I now rise, in accordance with Notice, to move— amount of Business having to be done at a late period of the Session. In making the proposal at the present time Her Majesty's Government have regard partly to recent usage and partly to the condition of Business. As respects the condition of Business they have to look to the condition of private legislation; and it does not appear that there are Bills of importance upon the Paper, which have made such progress in the hands of private Members as to be likely to become law during the present Session, whether this Motion be agreed to or not. That observation is a general one. With regard to the Business of the Government, what we think is this—that it may be right to dispense with the fulfilment of the intention announced in the Gracious Speech from the Throne of renewing the Act for secret voting. We shall take simply a continuing Act, and let the subject of the final form of the Act stand over. There was also another matter mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, which we cannot regard as a matter of urgency, and that is the Bill with regard to the electoral borough franchise in Ireland, and we shall be prepared to drop it. With respect to the other important Bills of the Government, our intention is to adhere to them, and take the deliberate judgment of the House upon them. With respect to the time at which this Motion was made, I have before me a statement as to the last three years, which may be said to have been more or less urgent years; but, undoubtedly, the present year must be held to be one of very great urgency when it is recollected that the Business of the Session was practically not commenced until the 20th of May. In 1877 the Order was made on July 23, somewhat later, and Tuesdays and Wednesdays taken on July 24 and 25. In 1878 the Order was made on July 15, and Tuesdays and Wednesdays taken on July 16 and 17—of course, with the Tuesdays and Wednesdays following. In 1879 the Order was made on July 14, and Tuesdays and Wednesdays taken on July 15 and 16, and the days following. In this instance I make my proposal on July 12, but propose to begin taking Wednesdays on July 14, and the first Tuesday on July 20; and, therefore, on the whole, the arrangement will be about the same as last year. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to enter upon any explanation. These are the general grounds of the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

said, that the Prime Minister had observed that he did not think the measures in which private Members were interested were such as stood any chance of being seriously considered during the present Session. Now, he had a Bill—the Ulster Tenant Right Bill—which stood first in the Orders of the Day for Wednesday, having been read a second time with the assent of all parties in the month of March. This Bill had been five, six, or seven times before the House. It was originally introduced by Mr. Sharman Crawford, the Member for Drogheda, and then by the late Member for the County of Down. It then met with more or less favour. The present Bill was introduced four years ago by himself, with the aid of the late Member for the City of Londonderry and the late Member for Donegal. In the first year it was defeated by 150, the next year it was talked out, the third year it was only defeated by a majority of 15, and this year, when re-introduced, it passed without opposition on the 3rd of March. He knew it was said that he had brought it forward in consequence of an understanding with the late Government, and for electioneering purposes. That statement was, however, entirely false. He never had any understanding with the late Government, and the existence of any such understanding had been denied by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) in a letter to the Member for the County of Down. He knew that all the Members on the present Ministerial Bench supported it whenever it was before the House; and he should see with great regret the removal from the Notice Paper of a Bill in which the tenants in the North of Ireland took the greatest interest. They heard a great deal about compensation for disturbance, and he should like to know what compensation for disturbance he was to have. Would the Prime Minister afford him an opportunity for bringing it forward soon?

replied, that he could not make any promise as to affording an opportunity for bringing forward the Bill.

said, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman should bring forward Bills that were the cause of agitation and disorder both in the House and "elsewhere," and yet could not afford an opportunity for bringing forward a measure that met with general approval.

said, there was perfect unanimity in the whole Principality of Wales in favour of the passing of the Bill for Sunday Closing. Upwards of 90 per cent were desirous that the Bill should pass. Upwards of 250,000 people had petitioned the House in favour of the Bill; and out of 30 Welsh Members, 29 were in favour of it. He must ask the Government to give a short time for that Bill. He believed it would not occupy more than a single hour. In case he did not receive a satisfactory reply, he should on Thursday put a Question as to whether the Government would place the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Wales) Bill as the first Order on an early day?

I think the proposal of the Prime Minister is a reasonable one, and one which the House would do well to accept. It is quite true that this is about the period when such a Motion is made; but it has reference, not only to the time when we shall begin the work, but also to the time when we shall close our work. The general understanding upon which the House gives to the Government the remainder of the time at its disposal is that it shall look forward, if not to the exact time for the closing of the Session, at least to about the time. I hope that, if we are to give the days now asked, it is understood we shall look forward to the termination of the Session about the usual time. With regard to the Bills which will have to be sacrificed, I do not think I am myself particularly interested in any; but there are two important Bills from the Lords which are under my charge—the Settled Land Bill and the Conveyancing and Law of Property Bill—with regard to which, I am afraid, there is not much chance of having an opportunity of discussing them, but I should regret if they are obliged to be laid aside for the Session.

said, he would endeavour to find time for making progress with these Bills.

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that assurance. I think it will be convenient if my right hon. Friend will state, as far as possible, in what order the Government Bills will be taken. There are still, after those which have been put aside, 10 or 12 Bills more or less important on the Paper, and I shall be glad to know in what order they will be taken.

appealed to the Government to give facilities for the passing through Committee of the short Bill for closing public-houses on Sundays in Wales.

reminded the House that in 1875 he had moved a Resolution according to which no private Member would be allowed to appoint a day for the second reading of a Bill more than a month after the day for the first reading. Considering the crowded state of the Notice Paper, some such Rule might be found useful. He wished to know for what period the Government intended to continue the Ballot Act?

as a Representative from the North of England, wished to say that there was a feeling of deep and great anxiety amongst the vast population of that part of the country with regard to the measures of Her Majesty's Government. He believed the announcement made by the Prime Minister would be received with profound satisfaction, that the Government did not intend to abandon any of the most important of those measures which they had introduced, and which they considered necessary for the good of the country. In the North it was believed if the Government in the outset of their career showed a readiness to abandon their measure they would have greater difficulties to contend with in the future. If the Government persevered, he could assure them they would receive the support of hon. Gentlemen in that part of the House. With regard to hon. Gentlemen opposite, he wished to say that if they deliberately, and after due deliberation, preferred to postpone the consideration of such measures as the Hares and Rabbits Bill and the Burials Bill until the comparative cool and calm of the month of September, they would find that the powers of endurance of Members sitting on the Ministerial side of the House were certainly not inferior to those possessed by the Opposition.

remarked that when a proposal similar to that made by the Prime Minister had been submitted to the House in former years it was with a view of bringing the Session to a close at the usual time. They were now told that the Government not only wished to have additional time before the Session closed, but that the Session would probably be prolonged. That was an encroachment upon the privileges of private Members which he did not remember to have been made in any previous Session.

supported the appeal to the Prime Minister in favour of the Bill for Sunday Closing in Wales. It was a measure on which there was no difference of local opinion, and a very short time would suffice for its consideration. The question was sometimes put to him why Welsh Members did not succeed in getting their Bills passed, whereas Irish Members were attended to. He had generally given the straightforward answer to those inquiries that the Welsh Members were not troublesome and exacting. He did entreat the Government not to force Welsh Members to pursue a policy similar to that adopted by hon. Members from Ireland.

said, that while he sympathized with private Members who saw their Bills were likely to be threatened, he regretted that no influential Member of that House had risen to call attention to the defect of the system which was responsible for the annual appearance of a Motion like that just now named by the Prime Minister. His hon. Friend the Member for New-castle-on-Tyne (Mr. Cowen) had called attention to the difficulty now experienced in disposing of the Questions in a reasonable time; and from the position in which he (Mr. O'Connor Power) had noticed the Government to be, no matter what Party was in power, he was driven to the conclusion that unless influential private Members, like the hon. Member for Newcastle, and, perhaps, with great respect, he might include the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr.Newdegate)—unless Gentlemen of that stand- ing would undertake to devise such alterations in the legislative system as would enable them to get rid of a great deal of work, which they were not competent as an Imperial Parliament to deal with, he believed that no amount of Party forbearance, no amount of individual self-sacrifice, would relieve the House of Commons from the ridiculous position in which it found itself at this period of every Session. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Watkin Williams), who had addressed the House, was supposed to represent a national grievance, and had handled the Irish Members rather roughly; and it must be understood that when Irishmen were charged with wasting the time of Parliament they had always a ready answer in the proposal, which he need not name, but which was familiar, he was sure, to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He wished to make one observation upon the effect which the present legislative system had, not merely on the discontent of Wales, and upon the discontent of Scotland, which was very much disposed to make a complaint in such terms as the hon. and learned Gentleman, but upon the discontent in Ireland. The effect in that country would be even more disastrous than it would be in Wales or Scotland, if the people of Ireland found that, after sending Members to Parliament year after year, they were unable to obtain for their country any satisfactory legislation. He had, however, only risen to fix the attention of the House upon the root of the evil, and to point out that until someone with a strong hand and a clear head came to the rescue they would show themselves that they were unable to do their Business, and were impervious to ridicule.

said, he could not resist the force of the appeal made to the House by the Prime Minister. Yet it was only natural for Members like himself and his hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney), who were sufferers by it, to feel some disappointment at having their opportunity of discussing the Bills they were concerned in taken from them. When a Member had balloted repeatedly for a place, and had got a favourable one, he naturally felt some regret when he saw his chance of advancing the project he was interested in withdrawn from him by the exigencies of Public Business. He did not complain of this. It was a fate that all experienced at one time or other in that House. The arrangement proposed was a convenient one. It contributed to the comfort of all concerned. It gave the Government larger control over the time of Parliament towards the end of the Session. It placed the initiative of all Business at the disposal of the Ministry, and left at the hands of private Members only the work of comment and criticism. But while it permitted the work of the year to be wound up more satisfactorily, experience had shown that the arrangement was advantageous to all parties. For a private Member to pass a Bill—even if fair advance was made with it at the beginning of the Session—was difficult. To do so at such a period as they had now reached was impossible. All, therefore, that a Member could expect was a discussion of the measure he had in charge, and that sacrifice he and others like him were called upon to make by the Resolution of the Prime Minister. While he made the sacrifice ungrudgingly, under the circumstances, it was right for the House to remember that these demands upon private Members were increasing year by year. The Prime Minister had said that a like Motion to the one now being considered was made at a like date last year and the two previous years. That was correct; but the fact required to be supplemented by a statement that during the years before the demand upon independent Members had not been made at such an early date. In 1874 a like Resolution to the present was moved by the late Prime Minister in the first week in August. In 1875 the Motion was made on July 30th; in 1878, on July 27th. In later years, it was true, similar Motions were made on July 23rd, July 16th, and July 14th. Now the demand was made on July 12th. The difference between this year and the last year or two was not great; but the difference between the time that the Motion was made in the first Session of last Parliament and the first Session of this was considerable. The Motion was made three weeks later in 1874 than it was in 1880. Thus it was, whatever Party was in power, whoever the men that were in Office, year by year the time at the disposal of independent Members was reduced, and the time at the com- mand of the Executive increased. The encroachment was made at the rate of a few days one year, a week the next; and in the course of a comparatively short period independent Members' time was curtailed in a limited Session by something little short of a month. He knew the present Session was exceptional—that the present position was peculiar—and he did not wish to press the point unduly. But, at the same time, it was right that the House should know the facts, and realize the way in which the course of Business was drifting. Many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen now on the Treasury Bench stood up stoutly for private Members' privileges when they were on the other side. He hoped the change from one side to the other would not make them forget their professions and practices on this point which, to unofficial Members of the House, was important. The Prime Minister had told them it was the intention of the Government to abandon two Bills—the Borough Franchise (Ireland) Bill and the Ballot Bill. But he gave them to understand that the Ministry meant to persevere with the remaining parts of their programme. When these two measures were abstracted from the list, it still left five others that were to be read a second time—the Hares and Rabbits Bill, the Savings Banks Bill, the Vaccination Bill, the Burials Bill, and the Post Office Money Order Bill. There were five Bills, too, in Committee—the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Bill, the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill, the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, the Employers' Liability Bill, and the Merchant Seamen's Bill. In addition to these there were the Civil Service Estimates to be passed; the Indian finances to be considered; and the incidental discussions that would arise out of foreign questions. If all this work was to be persevered with, and the ordinary course of Business and discussion was adhered to, the House would certainly not be able to rise before September. He thought when Parliament was placing at the disposal of the Government all the time of the House, it was only right for Members, in return, to have from the Leader of the Government a declaration as to whether all the Bills on the Paper were to be gone on with, no matter what time they might take in their consideration. This was a fair request to prefer; and lie hoped the Prime Minister would give the House all the assurance as to his intentions that was within his power. With reference to the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold), he feared that if Parliament was to sit as long as he seemed to anticipate it would, the attendance would either become very attenuated, or the temper of Members would become very irritable. He quite sympathized with him in his desire to help the Government forward with their Bills. There was a general wish amongst Members on that side to do this. But there were difficulties in the way that rendered legislative progress with the present forms and restrictions both slow and tedious. The fact was—and the sooner all recognized it the better—there were too many Members in the House. There was too much talk and too many Bills. It was simply impossible for the House of Commons, constituted as it was, and with its existing forms, to transact efficiently the immense mass of local, parochial, and detailed business that came before it. They might reason and speculate as they chose; but they would have to come back again to the fact that as long as there were 600 odd Members—all of whom had an equal right to speak and take part in every incident of discussion—they would, with such an interminable list of subjects before them, constantly suffer from loquacity. He did not believe that an effective change would be accomplished until the work was distributed. But as long as the Rules were observed, and the constitution of Parliament was as it was, the best way of advancing Public Business was for every Member to practice a moderate and sensible restraint, and neither hamper the Business by unnecessary talk nor by repeating unduly arguments that had already been urged. That would be a temporary relief; but it would not be a permanent one.

said, he could not be surprised that this subject had suggested to the mind of the hon. Member (Mr. J. Cowen) and of many others topics a little wider, but of very great interest. With regard to the impossibility of that House discharging, under present Rules, the whole of the duties incumbent upon it, and to the suggestions for improving that state of things, he did not propose to follow the hon. Member, because it would be idle to do so on the present occasion. One observation he might be permitted to make, and he did it without presuming to censure anyone; it was to show that in one important particular they were retrograding, and not advancing, with regard to the transaction of Business. In all his early Parliamentary life, the Members of the House were content with the opportunities given them of discussing the principle of a Bill upon the reading of a Bill. If they reserved to themselves the right of discussing that principle upon the Motion of the Speaker's leaving the Chair, or on the Motion for reporting the Bill to the House, they were content to take the details of the Bill in Committee. About 20 or 25 years ago the practice slowly crept in of contesting on the second reading not the principle of a Bill, but some particular point in a Bill in which some Member of the House took a particular interest, thus thrusting that point into the forefront of the battle. In his opinion, such things might legitimately happen; he was only making a general observation. But, as a matter of fact, it was incontestable that almost every Bill of importance produced by the Government had been met on the second reading—he did not speak of those cases where the Resolution opposed was one of opposition outright—on some selected point or other, put forward in such a manner as to clog the debate on the second reading. The prevalence of such a practice must, undoubtedly, be regarded as a very serious obstacle to the progress of Business. He was not speaking now of the course followed between Party and Party, or by the opponents of a Bill. It was taken by persons who avowed themselves friendly to its general principle. He most respectfully suggested to the reflection of Members that it would be a great advantage if they could be content to separate the discussion upon the principle from the discussion upon the details. A question had been put with regard to the Ballot Bill. It would be purely a continuance of the Act. He had been asked his opinion with respect to the duration of the Session. He could only give an opinion. The sound of the name of the month of September was as hateful in his ears as it could possibly be in the ears of any hon. Member. Some ancient poet had spoken of it as the fatal month that killed men; and it was almost enough to kill men to hear it named. He could not presume to say what time would be required by Members for the discussion of the Bills before them. All he could say was he did not know of anything in the Bills of the Government that should require the House of Commons to sit into the month of September. For, although upon these Bills there were, in some cases, important differences of opinion—differences amounting to differences of principle—yet they did not involve any considerable amount of detail; and, therefore, he did not see why the month of August, before its very last week, should not enable them to get through the Business before them. That, however, was an opinion only. With regard to the order of the measures, they hoped to have a definitive judgment from the House as to the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill to-morrow. After that they proposed to appropriate Wednesday to the Employers' Liability Bill, and on Thursday to take the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill; because it was desirable that the provisions affecting a very large and important trade should receive the early consideration of the House. These measures stood in the front, and behind them was a Bill which he could hardly bring himself to mention, for it raised a shudder in the nervous system of a portion of the House, the Hares and Rabbits Bill; and in the rear of that came the Burials Bill. They could deal with that measure at their leisure, after they had disposed of more serious topics. He could not think that the amount of detail involved in these measures would be found impossible to deal with, though it was exceedingly difficult to compress into any Session commencing on the 20th of May any respectable amount of work. The shortness of the Session had been the real obstacle in the way of private Members. Of all the Bills practically set aside by the adoption of this Resolution there was not one that had yet attained the stage of second reading. He would be very glad if the House recognized the practical reasons for the adoption of the Motion.

said, he did not rise to oppose the Motion, for he admitted that there were special reasons which seemed to justify the Government in proposing the Resolution at a somewhat earlier period than usual. At the same time, not only was there a tendency in that direction, but though the half-past 12 Rule was popular in the House, and had its advantages, it undeniably placed private Members who were in charge of Bills at a great disadvantage. Formerly it was comparatively easy for a private Member to bring his Bill to a successful result by the end of July, but the case was very different now; and, in the circumstances, he thought the Government might well give some facilities to those Members who had Bills at an advanced stage. This would be only fair, and would save time another Session.

said, that he had been fortunate enough to obtain the first place on the Paper for a very important question with regard to the tariffs of Canada, the Colonies generally, and the United States; but the Question of Privilege, of which they had heard so much, put it aside. And now his Motion stood in the first place for the second Tuesday. He suggested that the Government should take all measures back, and reintroduce them next year in a better form. He would propose that hon. Members should unite in a penny subscription for a waste paper basket to be presented to the Prime Minister, to contain all the Government measures that could not be carried in a certain time.

said, he rose to express what he thought would be nothing less than the national disappointment of Ireland at the abandonment of the Borough Franchise (Ireland) Bill. The Bill was put forward in Her Majesty's gracious Speech as a piece de resistance , and as an evidence of the intention of Her Majesty's Government to do justice to Ireland; for he could not imagine that the Government would bring in a measure for conferring political power on the Irish people if they had the intention eventually to deny them that justice. Now, of all the Bills on the Paper that Bill was the only one which the Government were about to drop. Hon. Members for Wales and Scotland would have to go back and tell the Welsh and the Scotch people how such trivial measures as Sunday Closing Bills had been compulsorily abandoned; but how were they, the Irish Members, to go over to Ireland and state that the only measure in the Speech giving political power to the Irish people, and the only national, constitutional, and statesman-like measure regarding that country, had been withdrawn? He should not take up the time of the House longer than to express the deep regret which, he believed, would be felt in Ireland at the course which was followed. He hoped to have from the Prime Minister an assurance that it was only great exigency that compelled the Government to that course, and that a similar measure would form part of the Government programme at the opening of the next Parliament.

said, there was not the slightest intention of abandoning the hope of speedily passing the Borough Franchise (Ireland) Bill, which the Government believed could not be passed this Session. While he regretted that such should be the case, he could not help remarking that a great portion of the Session had been taken up with Irish Business.

asked in what order the Savings Banks Bill and the Post Office Money Orders Bill would be taken in the programme of the Government?

said, the present stage of the Savings Banks Bill—namely, the second reading—could only require a fraction of time. No doubt, the Committee stage would require a Sitting to dispose of it. The Post Office Money Orders Bill might be allowed to pass the second reading without a lengthened debate; because the questions raised with regard to it were only questions for Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Parliament—Business of the House—Irish Bills

said, that a great mystification was arising in Ireland with regard to the Borough Franchise (Ireland) Bill. Would the Chief Secretary state authoritatively whether the Bill had been withdrawn simply for want of time, or with the intention of re-introducing it next Session in connection with the question of the re-distribution of seats?

Absolutely for want of time, and with the intention of re-introducing it.

said, he wished to draw attention to two small Bills—namely, the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill and the Municipal Franchise (Ireland) Bill. The second of those Bills had received a second reading, and the first had passed through Committee. The taking of private Members' days by the Government, and more especially the taking of Tuesday, would effectually prevent any chance of either of those Bills being reached before half-past 12 o'clock; and as there was no really valid opposition to either of them, with the exception of the usual blocking Notice, he trusted that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be able to see his way to giving some promise, if they were asked to give up their chance of passing those Bills in the usual way, that half an hour would be given up before half-past 12 for the purpose of enabling those steps to be taken, and those exceedingly useful Bills to be passed, so that the time which had already been bestowed upon them would not be set at naught by the step which the Government were now about to take.

said, one of the Bills was going through Committee, and he should be glad to see the other through as well; but, when there was a block at this period of the Session, there was a very poor chance of getting the special assistance desired by the hon. Member. He would, however, communicate with his hon. Friend who had charge of the Bill, and, if possible, help it on. Two or three Government measures were in much the same position.

Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill

Notice of Amendment

I beg, Sir, to give Notice that I shall, to-morrow, move the following Amendment in the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill:—In line 32, which contains the third of the printed conditions under which judgment can be given, that eviction for nonpayment of rent is not a disturbance for which compensation is to be awarded, I propose to strike out "unreasonably," and after the word "landlord" to insert ''without the offer of any reasonable alternative," so that the third condition will run thus—"that such terms are refused by the landlord without the offer of any reasonable alternative." If those words should be approved by the House, it would not be necessary for us to proceed further with the clause which has been announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.

wished to know what meaning the right hon. Gentleman attached to the words "reasonable alternative?"

I cannot now explain my Notice. To-morrow, I will.

said, that before the Vote was passed, he should like to ask whether the Government had any intention to establish a Royal Palace in Ireland?

said, that he was bound to say that, at the present time, the Government had no such intention.

said, that he renewed his annual protest against the mode in which the Royal Palaces were disposed of without the sanction or knowledge of Parliament. But, in so saying, he must add that he had no objection to the Royal Family being suitably provided with houses; he only wished that they should be properly accommodated according to their future positions in the State. On this Vote being before the House on the previous occasion, he had avowed his wish to see the Heir to the Throne well provided for; but as regarded the other branches of the Family, the most suitable provision for them was a grant of money by Parliament for their entire support. At the same time, he had a most strenuous objection to the mode in which Royal Palaces were now occupied in part by Members of the Royal Family, but largely by others selected at the pleasure of the Crown, when not required for the personal occupation of Her Majesty. These ought to be given over to Parliament, to be cared for by the Works Department. He objected, also, to these Royal Palaces being so used, because they might be made useful in some other way by being occupied as residences of Members of Royal Families, other than those of Her Majesty, who came on Royal visits to this country. He thought it would be much better that those who were not Members of the Royal Family, but who occupied these Palaces, should be provided with a compensatory allowance annually voted by the House of Commons. These classes should not be permitted to occupy Royal Palaces which, in many cases, were not suitable for their present or former sphere of life. In his opinion, were the Royal Palaces not occupied by private individuals in the manner they were at present, they could be kept up in a much more economical manner. The difference between that cost for keeping up and the present costly mode would allow of a handsome saving, even if a money allowance were voted for providing houses for such as deserved the bounty. To his own knowledge, sums of money were now annually spent upon certain Royal Palaces for the convenience of those living there which were enormous in amount, and far beyond the outlay proper for these classes. Year after year he raised objections to this system; but not the slightest notice had even been taken of the objections. A time might come when the Descendants of the Royal House might need the Votes of the House of Commons, and then would be urged the strong objection to the waste of funds on Palaces when such might have been avoided. He believed that it was contrary to the agreement made between the country and the Crown that these Palaces, not needed for personal occupation, should be allowed to be appropriated, as they were, for purposes not previously authorized by Parliament.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) £1,520, to complete the sum for Marlborough House.

(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £70,277, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."

said, that the annual Estimates for this Vote provoked criticizm at the hands of Irish Members. Ireland paid one-tenth of the Imperial Revenue; but it got nothing like one-tenth of the share in the National Expenditure. For the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens under this Vote, they were asked to vote the sum of £112,000; but every one of those Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens were in Great Britain, and not a single penny was expended in Ireland. Unless the Government could assure the Committee that Ireland would be given a share in similar disbursements, it would be the duty of Irish Members to resist the Vote.

said, that he wished to call the attention of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Adam) to the state of Battersea Park, where he would find the ride unsafe for equestrians. He wished, also, to state that the Portico which used to be at Burlington House, and which was of a very architectural and ornamental character, had now, for some years, been laid up in a corner of Battersea Park. He thought that it ought to be removed, and put in a proper position. As regarded Kensington Garden s, he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the present state of the trees there. Many of them were in a very dangerous state of decay, and required a very free use of the axe; and, if they were not attended to, in the course of 20 years Kensington Gardens would have to be re-planted with young trees. He thought that, in Regent's Park, too large a portion of the Park was devoted to semi-public purposes, very praiseworthy in themselves, but not consonant with the object for which the Park was originally intended. The last point to which he wished to draw attention was with regard to the excessive decoration of Hyde Park with flower beds. Every hon. Gentleman was perfectly aware that flowers were useful and beautiful decorations; but, in Hyde Park, such large portions were railed off for flower beds, as to inconveniently restrict the popular use of the Park, particularly at the corner adjoining Rotten Row. He might further observe, that he did not think that the site for the statue of Byron in Hamilton Place was at all a suitable position. He did not wish to enter into any art criticism, and his remarks applied to the locality only.

said, that he rose for the purpose of moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £355. The reason for which he moved it was the increase in the preservation of game in Richmond Park. He did not think that it was the duty of Parliament to pay for food for the game kept by the Ranger in the Park, or that it was the duty of the nation to become game-preservers. He did not, however, grudge the amount spent for the purpose; but the reason which he had for moving the reduction was to protest against the increase in the preservation of game in Richmond Park, because it excluded the public from the use of a large portion of the Park. Cricket and other games were not allowed in the Park; and the space for the recreation of school children and for the public was very much restricted. The public were continually interfered with by the keepers, and many of the best parts of the Park were entirely shut off from public use. Many very beautiful plantations were kept closed in order that the game—the rabbits, and pheasants—might not be interfered with. Another objection to this undue preservation of game was in an economical point of view. The rabbits in Richmond Park cost the country a great deal of money, for they entirely destroyed the grass—everyone knew that nothing was more destructive to grass than rabbits. The consequence was that they were obliged to buy hay to a large extent, in order to feed the deer, by reason of the rabbits destroying the grass. Everyone wished to see the deer kept in the Park, and it was necessary that they should be fed. He did not mean to argue that the public ought to be allowed to go into the Park to kill the rabbits; but, at the same time, when they were legislating against rabbits, it did not look well that the country should be frequently engaged in prosecutions for killing game. Poor men had recently been heavily fined for killing rabbits in Richmond Park. No doubt, people ought not to be allowed to destroy game; but he objected to the game being kept in such a populous neighbourhood, and so tempting people to destroy it. He had always been told that the public was shut out from a very large portion of the Park, and he had been there for the purpose of seeing whether that was correct. He had found that there were four plantations which might very well be open to the public, although it was, no doubt, necessary that they should always be closed against the deer. Some of those plantations were the most beautiful parts of the Park, and the circumference of three of them exceeded a mile each. Were these woods to be thrown open to the public, they would make the most delightful walks in the Park. The reason he moved the reduction of the Vote was to protest against the use of the Park for the purpose of game preservation, thereby preventing the public from having the full and free enjoyment of the Park. From inquiries and examinations he had made, he was satisfied that there was a great deal too much game preserved in Richmond Park. The Park was maintained by the public, and they were entitled to the full and free use of it. The head-keeper was paid a great deal too much. Besides a lodge and other conveniences, he received £358a-year. He took £l50 from his salary, and struck out £205 which was charged for food for pheasants and game in the Park, for which he did not think the public ought to pay. He hoped, that now that they had a Government in power more favourable to their views than the former Government, that this would be attended to. He beged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £355.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £69,922, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."—( Mr. Dillwyn. )

said, he rose to complain, as he had done on former occasions, of some inconveniences experienced by persons visiting and passing through Hyde Park. He wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works to the fact that the Park was intended for the enjoyment of all classes, and not for that of one particular class. Pedestrians were, therefore, entitled to consideration as well as riders. But, during the last two or three years, it had been the practice to throw down mud or soft earth in the carriage way from Hyde Park Corner to the Marble Arch. Complaints had been frequently made to him upon this subject, and he had, some time ago, put down a Notice on the Paper with relation to it; but the annoyance resulting from the practice still continued, and many ladies who were accustomed to walk down the side of the Park referred to could not do so without getting splashed and otherwise considerably annoyed with the mud. Now, he believed that they had thrown away a large sum of money to make a road for the riders only, instead of the general public, who suffered annoyance from the practice he had mentioned. It must have been noticed by many persons that riders after having been in Rotten How, when galloping up to their houses, splashed ladies with mud in the most objectionable way. As a confirmation of his statement, hon. Members had only to notice the condition of the iron posts at the side of the Row. He trusted that the nuisance complained of would be removed.

said, that rabbits were now preserved to such an enormous extent in Richmond Park, that he could not help feeling there was considerable risk caused to riders by the holes made by these animals. Besides this, it must be obvious that a great deal of damage was done to the Park itself, and especially to the young trees, by the rabbits. He wished to express his opinion that it would be well if the preservation of rabbits were not carried to such an extent as was the case at present.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, would not be influenced by the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) with reference to the floral decorations in Hyde Park. He (Mr. R. H. Paget) did not know anything which contributed so much to the pleasure of the people as the flowers displayed in the Park, which, besides the enjoyment they afforded, were very valuable for the education of those persons who visited the Parks. He certainly hoped there would be no diminution of floral decorations in those places, and desired to add his testimony to the great pleasure derived from these flower-gardens by the public.

said, he desired to call the attention of the right hon. Gen- tleman the First Commissioner of Works to the destruction which was going on amongst the trees in Kensington Gardens. The question was, just then, one of peculiar importance, because the destruction referred to had been going on for some time, and because caterpillars of a very destructive kind were causing much damage to the trees in London. For that reason, he thought that the trees in Kensington Gardens should be very carefully examined to see whether these insects were making any havoc amongst them. He hoped that many of the old trees would be removed, whether injured or not, and new trees planted.

said, there was a grievance connected with St. James's Park which affected a very large portion of the population in Westminster. He alluded to the closing of the road from Storey's Gate to Marlborough Gate. It had formerly been closed during the entire year, because, as it was alleged, if carriages passed that way, they were likely to run over children and nursery maids. The road, however, had subsequently been opened during the Session, and he had not heard that any accidents of that kind had occurred. But the right to pass along the road was now limited to hon. Members of the House of Commons, and when Parliament was not sitting the road was closed, and all persons who wished to go to Westminster from the other side of the Park had to make a very long round, instead of going through the Park. He could not see why there should be any objection to opening this road during the whole year, not only to Members of Parliament, but to the general public. However, he did not wish to press the matter upon the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, who had not long been in Office; but he trusted it would be looked into, with a view to prevent the necessity of making an unnecessarily long round to get to Westminster.

said, he wished to call attention to Phœnix Park, Dublin. The Committee were asked to vote the very large sum of £112,577 for the maintenance and decoration of Parks and Pleasure Gardens. Of that sum, the Phoenix Park, Dublin, which was as large as all the other Parks together, had only expended upon it £6,420. He asked the Government to take that instance of very unfair play into consideration, and to deal in a more liberal manner with the most beautiful Park in the Three Kingdoms.

said, he could not help rising to point out the extraordinary nature of the doctrine advocated by the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. T. D. Sullivan). He would like to ask him by what right the maintenance of Parks in London and Dublin was imposed upon the taxpayers throughout the country? There was no Park in the town which he represented. But he knew that, in several towns, noble-minded citizens had placed large sums of money at the disposal of the community for the purchase of public Parks. There was also an Act of Parliament, by which localities were authorized to purchase Parks and place the charge in connection with them upon the rates. Now, unfortunately, owing to some custom, the Metropolis had been in the habit of receiving very large sums of money which were drawn from the taxpayers of the Three Kingdoms. He had never yet been able to understand why the Metropolis should have these advantages. It was the place to which the money of the country gravitated. People in the country districts were very fond of coming up to London to spend their money; and, again, the meeting of the Chambers of the Legislature brought up a large number of persons who spent money in the Metropolis. The City of London had many advantages of a character which tended to increase its income, but which were not possessed by other cities and large towns in the Kingdom. On the contrary, the latter were drained in order to secure these advantages to the Metropolis, which drew upon the taxation of the community at large for the maintenance of its Parks, as well as for the support of its police and for other matters. While it might be very difficult to cut down these charges, he thought the Committee ought to be very careful not to allow them to increase. Hon. Members should look with jealousy upon any attempt on the part of the Metropolis to come upon the State for additional advantages. He joined his hon. Friend in his desire to keep down this expense with regard to the Parks in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis, which was, in his opinion, not fairly chargeable on the taxes of the country, and he thought the citizens of London should show the same public spirit as the citizens of other great towns who had to provide their own enjoyments. He made these remarks from no disposition to give any advantage to the towns over the Metropolis. He liked to see the people have every enjoyment which the Metropolis of the country could provide; but the people of London must look to their own resources. If, however, they spent public money for the purposes of these Parks, they had, at least, the right to insist that the Parks should be kept for the enjoyment of the public; and when they were asked to pass the Vote, it was a monstrous thing that, with regard to one of the most beautiful Parks in the neighbourhood of London, there should be occasion for the complaint made by his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), who said that the people were kept out of their own Park by the fact that large places were partitioned off in order to provide game for the enjoyment of persons unknown. It was not due to the dignity of the House, nor was it just to the taxpayers of the country, that such things should be allowed. His hon. Friend had proposed to reduce the Vote in order to get an expression of opinion from the Committee, which would, he thought, be an intimation in influential quarters that this system of encroachment had become a nuisance, and must be put an end to, and its effect would be that the public would have the opportunity of enjoying their Parks in a way in which they had not been able to enjoy them for several years. As to the rabbits, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, he observed, had left his place, or he would have drawn his attention to the subject. He thought the Home Office should at once put a Supplementary Estimate upon the Table of the House for the employment of a number of persons to go down to Richmond Park for the purpose of shooting the rabbits, and thereby put down what was, undoubtedly, a great nuisance. Some of his hon. Friends wished to know what became of all the game that was preserved in the Parks, and, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would be able to tell them about that matter. His complaint, however, was not as to where the game went, but that the most beautiful portions of the Park had been interfered with in order to preserve it. He hoped, therefore, hon. Members on both sides of the House would join his hon. Friend in his endeavour to reduce the Vote by the sum proposed, and then, if the Motion were carried, he thought they would have struck a good blow in the direction of improvement.

said, he believed the hon. Member for West Meath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan), and other hon. Members, had before complained that Ireland was unfairly treated in the matter of keeping up the Phoenix Park, and similar complaints might have been made before now by Scotch Members with regard to the Park in Edinburgh; but the fact was that London was the Metropolis of this country, and that wealth and population, and everything, might be said to gravitate towards it, not only for business, but for the purpose of sight-seeing. It must be held, therefore, that it afforded everyone great pleasure to see the Parks so well kept up, and he did not think the people grudged for a moment the expenditure necessary for that purpose, and which had been the means of bringing the Parks to the state of perfection in which they now found them. He certainly would not wish to be a party to reducing the up-keep of the Parks in London, which had been brought out of the untidy condition they were in 30 years ago, when they ministered very little to the pleasures and enjoyment of the people; and he felt sure the Committee would not wish to see them reduced to their former state. With respect to the Portico of Burlington House, then in Battersea Park, he felt that the cost of re-erecting it would be a very doubtful expenditure. It would be a difficult thing to turn it to good account, and, perhaps, the best that could be done with it would be to get rid of it where it lay. He was obliged to his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) for mentioning the condition of the trees in Kensington Gardens. He had seen the trees in the state described by him, and must say that if they belonged to him he should use the axe very freely, and take care that other trees were planted in their place. But it was well known that if trees were cut down at all freely in London, there was an immediate out- cry. Therefore, he proposed to ask some hon. Gentleman, particularly versed in the management of trees, to join him in a Committee to inquire into the condition of the trees in Kensington Gardens, and should be guided very much by the Report of the Committee in the measures to be taken. He took a very great interest in the question raised, and had seen, with much regret, the state of the trees in question. It was sad to see the effect which the bad weather experienced during the last two years had had upon the older trees in the Parks, and at Kensington some of the fine beeches on the North side of the Gardens were already dying. With respect to Regent's Park, there was no doubt that a great amount of feeling existed in the fact that a large portion of it was not open to the public; but the houses in the Park had nothing to do with his Office; they were let under leases from the Crown by the Office of Woods. It was well worthy of consideration whether the ornamental portion of Regent's Park, not fully open to the public, but only to subscribers, should not be thrown open. Such a measure would be very satisfactory to the people of London generally. The matter had been under consideration, and would continue to receive careful consideration; and if it were thought advisable, he would be glad to make a proposition on the subject. With regard to what had been said as to the excessive decoration of Hyde Park, he could not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac). On the contrary, there was, he thought, every reason for satisfaction, with its present condition. It was a matter in which the whole public took the greatest interest, and he would be sorry to see anything done which would diminish the order and well-kept condition of that part of the Park referred to by the hon. Member. As to the suggestion that trees should be planted near the Marble Arch, he might say that they had in the Office of Works a general scheme for the improvement of the Park in that direction, and he hoped, as time went on, that it would be carried out. His hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had alluded to the game in Richmond Park, and he had the authority of the Duke of Cambridge for saying that he had entirely given up all idea that the public should pay for feed- ing the game. His Royal Highness would take that upon his own shoulders. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon) was indignant with him for having laid down gravel for the riders in Hyde Park. But he had received a considerable number of letters of thanks for having done so; while the only complaints he had heard came from the hon. Member and one other hon. Gentleman. The gravel was laid down in the expectation of June, July, and August being fairly fine months; and if, in consequence of the prevalence of bad weather, a few pedestrians happened to be splashed riders, the inconvenience which the by former suffered could not be placed in the balance with the great advantage which all those who were in the habit of riding in the Park derived from the gravel being laid down. As to the question of danger to riders in Richmond Park, caused by there being so many rabbits there, he had only to say that when the Hares and Rabbits Bill should have passed, the number of rabbits might be expected to decrease. The question raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) with regard to opening the road in St. James's Park from Marlborough House to Storey's Gate, would receive the attention of the Office of Works. He trusted that his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) would, after the statement as to the intention of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge not to ask for payment for food for the game, withdraw his Amendment and allow the Vote to pass.

said, he thought it was a monstrous thing that the people of Roscommon and Mayo, and other districts that were in distress, should be called upon to contribute towards the maintenance of a pleasure Park in the centre of the largest Capital in the world. London derived all the benefit from those pleasure Parks, and if the people came to visit London to see the Parks, they spent their money here; and, therefore, the cost of maintenance should fall upon the local rates. He should feel it his duty to oppose the Vote.

said, he trusted the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) would take the sense of the Committee upon the proposal he had made with regard to that Vote, not so much as a money question as a protest against the use of the public Parks for purposes of game, which, in his (Mr. Bradlaugh's) opinion, ought not to be so used.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Adam) seemed, from his remarks, to have the idea that London was the Capital of Ireland. He (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) denied any such assumption as that. The right hon. Gentleman further said that it gave great pleasure to visitors, when they came up to London, to see the beautiful Parks. He (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) begged leave to differ from him on that point. The feeling of Irish visitors, at any rate, was to contrast the lavish expenditure on those Parks with the niggardly policy which was carried on towards everything in their own country, including the Park he had already referred to in the Capital of Ireland. With regard to the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), he would say that a fairer division should be made of the grants from the Exchequer for all the public Parks, and that would dispose of the objection raised against asking for an increase from the public funds.

said, that, in the remarks he had made, he had not the slightest intention of criticizing the conduct of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, in regard to Richmond Park. His right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works had quite misunderstood his objection. He did not grudge, and he had said so, the small expense of the sum paid to His Royal Highness, any more than he grudged any reasonable expense for Members of the Royal Family. He merely wanted to raise his protest, as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had stated, against using the Parks, which were intended for the benefit of the people of the neighbourhood, for the purposes of game, by which the people were prevented from using them. Rabbits' holes were so numerous that it was not safe to walk in some parts. He had himself seen rabbits there swarming in great numbers. It was not merely the expense, but the exclusion of the public, that he objected to. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Adam) had said that it was necessary to guard the plantations, in order to keep a supply of young trees. He did not object to the fencing against deer, but the public ought to have walks through the plantations; and, if fenced against anything, it should be against rabbits, as nothing was more destructive to young plantations than rabbits. Each of them was about a mile round, and it would be a great thing if the public were allowed to walk through them; and, for his part, he did not see why they were not admitted. He was quite willing to withdraw the reduction he had proposed; but, at the same time, he wished to test the principle whether or not the public Parks in the neighbourhood of London were to be used for the purposes of game preserves. He should, therefore, withdraw his original Amendment; but, in order to test that principle, he should move to reduce the wages of the head-keeper of Richmond Park, whose salary was £300, besides lodging, &c., by the sum of £150.

The hon. Member can only move to reduce the Vote.

said, he would move to reduce the Vote by that amount.

Is it your pleasure that the original Amendment be withdrawn?

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £70,119, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."—( Mr. Dillwyn ).

said, that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works was so satisfactory, that he would not have risen had it not been for the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). He wished to disabuse his mind with regard to the inclosures for the benefit of the game. No enclosures were kept up for the benefit of the game. In order to beautify the Park, young trees were planted and plantations made; and it was necessary that the plantations should be fenced from the deer, in order that they might do no damage to the trees. He would call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact, which he stated last year in the House, that an alteration had taken place with regard to the plantation, by which 14 or 15 acres had been given up to the public, and six acres only inclosed for the purpose of making a new ornamental plantation. Richmond Park contained 2,300 acres, of which 250 were inclosed for the purpose of rearing the young trees; 313 acres consisted of meadows and residences; but over 1,700 were open to the public, wherein they might roam about as much as they pleased without let or hindrance, provided no damage was done. His hon. Friend the Member for Swansea was, therefore, altogether wrong as to the proportions in the Park of open and inclosed spaces.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of prolonging that discussion, but in order to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. Some years ago, a pavement had been put down from Buckingham Gate to Marlborough Gate, St. James's Park. That was done by the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox). That pavement was used in wet weather by a large number of persons; and he thought it might be well extended through the Park across the bridge to Queen Anne's Gate. He believed that was a most desirable improvement, and one that would be appreciated by the number of the industrial class especially, who frequented that route.

said, he did not like to let that Vote pass, without suggesting to the Committee that the present state of Phœnix Park, Dublin, was most unsatisfactory. He observed that the sum required for the maintenance of that Park was about £15,500, while that required for the London Parks was over £112,000. It occurred to him that the sum was altogether out of proportion to the enormous sum for the English Parks. He had lived in Phœnix Park for some years, and he must say that a more beautiful Park did not exist in the world. It was thoroughly fitted for the expenditure of public money to develop its natural beauties. At the same time, there was no Park worse kept. Instead of handsome railings, as those of London Parks, there were only timber railings, stocks of fir trees placed on uprights, which gave it a poor appearance. It was often knee-deep in mud, and if one rode, one was often choked with dust. Only money was required to develop its beauties.

asked, if the noble Lord was in Order in discussing the condition of that Park?

I believe the noble Lord refers to that Park by way of instituting a comparison.

said, he had referred to it for that purpose. If the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works wished to equalize the expenditure between the English and Irish Parks, there was a favourable opportunity for doing so. They had a new bailiff in the Phœnix Park, who had great skill as a landscape gardener; and it seemed a pity that his talents should be rendered unserviceable on account of the miserable grant there was for that Park. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter into his consideration, so as to endeavour to allow of a larger grant.

said, he believed the question then before the Committee was with regard to the preservation of game in Richmond Park. He would, at present, confine himself to that question, because they could discuss afterwards the general question of the total Vote. With regard to the preservation of game, they had had from time to time numerous discussions in that House. If he remembered rightly, the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), last Session, succeeded in getting a Vote, by a fair majority, in favour of the general abolition of the Game Laws, and the present Government had introduced a Bill with regard to ground game, and he believed they hoped to pass it through during the Session. It seemed to him to be illogical to bring in a Bill for the abolition of the Game Laws, and at the same time to deal with the preservation of game in the public Parks of the country. He did not see, under those circumstances, how an answer could be given to the complaint of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). He thought that the position was still more illogical, when they had heard that it was the intention of the Government to continue, for the present at any rate, the preservation of the game in those Parks. With regard to the inclosure of young plantations, it seemed to him that the public might well be allowed to walk in them. For his own part, he should desire to see it, inasmuch as he knew that in that Park in bright weather it was hard to get shelter from the sun. With reference to the system of inclosing plantations for the sake of rabbits, and pheasants, and other sorts of game, he was of opinion that it was inconvenient to the public, and ought certainly to be given up.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the late First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Noel) had said that a large space in Richmond Park had recently been given up to the public. He could only say that he had been two or three times lately—for he was extremely fond of Richmond Park—and it seemed to him that just the reverse was the case. The inclosures were increasing, and no large inclosure had been thrown open. And, further than that, he found that the inclosures were locked, and nobody could get into them.

said, he would not detain the Committee five minutes. He was remarkably struck with the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (Mr. O' Kelly), and he quite agreed with him that it was wrong that all England and Ireland should be taxed for London Parks. He quite agreed that those London Parks should be kept in order out of the local rates. He was sorry to think that the money for those Parks was required to be paid out of the Imperial funds. He thought, as an Irishman, he had a perfect right to protest against that Vote until some more equitable division of money was sanctioned by the Committee. He did not believe that £6,000 represented in any way the fair share of money due to Ireland. He certainly should oppose the Vote in toto when it came to a division, because that taxation of Ireland for England was totally wrong in principle. He thought it was sufficiently hard on Irish Members to be taxed to come there, without their country being also taxed in that way. As to the question of game, raised by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), he should certainly support him. He thought it was wrong that game should be preserved in any Park which was intended for the use of the public.

said, he only wished to say a few words. It had been said that the Parks belonged to the public. If they did so, they should be kept in order by the public. Those Parks were a kind of educational institution. He was astonished at his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, who knew you could not preserve much game so near London, talk in the way he had. The inclosures were for new plantations, for, near London, the young trees would not grow without much care. He would ask his hon. Friends to have some regard to taste. Where was their "sweetness and light?'' Where was their thirst for education? He thought they ought not to have shown their poverty, as they had done, on that occasion.

said, that it appeared to him—[ Cries of "Agreed!"]—he had no intention of sitting down until he had said what he meant to say. It appeared to him that the Committee were labouring under a mistake. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had given them to understand that His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge had waived his claim for the expenses of feeding pheasants, which sum appeared in the Estimates at £155.

said, the sum was £85. The rest was for watching, and would be required under any circumstances.

said, he would take the sum of £85. If His Royal Highness had waived his claim to that amount, the Vote ought to be reduced accordingly; but he had not understood that there was any intention of doing so. He should like to have some statement from the right hon. Gentleman with regard to that matter.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 56; Noes 100: Majority 44.—(Div. List, No. 47.)

Original Question again proposed.

said, that he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to some items on page 12. There would be seen, in the first column, figures showing that there were two Inspectors at the time the last Estimates were prepared. At present, there was only one, whose salary amounted to £700 per annum; while the salary for the two other officers amounted to £286 each. He trusted that some explanation would be given of this remarkable change in the number of officers, and the amounts of their salaries; for he confessed the whole thing to him was quite unintelligible.

said, there were formerly two officers, one of whom had died. An officer of Engineers had been appointed in order to control the expenditure in connection with the Parks. It was supposed that he would draw some of his pay under his Army rank; but it was found that he could not do that, and therefore it became necessary that his civil pay should be increased, and that it should come under the head of this Vote. The officer in question had done a great deal to reduce the expenditure in connection with the Parks. He had been most useful, and the country need not grudge the salary which he drew.

said, he must ask another question of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, How was it the officer could not draw anything from the Army Fund, seeing the Ranger and Deputy Ranger were drawing money from that source?

said, he could not explain how it was that the pay could not be drawn from the Army Fund. All he was able to say was that such was the case.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not clearly stated how this matter stood. It appeared to him very strange that two officers should get £286 each, and that one only should get £700 for doing the same work. From information that he had received, it would appear that one of the officers had died, and that the other had become unfit for duty.

said, the present bailiff looked after the expenditure of the Park, and his duty, therefore, was of a very different character to those of the two other officers.

said, he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £157. He found, on page 12, under the head of "officers," that there were accounted for the Rangers of St. James's and Regent's Parks; and, besides that, there was a foot-note which said that the Ranger and Superintendent were military officers of high rank, receiving pay from the Army Fund. He was quite aware that the duties of these Rangers and Superintendents were of a very light nature; indeed, they only consisted in perambulating once a-year through the Parks.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £70,127, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."—( Mr. Finigan. )

said, he would suggest to the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan), that he should put his Amendment in another form, inasmuch as it would seem strange that the Committee which had refused to reduce the Vote by £158, should then reduce it by £157. Substantial differences in Votes were frequently proposed, but similar sums were rarely taken.

said, he had moved the reduction of the Vote by £157, because he had understood he could move its reduction by a less amount than had been previously negatived.

said, he had only made the suggestion in order to keep the Journals of the House right, for the entries would appear as if the same amount had been twice put to the Vote.

said, he did not object to the duties of the Ranger and Superintendents, if these were real and not mock officers; but he took it that their offices were merely sinacures, kept in reserve for officers of high rank who drew pay from the general fund, and who, therefore, had no right to draw pay from this Vote, in return for which they gave no service. If the Department appointed to this position ex-non-commissioned officers, he should have been happy to support this very small Vote; but when he found that these offices, or rather sinecures, were given to men of high military rank, and knowing that those military men of high rank were not in want of work, he begged to move that the Vote be reduced in consequence by the sum he had already named.

Question put.

The Committee divided :—Ayes 17; Noes 76: Majority 59.—(Div. List, No. 48.)

Original Question again proposed.

said, as he had already pointed out several times, the sum now asked for amounted to no less than £112,000, and the sum asked for Ireland amounted to only £6,000, or thereabouts. Now, if the amount of £118,000 was to be asked for altogether for the United Kingdom, it was only fair that one-tenth of it should be spent in Ireland, because that would be in the same proportion to the moneys spent in the other portions of the United Kingdom. Ireland ought, therefore, to have, in round numbers, about £12,000 for these services. He was precluded from moving an increase of the Vote for the Phœnix Park, Dublin, and the Rules of the House prevented him moving a reduction of the Vote by £6,000, as an overcharge, because the Committee has refused to sanction a similar reduction of £150. He was, therefore, obliged to move the reduction of the Vote by the small sum of £140, by way of protest against what he had so often protested against in that House.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £70,137, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."—( Mr. Arthur O'Connor. )

said, he should be happy to support the hon. Member for Queen's County in taking a division upon this Vote, had it not already been divided against twice. He thought his hon. Friend, perhaps, would see that, under the circumstances of two divisions having already been taken, it was unnecessary to challenge the Vote again by another division. He thought that as attention had been directed to the fact of the great inequality in this expediture for Ireland, England, and Scotland, it would be recognized by degrees that greater attention should be devoted to works in Ireland, and that larger grants of public money should be set aside. If his hon. Friend raised the question on a future Vote, he should certainly support him by going into the same Lobby with him.

said, he was not in a position to refuse to accede to the request of the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell); but, at the same time, he must admit that it went very much against the grain with him to withdraw his Amendment, because the feeling which the Irish people had with regard to the unfair distribution of public money was very strong, and he should never allow an opportunity to escape him of protesting against what le regarded as a flagrant injustice. He hoped that the opportunity which had presented itself on this Vote would again present itself on a subsequent Vote, for bringing into contrast the inequalities between Great Britain and Ireland in respect of the distribution of public money. But that opportunity he was afraid would never arrive. Although he was willing to withdraw his Amendment for the reduction of the Vote in deference to the representation made by the hon. Member for Cork City, he did not care to assume the responsibility of agreeing to the Vote as it stood without some further protest. He should, therefore, move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £85, which it was proposed to take for the subsistance of pheasants in Richmond Park.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £70,197, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1881, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."—( Mr. Arthur O'Connor. )

said, he thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) was probably right in asking the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) to withdraw his Amendment to that part of the Vote, and not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing again on the question. At the same time, he was bound to say that the unfairness with which Ireland was treated in money matters generally was particularly exemplified in the Vote, and was a question which might be legitimately raised in discussing it. As regarded the question of payment for public Parks generally, he thought that the public Parks of London should be supported out of the public rates of the Metropolis; and that argument appeared to him to be unanswerable, because it was a fact that the people of London generally received the advantage which the outlay brought to them alone. It had been pointed out very properly by the hon. Member, that the proportion paid by Ireland was something like £14,000 or £15,000 a-year; and he could not, there- fore, help expressing his opinion that the present Government were acting in a very niggardly manner with regard to public Parks in Ireland, as well as public works in districts where there was great distress. Therefore, he thought the Irish Members were exceedingly well justified in protesting against these large grants being carried on from year to year. The hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) had very truly said that the people of Ireland did not enjoy them, although they had to pay the greater part of the expense in connection with the Parks. Under the circumstances, therefore, he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would be justified in dividing upon his Amendment, and he was not quite sure that he had not neglected his duty in expressing his willingness to withdraw the former Motion.

said, he should very much like Ireland to get its due arithmetical proportion of this Vote, and no more; because, if that happened, it would, of course, follow that it should be given in the case of Scotland generally. With reference to sanitary works, medical grants, and a great many other matters, if that arrangement were carried out, Scotland would certainly get double the amount it now received, and Ireland would be paid considerably less. Besides, Scotland paid more into the Public Exchequer than Ireland did. Therefore, he thought the principle was a sound one, if it were carried right through. However, he would ask his hon. Friend opposite not to press his Amendment on this occasion.

said, he wished to point out that the inhabitants of the Metropolis paid a much larger sum than other branches of the community in the way of taxation, and that they had not a sufficient amount of representation.

said, he thought the Metropolis ought to have more representation, as was suggested by the hon. Baronet who had just sat down (Sir Andrew Lusk).

said, he would call the attention of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) to the fact that he was travelling beyond the question before the Committee.

said, he had no fault to find with the amount paid for the maintenance of the Parks, because they certainly contributed very much to the amusement of the people. But he thought that the Metropolis did get many advantages which were not enjoyed by the other towns and cities in the country, and, therefore, that Metropolitan Members should not say that they were badly off in having to pay their share of the expense. A large amount of money was spent in the Metropolis, which came out of the National Debt, and also by people who had made money out of the great wars in which this country had been engaged. That money had been sucked away from the Provinces. On the other hand, very little money came out of London to such places as Ireland; while the Irish people spent some £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 annually, which, he believed, gravitated to the Metropolis. However, as he thought they had divided once on the Game Question, he should be sorry on such a paltry question to vote a third time.

said, that, having already spoken, he would not again enter into the discussion of the question now raised, but would merely say he trusted that the Vote would be allowed to pass. He could assure the hon. Member, on the part of the Government, that there was no intention of treating Ireland or Scotland unfairly with reference to the distribution of the sum necessary to the maintenance of public Parks.

Question put, and agreed to.

(4.) £21,901, to complete the sum for the Houses of Parliament.

said, he believed that this was, perhaps, the only opportunity which would be afforded during the present Session of alluding to the question which had been under the attention of Parliament during the last two Sessions in relation to the accommodation in the Reporters' Gallery for the Provincial and Metropolitan Press. He took a great interest in that question, and he was quite sure that many other hon. Gentlemen did the same. In referring to it at that moment, he did so in the hope that his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works would, if he thought fit, after such discussion as might be had that evening, represent to Mr. Speaker the views which might be expressed, with the object of obtaining a more complete and satisfactory arrange- ment with regard to the reporting of their debates. The Select Committee, to whom had been referred that question of reporting, had recommended that some space should be taken out of the side Galleries up to the doors, sufficient to allow an additional accommodation of eight front seats to the reporters; and it was thought that this would be of great service to the Provincial newspapers which undertook, in good faith, to supply a full report of the debates. As he was connected with Lancashire, he might be said to represent, to some extent, important newspapers circulating in that county, where there was a population of some millions, and in which circulated two or three very important Provincial daily newspapers that took a very leading position, and were read by multitudes of the Lancashire people who scarcely ever read a London daily paper. Now, if that was the case in Lancashire, it was the case, to a much greater extent, in Glasgow, Dublin, and Edinburgh, and other Provincial centres, where the London daily newspapers were, to a very slight extent, read or noticed; but where the enterprizing proprietors had supplied the Irish and Scotch populations with newspapers which, in ability, general management, and other matters, might certainly claim to compete with the daily papers of London. If that were the case, and if a great number of people were dependent on these newspapers for their daily information as to the debates in Parliament, it became a matter of the first importance that they should take care that in the Reporters' Gallery proper regard should be paid to the representatives of the Provincial Press. But that was, confessedly, not so. At the present moment there were 19 front seats in the Gallery, and a certain number of seats behind. He observed that evidence was given before the Parliamentary Committee by the Sergeant at Arms upon this subject. Captain Gosset said—

"That the front seats in the Gallery are the only seats in which reporters can report properly. There are 15 seats appropriated to the London Daily Press, three to the Press Association, and one to Mr. Hansard."

That was to say, there was a very small amount of accommodation given to the Provincial Press amongst those seats in which reporters could report with strict accuracy. He could speak, from infor- mation derived from reporters, that owing to the conversation going on in the back seats the difficulty of hearing was so great that unless an hon. Member spoke with great distinctness it was was impossible to catch his meaning. He should be glad if he could see a possibility of the Report of the Select Committee being carried out in its entirety; that was to say, that a portion of the side Galleries might be allotted to the accommodation of the reporters. He knew that some hon. Members would agree to this alteration with reluctance; but, at the same time, he thought that the advantages of this arrangement for additional accommodation for the Press were so great, and the necessity so pressing, that the convenience of the House would not be much interfered with by carrying out the recommendation of the Select Committee. But there was an alternative—to make use of the present Gallery in such a way as should more completely answer the purposes for which it was intended. He had already stated that there were 19 front seats, and that out of those there were 15 appropriated to the London Daily Press; and he would put it to the Committee, who were as well acquainted with the London Daily Press as he was, whether those 15 seats were properly occupied, having regard to the kind of reports which appeared in the daily papers? He said they were not properly occupied. On the contrary, he maintained that some of those seats were wasted, so far as the object of having a front seat was concerned. Now, with regard to the 15 seats appropriated to the London Daily Press, the Committee, in their Report, recommended that the front seats should be exclusively occupied by persons actually engaged in the work of reporting. They also made a recommendation which, although it applied to the proposed addition to the Reporters' Gallery, he thought might be very well applied to the front seats in the present Gallery—namely, that they should be appropriated to meet the requirements of those newspapers which undertook, in good faith, to give a full report of the debates. His complaint was that 15 out of those 19 front seats, which were the only seats that could be advantageously used for the purpose of reporting, were not all occupied by persons actually engaged in that work. He found that The Times had three seats. He was bound to say that the reports of The Times were generally excellent. They were indebted to The Times for the accuracy and ability with which its reports were produced, and, therefore, he did not grudge the three seats assigned to the leading journal. He thought that without The Times , the debates in that House, so far as the Metropolis, and probably many parts of the world, were concerned, would be very little understood or known. Again, he was bound to say that the reports of The Standard were good and accurate. He had seen reports of The Standard of an extremely satisfactory character. He was also disposed to think the reports of The Morning Post were good and accurate. But there it ceased. Having named those newspapers, he did not hesitate to say that he had got to the end of the newspaper Press in London which gave reports of a reliable character. And yet they gave two front seats to The Daily News , whose reports were utterly unreliable, and very often wrong; and two seats to The Daily Telegraph , to which the same remark applied. He did not read The Daily Telegraph , but he had occasionally tried to read The Daily News reports, which he found to be of a character very misleading and very incomplete. Now, he desired to see one seat taken from The Daily News , The Daily Telegraph , and The Morning Advertiser , and devoted to the use of the Provincial Press. That was to say, to the use of those newspapers which would undertake, in good faith, to give a full report of the debates. If he was not misinformed, one of the seats which belonged to The Daily Telegraph , and one of those which belonged to The Daily News , were occupied by gentlemen who devoted their spare time to writing "London Letters" to the country newspapers, which he did not hesitate to say were in the nature of misrepresentations, intended to convey an impression with regard to hon. Members that was entirely unfair and untrue. The gentlemen in question made use of the advantages accorded to them in order to write those lampoons about Members of the House, and then sold them to the Provincial Press at a penny a line. For that reason, he thought that, as a rule, the front seats in the Gallery might be better occupied.

said, the hon. Member would, he thought, see that he was getting a little wide of the question before the Committee.

said, he did not want to raise any general discussion, nor would he have alluded to the way in which the seats were occupied except for the purpose of producing an impression, through the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, upon Mr. Speaker. Unless they could get an addition to the Reporters' Gallery, as recommended by the Select Committee, he thought that the seats in the Gallery should be made use of for the purpose of actual reporting. He did not wish to press this too far, nor did he wish to interfere with the convenience of any newspaper which undertook, in good faith, to give a full report of the debates; but he did object to have any of the best seats in the Gallery occupied by gentlemen who were doing practically nothing more than filling up their time in other ways than giving a full report of the proceedings of Parliament. He trusted they should hear from the right hon. Gentleman that there was some probability of the present arrangement being improved.

said, he did not require the speech of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) to call his serious attention to the propriety of something being done to increase the room for the reporters in the House. But, at the same time, while the hon. Member and others were expressing their opinion that the reporting accommodation should be increased, other hon. Members were complaining that the House was not large enough for the accommodation of Members. He was, therefore, placed between two fires. It was not for him, but for Mr. Speaker, to go into the matter of a re-distribution of seats in the Reporters' Gallery; he had only to deal with the question as to whether the Gallery should be enlarged. He assured the hon. Member that he agreed with almost everything that he had stated upon the subject, and with the conclusions at which the Select Committee had arrived. The subject should receive his most careful attention; and if the Government could, by any possibility, make any arrangement for the better accommodation of the Provincial Press, which had certainly, during the last few years, taken up a different position to what it had formerly occupied, by furnishing reports which were, in many cases, so much better than those of the London journals, it should be done. But it would not be right for him to make any promise. All he could say was, that the subject should receive the most careful consideration from himself in consultation with Mr. Speaker.

said, that when his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands) rose to complain of the inadequate accommodation of the House, he thought he was going to complain of the inadequate accommodation for hon. Members, as well as for the Press and Strangers. He thought it important that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works should recognize the fact that that House must be re-built. He complained that the accommodation in that Chamber, not merely for the Press, but for strangers and for Members themselves, was a reproach to the country. He would first deal with the question of the Press. It was a relic of old times to imagine that the paltry Gallery, such as they saw above, could accommodate the Press of the country as it now existed. It might have been done 25 years ago, before the establishment of the penny Press had revolutionized journalism. The Education Department and the Public Schools of the country had, within the last 20 years, so multiplied newspaper readers, that, as regarded the newspaper readers of England and Scotland and Ireland, they were centuries ahead of that condition which was in the mind of the designer of that Chamber. They should endeavour to get rid of the almost Antediluvian idea that the present accommodation for the Press was even reasonably adequate for the requirements of the times. It was not even sufficient for the accommodation of the London Press. There was a time when all the newspapers of the Kingdom took their Parliamentary reports from London papers; but that was before the telegraph had been established, and Country newspapers were then dependent on the London papers. He remembered an express engine being run to Holy head, and then a special steamer being put on to take the report of the Queen's Speech across to Dublin. The House at that time accommodated the London Press alone; but then it really accommodated in that way the whole Press of the country. That time was now passed, and they might as well talk of the arrangements of the time of Alfred the Great, as being any guide to the present condition of things, as to say that the old condition of the Gallery met the present requirements of the Press of the country. The London Press at the present time, with the exception of The Times , gave very indifferent reports of the proceedings in Parliament. The Times was the only journal published in London which gave a real report of the debates. The other newspapers gave as much as the independent judgment of their conductors prescribed. The Daily News, The Daily Telegraph , and The Morning Advertiser , would not report a line beyond the limit fixed by them as the market value of the speeches of hon. Members, and any attempt to force them to do so would be a failure. To those journals the market value of the speeches of hon. Members was very small indeed, except they were the speeches of Ministers, or, except there was a "scene." Well, the House of Commons did not wish those papers to report nobodies; the House only said that these papers did not require all the seats that they had in the Gallery. Parliament was so much an institution dependent upon public opinion, that they had passed the time when the House could be hermetically sealed to the public, although it was still private in theory. They knew that publicity was the very breath of their existence, and it could not be denied that the accommodation for the Press was disgracefully insufficient. Some two years ago he made a proposition in Committee, that permission should be given to take notes in all the Galleries. That idea was at the time met by a shake of the head; but there was not much in that—he did not mean in the head—in the shake. The Reporter's Gallery was, no doubt, largely occupied by gentlemen who were not note-takers in the proper sense of the word, but who simply attended to listen to the debates in order to write articles in the morning. Why should they occupy the seats of the reporters? Why should they not be permitted to sit in the Speaker's, or in other Galleries, and take sufficient notes for their articles? At present, in one Gallery, if a man took a note, he would be liable to expulsion; while, in the other, note-taking was looked upon as a praiseworthy duty. What common sense was there in that? What crime did a man commit by taking out a note-book in the Strangers' Gallery? If any man wanted to see to the full the idiotic side of human nature, then let him come into that House. Then, with regard to the Ladies' Gallery. It was an absolute disgrace to the country. Ever since Parliament had opened to see 80 or 100 Gentlemen struggling for a few ladies' seats was indescribably humiliating. They were not school-boys, and he was sure that every hon. Member must feel that reform in this matter was greatly needed. The Ladies' Gallery was much too small, and unworthy of the ladies who occupied it during their debates. That part of their accommodation required very great alteration. And now to come to the great dummy-hat question. The time had come when this building must be supplanted by a new Chamber. The idea of making a pint-bottle hold what a quart would not do, it was ridiculous. About 650 Gentlemen were accommodated in a building which could only hold about 300. If the author of Gulliver's Travels had stated that the wise Senate of some country he had visited had, in the plenitude of its own wisdom, declared that this was the best arrangement which it could make for its own accommodation, that would have been treated as the best joke in the volume. This arrangement was not to be endured any longer. They ought not to be compelled to scramble for seats. Could anyone say that the dignity of the House was not affected by hon. Members having to scramble over the legs of other hon. Members in order to get to their seats? It was indescribably humiliating and disgraceful that the House should have attempted to hold its deliberations in that Chamber. Then, again, as to the shape of the Chamber. There were only two sides to it, whereas other Legislative Chambers were semi-circular. The attempt to have a Chamber in which there were only two sides, and in which a man must either belong to the Party that was in or to the Party that was out, must break down. It resembled the attempt of the governor of an Irish prison to classify all the prisoners under three heads—Protestant, Catholic, or Presbyterian. The governor was of the opinion that every man must belong to one or other of these denominations, and if a man refused to permit himself to be so classified, he was sent to the black hole and locked up, or otherwise punished. In the same way, it was attempted to compel hon. Members to belong to one or other of the great Parties in the State; and, therefore, the House was divided in the way it was. He hoped that something would be done before next Parliament with regard to the Ladies' Gallery. It was a mere den. He had taken ladies from foreign countries there, and Englishmen should see the way in which American ladies turned up their noses—always pretty noses—at the Ladies' Gallery in the English House of Commons. Then, when their constituents wanted accommodation, they should remember the annoyance they gave to their excellent Sergeant-at-Arms by having to go to him to beg for orders. He thought that the time had come for the Government to take into contemplation the building of a Chamber worthy of the country and worthy of their own Business. He was sorry to have detained the Committee so long; but he thought that the question raised was one which was of such importance that it ought to occupy the serious attention of the Government. The interest of the country in the House of Commons had grown much greater than the Government of the day could realize. There was urgent need for further accommodation for the Press. With regard to "London Letters," he came in for his own share of the blame and praise; but he believed that these sketches of Parliamentary Life were more widely read in the present day throughout the Provinces than, the Parliamentary debates. Therefore, he should be sorry to limit the accommodation in the House to mere note-takers. He thought they ought to invite to the House all bonâ fide representatives of the journals of the country. In conclusion, he would respectfully urge upon the Government that, during the Recess, they should not confine their attention to the petty matter of spending a few pounds on the House, but should take into their consideration the building of a House of Commons worthy of the country.

said, that he had listened with great attention to the able speech, of the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), and that he approved of every word which it contained. No doubt, that House was not fit to accommodate all the hon. Members who required accommodation, but the cost of providing a new Chamber would be very great. It would amount, at least, to £120,000. He had to urge that a few additional seats should be provided at the two corners of the Reporters' Gallery, at a probable expense of£300. If that were done, a very great benefit would accrue to the Press. Last year, a Select Committee recommended that the Reporters' Gallery should be thus extended, so as to take in two or three more seats from each of the side Galleries. Then, if seats in the present Gallery were taken from some of the evening or other papers which really did not require them, a great improvement would be effected, because accommodation would be afforded to the Provincial journals which were anxious to give full and fair reports of the debates. Such an operation could be carried out easily and rapidly at a very trifling cost. If any such change were required by a banking firm or large mercantile house in London, they would probably have everything made in the workshop, so that, in a single night, the alteration might be made and everything completed for use. The hon. and learned Member for Meath had alluded to the fact that the Provincial papers used to be provided with their reports by the London papers. He well remembered the time when the Provincial papers obtained all their reports from the London papers. On interesting occasions, people waited with great interest for the mail coach coming in, in order to see a copy of the London papers, for at that time no Scotch daily papers were published. But a very different state of things existed at the present time. A number of the daily papers in Scotland, as to which he could more especially speak, gave excellent reports of their proceedings; but they laboured under the disadvantage of being obliged to report, as it were, by stealth, being obliged to engaged reporters to report for them who were reporting for London papers. He alluded to that, to show the shifts to which Provincial papers were driven in order to obtain their reports. At present, they laboured under great disadvantage. The Scotsman gave better reports of the proceedings of the House than any London papers except The Times and the The Standard . If they were to measure the reports in The Scotsman , one day with another, or one month with another, or if they were to apply any other test to them, he was bound to say that no London paper, except The Times and The Standard , would be found to give such good reports. Why, then, should that paper be obliged to obtain entrance to the Gallery under false pretences? If the re-arrangement of the Gallery which he had suggested were adopted, then it would be in the power of The Scotsman and other influential Edinburgh and Glasgow journals to have their own reporters in the Gallery. He specially mentioned the case of the Scotch Press, because he was best acquainted with it; but he believed that the daily papers published in Dublin, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, and other large Provincial towns, were equally anxious to obtain facilities for furnishing their readers with fair reports of the discussions in Parliament. He might say that he was authorized by the editor of The Edinburgh Daily Review to say that he would send reporters to the Gallery if he were allowed to do so. In order to make these arrangements, about half-a-dozen extra seats would be required, which would cost but a very small sum; and then, if some seats were taken from those London papers which did not require them, this arrangement would be satisfactorily carried out.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

said, he was glad attention had been called to this subject. He was a new Member; but his attention had been directed very forcibly to the defects of the Chamber. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) had described the insufficient accommodation for Strangers and Members; but he had not adverted to the serious difficulty which, in consequence of the form and arrangement of the House, hon. Members often felt in following what was going on. The House was so formed that hon. Members sitting below the Gangways, especially near the lower end of the benches, had to sit sideways and twist themselves uncomfortably in order to see the Speaker or hon. Gentlemen addressing the House from the Government or front Opposition Benches, and as very often hon. Gentlemen speaking from these Benches turned their backs on the greater part of the Assembly and addressed the Speaker or two or three hon. Gentlemen opposite, much of what was said, and especially by Ministers when answering Questions, was not heard by a great many hon. Members. In any alteration of the House, or in building a new one, it should be arranged that hon. Members, however far from the Chair, should be so seated as to face the Chair, and the Leaders of Parties so placed that they would address, not the Speaker, but the House at large. He trusted this would be considered when a new House was being built. At the same time, he hoped the Government would not hastily resolve upon carrying out the plans approved by a Committee which sat in 1868. The building, as sketched in the plans, was not of sufficient size, nor well arranged, and it was badly formed for hearing. One defect which should be carefully attended to was the accommodation for individual Members. At present, they were allowed about 20 inches of sitting space. That was all very well if the Members were all small men; but they were not so, and if a Member were seated between two hon. Gentlemen of more than average size, his position was very uncomfortable. He trusted the plans would be submitted to another Committee. In the meantime, he thought the alterations in the Reporters' Gallery ought not to be delayed. The Provincial Press had great reason to complain. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had stated that the reports of some of the Provincial papers were not inferior to those of any London paper; but those reports were obtained at great expense and inconvenience. As the Provincial papers had done so much for the advance of Liberal opinion in the country, he considered they deserved some consideration from a Liberal Government.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) had raised, very properly, several questions as to the accommodation in that House. With regard to some points, however, he did not agree with him. One question was that it should be within the right of visitors to the Speaker's and Strangers Galleries to take notes, and so use their positions as visitors for the purposes of reporting to a certain extent. Hon Members who had any experience as to the number of applications to those parts of the House must know that the general public were very badly accommodated, and that those Galleries were already over-crowded. Moreover, very often visitors, from the country especially, had to wait a long time at great inconvenience, and, perhaps, were disappointed after all. That being the present state of the accommodation, he did not see how they could get any benefit from allowing reporters and correspondents of newspapers into the Strangers' and Speaker's Galleries. He believed the result would be that those Galleries would be always filled, and that the general public would be kept outside. Another question of considerable importance had been raised—namely, the accommodation of the Press. That was a difficult question for this reason, that if the size of the building were increased, there would be considerable difficulty in hearing fully what hon. Members said. That was a difficult problem, in order to give sufficient accommodation, and yet to allow the hearing in that House to remain good. It was fair, no doubt, at present; but if they doubled the size of the building, it would not be so. With regard to the Exporters' Gallery, he knew that in many parts of the Kingdom exceedingly good reports were furnished by Provincial papers. He did think that the best way to settle that matter was to take away some of the accommodation now supplied to the London papers. Without adversely criticizing their reports, they only supplied a summary, and not a report of the proceedings. The London morning papers had two front seats each in the Reporters' Gallery, and they only gave a short summary, which could easily be supplied by one reporter. He believed that to give them a second seat, was to stand in the way of reform. He thought that if Mr. Speaker arranged that half the present Gallery should be given to the London Press, and the other half to the Provincial Press, all that was required would be done. He did not think it would be an advantage to take anything off the side Galleries. They knew that on some occasions of interest those side Galleries were filled with Members of that House, and it appeared to him that Members should at least have an opportunity of hearing the debates on which they were going to decide, if they chose to do so; and he, therefore, could see no argument in favour of curtailing that space. Once or twice during the new Parliament he had seen the two Galleries full, and Members standing at the doors. If the Reporters' Gallery were changed as he had suggested, that would be sufficient. If they had a new House, he trusted that they would give better accommodation to the ladies. The present Ladies' Gallery was most uncomfortable, and a disgrace to the gallantry of the architect who planned it. It was, he believed, exceedingly good for hearing, but frightfully ill-ventilated and uncomfortable to sit in.

said, he had no wish to prolong the discussion; but he would remind the Committee that there was another large class of persons very much inconvenienced by the arrangements of that House—he alluded to their constituents. There were seats, he was told, in St. Stephen's Hall for them during the long hours they had to wait before they could get their turn for a seat in the Gallery. He had heard that people sometimes waited there four or five hours before they could get in. Those seats were of stone, and there was nothing more dangerous than to sit for a long time on such seats. He should be very glad to hear that his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works would take charge of that matter, and remedy it. There was nothing easier than to cover the stone with something, and so relieve them from the present state of things, which was little less than barbarity.

said, that a great many things required reform, not the least of which was the Members' Smoking Room. It was a great deal too small. He thought they ought not to press those matters too much then, as there was a Bill for the Relief of Distress in Ireland coming on afterwards, which ought not unnecessarily to be delayed.

said, he had been in that House for 15 or 16 years, and he wanted to say a few words upon the other side of the question. They had heard that the House was not large enough: but let them look at it then. During the early part of the Session there had been a difficulty about seats, he would admit; but, latterly, there had been no cause for complaint of want of room. That clamouring for increased accommodation was like building an enormous church for Spurgeon, or Canon Liddon, in which either of them was going to preach once only. They had one or two evenings when the House was very full; but, at all other times, it was large enough.

said, he rose to Order. He wished to know if there was any question before the Committee as to the alteration of that House?

The hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Lusk) is perfectly in Order, because money is asked for in relation to the structure of the House?

said, when the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had been there a little longer, he would know what Order was. With regard to the reporting, an hon. Member had just stated that people in the country never read a London newspaper. All he could say was, so much the worse for them. They had heard also a good deal about country newspapers and the speeches of hon. Members in that House. Except as regarded the speeches of Members of the district, there was nothing to be seen in those country newspapers one could trust to. A good many had found fault with the London Press, and now it was his turn to find fault with that of the country. He was unable to complain of the arrangements of that House. He did not like the idea of a House in the shape of a horse-shoe. After all the complaints that had been made, he did not see much that could be found fault with. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) spoke of The Scotsman sending good reports. He was not so sure about that. When he saw that paper, he observed that the speeches of Scotch Members were well reported, but never those of English Members. He would make no objection to the corner seats in the Gallery being given to the reporters. There could be no harm in that, for nobody used them. In fact, it was very seldom that anybody at all was in the Gallery. He liked to look at things as they were, and not as hon. Gentlemen imagined them to be. Unless they allowed themselves to be carried away by imagination, he thought things should remain as they were. Looking at all the circumstances of the case, he did not see anything to complain of except, perhaps, that the public had not sufficient accommodation. He hoped they would not increase the size of the House much, at all events. If they did, it would be like the Albert Hall, and nobody would be heard if they spoke.

said, he wished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works as to the purchase of property for the continuation of the new buildings where the Home Office stood.

The hon. Member is out of Order.

said, that that House was one of the best specimens of Gothic architecture in England, and one of which they ought to feel proud. Perhaps it was a little too small about once in a hundred times; but he should be sorry to see it removed. He was perfectly satisfied to leave it as it was. He wished to say one word with regard to what had fallen, from the hon. and gallant Member for Clare (Captain O'Shea) as to the Smoking Room. Many of them spent some time there, and it certainly was not large enough. He hoped the Government would not grudge a small outlay upon that account, so as to make it more comfortable. At present, it was more like a coal cellar. He hoped something would soon be done in the matter.

said, he was not present at the beginning of the discussion; but it seemed to him they were seeing how they could spend a large sum of money. Notwithstanding, there was a good deal to be said for it; but he agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member who spoke last, that the whole question should be considered, and he hoped they might hear from his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Adam) that it was his intention to examine and look carefully into the whole matter. If so, for his part, he should be perfectly satisfied.

hoped the question would not be disposed of in such a hurry, because it was the only opportunity they would have, at any rate, of discussing the question of the Smoking Room. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, like his Predecessor, had had representations made to him on that subject, and that there had always been a desire to find some further accommodation for hon. Members who were given to the habit of smoking. In regard to that point, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) would not be consulted, because he was not a smoker, to his certain knowledge. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works must be aware, that when the House was constructed, smoking was looked upon not merely as a vice, but as a dangerous vice. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, public opinion had entirely altered on that matter since; and if he or any other hon. Member brought forward a Motion of Censure on the Government, and particularly on the Office of Works, for their delay in providing comfortable accommodation for hon. Members to smoke, he was perfectly certain that, independently of all Party ties, it would be carried against the Government. Nothing, of course, could be further from his wish than to do anything that would reflect upon his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works; but he did hope that his right hon. Friend would take that opportunity of stating what representations had been made to him on that subject, whether he had given them any consideration, and what part of the House was available for smoking; whether the Government had any intention of proceeding to take immediate steps, in order that, before another Session, hon. Members might be provided with a neat and comfortable room fit for human beings to use?

wished, very briefly, to express his dissent from some of his Irish Colleagues, who appeared to be dissatisfied with the present Chamber. Feeling confident that the tenure of his Party would not be prolonged in that Building for many years, he was quite content, in the meantime, with the accommodation they had secured on the three comfortable benches which the Irish Members were in the habit of occupying. But he did entirely share the feelings of those who spoke with disapproval of the accommodation supplied in the Ladies' Gallery. He considered that "Cage" simply a disgrace to the House, and it reminded him of nothing he had ever seen except the stage-box in the Cairo Theatre, where the ladies of the Khedive's harem were screened off from the profane view. It certainly was a just cause of complaint that 650 Members, of whom he supposed the majority were married men—["No, no!"]—well, if not, at any rate they ought to be—could only ballot for 32 seats at a time. It was tantamount to refusing accommodation to the lady relations and friends of the vast majority of the House. He did not pretend to know what difficulty there might be in providing larger and better space; but it must surely be within the scope of architectural possibility to do so at a very moderate expense, and, therefore, he wished to add the strong expression of his hope that some reform might be effected.

replied, that he could only repeat, what he had already said, that these matters had been brought before him and would be carefully considered, especially the question of accommodation. As to building a new House, that was far too great a question for him to say anything on at present. He quite agreed with what had been said by many of his hon. Friends as to the House, as a general rule, being sufficient to accommodate those who wished for seats in it; but it would require very serious and careful consideration before the Government committed themselves to so great an expense as would be incurred by building a new Parliamentary Chamber. The question of the Smoking Room was under the consideration of the late Government, and was now being considered by the present Government. Plans were at present being drawn in his Office for what he trusted might be a pleasant Smoking Room for Members; but it was impossible for him to give any pledges in the matter, or to say when the plan would be carried out. All he could assure the House was that he should endeavour to meet the requirements of hon. Members in that respect as far as he could.

said, there was one point to which the right hon. Gentleman had not referred, and that was the Ladies' Gallery; and, to put the matter in a practical form, he should propose to remove the grating. He could not understand for his part why, in the other House of Parliament, ladies were allowed to sit in an open Gallery, and in that House were confined to what was commonly known as the "Cage." He thought they ought to have some pledge from the right hon. Gentleman, such as he bad given in regard to the Smoking Room.

observed, that he would not go back on the discussion which had already been very fully entered into; but he should like to say just one word as to the pay of the police under sub-heading D. He believed that it was correct that half the men who were engaged in attendance on that House received 7 s. per week less than the others, and he wished to know whether the whole of the men could not be put upon an equality of pay, seeing that they were moved alternately from one class of work to another, and that there was no special kind of work reserved for the higher class of the men? He was confident that he expressed almost the unanimous feeling of the House that, as a body of men, the attendants there were a credit to the police. They were of very great intelligence, they occupied a very trying position, and even the public outside, with whom they came most into conflict, admitted that they were most civil and courteous. He would, therefore, make a strong appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that the men should be put on an equality. The extra 7 s. was given for some reason some years ago, when some men discharged certain duties. They were all eminently worthy of the increase, and he respectfully submitted the matter to the consideration of the Government, as the amount in question was really a very paltry one.

observed, that he was not aware that there was any difference in the pay of the police; but if there were, he would promise that the matter should be immediately considered.

asked that his question might be answered also, for when an hon. Member took the trouble to put a question to the Government he naturally expected a reply.

begged pardon for what was merely an unintentional mistake. The subject of the grating of the Ladies' Gallery had been very often considered before, and he was afraid that he could not now give a direct promise in the matter. It had often come up for con- sideration; but he, nevertheless, did hope that it would be removed. Certainly, something ought to be done, and he would undertake that the matter should be seen to.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) £72,632, to complete the sum for Public Buildings.

wished to point out that, under sub-head B, there was a charge for stables for the First Lord of the Treasury in Prior's Row, of £130. That sum was the same in the present Estimate as it was last year. A little lower down, there was an item for Carlton Stables, 10A, Warwick Street, Stables for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, £150, which was also the same as last year; but, at that time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury were not the same persons, and two sets of horses and two sets of stables were necessary. At present, he believed that the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were the same individual, and, if that were so, he did not understand how the Chancellor of the Exchequer could require a separate set of stables apart from those which he enjoyed as First Lord. If it was the case that he did require a separate set, he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would assent to the Vote; but, otherwise, it was very strange that the money should be asked for. From his experience, the Estimates were, in many respects, very carelessly drawn; but these particular Estimates seemed to him to be most carelessly supervised by the present Government since they had come into Office.

said, the explanation was a very simple one. These Estimates were those which the late Government had prepared before they left Office, and it was thought better that they should remain in the shape in which they were originally prepared. He believed one set of stables would be given up; but he could not exactly state the sum of money which would be thereby saved, and the amount, in any case would be very small, for it would only take about£50 from the Vote.

remarked, that there was a reduction in the Vote, which arose, he supposed, from the removal of the Law Officers into the new building at the Royal Courts of Justice, and he was glad to see that that change had been carried out. There was, however, another matter connected with the charges for rents to which he would like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioners of Works and the Committee. This charge for rents amounted to a very large sum, and it was difficult to estimate its total accurately, because it was an item which was scattered over the whole of the Estimates. Certainly, however, it amounted to £15,000 or £20,000 a-year. Some time ago, according to his recollection, a conversation arose in that House upon the provision for Public Offices, and it was then contemplated that a building should be ultimately provided which would embrace the whole of the War Office, and, probably, some other Departments of the Government. He ventured, at that time, to suggest that measures should be taken for privately buying up property, not letting it be known that the Government were doing it, but buying as though for private individuals, by which means the property would be acquired at a less price, and buying, also, as the properties came into the open market. By that means the Government would be able, through its surveyors, to acquire property for the purpose of concentrating its Offices, and would protect itself from having to pay these heavy rents, and to run, besides, the chance of being turned out. He did not know whether anything was actually done; but it would be satisfactory, at any rate, to know if some measures were contemplated. Certainly, it would be very desirable to provide annually a sum for this purpose, so that the Committee might be sure that the Government would have the accommodation which was necessary for them, and not be liable to be dispossessed when their tenure expired.

asked if there was any chance of Parliament Street being widened? It was the main approach to the House, and it was probably the worst approach to any great set of buildings, like the Parliament Chambers, that there was in Europe. He saw also on the Vote charges for Westminster Bridge, which he thought was a free bridge, and for the Menai Bridge. Probably, those charges were very easily explained; but he should like some explanation.

replied, that, no doubt, what was said about the expense of hiring houses was very true; but he was not a free agent in the matter. He had to find accommodation for the different Government Departments, when he was ordered to do so, and he had very often to find it in the most expensive part of the town. Large sums, therefore, were forced to be paid for the houses required. The Office of Works certainly did its best to get accommodation as cheaply as possible; but he was afraid this expense would have to go on until the Government and Parliament could harden their hearts to the much more serious matter of expending a very large sum in building Public Offices. A Committee which discussed this matter the year before last did not come to any particular conclusion, for they merely threw down the question to be considered at some future time by the Government when the finances of the country would admit of it. When that question came to be considered, the matter would also be raised of the approaches in Parliament Street. No doubt, the present state of things was anything but satisfactory, and it was not right and proper that the approach to the Houses of Parliament, in a great country like this, should be through so narrow and incommodious a street; but the matter was of far too great a magnitude to be faced at the present time, and he could only say that when the Government and Parliament really felt that the money ought to be expended in the new Offices, then would be the time that this great expenditure on rents would be brought to an end.

said, it was perfectly true that the amount involved for these stables was very small; but if public officers were to understand that by making the overcharge small, they would escape all criticism in the House, the result would be that the Committee would have no practical check whatever over the Estimates. He knew, perfectly well, that there were a great many items charged for which the money was not wanted. If the noble Lord opposite (Lord Frederick Cavendish) did not know it now, he would learn it before very long; and, for his part, he should be happy to show him many instances where money, after it had been voted, was not wanted, could not be spent, and had to be returned into the Treasury. The present, however, was a case in which it was acknowledged that money was not wanted; and he expected to hear the noble Lord say that he was going to surrender these stables, or, at any rate, that he would surrender the amount charged for those which were not wanted, and it was with considerable surprise that he found that the noble Lord had not done so. He did trust that this money would be struck off the Vote. With regard to Public Offices, he could say from his own personal experience of one Office, that a considerable loss both in time and money was incurred by the system at present pursued in the management of the War Office. That Office at present consisted of a number of houses in Pall Mall. On the one side were Nos. 80 and 82, 83 to 87, 88, 89, 90, and 91; while, on the other side, was Adair House on the East side close to St. James' Square, and on the West side, Winchester House, so that there were three separate detached portions of the War Office in Pall Mall. Then, at Great Queen Street they had the office of the Judge Advocate General. There was another Department at No. 2, Victoria Street; there was another for the Ordnance Survey at No. 46, St. George's Road, Pimlico; in fact, the whole of this Office was sporadic, and it was distributed over a comparatively large area of ground. The result was that an enormous amount of inevitable delay was incurred, for which no fault could attach to the existing officials. Certainly, a large amount of unnecessary expense would be avoided if the Treasury would take the matter in hand. Some time ago, when Northumberland House was to be sold, the City people stepped in and bought the ground, and, by laying it out well, made considerable profits. The Government might have done exactly the same, and, after taking what part of the ground they wanted for their buildings, they might have yet had a great deal of land to spare on which a considerable profit might have been made. Not only was the public work delayed, but the health of the officials suffered very severely. The War Office, for instance, was built upon a number of cesspools, many of which had never been properly cleared. He knew that that fact was denied, for he himself heard the denial one day while he was sitting under the Gallery, and the very day that he heard it he saw one of those cesspools opened. That was a specimen of what official answers in that House often were. Besides these cesspools, the whole Department, from one end to another, was, every 10 or 12 yards, at a different level; walls had been broken through, and arches made, many of which were not sufficiently large for men six feet high to walk through without stooping. Many of the rooms in the building were so low that the majority of the clerks working in them could touch the ceiling with their hands, and so badly ventilated that in some of them the clerks were obliged to go out into the passage every two or three hours to get fresh air. One room, occupied by three men, was of such a character that when the Medical Inspector General was shown it, some years ago, he stood at the door, lifted up his hands, and said—"I declare I would not keep my dog in it!" Many of the highest officials, as they knew, were invalided for a considerable length of time, and their illness entirely arose from the bad drainage at the War Office, while the subordinate officials were always more or less on the sick list. He must urge upon the Government to do something or other in connection with this place.

said, when Westminster Bridge was constructed, the Westminster Bridge Estates were handed over to the Public Exchequer, and that was the explanation of the continuance of this charge, the receipts from, those estates amounting to upwards of £4,000 a-year. As to the Menai Bridge, that was constructed by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and though for a time the cost of maintenance was fully covered by the tolls, the competition of the railways had somewhat diminished them, and, as a consequence, this charge had arisen. With regard to the Stables, he must remind the Committee that it was impossible to discontinue the hire of them at once, for they were taken on lease. As to the Public Offices, he admitted that the whole matter was a most important and, in some respects, most pressing question. At the same time, it was a question of somewhat alarming proportions, because the Estimates which were presented to the Committee, which in- quired into the subject in the year 1877, were—for Sir Henry Hunt's scheme, the Great George Street Plan, £2,500,000; Mr. Mitfords' Plan, Spring Gardens, £3,250,000. A good deal might be said, of course, for these magnificent plans; but he hoped no one would advocate them on the ground of economy. They had been told that it would be a great thing to get rid of their rents; but the whole of the rents only amounted to £32,000 a-year, and that would be a very small sum, indeed, even by the side of the expenditure which was proposed; while anyone who knew anything of building must be very sanguine indeed if he did not think the real cost would be much larger than the estimate. The subject was under the consideration of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adam); but he would ask the Committee not to press expenditure too much upon the Government. He must say he looked forward to that expenditure with very great anxiety, indeed, in the present state of the Exchequer. It seemed as if the late Government had postponed all possible expenditure. Sums had been cut down to the very lowest figure, beyond what a wise economy would have sanctioned, and, as a consequence, the charge for maintenance and repairs during the next few years must be very heavy; while, if new Offices were to be undertaken, the expenditure would be enormous.

said, the explanation about Westminster Bridge was very satisfactory, for it constantly occurred that the general public got an impression that a very large charge was incurred by the Department for some particular Estimate, when there was a very large sum to be set against it on the other side. It would be very convenient to the Committee, and the public, if footnotes were given to these particular Estimates, so that they might know what to set against the charge.

complained that the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had not at all answered the remarks made by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). Assertions of a very serious character were made by a Gentleman perfectly acquainted with the subject about which he was talking, and they received no answer whatever from the noble Lord. A very large sum, £6,000 or £7,000, was asked for Public Buildings, and yet they were told by the hon. Member, in a manner which, he was sure, if it became known, would very much shock the public, that the sanitary state of the War Office was discreditable to the country. It was perfectly impossible to deny that the hon. Member spoke from his own personal experience as to the discreditable state of some of the rooms of the War Office, and the remark was passed by as though it had been made by some Member in the Lobby, or by some one of the outside public. That was a manner of conducting Business of Supply which was not at all proper; and when an hon. Member told the Government that there were things of this kind going on, which were a discredit to the country, that he should receive no answer whatever, but that he should be put off with a lot of vague remarks which had nothing whatever to do with the question, was very improper. Either the Vote must be postponed, or they must have a far more satisfactory explanation.

was rather too sharp on his noble Friend (Lord Frederick Cavendish) in his complaints, for he was on the point of rising when the noble Lord got up. The sanitary state of the War Office, no doubt, had been bad, and a Committee was appointed to inquire into it, presided over by Sir William Jenner. That Committee made certain recommendations which had since been carried out; and although he would be the last to say that the War Office was now what it ought to be, or that the rooms in it were fit in every respect for Public Offices, yet he must assert that the great sanitary defects in it had been very much remedied since the recommendations of that Committee had been carried out.

said, he was afraid his object had been misunderstood. He did not desire to involve the Government in any large expense, but merely to recommend that they should gradually, in the course of years, provide themselves with the necessary land, so that when it became necessary they should be able to erect Public Offices without going to great expense for sites. Property in London was continually rising in the market, and the Government would have no difficulty in doing what he suggested. It was only what every private individual did who was contemplating changes; he waited his opportunity, and when property came into the market he bought it, and so got what he wanted on much more reasonable terms than if he had to buy suddenly on an emergency.

Vote agreed to.

(6.) £10,285, to complete the sum for Furniture of Public Offices, Great Britain.

said, there was a question before the Treasury some time ago, as to the possibility of making arrangements for having the whole of the furniture used in the Public Departments placed under one responsible administrator. Previously, when each Department drew its own furniture, the result was that there was no check whatever, and a great waste of public money resulted. Especially in the Provinces was there no reliable check on the disposal of furniture. He would like to know whether those arrangements had come to anything like completion, and if they had, who was responsible?

said, the Board of Works now looked after that matter. The whole tendency of late years had been to put the matter more and more under the control of the Board of Works. In a few places, like the British Museum and the Science and Art Department at South Kensington, such matters were still left under the control of the Trustees; but, otherwise, the Board of Works had the whole control of the matter.

said, he was not speaking of places like the Science and Art Department. There was an enormous class of buildings, such as those used by the Inland Revenue Department, for instance. Part of the furniture that that Department required was provided by different Committees; but, on the other hand, a considerable amount of furniture from the Inland Revenue Buildings was supplied to the Departments under a totally different administration.

said, it was true that formerly the whole of the Offices provided their own furniture; but of late years the tendency had been to concentrate the responsibility on the Office of Works, and the Inland Revenue had an officer of their own who looked after the matter, and performed his duty very efficiently, economically, and carefully. The matter had been recently under his consideration; but he had not felt called upon to make any change, although he would assure the hon. Gentlemen that the matter was not lost sight of.

Vote agreed to.

(7.) £114,973, to complete the sum for the Revenue Department Buildings, Great Britain.

(8.) £31,600, to complete the sum for County Court Buildings.

said, he should like to know how much was returned for this expenditure on County Courts?

If the hon. Member will refer to the Appropriation Accounts, he will see.

I wanted to have it on the same heading. It would be convenient for reference.

said, it was not desirable to have the Estimates too bulky; and even if they did put the figures on the Returns to the Exchequer for these Courts, they would only be able to give those for previous years, while the advantage of the Appropriation Accounts was that the actual sum was named.

said, he observed that under the Vote there was an item of £1,000 for Furniture. That was hardly a Vote which the County Courts should be left to administer, and ought to be managed by the Board of Works.

said, the sum was administered by the Board of Works.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) £16,645 to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Police Court Buildings.

said, there was a custom in the country for the Court Houses to be settled for out of the local rates; but the Metropolis got a special advantage by charging the costs of its Police Courts on the Imperial Exchequer, though he really did not see why that should be done. It had been argued on previous occasions that strangers came to London, and that a good many of them were tried at Police Courts for offences of a general public nature; but, at the same time, a very large number of cases tried in London were of a purely local character, and arose from the ordinary exigencies of crime and disorder. For these reasons, he would like to have an explanation as to why the whole cost of these Police Courts in the Metropolis was charged on the Exchequer.

said, it was settled by Act of Parliament that these Courts should be maintained from the Public Exchequer, the reason, he supposed, partly being that in the Metropolitan Police Courts business of a more important character was transacted than that done in the country. However, the receipts from these Courts during the previous year had amounted to £18,000, which must be set, of course, against the charges.

observed, that £30,000 was charged for the new Court at Bow Street, and it appeared to be a building well adapted for its object. He noticed, however, that the site was leasehold, and not a fee simple, and he should like to know for what term it was held, and from when?

said, the landlord was the Duke of Bedford, and they could not get a freehold site. The tenure was for 99 years from 1876.

said, the Government might get over the difficulty by bringing in a Bill to stop the payment of rent.