asked the Postmaster General, Whether any rules have been laid down by the Post Office for the construction of the Post Office Act, 1870, as regards the definition of a newspaper contained in that Act; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay those rules upon the Table of the House; whether he holds that he is empowered under the Act of 1870 to call upon proprietors of publications presented for registration to make alterations in the character or matter of the publications, and whether this has been done since the passing of the Act; whether it is the case that his refusal to register any publication claiming to be a newspaper subjects that publication to a heavier rate of charge on every occasion of its transmission through the post; and, whether he has considered if stitched newspapers may, with public advantage, be registered and posted as newspapers?

Sir, no such rules as those referred to have been laid down. When application is made for the registration of a publication as a newspaper, it is entered on the register if it be found to be in accordance with the definition of a newspaper contained in the Act. If it be not in accordance with the definition, it is explained in what respect the publication fails to meet the requirements of the Act. The refusal to register a newspaper might render it liable to a heavier rate of charge. It is considered that it would not be advantageous to allow publications if stitched to be registered as newspapers.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What is the rule laid down as to the printing of the Reports of Her Majesty's Secretaries of Embassies and Legations on the manufactures and commerce of the countries in which they reside, and why some very important Reports, such as that of Mr. Trench on the Finance of the United States, and Mr. Drummond on the Silver Currency question, have not been printed?

in reply, said, that those Reports were printed as fast as possible after they were received. There was, however, a very large amount of business before the Government printers, and that fact made it impossible sometimes for them to print the Reports as speedily as was desired. The Reports referred to by the hon. Gentleman were very voluminous, and would necessarily take a good deal of time to print them. He could only say that the Government were anxious to give the public the full benefit of those Reports as soon as possible.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, With reference to the promises made by the Home Secretary in 1876, and by himself and by the Attorney General in 1877, that the Government would, at an early date, bring in and press forward a Bill to amend the Corrupt Practices Acts, when the Bill will be introduced?

Sir, I am afraid I can only say we have been very anxious to bring in this Bill, but the pressure of Business during the last few Sessions has rendered it very difficult to do so. The Bill has been prepared, and is ready to be brought in; but I do not think, at the present moment, I can make any promise on the subject.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that 13,000 small brewers have given up their trade in the last twelve years; whether brewers can escape any extra payment on account of the Licence Tax by reducing their payments to the Malt Tax; and, whether hereby the Brewers' Licence Tax is not unproductive in many cases?

Sir, I believe it is perfectly true that there are now 13,000 fewer brewers than there were 12 years ago, and also that there are about 23,000 fewer than there were 40 years ago. That is, in fact, the result of the competition of large brewers, which necessarily tells on the trade in the same way as it tells on other trades—by driving small men out. With regard to the second part of the Question, it is undoubtedly true that, if brewers put less malt in their beer, they can escape a certain amount of malt tax and also a certain amount of licence tax; but, at the same time, of course, they reduce the quality of their beer, and they have to consider whether that would be to their advantage as traders. With regard to the last part of the Question, as to whether the brewers' licence tax is not unproductive in many cases, I do not know whether that is quite so. Within the last 12 years the amount of Revenue from that source has increased from £360,000 to £411,000 per annum.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will explain to the House on what principle the Local Government Board determine the number of years which they sometimes add to the actual period served by union officers when establishing the basis on which to calculate the amount of annual compensation allowance to be granted to such officers when the offices they may have held have been abolished; and, whether he is aware that some persons still in the receipt of such annual compensation allowances also hold salaried offices under union authorities; and, if so, whether he has considered how such a state of things should be made to cease?

Sir, the Local Government Board, in determining the number of years to be added to the actual period served, follow the scale laid down by the Treasury in the cases of members of the Civil Service whose offices are abolished—namely, in the case of persons who have served less than five years, an addition of one year; less than 10 years, an addition of three years; less than 15 years, an addition of five years; less than 20 years, an addition of seven years; and for 20 years and upwards, an addition of 10 years. It is quite true that some persons to whom compensation allowances have been awarded under the Metropolitan Poor Act have since been appointed to salaried offices under other Union authorities; but the Local Government Board, as administrators of the common poor fund, out of which both the pensions and salaries are defrayed, take care that the second salary, together with the pension, shall not exceed the original salary in respect of which the pension was granted.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the question of a pension fund for the widows of seamen and marines has been considered by him and with what result?

Sir, the Question has been submitted to Mr. Finlaison, the Actuary of the National Debt Office, and he has reported that on the basis of 20,000 members, each paying 1s. 8d. a-month, a Government contribution of £130,000 a-year in perpetuity would be required to pay pensions of £20 a-year to widows. I shall be exceedingly glad to lay the Papers upon the Table, if my hon. and gallant Friend will move for them.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to discontent among the men of the Tyrone Fusiliers, in barracks at Omagh, at the quality of the rations supplied to them; and, if he will make inquiries into the circumstances attending the contract for the supply of beef, mutton, and especially pork?

Sir, I have no information with respect to this subject. No complaint of any kind has reached the War Office. I have telegraphed for information to the General commanding in Ireland, and have not yet received an answer. I would ask the hon. Gentleman, if he can furnish me with any information on the subject which may lead to further inquiry?

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, in view of the fact that the County Government Bill is not to be proceeded with, he proposes to withdraw the Grand Jury Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill?

Sir, the terms of the hon. Gentleman's Question, as it appears upon the Paper, seems to me to place the County Government Bill in a different position from that which it really occupies. I do not understand that any positive announcement has been made that it will not be proceeded with this Session, but merely that other measures would be placed before it. Even if the County Bill were to be withdrawn, I should not be disposed to consider that the Grand Jury Bill would necessarily be carried down with it. On the contrary, I should consider that one of the rival claimants for the time at the disposal of the Government was thereby disposed of, and I should be most reluctant to abandon the Grand Jury Bill. I still cling to the hope that hon. Gentlemen on both sides will afford such assistance as may enable us to progress with it this Session.

remarked, that the impression on that—the Opposition—side of the House, from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, was that the County Government Bill was not to be proceeded with. He ventured to ask, Whether that impression was correct, inasmuch as the subject was really one of too much importance to make it proper that the country should be left in a state of uncertainty upon it, and the Government measure dangled before the eyes of Parliament, to be carried forward, or dropped, as accident might determine?

Sir, it is really very difficult at this period of the Session to give absolute answers with regard to Bills; but I must confess that, in making my statement the other day with regard to the precedence which was to be given to other Bills, the impression I had was that in all probability the County Government Bill could not be fully considered this Session. At the same time, I do not like to withdraw it so early in the Session, as an opportunity for passing it may still arise.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is able to give to the House any information respecting the outbreak of the Northampton Militia, and whether the character of it is likely to prove sufficiently grave to necessitate the removal of the regiment from the town?

in reply, said, that, by some mistake, he had not received Notice of the Question in time to make full inquiry; but he believed there had been riots—the accounts of which, he thought, were exaggerated—between the Militia and the townspeople at Northampton. He had no reason to suppose that there had been any serious danger either to life or property. As the Militia training would cease tomorrow or Monday, it was not thought advisable to remove them to another place. Orders had been sent down that they were to deliver in their arms and clothing that evening, and it was probable that a large proportion of the men would then be sent home.

suggested that as there was a general understanding that no Evening Sitting should be taken, the Motion should be so framed as to render it unnecessary for the Speaker to attend at 9 o'clock.

said, the difficulty would be got over by some hon. Member at 7 o'clock moving that the House should then adjourn.

said, the amended Bill would be quite a different measure from that now before the House; and he trusted, therefore, that ample time would be given for its consideration by the country.

thought the House was entitled to know definitely, whether the Government, in amending the Bill, intended to throw over County Boards or not?

said, if he found, after conversation with other hon. Gentlemen who were interested in the question, that he was likely to receive substantial support, he should, when the Bill was in Committee, move Amendments which would have the effect of making highway districts compulsory, so as to establish an uniform system throughout the country.

said, if the right hon. Member wanted to stop a Highway Bill, that was the very way to do it, because the country was opposed to the compulsory establishment of Highway Boards. He thought everybody must be of opinion that a Bill of this kind was absolutely necessary now that turnpike roads had been abolished. If the power were vested in the magistrates, they would exercise it as economically as possible, and this arrangement would not interfere with any future measure for the establishment of County Boards.

said, the mode in which the Bill had been altered was as follows:— The word "authority" had been substituted for the word "Board" throughout the Bill, and there was another provision to the effect that the County Justices should be the "authority" for administering the Act. The framework of the measure would be applicable in future years in case County Boards should be eventually established.

entered his protest against any such general Amendment being taken as a precedent in the case of other Bills.

said, two Inclosure Bills were brought before the House last night, when one of them was passed a stage, though not without much remonstrance, on the ground that there had been no opposition to it before the Select Committee. He understood, however, that this Orford Bill was objected to by a Committee upstairs. The evidence taken before the Committee had not been printed and circulated; and, in these circumstances, whatever the Standing Order of the House of Lords might be, he thought it would be impossible to go on with the Bill at present. He, therefore, moved the adjournment of the debate.

hoped the hon. Baronet would not press his Motion. In consequence of the Standing Order of the House of Lords, there would be a difficulty in passing the Bill this Session if the second reading were not now agreed to. He would give an undertaking that the evidence adduced before the Select Committee should be printed and placed in the hands of hon. Members before the next stage of the Bill was taken.

thought it was rather unsatisfactory that the House should be called upon to proceed at once with a Bill of this kind in consequence of a Standing Order of the House of Lords.

said, the circumstances of the evidence not having yet been printed was not owing to any fault on the part of the promoters. The simple fact was that the printer of the House had not been able to get through the work. He had, however, received a letter from Mr. Hansard, who undertook that the evidence should be in the hands of hon. Members on Wednesday morning. He entirely agreed that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer observed last night, the Rules made ''elsewhere'' were extremely harsh, not only to this House, but to the public at large. Indeed, the Government would exert their influence in order to bring about a revision of those Rules. In this particular case, however, he thought no hardship would be inflicted on the opponents of the Bill if the second reading were now passed.

said, the Secretary of State had just remarked that the Rule of the House of Lords was mischievous in regard to the public. He begged the House to take note of that expression. The Rule was introduced into the other House on the 4th of February and adopted on the 5th; but the Government then offered no opposition to it. After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, it might be hoped that the Government would use their influence to get the Rule rescinded. If it were not rescinded, the Government ought to introduce their Bills early in the Session, so that this House might have ample opportunity for discussing them.

said, he agreed with much that had been said by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and he had no doubt that the Home Secretary would see that the restriction imposed by the other House would be removed. It should be borne in mind, however, it was not common but commonable land that this Bill dealt with, and there was great difference between the two. By the liberality of an individual, a large recreation ground had been set out for the benefit of the public, and more than an equivalent would be given them. It would be a great advantage that this commonable land should be inclosed.

objected to the second reading, on the ground that the reasons for the passing of the Bill had not been stated to the House.

remarked, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the Bill, that the Standing Orders of the House of Lords interfered very much with the Business of the House. The Manchester Waterworks Bill, for instance, had been thrown out on the ground that the Notices should have been served last November of Amendments which, in fact, were not proposed by the promoters of the Bill at all, but were forced upon them by a Committee of this House sitting in May.

said, that it was essential for the transaction of Parliamentary Business that some day should be fixed, after which Private Bills would not be proceeded with, otherwise the other House would have a number of Bills sent up so late in the Session that it would be impossible to deal with them properly. He was not prepared to say, however, that the day which had been fixed by the other House was necessarily the best.

opposed the second reading, on the ground that if they were to advance the Bill a stage they might be taking a line which, if they had the evidence before them, they would not have taken.

said, that the right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) had seized upon a phrase of his right hon. Friend and made it the topic for a severe attack upon the Government. But, in these matters, it must be borne in mind that the Standing Orders were made in conformity with the usual practice of both Houses, and upon the authority of those Gentlemen who took the lead in the regulation of Private Business, and that the attention of the Government was not attracted to alterations of this kind until some circumstances forced it upon their notice. He could only say, as he said last night, the Government were very desirous to bring about an accommodation between the Rules and Orders of the other House of Parliament and the proceedings of the House of Commons so as to avoid such difficulties as they now found themselves confronted with. But, as the Chairman of Committees had pointed out, it was necessary to have certain days fixed, after which Business was not to be taken, and the question was whether or not the days were conveniently fixed. It was difficult to say à priori; but after what they had seen to-day it might be that the day fixed by the House of Lords, the 18th of June, was too early. At all events, it was a matter for consultation between the authorities of the two Houses, in order to see whether some modifications might not be introduced. He promised last night, and he promised again, that in concert with the authorities of the House, the Government would endeavour to see whether some modifications might not be made so as to give effect to the Rule with the least inconvenience to the Business of the House. They had always to choose between difficulties, and they were very much in the position of the man who had to put five horses into four stalls. With reference to the Bill, he understood that the Report of the proceedings and the evidence would be delivered at the Vote Office for circulation on Wednesday. He did not think that any harm would be done if the Bill were read a second time.

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in this Motion. Whether they approved or disapproved the Rule which had been established in ''another place,'' they must all recognize the fact of its existence, and must remember that this matter involved the convenience of many parties, and might lead to considerable expense. It might be more convenient to be in possession of the evidence before the second reading; but if they read the Bill a second time now, and did not part with the control over it till the next stage, they might still either amend or reject it if necessary.

said, there was no reason why the House should have been driven into a corner like this, for the scheme was prepared before the meeting of Parliament. He understood that, according to precedent, the present Bill would be withdrawn, and a new Bill introduced in the House of Lords.

said, he did not think there was any necessity for the House to be driven into a corner in regard to the Bill, nor did he altogether assent to the doctrine laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the House should give way. But he hoped this Motion would not be pressed, the Government having promised to use their influence to obtain, if not the removal, at all events the modification, of the Rule objected to.

said, he should not press his Motion as to debtors undergoing imprisonment, because the Home Secretary, having had the Correspondence laid before him, had modified the rules of which complaint had been made. He had to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the readiness and promptness with which he had dealt with the matter, simply brought to his notice by a Question in that House. There was still some complaint that the wives of debtors were searched, and often partially undressed, before entering their husband's cells, and with this he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would deal.

said, he was ready to admit that the position of debtors, while prisoners under the provisions of the Prisons Act of last Session, was somewhat anomalous. He thoroughly sympathized with the poor men who wore imprisoned, because they were, in reality, unable to pay their debts. While in prison, they had to be maintained formerly by the county, and now by the State, their wives and families passing in the meantime into the workhouse, to be maintained out of the rates, so that society would actually gain by at once paying off their debts. But, having had much experience of prisons, he knew that there were many debtors imprisoned who were able to pay, but refused to do so. His view was that no one should be imprisoned except for crime; but a great many debtors, who were able to discharge their liabilities, chose to be kept in prison at the public expense rather than part with their money. Such men were acting with fraud, and ought to be punished for it. In one case, the Visiting Justices of a gaol had most successfully dealt with such persons by a timely increase of prison discipline, from which the debtors were glad to escape by paying their debts. He could not recommend the abolition of imprisonment for debt, but thought that the Attorney General might make some addition to the Act of 1877, which would meet cases such as those he had mentioned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to an article in the "London and China Telegraph" of May 27th, 1878, in which the writer, after commenting upon the Estimates for the State of Perak, recently framed by the British Resident, Mr. Low, who, "acting under the advice of the Government of the Straits Settlements," declined to sanction a proposed new tax, goes on to remark, in conclusion—

"that, as Perak matters seem to be all regulated by the governor of Singapore, it would be bettor and more straightforward at once to announce the annexation of the country, and not to keep up a state of things which is farcical and far from creditable;"

and, whether, looking to the fact that on the 1st June, 1876, Lord Carnarvon expressly declared that—

''government of the country by British officers in the name of the Sultan (a measure very little removed from annexation) could not be allowed,"

he will lay upon the Table further Papers showing, for the information of the House, the policy, instructions, and authority under which the proceedings of British Residents in Perak are now regulated; and in what respects the present condition of Perak differs from that of an annexed province, and the functions of the residents there from those proposed for the Commissioners appointed by Sir William Jervois, but, subsequently, set aside by Lord Carnarvon?

wished also to ask a Question in regard to the payment of the Indian troops employed in the Perak Expedition. It was acknowledged that the extra expenses caused by the removal of those troops would have to be charged either to the colony or the mother country; but he would like to know, Whether the Government intended to move an Estimate not only for the extraordinary charges of the Expedition, but also for the ordinary pay and allowances of the soldiers during the period they were employed beyond the Indian territory? If not, it would be a clear case of the Indian Treasury being charged with the expenses of the troops while on foreign service.

said, that if the hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had given Notice of his Question with reference to the payment of the Indian troops, he should have been able to give him a definite answer. He might, however, say that the financial control of the House would ultimately be complete over any expenditure on account of the Indian troops in question, though there had been considerable delay, owing to the difficulty of settling the accounts between the different parties concerned. No doubt, pending that settlement, there had been a charge of £40,000 upon the revenues of India. He did not understand the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to raise the general question of Perak or the history of the war, but rather to ask a Question with regard to the relations between the British Resident at Perak and the Native Rulers. A greater responsibility, of course, attached to Residents than that of merely advising Native rulers, and that responsibility had been clearly pointed out by his noble Predecessor. In Perak the position was one of some little difficulty, but the duties attending it seemed to have been performed successfully.

on rising to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the present system of Land Taxation is inequitable, and requires to be amended,"

said, the land tax appeared to be an extremely valuable contribution to the public revenues, for it purported to be assessed at the rate of 4s. in the pound on the yearly value of lands, tenements, and hereditaments throughout Great Britain. The lands throughout this country, as the House was aware, were all originally held on certain tenures from the Crown, and the idea of actual property in land was an idea which had only sprung up comparatively recently. The primary idea of landholding was a trust and enjoyment of certain benefits on condition of performing that trust. The landowner held lands on condition of supplying men and arms for the Public Service for the defence of the country. The original signification and purport of what was now called the land tax was to provide for the Military Estimates of the Kingdom by various forms of knight service. By the Restoration Parliament, however, all the old knight tenures and military burdens upon land were swept away. After the Restoration the relief of land from taxation laid the foundation of the whole of that system of taxing commodities which rose to such an enormous height during the 18th and a portion of the 19th centuries. When the Revolution resulted in setting William and Mary upon the Throne in the year 1692, there was a new arrangement. The landed gentry were somewhat at a discount at that period. They generally espoused the cause of the exiled Sovereigns, and owing to the pressing necessities of the new Government, recourse was at once had to the historical methods of raising taxes, and thus a land tax to the amount of 4s. in the pound was imposed. Under the Act of William and Mary the yearly value was returned at £2,000,000, in round numbers; more than 100 years afterwards, in 1798, when another change took place, notwithstanding the immense increase in the value of land, the Return was principally the same as it was in 1690. The landed gentry were still largely actuated by feelings of loyalty to the exiled house, and were probably objects of greater suspicion than Irish tenant righters of the present day. Sir Robert Walpole, therefore, thought it necessary to instil feelings of loyalty by a system very nearly tantamount to bribery. Under the powers granted by the Act of George III., about half of the land tax existing at the end of the last century had been redeemed, and he admitted that that fact threw some difficulty in the way of a re-adjustment of land taxation. If they looked at the yearly value of lands, tenements, and hereditaments, they could easily arrive at some knowledge of the great inequalities of the land taxation. In Surrey the nominal tax of 4s. in the pound upon the full actual value of the lands really amounted to 7⅛d. in the pound. In Yorkshire it amounted to 7½d. in the pound; in Middlesex it realized 1⅜d. in the pound; in Lancashire only ⅛d. in the pound; in Bedfordshire 4¾d. in the pound; in Berks, 3½d.; and in Bucks, 3 1–16d. If the full rate of 4s. were levied it would bring in £26,000,000, and yet it now only produced £1,000,000 per annum. There was the greatest possible difference in the incidence of the tax throughout the different counties in Great Britain, and if the Government were to do nothing more than introduce some equalization of the incidence of the tax—if they were only to make a 3d. or a 6d. tax all round—it would abolish what was only a farcical contribution to the Imperial Revenues. He had no doubt whatever that the reform of the land tax in this country and the simplification of the whole system of raising Revenue were questions that would have to be faced, if not by a Conservative, certainly by a Liberal Administration. The taxation on land still bore on its face the impress of the process which was had recourse to in olden time for the purpose of reconciling the landholding class to important constitutional changes. It was time to relieve the public burdens from the evils which they suffered owing to the bribing of Jacobite gentlemen into accepting the Hanoverian dynasty.

seconded the Amendment.

said, the Motion covered a much larger ground than the speech in which it was introduced. The Motion had reference to the present system of land taxation, whereas the speech was entirely confined to the land tax, and he did not know whether it was even reasonable to call the land tax a part of their present system of land taxation. If, however, it were reckoned a part, it certainly constituted only a very small part of the system, and it would be perfectly impossible to discuss the question of the land taxation of this country on the exceedingly narrow basis suggested by the land tax. With regard to the land tax, he did not think it desirable to go into the historical arguments which the hon. Member had suggested to the House. The effect of all the proceedings, taken together, was that the land tax, as a source of taxation, was, in point of fact, abolished by the change which was made by Mr. Pitt, when it became no longer a tax, but a rent-charge upon the land. For the last century, or nearly so, land had changed hands subject to that burden. About the time Mr. Pitt dealt in this way with the land tax, he instituted a different system of taxing landed and other property by the introduction of the property and income tax. In treating of the taxation of land, they must consider the burden of taxation which fell upon land through the instrumentality of that which was really a tax—namely, the income tax, in as far as it fell upon landed property. That, however, would lead them into a very wide field, into which they ought not to be tempted to enter by a speech which was confined to the land tax. With regard to the land tax itself, he believed there was nothing to be done except to leave it as it was; but if it were changed, some system of compulsory redemption ought to be applied to it, so as to extinguish it altogether, and then the matter might be dealt with de novo. But to re-arrange the land tax, and to bring about what the hon. Member for Dungarvan had termed an equitable adjustment of the tax, in relation to its charge upon one class of the country and upon another, would be quite impossible, and would itself lead to inequitable consequences.

denied that it was Mr. Pitt's intention to convert the land tax into a rent-charge, and hoped that next Session the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) would have an opportunity on the Budget of going more fully and clearly into his views upon the question of land taxation.

expressed a wish to withdraw his Amendment, announcing, at the same time, his intention to bring the whole subject forward again next Session.

pointed out that the Vote contained an item of £693—which was a slight increase on the Vote of the previous year—for the Hampton Court Stud House, and Paddocks and Buildings in Hampton Court Park appropriated to the stud establishment. He understood that these paddocks were formerly part of Hampton Court Park, and were inclosed for the purposes of the stud establishment. These inclosures had gone on from year to year, and had been steadily increasing. In 1872, at a time when Mr. Ayrton was First Commissioner of Works, a Return was laid before the House of the lodges, houses, official residences, rights of pasture, &c., occupied, or enjoyed, within the parks under the charge of the Commissioners of Public Works. In that Return, Hampton Court was entered as Hampton Court Park, and, he presumed, a Vote for its maintenance as a park would be proposed in connection with the Parks' Vote, notwithstanding that a considerable sum was asked for in the Vote now before the Committee. At the time to which he was referring, it was decided, as he believed, that the Master of the Horse was to be charged a rent for the use of the paddocks, and that he was also to pay for the herbage and grazing rights in the park. He wished to know, whether the conditions of the occupation had been so arranged as that the Master of the Horse did so pay as determined?

replied, that the present Vote was for the maintenance, and that Hampton Court Palace had nothing to do with the park. There was a slight excess this year over last, and that was due chiefly to a fact which he stated when laying a Supplementary Estimate before the Committee—dry rot having found its way into the palace, considerable painting and structural repairs had been rendered necessary. With regard to the park, an arrangement was made about a year ago, under which the Master of the Horse paid a rent on account of the matters alluded to by the hon. Baronet. It was found very difficult to fix the amount, and the matter had been very carefully considered. First of all, the Master of the Horse had to pay for hay for the deer; he had also to pay a keeper, to pay for a horse and cart, and everything, in fact, connected with the keeping and feeding of the deer. Owing to the fact that there were a very great number of trees in the park, the herbage was not so good as might be expected; but the Commissioners had taken for their guidance the somewhat similar case of Bushey Park, and the Master of the Horse had agreed to pay the same rent in proportion to the acreage that he paid for Bushey Park.

asked, whether this Vote would complete all that was necessary to be done at Marlborough House?

said, he was happy to inform the right hon. Gentleman that this was the last Vote at all likely to be required for the completion of Marlborough House. On examination, it was found that the sanitary arrangements in the residence of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales were about as bad as they could be, and it had, therefore, been found necessary to make extensive alterations; but he believed no further sanitary arrangements would be required.

said, he understood that this Vote included a grant for the restoration of St. Margaret's Church. He was sorry that his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) was not in his place, as he would have had something to say on that matter. The works being done at St. Margaret's Church were a dreadful example of how very often old buildings might be ruined and destroyed by what was called restoration.

said, the hon. Baronet was in error. The Vote for St. Margaret's Church was granted last year.

wished to know, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee on Public Buildings, of which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Adam) was a Member? It was a disgrace to the country that our public buildings should continue in their present state, and that there should be no great buildings erected for the War Office and the Admiralty. A late Secretary for War stated on one occasion that he could not possibly continue to carry on his business in the Office, unless it was altered; and here, again, the Vote came before the Committee, without any statement being made as to the intentions of the Government to carry out the recommendations of the Committee to which he had referred. There was no reason why, in a great country like this, because there was a political crisis abroad, and England had found it necessary, in consequence, to spend a large sum of money, the Government was not to carry out certain recommendations made on the highest authority, and in the belief that they were necessary for the well-being of the Public Service and the dignity of the country. He found in the Vote an item of £36,000 a-year for the rent of hired offices, scattered all over London. There were some 15 houses hired for the use of the War Office alone, and other Departments were housed in the same way. The Committee, over which he presided, went fully and fairly into the whole question. There were different opinions in the Committee on certain points, mainly connected with the plans; but on one point the Members were unanimous—namely, that 12 months ought not to be allowed to elapse before something was done to improve the Public Offices; but a considerable time had already passed, and nothing had been done. As far as he could see, Parliament would rise about the usual time; another Session would have passed, and nothing would have been done. He wanted to know, whether this state of things was to continue? The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the then Secretary to the Treasury—now First Lord of the Admiralty—were most anxious that some steps should be taken, and were keenly alive to the fact that by delay an enormous increase in the ultimate expenditure would be incurred. The buildings that it would be necessary to buy for the erection of the new Public Offices were increasing in value, and the knowledge that they would, at some time or other, have to be bought was inducing their present owners and occupiers to spend money on them, with a view to increased compensation. What was the case in France last year? The House well knew what the French nation had had to pay within the last year in the shape of war indemnity to Germany, and for her own charges and losses in connection with the war, yet the French Chamber last year voted £5,000,000 sterling for the improvement of Paris, and the Municipality of Paris voted another £2,000,000. In this country, however, Parliament would not vote £1,500,000 or £2,000,000, at most, in order that the War and Admiralty Departments might be properly housed, and Parliament Street, which, in its present state, was a disgrace to the country, be widened, so as to give a proper and adequate approach to the Houses of Parliament. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance that the Session should not be allowed to pass without something being done to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee.

said, that since he had had a seat in that House they had spent a great deal of money in building new and increasing and improving old Public Offices; but he failed to see any corresponding decrease in the expense of those Departments. He feared that if the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight had his way, and large new offices were built, the old ones would be kept on, and there would be an increase of expense, rather than a saving of public money.

said, he regretted that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present, as he had, on a previous occasion, stated some very cogent reasons against acting upon the scheme propounded by his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane), and which he seemed to have very much at heart. He did not think it could be said that the Government had ever accepted the site which the hon. Member referred to as being the only one which was possible for carrying out this work. There were as many as three sites under the consideration of the Government, and Papers on the subject had been before him in reference to the matter ever since he had had the honour of holding his present Office. In the interest of the Public Service, he thought the site suggested by his hon. Friend was not the one best suited for the purpose.

said, he had recommended no site. The site to which he referred was the one which the Government had chosen, and was not the one which he should have himself preferred.

repeated, that the Government had decided upon no site at all. At the present moment they had before them three different sites, the advantages of which varied very considerably. He had concluded that the site which the hon. Member meant, was the one opposite to the new block of official buildings, inasmuch as he mentioned among its advantages the widening of Parliament Street. In his judgment, it would not be to the interest of the Public Service, and it certainly would not be to the interest of the public purse, that the site in question should be adopted. However much there might be of advantage in getting all the Public Offices concentrated in large blocks of building, this was not, perhaps, the time at which the country was financially prepared to enter upon a very large outlay for a work of that kind. The position of things was different from that which existed at the time when the Committee first sat to consider the matter. The War Office had been considerably improved by the purchase and addition to it of Winchester House and certain other buildings; and he doubted very much whether the noble Lord the present Secretary of State for India and former Minister for War would now think it so necessary as he once did to have a new War Office erected. It might be advantageous eventually to bring the whole of the War Office departments together on one site, and at a time when the country was in a position to undertake such a work, the improvement might be carried out, and the whole of the Public Offices concentrated. The answer which his right hon. Friend gave the other evening with regard to financial difficulties was the real reason which had caused the hesitation of the Government and the Treasury as to a decision upon the recommendations of the Committee, and the plans involved therein.

admitted that the financial difficulty to which the hon. Baronet had referred was one which called for careful consideration. Ths plan was a very serious undertaking, and in the present state of the finances of the country, it might not be advisable to press the Government too strongly to carry out the recommendations which had been laid before them; but, at the same time, he hoped they would not lose sight of the matter, and would, as soon as possible, take it actively in hand. The expense now incurred in renting a large number of houses all over the town for use as temporary offices, and which would be saved by the erection of permanent ones, would go far towards paying the cost of a great many of the improvements. He wished to know whether any decision had been come to in reference to finishing or erecting the corner towers on the new building in Whitehall? The Committee would remember that the original plan of the late Sir Gilbert Scott included some very handsome cupola towers, which would have very considerably improved the appearance of the building. They would, without doubt, cost a great deal of money in the erection. He would like to know whether it was intended to build them; and, if not, how the corners were to be finished, for at present they were far from being strikingly handsome? He should also like to know whether the sum of £3,000 included in the Estimate for supplying water from Orange Street to the new Law Courts and to Somerset House would cover the whole expense; and, whether there was sufficient water in the wells to supply the other large public buildings? He supposed the Law Courts were hardly in a sufficient stage of advancement to require much water at present.

said, he thought the towers to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded were not approved; but were, in fact, condemned by one of his Predecessors in Office. Since then Sir Gilbert Scott produced some other plans and designs; but they also were considered unsatisfactory, and at the present moment he could not give any promise of the corners being completed. With regard to the water supply, as far as he was informed, the £3,000 asked for would be amply sufficient to provide all the necessary requirements. Most of the Public Offices were already supplied from Orange Street; but in order to meet any extra demands that might arise, the well had been deepened, and nothing more would be necessary to be done.

said, he was glad to hear that the Government were not prepared, at the present time, to enter upon a large and costly scheme for the erection of public buildings. The sum paid at present for the rent of temporary public offices seemed to him very large; but he supposed a portion of it would be saved when the Law Courts were completed, as doubtless some of the Departments might be accommodated there. A considerable economy might be effected by a careful scrutiny of the rents paid for hired buildings. It must be very well known that there were several Departments, the business of which was carried on in hired buildings whose work was of the most trifling character. For instance, £421 a-year were paid for an office for the Department of the Lord Privy Seal, who did nothing that could not be just as well done in a small room that could easily be spared in one of the Houses of Parliament, or in one of the existing Public Offices. He said this entirely apart from the fact that the holder of the Office was a distinguished sinecurist, and simply because the country was paying a large annual sum for the rent of an office in which absolutely nothing was done. Then, again, he found that the country was paying £310 a-year as the rent of 31, Lincoln's Inn Fields for a Land Registry Office, in which, practically, nothing was done. It might, however, be necessary in these two cases, and in the cases of other public Departments where little or no work was done that they should each have a local habitation. He was, however, prepared to mention to the Secretary to the Treasury, and also to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner, where they could find ample accommodation for those offices. He believed that at the top of the Houses of Parliament there were a number of rooms over the Committee Rooms, and those rooms were not occupied for any purpose at all; why should not those rooms be turned to some public service? There was no reason why they should not be made use of in place of offices in which there was very little business done. Why should not the Lord Privy Seal go there, and they would be saved £420 per annum, and he would be still further exalted? And why should not the Land Registry people go there too? There were many rooms in the Houses of Parliament, which, he understood, had never been utilized that might be used for the Public Service, and he believed if his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury would give his attention to the matter, he might find suitable accommodation for the purposes of such public offices as were wanted. He ventured to throw out that suggestion to the hon. Gentleman, by which he believed £2,000 or £3,000 per annum could be saved by utilizing the empty rooms at the top of the Houses of Parliament.

said, he thought, as the result of some professional experience in connection with the acquisition of land, that it would be most unwise on the part of the Government to disclose the sites on which they had decided to erect public buildings. The proper course with a view to economy was gradually and silently to buy up the interests of persons owning or holding property which they might require, and then announce the use to which they intended to put it. By this means they would get what they wanted on reasonable terms; but if they stated beforehand what property they wanted, and for what purpose, the property would suddenly rise by, perhaps, 50 per cent in price. When they came to the Vote for the Law Courts, he hoped his right hon. Friend would be able to give some account of the progress that was being made with the works. If he was rightly informed, it would not be very long before the offices in connection with the Courts of Law which now occupied hired buildings would be removed into the rooms intended for them in the New Law Courts, that portion of the building being rapidly pushed forward. The contractor had laboured under most peculiar difficulties in consequence of strikes and other matters; but notwithstanding that he had done work which reflected great credit upon him, and had on the whole made very satisfactory progress.

was surprised when he heard that the Government had not yet fixed upon a site for carrying out the recommendations of the Select Committee to which reference had been made. It seemed curious that while taking a credit of £6,000,000 for warlike purposes, they could not afford £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 for a more peaceful and more useful object. The hon. Gentleman who made the statement must know perfectly well that notices to treat were served upon the occupiers and owners of the property between Great George Street and the Government buildings already erected in Whitehall, and between Queen Street and the Park. In one case, he believed, the Government actually took possession of one block of buildings, and he certainly could not reconcile these facts with the statement of the hon. Baronet. There were other two items in the Estimate which required explanation; one was a sum of £935 for adapting additional rooms at South Kensington for the National Portrait Gallery, and the other was a sum of £1,500 in connection with the Southern Galleries there. It was a curious fact that South Kensington appeared in some form or other in almost every Vote. The people connected with that institution managed to get hold of public money in almost every direction; and he thought it would be as well if all the money expended on that institution could be set forth in a concentrated form, so that the confusion which now existed could be unravelled. It was not at all clear that the £1,500, for instance, was not intended for the purpose of some exhibition for which Parliamentary sanction had not been obtained; or for some purpose connected with the Horticultural Gardens, or, indeed, for any other innominate purpose.

in answer to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), said, the questions relating to the Office of the Lord Privy Seal were too large to be discussed now, even if the occasion was an appropriate one, which it was not. He had no knowledge of the suite of rooms over the Committee Rooms, to which the hon. Member had referred. In any case, he did not see how rooms in such a position could be applied to the Public Service—at any rate in the manner suggested. The sum of £1,500 was not a new Vote, but had been paid for many years, as rent for rooms used in the course of the Civil Service examinations, and also in connection with the Science and Art Department, and for other purposes. The £935 would be used for the purpose of effecting the much-needed improvements in the National Portrait Gallery.

did not think the sum set apart for the National Portrait Gallery was sufficient to make any substantial improvement in a gallery for the accommodation of some £70,000 worth of most valuable historical paintings.

wished to have a distinct statement as to whether it was or was not intended to erect the new Public Offices.

said, he was afraid there was no intention, for the reasons he had already stated, to proceed at present.

complained that, with regard to the Estimates generally, and with regard to these public buildings in particular, the Government did not take the Committee sufficiently into its confidence. Parliament found small items creeping into the Estimates, and they went on increasing from year to year without proper explanation, until they mounted up, in course of time, into very large sums indeed. When the Government proposed to erect new Public Offices, Museums, or anything else of that description, they should give the House as complete information on the subject as they possibly could, and not keep on tacking on bit by bit, and adding year by year, to the Estimates. When the latter course was followed, hon. Members not unnaturally cavilled, and looked much more closely at the Estimates than they would other wise do. It was within his own knowledge that, from small beginnings, very bulky Estimates had frequently resulted. In the present instance, he should like to know what it was the Government really contemplated. Was it intended to complete or to commence certain buildings this year or not?

I am not quite sure that I clearly understand what the scope of the hon. Gentleman's question is. I understood him to be speaking partly of any great plan for the re-construction of Public Offices, and partly of enlargements, from time to time, of existing buildings. With regard to the re-construction and re-organization of large blocks of buildings devoted to the Public Service, I entirely agree with him. I think that the Government ought to bring any plan of that sort before the House in such a shape that the House might be able to form a judgment as to its whole scope, and as to what its probable cost might be; and that, I will undertake to say, the present Government would be ready to promise. In reference to temporary, or rather occasional additions, to existing offices, that is a matter which must really be left to our judgment as the necessity may, from time to time, arise. Sometimes additions are made to collections in a Museum, which require that more room should be provided; sometimes it is found that a Department enlarges, and it is necessary to secure accommodation for extra clerks, or something of that kind; and, in these and other ways, additions have to be made from time to time, and those additions can only be brought forward as they are felt to be required. But with regard to any great scheme, such as that which, for several years now, has been more or less talked about, I quite concur with the hon. Gentleman that, whenever the Government are in a position to see their way to a conclusion as to what should be done, and are prepared to proceed with any particular scheme, they ought to come to the House, lay the plans upon the Table, and take the opinion of the House upon those plans before commencing work. I stated some little time ago, with regard to the War Office and the Admiralty, to which reference has so often been made, that we do not consider the present year to be a favourable one for undertaking a large expenditure on public buildings; and, therefore, although undoubtedly those offices are being carried on at some inconvenience, and although it is certainly desirable that before very long something should be done to provide more suitable accommodation—I do not think that we are actually in a position to make any proposal with regard to them at the present moment. But certain proposals have been under our consideration; and, when the proper time arrives, it will be our endeavour to adopt that plan, which, in our opinion, and in the opinion of the House, most combines efficiency with economy.

said, he had been pleased to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, that the improvements on the National Portrait Gallery would now be proceeded with. He should have experienced still more satisfaction in listening to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to the question which had been addressed to him on that subject, had he not remembered that at the beginning of the Session, a precisely similar reply had been given to the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who was now Secretary of State for War, but who was at that time Secretary to the Treasury (Colonel Stanley). The right hon. and gallant Member had told his hon. Friend that the improvements on the National Portrait Gallery would be proceeded with immediately. Some months had passed since then, but nothing had been done; and, in these circumstances, he must express the hope that the "immediately" of the First Commissioner of Works would mean something more immediate and prompt than it had done in the case of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He observed that there was a sum for the National Gallery included in the Vote which was now before the Committee; and therefore he must express another hope, and that was that the hon. Gentleman would see his way towards keeping that Gallery open for a longer period during the summer months. There was a large number of persons, belonging to the mercantile and professional classes, who were practically debarred, at present, from the privilege of inspecting its large and interesting collections, because the time for closing the Gallery was fixed at what seemed to him an unnecessarily early hour. The National Gallery was a public institution which should be rendered more available during the summer evenings to those who, by their avocations, were precluded from visiting it in the course of the day. With reference to the Government Offices, of which mention had been made, he sincerely trusted that if the Government were really going to take that matter in hand, there would not be a repetition of the scandals which had arisen in connection with the Home Office, the Local Government Board Office, and other Offices. What advantage would be gained by transferring the War Office to new buildings if, when the new buildings were obtained, it was found that they were as ill-drained, as ill-ventilated, and as unsuitable in the matter of accommodation as the premises which had been left behind? He hoped that the House would be taken into the confidence of the Government on this subject; and that due opportunity would be given to it of examining the plans, of overhauling the work of the architects, and of securing for the Public Service some more healthy and suitable accommodation than those eminent men who designed public buildings seemed sometimes inclined to provide. He would say nothing of the sham architecture which hon. Members saw as they came down to the House, of the five-storeyed building which pretended to have but three storeys, or of the false architectural proportions by which the upper and lower floors had been completely sacrificed to the grand tier.

said, he could assure the noble Lord that there had been no unnecessary delay in connection with the National Portrait Gallery. With regard to the hours during which the National Gallery should be kept open, that was a matter with which he had nothing to do.

thought the noble Lord had made observations which were well worthy of the attention of the Government; but if the noble Lord supposed for a moment that Government Departments thought they could be mistaken, or that they believed Parliament could in any way assist them, he must have been somewhat unobservant of their general course of action. Government Departments, and the permanent officials of those Departments, always acted upon the idea that they knew better than anybody else what was good for everybody all over the Kingdom. What was the result? The noble Lord had called attention to the gross public scandals that had arisen in connection with important buildings which had been erected at an enormous expense, under the control of Public Departments, but which had become pestilential spots in consequence of the want of proper arrangements and the neglect of ordinary sanitary precautions. But under the Vote which the Committee were now asked to pass, there was an item of £2,000 for Broadmoor Asylum. That sum was asked for in connection with a building which was only erected some 15 years ago; but which, he understood, had been already condemned as a "White Elephant," which the Government must get rid of in some way. The Government, he believed, contemplated pulling it down; but that, and other charges of a similar nature, were constantly cropping up in relation to buildings which were found to be altogether unsuitable for the purposes for which they had been reared. He alluded to this for the purpose of remarking that when the Government Departments, and their permanent officials, were so often making such serious blunders, they ought not to arrogate to themselves immunity from error.

said, he believed that some criticism had been passed upon the work which had been performed in connection with St. Margaret's Church. He thought it only right to say, out of regard to the very eminent architect under whom that work had been carried out, that the result of his labours had been a very careful and accurate revival of the building as it had appeared in the age of Henry VIII.

said, that before the Vote was passed he should like to have some explanation with respect to the item of Ordnance Survey Maintenance Offices. In that item he observed a considerable increase. Last year the amount was £1,050; this year it was £2,520. If that increase had been made in consequence of a pushing on of the work, he should have no complaint to make; but he had heard objections in many quarters that the completion of the Survey had already been too long delayed. He did not know how the additional accommodation which was represented by the increase in the Vote was likely to advance the rate at which the work would be proceeded with; and, certainly, if that increase had merely the effect of rendering those who were engaged in the work more comfortable, the result, he was afraid, would be still greater delay in its completion.

said, the increase to which the hon. Member referred had arisen from the absolute necessity of increased accommodation.

said, he found in connection with this Vote, another instance of that which was constantly occurring throughout the Estimates. He observed that the Liverpool County Court had been estimated to cost £32,000; but now the figure was £40,000. That was what generally happened. A certain sum was mentioned originally, and this sum was relied on; but the architect afterwards came forward with an increased Estimate, and the House looked at it, and passed it. He should like to know whether, in this particular case, the increased Estimate of £40,000 was likely to cover all the expenditure?

said, the explanation of the increase which had taken place was very simple. The building referred to had been originally intended simply for the purposes of a County Court; but, in addition to the business of such a Court, it would now be devoted also to Registration and Inland Revenue purposes.

said, he should like to have an assurance that the Estimate, as a whole, would not be exceeded. He had great doubts as to whether these grants ought to be made to the Metropolitan Police Courts at all. In the provinces such charges were borne by the local authorities; and he did not see why such should not be the case in London. In one particular case, that of Bow Street, a new building had been but recently commenced; and he recollected that last year a Vote on account was proposed in connection with the expenditure which its erection would probably necessitate. At that time he objected, because the House had not been furnised with an Estimate of the total amount that would be required, and the Government were good enough to postpone the Vote in consequence. But, then, the ordinary course of things happened. The Vote was adjourned for some time; and he remembered being told by one of the police magistrates that great inconvenience was being caused in consequence of the uncertainty which existed as to whether the Vote would be proceeded with or not. At the end of the Session, however, when it was impossible to give proper attention to the question, the Vote was passed. He was not sure whether hon. Members who were interested in the matter were present on that occasion—at all events, a Vote which had been hung up for some months was taken at a time, when, necessarily, it could not be considered in such a way as its importance demanded. He could not say that he was prepared to state, upon recollection, whether before that Vote on account was brought forward, there was an Estimate laid on the Table of the House as to the total sum which would be required; but he presumed, and took for granted, that there was. But, whether that were so, or not, he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, whether he could give a positive assurance that the Estimate of £30,000 for Bow Street would cover the cost, or whether it would become £35,000, £40,000, or £50,000?

said, the hon. Gentleman was perfectly right. Last year there was no time for the preparation of a formal Estimate in connection with Bow Street, and the Vote was withdrawn; but a general Estimate was made, and he had great hopes that that general Estimate would not be exceeded. It was impossible, however, to give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance on the matter; but the Estimate had been framed in the most careful manner.

asked the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he could give any information to the Committee as to the progress of the buildings?

said, that the works ought to have been completed on the 1st of December last, even giving an allowance to the extent of three months, which was allowed by the strike clauses in the contract; but, he was sorry to say, that, in consequence of the masons' strike, they had not progressed in a satisfactory manner during that month and the months of January and February. Since the contractors had obtained foreign labour, however, considerable progress had been made; and he hoped that by the end of September or October the eastern portion of the buildings would be opened.

said, he desired to ask his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, a question on the subject to which the Vote referred. It had been stated in that House about a fortnight ago, that it would be 18 years before the Survey was finished; and when that statement was made there was a general feeling on the part of hon. Members that the work ought to be completed as soon as possible. He now wished to ask his right hon. Friend, whether he had had any communication with the Treasury on the subject; and, whether there was any hope or prospect of the Survey being brought to a conclusion with greater rapidity? Nothing could be of more importance to the country than that the Survey should be completed without delay. He could speak without any prejudice on the matter; because the whole of his own county had been surveyed, and he was only anxious that others who had not been so fortunate should have their counties surveyed as well. This was one of those works which ought to be pressed forward; and he was sure that the Committee would agree to any recommendation which the Government might bring forward for bringing the Survey to a speedy termination.

thought he might say that the Survey of the United Kingdom was going on satisfactorily, so far as the sum voted by Parliament would permit. Up to a certain point the experience of the Director of the Survey had been based on what had been done in the Northern parts of England, which were purely agricultural counties; but, when he came to the Midland district, where there were coal, iron, and large towns and villages, the difficulties to contend with were much greater, and the Survey had not, perhaps, been as rapid as might have been anticipated. He might state that 13 counties in England had now been surveyed; that 17 others were in process of being surveyed; and that all Scotland and the greater part, if not the whole, of Ireland had also been surveyed. He had communicated a short time ago with the Director of the Survey, and had asked him whether, in the event of the Parliamentary grant being doubled, he could finish the work in from five to ten years. The gentleman to whom he referred had replied that he did not think it would be possible to complete the Survey of England and Wales in that time, inasmuch as a sufficient number of eligible men could not be secured for the purpose, and that even if the grant were largely increased the Survey, in all probability, would still take 12 or 14 years.

remarked that questions and answers on this subject were becoming tiresome. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had just made a statement precisely similar to that which he remembered hearing in the House 14 years ago. Every year the Government were asked—"How is the Ordnance Survey getting on?" and the reply was—"Oh! we are getting on as well as can be expected." To all those who were really interested in this matter the delay which had taken place with the Survey was most disappointing; and, so far as he was concerned, he should like to know on what principle the work was being carried out. Any little land which he possessed had been surveyed twice during recent years. Having gone over it once, the surveyors had put up a pole with a flag on it; and had not come back until after the lapse of four years. Why was it that the survey was not in some way facilitated? If one of the well-conducted railway companies desired to examine a district, and to bring the results before Parliament, they would go over an enormous amount of ground in a very short time, and, having done so, they would come to the Legislature with very accurate plans and specifications. But in this matter of the survey the result was the same year after year; and, if matters went on as they had been doing, the result of the whole work would be of comparatively little use, for, by the time the survey would be finished, almost a new generation would have sprung up, and almost everything would have materially changed.

said, there were, no doubt, vested interests connected with this survey question which it was somewhat difficult to get rid of; but, from information which he had received from other quarters, he did not think there was any real foundation for the difficulties which appeared to have been suggested by the gentleman who was at the head of the work. The present staff might be insufficient; but it might easily be increased if money were forthcoming to pay for additional men. Hon. Members must know that, at the present time, the number of engineers and surveyors in this country was excessive. There were many such men who were employed only half their time and at unremunerative rates; and all that was required was to get some of those men—skilled and trained—to assist in the work. There was nothing magical in the Ordnance Survey, as compared with surveys made for landowners and railway companies. The present Ordnance Survey on the large scale was, in appearance, like an ordinary estate survey. There might be some little difficulty, no doubt, in the mountainous districts; but those districts were limited in extent. There would be no difficulty whatever as regarded the portions of England that were not mountainous; and, by employing other surveyors to help with the work, the survey might be completed within a reasonable time. If it was worth doing at all, it ought to be done quickly. If it was of value to the country, the sooner it was done the better. Why should future generations alone have the benefit of it?

said, he observed that it was proposed under the Vote to take an addition of £1,000 for the enlargement of a sketch by Mr. Leighton. He should like to know what the sketch was? Was it a sketch of the plans of the new buildings which had not been estimated for, or was it a sketch upon the walls of the interior? Again, there was an item for "works and internal decorations;" but this was only another instance of the fact that the Estimates had been so manipulated that hon. Members were not really able to find out how the money which they were asked to vote was expended. That might seem a strong statement to make; but he could prove it. There were items for "works and internal decorations," for "schools," for "ordinary maintenance and repairs;" and, further on, there was a very large Vote taken in connection with the South Kensington Museum—for artizans, for labourers, for repairs, and for incidental expenses of various kinds, all of which might be included under the same head, and in reference to which, undoubtedly, persons were employed. But the Estimates were so presented that it was almost impossible to separate the different items, and to ascertain exactly what amount was expended in this or that direction. Money was voted under the general heads, "Repairs," "Artizans," "Students," &c.; but Parliament was not furnished with any detailed information on the subject. Whether intentionally or not the science of bungling statistics, and of deceiving people by so bungling them, had been carried to perfection in connection with South Kensington Museum; and it was full time that the Committee should make a stand against the way in which these accounts were presented to the House. There were various Departments which appeared to be over-lapping each other in the most extraordinary manner; and at the present time it was impossible exactly to define how much money went to the Science and Art Department, how much to South Kensington, and how much to other bodies who had a temporary or permanent resting-place in that focus of genius.

said, the sketch by Mr. Leighton, to which the hon. Member had referred, was not a design of the buildings, but a picture for which a Vote had already been passed in the House. The picture was to be seen in one of the Central Halls, and was, if he might so express it, in continuation of another piece of decoration which had also been already sanctioned. About £1,025 had been expended in works of internal decoration; and £125 remained to be applied to the embellishment of the Refreshment Room, the South Court, and the Lecture Hall. With regard to the other remarks of the hon. Member, he hoped to be able to give him a satisfactory explanation when a subsequent Vote was reached.

said, he was glad that the hon. Member for Dundee had called attention to this Estimate on the present occasion. He had often heard discussions upon it; and he was not surprised that these discussions had taken place. South Kensington did not appear to be governed by the same rules which were in operation in other establishments of a similar nature. There were payments for sketches by Mr. Leighton, and for so-called decorations; but, if really good decorations were wanted, why not employ proper professional men to do the work, as was done in the British Museum, the National Gallery, and other places? The loose way of spending money in carrying out decorations, which prevailed in South Kensington, was not followed in other institutions where there was a real love of pure Art. Indeed, he doubted whether either Science or Art was pure at South Kensington. He thought the Committee should regard with the greatest jealousy the way in which the accounts were drawn up. As those accounts were now brought forward, it was extremely difficult to find out what was really done in connection with that institution every year; and, in his opinion, there ought to be a Committee appointed to inquire into the subject. He objected very much to the money which was voted for South Kensington; because he did not think that, under existing arrangements, that establishment tended to promote real Science1 or Art at all. He was glad that the question had been brought forward; and that he had an opportunity of making an emphatic protest against the perpetuation of the present way of bringing the Estimates before the Committee.

could not understand what became of the money which was voted for the South Kensington Museum. Nearly every item of the expenditure upon it was overestimated; and he wished to draw the attention of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury particularly to the subject, in order that as accurate an Estimate as possible might in future be presented to the House, and that money voted for one specific object might not be expended on another. He did not for one moment mean to say that there was any intention to deceive the House in the matter; but it was quite clear the accounts in connection with the Science and Art Department were not so correctly kept as in other Departments. He should prefer to see a Supplementary Estimate asked for, to having a larger sum than was required voted for an establishment such as South Kensington.

had no desire unnecessarily to prolong the present discussion, but could not retrain from recording his protest against the systematic attempts which were made to disparage an institution like South Kensington, of whose value, in an educational point of view, direct proof was being given at the present moment. The magnificent specimens of English pottery which were to be seen at the Paris Exhibition were, he did not hesitate to say, to a great extent due to the educational influence which was exercised by that institution. Those specimens reflected great honour and credit on this country; and but for the existence of South Kensington we should not, he believed, have them to boast of.

entirely concurred in the observations which had fallen from his hon. Friend who spoke last, and must strongly protest against the Museum being described, as it had been by another hon. Friend of his, as a peep-show. He looked upon South Kensington as being of the utmost importance in opening peoples eyes to what, in reality, constituted true Art. In England there was only one style of Art cultivated—the Gothic; but those who went to South Kensington had the opportunity afforded them of seeing the Italian and other styles of Art, and he felt quite sure that artists and others who did not happen to have travelled on the Continent, derived great advantage from their visits to the Museum where they found specimens of good taste and pure Art.

could assure the Committee that neither he nor his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works wished at all to undervalue the educational influences of South Kensington Museum; neither did he understand his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) to have spoken in disparagement of those influences. His hon. and gallant Friend had merely called attention to a matter of accounts; and he must at once admit that it was the duty of the Secretary to the Treasury to take care that the Estimates presented to the House really accorded with the expenditure which was incurred within the financial year for which they were proposed. The object of the Estimate, in the present instance, would certainly not be attained if the Government were to show any disposition to depreciate Art.

while fully recognizing the value of Art, and while desirous of promoting its progress in every legitimate way, could not help, at the same time, thinking that a great deal of money was wasted in connection with the Museum at South Kensington. He very well recollected when considerable defalcations had been discovered there; and he hoped, therefore, the accounts would be presented to the House in such a way that hon. Members might be able to see how the money voted for the Museum was actually spent.

said, that it was not until after the original Estimate had been framed that it had been determined to make the additions to the building to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Fixtures had also to be put up.

pointed out that the original Estimate included the cost of those fixtures.

replied that it did not include the entire cost, and that, besides, it had been found necessary to provide fittings for the exhibition of the different specimens of animals—as, for example, the specimens which had been brought from India.

said, he was not satisfied with the explanation. He understood that the original Estimate was to include everything, except the construction of cases in which to place the animals.

said, the words "internal fittings" were not in the original Estimate, and that it was necessary to have proper cases for the collection. A special contract had been entered into showing the amount of work to be done, and the sum which was to be paid for it, and that contract, having been carefully examined, had been sanctioned by the Treasury.

said, he would divide the Committee against the Vote, and would also move that the original Estimate, as well as the new Estimate, should be laid on the Table of the House.

wished to know, whether any Estimate had been drawn up for the making of the cases? The approximate Estimate appeared to him to be very vague.

asked, what was to become of the cases in which the animals had hitherto been exhibited? Were they to be transferred from the British Museum, or left behind and entirely new ones constructed?

said, the question was a difficult one to answer. The cases at present in use might not be found to fit the new building. They might, in many instances, be either too small or too large.

would recommend his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) not to divide the Committee against the entire Vote. There was, however, an item of £20,000 for internal fittings, which he thought the Committee ought not to be asked to vote until full information was laid before them as to what those fittings were to be.

said, he would accept the suggestion of his hon. Friend, and move not the omission of the Vote, but its reduction by the sum of £20,000.

said, the Trustees of the British Museum had pressed the Treasury very hard with respect to the construction of cases, which was a matter of considerable difficulty, inasmuch as it was necessary to provide for the exclusion of dust, the prevention of depredations, and the exhibition of the various specimens to the best possible advantage. They had to ask that experimental cases should be made of the very best kind; and in that fact some reason might, he thought, be found for the proposal of an approximate Estimate. It was stated in evidence, by the heads of departments, that the fittings of the Museum might be delayed in transmission a period of six months, and the Trustees had, therefore, been exceedingly anxious to procure the cases. The increase in the Estimate for the new building might, he believed, be ascribed in a great degree to the decision which had been arrived at to carry one of the towers to the height which was originally proposed, and so to provide a sufficient elevation for a tank by means of which an adequate supply of water might be secured.

should like to know who was responsible for the work? Things, it appeared to him, were conducted in a very loose way at South Kensington. In the present case, there really seemed to be nobody who knew anything either about the contract or the Estimate.

asked, what harbours were included in the Vote? In the case of Harwich, which he found mentioned as one of them, there were, he believed, certain dues which covered the Vote; but there were no such dues in connection with the harbours of Dover and Holyhead. Why, too, he should like to know, was the Committee called upon to vote money for the two last-named harbours and not for Folkestone. Again, there was a sum set down for repairs at Spurn Point; why was that sum to be paid by the country instead of by the local authorities? He could understand why a grant should be made in the case of Dover and Holyhead, because they were packet-stations, but Spurn Point had no such claim.

pointed out that Dover and Holyhead were harbours of great importance in a national point of view, and that the arrangement in the case of Harwich was one of very old standing. He was sorry to say he could not give his hon. Friend any further information at present; but he would take care that the whole subject should be carefully inquired into.

was obliged to the noble Viscount for his information, but it really amounted to nothing at all. The noble Viscount said nothing about Spurn Point. Unless some more satisfactory explanation were given, he should feel it to be his duty to divide the Committee against the Vote.

said, that Spurn Point was a narrow slip of land at the northern entrance of the Humber, on the extremity of which was an important lighthouse, the safety of which was threatened by the action of the sea, which the Board of Trade was endeavouring to arrest by groynes, &c.

would remind the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) that there were certain harbours in receipt of aid from the Government, because they were harbours of refuge. Dover, which had been transferred to the control of the Board of Trade in 1866, was one of those harbours, and Spurn Point was another.

said, he would explain more fully the details of the Vote on a future occasion.

asked, whether the allowances granted in lieu of rates were made upon any principle, or simply by guess-work, and whether a certain sum was allowed by arrangement to one locality, and a certain sum to another? It seemed to him that the local rates on Government property should be levied upon the same principle as upon every other kind of property, there being some one to represent the Government as well as the local authorities, to see that the assessment was a fair one.

said, that the sum contributed was regulated according to the amount at which the property in question would be rated if it did not belong to the Government.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, what steps had been taken to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee which sat a short time ago to inquire into the constitution and management of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, and over which the hon. Baronet himself had so ably presided? Was it the intention of the Government, he should like to know, to transfer the control of the Brigade, in accordance with one of those recommendations, from the Metropolitan Board of Works to the Secretary of State for the Home Department? As to another recommendation—the transference of the central station from Watling Street to Southwark Bridge—he saw by the newspapers that that had been acted upon within the last few days. But perhaps the hon. Baronet could inform him whether it was proposed to make any addition to the number of men in the Brigade? as the force was at present seriously overworked in the performance of its duties.

said, he was quite as much alive as the hon. and gallant Gentleman could be to the necessity of carrying out, as far as possible, the recommendations of the Committee to which he alluded. The whole subject was under the consideration of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but alterations, such as those suggested, could, of course, be made only after very careful investigation. As to the increase in the number of men, he could not give the Committee any positive information; but he would inquire into the matter.

pointed out that the Government paid only £10,000 a-year in the shape of a contribution to the support of the Fire Brigade for the protection of their property, and contended that that amount ought to be considerably increased. As to placing the Brigade under the control of the Home Office, it was a proposal which, in his opinion, would be as well let alone. The force was exceedingly well managed at present.

thought it was undesirable to make any change, such as that suggested by the hon. Baronet, until the recommendations of the Committee had been fully considered.

took occasion, when the Vote for the Post Office was read by the Clerk at the Table, to refer to an error of £440 in connection with the Money Order Office which, he said, had been pointed out on the previous evening by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke). To rectify that error, he contemplated at first moving the reduction of the Vote by that amount; but he had been informed that if that course were taken, there would appear to be a discrepancy between the Estimate and the sum voted, which might lead to serious misapprehension and irregularity in future years. The better plan, therefore, he thought, would be to allow the extra sum to pass, on the distinct understanding that it would be repaid into the Exchequer.

would offer no objection to the course proposed by the hon. Baronet. At the same time, he should like to have the opinion of the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) as to whether it was not an ordinary mode of proceeding to move the reduction of a Vote on the Report of Supply?

Does the hon. Baronet wish to oppose the Vote?

No.