asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why steps have not been taken to close the churchyard of North Crawley, Bucks, the same having been officially reported to be in a state unfit for further burials, and the attention of the Home Office having been several times called to the subject?

, in reply, said, he demurred to the statement that the churchyard had been officially reported as unfit for further burials; but not being quite satisfied with the last Report he received, he had given orders for a fresh inspection to be made, and for a further Report to be sent to him.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has any objection to say if there be any, and, if any, what negotiations on foot or in the contemplation of Her Majesty's Government for the commutation of the Railway Passenger Duty?

Mr. Speaker, some little time ago I received a communication from a gentleman who takes an interest in this question. In that communication he stated that it might be a convenient way of meeting some of the difficulties connected with the Railway Passenger Duty if a scheme of commutation were adopted, and the tax were purchased by the Government at a certain number of years' purchase. After giving some consideration to the subject, I informed the gentleman who made the communication to me that in the event of my receiving any communication from the Railway Directors, or from persons authorized to speak on behalf of the Companies, I should be ready to take any such proposal into consideration. I have not yet received any such proposal; but from what I have hoard I think it not improbable some such proposal may be submitted to me.

I beg to give Notice that on Monday I will ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he will give the House any opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the subject before he concludes any arrangement with the Railway Companies?

It would be absolutely impossible for me to make any arrangement without bringing the matter before the House and obtaining the sanction of the House to anything that might be proposed to be done.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, On what date his Bill for the improvement of the Grand Jury Laws of Ireland will be printed for distribution?

Sir, I cannot at the present moment fix any day; but I hope the Bill will be in the hands of Members before long.

Then, Sir, I beg to give Notice that I will repeat the Question on Monday.

, in rising to move that a Select Committee be appointed—

"To inquire into the incidence of rating for water supply and sewerage, and report what amendments, if any, it is advisable to make,"

said: I feel that the subject is of considerable magnitude, and one which requires a few words of explanation from me. For some years, as many hon. Members know, I have been watching the working of the Public Health Acts, and have endeavoured, if possible, to find remedies for the difficulties, where there appeared to be need of a remedy. I have now to bring before the House a point which I feel sure is one of the great obstacles that prevent the successful working of the Public Health Acts. Sanitary improvement, like every other improvement, cannot, I am afraid, be carried on without money. The way the money is raised for certain sanitary purposes is the reason why I ask for a Committee to investigate the subject. I ask for a Committee to consider the incidence of rating for water supply and drainage, and whether a better incidence of rating cannot be devised. Let me say, at the outset, that I have no intention of raising the question of rating income; what I want is the proper apportionment of the expense on houses and lands. I hope hon. Members who follow me in the debate will keep to the narrow issue I have raised. Sir, the present mode of raising money for sanitary purposes is that an area is taken—such as a parish or borough—and upon that area a rate is laid, which falls equally upon all the property within the area. There is an exception in the case of agricultural land, about which I shall speak presently. In some cases there are special drainage districts; but I shall show that they do not meet the difficulty, and very few have been formed in urban districts. They have the power of making a separate assessment upon a part or parts of the district. Now, if all the property within the area were equally benefited by a sanitary improvement, the plan of levying an equal rate would be fair; but, in almost all cases, some property is not benefited at all, or only in an indirect manner, while other property receives the full benefit. Take the case of a parish with a village, which has to be drained or supplied with water, in the centre or at one end, and with a lot of agricultural land around it. Is it right or fair that all the land should be rated for the drainage or water supply of the village? Or take the case of a parish with two villages, one of which is to be drained or supplied with water; is it right that the other should help to pay for the cost? Or, if you take another case, where a speculative builder has run up a lot of houses, is it right that the cost of draining those houses should be borne by the district? What do we find actually to take place? In parishes where any sanitary improvement is to be effected, there immediately spring up two parties, one for, and the other against, the proposed works, those whoso houses are not going to be benefited objecting to pay for the improvement of their neighbours' property. A case of this sort was mentioned by Colonel Cox, of the Local Government Board, when he gave his evidence before the Select Committee of last year on the Public Health Act Amendment Bill. He said, in answer to a Question put to him—

"I have one case particularly in my mind that occurred very recently, but it is not by any means an uncommon case. It was a question of supplying with water a small village called Tal-y-Bont in Brecknockshire. The village of Tal-y-Bont was at one end of a contributory place some 12 or 13 miles long; it contains about one-third of the population of the parish; the remaining population—that is to say, the two-thirds not in the village—occupied detached houses and farms. Opposition was most vigorous, and not unnaturally so, on the part of those people. They said, 'We two-thirds have got to put our hands into our pockets and pay for the express benefit of the remaining one-third; and those people whom we are supplying with water are perfectly well able to supply it for themselves, and the whole thing is wrong.' The opposition was extremely fierce and obstinate on those grounds."

Many other instances were mentioned by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Bald- wyn Leighton) and others, of villages where the population was scattered over a large area, and where those who were not benefited by the improvements objected to pay. With regard to this state of things, the Committee of last year reported that it was productive of grave evils. The Report says—

"It frequently happens, notably in rural districts, that the whole charge is borne by the parish, under the rate for special expenses, while the supply of water is limited to the village, or a particular part of the parish. Those, therefore, who live outside the village or the part of the parish benefited by the supply have to pay for the water from which they derive no advantage; this fact causes great opposition to schemes for water supply, and in many cases renders it impossible to carry them out."

The same reason prevented the execution of drainage works. The Committee which sat last year had before them the evidence of Dr. Ballard, of the Local Government Board, who was able to mention case after case where villages required draining, and where the public health had suffered in consequence of nothing having been done in the way of drainage. Why was this? The reason was because those who administer the law knew that great opposition would be raised, and not unjustly, if they attempted to levy a rate on all which was only for the benefit of a few. Perhaps I shall be told that what is wrong is the area, and that the area ought to be altered. But in most cases the area is the parish, and to alter the area of a parish for sanitary purposes only is impossible. They are very ancient, and so interwoven with all that we call Local Government, that such an idea has only to be stated to show its impossibility. With regard to urban sanitary districts, they are boroughs, and it would be impossible to alter their areas for this one purpose alone. But I shall be told that there is a provision for making special drainage districts in the rural parts of the country. But these special drainage districts are found, in practice, not to work well. I have made inquiry on this point, and have received information from 105 medical officers of health, who have the supervision of 6,500,000 acres of land and 2,000,000 of the population of this country in 37 out of the counties of England and Wales. Only 26 out of the 105 medical officers were able to say that application had been made to the Local Government Board for the forma- tion of a special drainage district, some of which had been refused. On this subject, the Report of the Committee of last year contained the following observations:—

"Special districts for drainage and water supply have been in some cases formed, but objections are often raised to the formation of new rating areas, and in some cases special difficulties arise. For instance, when in a village some of the houses have water and some have not, and when these two classes of houses are intermingled."

I think I have said enough to show that special drainage districts are not very successful. Let me now deal with the objection that the parish ought to pay, and that it must be treated as a whole. It is argued that the villages contain the labour which is used on the land, and therefore it is fair to tax the farmers for the benefit of the labourers. But this is often not the case. The villages often have a special industry. Take, for instance, a mining country, or suburban places, where the labour belongs to the town. In such cases there is no benefit to the farmers, and their land ought not to be rated. Again, it is said that if the rates do not fall upon the parish no sanitary improvement will take place; and, consequently, disease will spring up, and the poor rates will be increased. The answer to this is that, if you make the incidence of rating fair—which it is not at present—opposition to sanitary works will decrease, and, therefore, the public health will be improved. On this subject, the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) said—

"Then there is the argument that the parish is interested in these improvements, because if they are not made, it will have to pay for medical relief, if not for pauperism. That, I think, is a fallacious argument. The other argument is that the village contains the labour of the district, and, therefore, that the surrounding land ought to pay for it; but that, I think, is as great a fallacy as the other. In the first place, the village does not contain that labour; in my part of the country it hardly ever does; the labour is contained either in the farmhouses or in detached cottages. There are instances of suburban villages where the labour really belongs to the town, and not to the country; but being in the district of the rural authority, it would be thrown upon the parish."

Having shown that there is a great opposition to works for sanitary purposes, and that there is nothing in the present law to remove the opposition, I come now to suggest the remedy. In dealing with the question of water supply, the Committee stated in their Report that, after full consideration, they—

"Think that the sound principle to lay down is that water supplied by a sanitary authority should be paid for by the consumer. It is obvious that a fair charge made directly on the houses benefited will tend to disarm the opposition which now arises on the ground that the cost of the waterworks will be thrown on the rates."

Let the same principle be applied to drainage; and when a house is drained, let the cost of the works be a charge upon the house which is benefited. But I shall be told that this would require a great alteration in the law of rating. No doubt this is true; but the principle is not new. The principle is found in the Public Health Act itself as regards nuisances; for the cost of removing a nuisance is borne by the property to be benefited by the removal of it. The same principle is in operation with all Water Companies, for there the cost of water is paid for by the consumers. As regards drainage, we find the same principle adopted in many Acts of Parliament. It is admitted in the Public Health Act; for under the provisions of this Act it is possible to charge the property benefited with the cost of the works in some cases—I mean those cases in which a private improvement rate is levied. It is also admitted in various local Acts, thus pointing conclusively to the policy of extending the principle I contend for into general law. For instance, in the Hereford Improvement Act, 1872, I find the following power to levy sewer rates. I need not read the whole of the section—the important part of it is that—

"A sewer rate is to be levied upon the houses, lands, and tenements, the drainage of which is connected by pipes with any such sewer or drain;"

and in order to make it perfectly clear what the rate is for, the section concludes by stating that the rate is to be in lieu of any rates for making sewers under the authority of the Act of 1854. Again, I will quote the case of a large town-Liverpool—where the cost, or part of the cost, of the sewers falls directly upon the house drained by them. The Liverpool Sanitary Act says as follows:—

"Be it enacted that when and as soon as any such house or building shall drain into or com- municate with any sewer vested in the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses, the owner of such house or building shall pay to the Council a sum after the rate of six shillings for every lineal yard of the frontage of such house or building towards the principal street in which the same shall be situate."

I am aware that there are difficulties in the plan adopted in this case; but the principle is the same. Again, to quote from one more Local Act—the Black Rock Local Board Act, 1876, has the same principle with regard to water. A section of the Act is as follows:—

"The Local Board may demand and take for the supply of water for domestic purposes within the district any rates and charges not exceeding the rates and charges following, that is to say, where the annual rack rent or value of the premises so supplied with water shall not exceed twenty pounds, at a rate per centum per annum not exceeding seven pounds ten shillings."

As the power of rating is hero limited to premises supplied with water, it if evident that they cannot rate premises not so supplied; or, in other words, the Board are recouped for their expenditure by charges on the property benefited. I have, I think, now stated enough to show that there is a case for examination by a Select Committee; but I have noticed that there have been several allegations against the principle I have laid down, and these I will now glance at. First, it is alleged that the proposal would exempt agricultural land from rating, and that already this class of property is partially exempt, being rated at only one-fourth of its value. The answer to that is this—that each rate should be considered on its own merits, and in relation to the public good to be effected; and it is no answer to say that one can be put off against the other. But I may further point out that in boroughs, where the expenses are defrayed by the borough fund, agricultural land is rated at its full value, and contributes its full share of the burdens of the borough. Again, it is said that it would destroy the security on which money has been lent—I mean the security of the rates of the whole district. But that is not the case, for the rates of the whole district would be the ultimate security, though the rates on the property benefited would be, as now, the first asset for the repayment of the interest and principal of the mortgage. With reference to the objection that, under the proposal I make, the areas might be very small, and therefore the rating might be high, I think the objection is a good one in those cases where, from various circumstances, the cost must be great; and therefore I think it would be necessary to put a limit of charge upon the property benefited, and any excess of charge should fall as it does now. This is a difficult and technical subject, and I am afraid I have failed to put it clearly before the House. But I think it is worth investigating, and therefore I ask for a Committee.

, who seconded the Amendment, held that an alteration of the law was needed, for the reason, among others, that at present the charges for drainage weighed very unequally upon owners of house property, those who laid out money on their holdings having to pay as much pro rata as careless and improvident landlords. The consequence of the present state of affairs was that there was a very strong feeling of injustice, and, in many cases, of virtual stoppage of all improvements. Representations of the injustice of this incidence had been made from numerous sanitary authorities to the Local Government Board. A list of some 20 or 30 places was given before the Select Committee of last year on the Public Health Act Amendment Bill, and these were a mere selection of cases. There was not a county in England, probably not a union, where the injustice had not been felt so strongly as to prevent improvements being proceeded with. That was the uniform experience of all engaged in the subject as appeared from the evidence of the Select Committee already referred to. He maintained that in former years there was very little principle underlying these rates, although lately there had been what he might describe as more scientific accuracy, as shown in the obligations which had been imposed upon the ratepayers with respect to education, roads, and sanitary improvements. The principle of the incidence of rating was a haphazard one; and, as regarded this sanitary rating, it was the application of the urban principle of the Acts of 1848 and 1858 to rural places, whence the injustice. A village that had been improved, that had water laid on, and drainage provided, was called upon to contribute to the improvement of another village five miles off, where the landlords had neglected all sanitary provision; and, although the Act provided for the land only paying one-fourth, the farmhouse on the land paid the whole rate; so that the distant ratepayer, who was in no degree benefited, was called on to pay double or treble what an occupier living in a similar house paid for that house being improved. It was impossible to conceive a greater injustice than what sometimes occurred in this manner. The proper and only principle to adopt was that the incidence of the rate should show the benefit of the use. He entirely denied that this was a question between town and country. There was hardly a rural district in England where they did not find another population living in the villages besides the agricultural labourers. There were mining populations and others, people engaged in staple manufactures like the shoe and straw trades, who were altogether separate from the agricultural population. This was a question of getting necessary improvements made, and those improvements could not be made without an alteration in legislation. He hoped the House would not refuse to allow the matter to be fairly sifted before a Select Committee, as the subject was of more importance than was generally supposed.

observed, that, so far, the urban populations had derived great benefit from the legislation of the last few years. The difficulty was to find the means for giving a supply of water to those places where it could not be provided by any general system of rating, but where it was required for sanitary purposes. In certain localities private arrangements existed whereby a small area was exempted from the taxation which fell on all the district around, simply because some centuries ago there was a reason for such exemption, which reason was now entirely removed. Sooner or later these exemptions must be dealt with. He thought a case had been made out for a Select Committee; but it should not inquire into the general question of rating, as that was one which demanded the consideration of the Government. He cordially supported the Motion of his hon. Friend.

said, that, owing to the extreme thinness of the House, he must defer going into the subject at length. In his judgment, the House would do well to pause before it embarked on so extensive a subject as the hon. Member had brought forward. It was, no doubt, a fact that the Public Health Act that passed in 1875 was by no means a final measure. He did not propose it in that sense. He quite admitted that it was capable of amendment, and thought that the incidence of sewerage and other sanitary charges might with advantage be inquired into from time to time; but the subject was so large and the House so scanty that he must apologize if he did not go into the question at the length which it deserved. The subject had certainly been introduced in too large a sense in the present instance; and it covered so much ground that he thought it would be mischievous for the House to deal with it in the form in which it had been introduced. Though the Sanitary Acts had not been long in operation, the expense which had been incurred under them was enormous and increasing; and it was therefore natural that there should be objections felt to proposals which might involve still further outlays. One would fancy, to hear his hon. Friend, that no money had been applied to sanitary purposes in rural districts; but, as a matter of fact, in the six years ending in 1878 no less a sum than £680,000 had been borrowed for that purpose by the rural authorities. He believed there was a general disposition throughout the country to recognize the common liability and responsibility which the ratepayers of each parish were under with regard to the health and welfare of the poorer inhabitants of the parish, and there was a readiness to accept the obligation, which, after all, was made comparatively light, by means of borrowing and repayments over extended periods. The value of land was enormously increased by drainage operations, for the construction of sewers benefited, not only the houses drained, but the land of the whole district. He was willing to admit there was something in what the hon. Member had brought forward. If rating for water supply were separated from rating for sewerage, there was a good deal to be said for rating the consumers of water differently from those who were benefited only by its provision for sanitary purposes; but the injustice which might have resulted from an unqualified system of rating was remedied by an Act, passed at the instance of the hon. Member last year, which came into operation only a month ago, so that it was rather too soon to re-open the question now. There were particular cases in which a house tax of a limited amount might, in like manner, be brought in in aid of the rates; and he would be willing to take the responsibility of making a proposal, when they had a little breathing-time, to discuss some of these local questions, which, unfortunately, they had not had during the last two or three years. But the question was not so pressing and urgent as to justify him in dealing with it now. He could not separate this Motion from a wider proposal contained in the 6th clause of a Bill introduced by the hon. Member, to whom he would put it whether it would not be more desirable to drop the subject for this Session and re-introduce it on a smaller scale next year? The proposal of the hon. Gentleman, if adopted, would in many cases be antagonistic to the object he had in view. The House would probably be of opinion that the hon. Gentleman had called attention to a very important and difficult subject; but it was one which was not lost sight of by his Department or himself.

said, he must again urge his annual objection to the mode in which the Royal Palaces were dealt with. He had no wish to interfere with the comforts of the Crown; but now that it had made its bargain with the country, it ought scrupulously to adhere to that bargain. What he complained of was that certain of the Palaces not used for occupation by the Crown were used by the Crown for purposes which had not been approved by Parliament. St. James's Palace, Kensington Palace, and Hampton Court Palace were all used for purposes different to those for which they were originally intended, and Parliament was called on to provide funds for keeping up these Palaces for purposes not sanctioned. And he objected to this very strongly, because he thought that while Parliament ought to respect the rights of the Crown, the Crown ought not less strongly to respect the rights of Parliament. He had no hesitation in saying that large expenses were incurred for these Palaces for the comfort and convenience of the persons who resided in these three Palaces which never ought to be charged on the public purse. He did not deny for a moment that they ought to provide in a fitting manner for those who, or whose relations, had served the country well, or for the relations of those who had done service to the State; but that could be done far better and far more economically than by giving them expensive apartments in a Palace. These persons would benefit far more by having an allowance to provide suitable houses than by having apartments in a Palace; and he considered that in many ways the arrangement was an objectionable one, both socially and economically. As a consequence of the occupation of these Palaces, they had nowhere to put Royal guests who visited this country, and they had to stay at hotels in London. These Palaces were intended for the occupation of the Crown itself, and he therefore objected to this occupation of them by other persons. The result was that these Estimates were growing greater every year, in a most unsatisfactory manner. This Class I., for Palaces and Buildings, in 1878–9, amounted to £1,333,620, while this year it had swelled to £1,426,898; and he had very little doubt that the Supplementary Estimates would bring it up to £1,500,000. This was a class of expenditure which ought rigidly to be kept down, and a class in which they would certainly expect to find economies practised at a period when the pressure of hard times upon the people of the country rendered reduction necessary in every possible way. Yet they found that the first thing proposed to be cut down was the Naval and Military Estimates, without caring a straw whether they could be safely reduced or not, or more economically managed as these two Services might be; while every effort was made to avoid cutting down the Civil Service Estimates. He must protest against the waste and extravagance shown in these Civil Service Estimates. In 12 years they had very largely increased at the rate of nearly 50 per cent, while there was no such waste or no such increase in the Naval and Military Estimates. He was aware of the plea urged that the late Government were mainly responsible for the increase in this expenditure by their education policy; but if they examined the Accounts they would find that, irrespective of that educational item, the present Government had very largely increased it, as also the Civil Service Expenditure generally. Especially, as regarded this particular Vote, he objected to this system of providing apartments in the Royal Palaces for certain persons, and thereby increasing the public outlay; for although they or their relatives had, undoubtedly, deserved well of their country, they had not deserved any better treatment than many other persons who were not so well provided for, and no arrangements ought to be made by the Crown which entailed expenditure independent of Parliament.

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman was altogether in error in supposing that these suites of apartments were a great cause of expense. In the case of Hampton Court Palace, for instance, there were there 43 or 44 different sets of residences, and their whole cost in the "Vote was £850, which was an average of less than £20 each. But if the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman were carried out, and lodgings elsewhere were provided for the occupants, the cost would be a great deal more. Houses would have to be taken for them which would cost, at least, £100 or £120 each; and, as a consequence, they would have an expenditure of £5,000 or £6,000 annually, instead of £850. Complaint had been made of the great increase in the amount of Class I.; but it must be remembered that the Embassies, the Customs, and the Inland Revenue Houses were now charged to this Vote, which formerly were charged to other Votes in the Estimates. Before bringing forward any complaints on this subject, the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to have made himself acquainted with the facts of the case.

observed that, to show the entire inaccuracy of the right hon. Gentleman, he need only take one set of figures. The right hon. Gentleman said that Hampton Court Palace only cost £850. [Mr. GERARD NOEL: I beg your pardon. I said—He did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman when he was speaking, and he must let him have his say now. He said that Hampton Court only cost £850—["No, no!"]—he did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman—whereas the Estimate showed that the amount was £8,333. So much for the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman. He was also told that he did not understand the subject, and ought to make himself acquainted with the Estimates. He did try, as much as any man in the House, to do so; and he denied that the right hon. Gentleman had any right to come down there and teach him his duty. ["Agreed!"] He did not want to be "agreed" upon this subject. When the right hon. Gentleman chose to come down there and make such statements, he should resist the attempt at dictation to the utmost of his power. He was aware—and he had said so again and again—that certain new charges had been thrown upon Class I.; but that did not explain the whole increase in the expenditure in the Civil Service Estimates, which had been at the rate of 50 per cent within the last 15 years. It was no use for the Treasury to come there and twit him with incorrectness. It was for them to show how it was that these increases had been incurred. It was impossible for any Member of Parliament to discover from the public documents the way in which the Estimates were at present framed, how that increase had been incurred. He would defy any Member of the House of Commons to find it out without access to the official records. The Return that he himself moved for on this subject did not contain the information which, he sought to obtain. He objected also to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works had put this matter. He did not for a moment deny the merits of those who occupied these apartments. He did not deny that they or their relatives had served their country well; all he said was that other persons had done equally well, and that, therefore, it was invidious to select particular persons to occupy these Palaces in this way, and that it was far more costly to the State than it would be by granting a money allowance. He did not wish to restrict the benevolence of the Crown in any way, and he would not object to vote a sum to provide those apartments elsewhere; but he did object strongly to this occupation of the Palaces by private persons; and thereby throwing upon Parliament the business of voting sums over which little or no control or check could be exercised. He was perfectly well aware that it would be useless for him, looking at the state of the House at that moment, to oppose this Vote; but he should continue to protest against it, and next year, when there would, he hoped, be a new House of Commons, he should renew his protest, if he retained his seat.

complained that the hon. and gallant Gentleman misrepresented him. He distinctly said that £850 was the cost of the apartments, not the total cost of the Palace. He had all the other items in the charge for general repairs and maintenance, and be would give them to show that his statement was correct. Roofs and repairs, £700; defective wood-work, £150; cleaning furniture, £200; police, £150; restoration of carving, £200; general restoration—which had been going on during the last few years in different parts of the Palace, to keep them in respectable repair—£500; general repairs—including the drainage works—£1,750; Royal mews, £470; gas, £413; taxes, £415; contingencies and measuring, £197; private apartments, £850; making in all the total amount charged. No doubt the sum voted in Class I. was larger than in former years; but he had explained the reason why it was so—that expenses were now charged to it—for the Embassies, &c.—which were formerly borne by another part of the Votes.

was very glad the right hon. Gentleman had explained this matter so fully; and he had no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman had been in the House and had heard the first part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech, the little misunderstanding which had occurred would not have arisen. But besides the £850 charged for the apartments, there was the item of £350 for furniture, and another of £410 for gas, all of which went a long way towards making the total expenditure on these apartments £1,500.

said, of the £350 charged for furniture, £200 was charged for the pictures, and the rest was for furniture for other parts of the Palace used by the public, for blinds for the rooms, &c. No part of that furniture was for the private apartments.

asked if the £200 outlay for the pictures was a salary?

replied that it was not.

said, there was £350 spent for furniture, and it was so stated in the Account. Then what was the £200 for, to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred? Was it a salary?

said, it was for special cleaning and charge of the pictures.

assumed, from the explanation, that a person was not paid a salary for the work.

said, that the assumption was correct.

was inclined to believe that his hon. and gallant Friend had hit a blot in the Estimates, and the explanations given were by no means satisfactory. For instance, besides £5,846 spent in maintenance, there was £1,750 charged for drainage, and that amount, he supposed, would be scarcely so large if there were none of these apartments in the Palace. Hampton Court was not occupied in the way it should be as a show Palace; and this large expenditure of £5,846 was due, in a great degree, to the expenses of the apartments. The right hon. Gentleman said the apartments were tenanted by ladies; but anyone who went down there would see that a large number of long-legged males also enjoyed the advantages of the place. A very large part of this expenditure was, in fact, due to the occupation of the Palace by private persons. Anyone who went down there would see that very large sums were spent on the amenities of the place; and this private occupation did certainly very largely increase the expenses. For instance, there was a charge of £1,200 for a stationary steam fire engine, with vertical quick steam-raising boiler, and other things of that sort. Was there no other means of putting out a fire than this, and was this expenditure really necessary?

explained that the pumping station was three miles from Hampton Court Palace. Many years ago a main was laid down, but it was now very much out of order; and it was feared that it would burst if too much pressure were applied. Instead of putting down a fresh main, which would have been a very great expense, it was thought that the best way would be to take water from the ponds in the Palace by means of a steam fire engine.

said, he had no objection to make to this Vote for Marlborough House occupied by the Heir to the Crown. His only regret was that the Heir did not occupy Kensington Gardens Palace. At the same time, as the country had thought fit to lodge him where it had done, he should never think of grudging a substantial sum to provide for the comfort and convenience of the Heir to the Crown and his family.

called attention to the very large sum put down for police, £20,459. To part of that there could, of course, be no objection. There must be police in the Parks; and it was, of course, only right that the nation should pay for them. But he observed that the very large sum of £10,661 was paid to the Metropolitan Police. Now, the Parks were used for Metropolitan amusements—and for Metropolitan politics also—and it did appear to him that it would be only right that the Metropolis should pay for the police who were employed on these services. He should like to know whether any communications had ever passed between the Office of the right hon. Gentleman and the Metropolitan Board of Works upon this question? Perhaps the view he had suggested had never occurred to the right hon. Gentleman before. It was well worthy of consideration whether this sum might not be fairly laid on the Metropolis, instead of being borne by the general funds of the country.

said, that view of the case never had occurred to him. In the year 1867, as the House would remember, there were disturbances in Hyde Park, with which the Park constables were quite unable to deal; and at that time the Park constables were removed, and the whole management of the Park was vested in the police, who were paid by the Office of Works, in lieu of the former constables.

asked if none of the police were paid by the Board of Works?

replied, that the Board of Works did not pay for any of them.

said, the hon. Gentleman was under a slight misapprehension. The Board of Works did not pay any of the Metropolitan Police. They were paid partly by a rate levied on the Metropolis, and partly by a contribution from the Imperial Funds, and they were under the authority, not of the Board of Works, but of the Home Office.

asked whether these were two separate sums?

said, the £20,000 was for the constables in the different Parks, while the £10,000 was for the Metropolitan Police in Hyde Park and Richmond Park, but was included in the £20,000.

remarked that the total cost of the police, then, was upwards of £30,000. He should like to know who were the Ranger and Deputy Ranger?

said, the Ranger was the Duke of Cambridge; the Deputy Ranger, Colonel Clifton; and the Superintendent, General MacDonald.

said, then about £400 was paid altogether for these Rangers and Deputy Rangers.

replied that that was so.

begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £185 for the expenses of the game in Richmond Park. The amount of the reduction was but small; but he moved the Amendment as the assertion of a principle. In the first place, he did not think the country ought to find game for the Park. If anyone had the right to sport there, the least that person could do was to find the food for the game. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge had the game; and the least he could do was to find food for it. The House also paid a very large sum for keepers—£250 for the first, and £150 for the second—and he did very strongly object to that House turning itself into a game preserver. His strong reason, however, for objecting to this preservation of game in Richmond Park was that it interfered with the enjoyment of the Park by the public, as was shown by the constant complaints on the subject. He also wished to know whether the restrictions about this public Park were so stringent that even Volunteer regiments were not allowed to pass through without special permission? Again, he had been informed that the people were not allowed to use the Park for cricket or football. The people paid for the maintenance of this Park, and he considered it a monstrous thing that all these restrictions should be imposed upon their use of it. Such a system ought not to be tolerated; and he thought the Committee ought to show its sense of the objectionable character of the restrictions referred to by refusing to vote the money. There was another evil to which he wished to call attention. Some of the finest trees in the Park had disappeared, and he had been informed that they had been removed to make way for new plantations. One of the finest rows of trees had, to his own knowledge, disappeared almost entirely; and, besides this, while the new plantations had taken the place of the old trees, the public were shut out from them. He believed that the game had, in consequence of these restrictions, very largely increased. As a protest against a principle which he believed to be absolutely vicious and wrong—namely, the preservation of game in the Park, which prevented the public from having their free user of it—he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £185.

said, with respect to the amount expended for the preservation of game in Richmond Park, the amount was only £150, and not £185, as the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn) supposed. And when the very great extent of the Park—some 2,400 acres—was considered, he did not think that the sum in question was a very large one. He maintained that many of the people who visited Richmond Park went there for the purpose of seeing the game only, from which they derived the greatest possible amusement. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had stated that the people were not allowed to use the portion of the Park in course of plantation; but he replied that out of the whole of the 2,400 acres there were only 246 acres laid down for plantations. The Duke of Cambridge had nothing whatever to do with these plantations being made, for they were being carried out entirely upon the responsibility of the Office of Works. He (Mr. Gerard Noel) had visited the Park last year, and had found that although five or six acres had been taken out of the Park 14 acres had been thrown in; and that was the rule—as soon as the plantations were sufficiently forward they were immediately thrown into the Park. During the three years he had held Office no single complaint, anonymous or otherwise, had reached him as to the liberty of those who went to Richmond Park having been in any way curtailed. On the contrary, he maintained that the people could use the Park in any way they pleased, and do what they like there, as long as they did no damage. With regard to the old oak trees, he had only to say that the greatest possible care was taken of them, and that none were ever felled that it was not absolutely necessary to remove.

said, that not withstanding the Chief Commissioner of Works had stated that he had not received any complaint with regard to the exclusion of the public from certain portions of the Park, and other restrictions referred to by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), he could inform him that several hon. Members had their pockets full of letters of complaint upon that subject. And he could not help thinking that if the public had not complained to the right hon. Gentleman it was because they thought it would be of no use to do so. If hon. Members wanted to see the real state of feeling on the subject they could not do better than turn to the local newspapers. He ventured to say that those newspapers, published in the neighbourhood of the Park, were unanimous in their attacks upon the Government in relation to this question. They were all agreed upon it, and he had read complaints in those columns year after year. When the question was raised, three years ago, the House was informed that the public were delighted to see the game in Richmond Park, and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) believed that, the people did like to see the deer; but it ought also to be understood that while they were in favour of keeping up the deer they complained of a sum of money being included in the Estimates as food for rabbits. It was true that some pheasants were reared; but the food was chiefly for rabbits, the grass of the Park being insufficient for both rabbits and deer, so that if the stock was to be kept up it became necessary to bring in an enormous quantity of food. There was a statement in the Guide Book to Richmond Park which was most in use, and which might be called a semi-official publication, that if untrue it was perfectly scandalous to the country to leave uncontradicted. The Book stated that the food for these rabbits was bought from the property of the Duke of Cambridge immediately adjoining, and paid for by the country. Was it a right thing that the public money should be spent in order to provide shooting for the Duke of Cambridge? In his opinion, it was a monstrous thing that the charge should be placed upon the country. He was sorry to notice that the right hon. Gentleman had not alluded in his speech to the point which had been raised by the hon. Member for Swansea with regard to the Volunteer regiments which were said to be excluded, nor to the prohibition of cricket and football. But surely, if they kept up Parks of this extent near London, it was wise that they should be used for the purposes of amusement, as well as for Volunteer Reviews. That, however, it appeared could not be allowed, because of the shooting of the Duke of Cambridge. The statement of his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) was perfectly true, that no regiment of Volunteers was allowed to march through the Park without special permission; and that was only given on condition that they marched along the road, and did not play bands. That was the question raised by the hon. Member for Swansea; and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would make some reply to it.

was perfectly certain that if there had been complaints against his Department as to the management of the Park he should have heard of them, were they anonymous or otherwise; and he would be glad if the hon. Baronet would let him see one of those letters with which he said that his pockets were filled. As to the Volunteers, he really could not say whether they were allowed or not to march through the Park. He had never heard of anything of the kind alluded to by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea; and his own impression was that not only did some Volunteer regiments march through the Park, but that they actually drilled there. He was glad that his attention had been called to the statement contained in the Guide Book, that the Duke of Cambridge sold the food for the rabbits from his farm adjoining the Park, because he would have the opportunity of giving it the most distinct contradiction. It was the fact that his Royal Highness had no farm in the neighbourhood, and the country had not paid him one single sixpence in the way stated.

was still obliged to consider the answer of the right hon. Gentleman unsatisfactory, inasmuch as he had not stated whether Volunteer regiments were allowed to pass through the Park without permission or not. He (Sir Julian Goldsmid) had been informed on good authority that no regiment was allowed to be marched through the Park without permission. He had always understood that Richmond Park was maintained in the same way as the other Parks, and hon. Members had just been told that it was intended for the purpose of public enjoyment. Now, the people had taken a very proper interest in the progress of the Volunteer movement, and nothing would affect the public mind more strongly than the exclusion of Volunteers from the Parks paid for out of the public purse. Another point had been raised by the hon. Member for Swansea, upon which he had received no reply, and that was with reference to the keepers. The hon. Member had inquired whether they received salaries beyond those usually paid to this class of servants, and had pointed out that the head-keeper in Richmond Park received £250 a-year. That sum, he was informed, was a most extravagant salary for a head-keeper. It appeared to him that, as the game was preserved by His Royal Highness, who did not care about it, the best plan would be to abolish both it and the keepers, and to allow the Park to be thrown open to the public in the same way as the others. That would be a satisfactory solution of the question, and would, moreover, have the effect of reducing the Estimates by the sum of £2,000. He considered that some more satisfactory explanation should be given by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to those matters referred to by the hon. Member for Swansea, particularly as to the Volunteers.

accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the amount of charge for rabbit food, and begged leave to withdraw his Amendment, with the object of proposing that the Vote be now reduced by the sum of £150.

pointed out that the sum in question was charged for food given to the pheasants, and that it had nothing whatever to do with the rabbits.

begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £150.

inquired if the right hon. Gentleman could inform the Committee whether or not the bailiff for the Royal Parks had to administer the farming operations?

replied that the appointment was a new one. As a great deal of money had to be spent on the Parks for gravel and other materials, it was thought very desirable that this new appointment should be made for the purpose of checking expenditure, and the result had been most satisfactory.

complained that in this Vote for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds the items were so lumped together as to be most confusing. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would see that the items making up the various lump sums were not confused in this manner, and that hon. Members were enabled to attend to the Public Business in a proper manner, without having to guard against mistakes in the Estimates. In the body of the Estimate one "high bailiff" was inserted, whereas in the abstract there were two bailiffs, and the pay larger than for that of the one bailiff in the body of the Estimate.

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had asked him to do a very difficult thing, and that was to prevent Members making mistakes. He thought this Estimate was fairly explanatory of what was done under this particular Department. It was quite true that the items of the two bailiffs were put together in a way which might mislead hon. Members. He should take care that it did not occur again. The real history of the matter had been told to the Com- mittee. One bailiff was always required for the purposes of the farm, and the one recently appointed was really a superintendent of the workmen, although called a bailiff. He superintended small details, which it was impossible for the head of the Department to do.

thanked the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury for the information he had given; but he had not been asked to prevent Members falling into mistakes. What was asked for was accurate information. The fact, then, seemed to be that they paid bailiffs for doing duties which the rangers ought to do. He complained of officers of high rank receiving large sums of public money, and then handing their duties over to petty officers, who were also paid by the public. He complained of the Duke of Cambridge and Colonel Clifton taking, this money, while poor people were ground down. It was disgraceful to see this money given away to Rangers and Deputy Rangers.

said, he observed, in reference to Battersea Park, an item for "the Wilderness Garden." He supposed by Wilderness Garden was meant a place out of the way; for he remembered in another case, where a steam fire engine was purchased, it was put in the Wilderness Garden. It was placed here to be out of the way as an eyesore. He concluded this place in Battersea Park was a corner which could not be seen—a secluded spot.

said, there was a portion of the Park which had been neglected for some time. It was now being planted with shrubs and thorns, and that was the explanation of the item.

said, there was one question he should like to ask on this Vote. He observed that, besides the item of £3,570 for lighting, £1,750 was put down for the supply of oil lamps. What was the meaning of that? It was a sum about half the amount paid for gas lighting throughout the whole Houses of Parliament. It was stated that the sum was for oil lamps in the Divison Lobby and Retiring Rooms. He had been round the Lobbies, and he could find no oil lamps there. He knew of no oil lamps in the Lobby and Retiring Rooms. Even if the lamps were used, this seemed an extraordinary sum. To charge half the cost of the gas lighting for oil lamps was perfectly absurd. He could only hope that the Secretary to the Treasury, who was responsible for this Vote, had no intention of spending the money on oil lamps.

said, it could not be for the supply of oil lamps in the Division Lobby, for there they had gas. The sum was large, and he would not say it was all spent; but some must be kept in reserve. Sometimes the House sat until 3 or 4, and sometimes even to 6 or 7 in the morning, and there must be a supply in reserve.

said, it was clear there was a misunderstanding. There were no oil lamps in the Division Lobby; there had not been an oil lamp there for the last 10 years. What one wanted to know was, how this monstrous sum of £1,750 was charged for oil lamps, when there was not an oil lamp to be found? He wished the right hon. Gentleman would tell them where an oil lamp was to be found? What was the meaning of such a charge? There must be something wrong about it.

concluded there must be a mistake; but though the hon. Member did not seem to be aware of it, there were many oil lamps used in the kitchen ventilation department and elsewhere. But he would inquire into the matter.

said, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would reduce the Vote by £1,750, and bring it up again. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,750 until an explanation was given.

said, the matter on which they had divided required explanation, and he would afford it.

said, he was glad to hear that, and he should not have divided if it had not been to make some protest against the item. It was obvious that there was scarcely an oil lamp to be found. Evidently, this was a form of Vote put down year after year, without sense or moaning in it.

said, he wished to call attention to a matter which affected the comfort of Members of that House, and which was not without interest to the public outside. There was in this Vote an item of £2,770 for the attendance of police at that House; and he observed, also, that in Class II. there was a further charge of £430 a-year for the police in attendance during the Session. He wished to point out that the attendance supplied to that House was imperfect. It was difficult to call attention to this matter without reflecting upon very worthy functionaries; but he had no wish to do so. If one went to the Chamber of Deputies at Versailles he found a number of liveried officials, a room provided for strangers, a table at which they could write their name on a card, and other arrangements for their convenience; and then they could find half-a-dozen very polite persons ready to take the card, and find out the Member to whom it was addressed. He thought the arrangements outside the House of Commons for strangers were disgraceful. He knew that many gentlemen who came there and desired to find Members, even on matters of business, political and otherwise, were very often kept waiting half-an-hour in the outer Lobby with no place to sit down in. The outer Lobby was a most uncomfortable place, and the treatment given to strangers was calculated to bring the House into discredit. There was a great difficulty in getting at Members; and the only way to meet this was to have a sufficient number of attendants. He found that the police were employed upon work on which they ought not to be employed. He wished to guard himself from reflecting on the conduct of the police about that House. Every Member must admit the police were always ready and polite, and willing to do everything that they could to facilitate the business of Members. But, on the other hand, there were many objections to the employment of the police as messengers and attendants in a House like that. He thought the First Commissioner might signalize his Office by endeavouring to put the arrangements of the House, in regard to this matter—in the accommodation of strangers and of attendance—on some better footing. It was perfectly well known what took place. A gentleman came up from the country, and, like most constituents, he was anxious to see his Member. It was a curious fact—but it was true—constituents liked to see their Members. When he arrived at the door of that House in the outer Lobby he was encountered by two policemen. They were anxious to do their duty. They were policemen; they could not help being-policemen; and they received the visitor as if he were anxious to enter the House upon some burglarious expedition. His card was sent in, and it reached the door. If the Member did not happen to be in the House there was delay. There was not sufficient attendance to go after the Members and find them out. The police were anxious to discharge their duties; but they certainly were over-worked in this matter. There was, as he had said, not sufficient attendants to look Members up in the various Lobbies, Dining Rooms, Reading Rooms, and so on. He would ask whether it was not possible to provide two or three pages—such as they had in the French Chamber—whose duty it would be to attend upon the door-keepers of the House, and also to place at the entrance from the Lobby a gentleman in attendance whoso duty it would be to see that these pages were sent and dispatched through the House for the purpose of enabling Members to see those who came to the door, and who had important business with Members? Only the other night, while sitting in one of the rooms of the House—in the Library—two gentlemen waited more than 35 minutes, and at last went away, in consequence of his not having been found. Other Members could say that they had suffered in the same way. The system was a mistake. It had been the habit to use the police in that House in a way in which they ought not to be used. There were certain parts of the House in which the police discharged their duties, and always would discharge them, to the accommodation and satisfaction of every Member of the House. On the other hand, there were duties of attendance which ought to be discharged by another class of persons; and there ought to be a sufficient number of that class of persons to discharge those duties in an efficient manner. He carefully guarded himself from reflecting on the police or other officials in the House. It was a defect in the system which led to the difficulties which at present arose. He raised the question on this Vote, because it seemed clear that £2,770 provided the Members with too many police and too few attendants. If there were attendants now where there were policemen, he thought the change would be a good one. There were policemen where attendants ought to be. For instance, at the door of the Library there was a policeman, where a policeman was not wanted. There was another at the door of Mr. Speaker's exit into the Lobby; there were police almost within the precincts of the House itself. That could scarcely be necessary; and, to his mind, it did not look well. The doors should be guarded by police; but for attendance on Members and visitors he held there should be regular attendants, and in sufficient number to meet the wants of Members. He called the attention of the hon. Member to this; and he hoped something would be done to place the matter on a more satisfactory footing.

said, the duties and the regulations to which the hon. Member had referred were in the hands of Mr. Speaker; and he should put himself in communication with the right hon. Gentleman, and see if some better arrangements, in conjunction with the Serjeant-at-Arms, could not be made.

said, the Government had at present no intention of making any addition to the Government Offices, or making any large extension.

was understood, with reference to the Government Offices, to say that things as they were at present were very inconvenient, as well for the public as for the interior work of the Offices. There was one item in this Vote to which he wished to call attention briefly. The sum he referred to was £750, which it was proposed to take to enable alterations to be made in consequence of the admission of women to the examination in the London Universities

said, he did not find any reduction in the large sum for the rents charged for the hire of many houses for Offices. He should like to know whether any difference had been made in this charge in consequence of the erection of the new buildings for the Home Secretary?

replied that the Offices formerly occupied by the Home Office were no longer required, and the payment for rents, consequently, must have been reduced, although he could not tell what the exact amount was.

remarked that he asked for this amount of rents two Sessions ago; but he had not yet succeeded in getting an answer. He should like to know whether there had been any reduction in this large sum of £38,000 for rents since the new buildings for the Home Office had been erected? The right hon. Gentleman, at all events, could make himself acquainted with the exact state of the case, and give them the information on a future occasion.

asked if the details were anywhere given of the sum of £3,595 charged for the ordinary repairs and maintenance of public, ecclesiastical, and collegiate buildings in Scotland? He did not at all quarrel with the amount; but he would like to know how the details were made up.

explained that he had not the individual amounts with him; but they included the Glasgow University and Cathedral, the University of Aberdeen, and the Cathedral of St. Andrews. The Vote was for the maintenance and repair of these buildings.

wished to know whether the Estimates for these amounts had been scrutinized by the Government officials?

replied that they were, as a matter of course, like every other Estimate, submitted to the Treasury.

wished to know whether there was any reason for the largo increase in the charge for the Customs "maintenance and repairs?" It had increased from £4,807 last year to £8,539 in the present Estimate.

said, the Custom Houses were handed over to his Department last year, and many of the buildings were found to be in a very unsatisfactory condition. A considerable sum of money had to be spent on them to put them in proper repair, and that was the reason for the large increase in the Vote.

asked whether the amount for those buildings was charged exclusively upon the Treasury, or whether the local rates bore any part of the expenditure?

answered, that no part of this charge was defrayed from the local rates. The whole amount was charged entirely upon the Public Revenue.

hoped the Treasury would take up this subiect in the interests of the public at large. At present, not only were the central police courts charged on the general funds of the country, but every police court in London, from Hammersmith and Lambeth to Wandsworth and Greenwich, including, in fact, the whole of the Metropolitan district, were charged to the public funds. Considering the present serious depression in trade, and the way in which the taxes pressed heavily on the people in the country generally, he thought there was no reason for charging these police courts on the Public Revenues. All the Provincial police courts were charged upon the provincial rates, with the exception of this one instance, where £50,000 was charged on the rates. What, also, was the cause of the large increase in the Vote?

said, this question was by no means raised for the first time. The principle followed, and it seemed to him a valid one, was that the police courts of the Metropolis should be treated as belonging to the whole country, rather than to a particular locality. A very large proportion of the population of London was of a migratory character, and was drawn from a very much larger area than the Metropolis itself covered. The people came from all parts of the Kingdom; and, that being so, it had been enacted by statute that the police courts of the Metropolis should be treated as a charge on the Imperial Revenues, rather than on the local revenues of the City itself. The large increase which, appeared in the Vote arose from the necessity of reconstructing the Bow Street Police Court. A new site had been obtained, and an entirely new building would be erected there, in consequence of the unfitness of the present court.

recognized the force of the reasons assigned for making some exceptional treatment of the police courts of the Metropolis; but, at the same time, he did not see how the full charge on the Revenue could be justified when in every other case the cost of the police courts of the particular locality were borne by the local rates. Instead of the whole amount being charged against the Imperial Revenue, the proper course to take, in his opinion, would be to charge a proportion of the amount expended in erecting new buildings, or in the maintenance of the existing ones, on the local Metropolitan rate, in the same way as was followed in other places. The migratory character of the population of the Metropolis was a characteristic of other places also—such as Dublin and Edinburgh. He could speak from his own knowledge of Edinburgh. There the people paid the full cost of the maintenance of their police courts, while the population was, to a very great extent, of the same character as that of London.

reminded the Committee that the fees and fines from these courts, amounting in all to about £18,000, were paid into the Imperial Exchequer.

said, the question he put a few moments ago with reference to the charge for English County Courts had reference to this Vote. The practice in Scotland was to charge half the cost of making new buildings required for the administration of justice, or of maintaining the old ones, on the local rates; while in England, as they had been told, the whole of the cost was charged on the Imperial Revenue. He did not understand how such an anomaly could be justified. He did not ask that Scotland should get more than she did at present from the Imperial Revenues; but he did maintain that Scotland had a right to be placed in the same position as any other part of the Kingdom, and that she should have, at least, the same proportion of the Imperial Revenues allotted to her as was given to England. The people of Scotland were, undoubtedly, poorer as a nation than the people of England; and he could not conceive, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would maintain for a moment that his country should not only pay the same amount in taxes as the people of England, but should draw only half the amount drawn from the National Exchequer for the same purposes by the people of England. The fact that the people of Scotland contributed more to the Revenue per head than the people of England was in itself evidence that there was some defect in our present administration of the law. But he could not conceive how this anomaly could be justified, when the Sheriff Courts performed exactly the same work in Scotland that the County Courts did in England. He did not intend to move an Amendment, for it would be useless and a waste of time; but still he did think that the right hon. Gentleman opposite was bound to give them some explanation of the grounds upon which this practice was defended. The Scotch people were, in fact, treated worse than any other people in the United Kingdom, and it was not a way in which they should be treated. If he went to see the right hon. Gentleman on business he found himself treated with the same courtesy and respect that was paid to every, hon. Member; but, notwithstanding all this courteous treatment, they were very unfairly dealt with in the matter of taxa- tion. Scotland, in fact, paid more into the Public Treasury, and received less in return, than any other part of the Kingdom. If he could get the exact amount paid out of the Civil Service Estimates for each of the three Kingdoms, he believed the figures would show such a discrepancy that there would soon be a change. He was not an advocate for the relief of local taxation at the expense of the Imperial Exchequer, for he thought those who administered the local taxation were by far the best judges of what was wanted in the locality. He did wish, however, to see the same system in existence all over the Kingdom. For his part, he should not be sorry to see this grant withdrawn entirely, for he was convinced that the result of the Imperial grant was that many Sheriff's Court houses had been erected where they were not required. He could point out many instances where the Commissioners of Supply had obtained court houses, partly at the cost of the Imperial Exchequer, and had spent a far greater sum than was at all required. For instance, they were now asked to pay for the erection of a court house at Fort William, £3,480, and he did not believe the amount of fees received from the different cases which would be tried before the Sheriff at that court during the year would nearly cover the interest of that sum. He had not the actual figures with him; but he knew that the amount of business transacted there annually was very trifling indeed, and that instead of justifying such a large expenditure, the County of Inverness could of itself have provided all the accommodation that was necessary for one-half the present Estimate. He hoped the hon. Baronet would take these things into consideration, and would be able to afford some satisfactory explanation.

said, he should be the last person to wish to see Scotch Members treated other than any other Members of the Imperial Parliament. He understood the hon. Member to maintain that the Sheriff Court houses were treated differently from the English County Courts. The procedure with regard to these Sheriff Courts, as the hon. Gentleman was aware, was regulated by Act of Parliament—he thought the 23 & 24 Vict. These court houses were erected on representations from the locality to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He submitted the reasons stated by the locality to the Commissioners of Supply, and, if approved, plans and specifications were submitted to the Treasury for their approval. The main reason for the difference between the charge of the cost in Scotland and England was that the jurisdiction of the Courts in Scotland embraced not only the business done in the English County Courts, but the judicial business which in England was transacted at Quarter Sessions and Petty Sessions. This business in England was paid for from the local rates, while the County Courts, with their civil jurisdiction, were paid for out of the Imperial Exchequer. Also, the receipts from the English County Courts exceeded the amounts paid, which was not the case with the Scotch Courts. With regard to Fort William, the erection of the buildings was very strongly supported from the locality. The plans and estimates were resisted by his right hon. Friend and by the Treasury for a long time; but as the alterations they suggested were found to be utterly impracticable, they gave way. He understood that there had been some increase in the cost of building materials, which explained the revised Estimate.

said, he was disappointed at the remarks made by the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) with regard to the Court House at Fort William. The local authorities gave the matter their most careful consideration, and it was found necessary to apply to the Treasury in order to get a new Court House. It was thought that the county of Argyll, which would benefit by the work, would have come forward and taken a share of the expense, but they utterly refused to do so; and the end of it was that the county of Inverness had been saddled with half of the cost, although part of the business of the county of Argyll was carried on there. He did not think his hon. Friend (Mr. Ramsay), remembering the part he took in the matter, would have fired this last shot at the county of Inverness. He must say, on behalf of the Inverness authorities, that they had no wish whatever to go to the expense of building Court Houses which were not re- quired, and in this case it was undoubtedly a fact that the necessary accommodation did not exist. As to the £3,400, it was only half of that sum that the Government were called upon to pay; and with regard to the business of the Fort William Court, litigation in the Highlands was not so extensive as in the large towns further South; but, still, it was necessary that in a wide district like that there should be suitable provision for the conduct of civil and criminal business, and he maintained that the proposed buildings were not more than the circumstances required.

wished to say that it was not his intention to impugn the action of the Home Secretary or the Commissioners of Supply for the county of Inverness. The facts mentioned by his hon. Friend were quite correct. He did fight the battle of the county of Argyll, and he fought it successfully, against the erection of a useless building at Fort William. He called it useless, because it was useless as regarded the county of Argyll; and the truth of his remark was proved by the fact that that county was not held liable for any portion of the expense. He did not think the number of cases tried at Fort William justified the erection of that Court House, at the expense of either Inverness or Argyll. The judicial statistics and the return of business which came before the Court at that station showed that there was little or no business done. He had, however, no desire that Fort William should be denied the £1,750; but he did not think that the system of extending to England the payment of the full amount was justified by the fees being so great in the County Courts. Although a greater amount of fees was paid, the question was left in the same position, as he would be able to show if he had before him the necessary statistics.

thought it would be desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should inform the Committee whether the new Courts would be completed within the time specified? If he were unable to do this, perhaps he could state what part of the Courts would be occupied during the present year, and, if possible, when they were likely to be finally completed and ready for the transaction of public business?

said, that the Law Courts were divided into two parts, and that the eastern wing was finished and ready for occupation. With regard to the main body of the building, a work of great magnitude, the terms of the contract were that it should be completed within the year 1880; but he could not state whether that would be effected.

thought that the right hon. Gentleman, in giving information upon the subject of the new Law Courts, which it was most important that the country should receive, had omitted to say whether he could form any opinion as to when the west wing of the building would be completed, so as to enable the more important Courts o occupy their respective positions. The original Estimate of cost for the wing was two sums of £750,000, making a total of £1,500,000. On the other hand, the expenditure up to the present time had been £1,406,000, so that there remained something short of £100,000 to complete the whole work of the west wing. Did the right hon. Gentleman calculate that the whole original Estimate of £3,000,000 would be exceeded? Perhaps he would inform the Committee whether the original would be much increased, and when the west wing would be finished and opened for public business?

said, it was impossible to say at the moment when the west wing would be completed. Many things had occurred to retard the progress of the work—such as strikes and frosts—and it was, of course, possible that other circumstances might arise to prevent its completion within the contract time. He (Mr. Gerard Noel) did not look forward to its completion before the year 1881. It was true that the original Estimate for that part of the building was £750,000; but a second Estimate of £826,000 was subsequently made, and there was at present no sign that the latter sum would be exceeded.

desired to call attention to an old complaint of his with regard to the pay of four companies of Sappers employed upon the Survey of the United Kingdom. The regular military pay and allowances of these men was defrayed by the War Department; but their extra pay came from the Estimate then before the Committee. And instead of all the charges being paid for by the Estimate drawn out by the Board of Works, and all borne by the country generally, it was divided between the Army and Civil charges. He trusted that the Secretary to the Treasury would bear that fact in mind when he brought the subject—as he (Sir George Balfour) hoped he would—before that Department, in next year's Estimates. Again, he did not think that the annual Report of the Survey was presented in due time and in sufficient detail to satisfy the inquiries made about that Survey. The work was one of great value; and Members were constantly asking what progress was being made in the Survey of different parts of the country? It would, therefore, be well, in his opinion, to have a clear and distinct statement of the progress made included in an annual Statement, as also the future plans for work. The country had gone to a great expense in preparing admirable Surveys of the Kingdom, and they were constantly told that England was far in advance of other countries in the excellence of its Surveys; but having incurred the expense they took care, by high charges, to prevent the maps, and valuable information collected by the outlay of millions, from getting into use. If the Secretary to the Treasury desired a complete set of maps of his own county he would have to pay £18 or £20 for it. When the excellence of the maps was considered he agreed that £18 was not much to pay for them, but it was a large sum in itself; and he thought that every hon. Member should be encouraged to have a complete map of his county. At all events, the Government could afford to supply the maps for about one-eighth of that amount. By this means the issue of the maps would be very considerably enlarged; while the Government would be at no extra cost for carrying on the preparation of the other maps of the Survey. He trusted that the Secretary to the Treasury would attend to his suggestions.

said, that with regard to the first point, so long as the Sappers, and non-commissioned officers of Sappers, remained soldiers they were subject to the discipline of the Army, and could not be treated as belonging to the Civil Service as well. The result which the hon. and gallant Gentleman wished was that soldiers should become merely Civil servants of this particular Department. It was impossible to place them in that position so long as they remained in the Army; and they could not, therefore, be placed upon the Civil Service Votes. With respect to the reduction of the charge for the Survey, he might point out that the price was reduced, in 1866, from 5s. to 2s. 6d. per sheet; but that Sir Henry James, who had the management of the Department, was opposed to any further reduction; his opinion being that any further reduction would result in a great loss to the country. At the same time, the hon. and gallant Gentleman might rest assured that he would look into the case, with a view to seeing if any further reduction could be made in the price of the Survey.

observed, that he could answer the objections of the Secretary to the Treasury by stating that there were two conditions under which it was said soldiers were subjected to military law, and these were simple; one being if they received pay, it was said they were subject to military law; and the other was that if they had been duly "listed," they were also subject. It did not depend on how they were employed. Both conditions were applicable to the Sappers employed in the Survey, so that their liability would be the same as if they did not receive pay. But he could see no objection to their pay being taken over by the Civil Service and refunded to the War Office. With respect to the other point about the cost of maps, he might say that he had had some discussion with Sir Henry James—whose death he much regretted, and whose valuable services to the Government he was anxious to acknowledge—and if the hon. Gentleman had known that lamented officer, he would not have been surprised at the objection taken by him against lowering the price. He might say that he had been into the question of the price, and the necessity of keeping it at 2s. 6d., and his opinion was that it might be very well reduced more than half. Moreover, if the Survey maps were wanted for one county, then the sale of maps of other counties would, if sold at cost price, keep the Department at Southampton in work; but there were many ways of economizing—for instance, a very large sum, indeed, had to be paid with regard to the laying out of money on account of stores for the Department. He hoped that an examination would be made into the amount of stores in hand, and that more care would be taken of them. At present, he did not know how they were examined; but formerly, when under the War Office, they were all looked at within every five years. In his opinion, it was of great importance to look after these things with exactness and regularity; for in that way money now largely invested in stores might be curtailed, so as to allow of maps being sold cheaper than at present.

was much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for his suggestions, which he would bear in mind.

observed, that there was a great deal of confusion in the manner in which these accounts dealt with the Science and Art Museum at South Kensington. When examined, it would be found that the accounts were so dexterously arranged that it was altogether impossible to tell where money was being spent. They only dealt in that place with the Science and Art, apart from building. The Art Library was originally estimated to cost £80,000; but now it seemed it would cost the country £160,000. This Estimate was taken under the head of "New Buildings." As he understood, a part of that—namely, £16,000—was proposed to be taken towards the £80,000 which had been voted for the Art Library. The Art Library re-appeared in these Accounts, having been once before voted, and the money expended. Then there was the sketch, which for many years had been running through the accounts. He wished to ask whether there was any hope of getting rid of that item? It was to cost £3,000, and they had already paid £1,200, and it would be a satisfaction to know if there was any period at which the sketch now being made by Sir Frederick Leighton would be finished. With regard to the works of internal decoration, they found that students were employed on them, and that a grant of money was voted by the House for the decoration, painting walls, and so on. Towards that, £1,560 was voted; but later on appeared the item of £2,000 or £3,000 towards the work done by these students. He would like to know whether that work was internal decoration, or how the money was to be spent? Whether it was for the Science and Art Department or the Museum? If that information were furnished, it would serve to give them some sort of notion as to whether the money was being properly spent. The sum of £16,000 was asked for New Buildings, and £2,555 for maintenance; but there were other sums asked on account of works of internal decoration, in addition to the fatuous sketch of Sir Frederick Leighton. He should like the right hon. Gentleman to give some kind of promise that the works at South Kensington would be put into such order that they could understand more about them, and hon. Members might be enabled to appreciate the Estimates with less difficulty. He confessed, that after looking into the matter with some care, in order to determine what criticisms to offer, it was impossible to fully understand the accounts, by reason of the manner in which the items were stated. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether the £16,000 proposed to be used during the year 1879–80 would come under that head C, and also inform them when they might hope that the sketch of Sir Frederick Leighton, which had been going on for so many years, would come to an end?

said, that in 1876, as hon. Gentlemen were aware, an Estimate was placed before the House for £80,000 on account of the Art Library, and some portion of that was proposed to be voted that year. With regard to the item of £800 voted, it was for the enlargement of the sketch by Sir Frederick Leighton, which he was happy to say would be completed before the end of the year. With regard to the works of internal decoration, they were for the refreshment room and other parts of the building.

inquired, whether it was not true that all the designs for internal decoration were made by pupils at South Kensington? A very heavy charge was made a year or two ago for those designs, and it seemed to him that they never came to an end. Sometimes they got it under that head, and sometimes under the head of Education at South Kensington, and not for Science and Art expenses at all. It would be satisfactory to know how these matters were paid for. Were those students paid under the head of Education, or that of Science and Art, or were they not paid at all?

said, that it was true that the designs for the Science and Art Museum Buildings were originated by students in that Department.

asked what was the nature of the sketch to which allusion had been made?

said, that he had seen the sketch on the occasion of an inspection he had made at South Kensington. It was an allegorical illustration of war, and was well worthy of the eminent artist by whom it was being executed, and of the position in which it would be placed.

had been anxious to know what it was from some hon. Member who had seen it; he understood now that it was a sketch for the purpose of decorating the walls of the Library, and was the work of Sir Frederick Leighton, P.R.A.

wished to resume the criticisms which he had been carrying on for some years on these buildings. He was very glad to see his hon. Friend in his place; for when he occupied the position of Assistant Secretary to the Privy Council he made a statement which had turned out not to be accurate. He stated that the Natural History Museum would cost the sum of£350,000, and no more. Two years ago, he (Mr. E. Jenkins) had called attention to the fact that that sum had been exceeded; for last year, in addition to the Estimate of £350,000, a further amount was voted, making the cost for the buildings alone amount to the sum of £395,000. Further than that, £177,750 was intended to be taken for the internal fittings, and the Committee would thus see that it had been deluded into spending £220,000 over and above the original Estimate. His hon. Friend did not seem to recollect what he said on a former occasion, to the effect that it was certain that the shell of the buildings would be finished at the revised Estimate of £395,000. Having himself examined the buildings on that occasion, he had expressed an opinion that they would not be finished for the sum in question; but the hon. Gentleman had assured the Committee that they would be finished for £395,000. Now they found that there was a revised Estimate for £47,476 for additional works. It seemed that these buildings had been made into a kind of home for lost dogs, or a cattle market, for there were sheds and a tall manufacturing chimney; in fact, it was one of the most extraordinary public buildings that had ever been seen in that or any other country. The point was this—the House had been led into expending, first, £350,000, and then, on a revised Estimate, were assured that £395,000 would complete the work, and now they had a further Estimate of £47,476 for more outside buildings, in addition to which there was a sum of £177,750 to be spent on internal fittings, besides the amount to be paid for the sketch of Sir Frederick Leighton. It was trifling to deal with the House in that way. If £1,000,000 was intended to be laid out upon the work, it would have been better to have informed the House at the outset. It was a part of the extraordinary way South Kensington had of conducting its affairs. First, the foundations were laid, and a sum of money was spent on them; and when people saw that nothing more was being done, a further sum was spent upon those foundations, and then other Votes were taken, and the House was gradually drawn on to an enormous expendi- ture. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £5,000.

observed, that the hon. Member was quite right in saying that the Estimates had been revised; but it had been absolutely necessary that they should be. The original Estimate was only intended for the shell of the Natural History Museum; but circumstances had arisen which had caused the original sum to be greatly exceeded.

asked if the total expenditure would exceed £588,000? In his opinion, the hon. Member for Dundee was perfectly right in raising this question. When they came to a total of £588,000, the matter assumed serious proportions; and he wished to know whether that sum would cover the entire completion of the buildings?

said, that the revised Estimate for the buildings was £409,000, and they would be completed for that sum, and would be ready within six weeks from the present time.

said, that the total sum spent was, therefore, £588,000.

said, that in addition to the £409,000 forming the revised Estimate, there would be a further sum to be provided for fittings.

inquired how much the amount to be spent on internal fittings would exceed £177,000?

asked if the sums estimated included any allowance for removal of collections?

said, they would cover the cost of removal; but no provision had been made for the reception of the collections.

drew attention to the comprehensive manner in which those Estimates were prepared, and the very superior plan adopted with regard to the Estimates for money spent on the Courts of Justice. The whole of the vast expenditure for the Natural History Museum was lumped together in large amounts, without any of the subsidiary details of those several lumps of money. The practice of Parliament required that each item should be broken up and the component parts detailed. He thought that information similar to that given with respect to the Courts of Justice, in at least as minute detail, should also be given with respect to this Museum outlay.

wished to ask how much the towers would cost? These towers had been discarded by the hon. Gentleman's Predecessor; but it was now stated that they had been found necessary. Was it the case that a whale or a sea-serpent was to be hung up there? As so much had been added to the Estimates last year, he thought they should have further information as to the purpose for which the money was required. For his own part, he did not for one moment grudge money spent for making a home for those great collections; but he did object, and protest, against a system of gradually bringing the country into great expenses, which were never contemplated at the outset. It was now stated that £588,000 would complete the buildings; but he should like to know whether, if he moved for the Estimates, the original Estimates, and the various revised Estimates, his right hon. Friend would furnish them to the House?

explained that he should not have taken part in the last Division had his hon. Friend been able to obtain some information with regard to the large increase in this Vote. Even now he did not fully understand the position as to the towers, which it seemed were formerly rejected. It was a very unsatisfactory thing when plans were first adopted, then rejected, and then re-accepted. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would cause drawings of the Museum to be placed in the Library or the Tea Room of the House showing the towers, so that Members might judge of the effect of the restoration?

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not ask him to do this. To prepare the plans in the way indicated would cause some expense; while the hon. Gentleman would be able to see all that he understood him to want if he would visit the Museum now in course of erection.

asked whether the towers were in course of erection?

replied that they were now being built.

said, it would answer all he wanted, if he went and looked at them.

said, he did not at all wish to oppose this Vote. He only desired to make one or two comments on it, and to ask a question about it. He found it was an instalment of £20,000 out of a total grant of £80,000 for University buildings in Edinburgh. He entirely approved of the Vote. He thought it was a very proper thing for the Government to give money in aid of a Scotch University, particularly as he believed the University was in accordance with the wishes of the people of Scotland, and their desire, as expressed by the majority of the population. The only condition of this Vote of £80,000 was that not less than £92,000 should be raised by private subscription for the erection of the buildings. He wished the Government to point out where the distinction lay between Scotland and Ireland. In the latter country several sums had been raised for a University, not so large as £92,000, perhaps, but still very large subscriptions. As to the wishes of the people of Ireland, though, perhaps, they were not quite so unanimous in their washes as the people of Scotland, yet, practically, they were unanimous in desiring that their sons should be educated. He wished to know whether, if at any future time a similarly large sum were raised in Ireland towards University buildings, the Government would be as ready to aid the Irish people in erecting a University as they had been anxious to do in Scotland? He would also like to ask whether, if Irish Members were willing to agree that a certain sum of money from the Church Funds should be devoted to University buildings, the Government would be willing to give aid out of the Imperial Funds in the same proportion as that followed in the case of this grant? Supposing that Irish Members agreed that £92,000 should be voted out of the Church Funds, would Government give £80,000 out of the Imperial Funds? [Laughter.] Well, hon. Members might laugh; but this was a serious question. The Government helped the people in Scotland to build their University; and when they were asked to apply the same principle to Ireland, they only laughed—for the laughter, as he saw, began on the Government Bench. It seemed to him to be a case in point. They were voting large sums for University education in Scotland, and leaving the people of Ireland without any University education which they could accept.

said, he could assure the hon. and gallant Member that the only thing which had raised a smile on his part was the ingenious proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for devoting certain public funds to the purposes of a Catholic University. The case at present before the Committee was not a case in which public funds had been so appropriated; but it was one in which private enterprise had been met by a grant in aid from the Government. The real reason why this Vote was agreed to for Edinburgh University was that the University itself was built originally with public money. It was erected between 1812 and 1827 out of a grant of public money, and the present Vote was simply a grant in aid for the enlargement of the late building. He thought there was some distinction to be drawn between the enlargement of an existing building, originally founded with Government money, and the erection of an entirely new one. At the same time, it would, perhaps, be safer to wait until a large sum had been raised in Ireland for this particular purpose before the Government expressed an opinion on the course they would take; because he should not like to shut himself out from relieving the Irish people in the same way that the Scotch people had been relieved. At the same time, he must remark that the Irish people had not shown the same enthusiasm on the subject that had been exhibited in Scotland.

said, this was far too serious a matter to be passed over in this way. He understood the reasoning of the hon. Gentleman to be that Scotland having once got a great deal, was there- fore to get a great deal more; but that, none having ever been given to Ireland, she must not expect to get any now. The second argument was that the Irish people had not shown the same enthusiasm as the Scotch for the cause of education by raising a large sum of money. The hon. Gentleman was wrong. A considerable sum of money had been raised in Ireland; and though, of course, it was not sufficient by itself to found a University, yet it was a considerable sum, and more would doubtless soon be collected if it were known that the Government would come forward with a grant of a corresponding sum, as was the case in Scotland. It would be very important, indeed, if the Government would tell them that they would treat Ireland in the same way that they had treated Scotland; and it would also be a very great encouragement towards private subscriptions in Ireland, where a great deal had been already done under every possible disadvantage. He did not really think the Government were treating the Irish people with fairness in this matter. At the same time, he would cheerfully vote this money for Scotland, because he believed the University teaching given in that country was in accordance with the wishes of the people.

would not have risen but for the answer of the hon. Gentleman; but there was a fallacy underlying the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) which ought not to have escaped the notice of the Front Bench. He did not for a moment wish to throw cold water on the enthusiasm of the Irish people for University education; but he did wish to point out that the two cases were essentially different. The £92,000 raised towards the Edinburgh University had been subscribed by persons of all denominations—by persons of almost all denominations, in fact—for the purpose of providing a general University for the non-sectarian education of the Scotch youth. His hon. and gallant Friend, therefore, answered himself completely, when he proposed that a subscription for a Catholic University should be treated in the same manner. If he came to that House with a proposition for a subscription for a University for all Ireland, he was sure the House would listen to his proposal with respect; and, if necessary, no doubt, a very large sum would be granted to assist the general education of the people of Ireland. But his hon. and gallant Friend cut the ground from under his own feet the moment he asked for a subscription for a Catholic University. If that were granted, the Presbyterians of Ireland might ask the same thing, and the Churchmen; and, indeed, he did not see why the Plymouth Brethren should not have a University of their own. He was simply pointing out the distinction between the two cases; while he desired, at the same time, to guard himself very carefully from being supposed to take any hostile view against any proposition of a reasonable character which might be made to the House for the purpose of enabling the Roman Catholic youth of Ireland to obtain a University education. Any proposals of that sort of a reasonable character would receive his support.

said, the whole proposition reduced itself to this—that Catholics were to be obliged to subscribe to Secular Universities because they were the best. He did not admit that they were the best; although, undoubtedly, they were the best for Secularists, just as Catholic Universities were the best for Catholics, and Protestant Universities for Protestants. It was another question of how far the Scotch Universities were strictly secular. His own opinion was that they were not. But, however that might be, he did maintain now, and always should, that while Secularists were entitled to have their Universities, they had no right to force them on other people, who did not like them, and would not use them, and yet have to support them.

said, £4,000 was estimated as the increase in the receipts at Holyhead Harbour above what was received last year. Did that arise from an expected increase in the amount of traffic, or from an increase in the charges made for the harbour?

said, the amount consisted, for the most part, of harbour dues.

said, two Sessions ago he raised various objections to the expenditure on these harbours under the Board of Trade; and a promise was then given him that the money required for repairs to Dover Pier should not be expended until an opportunity had been given for ascertaining the cause of the great damage done to Dover Harbour by the storm on 1st January, 1877. He therefore moved for the Papers on the subject, those laid before Parliament not being complete; and, after considerable trouble, Lord Norton (who was then Sir Charles Adderley, and the head of the Board of Trade) gave him access to the official documents in the Office. He marked all the Papers likely to be of public use to the House of Commons on the subject, as it was agreed that he should disregard all those containing the reports of the petty quarrels which were to be found in them. His object in making the selection was not at all to object to the money being spent in repairing the damage done to the pier; for, after erecting the pier at an enormous cost, they were, of course, bound to repair it. His sole object was to ascertain the cause of a part of the parapet being washed away—whether owing to defective work, or to defects in the design—and to find out how this heavy expense could be avoided for the future. For this purpose he examined all the Office Reports on the subject, and marked the portions of public interest suitable for publication. They had not, however, been published; and he submitted that there had been a breach of faith in the Government going on spending this money without enabling Parliament to ascertain the real cause of the defects of that very costly work. He urged this complaint against the withholding of these Papers; because, knowing how important it was that the country should get more harbours constructed, he knew, also, that they could not expect to get them built until they got rid of the ignorance and inexperience, as shown in the many mistakes and blunders which the engineers had made in designing and constructing sea-coast harbours. He was so satisfied that the pier, as designed at Dover, was defective, that he offered, at the time, to accompany the President of the Board of Trade to that place, in order that he might see that the plan of the work was defective from the first. There was now no need to make a secret of this opinion. The engineer who designed the harbour had long since been dead, and his memory might, therefore, be left to take care of itself. But for his blunders in laying out the pier the damage done in January, 1877, would never have been committed. No one could go down to that pier without being struck by the way in which certain portions of the parapet had been swept away, while others had been preserved; the remarkable fact being that the outermost end, which was most exposed to the action of the waves, had been preserved; whereas that which was nearer to the land had not been preserved. The portion of the pier on the land end had not been affected—merely the part swept away between it and the further end which had escaped. The information which he had found collected in the records of the country about the harbours of England was very extensive, and they ought to turn it to account; and the defective design of the Dover Pier, as shown by the concealed records of the Board of Trade, would have added to that useful knowledge. If they did not benefit by the mistakes and blunders which they had made in the past, they should have a still greater expenditure to bear; and instead of £10,000,000, which the Returns he (Sir George Balfour) had moved for as the public expenditure wasted on harbours, they might have to pay £24,000,000 or £30,000,000 in attempting to make harbours which could not be constructed because of the want of practical experience as to how sea works ought to be laid out. He, therefore, objected to this Dover expenditure until the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Secretary to the Board of Trade, had examined the Office Papers. If he would look at them—and he would find his pencil marks still on them—he would then be able to judge whether this contention was unreasonable in asking for these Papers, and whether a grave lesson was not to be learnt from these defects in the works at Dover.

remarked, that however much they might have spent on the original construction of Dover Harbour, there must also be an occasional expenditure for repairs. Remembering the tremendous storm which raged there in 1877, the only wonder in his mind was that a greater damage was not done to the pier. As it had to be repaired, he thought it would have been better economy to have spent the money at once, than to have spread the expenditure over two or three years. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had made some remarks about the great cost of harbours generally; but, for his part, he thought it was a pity the Government did not spend more money on harbours, as he believed their construction would greatly benefit the commerce of the country.

said, he would gladly go down to Dover with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southampton (Mr. Giles), and he would show him the badness of the design, so that he could see it with his own eyes. As to the suggestion that they ought to spend more money on their harbours, why there were already harbours on every part of the coast which had gone to wrack and ruin. Was not Dunbar Harbour a failure? Was not that going down as fast as over it could! Let them ask the late hon. Member for Haddington, who went down to that harbour itself and saw and admitted the ruin. Where was Port Patrick and Wick? He could bring before the House a statement of some 35 harbours in various parts of the country, of which he did not think there were two in good order. He was a warm supporter of harbours—the country needed many more. But could the House be surprised that he wished to see the money of the country properly applied in future, instead of being wasted as in the past; and then, that he rose to protest against any more money being wasted on this Dover Harbour for repairs, which were rendered necessary entirely by the fault in the design? As to the way in which the money was spent, he agreed that it would have been better to have done the work at once, instead of spreading it over a series of years; but the Treasury must decide that, and if they chose to take the latter course, they must bear the fault of it.

was willing to admit that the hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken (Sir George Balfour) knew more than he did about Dover Harbour. He would, however, endeavour to answer one or two remarks which had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member. If there had been any want of courtesy since he (Mr. J. G. Talbot) had had the honour of a seat at the Board of Trade, it was quite unintentional on his part; and it was certainly not the case that from any such cause the Reports referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman had not been presented to the House. He would also apologize by anticipation if it should be considered that the information which he might be able to afford upon the question then under consideration, in the absence of the President of the Board of Trade, was not as satisfactory as it might have been. The damage done to the harbour at Dover had been occasioned by a storm of exceptional severity, which occurred on New Year's Day, 1872; and hon. Members would be aware that, whatever the science and skill of man might do, there were forces of Nature which they could never hope to resist; and that, consequently, however strong they might make their works, some of them must at times give way. It had been complained that they had not spent the whole sum of money needed at one time; but had Her Majesty's Government asked for the whole sum, they would have been charged with the greatest extravagance. The harbour, however, could not be repaired in a day; and it was thought useless to vote more money than could be spent in the course of the year. The Government were acting under the advice of one of the most experienced engineers of the day—Sir John Hawkshaw—and up to the 31st of March, 1878, £35,000 had been expended in restoring the structure.

was sure hon. Members would be thankful for the little information which had been given to the Committee on the subject of the repairs to Dover Harbour by the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. J. G. Talbot). He wished to ask, with reference to the amount included in the Estimates for repairs to the harbour at Holyhead, whether that large additional expenditure was on account of any special damage, or whether it was to make good the decay in the works which had been going on for so long? Hon. Members knew that the works at Holyhead had swallowed up an enormous sum of money, and naturally felt cautious when called upon to grant further sums for the same purpose.

said, that the breach in the work sat Holy head had been made by a heavy storm during the late winter. He reminded the Committee that in moving for a Supplementary Vote for this harbour he had warned, them that there would be further expenditure in the coming year. It could not be allowed to remain unattended to, and had therefore been stopped.

observed, that having already said so much about Dover Pier, it was useless to repeat the words in order to meet the remarks of the Secretary to the Board of Trade.

remarked, that this Vote had come on rather unexpectedly; and that, as there were very few Irish Members present, he thought it would be well if the Government were to consent to its consideration being postponed to another occasion.

saw force in the appeal of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. M. Brooks), that the Vote should be postponed until a larger number of Irish Members should be present. He was, therefore, quite willing to accede to his proposal.

remarked that there were two sums charged for the expenses of the lighthouse at Sombrero which required explanation. Again, there was a charge for the maintenance and repairs of a tender. He wished to know what were the expenses referred to? He was of opinion that it would be much more satisfactory if the charge for maintenance of the tender were kept perfectly separate from that of the repairs.

said, he was not at the moment in a position to give much information on the subject. There were two light-keepers at Sombrero, both of whom were Natives of the West Indies. He would endeavour to furnish further information.

said, he had not asked his question by way of a joke; and he repeated his opinion that the sum for maintenance and repairs of the tender being a large one—£2,000—it would be more satisfactory that they should be kept separate.

regretted that the Secretary to the Board of Trade was not in a position to give the desired information; and as the amount referred to by the hon. Member for Penrhyn (Mr. D. Jenkins) was, in his opinion, also a large sum to spend upon a small tender, he suggested that the consideration of the subject should be postponed, until the information could be furnished.

said, that the charge for the maintenance and repairs of the tender had always been placed in the Estimates in the form in which it then appeared. He agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. D. Jenkins) that it was quite right that the items should be kept distinct and separate. He had not understood the hon. Member to object to the manner in which the work was done.

said, the tender Richmond made the round of the lighthouses once a-week to carry oil and other necessaries for the relief of the light-keepers. There was also a small schooner employed.

repeated his request that the separate items of maintenance and repair of the tender should be furnished.

promised that the specific items should be given on Report.

suggested that some account should be given at once.

hoped that at the same time an explanation would be afforded of the charge for freight for the light-house in question.

thought it quite time that the nation should have at Berlin, the capital of the first country in the world, a suitable house in which to lodge its Ambassador. He therefore asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposed to do anything in the matter? It would be remembered that in the case of Vienna, owing to the delay of the Government in accepting the advice of our former Ambassador, both the building and the site were much more costly than they would otherwise have been. He feared that the same result would follow with regard to Berlin. It was also to be remarked that we continued to spend very large sums at Constantinople upon the Embassy, and he would be glad to hear that it was now in a more satisfactory condition than heretofore. If he remembered rightly, about three years ago the Predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman sent out an Inspector to these works, and the result was that hon. Members were informed that a considerable economy would in future be effected in the repairs. The Palace at Constantinople had cost us much more than the Embassy House at Paris.

said, he had been asked a question two years ago about the house at Berlin. At that time a surveyor was sent out, and three houses were offered; but the price asked for them was so exorbitant that it was decided not to purchase them. The house at present occupied by our Ambassador at Berlin was rented for 10 years from 1876, so that there was time for considering the question of building a new Embassy. The hon. Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid) was rather in error as to the expense that was going on at Constantinople, for it would be seen that the cost of maintaining the Palace had decreased during the last two years; the expenditure of the present year being £1,416, as compared with that of 1878–9, which amounted to £1,617.

thought the right hon. Gentleman was thankful for small reductions; but he (Mr. Rylands) thought that the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid) was entitled to some further information than that which had been given. He was quite aware that it was true that there were some reductions in the cost of the Constantinople Embassy from last year, and had no intention of disputing that fact, as they all knew that the expenditure for a particular purpose was very much larger in some years than it was in others; but the fact remained that this Palace at Therapia had been for many years the most expensive and costly of all the buildings belonging to the British Crown. The cost of the building was fabulous; and it had been maintained every year by the expenditure of thousands. There had been appliances to protect it from fire; but when the Palace was in flames they were found to be entirely out of order—the building, which had cost £150,000, was burnt down, and we proceeded to erect another Palace. This was done at the expenditure of a large sum of money; and if the right hon. Gentleman would look at the Vote under consideration he would see that it was not for the re-building of the Palace, but simply for the maintenance of the new building, which ought to cost very little for repairs. It would be found that we paid for special work £150 a-year, and for the maintenance and repairs £600, so that for anew building we were asked to pay £750 since last year. In saying this, he was leaving out all the expenses of the Embassy, which also amounted to an enormous expenditure; but over and above all this, they were actually paying a Superintendent of Works £450 a-year. They were actually paying that sum to a person for superintending what had been only recently erected in place of that which had been burned, down through the carelessness and neglect of a staff that had become so numerous as to be a perfect scandal by itself. These facts were a remarkable commentary on the observations of the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid). It was a very remarkable fact that last year, when his hon. Friend called attention to the maintaining of that establishment, he was told that the Superintendent of Works was about to be withdrawn. Notwithstanding that, they were again asked to vote the salary. No doubt, it was supposed in former periods that the possession of an English Embassy in Turkey was a measure which had a great and important bearing on British interests; and it was then considered necessary to maintain a great establishment in order that the Sultan might look up to England as being the Power upon whose judgment and whose will the Sultan was to place his principal reliance. Now, that state of things had changed, and the Sultan had very little influence. No man to-day could suppose for a moment that anything could be done by the Sultan so as to interfere with the course of European politics. The Sultan was now a poor wretched Sovereign who had lost nearly all the influence which he formerly possessed. They could not even deal with him in reference to Egypt, yet they kept an Ambassador there with a salary for a Prince, and who was surrounded by a number of officials whose salaries and charges added very materially to the diplomatic expenditure. He (Mr. Rylands) really did think that the time had come when they ought to deal with that great sham of Constantinople Embassies, which cost the country so many thousands a-year, and he thought they ought to cut down, first of all, the expenditure of that Palace. He must say that he should be very glad to see that Palace sold; and he should be very glad to see a very large number of the officials, who were now kept at Constantinople at high salaries, disposed of in the meantime. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he considered the keeping up the salary of the Superintendent of Works there—a salary of £450 a-year, in order to look after the maintenance of that new building—was a thing that was scarcely creditable to the Office over which he presided. They were told, he thought last year, that the position of the Superintendent of Works was only temporary, and would probably be withdrawn at an early period; but now he found that the officer was still there, and, of course, so long as they gave a man £450 a-year to look after those works, he must find work to look after. He thought the best way to run up a bill for building repairs, architects' charges, and all sorts of charges, was to have a gentleman at a salary, whose duty consisted in finding out that extensions and improvements were wanted. He would strongly recommend the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the salary of the Superintendent of Works, and to cut down the expenditure of the Embassy as much as possible.

observed, that from the remarks of his hon. Friend it might be supposed that the cost of the Embassy at Constantinople had been increased. The contrary was the case. As compared with other Embassies, the expenses of the Palace at Constantinople was not exorbitant. If hon. Gentlemen would examine the accounts, it would be found that the expense at Paris, for instance, was much greater. The cost at Constantinople was between £400 or £500 a-year, and he did not think that that was much. The price of materials and labour at Constantinople were far higher than at Paris or London; therefore, more must be spent upon repairs at Constantinople than at the other Embassies. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in his recollection of what had occurred last year with regard to the Superintendent. He then told him that he would consider whether he was to be maintained at Constantinople. He had been maintained there for several years, because works had been going on which required a first-class person to superintend them. Those works were now completed, and the withdrawal of the official in question had been decided upon; and it had been further arranged to appoint a person, at a salary of about £150 a-year, to overlook the whole of the work at Constantinople.

thought that the sum required for maintaining and keeping in good order the Palace at Constantinople was very considerable, and much greater than that spent at Paris. With regard to what had been said as to the cost of labour being greater at Constantinople than at Paris that was not correct, although it was true that the price of materials was greater. Then, again, in Paris, although the Embassy was a much older house than that at Constantinople, yet it was in a much more satisfactory condition. Since the right hon. Gentleman had expressed an intention of withdrawing the Superintendent, he could not understand how it was that the Committee was still asked to vote his salary.

observed, that the hon. Member for Rochester was incorrect in putting the cost of the Constanti- nople Embassy so high as he had. With regard to the salary of the Superintendent, it was true that he was to be removed from Constantinople; but he would still have to be maintained in some new appointment, and the other surveyor would also have to be paid. The Superintendent now at Constantinople would be put upon the establishment in another place at a reduced salary, for he was paid a large amount at Constantinople on account of the expense of living there.

said, he would still like to know how it was that the Committee was asked to vote the salary of £450 for the Superintendent who was intended to be withdrawn? They were told that the gentleman at £450 a-year was to be removed, and someone else at £150 a-year was to be appointed. He did not think that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman as to the continuance of the sum of £450 in the Votes was at all satisfactory. Why was that sum continued in the Votes, when the person to whom it was paid was to be recalled and dismissed?

stated, that the Estimates were framed in November and December, and it had only within the last few weeks been decided to withdraw the Superintendent from Constantinople; and although he was to be removed, a certain reduced salary would still have to be paid to him in England, as he would be retained upon the establishment of the Office of Works.

said, that the decision had therefore been come to before the Estimates had been moved. It was perfectly open to the right hon. Gentleman to move for a smaller sum, or to inform the Committee that it was asked to vote a salary which was not intended to be paid. He did not think that a business-like course had been adopted in the present case; and he thought it justified the observations which hon. Members had thought proper to make upon the matter.

re-iterated that the Estimates were decided upon and printed in November and December, and that the decision as to the removal of this gentleman had only been arrived at some few weeks since.

asked why an allowance of £500 a-year in lieu of residence was made to the Clerk of the House of Lords? The Assistant Clerk had a salary of £1,800 a-year, and in addition was allowed £300 per annum for his official residence at 20, Old Palace Yard. He was sure that in the palatial building in which they were assembled there must be ample room for the residences for the Clerk of Parliaments and the Assistant Clerk. It seemed to him that in buildings which had cost so much money and contained so many separate rooms, there ought to be found an official residence for all the Clerks of Parliament, as well for those belonging to the House of Lords as for those belonging to the House of Commons, He should be glad to know why, if the Clerk of that House was provided with an official residence, the Clerk of Parliaments connected with the House of Lords should have no residence, but £500 a-year allowed to him in lieu of one?

could not inform the hon. Member why those officials were not provided with residences within that building like the officers of the House of Commons. He could only imagine that it was owing to the fact that there was not a sufficient number of residences attached to the House to accommodate all the officers entitled to residences. It was usual to make allowances for houses to those officials for whom there were no residences. In some instances, he believed, similar allowances were made to officials of that House where the accommodation in the building was not sufficient for them.

thought that some further information should be given on this subject; for it was not a question of some subordinate officer being without a residence, but of the two principal officials of the House of Lords, who were certainly entitled to residences in the Palace of Westminster. It was incorrect to say that there was not room for them. If any persons were entitled to residences in the House, it surely was the Clerk of Parliaments and the Assistant Clerk. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could inform the Committee where the non-official residences were situate, and where the Clerk of Parliaments was supposed to reside? In his opinion, the Clerk of Parliaments ought to have an official residence, and that residence should be known. It was an absurd thing to say that there was not room in the House of Lords for the principal official of that House. If no explanation was given on this subject, he should feel it his duty to make a Motion on it upon Report.

said, that the real explanation of this subject was that the rooms provided for these officials had been appropriated, in the interests of the Public Service, for other purposes. He believed that that was done with the sanction of the officers concerned. The residence of the Clerk of Parliaments was in Bruton Street.

felt compelled to enter a protest against such a system, and should be glad if that protest would be seconded by some other hon. Member. He protested against the Clerk of Parliaments of the House of Lords being allowed to reside in his own private residence in Bruton Street. He ought to reside in the Palace of Westminster, just as much as the Clerk of the House of Commons. By residing in that House it was known where they were to be found; and Members ought not to have to go to Bruton Street, or elsewhere, to find the Clerk of Parliaments. It was a most improper practice; and it was a monstrous thing to say that because the Clerk of Parliaments preferred to reside at his private residence, some distance from the House of Lords, he should be allowed to do so, while his official residence and that of the Assistant Clerk were to be appropriated to the use of Public Commissions. There were plenty of rooms in that House and in the House of Lords where Public Commissions and Committees could be held. In the interests of the public, it was most undesirable that these officers should reside in private residences, paid for by the country, when official residences had been erected for them at the public expense.

asked whether the Government had considered the relative scale of pay of the officers of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons? The gentlemen to whom the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had been referring received larger salaries than were paid to the Clerks of that House. The amount of work done by the two sets of officers would not bear comparison for one moment. It was not necessary for him to state that the House of Lords sat only on rare occasions, and that its officers were not overworked; whereas the House of Commons sat very frequently, and for a long time together, and its officers had a very considerable amount of labour and work to go through. When there was that marked difference of salary in favour of the officers of that House, which had very little business, it was a matter of unfairness, which ought to be redressed; and he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he had considered the matter, and had any proposal to make to the House on the subject? The same feeling existed now as had existed for many years past on the subject of those salaries. A re-arrangement of the salaries properly made would not involve the country in any additional expenditure.

remarked, that the matter rested entirely with the House of Commons, and if the House thought that an alteration should be made in the salary of its officers, he would be the last person in the world to resist such an alteration; but at present each House really settled the salaries paid to its own officials. While the House of Commons had no control over the salaries of the officials of the House of Lords, it might, if it pleased, make an alteration and increase the salaries of its own officers. He would remind the hon. Member that it was at the proposal of the House that one of its most respected officials had had his salary increased. His salary was altered on the Motion of the House, and the House had it entirely in its own hands to regulate the salaries of its officials.

wished for some information upon a point of Order. The Secretary to the Treasury had told them that the House of Commons could settle the salaries of its own officers; but he should like to know whether, in that instance, an exception was made to the ordinary rule? Could hon. Members propose that the salaries of the officials of the House should be increased? The general rule was that it was only the Government which could initiate any proposal for an increase of the Estimates; and that a proposal for an increase could only be brought forward in the way which the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid) had made the suggestion.

had not intended to say that hon. Members could act in the way suggested. His meaning was that the Treasury would not stand in the way of an expression of the opinion of the House of Commons on the subject. He had pointed out that the suggestion that the salary of the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Raikes) should be raised came from hon. Members, and that the salary was raised by the Government at the suggestion of the House of Commons. It only rested with the Government to increase the expenditure; but it would be for the House of Commons to express a wish upon the subject.

said, that there was one point in the statement of the hon. Gentleman to which he demurred—namely, that the House of Commons had no right to control the salaries of the officials of the House of Lords. He considered that view entirely erroneous. If the House had no right to control those salaries, they ought to be taken out of the Estimates; but while they remained in, hon. Members of the House had a right to criticize them. He thought the Government should consider what salaries should fairly be appropriated to the different officers, be aringin mind the work to be done.

observed, that the question was how the opinion of the House was to be expressed that the salary of the Clerks should be increased? He did not see how any direct expression was to be given to their opinion; but if anything were to be gathered from the conversation that had taken place in the House upon the topic, it was that the feeling of the House was that the salaries of the gentlemen were now too small. He ventured to hope that the Government would take this conversation, and such explanations as they had been able to give of their feelings upon this occasion, as an expression of opinion of the House that the salaries of the Clerks of the House should be augmented.

said, he thought hon. Members could not help recognizing the very great and valuable services they received from the officers of that House. He should certainly be very much disinclined to deal with officers whose services were of such a valuable character in a niggardly manner. At the same time, they were approaching the subject in a way which was neither convenient nor business-like. His hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Sir. Julian Goldsmid) pointed out that a discrepancy existed between the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords and those of the officers of the House of Commons. He said, very truly, that the officers of the House of Lords had nothing like the same amount of duty to perform as their own; and, therefore, he said that it was an unreasonable thing that their officers should not be paid as much as the officials of the other House. It might be a reasonable thing to bring down the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords to the amount paid to those of the House of Commons. He (Mr. Rylands) did not say whether it was reasonable to increase the salaries of the officers of the House of Commons; but what appeared to him to be the proper course to pursue was this—that the Government should deal with the whole question of the salaries of the officers of both Houses. They ought not to be satisfied with a dull, loose, and desultory conversation such as this—a conversation in which very few hon. Members participated; but, on their responsibility, they should carefully consider the amount of duty performed by the officers in the two Houses; and, as suggested by his hon. Friend (Sir Julian Goldsmid), they ought to prepare a plan under which, if any officers were underpaid, their salaries should be increased, and if any officers were overpaid, their salaries should be diminished. He thought this was a matter in which there would be little difficulty in arriving at a proper arrangement between the two Houses; but it was most undesirable that in regard to the salaries of public officials in any Department whatever that they should, by a discussion such as this, seek to influence Government probably to make changes in salaries which might not be absolutely necessary or justified.

said, he had brought the matter forward on a previous occasion, and then he thought it his duty to institute a comparison between the amount of work done by the officials of the House of Lords and those discharged by the officials of the House of Commons. At the time the salaries were arranged the cost of living was little more than half what it was at present. He believed that inquiry was instituted; and many persons in authority thought that it would be unnecessary to increase the salaries, forsooth, because 20 persons would apply for a vacancy at the present salary. He hardly thought it was fair to bring forward such an argument as that. It was not fair, at all events, to bring it forward as a reason for refusing an advance of salary to men who held positions of trust. It was contrary to usage, so far as he knew, to put up situations—posts, he would rather say, of trust—involving the strictest attention to duty, to public competition, or to offer them to men who would bid the lowest price. If that principle were adopted, the highest officials in the land would have many competitors. He had no doubt that there was not a post in Her Majesty's Government that they would not got 20 gentlemen in England ready to do the work for half the sum that was paid to the present occupant. At the time the Chairman of Committees took his position the comparison was made between that office and the one held by the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords; and that was one of the chief reasons advanced why the salary of the Chairman of Ways and Means should be materially advanced, and no one objected to it at that time. He thought it was hardly fair that the objection should be taken now in the case of men who had barely enough to eke out an existence. Would the Committee grudge a miserable advance to men to whom it would mean the difference between poverty and competence? He regretted that an hon. Gentleman who was essentially a Liberal—the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands)—and who, were a Liberal Administration to come into power, would probably expect to be a Member of it, should, though he always attempted to influence the Government, now declare that he had no wish to influence them in this matter. When the case of these unfortunate officers—many of them connected with that House—who were compelled to strain every point to discharge their duties well, was brought forward, the hon. Gentleman disclaimed all intention of influencing Her Majesty's Government. This was only a part, it was only a sample, of the cheese-paring policy which a Liberal Administration would establish; and he regretted to find that the Government seemed to think that Englishmen would begrudge to give these officials a fair wage for honest work. Let them look at the way the officials were paid at Versailles. They were paid far better in proportion than the officials of that House. He had made inquiries at Berlin, and although Trance and Germany might not claim to be as wealthy as England, still, having regard to the dignity of the several Assemblies, he thought the officials of the House of Commons, at all events, should be placed above a position of want—of straining for existence. Now, what were the facts? One fact was that many officials in that House were compelled to seek work during the Recess. He hardly thought that that was consistent with the dignity of the House of Commons—that its officers should be compelled to be the servant of others, of private individuals. He thought such matters ought to be taken into account; and he ventured to express an earnest hope that the Government would not allow another year to pass over without the increase being made. For his own part, he was satisfied the country would not object to the increase.

said, he should be sorry to see any spirit savouring of parsimony entering into their dealings with the officials of that House; but it struck him this was not the time to propose an increase of salary all round. His hon. Friend who had just spoken was very liberal in his proposals; but he did not say to whom he referred when he spoke of underpaid and starving officials. If, under this pretence of increasing the salaries of starving offi- cials, there was to be an addition made to salaries above £1,000 a-year, he should protest at the present moment, when there was general distress in the country, against anything of the kind being done. It would be very unpopular and unwise a step on the part of the Government to make anything like a general increase in the salaries of the officials of the House.

said, he would like to supplement the remarks just made by the hon. Member for Glasgow by a few words of his own. He understood the cost of living had very much decreased, and, therefore, persons who had fixed salaries were proportionately far better off now than they were a few years ago, when there would have been a much better case in favour of raising salaries. Taking that into account, and the great prostration of trade, and the comparative poverty in the country, he thought great care should be taken before a general increase of salaries was made. He said this, though he had the greatest respect for those officials whose salaries it was proposed to increase.

said, he thought he might safely leave the question of the salaries of the officials of the House of Commons where it was. As to the House of Lords, there was a Committee appointed annually to settle the salaries in that House; and with regard to the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker was Chairman of a Committee, of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a Member, which considered and settled the salaries; and the Treasury never interfered in the matter. The Treasury accepted the Report of the Committee, and the amount was placed in the Estimates. With regard to the House of Lords, which was the point to which the hon. Baronet who introduced this question directed attention last year as well as this year, he would remind him that the House of Lords never came before the Treasury at all. After the Report of the Committee came from the Committee of the Peers it went to the Auditor General for revision; it did not come under the notice of the Treasury at all; and that was in accordance with an arrangement come to as to the fees of the Upper House.

could not quite agree with what had fallen from the hon. Baronet with regard to the Reports of the Committee being final. He could not admit that.

said, he meant so far as the Treasury was concerned.

said, that House had a right to criticize the Reports. He maintained that; and he could not admit the dogma that the Reports were final—that the House of Commons must accept as final any Report brought before the House for consideration. He reserved and claimed the right to criticize freely every item.

protested as strongly as he could against the assumption of the hon. Member that he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had said anything of the nature imputed to him by the hon. Member. He had said that the Treasury accepted as final the Votes of these Committees, and placed them in the Estimates; and he never insinuated that they were not subject to criticism by the House. All he had said was that the Treasury accepted the figures and presented them to the House.

said, then the hon. Baronet admitted his argument—that they had a right to criticize the salaries of the officials of the House of Lords. He thought a great many of the officers of the House of Lords were overpaid, whereas some of the officers of the House of Commons were underpaid. The scale might be arranged fairly with regard to both Departments, and not involve any increase in expenses whatever; and, although the hon. Gentleman refused to control them, he (Sir Julian Goldsmid) said it was his business to control them as Secretary to the Treasury. He thought the Votes for the officers of the House of Lords being on the Paper, they had a right to suggest to the Government to control them as they controlled all other items.

said, in the early part of the evening he referred to a Vote taken for the police for the Houses of Parliament. There was another Vote under this head of £438 for the attendance of police during the Session. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would explain how many policemen were employed in the Houses of Parliament, and what this particular Vote for police in the House of Com- mons covered? He had reflected on the use of police in some of the Lobbies in the House of Commons, not that he reflected on the police themselves, but that it hardly seemed a proper thing that inside the House it should be deemed necessary to place those representatives of law and order. Outside, where they found Carlyle's maxim in the letter carried out—"anarchy plus the policeman"—policemen were in their proper place; but at Mr. Speaker's door and in the Lobby the police all scattered about—this did not seem right; and he thought it would be better if ordinary attendants were there, who might be employed in waiting upon Members and facilitating the transmission of messages from strangers who visited the House and Members who might be in various parts of the building. He had intended to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman who had now left the front Bench with regard to the accommodation provided for strangers. He knew of no other House, with the pretensions of theirs, where strangers were kept standing in a draughty Lobby, on a stone floor, often for half-an-hour, while Members were being looked for. There could be no difficulty in laying a piece of carpet and placing some seats in the Lobby, so that persons who came to see Members might not be left to kick their heels about like a lot of footmen. As he pointed out, if they went to the Chamber of Deputies at Versailles, visitors were shown into a handsome apartment, they were accosted by a servitor, they were supplied with writing materials, and they found other conveniences provided. While there he had observed that it was of no consequence what the appearance of the visitors was, or the sex—they were all treated with the same politeness. If some similar arrangements were made here, they would conduce very much to the comfort of the people who came to the House, and who complained more than Members thought. The present state of affairs was not the fault of any official or officials. If there was not a sufficient number of attendants, it must be owing to some economy which was unintentionally exercised. The Sergeant-at-Arms and all under him kept affairs in perfect order, and there were no complaints. Everything was done for the comfort of Members. Where the inconvenience was felt was in using policemen as messengers, and the result was they had not a sufficiently active service for the convenience of Members.

said, he would not dispute that it was not possible to make some arrangement for visitors more in accordance with comfort, perhaps, than those that existed. With, regard to the question of police, he thought his hon. Friend had pointed out that that was a matter apart altogether from the Office which he filled, and rested really with Mr. Speaker and other officers of the House, who had complete control over the officers in attendance, and who had the custody of the House itself. The question was asked about the additional money for the police who attended during the Sitting of the House. There was a certain number of police whose services were not required during the whole year. There were some who had the custody of the building; but there were some who were employed, as the hon. Member had pointed out, in the Lobbies and other parts of the House during the time it was open for the Session, and the amount here put down was for those additional police required beyond the ordinary number for the custody of the House. His hon. Friend had stated that he would make a note of the fact, and bring the point under the notice of those officials who had control of it.

called the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to the amount put down for Parliamentary Counsel, fees, and salaries. Exactly the same amount was put down as appeared last year. They had the salaries of Parliamentary Counsel £5,666, then they had foes to Counsel to assist Parliamentary Counsel on Bills £1,000, and then there was the amount for draftsmen specially employed in drafting Bills £700. Now, he would remind the Secretary to the Treasury that last year the Government came down on two occasions for further sums to supplement that Vote for Parliamentary Counsel, and he thought he was correct in saying that altogether the amount paid for Counsel's assistance was almost as large as the sum paid to the Counsel on the establishment. He wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there was any reasonable expectation that the Estimate they had now before them would not be exceeded? It was most inconvenient to have the Estimates brought forward year after year, and yet afterwards Supplementary Votes were asked for. Naturally that must excite remark on the inconvenience it caused in dealing with the Expenditure of the country. Last year was by no means the first occasion on which those Supplementary Votes for assistance to Parliamentary Counsel were asked for. It had grown to be a practice to employ assistance. He should be glad to know if the hon. Gentleman thought the Estimates could really be relied on. The Committee had a right to expect that there would be placed on the Paper the full amount the Government reasonably expected to require, and if they thought this sum would not be sufficient, then they ought to put down a higher Estimate. He pressed this on the attention of the Government to induce them to take steps to prevent the necessity of a Supplementary Estimate by asking for a larger sum at the outset. He hoped to have a clear and precise answer to the question.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Member that it was far more preferable in the interests of the Public Service, and the Treasury also, that a proper Estimate should be submitted, and that there should not be Supplementary Estimates introduced as the Government had to do on one or two occasions before. But he might point out how excessively difficult it was to forecast the exact amount that would be required. The hon. Member was aware that now and then legislation was placed before that House which was of a character that required the greatest care in its preparation. He would instance the case which led to the Supplementary Estimate of last year—the Criminal Code Bill. The preparation of that Bill had swallowed up a large proportion of the amount of the Supplementary Estimate which he had to ask the House for last year. There was another Bill last year which also led to extra expenditure. He referred to the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill—a measure with which he had so much to do in that House. These matters required a great deal of special knowledge, and Counsel had to be selected for that purpose. He could not himself see, in the preparation of the Bills this Session, any reason to justify him in thinking that the present Estimate would be exceeded. He went very carefully into this matter with the view of avoiding any difficulty in the future; but he could not pledge himself that the Estimate would not be exceeded. There might be additional pressure from Bills, but this was a matter which he could not forecast.

called attention to the item for the salary of the Auditor of the Civil List, and asked for an explanation. The official in question appeared to have two salaries. But after this, this gentleman had a separate annuity as messenger to the Order of the Bath. He was given a very important appointment in the Treasury, worth £1,500 a-year. Pensions were usually given to compensate gentlemen who were no longer able to perform their duties, yet, notwithstanding the fact that this gentleman had a pension, they found him employed again, and receiving a salary. There were a number of cases of that kind in the Book.

explained that the Treasury was empowered by the 56 Geo. III. to appoint an Auditor of the Civil List Account, and his salary was originally paid out of the Civil List. In 1831, however, that official's salary was put on the Treasury establishment, and paid from the Vote, the salary being £1,300, which was afterwards reduced to £1,200. That arrangement was carried out by a Minute of 1834, which prescribed that whoever was appointed should perform the duties of Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, which was now given to a clerk of the Treasury, and had £300 added to his salary as clerk. The present Auditor was Mr. Law, one of the senior clerks in the Treasury; and the office, he might say, had existed since 1815.

said, he should like to hear something further as to this office. As he understood, the Auditor was appointed under the Act of Parliament by which the provisions of the Civil List were settled, and it was his duty to see that the expenditure was correct and accurate—that the sums alleged to have been expended had been expended. It was a very proper duty to perform; but then the House knew nothing of the expenditure of the Civil List, and he presumed they were neither called upon nor entitled to inquire into what became of the money they voted. It appeared to him that this gentleman was not an officer of the House of Commons at all, and it was a most extraordinary thing that they should pay him £1,200 a-year in addition to his ordinary salary as clerk, and in addition to his pension of £86 5s. 10d. as messenger to the Order of the Bath. He presumed that he did no duty as a clerk at all, and that his whole time was taken up in fulfilling his duties as Auditor. Surely whoever required that duty performed should find the salary.

begged to remind the Committee that although one of the duties of this gentleman was to audit the Civil List, he also did a very considerable amount of Treasury work, being one of the principal officials of the Department. He received £1,200 as Auditor, and £300 as clerk, which brought his salary up to what he received for the particular class to which he belonged. He had, it must be remembered, one of the largests parts of the business of the Treasury to manage in his Department.

said, that in this case there were two other clerks, one of whom received £500 a-year, and the other £350 a-year. The Secretary to the Treasury had told them that the duty of this official was to audit certain classes of the Civil List—that was to say, he supposed the Treasury had laid before them the expenditure of different classes of the Civil List, and they were aware whether the expenditure in one class was below the amount that was set apart in the Act of Parliament, or whether it was above the amount so set apart, and he was aware there was power to transfer from one Account to another in the event of there being a saving in one and a deficiency elsewhere. It might be all very well to have this audit, but it never came under the notice of the House of Commons, and so far as money was concerned they knew nothing of the result, and their opinion was never challenged upon it, It did seem to him, therefore, that this was a question of the policy of paying for work in which they were not immediately interested.

said, he wished to make a few observations on this Vote, because there was a general impression abroad in many quarters that this Office was one which, whether considered as a whole or in detail, was not strictly necessary, and therefore required explanation. The ordinary ground upon which this Office was defended was, although no official work was attached to the Office of Lord Privy Seal, that, nevertheless, it was a very useful thing to have in any Cabinet some gentleman holding Cabinet rank, to whose position no particular departmental work was attached. He did not for one single moment dispute the force and accuracy of that argument; but he would, at the same time, point out to the Committee that the object in view could be equally attained, and had frequently been attained, by having in the Cabinet some Minister who did not hold any particular Office. Once quite recently, and if they went further back, quite frequently, Ministers were found in the Cabinet who held no particular Office. In Lord Aberdeen's Ministry, Lord John Russell for a short time led the House of Commons without holding any of the Offices which he had previously held. He had before that time held the highest Office in the country, that of Prime Minister, and yet he did not consider it out of keeping with his position for him to lead the House without having any particular Office in the Cabinet. If they went further back, they would find that this same thing occurred in numerous cases. He believed he was accurate in saying that during the exceedingly long Administrations of Mr. Pelham and the Duke of Newcastle, the most efficient Minister was an ex-Chancellor, Lord Hardwicke; yet he held no particular Office. The same was the case with his son, the second Lord Hardwicke. Therefore, the main argument adduced for keeping up the Office was not one which could be put forward with unanswerable force. He might further point out that this argument failed, because, to be worth anything, it must be shown that every one of the Ministers who had held the Office of Lord Privy Seal were men whose services were of very great importance to the country, and could not very well be dispensed with by the Cabinet. He was perfectly aware that a short time ago a most eminent statesman did hold the Office of Lord Privy Seal, but then he held it in conjunction with the Office of First Lord of the Treasury; and, therefore, that argument could not be used. He did not wish for a moment to introduce the name of the present holder, or recent holders, of the Office, because that would be a disagreeable thing, savouring of personality; but still he would say, without fear of contradiction, that if they went over the names of the Ministers who had held this Office recently they would find that, although, no doubt, they had been men of dignity and much respected, yet as a rule they had not been men of such ability as to constitute them Ministers of the first rank. If it had been the intention of the Government to attach duties to this Office, it would not in the least signify whether the old name of the Office were kept up or not; but there never had been the very smallest tendency shown to attach any sort of work to the Office. Originally, no doubt, the Lord Privy Seal and the Lord President of the Council were two of the most important dignitaries of the State; and he remembered how Lord Macaulay, speaking of the reign of William III., pointed out as a most remarkable change in official hierarchy since that time, that then the important Officers of State were the Lord President and the Lord Privy Seal, while the First Lord of the Trea- sury was absolutely nobody, and the Secretaries of State were persons, comparatively speaking, of no importance whatever, whereas all that had now been changed, so that the First Lord of the Treasury was the really important man, and the Secretaries of State ranked next to him. Since the time when Lord Chatham held the Office of Lord Privy Seal, and with it the rank, so far as it could be said officially to exist, of Prime Minister, there never had been any Minister of the very first rank put into the Office in order to bring him into the Cabinet. They had either been made Lord President of the Council, an Office to which duties were attached, or they had been brought into the Cabinet, as he had before explained, without office. Another reason against the retention of this Office was that it was an obstruction to Business. He would venture to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Office whether there were not certain documents of importance which originated in the Home Office, and from there had to go to the Office of the Lord Chancellor to receive the Great Seal; and whether it was not necessary for those documents to receive the Privy Seal before they could receive the Great Seal? According to a Committee of the House which had inquired into this matter, the Great Seal could not be set in motion without first setting in motion the Privy Seal. It was a sort of wheel within a wheel. It thus often happened, as he believed, that some document of considerable importance to the persons whom it affected could not receive full legal establishment and validity until it had received the Privy Seal; while the Lord Privy Seal, not having any regular departmental work, was often not in town, and persons were thus kept waiting. As the whole of the work of the Office had departed, and had not returned, as whatever use there was in the Office could be equally well obtained by bringing into the Cabinet a Minister without Office, and as the Office, with its head, and its chief clerk, and its assistant clerk, who helped the chief clerk—to do nothing, and its private secretary, and its messenger, put the State to very considerable expense, and caused delay in the transaction of Business, he moved the rejection of the Vote.

said, the arguments advanced to them by the noble Lord were practically the same as those many of them had listened to on previous occasions, though they had been put just previously in the able manner in which the noble Lord was wont to advance in argument, and had been illustrated by that historical knowledge which they were all aware he possessed. The case really amounted to this. The Office was one of great antiquity; it had been handed down to them from many Cabinets in succession, and it had uniformly been found by the Members of every Government that it was very convenient that such an Office should exist, to which it should be possible to appoint some Nobleman, who should take part in the general Administration of the country, without having his time occupied by any particular departmental duties. When the noble Lord said that the difficulty might be got over by appointing Ministers to the Cabinet without Office, of course, that was correct to a certain extent; but, for his part, he did not think their experience in former times of that sort of arrangement was of a character which would lead them to think it was a generally convenient course to adopt. He did not say there were not cases in which this method had not been used of obtaining the services of Noblemen and Ministers of considerable importance. In the case of Lord John Russell, he certainly did sit on the Government Bench and lead the House for a short time without holding Office; but that was an exceptional arrangement which did not last long, and even at that time there was a Lord Privy Seal in the Cabinet. He did not think any sufficient reason had been given for altering the arrangement which now existed. The salary attached to the Office was not a very large one, and was not at all out of proportion to the duties which fell on the holder of the Office in his capacity of Member of the Cabinet. With regard to the observation about the block of Business occasioned by this at the Home Office, he was not aware that there was any such difficulty; and, in fact, he did not think there was any change in the position of this question since it was last discussed.

said, when they remembered that the noble Lord who had moved the rejection of the Vote was the grandson of that Marquess of Lansdowne who had held a foremost position in the Councils of England, and yet who for years was in the Cabinet without Office, they must consider his recommendation of some value. The present Government, above all others, had marked their opinion of the value of this Office of Lord Privy Seal by holding the appointment in suspense for a considerable time, on the ground that there was no noble Lord who thought it worth his while to take it. It was, therefore, attached for some time to the Office of the First Lord of the Treasury, which showed conclusively the value of the post to the Public Service. Most of the holders of it of late years, indeed, had been the Greenwich pensioners of past Ministries, noble Lords who were past work, but to whom it was desired to pay some compliment without much detriment to the Public Service. Parliament of late years, however, had set its face against sinecures, and, above all, it was bad that these sinecures in high places should be maintained. It was for that reason that many of them had objected to the maintenance of this Office; and he did not think the fact that they had had these arguments before was any reason why they should not urge them again, especially when they knew that the Prime Minister was of their opinion, and had been simply overruled by other Members of the Cabinet. He thought hon. Members who objected to this Vote ought to maintain their position, until they, in their turn, had persuaded the rest of the Ministers to follow the example of the Prime Minister. For his part, he did think it would be much better that they should abolish this Office of Lord Privy Seal, with its chief clerk, and its assistant clerk, and its private secretary, and its messenger. If it was found necessary to have the advice of some eminent statesman, any Government could follow the advice of the noble Lord, and imitate the example of the Marquess of Lansdowne.

said, that the right hon. Baronet opposite, in referring to the position of Lord John Russell, said that it was objectionable. But that was no objection to it; and, for his own part, he was not aware that any inconvenience ever arose from it. Even if it was exceptional it was not therefore objectionable; and it was far better, at any rate, than keeping up these sinecures. They all know perfectly well what the Office meant, and what it was for. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in telling them that this discussion had often been raised before, overlooked one fact—that the noble Lord who moved the reduction of the Vote not only declared that the Office was useless, but distinctly showed that it was obstructive. For his part, however, he did not think any new arguments were wanted to induce them to abolish this obsolete and useless Office.

said, that the duties of this Office were, he believed, considerably diminished in 1851, and the appointment had, in a great measure, been simplified by the Acts of the 14 & 15 Vict., which abolished the office of clerks of the Privy Seal, and transferred the duties to the Home Office. The delays, therefore, that arose from the necessity of the prior sealing were done away with.

said, he thought the hon. Baronet had, by the statement which he had just made, strengthened the case against the Office; for it had been admitted by those who had held the Office before the year 1851 that the duties were very light. If, therefore, they had been much reduced since that date, they must at the present time be small indeed. An hon. Member once asked a former occupant of the Office what his duties really were. He replied that—

"He could not say, but that twice a-year he had to stand at one end of a room while a gentleman at the other end of it made a horrid mess with a lot of sealing wax."

It would be best to admit that the Office was a sinecure, and that it ought to be abolished. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that those arguments had often been raised before. That was quite true; but on former occasions those arguments had been met by a stronger pretence of a case from the other side of the House than that put forward on the present occasion. There had been no defence at all that evening. He had heard the Office defended on former occasions by arguments which, if valid, should have weight. Hon. Members were then told that the bidder of the Office of Privy Seal was useful to the Government, because he would take up Business that no other Member of the Government had time to deal with. But it was now notorious that this official was of no use to the present Government in that way. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would like to know the frank and private opinion which the Government had of his services. The question of the retention of this Office could not be discussed without calling the attention of the House to the fact that the present occupant of the Office had made no speech whatever on public affairs, and had taken no part in the proceedings of the House of Lords, except upon one occasion when his private interests were concerned. He would, therefore, support the Motion of his noble Friend.

was sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would remember that many hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had voted, on former occasions, against this Office, by whomsoever it might have been held, and by whatsoever Government it might have been defended. The importance of the Office might be judged of from a small but amusing fact—namely, that the private secretary and assistant clerk were one and the same person, and that person was a second class superannuate from the Office of Works. There could be no more convincing proof of the nullity of the Office. A strong argument had been used against the Office that evening. He (Mr. Whitwell) could quite understand the objection of the Ministry to make any sudden change at the present time, when so many people throughout the country were badly off, and were acknowledged to be without work. Under such circumstances, and when the House had refused to take into consideration the services of its own employés, it would be utterly inconsistent to vote the money asked for. He hoped the Office would be abolished.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he could give any information respecting the illegal detention of a vessel some time ago, and the trial which took place in the City of London, at which £1,600 damages were awarded for the detention? With regard to the Surveyors, he wished to point out that, in his opinion, naval officers were not the men best qualified to act in that capacity. He had nothing to say against naval officers; but they had not that practical experience of repairs which shipwrights possessed. He pointed to that circumstance in the hope that hereafter there would not be so large a number of naval officers placed in the position of Surveyors.

said, he feared he was not fully informed upon the action referred to by the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. D. Jenkins); but if he would give Notice of a Question upon the subject it should be answered. With regard to the Surveyors, those naval officers upon the staff would, according to the practice of the Department, be retained; but the vacancies which occurred would be filled up from the Merchant Service.

said, that he had been exceedingly anxious that an opportunity should be afforded that evening for the consideration of the case to which allusion had been made by his hon. Friend (Mr. D. Jenkins). It would not be of the slightest use for the hon. Member to put a Question in the House. The case referred to had caused a very great amount of public interest, as well as alarm, among shipowners. And the House was now asked to pay the salaries of the officers who had been, held by a Court of Law in damages to a very considerable amount. They might be told that there was going to be a new trial; but the case was one upon which the fullest information ought to be given. He could quite understand that the damages might be reduced, but nothing could alter the affair as far as the Board of Trade was concerned. If he (Mr. Rylands) understood the evidence aright, the officer of the Board of Trade acknowledged that he had detained the ship at the time when he knew that steps were being taken by the owner to put the ship in proper repair. He (Mr. Rylands) would have been glad if this Vote could have been postponed, because he thought it would be a matter of public interest and importance if the point could be discussed in relation to the case as illustrated by the proceedings before a Court of Law. He had not expected the Vote to come on that evening, or he would have been prepared with all the facts in connection with the action. He feared that his information respecting the case was insufficient; but he felt sure that it contained enough to justify the Committee in hesitating to pass the Vote without further information.

said, he knew something about the case referred to by the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. D. Jenkins). An action had been brought at the last sittings at Guildhall by a shipowner, against the Secretary to the Board of Trade, and against several Surveyors to the Board of Trade, and other officials, for the wrongful detention of a ship. During the case several points arose, some of which were points of law, and others points in connection with fact; and it was alleged by the plaintiff that the ship was improperly detained altogether, because the detention was not authorized by the Board of Trade, although the ship was detained by the Secretary to the Board. That raised a very important point of law, which would, undoubtedly, come before the Courts for consideration. The point of fact raised in the case was this. It was alleged that although the vessel might have been properly detained originally, yet, in making the survey, those who were intrusted with the survey—namely, some of the defendants—were guilty of excess, and the excess alleged was simply this. It was said that one of the Surveyors had ordered the owner of the vessel to take out what were called beam-fittings, in order that he might more fully examine the hull of the ship, and ascertain whether or not she was seaworthy. Now, in vessels of ordinary construction, the beam-fittings were pieces of timber inserted between the beams, and which could be taken out without any trouble or difficulty; indeed, they were left loose for the very purpose of being taken out, in order that the internal timbers might be examined. The Surveyor who gave this order was not aware at the time of giving it that this ship was constructed in a different manner from other vessels; and it turned out, unfortunately, that she was differently constructed, and that these timbers were fitted and permanently fixed in the vessel. They were bolted to the timbers, and could not be removed without doing a considerable amount of damage to the vessel. Unfortunately, no communication was made to the Surveyor who gave the order, which was carried out without his attention having been called to it, and, no doubt, considerable damage was done and delay caused. The jury came to the conclusion that this was an excess of duty, and awarded considerable damages. On the other hand, the view of those who conducted the case for the Board of Trade was that the verdict of the jury was unsatisfactory, and an application for a new trial had been made, which now stood for the consideration of the Court on a future day. For that reason, no rule nisi had been yet obtained; but the application for the new trial would be made at the proper time, and those concerned for the Board of Trade fully expected that the new trial would be granted. At all events, the points of law would all be decided in a Superior Court.