edward III., any person giving alms to such as were able to work was liable to imprisonment; and, in the time of Elizabeth, a fine of 20s. was imposed on those who gave alms. This showed that the very subject which now occupied so much of our attention had also engaged the attention of our forefathers. He could only repeat that it was hopeless for himself or others to deal with the question of vagrancy and pauperism, unless public sentiment was with them. This country more than any other valued every single life, however poor and miserable. He trusted the country would always maintain that feeling; but, at the same time, he was convinced it would be impossible effectually to deal with the most pressing evils of vagrancy unless the public guarded themselves against the exercise of indiscriminate charity. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a Division.

said, the discussion had turned upon the theory of vagrancy rather than upon any practical remedy. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was certainly not open to that remark; but after listening to that speech, he was far more prepared to approve of the proposal of the hon. Member for Colchester than of the remedy suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. He was glad, however, to hear that the Poor Law Board were really in earnest in this matter. The subject was referred to in their Report of this year; but scarcely, as it appeared to him, in sufficiently strong terms. In that Report it was stated that the vagrancy of the metropolis showed a comparatively small increase; that in the country at large there was no material increase; that the present arrangements were unsatisfac- tory; that there should be more uniformity of treatment, and better means of communication between the various authorities who had to deal with vagrancy, and that a more uniform system should be appointed by law. He regretted that the Government had not introduced some measure dealing with this matter; but some active steps might have been taken by the Poor Law Board, without bringing in any Bill on the subject. Not long before the late Government quitted Office a circular was issued by the Poor Law Board, to the various Unions throughout the country, relative to vagrancy, recommending the keeping of a register, a uniform task, a uniform diet, and separation, as far as possible, for vagrants. It also explained the ticket system for one class of vagrants, to which he would afterwards refer. That circular was issued with the desire that Guardians should state in reply any difficulties they might feel in dealing with the matter; and, if no reason appeared to the contrary, the recommendations contained in it were to be made compulsory by a General Order at an early period. But 18 months had elapsed, and this had never been done. In dealing with vagrancy there must be a uniform system throughout the country. Vagrants should not be able to go to one workhouse and find a larger or better diet than in another workhouse, while at the same time no work was exacted. Vagrancy could not be checked in England without uniformity of treatment, and that could only be secured by a General Order from the Poor Law Board, which should be compulsory on all Boards of Guardians. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Poor Law Board might, with every propriety, have issued such an Order, the more especially as a system, similar to that recommended in the circular, had been in existence over the metropolis without any difficulty for some time past. There would also be less difficulty in enforcing uniformity of diet upon those who were received only for the night and morning than upon paupers who remained in the workhouse for a lengthened period. Another point recommended in the circular was discrimination between those who were really destitute and those who were not. If discrimination were construed too harshly some vagrants would receive no relief. Then came the necessary consequence. The public found it out. Cases of hardship occurred, and the public sentiment, instead of putting down vagrancy, encouraged it by giving alms to those who begged. On the other hand, discrimination might not be exercised at all, and persons might be received who had means to find their own lodging at night. The best rule that could be laid down, he thought, was that relief should be given in all cases to the really destitute, and when that was done some work should be exacted. The public would then know that all who applied for relief received it, and would be less tempted to give alms generally to those who beg. With respect to those who were travelling through the country to obtain work he thought they should be encouraged as much as possible. With this view a ticket system had been adopted in the county he represented. If one of that class came to a workhouse overnight, and without a ticket, he was obliged to remain four hours on the following morning, and do a certain amount of task work. He would inform the master of the workhouse to what part of the country he was going, and would then receive a ticket, on the presentation of which at any workhouse on the line of journey the person seeking work would receive relief without performing the task of work. So much for those who were bonâ fide travelling in search of work; but with respect to habitual vagrants, he thought the magistrates of every county should be more careful than they had been in carrying out the existing law. In some counties greater strictness in this respect had been attended with very beneficial results. The Reports of Inspectors of Constabulary for the last year showed that in Gloucestershire, since the system of ordering the police to apprehend vagrants had been adopted, cottage robberies had decreased in number. In Lancashire, Cumberland, and Westmorland the same plan of apprehending vagrants had been adopted with good results, and the uniform adoption of such a system would soon put an end to systematic vagrancy. As to the point more particularly recommended by the hon. Member for Colchester he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) believed it was pretty generally admitted by those who had considered the question that the police were the best relieving officers of vagrants, because by far the greater portion of the vagrants were professional tramps In the Union in which he resided (North Leach), the county of Gloucester had a long disused prison, which the Poor Law Board and the county had permitted the guardians to use for vagrants, who were placed under the care of a superannuated county policeman. It was found to answer admirably. During the 12 months previous to the 28th of November, 1868, when the prison was adapted for use, the number of vagrants relieved amounted to 1,242; in the following year there was a considerable addition, owing to the fact, probably, that the work of checking vagrancy was comparatively new to the police, who were not as strict as they might have been. In the first six months of the present year, however, there had been a very large decrease in the number of vagrants relieved; they were 400, as compared with 600 in the six months of the previous year, and the result showed what had been stated by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Read), that the police were specially fitted for the work. But the transfer of vagrants to the police would have to be accompanied by further alterations of the law. The present incidence of vagrant relief would have to be altered, and the system of placing it on the Common Fund, as in London, would have to be adopted throughout the country, by transferring the charge for vagrants from the poor rate to the county rate. Statistics showed that, while the increase in vagrants relieved throughout the country had been as much as 50 per cent during a period of two years, in London, where they were under the police, and the relief was drawn from the Common Fund, the increase in the same time had been only 11½ per cent. There could be no objection to extending the area of chargeability for purposes of vagrancy, because local knowledge, so much insisted on for ordinary cases of relief, was useless in the case of vagrants who tramped the country. The President of the Poor Law Board had suggested a policy of detention, but this would be attended with great difficulty, and would probably tend to increase promiscuous; alms-giving. If a vagrant excused himself from going for relief to the proper officer and submitting to detention, on the plea that his wife was sick and 50 miles away, and he was anxious to go to her at once, the sympathy of the charitable would be raised and alms would be given him. He believed that great good would result from the general adoption of separate cells for vagrants, as in the case he had referred to. The Unions of Richmond and Oswestry had a similar plan, whereby the vagrant was put in a separate ward by night and by day. This was a welcome arrangement to the legitimate tramp in search of work, because he was not herded with the professional vagrant; and it was a check upon the idle, because the officer could see that he did his fair share of work. Besides, it was well known the professional vagrant delighted in the society of the ordinary casual ward. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the expense; but at a Union quoted by one of the Inspectors of Constabulary in 1868, the cost of building separate cells of the kind was £450; and the Inspector said the building might be put up for £350. He added that each vagrant earned his food, and there was a clear profit on the stonebreaking of 16d. per cubic yard. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was useless for the Government or Parliament to exert itself unless the public assisted in the matter. As long as the public persisted in giving to an idle, dissolute class, so long would vagrancy continue; but he firmly believed that if some uniform system of relief were adopted throughout the country, by which the public were assured a certain amount of relief for a certain amount of work was given to each applicant, promiscuous charity would be checked, and the object in view would be obtained.

said, he had listened with great satisfaction to the speech from the Treasury Bench, and he desired to tender the Government his sincere thanks for the policy which the right hon. Gentleman had announced. With reference to the proposal immediately under the consideration of the House—to substitute the police for the relieving officers—he begged to express his entire disapproval of it; but he attached the greatest value to the plan of detention sketched by the right hon. Gentleman. He would like to see casual wards attached to every Union workhouse; and he believed that the power of detention in the case of those who applied for admission to the wards, coupled with the punishment as rogues and vagabonds of those whose statements were found to be untrue, would do much to check the vagrancy which was now so common.

said, he thought that the fact ought not to be lost sight of that much of the vagrancy existing in the metropolis was due to the sudden collapse of the shipbuilding trade in the East-end of London, whereby of 20,000 men all but about 700 were thrown out of employment. He was glad to find that his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board to some extent had accepted the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Colchester (Dr. Brewer), and that he had expressed himself favourable to the detention of vagrants; because this detention, though it ought not, in his opinion, to exceed 48 hours, he regarded as the chief means of repressing vagrancy. If some such course as that recommended by his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board were adopted, they would, he believed, find vagrancy very much diminished, and be able to give an account very different from the painful story which had been laid before the House that evening by the hon. Member for Colchester.

rose to call the attention of the House to the Correspondence relating to the dismissal of Mr. Edward Barry from his employment as architect of the Houses of Parliament, and to move a Resolution. He said, it was with reluctance that he ventured to bring forward this subject; for the discussion of personal matters was distasteful to him. But as he had himself been responsible for Mr. Barry's appointment as architect of the Houses of Parliament, he felt it his duty to defend the propriety of that appointment, and also to call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which, as he thought, Mr. Barry had been harshly and severely treated. In the year 1860, when Sir Charles Barry died, a considerable portion of the build- ing in which they now were was still incomplete, and under contracts then in existence. It seemed natural that the architect who should be selected to complete the work then in progress should be the son of Sir Charles Barry, who was then professionally associated with Sir Charles, was in possession of all his views, and in a position to carry them out successfully. Mr. Edward Barry was at that time an architect of considerable reputation. He had already built Drury Lane Theatre, not to speak of other works; and the ability he possessed had since been patent to the world, for he was in the remarkable position of having in the last two competitions for public buildings, open to a chosen number of the best architects, got the first premium in each—in the competition for the National Gallery the first premium absolutely; in that for the Courts of Law the first place for the excellence of his plan and arrangements, although his elevation was not considered so good as that of Mr. Street. The general estimation, therefore, in which Mr. Barry was held in his profession would be quite sufficient to justify his appointment. The simplest way to explain the nature of the engagement he was under was to refer to the annual Estimates of that House. In them the works under his charge were kept distinct from those under the Clerk of the Works or the Surveyor. In the last year's Estimates the works to be executed under the architect of that House included the alterations in the Central Hall, in the Royal Staircase, in the Queen's Robing Room, and in St. Stephen's Crypt. It had always been in the discretion of the First Commissioner of Works to determine what particular works in the Houses of Parliament ought to be placed under the architect, and what works he thought would be sufficiently cared for under the Clerk or Surveyor of Works, and he apprehended that all Mr. Barry had a right to expect was that, whenever a professional architect was employed in reference to the Houses of Parliament he should be that architect. But he had no particular agreement as to what works they should be; that was left entirely to the discretion of the First Commissioner of Works. Then it must be observed that Mr. Barry, like his father, had no salary. He was remunerated by the ordinary commission of 5 per cent on the works executed. The works allotted to him might be classed under three heads. First, there were special works, such as those which he carried out after the death of his father and which were designed by Sir Charles Barry; also the completion of New Palace Yard, Mr. Speaker's Stables, the Subway, and such works as would naturally be confided to the architect of that House, and which must necessarily be so treated. Secondly, there were those alterations in the Houses of Parliament which might be deemed essential for their completion, for example in the staircases and in the Central Hall—alterations that illustrated the very skilful manner in which Mr. Barry had brought light into the corridors extending between the two Houses of Parliament. The corridors were for a long time very obscure, but at last an ample flood of light was introduced to exhibit the pictures adorning the walls of the corridors, and to remove from the building the reproach of darkness which had fairly attached to it. Then there were the works in which it was necessary that he should co-operate with sculptors and painters in decorating the Houses of Parliament. At first sight that might not appear to be the special province of an architect; and yet if the matter was considered it would be seen to be requisite that there should be a competent person connected with the building to give general direction and combined action to the artists who might be employed for its decoration. They had a familiar instance of that necessity in what occurred in the Royal Gallery. The Fine Arts Commission had given orders for a series of statues representing the Sovereigns of this country, to be executed in a style and of a size that should seem best suited for the purpose, but they had not taken the architect into their counsel on the method of adapting the niches to the reception of the statues. When, however, a considerable number of the statues were completed, and when the time came for placing them in their position Mr. Barry, who was then in charge of that part of the building and who was consulted on the subject, after various trials and alterations in the pedestals and niches, pointed out that by putting the statues in that particular place the general effect and beauty of the gallery would be injured; and, accordingly, it was found necessary at the last moment to transfer them to Westminster Hall, for which they were better suited. That was an example of the value of the advice and assistance of the architect. It might have been better if he had been consulted rather earlier in the matter, and enabled to give his opinion before the statues were completed; but if there had been no architect, and the sculptors only had been consulted as to the position of their statues, the general effect of harmony between the architecture of the Hall and its decoration would have been marred. The third class of duties performed by the architect of that House referred to consultations about any proposed changes. When Committees of the House sat on such subjects as the arrangements of the House, the propriety of enlarging the building, providing a new refreshment room, or similar alteration, Mr. Barry was naturally consulted, and was always ready to give his services in the most accommodating manner; and hon. Members who had acted on those Committees would remember what diligence, attention, and trouble Mr. Barry bestowed upon the ideas consecutively thrown out by them, and with what intelligence and ability he put those ideas into practical form. For all those services Mr. Barry had received simply the ordinary commission of 5 per cent on the works actually executed. As it happened that those works had been small in extent and of very little cost, his remuneration had, consequently, been proportionately small in amount. Perhaps some hon. Members thought there must be some peculiar extravagance in the method of paying the architect of the House; but if they would turn to the Votes and Accounts for successive years and would calculate the commission of 5 per cent on the works executed by Mr. Barry—putting out of consideration for a moment the special works outside of that building, which he had previously enumerated—they would find that during the last 10 years the commission paid to Mr. Barry amounted to an average of less than £300 per annum. Out of that £300 he had to defray the ordinary expenses of an office in the neighbourhood of that House, and also to pay a clerk, whereby he was left very nearly in the position of working gratuitously for that House. Those expenses would have been small in proportion to his commission if Mr. Barry had had very large works to execute; but, as it was, and allowing for those expenses, probably he had not received for his personal services more than £150 per annum on the average during those 10 years. Their arrangement, therefore, with the architect of the House was certainly an economical one, for they had a man in the foremost rank of his profession, who had given much time to the study of that building, who was acquainted with every corner and cranny of it, who had made it his special labour of love, and who was therefore able to bring to bear his experience as well as his taste on any proposal for making alterations in it. They had the power of consulting that architect on any question that might arise at any moment, and that, too, for no money payment as regarded his opinion; but for only £300 a year in the shape of commission on the works he actually executed. So that really what they had in Mr. Barry was an honorary architect, not paid by any definite salary from the public. Almost all the great buildings of London had attached to them a permanent architect at a salary; and in the case of a building of that sort, with its vastness, its intricacy of detail, with so much in it that constantly suggested alteration, it did seem to him a very great advantage to have what was equivalent to an honorary architect ready at any moment to give them the benefit of his advice and experience. If, therefore, it was now the wish of the First Commissioner of Works to substitute another architect for Mr. Barry, he ought to show some very good reason for making that change. The original appointment of Sir Charles Barry was the result of a competition to which all the world was invited; and Mr. Barry himself, when he entered the lists with other competitors, had shown that he was a match for any man who went into the field with him, Moreover, he came with this advantage over every other architect, that his mind was thoroughly penetrated with the style of that building, and thus specially qualified to execute any changes in it which might be deemed requisite. He (Mr. Cowper-Temple) did not think the choice of the style in which that House had been built a very happy one. Instead of that very elaborate and minutely florid style he should have preferred something severer, grander, and broader in its general treatment. But whatever might be said against the style actually adopted, no one could doubt that it had been carried out most perfectly and most consistently throughout. And it would be most unfortunate if any architect were to be called in who had not so entirely imbued his mind with the spirit in which that building had been designed, who would introduce incongruities into it, or who would mar the great merits which everyone recognized, and which made it one of the most remarkable structures of our time in Europe. That having been Mr. Barry's position at the end of last year he received an official circular from the Office of Works in his capacity of architect. He was without suspicion of insecurity with regard to an appointment which he had held for 10 years, when he received a letter from the Office of Works—the first of the series laid before the House. It was dated January 22, and contained two paragraphs—one informing Mr. Barry that the New Palace of Westminster would, from the 31st of March—

"Be placed entirely in the charge of the officers of this Department, and that the Estimates for that service for the ensuing year will, therefore, be prepared on their responsibility."

The next paragraph was as follows:—

"I am further to inform you that the First Commissioner will be obliged to you to have all the contract plans and drawings of the Houses of Parliament, and all other papers necessary for affording a complete knowledge of the building, and of the works carried on in connection therewith, arranged together, and deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Works, in order that they may, when required, be at once handed over to this Department."

This appeared to him (Mr. Cowper-Temple) to be a very remarkable document. It contained two propositions, which the First Commissioner had no right to make. He could not claim any authority to depart from the conditions expressed in the Estimates of last year—namely, that certain works were to be executed under the architect of the House. The First Commissioner, however, assumed authority to withdraw from Mr. Barry the execution of the works sanctioned by the House. In specifying the 31st of March as the period when Mr. Barry's duties were to cease, the First Commissioner had, moreover, named a time when the con- tract works confided to Mr. Barry were not closed. Some of these contracts were only to be finished by the end of April, and after that time a certain period must elapse before the architect could give his certificates. This summary dismissal, therefore, appeared to be an infringement of what that House had a right to require from the Executive charged with carrying out the plans approved by them. He was not sure, indeed, that the money would have been voted if it had been stated at the time that Mr. Barry was not to have the execution of the works, because it was voted upon the understanding that the money was to be expended on the responsibility of an able, experienced, and skilful architect. It appeared that the demand that all the plans and drawings connected with the new Houses of Parliament were to be given up involved a legal question, which would turn upon the nature of the contract between an architect and his employers. So far as it was a legal question he had no intention of dealing with it, because such questions were beyond the cognizance of that House. In the further correspondence on this subject, however, it appeared that Mr. Barry had acted in the fairest and most courteous manner. He said he could not give up what he looked upon as an inheritance from his father, and that he would not go against the unanimous opinion of his profession and the custom of the country. He added that he should betray his position as an architect in surrendering the original papers and documents connected with the building, but that he was willing to give the Office of Works any copies and tracings they might require. He thought he might say that Mr. Barry's refusal to comply with a demand of at least doubtful legality ought not to have subjected him to the treatment he had received in these letters. Mr. Barry had been guilty of no insubordination, and he had done nothing to deserve being treated in this contemptuous manner. Some time elapsed before Mr. Barry answered this letter of January 22, and he (Mr. Cowper-Temple) could well conceive that he was puzzled as to its meaning. If he had been guilty of any great breach of public duty, or any heinous offence, so terse a letter as that of January 22 might have been appropriate. The letter might have arisen from the appointment of Captain Galton to the office of Director of Public Works. It might be a prelude to the substitution of another architect or of a surveyor, assisted by the drawings. It might be a casual ebullition of bad temper, or have arisen from a contemptuous indifference to the whole question. Mr. Barry, when he did write, made a very fair appeal to the First Commissioner. He assumed that the letter had been written carelessly or hastily, and he supposed either that some explanation would be given of what was intended to be done, or that his implied dismissal would be withdrawn. Mr. Barry stated that he had not exceeded his estimates on a single occasion, although some of the works were such that it was not easy to foresee the expense. He (Mr. Cowper-Temple) could confirm that observation. During the time he filled the Office of First Commissioner of Works Mr. Barry had never exceeded his estimates. He had been most attentive in the discharge of the duties entrusted to him, and most accurate in his accounts. Mr. Barry further mentioned that he had never sought a salary for the discharge of the various temporary duties entrusted to him. He was ready to demand the strictest inquiry into his conduct, and he pointed out that the course taken by the First Commissioner was calculated to do him the most serious professional injury, which he had done nothing to deserve. When a professional man of great eminence after 10 years' service was dismissed, without any reason being alleged, people out-of-doors would not suppose that this had not been done out of mere caprice or from the desire of showing authority. Mr. Barry received, on the 7th of March, a letter containing the following passage:—

"The First Commissioner desires me to add that he has not thought it necessary to enter into any discussion of the topics raised in your letter of the 10th ultimo, based upon assumptions which he does not recognise."

Mr. Barry had raised three topics of great importance to himself in his letter, which were, however, so immaterial to the First Commissioner that he did not think it necessary to enter upon them in his reply. Mr. Barry of course was not satisfied without getting some reason for his dismissal, and therefore he wrote a further letter, in which he said—

"I had expected that my letter of the 10th ult. would, at least have been considered by Mr. Ayrton worthy of a reply, if not of his favourable consideration."

He then proceeded to state in more detail his reason for not wishing to give up the drawings. He said that the drawings and papers relating to the Houses of Parliament consisted of two classes—the first comprising those prepared by himself during the last 10 years, and the second the drawings, &c, made during the life-time of his father, Sir Charles Barry, and which were left to him by his father. Many of these, he said, were invaluable to him; he regarded them as a sacred deposit, and he could not believe the First Commissioner would seek to deprive him of this much-prized inheritance, but as the wording of the letters from the First Commissioner's office might be held to imply such an intention, he felt bound before finally replying to them to ask for definite information on the point. He added—

"As regards the works now in hand and partly executed, I have already forwarded to you all the contracts relating to them."

Even then Mr. Barry did not get any further explanation. In reply to his letter, the Secretary of the First Commissioner, having acknowledged Mr. Barry's letter, said—

"If you should think that any of these documents are a sacred deposit, which you ought to retain, you should state the fact to the First Commissioner, in order that it may be duly considered."

In his next letter, Mr. Barry, while declining to hand over the drawings, added—

"I am, however, most anxious not to offer any impediment to his views, and I shall be happy to show all my drawings, &c., to the Director of Works, and to make tracings for his use of any of them of which he may require copies."

He should have expected that, when Mr. Barry made that offer, he would be met with some acknowledgment that he was dealing in a liberal manner; but the letter in which he made it was treated in the same peremptory and haughty manner as that in which his previous letters had been received. In the reply sent to him he was informed that the correspondence had been referred to the Solicitor for the Department. He ought to remark that the drawings which Mr. Barry refused to give up were drawings made by Sir Charles Barry during the erection of the building, and were not likely to be of any use whatever to the Office of Works. They did not relate to the plans for warming and ventilating the Houses. The latter plans had been made by Mr. Reed first, and afterwards by Dr. Percy. The drawings made by Sir Charles Barry had no particular utility in respect of the carrying out of the ordinary repairs of the building. Possibly they might to some extent be useful in respect of repairs connected with drainage. Whether Mr. Barry's refusal to give up drawings in which he had an interest as an architect, and also a family interest, should have exposed him to the curt and laconic treatment he had received, and caused letters to be written which were of a character very unusual in letters sent from a public office, was worthy of consideration. This was not merely a personal matter, though to Mr. Barry it was of paramount interest. He thought the House might properly and rightly interfere when they found an officer of the House, who for so many years had discharged his duty with efficiency, and had always shown a readiness to do all in his power to promote the convenience of Members, dismissed in so summary a manner. He submitted that the House ought to require that he should not be dismissed without ample reason, or, at least, without grounds which might be considered by hon. Members. In a long correspondence on this subject no explanation was given of the circumstance that Mr. Barry did not receive the information he asked for. But there were public grounds on which the House should go into this matter. Former Commissioners had sought to foster and improve art, and to secure the assistance of the most eminent architects and sculptors and painters, and had maintained friendly relations with artists, and with the Royal Academy and the Trustees of the National Gallery; but the present First Commissioner appeared to think it his duty to discourage art, as a source of expenditure. He looked upon artists as a set of persons who were always trying to put their hands in the public purse. He (Mr. Cowper-Temple) said that on the highest authority—namely, the authority of the right hon. Gentleman himself, because he (Mr. Ayrton) had been kind enough to make a manifesto to all the world on the occasion of his appointment to the Office. It was on an im- portant—he might almost say a solemn occasion. In a very interesting speech the right hon. Gentleman told the electors of the Tower Hamlets that, at the moment of his presenting himself on the hustings, the Constitution required them to express not merely an opinion of himself, but of the conduct of the First Minister of the Crown in having selected him to fill the Office of First Commissioner. He then proceeded to state the grounds on which he thought his constituents would see he was the fittest man for the post. He spoke with a considerable amount of contempt of certain classes. The first were those who were educated at public schools and Universities, and who thought that, to be First Commissioner, he ought to be an ædile. The second class were the people who were fond of what was called art. To show his special acquaintance with them, he said many of them were very artful people. That seemed to have been appreciated by the electors of the Tower Hamlets as a happy and appropriate phrase. For architectural sculpture and gardening he expressed a profound contempt, and, to set himself right with the electors of the Tower Hamlets, he explained that he knew nothing about those professional accomplishments, but having so supreme a contempt for them he felt it his duty to look after architects, sculptors, and gardeners in order to see that they did not indulge their fancies at the public expense. The right hon. Gentleman then said he had received a training for his present Office while Secretary to the Treasury, when he employed himself in refusing applications for public money. This dismissal of Mr. Barry must be read in the light of the doctrine promulgated by the right hon. Gentleman on the hustings, and which was a doctrine he did not think would be acceptable to that House. There was a great difference between economy and saving. They might save a considerable amount of money, and yet not economize. By abolishing the office of architect to that House they might save 5 per cent on the work hitherto entrusted to him, but he did not think the saving would be economy. In watching works going forward and seeing that they were executed in a proper manner, the architect gave ample return for the percentage paid him. This was especially the case in decorative works. The House of Commons, he was glad to say, was anxious to see a rigid watch kept on the expenditure of public money, but it would not be carried away by petty parsimony and a want of taste. The wealth of a country did not consist in its money only, but also in intellectual development, in elevated sentiment, and in patriotism. In his opinion, the money of the country was wisely and judiciously spent when it was expended in the erection and adornment of public buildings calculated to improve the standard of public taste, and of which Englishmen might feel proud. Let them look at other countries. It was not necessary to go back to ancient Greece and Rome; if they looked across the Channel to Paris they would find that the most enlightened men regarded money as well spent when it was expended in rearing monuments of dignity and beauty in the form of public buildings. In Germany, again, the enlightened Prussian would scorn to save money at the expense of the beauty and nobleness of the public buildings. He (Mr. Cowper-Temple) trusted that the time would never arrive when it would be considered in this country that it was unnecessary to employ architects in designing our public buildings. He further hoped that architects, many of whom possessed the highest talents, would always receive the consideration due to gentlemen who followed a liberal profession. It was upon these grounds that he had thought it necessary to move the Amendment which stood upon the Paper in his name, and he had tried to avoid bringing into the discussion more than necessary of a personal character. He had, however, thought it his duty to bring before the House the grievance of a gentleman who was nearly in the position of one of their officers, and to enter his protest against a mode of treating professional men, which he hoped might not become a tradition of an office which had hitherto been conducted upon very different principles.

Sir, before I rose to address the House upon this matter, I wanted to see if any other hon. Member was desirous of making any observations upon anything I had done with regard to the subject of this Motion; because it will occur to all hon. Members present that if any further observations upon this question are to be made it would only have been right that they should have been brought forward before I made my statement, in order that I might have had an opportunity of answering them. I am, however, quite prepared to deal with the case as it stands on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper-Temple), who, no doubt, had a special duty to perform towards himself in bringing forward this matter, he having appointed Mr. Barry to fill the post which he has recently left. If, therefore, he thinks Mr. Barry is injured, he is right in bringing the case before the House. The right hon. Gentleman has, however, not confined himself entirely to the task he undertook. He has thought it necessary to refresh his memory—or rather has failed to refresh it—respecting some observations made by me a great many months ago. I will undertake to say I have a recollection more accurate than that of my right hon. Friend on that matter, and there is only one remark which I recognize as my own amongst those he quoted, the rest being a play upon the language I used. It is true I asserted that the First Commissioner of Works is responsible for seeing that the public money is duly spent by those who may be employed under his Department. That I regard to be his chief and most important duty towards this House, and the very reason why he sits here is, that he shall account to the House for the manner in which money is spent that is voted for this particular branch of the public service. That is the duty I have regarded myself as bound to discharge, and I have carefully refrained from attempting to perform functions for which I do not deem myself qualified; and, therefore, I have always left questions of architecture, sculpture, and other arts, to be determine by the judgment of professional men. I will now pass on to the subject of the right hon. Gentleman's Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman began by disclaiming any desire to go into a question which he said has been remitted to legal investigation, and then he proceeded to enter most fully into the whole subject. I regret that he has thought fit to do so, because I think there was ample ground for discussion upon the Resolution he has proposed. It is, however, impossible for me to allow the observations of the right hon. Gentleman to pass without giving the House some little information upon the subject. Now, Sir, the view which I took of the relations of Sir Charles Barry and Mr. Barry to the Office of Works, as regards the plans which had been prepared by them in the discharge of their duty while in the employment of the Crown, and at the public expense, were that those plans were, of necessity, the property of the Crown; and I have no doubt that any person having no special knowledge of the matter would have arrived at the same conclusion, and would have believed that, if he had paid for a particular commodity, he was of necessity the owner of that commodity. Another view of the matter, however, appears to have been taken by the Messrs. Barry; and I do not now intend to argue the legal rights of the Crown upon the subject, it being sufficient for me to explain to the House how I came to entertain the notion that such an opinion was one to which everybody was likely to subscribe. At the time of the occurrences to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, I had in my Department a document which had been prepared by a gentleman of the very largest experience, to whom I was entitled to look for information—namely, the Surveyor to the Office of Works. ["Name, name!"] The name of the gentleman to whom I allude is Hunt. That gentleman had, not long before these occurrences, prepared a document, which, as it put the question as I believed accurately before me, I will rather read to the House than give any version of my own of it. Before reading that document, however, I may remark that this is not the first time that this question has arisen in the Office of Works, and that the Paper I am about to lay before the House had reference, as will be perceived, to the plans of another architect. The question raised was, whether the Office of Works were or were not entitled to have possession of the plans which had been executed for them? Mr. Hunt, in reply to that question, says—

"I am not prepared to recommend the First Commissioner to permit Messrs. Banks and Barry to have the custody of the contract drawings. Upon principle, I think every document appertaining to a deed of contract should be in the charge of this Department, to the head of which is intrusted the expenditure of public money. But it is more especially desirable in this case, seeing that the First Commissioner will from time to time have to ask the Treasury to sanction a further expenditure of nearly £35,000, in ornamental and other works, which it has been considered expedient to exclude from the general contract with Messrs. Mansfield & Co., and the First Commissioner will have need to refer to the contract drawings to enable him to judge of the propriety of the estimates which may be submitted to him by the architects for the additional works. I cannot see that any delay can or ought to arise from the adoption of the course I venture to recommend, for Messrs. Banks and Barry admit that they have tracings of 41 out of the 92 contract drawings, and the remainder could be traced at a trifling expense in two or three weeks at the most. And for this purpose there would be no objection, I think, to allow Messrs. Banks and Barry to have the drawings. The contractors are supplied with copies of all the drawings by the surveyors, who calculate the quantities, and the architects only want the drawings in their office for reference, or for preparing further details, for which correct copies are as good as the originals. All the contract drawings for the new Foreign Office are and have been in the custody of this Department, and there is no reason, as it appears to me, why the same course should not be followed in this case. Messrs. Banks and Barry state that they had charge of the drawings for Contract No. 1, and therefore they ought to have the drawings for Contract No. 2. Why they were permitted to have the drawings of Contract No. 1 I know not. I suppose it was thought that the works were small in amount and simple in character; and, moreover, the then First Commissioner was desirous that the works should be proceeded with without the least delay, and so the architects were allowed to have the custody of the drawings. But in a large and elaborate work like Contract No. 2, extending over a period of many months, the case is very different, and the precedent quoted by Messrs. Banks and Barry ought not, in my opinion, to be followed."

So that when I am told that I am pursuing a course in this matter altogether unknown, I reply that I found in my Department a document which informs me that the most distinguished architect in England has concurred in the very course which I have adopted, and that the same course has been again prescribed in the case of the large buildings now being carried on in front of Burlington Gardens, and that it has been acquiesced in by Messrs. Banks and Barry. Finding this to be the case, I regarded it as a matter of course that if the Office of Works accepted a responsibility in regard to this building, they should have the contract plans and drawings relating to this building in precisely the same manner as they possessed them in relation to the Foreign Office, and the building which is now in course of construction. That was the reason why I made the very simple demand upon Mr. Barry to deliver the plans and drawings relating to this building to the Office of Works in consequence of changes which were about to be made in the conduct of the business of that Department. What is the view that any reasonable man would take with reference to the money that is paid to an architect for the service he renders? As regards Mr. Barry himself, I have no reason to doubt that he entertains opinions upon the matter somewhat similar to my own; because, when it became necessary that I should ask him what amount of remuneration was due to him for the services which he had performed with reference to certain sketch plans he had drawn for the new National Gallery, he declined to make any charge, on the ground that if he were employed to superintend the works he would receive 5 per cent upon the outlay, and that if he were not so employed he would receive 2½ per cent upon the outlay as remuneration for his services in drawing out the sketch plans. Now, if the 2½ per cent upon the outlay is not for those sketch plans, what is it for in such a case? If we have no property in those plans, and if they are not to be handed over to us, how can the architect whom we may select to superintend the works make use of them; and if we cannot make any use of them, of what value can they be to us, and why should we be expected to pay for them? The request preferred by me to Mr. Barry that he should deliver up to the Office of Works the drawings and plans connected with this House was met by Mr. Barry by a very long argumentative letter. Now, every man of official or commercial experience will decline to be drawn into a long controversial correspondence, which may have the effect of throwing one off the scent, or, as lawyers would put it, of raising a false issue; and I trust that I have had sufficient experience, at all events in one professional character, to prevent me from falling into such an error as to enter into such a controversy. Therefore, I declined to enter into a sentimental controversy on a mere personal question. I wanted the simple question to be disposed of, as to what was to be done with all the plans and drawings, which I thought ought to be deposited in the Department I was connected with. A great deal has been said by my right hon. Friend of the cruel wound inflicted on the feelings of Mr. Barry by the attempt to take him from all his father's drawings; but he has not called attention to the fact that I pointed out to Mr. Barry that the purpose for which I wanted them was to have evidence of the structure of the building and all its appurtenances, and of the position of the drains and flues. Everybody knows that all such drawings are made by clerks at two or three guineas a week, or by draftsmen employed for the purpose of preparing contract plans, and they are not the personal work of a man of genius, done by his own hand; but if they were so I did not put any pressure on Mr. Barry, for I told him, as he had got all the papers, to sort out what he considered the personal work of his father from those other papers which might be regarded as mere matters of business, and to send the latter to my Department as evidence of the construction of the Houses of Parliament, of the foundations, embankment, sewers, and works of that kind. I could not give Mr. Barry further instructions than that, for not having seen the plans and not knowing their character, all I could do was to ask Mr. Barry to make a selection according to his own view. I could not say that I would be bound entirely by whatever selection Mr. Barry might make, because he might have sent me papers which were insufficient for the purpose. All I did was to ask him to make a selection in the first instance, reserving to myself the right to say whether they were sufficient for my object. My right hon. Friend said that Mr. Barry was willing to give copies; but did not state that Mr. Barry desired to be paid for them. What Mr. Barry said was—"You have no right to any- thing in my possession; but if you want information, I will provide copies if you pay for them." Thus, it seems, I was to acknowledge Mr. Barry's right to the papers and then to pay him for copies. I think I should have ill discharged the duties of the Office I hold if I had agreed to spend the public money in recognizing Mr. Barry's right. Was it proper that I should have entered into a controversy with Mr. Barry on the question of right as regards the Crown, when neither he nor I had any means of deciding the question? I could only do what I did. My right hon. Friend has in this matter spoken of Mr. Barry as if he were the party principally concerned; but Mr. Barry sent me a letter from Sir Charles Barry's executors, who asserted their right to the papers. Therefore, I was brought face to face with those executors claiming their rights against the Crown. Consequently, the affair no longer bore the sentimental character which Mr. Barry began by ascribing to it, but took the form of a legal claim by executors on the part of the estate. All that I said was that, before I took another step, I would put the matter in a course of examination by the legal advisers of the Office of Works; and what fairer could I say as regards Mr. Barry, Sir Charles Barry's executors, and the public—for the public have as much right to consideration as the other parties to the transaction? I at once declined to interfere further, leaving the result in the hands of the Law Officers of the Crown, and it is perfectly a matter of indifference to me personally if they should recognize the right of the executors to these plans. I leave the question to those whose duty it is to deal with it; but if they advise that these papers are the property of the Crown, then I should have no right to come to the House of Commons, and ask for a Vote of public money to pay for that which the public have a right to. This being the position of things, I do not see what advantage will arise from anticipating the result of the examination of these relative rights, and I think it would be better to leave the affair to take its own course. But when it is said that Mr. Barry feels aggrieved, and when a large body of architects meet to declare that they consider themselves aggrieved at what has been done, I ask what ought to be more gratifying to them than that, without any trouble or expense to them, and without the necessity of going into a Court of Law, they will have the whole question examined by the highest legal talent? One thing I ought to mention. Mr. Barry put forward the idea, and endeavoured to impress me with the idea, that I am implicitly bound by certain rules as to remuneration which architects think it convenient to lay down for themselves. Now, I am not of opinion that the House of Commons will be ready to recognize that any class of persons is entitled to proclaim specifically the terms on which business is to be transacted, so as entirely to exclude the other party to the contract. All I claim for the Office of Works is that it should be treated as one party to the contract, and be at liberty to say what its views are as regards its own interests. What I object to is that the architects not only assert what they think most for their own benefit, but also for the benefit of the Crown. They desire to take the matter out of the hands of the Crown, and that is an assumption which I am disposed entirely to disregard. This scheme of architectural combination was brought under the attention of the Office of Works on a former occasion—I think it could not have been when my right hon. Friend was in Office. It was in March, 1867. Mr. Barry wrote a letter as to the amount of his remuneration—5 per cent being declared by the architects as the exact sum to be paid on all occasions. Well, it would be very delightful if every person might state the exact sum he should receive, and make a combination with other people to exact it. On the 25th of March, 1867, Mr. Barry wrote to the Secretary of the Board of Works—

"The present question between myself and the Board refers to a sum of less than £10; but I could not admit the justice of the views expressed in your letters without exposing myself to a charge of unprofessional conduct by accepting less than the recognized remuneration of my profession, and departing from the rules laid down for its guidance by the Royal Institute of British Architects, to whom I have felt it my duty to communicate the substance of this correspondence, referring as it does to an important point in professional practice."

The noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) took a view which I think he was perfectly justified in taking of such an extraordinary communication. In reply, after stating that he had decided the particular case, the Secretary to the Board of Works wrote on the 9th of April, 1867—

"I am at the same time to acquaint you that, in order to prevent any future misunderstanding, your remuneration for all works intrusted to your superintendence by this Department, whether at the Palace of Westminster or elsewhere, will be calculated by the Board at a commission of 5 per cent on the outlay, which commission is, according to the practice of this Department, to cover all expenses of measuring and superintendence, except the charge for the clerk of the works."

The practice of the Department being exactly the reverse of the practice laid down by this combination of architects. ["No, no!"] There is a distinct claim on the part of the Board of Works to state the amount of remuneration it will pay, and that Office does not hold itself amenable to the Royal Institute of Architects, but deems itself entitled to prescribe the manner in which the Department will conduct its own business. Now, I come to the question which my right hon. Friend has raised by the Notice he has given. My right hon. Friend opened his case with an error, which I should not have thought he would have fallen into, because, being the advocate for Mr. Barry, he ought to have informed himself of the condition under which Mr. Barry was employed. The House well knows that it is not in the power of the First Commissioner to create any continuous office under the Crown. The power of the First Commissioner is very limited; and if he desires to create an office under the Crown, his duty is well defined. He must make a submission to the Treasury; he must get the sanction of the Crown, through the Treasury, to the creation of that office, and then the appointment may be made; but no appointment whatever in reference to the Houses of Parliament has ever been proposed by the First Commissioner, or has ever been sanctioned by the Treasury. What has been done is strictly in accordance with regular practice—namely, that when the House of Commons has voted a sum of public money for any particular work the First Commissioner is intrusted to watch over that expenditure, and it is his duty to appoint the individuals, be they many or few, who are to execute it. When my right hon. Friend desired the services of Mr. Barry, the Secretary to the Office of Works wrote to him saying—

"I am directed to inform you that the First Commissioner requests that you will undertake that service—that is to say, to superintend the completion of the works at the new Houses of Parliament, which have received the sanction of this Board, and for which Parliament has made a grant of money."

That was the appointment that was made; it was a limited one, and the House must not suppose that I am playing on words, or that Mr. Barry did not understand the nature of his employment, for when a question arose in March, 1867, as to his remuneration upon a Vote that had been made by Parliament for the service he had undertaken, he said—

"I have to remind you that in my letter of 8th June, 1860, accepting the appointment, I expressly limited my acceptance to the case of the works which had then received 'the sanction of the Board, and for which Parliament had then made grants of money.'"

The House will see that Mr. Barry was ready to make this important distinction, which it is my duty to explain to the House, and therefore it is not a point which is now raised for the first time. Mr. Barry was conscious that he was not appointed to any permanent employment; but pro hac rice to superintend the then expenditure of the money that had then been voted by Parliament. My desire is to satisfy the House that Mr. Barry well knew his position, although my right hon. Friend, owing to his long absence from official life, may have forgotten what he himself did.

I did not use the words "permanent employment." I said he was an officer of the House.

My right hon. Friend emphatically stated that he considered Mr. Barry was an officer of the House, and I cannot conceive language better calculated to convoy his meaning. By using it he conveyed precisely the meaning of the words of his Resolution, which is based on the idea that Mr. Barry is a person who has an office and an employment from which he has been removed, and the substance of my right hon. Friend's speech was a complaint that that gentleman had been removed from his office. If that is not so, what are we discussing? If Mr. Barry has not any office or employment, what complaint can he have to make? But my right hon. Friend says that Mr. Barry has had a great charge in this House, and in the most cruel and summary manner has been deprived of his employment. I will read Mr. Barry's description of his position—

"January 19, 1870.

"I do not hold any appointment in virtue of which the building"—that is to say, the Houses of Parliament—"is in any sense under my charge, and I hare no responsibility in respect of it except as regards such works as are intrusted to my superintendence from time to time."

And then, he goes on into other matter. ["Read, read!"] The letter goes on to a wholly different subject; but it is in a Parliamentary Paper, and anyone may read it for himself. I quote it to show how accurately Mr. Barry describes his position, and the view he himself took of it; and after that I would ask the House what ground he can have for complaining that he has been deprived of a continuous and permanent employment in the most summary manner? Having explained what Mr. Barry's duties were, I now come to the transactions of the past year, and will first state, that in accordance with usage, Mr. Barry received in April his authority for his employment under the Vote of last year. On the 12th of April, 1869, the First Commissioner directed this letter to be written to Mr. Barry—

"I am directed to instruct you to at once commence the work in the Central Hall, Queen's Robing Room, Royal Staircase, and St. Stephen's Crypt, for which provision is made in the Estimates submitted to Parliament for the current year, being careful that the expenditure for each service, including your commission, does not exceed the amount provided."

That was Mr. Barry's commission for the year 1869–70, ending with March last, and he had no employment other than that which was intrusted to him under that letter, precisely as he had been employed in 1860 and on subsequent occasions under letters from the First Commissioner, who consigned to him particular Votes of the House of Commons to be expended under his professional supervision. That being so, the House will recollect that we had some very painful discussions last Session in Committee of Supply on the Vote with reference to the special expenditure on the Houses of Parliament. No one regrets those discussions more than I; but I cannot help reminding the House that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Layard) who preceded me was then, called upon to defend himself in a very disagreeable manner, with regard to the ordering of the mosaics in the Central Hall. What was his defence? Why, he said that the architect had been left to do almost as he pleased; he on his own motion made all the contracts; and it was not the practice of the architect to communicate to the office the names of the persons with whom contracts had been made, but the Vote was handed over to the architect, and the First Commissioner knew nothing more about it. The position which my right hon. Friend assumed, and rightly so, for his vindication, was that Mr. Barry had done what he thought fit with the Vote that was consigned to him, and I recollect that in that discussion a noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) exclaimed—

"If I had been First Commissioner of Works and had made such a discovery, what would the Secretary of the Treasury have said, and what would right hon. Gentlemen have said if they were sitting on the opposite Benches?"

I wish to answer that appeal. There were many matters which came under my notice when I took Office which I thought it my duty to examine; but the longer I was in that Office, the more was I astonished at the way in which business appeared to be conducted there. It did not appear to me that the First Commissioner really accepted the responsibility which ought to belong to his position; but he seemed to hand over everything to the architects and others whom he employed, and then he had only to say—"I have done this, and whatever happens will be their doing and not mine." I will give the House one illustration, not intending to find fault with Mr. Barry, but as showing the state of things that existed. Notwithstanding the discussion which took place on that Vote, I received towards the close of the year a representation from Mr. Barry that the work had become in such a state that I must either look ridiculous or spend another £500—a painful position for a Minister who had given a pledge to the House of Commons that there should, not be any expenditure in excess of the Vote. If that condition of affairs was to continue where would be the responsibility of the First Commissioner, and what would be the use of this House discussing the matter and coming to a deliberate conclusion as to the expenditure? The control of the expenditure would be virtually gone beyond the Department, the head of which only received an intimation that he must spend more money. In another case a subway was to be made, and in the contract there was an item for contingencies. Mr. Barry said the amount of money was not large, and it was provided that any special extra work should be done at a cost not exceeding £300. When it was reported that the work was coming to a close, we requested Mr. Barry to furnish an account of the extra works to be paid for, and Mr. Barry wrote back to say that, in the exercise of his functions, he had arranged to pay £300 for them, and it was unnecessary to give any further explanations. What is to be the position of the accounting Officer of the Crown if he is not to have an account of extra works, and is to be told that they have absorbed the exact sum set apart? There is no complaint against this gentleman—it is against the system. The idea was to get rid of all trouble in the Office of Works, to put it upon somebody else, to let him manage as he pleased, and then to accept his statement as a sufficient answer for all the consequences that might ensue. I had to consider this among other illustrations of the system, and I had to ask myself whether we should continue this, or whether we should attempt to devise a better. The solution of this question was forced upon me much sooner than I desired, because I did not wish to be hasty, and wished to fortify my opinions by practical experience. It so happened that when I took Office a gentleman was appointed as Secretary of Works, who informed me that he intended to resign, but would not do so immediately, lest it should be supposed that my connection with the office had anything to do with his resignation. I asked him to retain his office long enough to enable me to consider what was best to be done, and he ultimately gave notice that he should resign his office at Christmas. I then had to consider whether I would appoint another Secretary of Works, or whether I would go to the root of the whole question of insufficient responsibility, and ascertain whether the office might not be organized on a better and sounder footing, so that the First Commissioner should be really as well as nominally responsible for all the public expenditure voted by the House in connection with public works. I laid my views before the Government, and they came to the conclusion that there should be an officer to be called the Director of Works, and that he should, under the eye of the First Commissioner, superintend all technical details, so that all should be thoroughly recorded in the office, and that there should be no expenditure of which the office had not previous cognizance. That was the spirit and principle of the change effected. When any one is appointed to an office in a Department with the head of which he is personally acquainted, there are people charitable enough to suggest that public have been sacrificed to private interests; and therefore I may say that the appointment in question was not made by me at all; it was made by the Government, on their collective responsibility, and was accepted by me, although I might have claimed the privilege of making it myself. I cordially accepted it, however, and I am, therefore, fully responsible for the appointment of Captain Galton—a gentleman who has had a professional education, and. who has had professional experience in connection with works of construction. This gentleman being thus appointed, and new arrangements made, it became necessary to re-arrange the duties of the persons employed by the Office of Works. In my communication to Mr. Barry I confined myself to a literal statement of fact, in order that there might be no ground for introducing personal matters connected with Mr. Barry and his professional status. What I said was that changes in the way of administering the Department rendered necessary that which I desired to do, and that showed that what was being done had no relation to Mr. Barry as an accomplished architect, or as a gentleman who had rendered service to the Crown in his professional capacity. Mr. Barry was at liberty to take whatever steps he thought desirable; but it was the office of the First Commissioner to render what he believed to be his duty to the Crown. Instead of acquiescing in these official changes, Mr. Barry desired to raise a great many questions, upon the discussion of which I declined to enter, as they were totally irrelevant to the reasons I had given Mm for what was being done in the Department under the direction of the Government. In order that there might be no mistake, in my letter to Mr. Barry I told him that his future employment was an open question; that I did not propose to deal with it, and that it would depend upon a great variety of circumstances; and I say he had no right to endeavour to commit me to his future employment for all time to come. He had been employed year by year under particular Votes; and he had no right to ask any questions as to any engagements beyond those which he already held. It is said he was deprived of the completion of works upon which he was engaged; but there is really no foundation whatever for that view of the case. It is a total misconception, arising, perhaps, from the fact that the House has before it Papers relating to works in which he is engaged; but it was never intended to interfere with any of the duties Mr. Barry was performing under the authority of my predecessor; and if I were to trouble the House by going into the letters which have passed, I could make it clear that Mr. Barry must understand that as well as I do. I did not, and I could not, at that time know the details of the works on which Mr. Barry was engaged, because I had not the contracts. I had not the information requisite for forming a judgment on the subject. What I understood was, that he was to certify all the expenditure he had undertaken, in accordance with his employment under the letter of my right hon. Friend of last year, and there was no intention whatever of interfering with that duty. If I am rightly informed the works have, in fact, been completed, and he understands that as soon as he certifies what accounts are due and are to be paid to all the contractors, they will be paid on his certificate and on that alone; and there is not the least intention to prevent Mr. Barry receiving professional remuneration to the extent of what he certifies. I wish to disabuse people of the idea of a dispute which never had any existence, and to show the House that there is no desire, and never was any desire, or intention to interfere with his employment. What has been intended and is intended is, that there shall be a responsible Department of Works; that there shall be a thorough, sifting investigation into the necessity for, and character, of all proposed expenditure; and that the conditions of it shall be thoroughly defined. The Director of Works, under the direction of the First Commissioner, and with the technical officers of the Department, is to investigate all proposals for expenditure of public money, and to bring them under the notice of the First Commissioner, who is to be made responsible by recording his opinions upon them for the consideration of the Treasury, by whom alone expenditure can be sanctioned; and it is not until all these conditions have been complied with that third persons are to be called in to give their assistance. That is the footing on which you must put the Department, if you desire to make it responsible, and if this House intends to undertake in a reasonable way the duty it proposes to itself in Committee of Supply. It must not be met by a First Commissioner who says that somebody outside his office has done everything, and that he is very sorry for it; but the Government is committed to what has been done. I wish that nothing of that sort should occur again; and I hope that the result of this proceeding will be that every question of expenditure will receive its perfect economical solution before we go to what may be called questions of decoration and of art. I do not wish or propose to limit the employment of persons who possess adequate skill and knowledge in any particular branch of art which it is necessary to lay under contribution; on the contrary, I wish the services of such persons to be resorted to; but, on the part of the Crown, somebody must judge when gentlemen of professional skill and knowledge are to be called in; and the technical officers of the Department, under the responsible First Commissioner, must necessarily perform that function. You are told that the First Commissioner of Works is guilty of a most arrogant proceeding if he undertakes to judge when people are to be employed in his Department—public money is to be placed at the disposal of what are called independent professional men, who are to take charge of all public buildings belonging to the Crown. What is meant by that? They are to be independent of whom and what? There can be no independent charge of the buildings of the Crown. Every charge must be dependent upon the head of the Office of Works, who is appointed by law to superintend the buildings of the Crown. It is said that there is no one competent to do this in the Office of Works. Who has the right to make this assertion? What right have a number of architects to meet together and to say—"Nobody in the Office of Works is competent to do our business, and, therefore, we claim to be the persons to do it?" There is no independent architect in charge at Windsor Castle, which is a tolerably large building—at Buckingham Palace, or at Somerset House. What right has anybody to say that these buildings shall be given up to independent architects, who are to decide what public money shall be spent on them? All these public buildings have been in the charge of competent persons. But the principle does not apply to existing buildings alone. There is now being constructed opposite the General Post Office a building of great mark, which is to cost £150,000—the supplemental Post Office; and this is being superintended by an assistant surveyor in the Office of Works, by whom it was designed. Why should any persons say, in effect, that this gentleman is unfit for the duty intrusted to him, and that they alone are competent? It is my duty to defend from such insinuations the meritorious gentlemen employed by the Department, who have long performed with ability the work they are called upon to perform, and who ought to be protected from the combination entered into against them. For my part, I shall be well content to see the work in connection with the Houses of Parliament performed as well as that at other public buildings. Whenever the officers of the Department are unable to perform the duties that devolve upon them, the fact will be reported to me, and in such case I shall be only too happy to avail myself of other assistance. I have now endeavoured to make clear to the House a true statement of the question at issue. In conclusion, I am not prepared to subscribe to the doctrine that a combination of architects should regulate the terms of a contract entered into between the Office of Works and the architect it may employ, and Her Majesty's Government have concurred with me that no architect shall henceforth be employed by the Department who does not sign a written contract, the terms of which will afford a suitable protection, not merely for the interests of the architect, but of the public service.

I have gladly gathered from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he is, at last, beginning to learn that there are such things as equities of manner and methods of dealing with gentlemen which would enable gentlemen to deal with him. I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman's lamp of knowledge on these points gives a very shining light; but there are certain glimmerings of illumination. As an encouragement towards a complete reformation, I may observe that the right hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, feel greater sympathy with the architectural profession when he knows that a large proportion of them, though accomplished gentlemen, have not been at any public school or University. I listened with surprise to his argument, when I recollected that, as I can show by figures, Mr. Barry's services during the last 10 years, in connection with the Houses of Parliament, have resulted in a not annual profit to himself of £179 a year; and that, for this munificent reward, he has carried out great works, and has gratuitously attended Committees, which, labouring under the hallucination that he held a public office, cross-examined him, and occupied much of his time. A Committee, on which I had the honour to serve, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Headlam), sat for two Sessions, and produced two very interesting and elaborate Reports, containing a scheme for the construction of a new House of Commons, with other alterations in, and additions to, this building. That scheme is now hung up; but, in preparing it, Mr. Barry gave his services gratuitously. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) ventured on a very wire-drawn distinction when he denied that Mr. Barry had any equitable claim to the continuous consideration of the Office of Works, or of this House, because he held no actual appointment in black and white. Does that mean that he held no patent under the Great Seal? Look at the way in which business is generally conducted in this country. How many persons are there whose equitable claim to continuous employment is recognized by the rules of society, though they are unable to produce any formal appointment? Does a man draw up a deed for the appointment of his family solicitor or his banker? In all such cases, the relationship grows up gradually; one incidental transaction leads to another till at last, without a scrap to show the commission, a relation is created which may last for generations. Of course, a man may change either his solicitor or his banker, and he may make the change like a gentleman, or in a very unjustifiable manner. The question now is, not whether the Office of Works has, or has not, an abstract right to dispense with the services of Mr. Barry. To raise that question is to throw dust in the eyes of the House. The plain issue is this—Is the way in which the Department of Works parted with Mr. Barry right or wrong? Were Mr. Barry's antecedent services, was his position as an artist and a gentleman, such that the right hon. Gentleman was justified in sending him the curt and harsh dismissal with which these Papers commence? The right hon. Gentleman has ridden off on a by-issue. The question is not as to the law and customs of architects respecting percentages, nor is there any reason why he should so pertinaciously ring the changes upon a "combination" of architects supposed to be organized against him. Anyone hearing the discussion to-night might suppose that Mr. Barry had brought down a lot of architects to the feet of the lions, in Trafalgar Square, and called on them from a pedestal to give their opinions on their rights. The fact is, that this "combination" of architects is a well-known and universally respected society, which was incorporated 30 years ago to serve as the official centre, legislative and practical, of the architectural profession; it has been honoured with marks of Royal favour, as the dispenser of a Queen's prize; and when I was its President, it obtained leave to use the prefix of "Royal." This "combination" of architects, which the right hon. Gentleman throws in our teeth, and threatens he will break down, is the acknowledged, incorporated, representative body of the profession, for the purpose of regulating and controlling the customs of architects. If the Law Officers of the Crown say that the rule laid down by them in this instance cannot be sustained, cadit quœstio; but, meanwhile, to try to place the Institute in so invidious a position, is to prejudice an important case while it is still before the tribunal. With regard to Mr. Hunt, who proves to be the right hon. Gentle- man's secret and only adviser, I respect that gentleman's practical ability and services; but what is the opinion of one man compared with the combined decision of the whole profession, especially when that one man is, after all, an outsider? Any how the right hon. Gentleman was very careful to keep Mr. Hunt's opinion to himself; but if, instead of this concealment, he had, in the first instance, communicated Mr. Hunt's view to Mr. Barry, and had inquired, in a friendly manner, whether he had any objection to deposit the drawings, or copies of them, in the archives of his Office, no difficulty, I venture to say, would have arisen. The right hon. Gentleman has himself stated that Mr. Barry, at the close of last year, received the usual circular regarding works in progress; and having received the same form as in previous years, he naturally inferred that the same honourable understanding—I will not call it engagement—was still to continue, and acted upon that circular. On the 22nd of January, however, he received the peremptory announcement that in consequence of the various arrangements made for the conduct of works the New Palace of Westminster would from the 21st of March be placed under an officer of the Department of which the right hon. Gentleman was the head. Now what interpretation could an architect, receiving such a letter as that from his employer, put upon it but that his charge was at an end? It was in that sense that the letter was construed by Mr. Barry. In the same missive a simultaneous demand was made for the drawings, and so Mr. Barry naturally did what any other man of honourable spirit would have done—he stood upon his rights. If, however, matters had been managed otherwise, there would have been an opportunity afforded for those friendly negotiations by which alone the harmonious arrangement of such intricate business can ever be secured. But with a document in his hands which he could not regard in any other light than that of a dismissal, Mr. Barry found himself driven to stand upon his rights, which are the common law rights of his profession, not created by the Royal Institute of Architects, but only interpreted by them—rights which, I must add, have from time immemorial been recognized and respected up to the present period by all employers. I have been a considerable employer of architects myself, and I must say that I have never known such a demand to be made as that which was made in the present instance. But in spite of his dismissal, what did Mr. Barry do? A rigid adherent of the rights of the architectural profession might say that he had gone too far in conciliation, for he professed himself ready to surrender all the contract designs made during his 10 years of office, offering also the tracings of the drawings made in his father's time. An opportunity was thus afforded of terminating the matter fairly and honourably as between all parties, of which I venture to say any other Minister would have taken advantage. What was, however, the return made by the First Commissioner to this generous concession? The offer was met by a dry and hard assumption as to the rights of the Crown, and by the threat of legal proceedings against Mr. Barry, because while he virtually surrendered all that had been claimed, he did so with some regard to his own position. The right hon. Gentleman has harped on the trumpery expense to the public of making the tracings of Sir Charles Barry's drawings. I was ashamed to listen to such a plea. What did these two or three pounds matter to him more than they would have done to Mr. Barry, except as a protest on the part of that gentleman which he was bound to make of his own rights of ownership? The right hon. Gentleman has also made a good deal of what has been said by his Predecessor in Office last year with reference to the mosaics for the Central Hall, from which it might be imagined that Mr. Layard had got a large sum of money and had left it in Mr. Barry's hands to spread over a variety of expenses. But what were the real facts of the case? Mr. Layard simply allowed Mr. Barry to enter into a contract for one almost mechanical work—the pattern decoration of the roof—keeping, as he explained, the work which was most expensive and artistic—the mosaic pictures in the spandrils—in his own hands. I must contend, therefore, that Mr. Layard's speech was not susceptible of the colour which the right hon. Gentleman sought to put upon it. The right hon. Gentleman rested his defence, in a great degree, on what he called the creation of a "technical officer," who was to be at the beck and order of the Office of Works. What I am driven to infer from this statement is that there will be hereafter certain permanent officers placed in his Department to know what the First Commissioner himself ought to know, to check designs with which he ought himself to grapple, and to look over estimates which it ought to be his duty to look over. So far as I can make out, that is the simple definition of the technical officer. But had the Office of Works no professional adviser before? What was Mr. Hunt? What were Mr. Pennethorne and Mr. Fergusson? The crowning argument of the First Commissioner was the fact that a new General Post Office is being built for £150,000 by an assistant surveyor. I have only to remark that I want to see the building finished before I commit myself to the admission of the wisdom or the economy of such a procedure. Besides, I refuse to be blinded by words before I ascertain whether this assistant surveyor may not after all be an architect. Sir Christopher Wren was termed His Majesty's Surveyor of Works, and I wonder that the right hon. Gentleman has not argued that St. Paul's was built by a surveyor; the argument would have had precisely the same value as other assertions on which he has ventured. I hope the House will not be led away by special pleading about Mr. Barry's appointment, or by assertions about his 5 per cent. The question at issue is a broader one than that. It is how far the honour and the credit of the Administration, of this country will be affected by gentlemen, artists and honourable men, being treated by officials in a hasty, contemptuous, harsh, and overbearing manner.

I am puzzled, Sir, to know, after listening to the address of my hon. Friend (Mr. Beresford Hope), whether he spoke in his capacity of Member for the University of Cambridge, or as the late President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, which he tells us has existed from time immemorial.

I never said that.

My hon. Friend said it had existed for 30 years.

What I said was, that the custom of paving 5 per cent has existed from time immemorial.

I will come to that by-and-by. I am surprised to hear an hon. Gentleman who has been President of that society not only recommending people to go to school, to learn, I suppose, the principles of architecture, but also the coinage of words; for the hon. Gentleman, who is a Member for the University to which I have the honour to belong, made use of the word "assumptious." That is a word which I believe was never before heard, even at the Royal Institute of British Architects. I think, however, that the speech just delivered was, if I may use the word, "assumptious" in every sense. In considering this question I am not going to narrow it down to the position taken by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. He has narrowed it down to a question of the family architect to this House; but I am going to put it on a broad ground—on the principle of the British taxpayer against the monopoly of the family architect. Let us get rid of all the verbiage—this "assumptious" verbiage—which has been used on the present occasion. It is necessary to look into the history of the building of these Houses of Parliament, and I am sorry to say that a grosser history of wasteful and profligate expenditure by family architects and by Royal Institutes never came under the consideration of this House. [Cries of "No, no!"] I hear my cantankerous Friend on the other side who says "No, no!" but I say "Yes, yes!" Now, what was the original Estimate for the Houses of Parliament? The original Estimate was £750,000. You may talk of percentage, or what you like; but what has been the actual cost? Why, upwards of £3,000,000. How has that bill been run up? By the favourite method of appointing a Committee of this House, which appointed a Fine Arts Commission, which, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge supported originally, even if he were not a Member of it. [Mr. BERESFORD HOPE: I never was a Member of it.] Then you ought to have been. Well, what did they do? From the first they ran up a bill for the ornamentation of these Houses—upwards of £50,000 for frescoes and statues. And what has been the case with those frescoes? ["Question!"] I must go into that question. It is the question of the taxpayer, and is not to be shrouded under family architects or the "No, no's" of the hon. Gentleman opposite—my intimate Friend opposite—who endeavoured to hide his face when he cried "No, no!" Upwards of £12,000 has been spent on the frescoes in the two corridors. ["Question!"] I will come to your friend, Mr. Barry, by-and-by; but first I am going into the whole question of these Houses of Parliament. Every one of those frescoes are now rotting on the walls. Now I come to the question of Mr. Barry, and I will give you sufficient contentment as friends of his. Hitherto the First Commissioner of Works and this House have been completely in the hands of the architect. Now you have got a man fresh from the Treasury. I do not say that he is a man of taste. He comes in here like the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence), totally devoid of æsthetic ideas, and with the wish only to save money. I may say that he is "as free as Nature first made man" when "wild in the woods the noble savage ran." Hitherto I say the whole of this House and its ornamentation has been in the hands of the architect, and the Commissioner of Works has been completely at his command; but now a man comes in who I believe is more intent on pleasing the taxpayers of the country than on conciliating the family architect or the Royal Institute of British Architects. My right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Cowper-Temple) says Mr. Barry served this House for an income of £179 a year. Yes, but what did he do otherwise? He was always suggesting changes, though I do not say he did so for the purpose of putting money into his own pocket. What did he do with regard to the Central Hall? He proposed to cut down the original pillars which support the hall and to substitute marble pillars for them. [An hon. MEMBER: And a very good job.] Without doubt, it is a good job; but who is to pay for it? This is your idea of art; you prefer to have continual bills. This great work, which was originally estimated to cost £750,000, has gone up to £3,000,000; and yet you call yourselves the guardians of the public purse. My right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works did what he ought to have done. He called on Mr. Barry to send in his plans and to give up his position, as I understand it. I think we have had Mr. Barry round the neck of the public a great deal too long. This system of family architects ought to be abolished as far as the nation is concerned. But then there comes down my right hon. Friend the late First Commissioner of Works, who appointed Mr. Barry, and proposes this extraordinary Resolution, which is nothing less than a Vote of Want of Confidence in the present First Commissioner. "The noble savage," in his anxiety to save the public funds, may probably not be on the best of terms with individual Members of this House; but I say he deserves the thanks of the country generally for the course he has taken. I do hope the House will resist this insidious attempt, which is probably, to a great extent, the result of private pique. ["No, no!"] Well, what could be more personal than the speech of my hon. Friend the late President of the Royal Institute of British Architects? He has put the matter not on public, but entirely on private grounds; and, because you have got a Gentleman in Office who is determined to control the public expenditure, my hon. Friend turns round upon him and says he is not deserving of the confidence of this House. I think the time has come when this House ought to reassert its jurisdiction, and not listen to arguments about family architects or the opinions of the Institute of British Architects. I hope this House will not listen to their dictation when they attempt to put forward their rules, which are nothing more than the rides of a trades union Society. Those rules are not recognized in any Court of Law. The endeavour of the architects is to lay down the rule that the country is to pay 5 per cent—that is, 2½ per cent, I think, for plans, and 2½ per cent for superintendence. I think that is the rule. [Mr. Alderman W. LAWRENCE: "No, no!"] Well, the hon. Member for the City of London is a builder, and is better informed on this subject than I am. I happen, however, to have in my hand a statement of the professional charges as laid down by the architects, and here it is. If they do not continue the building they are to have 2½ per cent for furnishing the plans. Is this country content to pay these enormous sums of money, and then to be told that the plans have not been deposited in the public archives? From time immemo- rial, I believe—in the Middle Ages, at all events—the plans of great buildings were always so deposited. That was the case with regard to the cathedral at Cologne, and also with regard to the cathedral at Florence. Both in Italy and Germany, during the Middle Ages, all the plans were lodged in the public archives, so that if the building were left unfinished it might be continued at a future time. Yet we are now told that the Royal Institute of British Architects, which has existed from time immemorial—or, in other words, for 30 years—is to say that we shall not have their plans, although we have paid for them. I cannot think the House of Commons will allow itself to be subjected to such monstrous dictation as this; and I do hope the House—quite independent of personal feeling—will rally round the Minister who promotes economy, and endeavours to keep these family architects in order.

I little expected to hear so advanced a Reformer as my hon. Friend who has just sat down go back to the Middle Ages for precedents as to the payment of architects and rules to guide the architectural profession. His remarks, however, were altogether beside the Motion which has been moved, relating as it does to the dismissal of Mr. Barry; but, not confining himself to this subject, the hon. Gentleman made a most vehement statement that the whole of the £3,000,000 expended upon the Houses of Parliament, and their embellishment was owing to the architects of one particular family. I must say that is a most unfair statement. There may be blame attaching somewhere for this expenditure—I do not go into that question; but if blame there be, it must fall upon the Ministers who proposed, and the Parliaments which sanctioned, that expenditure. And the hon. Gentleman, who has filled certainly one, if not more, Offices in the State, must bear his own share of that blame; and it is too late for him now to rise in an indignant manner, and lay the whole blame of that expenditure upon the unfortunate architect charged with the execution of the works. [Mr. OSBORNE: I voted against it.] The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that some £50,000 of that expenditure had been incurred by the Royal Commission of Fine Arts. I see some Gentlemen sit- ting opposite to me who were very laborious members of that Commission, and I think they will agree with me that there was not a single architect upon that body. I do not know that I should have wished to enter into this debate but for the references made by the First Commissioner of Works to circumstances that happened while I was in Office. It is most painful to me to have to speak upon a question in which the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Office, which I have presided over on more than one occasion, is called in question. But after the references that have been made to me, I feel it impossible to remain silent. One justification put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, for his conduct towards Mr. Barry, was an act of mine in reference to a particular claim, to the amount, I think, of £10, which Mr. Barry felt it his duty to make against the Government, less for the sake of his own emolument than upon professional grounds, I have no doubt. The fact that upon that occasion I resisted, and resisted successfully, the claim of Mr. Barry, ought to show the House that I speak now not in any sense as the representative of the Royal Institute of Architects, but from a persuasion of the justice of this particular ease. And in supporting the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple), I do so not from any feeling as to the rules which the Royal Institute may have laid down, but because I feel that Mr. Barry has been treated with exceptional and unnecessary harshness. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said this was a great attempt on the part of the First Commissioner to save the pockets of the taxpayers. But as Mr. Barry never received any salary, or honorarium even, for the services which he rendered, I am at a loss to see how this great saving will be effected. It also remains to be proved whether this new system which has been described by the right hon. Gentleman will really effect any saving to the public. This is the second time, within the last two years, that the Office of Works has undergone a very considerable re-organization. Mr. Layard, the immediate predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, had not been very long in Office before he proposed extensive changes. These were undertaken after an inquiry prosecuted by the Trea- sury, and appeared to be based upon the idea that additional architectural assistance was wanted in the Office of Works. Undoubtedly after those changes the office was very strong from the architectural point of view. There was, to begin with, the First Commissioner himself, whose experience and knowledge of architectural affairs are generally admitted; then Mr. Pennethorne, attached to the Office of Works as architect and surveyor; then Mr. Fergusson, who was brought in after this re-organization, expressly as a most competent authority on all architectural matters; finally, there was Mr. Barry, to whom was intrusted what I admit to have been the somewhat informal employment of conducting all the architectural alterations and embellishments which might be required in the Palace of Westminster. This organization having been only a few months at work, the present First Commissioner insists upon re-organization again. Mr. Barry disappears, Mr. Fergusson disappears, Mr. Pennethorne disappears, and a new Engineer officer is brought in, to whom, as far as I could gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, all architectural matters are to be referred. Upon both these occasions the changes appear to have been made rather hastily, and I entertain very considerable doubt whether, as the result, we shall have this increased economy and efficiency, with direct responsibility, which the right hon. Gentleman has promised us. But, granting that all the advantages arise which are anticipated, what is there in the circumstances that makes it necessary to treat Mr. Barry with injustice? The right hon. Gentleman, I think, showed himself a little ungenerous when he quoted from a speech made by his immediate predecessor, when he found himself in a considerable strait, and, fixing upon a particular sentence, he said that Mr. Layard got into this scrape owing to Mr. Barry. The right hon. Gentleman also did me the favour of quoting some expressions which fell from me in that debate. I have not refreshed my recollection as to the precise circumstances; but I have a very strong conviction that what I referred to was the conduct of the First Commissioner himself in going to the Treasury—of which the right hon. Gentleman, now the First Commissioner, was, at that time, the official organ—and asking their sanction to the expenditure of a considerable sum of money for works of a purely ornamental character, which had not been submitted to the House of Commons for approval. I said then that if I and my former Colleagues had acted in the same manner, we should not have heard the last of it for a long time to come. I said, and I reiterate, that the right hon. Gentleman himself, now the First Commissioner, was among the Ministers whose conduct in the transaction was impugned. But the matter does not end there. The right hon. Gentleman would give the House to understand that his predecessor felt so acutely the misconduct of Mr. Barry, that he could only vindicate himself on that occasion, by throwing blame upon the architect. Why, so little does Mr. Layard adopt that view of the case, that from his exile—or whatever you like to call it—

What I said was that Mr. Layard had brought under the notice of the House that this was not an exception, but that it had been the practice of the office; that he was not to blame for what had occurred, inasmuch as his predecessors had been in the habit of conducting matters similarly. It was to put an end to that system that the change was made.

Well, Sir, after the harsh and unjust treatment which Mr. Barry has received, I now find, from the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, that what is imputed to Mr. Barry as his fault, was not his fault, but that of all previous Commissioners. It is most unjust, therefore, now, in the eyes of the public, to place the whole weight of blame on the shoulders of Mr. Edward Barry. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say that under the new system this great Palace would be under the charge of the same class of officials as had charge of Windsor Palace, Buckingham Palace, Somerset House, and other great buildings. I grant that if it were a mere question of ordinary repairs cadet quœtio. Mr. Barry never interfered in that matter. But I venture to remind the House of this not unimportant fact, that, so far as my knowledge of these transactions extends—and I have had the honour of holding the Office of First Commissioner on three different occasions—there never has been a proposal made for any architectural work in Windsor Castle, in Buckingham Palace, or the Tower of London, without calling in the services of that architect who was thought most competent to discharge it. When Buckingham Palace was to be enlarged it was not a surveyor of works, however competent or judicious, that was called in, but Mr. Pennethorne. When we wanted to enlarge Somerset House did we intrust the work to a surveyor of works? No, but to Mr. Pennethorne. And I know it was shortly after that work was completed that Mr. Pennethorne received that very distinction of the gold medal of the Royal Institute of Architects which he valued so highly, but of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke in slighting terms. So with respect to Windsor Castle and the Tower: architectural alterations in them have been entrusted to Mr. Salvin. My belief is, that where you have buildings of vast size and great intricacy, which from the nature of the business carried on in them are subject to constant calls for alterations and additional embellishments, it is not only wise and prudent, but, in the long run, economical to have some one of first-rate and undoubted eminence who can be the adviser of the First Commissioner before he proposes to Government or Parliament any serious changes or embellishments. If I wanted a proof of this I should find it in the unfinished state of the Central Hall. Questions have been asked, if not every week, at least every month, how the right hon. Gentleman intends to complete it, and his answer is—"Don't press me; I am deliberating upon it." Well, if we knew with whom he was deliberating—if we knew he was in consultation with a man of great eminence—it would certainly give the House more confidence in the result. That is the position which has been adopted by other bodies who find themselves in charge of great national monuments of value and interest. At the present moment Westminster Abbey is intrusted to the charge of Mr. Gilbert Scott, and St. Paul's to that of Mr. Penrose, and so of our other great architectural buildings. On public grounds alone I regret that course has been departed from on the present, occasion. With respect to the mode in which Mr. Barry has been dismissed, there can be little doubt as to the opinion generally entertained of the short and unceremonious manner in which he has been dealt with after a service of many years. As to the want of courtesy, I can only hope that the result of the explanation offered to the eminent architect may be to soften down some of those wounded feelings which must have been excited by the abrupt, and almost contemptuous, terms in which the correspondence has been carried on. The right hon. Gentleman has now given his reasons for dismissing Mr. Barry. I trust these may have some weight in mitigating Mr. Barry's wounded feelings; but, on public grounds, I must say I am not satisfied with the reasons which have been given.

said, it was not his intention to prolong this discussion; but he wished to give some explanation on two or three professional points, which he hoped would clear away some of the mystery in which this subject had been shrouded. When he had the honour of introducing a deputation to his right hon. Friend the First Minister to-day, he was informed that the question of the right to have these drawings back had been referred to the proper authorities—the Law Officers of the Crown—to determine. With that he, of course, could have nothing to do; but he was bound to state that the feeling of British architects was unanimous and strong against giving up drawings. A public meeting of the members of the Institute was summoned; all the architectural institutes throughout the kingdom had been consulted, and they were entirely of one mind as to the practice of retaining them. It was a rule which he never knew to be interfered with. In his own practice he had never given up a drawing, and, so far as he recollected, he was never asked for one. If he had been asked, he should have given every reasonable information in his power, and, if necessary, copies of any drawings, but not the originals. Every person who had a house built for him was, no doubt, entitled to any means of information, as to drains and flues, &c.; but Dr. Percy had thoroughly examined the whole of that subject in the Palace of Westminster, and, he believed, knew the range of every flue, where it began and where it ended. It was not the practice of Sir John Soane to give up his drawings, and he knew distinctly that he did refuse to give his drawings to his successor, Mr. Cockerell. Sir Robert Smirke also, one of the greatest architects in. our day, re- tained all his drawings. They were bound up in volumes, and stood in his library, and he did not believe he ever gave up one of them. What might be the law of the case he did not know; but the uniform practice had been as he stated. When he was in the profession he could have built a house without a drawing at all. The drawings of the buildings in Piccadilly were, he understood, in the possession of Mr. Hunt, the Surveyor of the Chief Commissioner of Works. With regard to architects' commission, it might be a very foolish way of paying a man for his services; but it was the practice in France as well as in England. In the not very common case when drawings were made and the work not proceeded with, he believed it was the custom to give up the drawings. With respect to the position formerly held by Mr. Barry, the difficulty which architects felt was this—no architect had been appointed in his place. The appointment which their friend had held for 10 years had been suddenly and, as they thought, a little unjustly taken from him, and an engineer appointed in his place, not at all professing to be an architect—indeed, it was said that he told the Chief Commissioner that he was not competent to undertake architectural work. It was for the House to determine whether the explanation which had been given was sufficient. He did not think it would be so considered. The fact that Mr. Barry had not, during 10 years, once exceeded his estimates, showed him to be a master in his profession; he was, in fact, one of the most accomplished architects he ever knew. On his applying to the Institute of Architects, he was told that the practice was to retain the drawings, and, as far as he could see, the Institute of Architects did not deserve the strictures which had been passed upon it. It was a very valuable institution; other professional men had their institutions; lawyers, engineers, and geologists all had their institutions, and no fault could be found with the practice. He had been President of the Institute of Architects for five years, and believed the society was composed of a body of well-meaning gentlemen; and the Government had shown confidence in it by having left to their discretion the appointment of, he believed, no less than 50 district surveyors.

reminded the House that, in Committee of Supply of last year, he first directed attention to the Vote in the Civil Service Estimates for the beginning of a novel and extravagant scheme for the further embellishment of the Houses of Parliament. In the course of the animated discussion which followed on the Report of Supply, it came out that orders had been given and contracts made by the architect (Mr. Edward Barry) not only without any knowledge by Parliament, but without the sanction of the late Commissioner of Works (Mr. Layard), who was officially responsible for the Estimate. It was then made manifest that the architect was ever devising new schemes, and suggesting what he called improvements, to further swell the enormous outlay already incurred. He (Mr. White) held that the architect was mainly responsible for the continuous and growing expenditure on the Houses of Parliament; for it had become the custom of every Government to adopt the recommendations of the late architect, and also those of his son and successor (Mr. Edward Barry). In proof of this, he read a Minute, signed by the right hon. Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple), and dated the 24th of September, 1860, recording that the late Sir Charles Barry, acting as he was accustomed to do on his own responsibility, and without communication with the Department of Works, executed many alterations, additions, and repairs, which were not contemplated on the preparation of the Estimate, and incurred an expenditure of £21,280 on works not included in the original Estimate. The First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Ayrton) declined to defend and perpetuate such a system as that, and he ventured to thank him, on behalf of the economical section of the House, for putting an end to a system so detrimental to public economy. As to Mr. Edward Barry's skill, he appealed to the common sense of hon. Members whether the arcade leading to the Underground Railway was not a reproach to any architect? It was out of all harmony with the general building, and consistency required either that it should be pulled down or have an entirely new facade put to it. He again thanked the First Commissioner for having had the courage to put an end to system alike detrimental to architectural beauty and public economy.

Sir, the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White), who has just sat down, has pointed out what is really at the root of the matter we are now discussing. The truth is, that as matters have been previously managed in the Office of Works, the responsibility of the Minister has been more nominal than real. As a natural consequence, the great expenditure on public buildings has become a scandal which has been justly complained of for many years. I do not see how it could have been otherwise, when the responsibility was divided. However, the Government have come to the conclusion that an end should be put to the system, and the remedy they applied to this crying grievance was, in the first place, to do away with divided responsibility, and to fasten the responsibility fully and definitely on the First Commissioner of Works for the time being. Of course, to do this we must provide the Minister with the means of discharging his duty, and the only way of doing so was to provide the Office of Works with what it was imperfectly provided with, and that is, sufficient technical assistance to enable a Minister, who is not necessarily conversant with the details of public works, to be equal to the responsibilities thrown upon him. Then came the question—How was this assistance to be supplied? Should we take an architect to advise him? I think good reason could be given, without saying anything disrespectful of the Institute of Architects, why this should not be the course. The very way in which an architect is remunerated is a conclusive reason against it. He gets 5 per cent on the expenditure, and he has, therefore, the most direct interest in making the expenditure as large as possible. That is a sufficient reason for not putting the technical department of the Office of Works in the hands of an architect. Then there was another great objection. If the architect were a man of great eminence, it could not be supposed he would give his time to the public, unless it were at a price much larger than we should be able, with a proper regard to public economy, to otter for the work; and if he were not eminent in his profession, he would not inspire confidence. These were the points for deliberation; and, after a great deal of consideration, the Government came to the conclusion that the solution of the difficulty lay in appointing some one to advise the First Commissioner of Works—some one who was not a professional architect, but who possessed sufficient knowledge of the subject to enable him to give professional advice. If I might criticize the Office of Works, I would say its fault lay in the fact that it was too strong in architecture, and too weak in the building department. We have endeavoured to remedy that by taking an Engineer officer into the service—a gentleman who has erected a great many buildings in various parts of the country, and who has had an excellent education as an Engineering officer; and I have reason to think that, during the short time he has been in office, the appointment has proved a considerable success. It is not wise to be too confident; but I entertain hopes that the appointment will be found to give great assistance to the First Commissioner in discharging his heavy and responsible duties, and enable him really to be, what he has never been up to this time, thoroughly responsible for the conduct of public works. Of course, such an officer as this would not undertake great architectural works; he would not be intrusted with works of high ornamental character, implying genius in the designer; his business would be plain, matter-of-fact detail; and, as it is quite right this House should be in the charge of some one, I cannot think of anyone better fitted for the office than the gentleman we have nominated. Then, with respect to Mr. Edward Barry, it was manifest to me that when we had an officer competent to discharge this duty, receiving a salary from Government, we should not be doing our duty to the public to put another officer at the work. It therefore followed necessarily from the appointment of Captain Galton that Mr. Edward Barry would be relieved from the duty of being answerable for the Houses of Parliament. We have been told we should always have an architect in charge of this building; but I demur to that proposition. Without saying anything disrespectful of the Institute of Architects, I must say that when they tell us in one breath that we are bound to place our public buildings in the hands of an architect, and that this architect should have power to withhold from us information which we have a right to, they lay upon us hard burdens; and if they will insist upon these laws of their own creation, they must be prepared for our finding some one who will do the work for us without insisting on their rules. I am the last man in the world to say anything against Mr. Barry, of whose abilities and attainments I think a very great deal. I gave evidence of this by the course which I pursued on the occasion of the competition for the Law Courts, when I thought that he had been ill-used by the right hon. Member for Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple). Therefore, I am not likely to say anything in disparagement of Mr. Barry. But I think it right that these things should be kept perfectly distinct, and that we had a perfect right to put an end, if we thought it advisable, to Mr. Barry's engagement. We believed it to be our duty to do so. It does not, however, follow that he was never to be employed again. I hope myself—it is not my business—but I hope that he may be employed when we have any architectural duties to be performed in connection with this House, and it was to that effect that I wrote when he applied to me upon the subject. But that question we must keep perfectly distinct from the general question which we are now considering, which is, whether the Government have done wrong in acting as they have done. The Government have done two things. They have said that these buildings shall be placed for the future under the Director of Works. On that point I have offered such justification as I think necessary. The second is, that Mr. Barry has been required to place at the disposal of the Government the documents and drawings necessary for understanding the structure of the building. I do not wish to go into that controversy to any extent; but, as far as my opinion may confirm the view taken by the First Commissioner of Works, I am of opinion that, as a matter of common justice, where works are executed for a public body, for a private individual, or for a Government, drawings which are of no use except in connection with the building on which the architect is employed, should, on the fullest principles of justice and equity, become the property of those for whom the building is executed. Indeed, I should be much astonished if that were not the view taken by the first special jury to whom the matter was submitted in a Court of Law. I cannot, therefore, see that there is anything wrong in demanding that these papers should be given up. The matter has, however, been to some degree overstated, because Mr. Barry was not asked to give them all up; he was told that he might select any papers to which, out of respect to the memory of his father, he attached particular importance. If matters had remained in their original state, I cannot conceive that there would have been any difficulty; but Mr. Barry, having had communication with his professional brethren, is now put forward to fight the battle on behalf of the profession to which he belongs. The course of the Government, however, is clear. We believe that we are entitled to the papers; Mr. Barry believes he is entitled to their possession. This is not a matter which can be decided by mutual recrimination; it is a question of law, and to a Court of Law I suppose it must go if it cannot otherwise be decided. I have now, I think, gone through the merits of the whole case, and I think we have only been doing our duty in throwing the chief amount of responsibility on the Minister who is by the Constitution responsible for these works; that we have done our duty in placing these buildings under the more complete control of the proper officer; and that we have only done our duty in raising the question whether the public, who have paid for these drawings, are not entitled to their possession. I therefore hope that the House will reject the Motion of my right hon. Friend.

said, that the debate had entirely shifted from the point at issue. There was no doubt that the Government had a perfect right to dismiss Mr. Barry from his employment; but the question was, whether the son of the man who had designed and erected the magnificent palace in which they were assembled, and who was known to almost every Member of that House, and highly respected amongst his professional brethren, was to receive a letter which no gentleman would send to his butler who had been 10 years in his employment. Sir Charles Barry and his son had received the confidence of successive Governments for some 35 years, and yet the letter which Mr. Barry had received was much of the same character as if a man should send a letter to his butler, saying—"Send me a list of the plate and I will see if it is correct; send me the keys, and I will then tell you what I intend to do." If Mr. Barry had been written to in a gentlemanly manner he would, no doubt, have met the communication in the spirit of a gentleman, and this difficulty would never have arisen. Anyone who read the letter sent to Mr. Barry would think that he had been guilty of some improper act, or that he had in some way insulted the First Commissioner of Works, and that the First Commissioner of Works had in the course he had adopted implied his dismission, and had asked him to give up the drawings. In reference to the possession of those drawings, he considered that the right hon. Gentleman, in arguing that Mr. Barry had never been a public servant, but only occasionally employed, had proved the case against the Government, as it could not be averred that Mr. Barry held the drawings as trustee for the Government, and it must be remembered that no demand had been made for the drawings during the lifetime of the late Sir Charles Barry, or at his death from his executors, and the demand was only recently made in the letter to Mr. Edward Barry. The matter in dispute might at least have been referred to arbitration; but, instead of that, the First Commissioner had referred Mr. Barry to the Legal Officers of the Crown. The argument employed by the First Commissioner of Works was that the public having paid for a commodity were entitled to receive it. That was the word employed by the right hon. Gentleman; and he could conceive the possibility of some people regarding the labour of architects as a "commodity," as he could conceive the possibility of some people not understanding anything unless they could ascertain its superficial contents by a two-feet rule, or measure what it contained in a pint pot. The question was, what was the admitted custom of the architectural profession, and they could see what occurred in other professions. A man engaged in an action at law secured, perhaps, the services of some eminent counsel, who, being possibly otherwise employed, did not appear when the cause was called on. But the eminent counsel did not return his fee, and was not held liable for damages. That was the custom of the legal profession, and was supported by the Inns of Court, which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) would call the trades union of that profession. Again, in the case of the engineers, Mr. Joseph Cubitt had informed him that the custom in connection with the railways of the kingdom was invariably that the plans and drawings should be retained by the engineer.

said, he had listened to the "premises" of the hon. Alderman (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence), but had not come to the same conclusion. He hoped that his right hon. Friend who had brought forward the Motion (Mr. Cowper-Temple) would be satisfied with the debate without going to a Division. ["No, no!"] He did not differ from his right hon. Friend as regarded that part of his Resolution which said that the discontinuance of Mr. Barry was abrupt. Indeed, so far from differing from him, after listening to all the circumstances of the case, he could not but think that the First Commissioner of Works had treated Mr. Barry with very scant courtesy. In the first place, Mr. Barry had been dismissed in a very summary letter, and subsequently, when asked to give up his drawings, another letter was written, which ought to have been couched in very different terms. His right hon. Friend's Resolution also stated that discontinuance of Mr. Barry's employment as an architect, when the works intrusted to him were still incomplete, was a matter of doubtful expediency. In that he agreed. The expediency of the proceeding would depend very much on the substitute for Mr. Barry, and for his part he could not think that in architectural details Captain Galton was an adequate substitute. But what the House of Commons had to look to was what prompted the First Commissioner to act as he had done, and, clearly from his statement, it appeared he was influenced by this, that the arrangements of the Board of Works was not, and ought not to be, satisfactory to the House—that there was a want of responsibility in the Department. Well, to do justice to the right hon. Gentleman, that was a motive which the Members of the House of Commons ought to approve. Under these circumstances, he was not prepared for the Resolution of his right hon. Friend. He would therefore leave the House and not vote at all, as he felt that Mr. Barry had been treated with scant courtesy.

said, he thought it a matter of congratulation that the discussion of this evening was likely to lead to the solution of a much wider question than that involved in the discontinuance of Mr. Barry's services, and that was the question as to the property of the drawings of an architect who might be employed in the building of a house. That was a point in which the country would feel a much greater interest than in the personal matter which had formed the subject of that discussion. He happened to have some experience in connection with architects, and he must say his experience was diametrically opposed to that of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope), as well as to that of the hon. Member for Bath (Sir William Tite). There were two ways of proceeding. If a gentleman was building a house, he might employ an architect to make the drawings, and if the architect was also employed to carry out his plans he would be entitled to a commission of 5 per cent; but there was another course which was not unfrequently pursued, and that was to pay an architect for making drawings only, without requiring him to superintend the building of the house, and then he was only paid half 5 per cent. In that case no one would say that the architect had an absolute right to those drawings. But there was another case still; the employer might retain the drawings and never execute the building at all. Would his hon. Friend contend in that case that where an architect had been paid for his drawings he still retained a right to keep them in his own hands. What could be more absurd? In fact, it was only common sense that the man who paid for the drawings should have the exclusive right to possess them.

Before the House divides—as I understand we are to have a Division—though after the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it is not necessary to go through the general argument, yet I am very desirous that some attention should be paid to the terms of the Motion on which we are going to vote; for, though I am not surprised that a Motion of this kind should have been made, I am not a little surprised that it should have been made by one experienced Commissioner of Works, and supported by another. I wish the House to look for a moment at the bearing of this Motion, on the principle of Parliamentary responsibility, for I am not aware of any step by which this House can more effectually relax and destroy the responsibility of Ministers, and weaken its own power of controlling I the public expenditure, than by inter posing and saying to a Government—"We will point out to you the man whom you shall employ." It is quite evident after that has been done in vain does the House interpose and attempt to assert its own authority over the Ministry. The Motion is this—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the abrupt discontinuance of the employment of the architect who has hitherto been engaged at the Houses of Parliament whenever professional skill and responsibility were required, at a moment when works entrusted to his direction were still in progress, is uncalled for, and of doubtful expediency."

The proceeding taken by the Government, in what is called "the abrupt discontinuance of the employment" of Mr. Barry, is to be censured by the House. That, I apprehend, is not very far removed from a direction on the part of the House to reinstate Mr. Barry in his post. It appears to me that is the only construction which can be put upon the words. That is their tendency—that they verge in that direction is perfectly intelligible. But are the words accurate? I will not comment now on the use of the words "abrupt discontinuance." Much has been said in this debate as to the language of my right hon. Friend's letters. It has been said that it was hard, dry, and uncourteous, and that it is open to another epithet invented for the occasion by the Member for the University of Cambridge, which I will not aggravate his responsibility by repeating and attempting to incorporate in the English language. But the question of the manner of dismissal, if dismissal it were, is not the one now before us. I want to know what it is that has been discontinued, because this is most important and goes to the root of the whole matter. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will say that Mr. Barry had an employment—and a distinction is to be drawn between an appointment and an employment. I deny that he had an employment. It is particularly disagreeable to be called upon to discuss a personal matter of this kind in the case of a man so eminent in his profession as Mr. Barry, and one who has innocently suffered from laudable attempts to distinguish himself in the public service. I was myself one of the persons unfortunately chosen, as it afterwards proved, to attempt the award of premiums in the case of the competition for the Courts of Law some years ago, and it was our miscarriage—I bestow no censure upon anybody else—that laid the foundation of those difficulties which certainly resulted, I do not say in the disparagement of Mr. Barry, but in the disappointment of the hope and expectations he might have been fairly warranted in entertaining. Therefore, I trust I shall say nothing that can possibly be supposed to disparage the character or show indifference to the feelings of Mr. Barry. But it is right the House should have in view his own description of his relation to the Government, because it has been overstated, unconsciously I am sure, both by my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Cowper-Temple) and by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). My right hon. Friend behind me said distinctly and repeatedly that Mr. Barry was an officer of this House and that he was dismissed. I say he was no officer of this House. My hon. Friend opposite said Mr. Barry had an equity of continuous employment. Let us see whether that be so. Mr. Barry himself, in January of this year, said—

"I do not hold any appointment in virtue of which the building is in any sense under my charge. I have no responsibility in respect of it, except as regards such works as are entrusted to my superintendence from time to time."

That is the position of Mr. Barry in reference to this building. Now, my right hon. Friend behind me says there has been a discontinuance of Mr. Barry's employment. I ask what discontinuance in his employment? My right hon. Friend appears to have framed his Motion under the impression that he was dismissed while works entrusted to his direction were still in progress. Evidently the meaning of that is, that the completion of those works was to be taken out of Mr. Barry's hands. I do not think my right hon. Friend will question that that is the natural construction of the words which he and another First Commissioner of Works are about to affirm by their votes. Then the House is called on to affirm that works intrusted to Mr. Barry's direction are about to be taken out of his hands. That is the main portion of the case of the abrupt discontinuance of his employment. Now, that is a statement of fact which happens to be entirely without foundation. There is no work in progress that is about to be taken out of his hands. He is to complete the works in progress exactly as if the correspondence had never passed. Then, as to his employment for the future, is that to be discontinued? Where is the authority for stating that the Government have ever announced that the employment of Mr. Barry in future is to be discontinued? My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he has given an opinion that Mr. Barry ought to be employed in future when the services of an architect were required for this building. I myself have never given an opinion on that subject, certainly I have never given one adverse to that declared by my right hon. Friend. So much, then, for that ground upon which the House is asked to undertake this hazardous and critical interference. I affirm that the employment of Mr. Barry as an architect never has been discontinued in regard to works in progress, neither has it been declared to be about to be discontinued in respect to works which may hereafter be deemed necessary. What has really been done is this—It was the custom in this one and only case of a building under the direct control of Parliament—in this case, which was made an exception to all the other public structures of this country—I do not refer to a structure like the Museum, under the management of a quasi independent body—it was the custom in regard to this particular building alone that Mr. Barry should be called upon from year to year to send in his sketch and estimate of the works that, in his judgment, would be necessary. Therefore, Sir, the whole care of the building was exceptionally committed to Mr. Barry. We see what the effect of that system was. I have been referring with pain to the debates of last year, when we were most severely challenged, and by no one so much as by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), for having acceded to, and been implicated in, a proceeding by which a contract had been made for the execution of works connected with this House before a Vote and Estimate had been submitted to Parliament; and it was my duty to rise in my place and apologize, as best I could, for the proceeding as part of a system that had grown up under this exceptional mode of treating the Houses of Parliament on a basis totally different from that on which every other public building is dealt with. And what is our present offence? Setting aside the alleged abruptnesss—which of itself I suppose would hardly constitute a sufficient ground for passing a censure on the Government—our offence is simply this—that the primary duty and responsibility of considering the state of this building and raising the question of what may be necessary to be done in it from year to year we have removed from that exceptional arrangement and placed on the same footing as that on which every other great public building in the country is managed. That, then, is really all that we have taken out of of Mr. Barry's hands—not that he is less fit than any other architect to perform, his duty, or that he has at all misconducted himself in any way in the execution of his work, but that we hold that a public officer strictly responsible to the Government and to this House should have charge of this as of every other public building and its superintendence, and that the calling in of an architect for architectural purposes should be determined on from time to time in respect to this building as in the case of Windsor Castle and the other public structures; and no such absurdity is contemplated as that when the special knowledge and skill of an architect is required we should refrain from availing ourselves of them. The worthy Alderman (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) said if we had confined ourselves to withdrawing employment from Mr. Barry there might not have been a word to be said against it, and he founded himself mainly on the question raised in regard to the property in architectural drawings. It was certainly most singular that my hon. Friend in saying that the debate had wandered from the question should himself have illustrated his statement, for the Motion, which he is inclined to support, does not say one word about the property in drawings, which he tells us in his view constitutes the gravamen of charge against the Government. As to architectural drawings, I would only say this—I have had the opportunity of hearing the arguments of the Institute of Architects on that subject to-day, and I must own that, without inquiry what is the custom or the law—on which it would be presumption in me to pronounce or even insinuate an opinion—I am astounded at the argument maintained and apparently supported to-night by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope)—namely, that the drawings necessary to illustrate the state and the arrangements of a building belonging to an individual, an institution, and a Government ought not to be in the possession of that individual, institution, or Government, but in the possession of the man who erected that building. If, indeed, perpetuity of tenure were to be enacted for architects in the most rigid form, undoubtedly that would be the most ingenious mode of attaining that end; but we are not about to vote on that matter, but on the discontinuance of an employment with regard to which we have shown that the Motion is wrong in point of fact in asserting that works now in progress are taken out of Mr. Barry's hands; that it is wrong in presuming that works hereafter to be executed must necessarily be withheld from Mr. Barry. All which it does is to censure Government, because, finding a total want of efficient control on the part of Parliament in regard to the management of these buildings, they have thought it their duty to apply to them the same arrangements by which every other building under the control of Parliament is managed.

Sir, I had intended to take no part in this discussion; but some of the right hon. Gentleman's (the First Minister's) remarks compel me to do so, because they seem to me entirely inconsistent with the correspondence before us. The right hon. Gentleman says—and technically, perhaps, he is correct—that Mr. Barry did not occupy any special office in this House, but he has had employment under the First Commissioner of Works. In his first letter Mr. Barry says—

"I was appointed, in 1860, by the Right Hon. W. Cowper, M.P., the then First Commissioner of Her Majesty's Works, &c, to be my father's successor as architect to the building. I have acted for the last ten years in this capacity, and have carried out numerous works under the orders of successive First Commissioners."

Having enumerated those works, he goes on to say that he never exceeded his estimates on a single occasion; that he had fixed offices in the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament, although he received no remuneration for those offices at all; and that, in fact, he has treated the matter rather as a matter of distinction and concerning his father's honour and his own, and that in that spirit he was content, except when works were carried on, to be without salary or anything which the right hon. Gentleman would call a definite office. Then, with regard to the drawings, the late Sir Charles Barry made a bequest of the drawings of this House to his son. It is quite clear, therefore, that he was never asked for them before that, and that he supposed them to be his rightful possession. I do not enter into the question of law—that, it appears, is to be determined hereafter—but it is quite evident that Sir Charles Barry believed he had a right to bequeath his drawings to his son, and his son in the same belief continued to hold them. Nor let it be supposed that Mr. Barry has withheld what was necessary should be given for the due arrangements of this House. On the 21st of March, 1870, he offers tracings of all drawings that may be required, and says he is willing to give originals or tracings of all drawings made in his own office during his engagement, which have been signed as contract drawings and referred to as such. The right hon. Gentleman says he is astonished at the claim made by the architect—[Mr. GLADSTONE: Astonished at the argument.] I ask whether, when plans were being had for the Law Courts and National Gallery, it was not made an express stipulation that the drawings should be the property of the country? Why should that stipulation have been made if they necessarily would have been the property of the country without it? I want to make one remark concerning what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the continuous employment of Mr. Barry. On the 14th of March, 1870, Mr. Barry wrote—

"As regards the works now in hand, and partly executed, I have already forwarded to you all the contracts relating to them. They consist, as you are aware, of works in the Central Hall, St. Stephen's Crypt, the Queen's Robing Room, and the Royal Staircase. The estimates for these services have been sanctioned by the House of Commons, and sums voted on account of them. I commenced the works by official direction of the Board on the faith of being allowed to complete them. It is obviously unfair to a professional man that others should be intrusted with the completion of his half-finished work, and no architect who valued his reputation could consent to such a course."

In answer to the letter in which that statement was made, was Mr. Barry told he was to complete the work on hand? Quite the contrary. Mr. Russell, on the 17th of March, states—

"I am to add that the First Commissioner declines entering into any question relating to your future employment under this Office until you have complied with the request contained in the Board's letter of the 22nd of January last."

There was no understanding conveyed in that letter to the effect that Mr. Barry would be employed for the unfinished work, still less that he was to be employed in connection with any work undertaken hereafter. The right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown said that Mr. Barry would be the man employed hereafter.

I said the construction of the Vote would be that.

Then the right hon. Gentleman did not say that he would be employed?

I beg pardon. I did say distinctly that he would continue to be employed in connection with the works already in hand.

Then it was unnecessary for the right hon. Gentleman to have risen. Again I must refer to the passage in Mr. Barry's letter which I have already road to the House. There he speaks of "the works now in hand, and partly executed," and the answer is that which I have read. Does not it refer to the works in hand?

The right hon. Gentleman was not here, I presume, during the earlier part of the discussion, and, therefore, he is, perhaps, speaking without knowledge. It was shown this evening that Mr. Barry had an engagement for certain works. Consequently the passage which he has read from the answer to his letter of the 14th of March had reference to his being called on in respect of future works.

The House has now the correspondence before it, and I ask is that the meaning of the letter of the 17th of March? [Mr. AYRTON: Yes, it is.] Then the right hon. Gentleman had better write his letters himself. I must again remind the House of what Mr. Barry says in his letter of the 14th of March, and ask them to take it in connection with that statement in the reply. What is the employment in question? Mr. Barry referred to the half-completed contracts. It is now said that Mr. Barry is to complete those works; but I venture to think that anyone judging from the correspondence would be of a different opinion. Mr. Barry had been 10 years employed under successive First Commissioners. I do not say that he held any office in the Office of Works; but he was employed as architect of this building. On the 22nd of January a letter is written to him which was calculated to make him think he was to be dismissed from all supervision of the works connected with the Houses of Parliament, and yet in that letter there is not a word of acknowledgment of his services. Is that proper treatment for a man who has served the country under the Office of Works? The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White) read something which related to estimates in the time of Mr. Barry's father. Whatever Mr. Barry had done in the way of directing works had received the sanction of this House, and it appears that he had never exceeded his estimates. He had given satisfaction as architect, and yet he is dismissed without thanks. I cannot help thinking that this has been an unnecessarily abrupt and unkind dismissal of a man who has done good service to the country. The profession of architect is a high one, and the higher we can keep it the better for the country. I ask whether the course adopted towards Mr. Barry is worthy the approval of this House, or whether, on the contrary, it ought not to meet with the disapproval of the House in the mild terms of the Resolution proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple)?

said, he had come down to the House prepared to support the Motion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper-Temple); but, after the speech of the First Minister of the Crown, he thought his right hon. Friend would be hardly justified in going to a Division. He thought it due to Mr. Layard to say that, when filling the Office of First Commissioner, he made arrangements by which the architect was to be employed only purely in architectural matters.

said, he wished to know distinctly from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government whether it was intended that Mr. Barry should be employed to carry out the uncompleted works, and whether he would be employed on future works?

The right hon. Gentleman has, contrary to the rides of the House, put to me a question which it is contrary to the rules of the House that I should answer. I am not the First Commissioner of Works, and I can only make use of the information which has been given to me upon the subject; and, therefore, I can only repeat what I before stated—namely, that there has been no withdrawal of the employment of Mr. Barry as far as the uncompleted works were concerned, and that no announcement has been made to Mr. Barry respecting his employment upon future works.