asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure for carrying into effect the recommendation unanimously made by the Select Committee on the Ballot Act in their Report of last Session, in favour of removing the conflicts which exist between English, Scotch, and Irish legal decisions as to the marking of ballot papers?

Sir, before the present Ballot Act expires the whole subject of the Ballot will have to be carefully re-considered by Parliament. Till the time for this re-consideration arrives the Government are reluctant to disturb in any way the working of the present Act, for they feel that it would be difficult to frame provisions as to the marking of Ballot papers more simple or less open to diversity of construction than those of the Act of 1872. There have, no doubt, been some differences between the English, Irish, and Scotch Courts in their interpretation of the law, but these differences do not appear to have given rise to much practical inconvenience. The suggestions of the Select Committee of last year will, no doubt, be carried into effect when the Ballet Act is continued, if it should be ultimately determined to continue it.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is true that steps have been or are being taken at the Patent Office for the destruction of the printed specifications of expired patents, five copies only of each being reserved; and, if so, whether the remonstrances which have been expressed against this course will be attended to, and an ample number of copies of all existing specifications be preserved?

Sir, I have made inquiry into the subject mentioned in the Question of the hon. Member, and am happy in informing him of the result. In pursuance of an Order recently issued, and which carried out the recommendation contained in a Treasury Report of last year, the printed specifications from the earliest period to the end of 1860 have been examined and the damaged and surplus copies eliminated, care being taken to retain a sufficient stock for the requirements of the public. The number of copies of each specification reserved in good condition, exclusive of 10 copies supplied to the sale-room and other copies reserved for the use of the gentlemen who are preparing the classified abridgments of specifications, is as follows:—Specifications under the old law from 1617 to 1852, 5 copies of original and 12 of second editions; under the new law, from 1852 to 1856, 10 copies of original and 15 of second editions; 1857 to 1860, 20 copies of original and 25 copies of second editions; and 50 copies of patents which have expired since 1860 have been kept. It was stated in a leading journal in January last, that the greater part of the stock of expired specifications was in constant demand. This is an exaggeration. Ample provision has been made for the supply of any demand which may probably be made. The accumulation of specifications had, owing to the system formerly adopted in the Patent Office, become so great that it was absolutely necessary to adopt the course which has been pursued.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he is aware that complaints have been sent to the Local Government Board and to the Privy Council of Ireland, relative to the burials of cattle slaughtered in accordance with the Pleuro Pneumonia (Ireland) Order 1876, in a field adjoining the spinning mills on the Circular Road, Dublin; if it is complained that the provisions of the Order in Council with regard to the mode in which the burials are carried out are not enforced either in letter or spirit; that the carcasses are not buried at a reasonable depth, some not one foot, some not quite below the surface; that the place selected for such burials is unfit for the purpose, being used for grazing ground for other cattle, and being in a near neighbourhood of land in which extensive building of dwelling-houses has lately been in operation; and, if he will order any, and what steps, to be taken to prevent a recurrence of these complaints?

Sir, complaints of the nature described in the hon. Member's Question were made both to the Local Government Board for Ireland and to the Irish Government. The Director of the Veterinary department of the Privy Council, Professor Ferguson, inquired into the matter, and it appeared from his Report that the complaints were a good deal exaggerated, as he stated that the animals were buried at an average depth of 4½ feet, and that since the field had been used for this purpose no cattle had been allowed to graze there. He expressed his opinion, however, that the place in question, I being within the municipal boundary, was unsuitable for the purpose for which it had been selected. In that opinion the Lord Lieutenant entirely concurred, and the Local Government Board were I requested to point out to the Board of Guardians the propriety of at once discontinuing the interment of the carcasses in this field, and selecting another at a distance from Dublin, which they could easily do, as their Union extends over a large rural district. The Local Government Board wrote to this effect on the 19th of February, and it appears from the public Press that the Guardians have since taken steps for adopting the course suggested to them. I may add that the responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the Cattle Diseases (Ireland) Act, 1876, rests with the Board of Guardians of the Union in which it may be put in force rather than with the Local Government Board or the Irish Executive.

called attention to the charge of £50 made in connection with Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum, and expressed an opinion that the question as to the future of that Institution ought properly to come on for discussion in connection with the Prisons Bill. The Report recently laid on the Table was made to show that Broadmoor was perfect, but the fact was that criminal lunatics cost double there what they did in other prisons. He hoped that hon. Members generally would receive the Report before they concluded the consideration of the Prisons Bill.

said, that in fulfilment of the pledge he had given last Session he had caused an inquiry to be made by a Departmental Committee with regard to Broadmoor and that a Report very strongly in its favour had been the result. At the same time, there were one or two Papers, which would be published with the Report, taking great exception to Broadmoor in its present state. The Report was already on the Table of the House, and he would do all he could to hurry on the printing and distribution of it. Meanwhile, he would suggest that the proper time to discuss the question as to Broadmoor would be when the Estimate relating to the Asylum came before the Committee.

inquired generally with regard to the Supplemental Estimates, whether they would add to the total actual charge under the Civil Service Estimates, or whether there would be savings to set against them?

in reply, said, the savings would be considerable, but he could not at present say what they would amount to.

called attention to the explanation in the Estimates with regard to the Vote—namely, "various unforeseen special works of a costly character have become necessary during the year." He asked what they were, and why they had not been foreseen?

also asked for an explanation.

in reply, enumerated a number of special works.

complained that what had passed did not reach hon. Members who were sitting a short distance from the Table. Vote agreed to. (2.) £4,200, Furniture of Public Offices.

asked why £743 had been expended on the official residence of the First Lord of the Treasury, and £1,376 on that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, buildings that could not be expected to remain standing for very long. With regard to the official residence of the First Lord of the Treasury, there had been a considerable outlay upon it when the present Government came into office, and he wished to know how it was that an additional expenditure of such a large amount had already become necessary?

objected to the expenditure of £500 on the new Offices of the Charity Commissioners. The House on a former occasion affirmed the principle that the Charity Commission should be carried on without expense to the taxpayers, and he wished to know why it had not been acted upon?

said, the idea of going to live at his official residence in Downing Street had never occurred to him till the close of last Session, when it became necessary to make different arrangements in consequence of the retirement from the House of his noble Friend at the head of the Government, and it became evident to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that it would be impossible to carry on the business of his office, living at a distance from it, without great inconvenience to himself and others. As to the furniture of the residence, the principle on which it should be dealt with had been settled a good many years ago, when his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) lived in it, when it was arranged that the furniture should be provided by the Office of Works, and that each succeeding occupant, on leaving, should be charged the difference between the value of the furniture when he came in and when he went out. He might add that while his right hon. Friend resided there the new Foreign and Colonial Offices were in course of construction. The old Colonial Office having been pulled down, and it having been found necessary to make some temporary structural arrangements for the accommodation of clerks, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave up the use of his house for the purpose. When, however, the new offices were finished the clerks left, the house became vacant, and it became, of course, necessary to go to some expense to remove the temporary erections and render the house fit for living purposes. As to the houses having been practically condemned, he could only say that they were in the position of threatened men who were said to live long, for although the time would, no doubt, come when they would have to be swept away, he was informed that many persons were willing to take them on long leases and to give large sums for them, on the prospect of their continuing to stand for a considerable time.

asked for an explanation of the item of £400 for the Treasury Solicitor's office.

said, he fully concurred with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire (Mr. Monk) as to the expediency of securing a sufficient income from the funds of the charities to meet the expenses of the Charity Commission, and if the hon. Gentleman would produce a scheme which would be acceptable to the country, he could assure him it would receive the best attention of the Government. In reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury, he had to state that the duties of Solicitor to the Treasury had of late considerably increased, and that it had, in consequence, been found necessary to provide in his office additional accommodation.

said, that the furniture in two or three of the rooms in the official residence of the First Lord of the Treasury was in a very dilapidated state, but that there had been no extravagant expenditure in restoring or replacing it. Vote agreed to.

remarked that full explanations ought to be given as to why there was such an increase in the expense incurred in the ordinary mainte- nance and repair of the Houses, and as to the special works, the necessity for which was, according to the Papers be- fore the House, not apparent when the original estimates were framed. The original Vote amounted to £7,583.

explained. Amongst other items there was £105 for the "prison in the House." £30 had been expended on the Ladies' Gallery. Other sums had been expended upon the division bells, the Victoria Tower, the repair of the pinnacles of, after the squall in January, which cost £350, the Serjeant-at-Arms' house, and rooms for the Members of the Government. £1,000 of the sum which the House was asked to vote was excess in ordinary maintenance and repair.

complained that, notwithstanding the newspaper paragraphs which appeared every February announcing extensive embellishments and improvements in the Houses of Parliament, nothing was ever seen by hon. Members which would account for the expenditure, which he believed was greater than need be incurred. There was a great deal of money wasted on public buildings; private individuals were able to get their work done cheaper than the Office of Works.

suggested that there should in future be an Appendix to the Estimates, giving the particulars of any additional expenditure that might be proposed. How long a time had elapsed since anyone had been committed to the prison room? Until that moment he had not been aware of the existence of such a place.

said, no one had been committed to the prison room for many years; fact, since 1848.

was of opinion that some of the Votes were not of so urgent a nature that they might not very well be postponed till next year. Such was the case, for instance, with respect to the prison, which, it appeared, had not been occupied for a long time, and the oak panel in the Dining-room.

said, his noble Friend had asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Vote for £600 for the oak panelling in the Dining-room could not be postponed. He also wished to know whether the Dining-room Committee had been consulted on the matter?

said, the expenditure had been authorized by his Predecessor in office.

said, he had never heard that £600, or any other sum, was to be spent on the decorations of the Dining-room. If such a sum were to be expended at all, he thought it might be applied to a more useful purpose.

complained that sums were asked for executing "certain special works," and expressed a hope that more precise information would be given.

promised that a more detailed statement should be given next year. Vote agreed to. (4.) £3,524, New Home and Colonial Offices. (5.) £1,490, National Gallery Enlargement.

said, he wished to be informed whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed at once with the extension of the National Gallery; whether it would be necessary to purchase more ground; and whether proper precautions had been taken to preserve the building from the risk of fire?

was of opinion that there was at present ample accommodation in the National Gallery, and there was as yet no intention on the part of the Government to enlarge the building. Precautions had been taken against fire, and he believed the whole of the ground required had been purchased; but he was not able to give a positive answer at present upon the point. Vote agreed to. (6.) £1,800, Harbeurs, &c., under the Board of Trade.

inquired whether the amount under the Vote, £1,200, covered the damage done to Dover Harbour by the late storm? He also wished for an explanation respecting the purchase of land in connection with Harwich Harbour?

regretted to state that the estimate for Dover Harbour was only a temporary one, pending the report of the civil engineer. As soon as the storm had taken place Sir John Hawkshaw was sent down to Dover to report; but he declined to do so, on the ground that it was impossible for him to make any accurate estimate of the damage during the present season of the year. Consequently it was impossible to insert in the Estimate for the current year the total expense of restoring the pier to its former condition. In Harwich Harbour works were going on which rendered necessary the acquisition in 1866 of the land referred to, certain expenses in respect of which had now to be met.

asked whether any, enlargement of Dover Harbour, apart from repairs, would be made by the right hon. Gentleman's own authority, without the plans being submitted to Parliament?

Certainly not. Vote agreed to. (7.) £40,975, New Courts of Justice and Offices.

presumed this Estimate was due to the judicious threat made by the Secretary to the Treasury last year, that in case the contractors did not proceed properly with their work he would enforce penalties upon them. It would be interesting to the Committee to know what progress had been made, and when they might look for the completion of the work.

said, he had been over the whole building with Mr. Street, the architect, who showed that the works were going on very favourably. It was expected that the eastern portion of the building would be completed by the end of the year.

protested against the designs of the building so far as they had gone. They comprised, in his opinion, the worst specimens of modern Gothic that could be found. There was a large number of small carvings on all sides of the building. They covered a very large surface, and cost an enormous sum of money. They professed to be ornamental; but; in his view, they were not really so. He hoped that the First Commissioner of Works would go over the building and endeavour to diminish the number of these so-called ornaments.

hoped that the Government would press forward these buildings with all possible speed.

said, the Committee might depend upon it that the Government would do all in its power to expedite the work. As to the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer), the elevation was settled, and nothing was so costly as to make alterations in a design once in progress. He could not therefore undertake to make any change. Vote agreed to. (8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £60,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for the Acquisition of Land and Houses as a Site for Public Offices."

asked how much of this sum was for the payment of the site at present occupied by the Canada Government Buildings, in King Street, Westminster? A werse built or more inconvenient building, he thought, could hardly be devised.

said, a Vote of £30,000 had been taken last Session, and now a Supplementary Vote of £69,000 was asked for the same purpose. He wished to know whether there was such an immediate necessity for the purchase of this land as to require a Supplementary Estimate instead of being included in the Estimates for the coming year?

said, the negotiations with regard to the purchase happened before the present First Commissioner of Works entered upon his office. The Government had the offer of the Canada Government Buildings under circumstances, which rendered their prompt decision necessary to the purchase. The value of the property was fixed by arbitration—namely, £49,629. The property, which covered a large space of ground, formed a large contribution towards the completeness of the plan of the Government Offices. There were other premises purchased for the same purpose—namely, those at No. 23, Great George Street, the value of which was fixed by arbitration at £19,771. In both cases it was a necessary condition of purchase that the sum should be paid during the present financial year.

said, the greater part of the expense incurred was not for the land, but for the buildings which stood upon it. Canada Buildings were almost new buildings, and they proved one of the worst purchases ever made by the Government. He did not think the property was worth a third of the money they had paid for it.

said, that Canada Buildings had been purchased as a site for offices, it being covered with old and poor buildings which would have to be replaced. If the Government had waited until the buildings had been pulled down and replaced by others of greater value' the price would have been higher.

asked, whether the Government regarded this purchase as the beginning of a scheme for purchasing the whole block of buildings down to Great George Street?

said, various proposals had been made at different times for effecting the purpose referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and last year the Government brought in a Bill for the purpose. Notice of that Bill having been given, a deputation of the inhabitants of the district made strong remonstrances on the subject, and it was clear that very heavy expenditure would have to be incurred in purchasing the property if it were to be bought by compulsory purchase, as part of a great scheme. The Government did not think it was necessary to proceed with the work at the time, and they therefore abandoned the Bill, although they were not prepared to say it might not in time be desirable to carry out the work. In the meantime, certain small portions of the property had been offered for sale, and that fact having been brought under the notice of the Government, they thought it would be wise to purchase houses or buildings on the spot when opportunities occurred. If they did not do so, as he had before observed, buildings of a more expensive kind might be erected in their place, and thus the price of the property might be greatly enhanced if it should be determined hereafter to extend the public offices to Great George Street. The property which the Government had purchased would be valuable, even if it should not be wanted for the purpose of public offices. Having obtained it under arbitration, they had given no higher price for it than anybody else would have given.

thought the right hon. Gentleman could not know Canada Buildings. He must again say they were not old houses, but new offices, and of the very best description.

protested against Parliament being committed to this large expenditure before it had been consulted upon the subject. It would have been much fairer if the Government had proceeded with their Bill and challenged the opinion of the House on the subject. Every plot the Government bought raised the value of the remainder of the property.

was of opinion that the course adopted by the Government was unwise. Question put. The Committee divided: — Ayes 96; Noes 61: Majority 35. (9.) £47,000, Purchase of Winchester House.

observed from a Note appended to this Estimate that the above "sum was required to enable the Commissioners of Public Works to purchase Winchester House, situated in St. James's Square, for the accommodation of the War Department." That raised a very important question—namely, whether it was desirable to continue the War Office and the Horse Guards on the present site. Two Committees had, he believed, condemned in strong terms the condition of the buildings of the War Office, and he objected to a valuable body of men having to do their work in premises which were in a state which was calculated to breed a pestilence. When the Reports of the two Committees to which lie had referred were on the Table, he thought he should be able to show that the War Office was not fit for human habitation. He believed the state of its foundations had caused sickness, misery, and in many cases even death to the persons employed there.

said, that as to the sanitary condition of the War Office, the hon. Baronet would be able to judge from the Report of the Committee, which would be laid upon the Table. But even if a new War Office had been decided upon, many years must elapse before it could be completed, and in the meantime the purchase of Winchester House would enable a considerable saving to be effected by the concentration of outlying departments, for the accommodation of which, at present, the Department was paying rent.

said, he did not object to a fair price being given for Winchester House if it was necessary for the public service; but it appeared to him that the principal object of this Vote was to provide funds for the new Bishopric of St. Albans. The price was far in excess of the highest bid offered at the attempted sale, and he should like to know upon what calculation the sum had been arrived at? Several Governments had had before them the question whether the extension of our public offices should be in the direction of Great George Street or in the direction of Pall Mall, or towards the Embankment, and he would suggest the appointment of a Committee or Commission to consider that question.

admitted that the present War Office could never be made a decent and satisfactory place for the purpose, and justified the purchase of Winchester House in the meantime, on the ground that additional accommodation was required, not merely for those presently employed at the War Office, but with the view of bringing together those who were employed in outlying branches of the Office, such as Victoria Street and New Street, with which, as matters stood, it was very inconvenient to hold the necessary communication. If it was taken, they would at once save office rent to the amount of £1,675. He looked forward to the building at no distant date, of a new War Office more worthy of the country. That, however, was a matter of the future; the providing of additional accommodation was a matter of present necessity, the state of things at the present buildings being intolerable; and he believed that if they looked at it merely as a property investment Sir Henry Hunt had arranged the purchase of Winchester House on very favourable terms. He hoped the House would sanction the Vote.

urged, that as the existing War Office could never be made a decent place for the purpose, the proper course would be, not to go on buying houses for the business of the Department, but to set about erecting a new Office at once. It would cost some thousands of pounds simply to fit up Winchester House when they got possession of it.

deprecated the purchase of Winchester House, inasmuch as it would delay the obtaining of a proper building.

said, that hon. Members seemed to concur in the desirability of having a new War Office, but that could not be carried out just now, and as increased accommodation for War Office clerks was necessary, he thought the purchase of Winchester House was desirable. It had been purchased at ' what he believed to be a fair price, and if they wanted to sell it at some future time it would fetch nearly the price now given, and probably more.

again wished to know whether the building had been put up for sale by public auction, and what was the highest genuine bid; also whether the Government would at once take up the question as to the direction which the extension of the public buildings should take—whether it should be in the direction of Great George Street or that of Pall Mall.

thought it was desirable to set about building a new War Office immediately, and that additional expenditure for accommodation should be authorized only on that understanding. The present building was not only unhealthy, but inconvenient and costly in the working of business; the labour saved would pay much of the new expenditure. He reminded the Government that there was a large available space for building purposes in the neighbourhood of the India House.

remarked that the reason Winchester House did not last year realize the value which was placed upon it was that there happened to be at the time it was put up four houses for sale in St. James's Square. Having had an opportunity of considering the subject on the side of the vendor, although he was not in a position to state the highest bid for Winchester House, he could tell what was the reserve price. The reserve price was £50,000, and that was considerably below the re- serve price which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, on very competent advice, fixed in 1875. He thought the Government had selected a very fortunate time for the purchase, and had made that purchase on judicious terms. Considering its large extent, the good frontage, the valuable character of the building, and the fact that it covered an area exceeding a quarter of an acre of ground, he was of opinion that the Government had made a good investment.

trusted that the Government would be content with their bargain, and not spend more money on the house, but put it into the market and proceed with the building of a new War Office.

expressed approval of the purchase and disapproval of the proposal to appoint a Commission.

, in the interests of public business, advised the building of a new Office. Vote agreed to. (10.) £3,000, Light Houses Abroad.

wished to know what sort of a fog-horn it was contemplated to erect off Cape Race (the purpose for which the Vote was asked), whether it was one of the more modern fog-horns, and at what distance it could be heard?

said, the fog-horn it was proposed to erect was one of the most recent and approved description. It was impossible for him to say at what distance it could be heard, but he believed it would be heard two or three miles against the wind. A great deal would depend, of course, on the state of the atmosphere and the di·rection of the wind.

desired to know whether it was a steam fog-horn?

believed that it was blown by steam. Vote agreed to. (11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £21,180, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for British Embassy Houses and Legation and Consular Buildings."

said, that this Vote was put down as being—

"required for the purchase of Baron Reinach's house as a residence for Her Majesty's Ambassador at Rome, together with an adjoining strip of land in the Via Palestro."

, pointed out that the £21,000 now wanted was for the completion of the purchase, and the £12,000 referred to he believed was put down for work to be done to the house after that event. The site was specially well adapted for the purpose of an Embassy house. It was a very valuable house, and he thought it of great importance that in every capital the British Embassy should be in one fixed place, instead of relying upon hired houses in different localities. He hoped the Committee would ratify the purchase, which would, he believed, be for the public advantage.

said, that, although he had no objection to accept the responsibility, the Estimate now under consideration was one which should be accounted for by the Office of Works, and not by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. An arrangement had been made last year—though he did not think it a very good arrangement—by which certain houses were to be put under the Office of Works, and others under the Foreign Office. That arrangement had been tacitly sanctioned by the House, and it was no fault of his (Mr. Bourke) if the plan he had indicated had been carried into effect. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had hinted that Estimates of this description had been smuggled through the House; but he (Mr. Bourke) could truthfully say that in the course of the three years during which he had occupied his present position, he had never, upon any occasion, attempted to smuggle through a Vote. This very question of buying Embassy houses had been considered by a Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman to whom he referred was a Member; and, if he were not mistaken, that Committee had reported that it was desirable on all occasions to buy such houses. Such a policy was, in his opinion, a very economical one, or otherwise there would be increased charges through the constant tendency to increased rents in foreign capitals. At Rome the site now acquired was a very valuable one, in a capital situation. The present house was a very poor one, and unless something had been done, Sir Augustus Paget must leave it for another house where there would be a large increase upon the sum now paid for rent, £1,200. By spending a sum which would represent £1,400 or £1,500 a-year, he believed a good arrangement would be made in the public interest. At the same time he must in candour admit that the sum now asked would not be sufficient, because, as the hon. Member had pointed out, there would be the furnishing. He thought, however, a very good bargain had in this case been made. With respect to the expense of the Embassy house at Constantinople, the present Government were not responsible for the whole of the expenditure incurred, and he could only say that he hoped they would be more fortunate than their Predecessors in making their purchases.

could not help thinking that if the Government speculated in purchasing houses in foreign capitals, they would be very likely to make bad bargains. The Embassy at Constantinople had been exceedingly expensive to build. It turned out to be badly built, and the repairs cost a very large sum indeed. The same thing might again happen, and he therefore believed it would be found much safer to rent premises for our Embassies.

must remind the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) that the purchasing system was recommended by a Committee, and was begun by the late Government. The right hon. Gentleman himself (as Secretary to the Treasury) had purchased Embassy houses at Vienna and Washington.

concurred in the opinion that £21,000 should not have been expended on the purchase of an Embassy house at Rome, when the finest palace there could, he believed, he hired for £1,000 a-year. Was it not the fact, he should like to know, that nearly all the Representatives of the great Powers accredited to this country resided in houses not purchased, but hired from year to year?

said, the Vote was proposed to be taken in an irregular way, and in a manner opposed to the general practice of the House. He should oppose it, as he saw in it the beginning of further expenditure.

desired to know why this Vote had been put into a Supplementary Estimate at all. He objected to vote money after the work was done, and then call it an "Estimate."

said, it was not a Supplemental Estimate, but a Vote on Account. The Estimate was not sufficiently clear and full, and did not convey to the mind of any one reading it that it was a Supplemental Estimate without looking to the Estimates.

did not think it quite fair to call this a Vote on Account. So far as the transaction was concerned, it was a complete Vote for the purchase of a house, land, and garden. That was covered by £21,108. When they had got the house, some alterations would have to be made, which would amount to £12,000, and there would also be the cost of furnishing. It would be very inconvenient to insist that every expense incurred in such a matter must always be put in the main Estimates of the year. Such scrupulous particularity would very often cost the country a great deal of money. Proposals of this kind were looked upon by the Government with jealousy, for it must be admitted that the arguments against them were not without force. With regard, however, to the remark that Rome might cease to be the capital, there was not, in the opinion of the Government, much reason to expect that result. There was, of course, the possibility that a house which suited one family might not suit another, but there might at the same time be weighty considerations in favour of securing a permanent residence. For example, a house might at present be worth £1,000 a-year which a few years hence would bring £1,500 or £2,000. All that could be done was to weigh the probabilities, and, doing that in the present case, Government had come to the conclusion that the purchase would be a very good bargain, and on that account, they recommended it should be carried out.

said, what was complained of was that the Government had not given them a full Estimate, and the House ought to know what they were going to vote for the purpose.

mentioned that copies of the Supplementary Estimates seemed to be very scarce, for he and other hon. Members had not been able to get any, although they required them for the purpose of that discussion. Copies had, of course. been sent to the houses of hon. Members, but it was usual to count on being able to get others when they came to the House.

expressed regret at the scarcity and promised to communicate with the Speaker, with whom it rested to determine the number of copies that should be printed.

thought it hard on the present Government that hon. Members opposite, and in particular the right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) should object to this expenditure on principle, when the policy on which it proceeded was one which had been recommended by a Select Committee appointed at the instance of a Liberal Government, and consisting of 22 Members, of whom 12 were Liberals, among whom were the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. W. H. Gladstone), the then Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), and the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). He referred to the Select Committee of 1871 on the Diplomatic and Consular Service, one of whose recommendations was—in the words of the Report—that it would be for the advantage of the public service to have permanent residences for the heads of the Embassies. It was rather a strong proceeding for hon. Members on the Opposition benches to turn round against the Government and blame them for following a course they had themselves advised. He should vote with the Government.

asked whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed at present with these Estimates after what had been stated as to the impossibility of obtaining copies?

said, that really the hon. Member had the greatest genius for obstruction. Copies of the Estimates had been distributed to all hon. Members, and while it was a matter for regret that there were not others to be got, it must be assumed that they had made themselves acquainted with the contents of the Paper, and it was too much to ask that the Business of the House should be stopped because they had not brought their copies down with them.

said, the scarcity arose from there being so large an attendance of hon. Members. Many hon. Members did not bring their copies with them, because they wanted to keep them for other years for reference, and they trusted to be able to obtain other copies at the House. With regard to the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), he wished to say for his part that he did not object to the Vote on principle, but because there was no information before the Committee as to the gross sum which would be required.

also complained that copies were not to be had for the use of hon. Members. Question put. The Committee divided:—Ayes 167; Noes 53: Majority 114. (12.) £700, Treasury. (13.) £10,810, Foreign Office.

pointed out that the commercial department of this Office wanted revision, and asked whether the appointment of the additional Assistant Under Secretary of State would effect that object, or whether his attention would be limited to the legal business of the Office?

said, that the Vote was required for the salary of an additional Assistant Under Secretary of State. As there had been a remodelling of the whole of the work of the Foreign Office, he should be glad to know whether the Memorandum would be laid before the House, in order that it might know whether the power and influence of the political Under Secretary of the Foreign Office had not been prejudicially diminished.

said, the Eastern negotiations would naturally cause an increase in the telegraph expenses, but the additional sum required—£8,5l0seemed excessive, and required explanation.

said, that concurrently with the increase in the telegraph charges there had been an increase of £1,100 in the travelling expenses of messengers and couriers. He would like to hear the reason for that increase.

said, that the new arrangement of the Office had nothing to do with the commercial department. He had not seen the Memorandum to which allusion had been made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), but there was a Minute which he did not think the House would care to see. The change made had been recommended by a Committee which sat last year to consider the subject, and had the effect of assimilating the practice of the Foreign Office to that which prevailed at the Colonial Office. With reference to the telegraphs, the enormous addition which had been necessarily made to the service last year had caused great expense. Each telegram sent to Turkey, to Russia, or other foreign countries was very costly, and a great number had frequently to be sent daily. The same observation applied to the item in respect of messages, there having been a larger number than usual despatched to the East.

hoped that the Minute would be laid on the Table, as he believed that certain officials at the Foreign Office exercised their influence badly, and therefore he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow a Committee to be appointed to inquire into all the arrangements at the Foreign Office. Vote agreed to. (14.) £826, Colonial Office. (15.) £15,796, Board of Trade.

said, that the item they were now asked to vote was likely to be an annual charge under the Merchant Shipping Act, and was incurred in order that they might do for reckless and dishonest shipowners what prudent and honest shipowners did for themselves. As they were asked for such a large sum they should at least be satisfied that some good work was done for the money. There were 11 highly-paid gentlemen who were appointed to the principal ports to see that the Merchant Shipping Act was carried out, and from the result of personal visits made to many sea-ports during the Recess, he could not find that they had done anything at all. The impression on his mind was that these gentlemen regarded their salaries of £600 or £800 a-year as a pension to retire into private life rather than as salaries for which they were to do work. It was just possible that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade might have fuller and better information, and he (Mr. Plimsoll) would give him the opportunity of stating it. There were a few questions which he wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman—namely, whether it had been an instruction to those highly-paid officers to see that the vessels were not overloaded, and whether they had been instructed to make a systematic examination of the load-line, and whether they had been told that in the event of the load-line not being sufficient they were to communicate with the owners. He was certain that if those instructions had been given they had been disregarded. Secondly, he would ask whether any instructions had been given to our Consuls in foreign ports to see that the load-lines of vessels were not submerged; thirdly, whether those gentlemen who had been appointed at large salaries had made a systematic examination of the 2,400 disclassed vessels, the names of which he sent to the Board of Trade at the close of last Session, together with the dates they were last examined. In some cases 8, 10, and 11 years had elapsed. Were any means adopted to see that these chief surveyors did anything for their money? There was an item for £600 for survey in foreign ports of vessels with grain cargoes, and it did not seem to be large considering the beneficial result of such regulations; but it was to be regretted and he should like to know why the examination of ships was not carried out in more ports. He believed the outlay had produced most beneficial results, and that the country would not grudge a much larger sum.

said, he was sure the Committee would be very glad to see that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had not relaxed in his vigilance upon this subject. He seemed to complain of the expense under the Act of last year, but the principle of the Act—namely, that officers of the Board of Trade should watch that vessels did not leave port improperly loaded—must have been a much cheaper plan than the plan of the hon. Member—that the Government should undertake the survey of every ship which left these shores. As to the question whether the 1G (not 11) principal Inspectors or Surveyors had "done anything for their money," the hon. Member must on this point have been less vigilant than usual, or he would have seen a Return lately laid on the Table, which showed exactly what they had been doing during the three months since the passing of the Act. These gentlemen had done a great deal, and from every quarter of the Kingdom he had received from shipowners unanimous testimony to the activity of these officers and the tact as well as efficiency with which they had performed their duties. He could not exactly state the number of ships they had detained, still less the number they had prevented from leaving port overloaded or improperly loaded. But one fact was significant, that of the ships they had detained as unseaworthy, several were ships classed at different offices, including Lloyd's. This fact was also so far satisfactory that it showed the House did not go far wrong in passing the Act in the shape it was passed last year. The hon. Member asked whether the Surveyors marked the owner's load-line of every ship which left this country. Whenever a ship was detected starting with her load-line below smooth water, it was the duty of the Surveyors to report; but he could not undertake to say that they had recorded the load-line of every ship leaving this country, still less that this was done in the case of British vessels loading abroad. Such a task would be impossible, and even dangerous. As to the stowage of grain cargoes abroad, the Reports which reached him were as satisfactory as could be expected, and the number of ports from which these Reports came was ample. The hon. Member seemed to think that the £600 which appeared in the Estimate for watching the stowage of grain cargoes covered the whole year, whereas it was only for three months, and the estimated cost of the whole year was £2,000. The list of disclassed vessels supplied by the hon. Member had been carefully looked into and considered.

said, he could not concur with the right hon. Gentleman as to the success of the working of the Act, and he regarded the appointments of these Inspectors as having been unwisely made. He considered they had not done their work as efficiently as they ought. The general question, however, could not be discussed on the Supplementary Estimates, otherwise he should be prepared to do so. The country did not receive anything like the benefit it ought to receive from the large expenditure incurred.

asked if the 50 per cent of the vessels stopped were unseaworthy?

replied, that he had not so stated.

called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the result of taking the Vote in the present form. We should be actually adding to the aggregate vote far more than was required, instead of showing the increase on the item and abating the savings on others within the Vote. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should in future refer such matters to the Committee on Public Accounts for their consideration. It was not right that the Estimates should be thus swelled.

said, this was a technical question, but it ought to be looked to. Under ordinary circumstances the Government would not have introduced the Vote, but here it was necessary.

remarked that it was a discouragement to public officers when reflections were made upon their conduct, no reasons being assigned for such reflections. As the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had given an opinion as to the uselessness of Surveyors, hewas bound to state the grounds on which that opinion was based.

said, that he had been misunderstood. He did not say that our Surveyors were useless, but only that they did not perform their duties as efficiently as they ought. He might add that the Act of last year was not passed to give the President of the Board of Trade an opportunity of congratulating himself, or the shipowners an opportunity of congratulating the President of the Board of Trade. It was passed with the view of instituting a more serious and searching inquiry into unseaworthy ships, and when the proper time arrived, he would lay before the House the reasons which induced him to think that the Surveyors did not perform their duties as efficiently as they might.

said, he had expressed no opinion whatever as to the operation of the Act of last year, he only spoke of the strong expressions about public servants.

said, he felt bound to say that he thought the remark of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) with regard to the shipowners was uncalled for. The hon. Member had spoken as if the House had legislated in a sense hostile to shipowners. The manner in which the shipowners dealt with the matter did not imply any disinclination to concur in measures for the saving of life. They might have differed from the hon. Member and others as to the particular measures to be employed, and might have occasionally expressed themselves with some warmth when reflections were cast upon them; but it was rather hard that the hon. Member should go out of his way to throw on the shipowners of the country imputations which they did not deserve.

thought the right hon. Gentleman had rather stretched his meaning on this subject. He (Mr. Reed) most certainly understood that the Act of last Session was passed in restraint of the shipowners. However, if the right hon. Gentleman as Leader of the House desired that he should now make a statement he was willing to do so.

said, if you trod on a worm it would turn, and the shipowners had been treated and spoken of in a way not pleasant even to those who had nothing to do with ships. If attacks and insinuations were persisted in, such as those of the hon. Member for Pembroke, it was natural they would be resented. For his part he thought the Surveyors had done their work very well indeed. Vote agreed to. (16.) £850, Civil Service Commission. (17.) £872, Registry of Friendly Societies. (18.) £10,000, Local Government Board. (19.) £8, 700, Mint, including Coinage. (20.) £11,400, Law Charges.

wanted to know why the salaries of the Law Officers of the Crow n should be provided by Supplementary Estimates? It was rather extraordinary if Her Majesty's Government were not aware that they should have Law Officers to provide for.

said, that his hon. Friend would find that it was not so. The Vote was for fees of counsel and costs of intervention by the Queen's Proctor.

wanted to know under what circumstances the Queen's Proctor did intervene; whether there was any control over him, and whether he intervened of his own motion and at his own discretion, or had to refer to anyone before doing so?

said, the Queen's Proctor did not in any case intervene on his own authority. In most cases the interven- tion was directed by the Judge, and in every case the evidence was laid before the Attorney General before the Queen's Proctor intervened.

said, that the Treasury Solicitor had been asked to discharge these duties. In future there would be no costs paid to the Queen's Proctor out of Votes of Parliament. The large amount was due to the fact that there were large arrears.

asked what was paid for counsel's fees in the Stuart de Decies case. He protested against the expenses, and asked for information on the subject.

inquired why it was necessary that there should be a Queen's Proctor appointed for England while no such officer existed for Scotland? In Scotland the Judges themselves interfered in cases of collusion, and he failed to see why this great and constantly increasing expense should be incurred in England. He also wanted to know if there was such a fee fund in the Divorce Court as repaid all its cost to the country, for he questioned the morality of the State providing men and women with facilities for getting divorces at any cost to the country. If they were to have such facilities, they should at least pay all the costs.

said, that when the Divorce Act passed it was thought desirable that the learned Judge who presided over the Divorce Court should have the assistance of an officer to be called the Queen's Proctor when he thought it necessary. As the provisions of that Act were not extended to Scotland, he presumed it was not thought necessary to appoint a Queen's Proctor for that part of the United Kingdom. Vote agreed to. (21.) £4,900, Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court of Justice.

explained that the three Judges of the Court of Appeal who went Circuit were re-imbursed their Circuit expenses, and that the sum of £500 in the Estimate was to enable the Treasury to make the repayment. The other Judges paid their own Circuit expenses, except in the Winter Assizes. Vote agreed to. (22.) £800, Admiralty Registry of the High Court of Justice. (23.) £1,790, Wreck Commissioner's Office. (24.) £26,252, County Courts. (25.) £18,492, Police, Counties and Boroughs (Great Britain). (26.) £1,850, Reformatory and Industrial Schools. (27.) £1,800, Register House Departments, Edinburgh. (28.) £2,000, Science and Art Department.

said, he understood that this sum was to defray the expense connected with the remarkable Loan Exhibition of scientific instruments at South Kensington. He wished to know whether this interesting and valuable collection was to be allowed to be dispersed, or whether any steps would be taken by the Government to keep it together as a permanent collection?

concurred with his hon. Friend (Mr. Samuelson) as to the great advantages which had resulted from the Loan Collection of Scientific Apparatus at South Kensington, and as to the desirability of establishing such a Collection in a permanent form. He could, if time allowed, enumerate many very important national purposes which would be served by such a Permanent Science Exhibition or Museum, and it would undoubtedly aid materially in sustaining this country in that position of scientific eminence to which it had attained.

said, on the part of the Government, he was glad to hear from the two hon. Gentlemen who had just sat down, and who were so well qualified to judge, that the Loan Exhibition of Scientific Instruments was so much approved by men of science. It was certainly a remarkable exhibition, and it was a remarkable thing that it should have attracted so much attention from men of the highest scientific distinction from all parts of the world, 300,000 having visited the collection during a few months. The hon. Gentlemen, however, opened a very wide question when they asked if the Government were prepared to continue this collection as a permanent Museum. They were no doubt aware that a memorial had been sent to the Government by several leading men of science asking that such a Museum should be established; and that the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851 had made some offers to the Government on this point. Negotiations had been set on foot with regard to this important matter; but difficulties had arisen, one of which was that there was a considerable divergence of opinion amongst scientific men on the subject. The Government took a very great interest in the matter; but at present he was not empowered to say more than that before anything could be done it was necessary that there should be something like unanimity among men of science. Vote agreed to. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £550, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for the Expenses of the Arctic Expedition."

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £46,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and. for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c., and for other Expenses in certain Colonies."

said, we were entering upon a dangerous course in assisting the local revenues of our Colonies, without knowing why the Colonies were not self-supporting. We were to present St. Helena with £5,500, because it was in financial difficulties, and to give Sierra Leone £38,000, and Gambia £3,000. If we were to make good the sums required for financial equilibrium in a colony, he feared that a large number of the colonies would be in need of that support.

desired to have an explanation of the policy of the Government on this question, especially with reference to the charges for Sierra Leone and the Gambia on the West Coast of Africa.

said, that when last year a subject arose connected with the West Coast of Africa, he distinctly stated that in the event of it becoming necessary to maintain the existing system with regard to the Settlements there, Parliament must be prepared to vote a sum of money in aid of them. A proposal was under consideration last year which he ventured to think would have been beneficial to all parties concerned. It would have effected an exchange between certain French Settlements and the English Settlement of the Gambia. The negotiations came to an end, however, in consequence of the French Government raising demands which it was found impossible to comply with. If the system which had been for some years acted upon was to be brought to an end, of course such a Vote as that under discussion need not be submitted to the House, but if we were to maintain those Settlements, it would be necessary in some way to supplement their revenues, which hitherto had not been found equal to the demand made upon them.

thought the increase in the Vote for the year was too large and the matter too serious to be brought forward in a Supplementary Estimate, and suggested that it would be better to withdraw the Vote and introduce it in the regular Estimates with an explanatory statement of the financial position of the Colonies in question.

said, it would be without some such addition as that which was proposed absolutely impossible to conduct the government of Sierra Leone. A portion of the money was required to pay a debt which had accrued through the depression of trade and the consequent diminution of Revenue, and there was also an expenditure for harbour work which largely increased the Estimate. The reason, he might add, why, the proposed outlay was not provided for in the regular Estimates of last year was, that the demand was not made on the Government in time to enable them to include them in those Estimates. In the case of St. Helena the money asked for was in a great measure to make up the deficiency of Revenue which was occasioned by the diversion of trade consequent on the opening of the Suez Canal.

said, the objection he had taken had not been met, and, if the Vote were passed without the production of further information, it would be setting an inconvenient precedent.

said, they were informed of the adoption of a new policy, and all they knew of it was that it involved increased expenditure. The Vote ought to be postponed until they had fuller information. The diminution of the colonial revenue was duo to an increase in the export duty on palm oil, which injured the colony.

said, that, if the Colonies in question were to be retained, it was necessary that these grants should be made. Last year there was under consideration a proposal, which did not seem to find favour with the House, to make certain exchanges with France of territory on the African coast. The financial importance of the proposal was that the Revenue of the colonies was derived from import duties, and if there were intervening ports, in other hands, goods would go through them, and the opportunities for smuggling be multiplied. It was felt that we could not retire from these Colonies, and what we had to deal with was the question of the present, regarding which he would give the Committee some figures as to their financial position. In Sierra Leone there had been for many years an excess of Expenditure over Revenue. In the years 1873, 1874, and 1875 there were deficits amounting in the aggregate to £23,000. In 1876 the deficit was still greater than it had been in previous years, in consequence of disturbances at the Sherbero, expenses for harbour works, and £31,000 for redemption debt, making, with £7,000 for the steamer stationed there, a total of £38,000. In Gambia there was, during the last three years, a total deficiency of £7,700. Votes were asked for to enable the colonies to go on, and there would be no objection to lay before the House the state of the several colonies and the several figures by which it was represented; and it would then, no doubt, be an important subject for consideration what was the state of relations between those colonies and the mother country, and whether those relations should be modified.

hoped the question would not be allowed to remain open long. He wished to call to the attention of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether as a matter of precedent they ought to be called upon to aid the colonies by a large sum without having any Papers before them. It was impossible for them to grasp the financial situation of a colony in a moment and without Papers. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider again whether the Vote should not be postponed?

also hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to the postponement of the Vote, as hon. Gentlemen did not know whether it was a loan or whether it was a grant.

admitted that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was a reasonable one, and therefore he would agree to withdraw the Vote for the present. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. (30.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,240, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for the Expenses of the Mixed Commissions established under the Treaties with Foreign Powers for suppressing the Traffic in Slaves, and towards defraying the cost of the Agency and Consulate General at Zanzibar, including payment of the Imperial Moiety of the Muscat Subsidy."

moved that Progress be reported. [" No, no ! "] Hon. Members had been discussing these Estimates for five or six hours, and he, for one, now felt quite worn out. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Kenealy.)

expressed the hope that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion, as there were only a few more of the Supplementary Votes to be taken.

trusted that the important Votes would not be proceeded with at so late an hour — about 10 minutes past 12.

recommended that hon. Members should go on till the end of the half-hour, when, as other Opposed Business could not be taken up, they could get home to bed.

supported the latter view of the case.

thought that the subject raised by the Vote now before hon. Members was important, and demanded careful consideration on the part of the Committee. The Seyyid of Zanzi- bar was prepared to do all that could be expected from him with reference to a suppression of the Slave Trade, and would enable men of enterprize to make roads from the coast to the interior of Africa.

wished to make only one remark on that Vote—namely, that the payment they were now asked to make was not one to the Seyyid of Zanzibar, but a repayment to the Indian Government. That money had been advanced by the Indian Government; and, considering how much that matter affected our Imperial policy with regard to the Slave Trade, he was sure the Committee would naturally be anxious to set the account right with the Indian Treasury without delay; he therefore hoped the Committee would pass that Vote, and then he should have no objection to report Progress. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Original Question put, and agreed to.

desired to know whether the Government were prepared to support the enterprize in which Englishmen had been invited to embark by the Sultan of Zanzibar, of constructing a road into the interior of Africa?

assured the hon. Gentleman that the matter would not be overlooked by Her Majesty's Government. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman de report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." — (Hr. William Henry Smith.)

opposed the Motion, as he thought it better to proceed with the business in hand than enter at that hour upon the discussion of a series of Bills, 13 in number, every one of which required mature consideration. It was clear the object of the Government was to get to the other Business before the half-hour was reached. He should strongly oppose this method of procedure, because he feared if the Government resorted to these tactics they should have a recurrence of the lamentable scenes of last Session—scenes which did not tend to raise the House in the eyes of the country. The amount of work they had to get through was a heavy task, and sooner or later Parliament would break down, unless the business of the separate nationalities was handed over to home Legislatures.

believed the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was a Member of the Home Rule Party, and he therefore wished to know from the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) if it was a part of the policy of that Party to kill the other Members of the House, by prolonging the discussions of the House at that late hour of the night. He appealed to the hon. and learned Member, as he had a character to lose in the House, or rather a character to maintain. He protested zealously and solemnly against the absurdity and ridicule to which they exposed themselves by the course they were pursuing. He had done as much as any man could do in attending to his duties, but he was no longer able to do it, and must retire immediately. They could not but impair the confidence of the public in the result of their labours. The hon. Gen-man openly stated that he did not sit to forward Imperial objects.

denied that he had made use of the word Imperial.

considered the hon. Gentleman was not in the House for any purpose whatever that was recognized by the forms and spirit of the Constitution.

reminded the hon. Gentleman that he was out of Order in attributing such motives to the hon. Member for Meath.

said, nothing was further from his intention than to say anything offensive to the hon. Member, and was only endeavouring to do justice to that spirit of patriotism by which the hon. Gentleman was animated.

said, as he had been appealed to, he wished to say that it was not any part of the Home Rule policy to kill hon. Members.

said, he had no wish to kill any hon. Member. He had been blamed as an obstructionist, but his sole object in opposing many of the measures on the Paper last week was only to prevent them being brought on at a time when discussions on important measures would not be reported. Question put, and agreed to. House resumed. Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.