said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee, for a few moments, to that Vote. In the first place, there had been an increase in expenditure which could be easily explained. There had been an increase in the special purchase of the Grace's Collection of prints and drawings; there had been an increase also in the classified catalogues; and there had been—and he said it with very great pleasure—an increase in the number of visitors and readers at the Museum, and that not only in one department but in many. The number had advanced from some 620,000 to 780,000, the increase principally being in the reading and sculpture rooms. The Trustees had also provided for the electric light, in order to enable readers to have the benefit of the use of the library, not only in the winter evenings, but during such times as fogs occurred; and it was only due to the officers of the Museum to state that they had done all in their power to provide accommodation for the increased number of readers and others. It was a matter of great satisfaction to them to find the Museum in so excellent a condition; but there was still greater satisfaction to the Trustees, and he was sure also to the Committee, in the fact that the buildings at South Kensington had been so far completed as to allow of the transfer of some Collections being already commenced. It would be satisfactory to the Committee to learn that three Collections—namely, the botanical, geological, and minera-logical—would be transferred completely and entirely, if not before the end of this year, at any rate in the opening of next year. As regarded the Zoological Collection, he thought he must appeal to the Government, as it was really a matter of great importance to be liberal in their grant for the purposes of the transfer of that Collection. The Committee ought to know that the transfer of the Collections—not merely their removal, but the furniture and fittings connected with them—would amount to about £177,500, or, say, £180,000. Out of that Estimate, three sums of £20,000, making altogether £60,000, had been expended: but if the transfer was completed, a much larger sum would necessarily be required in the ensuing year, and he hoped it would be forthcoming. Under those circumstances, he appealed to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury to consider carefully whether he could not provide a liberal grant, in order to facilitate the removal of the Zoological Collection, so that the whole Natural History Collection might, as soon as possible, be arranged in its new home.

said, before that Vote was passed he should like to ask a question which he had previously put on the Paper. It was as to whether the Government adhered to their resolution not to provide residences at the new Museum for some of their officers? It was not an extravagant request that two or three residences should be provided, and he asked for them on what he believed to be reasonable grounds. In the first place, there was the question of custody. At present they intrusted the keeping of the Museum to the police; but there was no accommodation for any officer at the Natural History Museum. He thought it was necessary that someone should be on the premises to exercise superintendence in case of a catastrophe such as fire or burglary. He wished to ask, whether the resolution of the Government was final and irrevocable as regarded residences? and before adverting to the Collections, he should like to say one word on behalf of the gentlemen of the Museum, who deserved something at the hands of that Committee. The officers of the Museum were not highly paid, considering they were men of high accomplishments. While they cheerfully accepted that position, they had a right, at any rate, to residences, so far as these were a part of the terms of their employment by the Trustees. It was understood that an officer, under certain circumstances, as his turn came to him, might refuse or accept a house. At the present moment, one of the gentlemen who was attached to a section that was removed to South Kensington had a house at Bloomsbury. He apprehended that if he were turned out from there he would be provided with another. He wished to remind the Government of that, because he thought they might well re-consider the judgment he had understood them to have given in the matter. He wished to say one word upon another subject. He was an old officer of the Museum, and felt a deep interest in all things connected with it. Three whole Collections, and part of another one, were being transferred to the new Museum, and in the transfer of the Collection of Minerals not a single specimen—and he knew them individually—had thus far received any injury. He thought this redounded greatly to the credit of the officers, who had transferred a great Collection of very delicate specimens so carefully to their new home. Those officers had, by being there at 6 o'clock in the morning and working hard, got so far forward with their task that he believed they would get the whole Collection in before September. He referred then particularly to the Mineralogical Collection. The Botanical and Zoological had not advanced so far in the matter of removal, but they were in a forward state. He wished to refer to one matter which he believed his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Spencer Walpole) had not alluded to. He wished to refer to the great success of the electric light at the Museum. [Mr. SPENCER WALPOLE said, he had alluded to that subject.] He (Mr. Story-Maskelyne) regretted that the remarks which fell from the right hon. Gentleman had not reached him. He would say that the light in the public Library was perfect, as regarded comfort; and he thought that the country owed something to the principal Librarian—Mr. Bond—for the promptitude with which he had adopted the electric light for the benefit of readers, and to the Trustees, who had so energetically carried out the proposal. He trusted that those officers of the Museum who were entitled, prospectively, to residences as they fell vacant, would, on being transferred to South Kensington, be provided with them.

said, he wished to ask his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Spencer Walpole) one question. About three or four years ago he ventured to impress upon him—and he had been asked to do so by a large number of people—the absolute necessity there was of providing some refreshment place within the British Museum. Ladies and others who remained there at work or study during the day for a considerable time had no opportunity of getting anything, for except at a public-house there was no refreshment place in the neighbourhood. The right hon. Gentleman said previously that there was no space in the Museum, but that they would consider the matter. He gave him (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) then to understand that by this new arrangement more space would be available in the building, and that he would say another year whether a room could not be allotted for that purpose. He, therefore, would take that opportunity of asking him the question; because, as he understood it, Collections had been moved away, and were still being moved away, to South Kensington, and that that removal would probably last till the spring of next year. If that were so, he thought the present a favourable opportunity to impress again upon him that the accommodation, which so many had asked for, might be provided.

said, that he took a great interest in the Museum; but he did not think that it was necessary to keep duplicate specimens in a general Collection of that kind. He was hadly able to justify to himself what the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury had put forward in regard to the expenditure of that Museum. If that Institution was in any way unduly restricted as regarded funds for the purpose of purchasing valuable specimens that might be necessary to complete the Collections, that House ought not, he thought, to be grudging in granting those funds. So far as he himself was concerned, he should say that an expenditure of the national funds for such a purpose was an expenditure of a perfectly justifiable character. They ought not to debar the Trustees from obtaining possession of valuable specimens in the various branches of art and science, simply because they wished to refrain from spending money. On that account, he could not agree with what had previously fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) as regarded that subject. With regard to the disposal of duplicate specimens, he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Spencer Walpole) and the other representatives of the British Museum that while, he believed, a great number of the people of this country would consent cheerfully to grant money for the purposes of that great Institution, they felt that its advantages were enjoyed principally by residents in the Metropolis, and that it was, practically, of little service to the inhabitants of other parts of the Kingdom. The inhabitants of the Metropolis, having the great advantage of the Museum Collections, it did seem to him that they ought to be willing to assist the large centres and larger towns in the country, where Museums had been established, principally by the munificence of private benefactors, by supplying them with the duplicate specimens of the British Museum. Of course, in the first instance, Edinburgh and Dublin should be attended to, and then such places as Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham, and afterwards the smaller towns, where Museums had been established. It was of the greatest possible consequence that those central Institutions should, while being supported with liberality by the country, also be of considerable assistance to the different localities in other parts of the Kingdom. He ventured to submit those views to the Committee; and if the Trustees would come down and ask the Secretary to the Treasury for larger grants for such purposes as he had referred to, he was quite sure that the Committee would be willing to vote what might be necessary. Such Institutions ought not to be dealt with parsimoniously by that Committee; but, on the other hand, they should receive the most liberal support. He regretted that the hon. Member for Cricklade (Mr. Story-Maskelyne) had, instead of going, in the first instance, to the Trustees, come down to the Committee and impressed upon them the necessity of making additional advantages to the salaried officers of the Institution. He must say he regretted that Committee of Supply should be employed as a means of bringing pressure to bear upon Members of the Government for an increase in salaries. [Mr. STORY-MASKELYNE: The hon. Member misunderstood my remarks.] He begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon; but he quite understood from him that there were two causes of complaint. One was that some of them ought to have residences. If there was any officer of the Museum then in possession of a residence, he quite agreed that if he was required to remove to South Kensington he should be still furnished with a residence in some form or other. But he understood that the hon. Gentleman went further than that, and said that certain officers who had not residences already should have them, and also, further than that, an increase of salary

said, he believed the hon. Gentleman had mistaken what he said. What he had said was, that certain officers had residences, and he mentioned the case of a Natural History officer who had one at Blooms-bury, and that such residences were part of the understanding with the Trustees, and as they fell vacant so they were occupied in turn. It was part of the salary then, or, at any rate, of a prospective salary; and as many of the officers would be removed to South Kensington, he thought it would only be fair to them to supply them with residences in their time and turn. He had certainly not asked for any addition in the salaries.

said, that would, no doubt, be considered by the Trustees. But he thought the hon. Gentleman had referred to increase of salary. [Mr. STORY-MASKELYNE: No!] Then he begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon. But, at any rate, he had pointed out that the Trustees representing the British Museum had found it necessary, in consequence of the removal of certain Collections to South Kensington, that certain officers should be sent with those Collections, and that, by so doing, those who were entitled prospectively to residences would be placed at a disadvantage. What the Committee ought not to do was quite evident—namely, to provide residences for those who did not at present enjoy them. In regard to the recommendation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cricklade, he wished to say that he looked with some jealousy upon pressure being brought in Committee of Supply in order to increase the advantages of officers of the Public Service. Such recommendations should be made to the Trustees, and not to the Committee; because he knew the difficulties which surrounded the Government on account of pressure going on all round to increase the salaries of the Public Departments. He apologized for detaining the Committee, and begged the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Spencer Walpole) to consider what he had stated.

said, that on behalf of the Trustees, he thanked his hon. Friend for the expression of confidence in them. He would also thank him for the liberal view with which he regarded the claim of the Museum upon the State for assistance. It was with great pleasure that he remembered that when questions, such as a grant for the British Museum, came before the Committee, his hon. Friend always was in favour of liberality in dealing with such objects of national interest. He must say, however, that he appeared to be rather hard upon the hon. Member for Cricklade. He would not enter into the question his hon. Friend the Member for Cricklade had raised; but he would say that he did not think that he had gone beyond his province as a Member of that House. On the contrary, much as he regretted his loss at the Museum, still he could not help feeling that he had brought into that House with him an amount of knowledge on the most interesting questions which the hon. Member for Burnley, with all his knowledge and culture, could hardly lay claim to. His hon. Friend had taken that opportunity of raising the question of supplying certain officers with lodging. Whether right or wrong in his proposition, this was clearly the time for him to refer to the subject. He would assure the Committee, though he felt confident his hon. Friend the Member for Cricklade required no assurance, that the Trustees were, in all respects, most anxious to deal most liberally and generously with those exceedingly eminent men whose services they had been fortunate enough to secure. With regard to the question of duplicates, which had twice that evening been before the House, the question of the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) had been already answered by his noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury. They were all desirous that the treasures, such as the Museum possessed, should be as widely useful as possible to the whole country. But, after all, it came to the question whether Mahomet should go to the mountain or the mountain should go to Mahomet. As regarded the distribution of duplicates, of course, if there were genuine duplicates which could be spared from South Kensington, or Bloomsbury, by all means let them be sent to Manchester or elsewhere. But nothing was more delusive than the uncultured idea of what a duplicate was. What, then, was the Museum in its character? Was it a place to go and spend a Bank Holiday at, or to stroll about and pick up the merest smattering of learning; or was it a great encyclopædia of knowledge, by which information was to be gained on important subjects by that inductive process which could only be carried out by a wide examination of a largo number of specimens, and then communicated to the world by students to whom such study was indispensable for their mission? He was sure that everyone who respected science or archaeology would say it was the latter. The consequence was that any Collection that was really valuable must contain an infinite number of outwardly similar specimens. Such specimens were not duplicates, but varying specimens. They had a very great ostensible similitude; but they were not really identical, while it was the minuteness of the variations which made them valuable. The only way to obtain real knowledge on such a subject was by comparing specimens which varied most minutely, and which might appear to the uncultured eye to be identical. It was the same with books. There might be, for instance, two copies of a book in a great public library. Such a library was not only a reading-room, but an illustrated history of printing. Take, for instance, the familiar example of Hobbes' Leviathan. The casual visitor to some public library might note that there were two copies of the first edition of the Leviathan there. The gentleman from a provincial town then might say—"What a waste; why not give one of those copies away to us?" The reason was, that a remarkable difference in the frontispiece of this edition made the possession of two copies necessary to any first class library. The great allegorical figure which represented despotic power appeared in the frontispiece of some copies with the lineaments of Charles I., in others, with those of Cromwell. He quoted that easily explained instance, as he was a book collector himself, in explanation of the fallacy with regard to duplicate specimens of all kinds, which were, in fact, analogous specimens, the manifold varieties of which it was the work of scientific men to examine. But then what was to be done to meet the reasonable wants of provincial towns? There was no doubt what was the right thing to do—to take advantage of the aids which modern science gave for literal reproduction. There were the electrotype, which enabled the rarest coins in the world to be reproduced with a similarity which would deceive anyone but the student; and the autotype, which enabled the rarest prints to be reproduced; and the old process of casting, which gave the absolute reproduction of the sculpture of all ages. Let the Treasury grant to the British Museum and the South Kensington Museum the means of reproducing these copies as minutely and perfectly as possible, and let them be sown broadcast over the country; but let the Collections of originals be kept at some central place as a great school of study. Make an exhibition of specimens in a place where the learners and teachers of the world might congregate to study completely all arts and sciences, which they could not do if the originals, which were their learning books, were distributed amongst the galleries in every provincial town.

said, he could assure the Committee that great dissatisfaction existed in the Provinces and in the great centres of industry with the management of the British Museum; and he did not think there would be satisfaction in that matter until the British Museum was put under similar management to that of the South Kensington Museum. Unsuccessful applications had been made for assistance to the British Museum for help to these centres of industry which had to provide their own Collections of Art. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) had spoken of Mahomet having to go to the mountain. That, he supposed, meant millions of people in different parts of the country who had need of study must come to London. But that was impossible. The people in the Provinces, although they could not come to London for the purpose of study, in no way begrudged the grants to the British Museum and similar Institutions in London; but the time was coming when such towns as Birmingham, Sheffield, and Manchester would no longer be content to be heavily taxed for those Museums, and yet be denied any help to their own Collections. In Birmingham the people were taxing themselves to the extent of 1d. in the pound—that was to say, to the utmost the law would allow—for the purpose of providing an Industrial Museum in the centre of a population of 1,000,000 inhabitants. They had industries absolutely indispensable to the welfare of the country; and yet they had to pay some thousands of pounds in aid of London Museums, while they had only permission from Parliament to tax themselves to the extent of 1d. in the pound for their local Museums. The sum of £24,000 had been voted in Birmingham to provide an Art Gallery and Industrial Museum—a very large sum for the people to provide without any aid, especially when they saw the large sums expended in London, and when they were told that the "mob" must come up to London for the purpose of art study, and to enjoy the advantages of institutions provided by their money.

said, he had withdrawn the word "mob" as soon as uttered, and substituted "people."

said, he could assure the Committee that there was a great feeling of dissatisfaction on the part of the taxpaying classes in the Provinces at having to vote large sums of money, year after year, for the London Museums; while they had to provide, at their own expense, everything they wanted for themselves in matters connected with Art and Industrial Institutions. But those Collections were not wanted for themselves alone. They were wanted for the benefit of national industries, without which England must go down; and, therefore, it became necessary that they should be established in the centres of men engaged in those industries—in places where they could be studied daily, and where they would assist the various trades to which those men belonged. He trusted, before many years had passed, that the whole management of the British Museum would be thrown, if he might so speak, into more directly representative hands, as was the case with the Museum at South Kensington; and not till then did he believe that the country would be satisfied with the management of that Institution. In the meantime, he would suggest to the Trustees that when the next provincial deputation waited upon them, it should be received with a greater disposition to utilize, for the general good, the great treasures at their command. As he had before pointed out, the people in the Provinces did not begrudge the grants to the British Museum, National Gallery, and South Kensington Museum. On the contrary, they would not object to see them increased, as long as the money was wisely spent. But the time had gone by when a system of art centralization could be continued; and it would, before long, be forced on the Government by the Provinces that the centres of industry, who were taxing themselves to establish Institutions of their own, should receive some aid, in proportion to that taxation, from the central government.

said, the hon. Gentleman could hardly have listened to his concluding observations, in which he pointed out that when the Museums had reproduced specimens on a magnificent scale, it would be more favourable to the students of the Provinces that they should study them in one central spot than in isolated specimens.

said, that he thought that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cricklade (Mr. Story-Maskelyne) had done his duty in pointing out that his colleagues were insufficiently rewarded. He wished to speak from another point of view equally representative. Having had the privilege and advantage for years of being a student at the British Museum, he begged to say, on behalf of the readers there, that their wants were also entitled to the consideration of the Trustees, and that if those wants were overlooked by the Trustees they were entitled to the consideration of the House. He would add, from experience of a practical kind, that the Trustees did not always seem to be acquainted with the nature of those wants. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Spencer Walpole) had justly pointed out, as a subject of satisfaction to the Committee, that the number of readers had immensely increased. The Museum was not merely a collection of stuffed birds and beasts, and curious specimens. He reminded hon. Members that it was also the greatest Library in the world, and that its advantages as a place of study were inestimable. For that reason he thought it was the paramount duty of the Committee to see that the wants of the public were sufficiently provided for. Those wants, however, he took the liberty of saying, were not provided for in a proper manner. Two years ago he had pointed out to the Trustees the exceptional and glaring wants which were still to be observed in the Historical Collections of the Museum; and he repeated deliberately, and upon reflection, that there were blanks in them which were a reproach to the literature of the country. Hon. Members had heard, with regret, the recent destruction of the Library of a great Professor. Much as that event was to be deplored, he did not hesitate to say that if there was one thing that would have reconciled that distinguished person to the loss of his unrivalled Collection it was that which was within the grasp of the Trustees of the British Museum, and which, as he knew, they had not lifted a finger to obtain. He referred to the journals of the age, which were in themselves priceless for historical purposes. Yet, day by day, and month after month, he had besought the authorities of the British Museum to stir themselves in that matter. Files of old newspapers were constantly sold in the auction room, and the more they were sold the greater, in his opinion, was the duty of the Trustees to make a complete collection of them. If these records were destroyed, they were irreplaceable. On the other hand, he did not hesitate to say that if they were collected in time they would be of priceless value to the historian. He had represented the importance of this many times, but had never been able to make any impression upon the authorities of the British Museum, many of whom were his personal friends. It appeared to him there was something wanting of a representative character in the Governing Body, one half of whom never went near the Museum. There were amongst the Trustees Prelates and Peers; but what was wanted was the proper inclusion of men of science, letters, and art, who knew the wants of their Profession, and who would be able to suggest and provide remedies for them when necessary. He must not be supposed to say one word personally against the Trustees, who were a most estimable body of men; and if they had all the same zeal for letters as his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Beresford Hope), and the same experience in business as the Baronet the Member for the London University (Sir John Lubbock), he would be the last man in the world to raise an objection to them as Trustees. But he objected to the Body being constituted by the mere nomination of the Treasury, which conferred the dignity and honour of the Trusteeship of the British Museum on persons who, though they stood well already with regard to their position, wanted still that particular feather of Trusteeship in their cap. In the course of last winter, which was one of extreme discomfort, it had been part of his duty to spend many hours and weeks in the British Museum; and here he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the position of the attendants in the reading room. He had always found these attendants, who, he held, were scandalously underpaid, most attentive to the wants of the readers. They were at all times full of suggestions, aptitude, and readiness to supply the wants of the readers, and were absolutely invaluable to any student in getting through his work. But, as had already been pointed out, the number of readers had enormously increased, and one of the physical results of this was that before the day had gone by the air became completely overused. There was no system of ventilation. Hot air was introduced to counteract the intense cold, and then the windows were thrown open. That state of arrangements would, in itself, appear sufficiently bad; but many of the most persevering readers in the Museum had joined in asking the Trustees for what he would call the miserable permission that the attendants who were obliged to stay in the overused air every day should have the benefit of the Act introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for the London University, and get four days' relief in the course of the year; and, notwithstanding that the proposal was put before the Trustees in the most unexceptional way, this concession was refused. But although the Trustees had not thought fit to improve the position of the attendants, why, he asked, was not something done to make the condition of the readers more comfortable? Owing to the state of the atmosphere, he had himself been frequently compelled to leave the Museum earlier than he intended, perfectly exhausted. This condition of affairs was neither just to the attendants nor to the readers. If men like his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London, who worked with their brains, were appointed to the Trusteeship, they would soon find out what was necessary, and see that it was carried out. He was aware that his hon. Friend had been so appointed; but he was an exception to what ought to be the rule. The requirements of visitors needed the presence of men who understood the working of great Institutions. He concluded by repeating that the officers of the British Museum were ill-paid, and by expressing his opinion that the Historical Collections were deplorably deficient.

said, he should not have intruded on the Committee, had not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) given utterance to opinions which showed how much out of harmony were his views with those of other Members who had spoken on the subject of art. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that reproductions were duplicates. Now, he held that to be a cardinal heresy in connection with art. It was, in his opinion, utterly impossible to convey the same idea by a reproduction as was conveyed by an original work. Again, when the right hon. Gentleman spoke of isolated specimens only, he ventured to say that out of the National Collections, at least a dozen Collections could, without difficulty, be formed, and that these might, with great advantage, be distributed throughout the country. Then the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that the persons in the Provinces who desired to benefit by the National Collections were able to come up to London. But that was absolutely impossible. He ventured to say that the views of the right hon. Gentleman were those of bygone times, and that until they succeeded in bringing these Collections to the doors of the working man, so that he might be able to see what could be done, they would utterly lose the benefit of their influence upon his art education. It was only within the last month that a magnificent collection of Japanese silks had been purchased by the French Government for the sole purpose of improving the taste of the workpeople engaged in the French silk manufacture. These Collections should be placed where working men could conveniently examine them. If works of art were to be reproduced, it was absolutely necessary to train the class whose business it was to reproduce them; and without a race of born workmen they could never do this. It was well known that in Paris and Lyons persons were found whose families had worked for hundreds of years on the same branch of art. He hoped that the discussion which had taken place would do good; and thought, at any rate, it would inform the Trustees that views on art were growing up, which had made a strong impression on the minds of the people, who desired that a distribution of artistic works should be made throughout the country. The Collections at Bethnal Green and Manchester were proofs that no niggardly spirit existed in the minds of private persons; and he hoped that an equally liberal spirit would be shown in this respect by the Governing Body of the British Museum.

understood there were many duplicates in the Museum. He saw no reason why they should not be presented to the Museums in Edinburgh and Dublin and other large towns, where they would be of the greatest possible service.

assured the Committee that no one could be more anxious to increase the usefulness of the British Museum than the Trustees themselves, who were always glad of the valuable suggestions thrown out by hon. Members. But in the matter of the sale of prints, he would like to ask what the Trustees were to do? There was offered to them a Collection which was of very great importance and interest; but they were unable to get the grant necessary for the purchase from the Government. Under these circumstances, they decided to make a sale of a less important Collection, in order to procure others which were considered to be of peculiar interest. They would have been very glad to have obtained the money direct from the Treasury; but, failing that, they adopted the course which they thought best for the general interest. They would all agree that the Museum should be as complete and thorough as possible. It had been suggested that the duplicates ought to be distributed amongst the Provincial Museums. The Committee, however, must be mindful not to do anything which would destroy the completeness of the Collection. That would be a most unfortunate thing to do; because, supposing a gentleman came up from Birmingham, or from Manchester, and asked where a particular thing was, he would feel much annoyed to be told that it was at Manchester or at some other place. The country now knew that, so far as they had been able to acquire it, they had got in London the best and most complete Museum in the world. When they came to actual duplicates, there was no doubt they might be distributed without deteriorating the National Collection. But, so far as Natural History was concerned, it was necessary that they should hare more than one specimen. To obtain a proper idea of a plant, for instance, it was absolutely necessary to have more than one specimen; they must have a considerable number, in order to study the plant properly. He would not say it was necessary to have more than a certain number. When they got beyond that number they were duplicates, and might be distributed. But the officials had got as much as they could possibly do to classify and name and study the specimens now in the Museum; and the Committee would remember that that was particularly the case at the present moment, because not only had they their ordinary duties in connection with the Museum to fulfil, but in consequence of the removal to South Kensington they had extremely onerous and exceptional duties. He thought the time had come when, in reference to the question of duplicates, they might take a somewhat wider view. They ought to foster and encourage Museums in the large Provincial cities, so that there should hardly be any important place in the United Kingdom which did not possess a Museum. He thought it was possible to start some organization for the supply of type Collections to local Museums. It would be easier for the Department to offer the types to the large cities, rather than the large cities to make their own collection, though it was desirable that the Collections should be added to by Collections made in the locality. It was hardly fair to blame the Trustees or officials because they had not done that already. It was no part of their duty. However important the matter was, it was one which the present staff of the Museum could not possibly carry out without neglecting other du- ties. Before he sat down, might he be allowed to express the hope that Her Majesty's Government would, during the Recess, consider another question—he alluded to the question of our ancient monuments? The Bill with which his name had been associated was one for the better preservation of ancient monuments, which were, to a certain extent, in the custody of the Trustees of the British Museum. The measure was successful in passing the House of Commons in the spring of this year; but it came to an end in the House of Lords when Parliament was dissolved. But scarcely had the present Parliament assembled when the nobleLord the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) brought forward a Motion on the subject, which seemed to have given rise to some little misapprehension. The noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion, and, indeed, all who supported them, were anxious that our ancient monuments should be preserved. Hon. Gentlemen generally, he was persuaded, were similarly anxious, and would, no doubt, as the last Parliament did, approve of the Bill by a large majority. When he (Sir John Lubbock) had the honour to come back to the House, he naturally had to consider whether he should attempt to re-introduce the Bill. But, in a broken Session, it seemed to him useless to make the attempt.

I am afraid that if we get up a discussion upon ancient monuments this Vote will not be passed for a considerable time.

said, he had no desire to enter into the whole question, but simply to express the hope that Her Majesty's Government would consider the question during the Recess. He did not wish to say in what form they ought to consider it. It would not be desirable that he should do so at the present moment; but he thought that as the matter had been intrusted to the Trustees of the British Museum, he would be allowed to express a hope that the Government would take the subject into consideration. In conclusion, he would say that the Trustees would give the various suggestions that had been made their most careful consideration, for their one desire was that the British Museum should continue to be, what it was now, a Museum worthy of this great nation.

desired to protest against the course pursued very frequently in the House by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), for he believed that in the management of the British Museum they ought not to be penny wise and pound foolish. It was not pleasant to know that an hon. Member was able to get up in his place and tell them that the Trustees were absolutely obliged to sell a valuable Collection of prints and other things in order to secure possession of another Collection. Yet it was true that in order to get for the Museum a Collection which was deemed too valuable to lose the Trustees had to sell some things of almost equal value. To illustrate further the sad straits to which the Trustees were put, he might mention that a short time ago the very valuable Collection of the United States Consul in Cyprus was offered to them at a price very much below that for which they were afterwards sold in New York. The rumour was that the Trustees regretted so much to have been unable to see their way to purchase the Collection that they were afterwards ready to send, or did send, to New York, with the view of purchasing some of the duplicates at an extravagant price. Such was the statement made at the time, and the reason assigned why the Trustees did not buy this very complete Collection, and one of peculiar interest to us now, was that the Treasury refused to grant the money necessary for the purpose. Finding, subsequently, that they had missed such a valuable opportunity, the Treasury would have been willing to have paid more than double the amount for that portion that came under the denomination of duplicates. Hon. Gentlemen might carry the principle of economy a little too far, and especially when it was applied to so great and conspicuous a National Institution as the British Museum.

had only one remark to make, and he thought it would be quite as relevant to the subject under discussion as the question of ancient monuments. A great deal had been said about the working classes having access to the works of art in the Museum. Now, there was another Museum to which that observation more forcibly applied, and that was the Patent Museum at South Kensington. He mentioned this, because he found that in the Vote before them was comprised the Vote towards the Natural History Collection there. When he constantly pressed, in a former Parliament, to have a Patent Museum properly constructed and accessible to the people, he was always told that when a Natural History Museum was built, there would be ample space in the same building for a good Patent Museum. He now wished to ask his right hon. Friend the Vice President (Mr. Mundella) whether he could give them any information as to the progress made?

wished something could be done to instruct a large class of people who visited the Museum. He had noticed that the persons who visited the Museum upon great holidays, like Bank Holiday, were most profoundly ignorant of everything they saw. It was lamentable to see the people wandering through those beautiful halls looking scarcely with any interest upon what they saw, and passing away without having received any information. He ventured to suggest that some persons—the officials, for instance—might take an opportunity, three or four times every day, to explain to the visitors the contents of the rooms over which they presided. He was speaking now on behalf of a large class of people; but he himself had felt the value of instruction such as this. He remembered that, some three or four years ago, he spent about half-an-hour in the jewel room of the Museum. He was leaving, when he was met by an old friend, the attendant in the room. He said to him—"Would you not like to see the things here?" He replied that he had seen nothing to interest him; but the attendant said—"If you will come back, perhaps you will." He did go back, and the man, by information given in the simplest but most fascinating manner, kept him interested for a couple of hours, and it was with very great regret he left the room at all. He thought that if the officials would make a point of doing this at stated periods, a vast amount of instruction would be imparted in a very familiar way. They knew that now, if a father were to suggest to his son that he should visit the British Museum, he would be answered—"Oh, not to-day, papa." But if his suggestion were acted upon, such a visit would be a plea- sure instead of being, as now, very irksome. Information might be given in a popular and pleasing form, and then a great boon would be conferred upon the people who visited the Museum.

thanked the Trustees of the Museum for a vast and serious improvement they had effected of late years. Some years ago he drew attention to the length of time which was taken in procuring books for the readers who frequented the Library of that Institution. In this matter he spoke on behalf of the vast numbers of Library students and writers to the Public Press who resorted to the reading room of the British Museum, and he maintained that there was no department of that Institution which daily contributed to the public life of the country so much useful information as the reading room. He felt it right to thank the Trustees, through his right hon. Friend (Mr. Spencer Walpole), for the improvement effected in that department. Formerly, the time occupied in procuring a book for a reader was 25 or 30 minutes; but now it had been reduced to 10 or 12 minutes. Nothing but great exertion and organization could have secured that great reform, and what was the result of that great improvement? In 1875, when he called attention to the matter, there were numbers of men who had a couple of hours at their disposal, and would have liked to have spent them in study in the Library of the British Museum; but in consequence of the time occupied in procuring a book they would not go at all. He was able to state that now, since increased facilities had been afforded for study, the attendances in the reading room of the Museum had increased by 30 per cent.

said, that before the Vote was put, he must reply to one or two questions which had been asked him. In the matter of the sale of duplicates, it was only fair to the Trustees to say that he did not imagine they were anxious for the sale. As they had heard so much about the subject that night, it would be quite possible for hon. Gentlemen to have formed a very exaggerated idea on this point. As he understood it, there was no forced sale of duplicates, and it was only the special circumstances of last year which induced the late Treasury Board and the Trustees to make the sale. Hon. Gentlemen would remember that last year the general expenditure was a little larger than usual, and that it was very inconvenient for the late Government to find additional grants. It seemed to him they were all proud of the Museum, which would vie with any in the world. And, after all, he could not believe that that House had in any way laid itself open to the charge of a want of consideration. In respect to the question of residences for officials in connection with the new Natural History Museum, he had to say that it was not one to be regarded from a pounds, shillings, and pence point of view. He admitted that any official who had a residence in the neighbourhood of South Kensington, and lost thereby, ought to have sufficient remuneration. The matter was most carefully considered by the Government in 1874, and re-considered in 1875. And they came to the conclusion that no residences ought to be built, chiefly on account of their anxiety to minimize, as far as possible, any danger of fire. If they wished to guard the Collections at South Kensington to the utmost extent, and especially against fire, they must provide residences for the officials distinct from the Museum. It was not requsite to have the residences absolutely on the spot. That being so, he thought there were sufficient houses in South Kensington in which the officials could reside, and he saw no reason why an allowance should not be made to them. He had been asked a question with respect to the Ancient Monuments Bill. It was most unlikely that that very interesting subject would escape the attention of Her Majesty's Government during the Recess. At any rate, he would do his best to bring it before them. The question of the Patent Museum was of great importance; but he did not think it would be wise, without sufficient consideration, which the present Government had not been able to give, to embark upon a series of most expensive buildings.

had not intended to say anything upon this Estimate; but his attention had been called to the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), who had intended, had he been present, to move an Amendment to this Vote. The Amendment appeared a very reasonable one. No one could possibly visit the Museum without being struck with the terrible condition of the gilded railings which ran from east to west. It was a fine thing, indeed, to have a colossal pile of buildings situated on—what was unusual in England—a noble site. The buildings had a noble frontage; but when one was compelled to look through a sort of prison bars at the objects of interest in this home of art, industry, and science, one felt it was a sort of moral anachronism. His attention having been called to this, he would like to ask Her Majesty's Secretary to the Treasury and the hon. Trustees to the Museum whether they did not think it an eyesore—whether they thought it consistent with art, even the mixed art of the architecture of London—to have these gilded railings running east and west?—

I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that that is not included in this Vote.

said, he was happy to be corrected; but, at the same time, he thought that when the Trustees of the Museum, which was supposed to be, and which to a very great extent was, the home of science, and art, and industry, allowed such an unsightly thing as these railings to exist it was very wrong. But he would depart from that, because, as most of his hon. Colleagues knew, he was always anxious to be in Order. Attention had been called by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) to the fact that duplicates and works of art were necessary for the various large towns and cities of England. He was doubly obliged to the hon. Member for Ipswich. Hailing, as he did, from that centre of liberality in England—from self-made Birmingham—hailing, as he did, from that great town, and representing, as he did, the popular wishes of England on this great question of art and science, he regarded what the hon. Member said as something which ought to be listened to not only by the Members of the Government, but by the Trustees of the British Museum who were present. Art, now-a-days, in England was necessary for the development of industry, and the art of the country, they all knew, did not reside exclusively in London. Birmingham claimed, in the manufacture of iron, a large share of the pursuit of art. Liverpool and Manchester, Bradford and Leeds, and all the large centres of industry, claimed to hold their own, in these modern times of keen competition, when the accident of birth was being greatly remedied. The country demanded that whatever art England could produce by Imperial means should be fairly distributed amongst the people who had to contribute the money for it. He, therefore, thanked the hon. Member for having brought under the notice of the Committee a most urgent necessity in the interests of art—in the interests of art, because in the interests of industry. He quite agreed with the hon. Member that when England lost her facile mode of sending off cheap, but still well-made, goods, when once England lost the art of using her hand, combined with her intellect, England was outrun, not only on the Continent, but in the race of industry throughout the world. Therefore, it was a very serious thing that they should consider what the hon. Member had laid down—namely, that it was not only beneficial, but absolutely necessary, that art should be advanced throughout the country by means of the sale, exchange, or loan of these duplicates; and he trusted that the members, or, rather, the Trustees of the British Museum, would seriously consider the matter. He did not hold that these Trustees were in the position which they ought to occupy by the spirit of the constitution of the House; and he thoroughly repudiated the idea of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in suggesting that the country should rest content with the existing Trustees. The hon. Member's views were supposed to rest on a liberal basis; but, looking at his suggestion, it did not seem as though he were arguing quite in accordance with his principles. They should have for every Institution in the country a representative and responsible Body—a Body responsible to that House; and he, therefore, trusted the Government would consider the advisability of altering these Trusteeships, and making them more in accord with modern ideas by making them thoroughly representative.

The Question is——

said, he would not delay the Committee much longer. ["Divide, divide!"] He would allow the Committee to divide when he had exercised his right. He, as one living in England, and as taking a deep interest in the arts and sciences, and as one using this Museum, claimed to be heard on the side of modern progress, and not on the side of Whig ideas, or old Conservative notions. Attention had been called by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Thompson) to the necessity which existed for having, on Bank Holidays, and other holidays, someone to explain the various treasures, lying dormant and speechless, whilst the people passed through the different Galleries. This was a very wise idea, and he thought that if there were any hon. Members connected with the arts and sciences who would give their time, or who would pay some officers to devote their time, to delivering short, popular lectures on the different sciences and art connected with the Museum it would be a good thing. It was perfectly absurd to suppose that the numerous visitors to the Museum from the country, or from the suburbs of London, by once walking through the immense Galleries, teeming with scientific wealth, could learn anything whatever of what was to be learned there. But it was quite possible if they had a sort of national programme drawn up, announcing that there would be a lecture on this subject and that, at a certain time, the public would attend them, and learn something of the great treasures lying within the Museum. He hoped they were not far distant from the day or period when the British Museum, and when every Institution supported by Imperial rates, would be thrown open every Sunday, and the people in this way made familiar with them. He should not wish to see continue that dark Conservative system which now prevailed in regard to the Museum; but he desired to see substituted for it that open and life-giving system of modern Liberalism, which could only be represented truly by opening to everyone the art and scientific treasures for which the nation paid.

did not propose to occupy the attention of the Committee for any length of time. He merely wished to say, with reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston), that the hon. Member seemed to be under a misapprehension with regard to the sum of money raised by the sale of duplicates to which he had referred. It was only fair to the Committee to say that, as a matter of fact, the sum raised by the sale of duplicates was £2,000. The sum asked for the Collection to which reference had been made was £8,000. With regard to the question he had put to the Government early in the evening, it was not proposed to press the matter further at present. But the country in general had the matter deeply at heart, and the Trustees of the Museum might be assured of this—that the public would not let it drop.

said, he had had the advantage of hearing the whole of the discussion on this matter, and it really seemed to him to be most important, and he was surprised that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury was not more impressed with it. The most important question in connection with the Vote was that with regard to duplicates. What was the advantage to the nation of the British Museum as it at present existed? It was extremely good as a show place for visitors who came to London; but it was scarcely ever visited by the residents in London, or by the great bulk of the inhabitants of the country of all grades of society. In point of fact, it might as well not exist. He would appeal to the Government and the Trustees of the Museum to make it much more for the public advantage than it was at present. If the authorities would give, as it was now suggested they should, duplicates of all the curiosities in the British Museum to the Provincial Museums of England, Ireland, and Scotland, the result would be that the whole country would have an opportunity of seeing them, and of, more or less, educating themselves; and when country people came to town they would appreciate the originals when they saw them. What was the state of things now? A visitor came to London with a ticket available for, say, 14 days. He came up to London anxious to see the sights of London. Amongst other places, he went into the British Museum; but he could not afford to spend more than from half-an-hour to a couple of hours there. So far as the educational benefit to the visitors was concerned, there could be none at all in such a case as this, To illustrate what he meant, he would refer to an instance which had come within his own observation. Years ago he took a friend of his to see the Museum, and this friend, after the visit, carried with him no idea at all of what he had seen. They walked through the Galleries, and saw the different sights in the space of half-an-hour. All his friend could say, when he went back to Ireland, was that he had seen the British Museum; but if he had had an opportunity of seeing duplicates, casts, and engravings of the different things exhibited in the Museum at home, his taste would have been educated, and he would have appreciated his visit to the National Collection. The hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) had mooted the question of the opening of the Museum on Sunday. To his (Mr. Biggar's) mind this was a matter of great importance, inasmuch as the great mass of the people had their occupations during the week, and they did not go sight-seeing, unless there was something very unusual to excite them. But on Sunday, when they had been to Church, the remainder of the day rather hung on their hands. He would really urge upon the Trustees to open the Museum on Sunday afternoon, so that the inhabitants of the Metropolis might have an opportunity of seeing what was to be seen; because the truth of the matter was, as he had said, the great bulk of the inhabitants of the Metropolis were not able to visit the Museum from one year's end to the other. The people who saw the Museum, and the curiosities it contained, now, were, first of all, the students, who took drawings of the statuary, and then the readers, who visited the reading-room. The great mass of the people of London—the bulk of them—never so much as looked inside the doors of the Museum. The sum of £118,000 to keep up this place seemed to him a very large one; but it was, perhaps, not generally known to the Committee that of that £118,000 Ireland contributed some £14,000 or £15,000. It seemed to him altogether unreasonable that they should contribute that amount to an Institution in London, simply that a few people who came from Ireland as excursionists might have an opportunity of visiting it, especially considering that affairs were conducted on so stingy a scale that, instead of making a gift of a small number of duplicates to Ireland as a recompense, they were sold for the low sum of £3,000 a-year. He thought it would be well if the authorities became more liberal in their dealings not only with the people of London, but the people of Ireland, and the Provinces, and allowed them to visit the Museum on Sundays. For, after all, these people contributed the greater part of the money. If these duplicates could be distributed as he had suggested, it would be beneficial to the manufacturing towns of England; it would be beneficial to Ireland—to some of the manufacturers in Dublin. Dublin and Edinburgh should become, more or less, show-places as well as London.

wished to draw attention to the fact that the appropriation of money realized by the sale of duplicates of articles in the possession of the Trustees was an entire departure from the rule which governed public accounts. The Departments of the Navy, when they sold stores, accounted for the money in the proper way to the State. He could not understand what reason the Treasury could have for departing from the general rule in the case of the British Museum.

stated that the Trustees of the British Museum were not treated exceptionally, but had to account for the money they received.

said, that if the British Museum could come forward and obtain £118,000 a-year for the purchase and exhibition of objects of art and science, and could supplement that sum up to a figure they thought desirable by the sale of duplicates, the Government were allowing a system which might prove dangerous. The noble Lord had said that the Trustees could not do this, and he had spoken of the sale of duplicates, when he was on his legs before, as a very unusual proceeding. In the Estimates before them the Committee would find it was estimated that £3,000 would be received this year for the sale of duplicates; and if they went back to last year they would find that a large sum was realized in the same way. The practice was not unusual, therefore.

repeated, that the Trustees of the British Museum were treated in exactly the some way as any Government Department. The whole of the sum the Committee had been discussing was mentioned in the account for the financial year. The only sum realized last year by the Trustees was a very small one for the sale of duplicates of coins.

said, that in the course of a long debate which had occurred some time ago, Her Majesty's Government had declared it to be their intention to found a Museum in Dublin, and he should like, if possible, to get some expression of opinion from them as to when that promise was likely to be carried out. If the Museum were established, such duplicates as those to which reference had been made might, with advantage, be handed over to it as a nucleus. He regreted very much to see a great opportunity, which might never occur again, neglected, and these duplicates allowed to be sacrificed for the small sum they saw in the Estimates. If there were any more, he should like to see them handed over to the Dublin Museum. There was a kindred matter to which he wished to draw the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury, who would, probably, know something about it. There were in existence some very valuable Irish manuscripts—not like the duplicates they were talking about, but papers of great value which could not be reproduced. He had been informed that some of these had been sacrificed by this country, foreign Governments having been allowed to become possessed of them by paying a little more for them than was offered by England. It would be a matter for much regret if the British Museum lost these works merely because foreign Governments had a keen appreciation of their value. He hoped the Trustees would give the matter their attention, and that, in future, no such manuscripts as those to which he referred would be allowed, owing to a principle of false economy, to go out of England, or Ireland, to which country they belonged.

said, that before the Motion was actually put, he should lik to say a few words in reply to important observations which had fallen from various hon. Members. On this, as on all other occasions, he had taken care to attend to the different points which had been raised—some of detail, and some of principle—in regard to this Vote. As to matters of detail, he would not go into them now, since he would have to communicate with the Trustees, when they met, with regard to them. He could promise, however, that these points would be carefully considered. The only point to which he wished to turn—because he saw it was one on which there was some misapprehension—was that with regard to duplicates. The Trustees had never failed to take an interest in this subject. When the last Act of Parliament was in progress it was pressed upon the Trustees, by the Vice President of the Council and the President of the Board of Trade, that something should be done in the matter. Ultimately, with the concurrence of the Trustees, a clause was inserted in that Act, enabling the Trustees to dispose of duplicates by gift. In consequence of that clause being put in the Act pressure was very properly brought to bear on the Trustees with reference to it, and the whole matter was referred to the Heads of the different Departments. He should very much like that their Reports should be brought, in some way or other, to the knowledge of the Committee, and, no doubt, they might be communicated when anything was mooted on the subject hereafter. In the meantime, he could only say this—that this question was a very perplexing and difficult one. When they came to consider it, they would find that they had got to examine not only hundreds, but hundreds of thousands, of different subjects in the various Departments of this great Museum, all of which must be compared carefully before they could arrive at a solution of the question, and say whether certain specimens were duplicates or not. He did not wish to go at length into the question at this moment, for he could not explain it in less than half-an-hour. He would not trouble the Committee further than to make this one remark—take simply the question of books. They had 15,000 or 16,000 so-called duplicates. But it would be necessary to examine how far they were duplicates or not. The Museum was a great depository of knowledge. It was, or ought to be, a great centre of literature and science, in which everyone could have an opportunity of studying anything and learning anything to which he pleased to direct his attention. It was, therefore, necessary that they should have not merely every book they could get; but, in many instances, it was abso- lutely necessary that they should have more copies than one, because, if they had not, dozens of students who required the same books at the same time would be disappointed. Then, take another case. Great Collections were given to the Museum, like "The Kings Library," "The Grenville Library," "The Banksian Library," and soon. Some of these had been given on the condition that the Collections should be preserved for the public use to all posterity. The Trustees could not touch them. Even if they were duplicates, in some instances, they must be preserved. They had to be kept for general use. He might go on to examine the question in a variety of other ways, and as regarded other specimens; but, perhaps, the Committee would take it for granted, at least under the circumstances just detailed, that it had not been from want of will, but from the difficulty of making the selection of specimens, that so little had been done in the matter of disposing duplicates by gift. With this assurance, he trusted the Committee would give him credit for earnestness when he said that he would take care that the matter was carefully brought under the notice of the Standing Committee. It might be doubtful whether they could do much; but he had no doubt whatever that they would give their best attention to the subject, and if it was decided upon to do anything in the matter it would give him great pleasure to be able to announce it.

said, he had a Notice on the Paper that he should move to reduce this Vote by the sum of £2,000. His object in doing so was to secure from the First Commissioner of Works an explanation with respect to a matter that had been brought to his notice in connection with this Vote. He understood that the sum which the Committee were asked to vote included the amount of £2,000 paid in the form of salaries. Of course, if he had been misinformed as to that fact, his objection to the Vote would entirely fall to the ground. If, on the other hand, the information he had received was correct—that the salaries of certain officials, amounting to £2,000, were classed under the head of New Buildings at South Kensington, and did not appear in the detailed statement of expenditure—then he ventured to say, so far as his recollection went, he was entirely unaware of any Vote of that character in the whole scope of the Civil Service Estimates; and he was also prepared to say that the fact of the Vote of £2,000 being concealed under the Vote for Buildings at South Kensington was altogether contrary to the proper rules which ought to be recognized in the preparation of the Estimates to be laid on the Table of the House. How was it possible for hon. Gentlemen to consider the Estimates in Committee unless they were laid on the Table in such a form as to enable them to judge of the meaning of the expenditure? Of course, he had supposed, in voting, year after year, this sum for new buildings at South Kensington, that the money was to be expended for that purpose. But it seemed that, during the time he had taken an interest in these Estimates, this £2,000 a-year, paid in the form of salaries, had been entirely concealed from the knowledge of the Committee, as it had certainly been concealed from him. He had not himself discovered the fact; it had been brought to his notice by a statement which appeared in The Pall Mall Gazette some few months ago. He had, in consequence, made it his business to inquire whether that statement, which seemed to him absolutely incredible, was correct or not. He had been informed that it was correct. His right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, although he applied to him for an explanation, was in no way responsible for what he was now remarking upon, because the Estimates were in the form in which they had been for some time past. Indeed, he made no charge against any Gentleman, but simply said that the Estimates had been laid upon the Table of the House in a manner calculated to mislead hon. Members. He found that £2,000 a-year were paid for salaries to the Office of Works—that was to say, that the sum represented the salaries of gentlemen engaged in superintending the erection of new works at South Kensington. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Works had under him a number of very capable and experienced officials, who had charge of buildings generally under the control of Government; and if the First Commissioner of Works were to undertake to carry out any works whatever, he presumed they would be superintended by the Board of Works officials. But in the case of the buildings at South Kensington a different course had been adopted; and, although they had an Establishment to assist in the special purpose of looking after works erected under the control of the Government, at South Kensington they had a separate Board of Works of their own. Therefore, it seemed to him that, under the present Vote, they had been paying over £2,000 a-year for an entirely separate Board of Works. He pointed out to the Committee that during the last six years the following sums of money had been spent on account of building in the Science and Art Department:—In 1875–6, £2,077; 1876–7, £3,598; 1877–8, £3,380; 1878–9, £9,335; 1879–80, £17,245; and, as appeared by the Estimates of the present year, £15,000. Out of this total of about £49,000, without the knowledge of the Committee who passed these Votes during those six years, they had paid no less than £12,000 for superintendence of the buildings. Therefore, taking the average of the first three years of the term referred to, the expenses of superintendence came to more than 67 per cent, and during the whole term to more than 32 per cent on the expenditure. He did not stand upon the exact accuracy of the figures, which were taken from the article to which he had referred; but, he maintained, it required some very efficient explanation to justify the course taken in asking the Committee to vote £15,000 for new buildings, out of which £2,000 were actually voted for the purpose of salaries. He might also say that the cost of superintendence by the Office of Works of new buildings amounted, on the average, to about 4 per cent of the cost of the buildings. But, under this Vote, they were actually paying 32 per cent as salaries for super- intendence. He did not know what explanation could be given of this. No doubt, in former years, when a much larger amount of work had to be performed, there might have been some justification for those salaries. It seemed, however, that, whenever a new officer was appointed, and a new Establishment created, there existed such a great temptation to continue them year after year that it required much watching, on the part of the Committee of Supply, to insure that they were not allowed to continue beyond the time which their necessity justified. It was quite clear that the Committee could not take the Estimates of the Government as correct if they were presented in the form of the present Vote; and, therefore, he hoped for an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman of the circumstance he had referred to. He begged to move the Amendment in his name.

said, it was true, as stated by his hon. Friend, that the salaries of General Scott and his staff were included in the Estimate. This had always been the case, and he believed that it had always been understood by the Committee that such was the case. He did not, however, say that he could altogether defend the accuracy of including the salary of the architect in the sum which was voted for expenditure on works. He would undertake that the matter should be carefully inquired into, with the view of ascertaining whether it would not be more desirable for the future to state the salary of General Scott and his staff separately. He did not think that any charge of extravagance could fairly be brought against the Department. The fact was, his hon. Friend had looked at this in a piecemeal way, rather than as a whole. The amount paid for superintendence in single years did appear very large. But when the matter was looked at as a whole, and spread over a series of years, and when it was considered how large an amount was originally intended to be spent in building, and how much would have been paid to an architect in the regular course of practice for the same services which had been rendered by General Scott, so far from there having been any extravagance, it would be seen that a great saving had been effected. Had an architect been employed in the ordinary way, he would have been entitled, besides the sum payable for the staff in charge of the works during six years, to 1 per cent on the sum of £500,000—thetotal estimated cost of the new works intended to be erected, and for which General Scott was instructed to make sketch plans in 1874–2½ per cent on £70,000 for the library buildings and for the works going on, and 2½ per cent on £49,000. The actual saving to the country by the arrangement with General Scott had been about £4,000; and, therefore, he did not think, as far as the charge of extravagance went, that the Department was liable to it. It ought also to be remembered that these buildings were erected for special purposes; and it was thought necessary, when General Scott was appointed, that he should be retained there, because he had special knowledge of the requirements of the Department. What his hon. Friend had said with regard to keeping the salaries separate in the next Estimates was reasonable, and it should receive careful consideration; but, on the other hand, he believed he had shown that this expense would have been much greater if the work had been done in the ordinary way. Having, as he hoped, satisfied his hon. Friend upon these points, he trusted that the would not divide the Committee on his Amendment.

said, as it had not been shown that the Vote included an item of £2,000 for salaries not stated, he would like to know exactly the amounts of the salaries included, in order that he might understand what he was asked to vote for?

said, no one was more anxious than he to bear testimony to the importance of providing funds for insuring efficient superintendence for buildings in course of erection; but he considered it of equally as vast importance that the Committee should know exactly the cost of that superintendence. He recommended that whenever it was proposed to erect expensive buildings, such as the High Courts of Justice, or the South Kensington Museum, that the First Commissioner of Works should take upon his own Office establishment, but shown separately from his fixed Office, the salaries of the persons required to superintend the respective buildings, and by that means there would be a distinct control over the amount to be paid to the several superintending officers. When the money had thus been specifically voted for the superintendence of any particular building, then, as soon as any question arose with regard to the cost, hon. Members could at once find fault with the arrangements made by the First Commissioner of Works. He also trusted the Secretary to the Treasury would in future require these Estimates for buildings to be prepared in a very different manner—namely, that the sums agreed to be paid by contract to the contractor for the several buildings should be kept distinct from the salaries and expenses of officers for superintendence, and that the Controller and Auditor General should require the disbursements made to different persons to be separately exhibited in the Appropriation Account.

said, he wished to point out that not only had the Committee been kept in entire ignorance of the fact that a very large percentage of the money alleged to be wanted for buildings went in the shape of salaries, but that the Controller and AuditorGeneral—whose special province it was to investigate these accounts—was equally ignorant of the fact. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) took a great deal of trouble in investigating all these Estimates. Indeed, he made an investigation of all the Parliamentary accounts he received; but, in spite of that, he, also, had been entirely ignorant of the fact which had been brought to the notice of the Committee by the hon. Member for Burnley. As soon as the hon. Member mentioned it, he at once turned to the Report of the Controllor and Auditor General, made two years ago, and found that no mention whatever was made of £2,000 being paid to General Scott and his staff at South Kensington. Therefore, it was clear that the actual appropriation of the money, which it was distinctly and peculiarly the duty of the Controller and Auditor General to ascertain and verify, had been entirely kept from him, and he thought the Committee ought at once to obtain from that official an explanation of the fact. The Controller and Auditor General held an office of the greatest importance, and discharged his duty in a manner which any public officer would do well to imitate. He was certain Sir William Dunbar would be horrified when he found that this sum of £2,000 had been given in the way of salaries to officers without his knowledge. In his opinion, the Vote should be withdrawn for the present, in order that the Controller and Auditor General might be able to satisfy the Committee as to the circumstances in which this appropriation to salaries had come about, and the way in which it had escaped his attention.

said, the whole of this money had been expended on buildings in which he had great interest. He agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down, that any money paid in salaries should not be put down as for buildings, but appear in the Estimates as a separate item. But a great deal of the money to which attention had been drawn had been spent for structural work, which it was difficult to separate from building work. The whole cost of General Scott's department was £1,830 a-year, which included the salaries of modellers, clerks of the works, and payments of that kind, amounting to £720. If the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), or any Member of the House, would go to South Kensington Museum, they would at once see that not only had General Scott prepared drawings of the necessary architectural work, but that he was having work done, and that models in terra-cotta were being made as well as work of a structural character. He was satisfied that no charge of extravagance could justly be laid against the Department, but could not approve the mixing up of salaries with the cost of building. Hon. Members must remember that the present Government were, in no sense, responsible for the present Estimates; but they believed that the employment of General Scott had effected the saving of something like £4,000. He was obliged to say that the buildings had not proceeded as fast as he desired, and there were still a number of sheds and lobbies that presented a disgraceful appearance.

asked if he was to understand that £1,110 out of £1,830 in General Scott's department, included in the Vote of £15,000, was for artists' models and decorations?

said, that was so.

thought the Committee ought to have full information as to the details of all expenditure of this kind before they consented to vote a penny of the public money. He had objected to the mode in which the Estimates had been framed ever since he had been in the House of Commons, inasmuch as the salaries paid to individuals were not shown in the Vote, but were mixed up with sums paid to other individuals for works. No doubt, the account of the disbursements ought to show their respective payments; but the Controller and Auditor General was subordinate to the Treasury, by Act, so far as accepting the accounts as stated by the accounting officer, and he could not go beyond that Estimate. The noble Lord below (Lord Frederick Cavendish), was naturally jealous of the arrangements ordered by the Treasury, and stood up for the form of accounts which the Department he represented had established; but, at the same time, he (General Sir George Balfour) had given attention to the subject of Civil Service accounts, and he knew that, so far from getting such clear statements of that branch of expenditure as would place matters in as clear a light as the expenditure of the Army and Navy, they had the Civil charges lumped together in one sum, made up of different kinds of payments. In this case both the salaries to superintendents and expenses for the cost of works were so lumped together, that the Committee was unable to see what was paid to any particular person in the shape of salary.

hoped the Committee would distinctly understand that he was not casting blame upon anybody. He was quite aware that the Estimates were prepared before the present Government came into Office, and he had no complaint to make of the course they had pursued; but, in regard to all future Estimates, it should be understood that they should set forth the salaries distinct from the sum required for works. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) had explained that in former years, indeed, up to within the last two years, General Scott did very valuable work in his department, and the amounts paid to him had not been excessive. The point, however, to which he wished to draw the attention of the Board of Works was this—£15,000 was charged for new buildings, and upon that expenditure they were called upon to pay a sum of £2,000 as the salary of the director of the works.

NO, no; my hon. Friend is not correct.

understood that that was so.

said, the salary was only £720; the rest was for structural works.

asked, if he was to understand that the charge was not in reference to the new building?

said, there was a clerk at a salary of £1,100 a-year.

said, that showed how important it was that the Committee should have this explanation. He was quite satisfied with the explanation which the First Commissioner of Works had given, and he would, therefore, withdraw the Amendment.

said, the real point of the objection was this—that if they lumped together salaries and money voted for buildings, they made it the direct interest of the officers receiving such salaries to secure that the buildings should proceed at the slowest possible rate, in order that they might continue to receive their salaries for the longest possible period. That was the objection he entertained to the present system. He referred to the position of the Controller and Auditor General. He believed that that officer would strongly resent any attempt on the part of the Treasury to control him. In the Report on Public Accounts, put in by the Controller and Auditor General, there was a statement to the effect that as he was responsible, he must be allowed a considerable amount of discretion. It was perfectly certain that this officer did not know last autumn that this money went in the shape of salaries, and he had, over and over again, in Votes for other Departments, objected to the system adopted here. He, therefore, could not have known what was being done in this particular case.

would not detain the Committee for more than a few moments; but he thought the Treasury Bench had not given a satisfactory answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor); and he hoped, before the Vote was passed, that something would be done in the matter. He was surprised to hear from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who sat behind the Treasury Bench (General Sir George Balfour) that Sir William Dunbar was a mere machine for the purpose of registering the deeds and votes of the Members of the Treasury Department. That was a very sad thing, because he had been under the belief that the hon. Gentleman was really a bonâ fide officer, told off and paid for the purpose of keeping the different accounts right; and he was sorry to hear, on such good authority, that the hon. Gentleman was a mere registering machine. He hoped the Committee would get some satisfactory assurance on this point. He was happy to hear from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella), whom he was sorry not to see in his place, that the Government proposed next year to spend a large sum of money on the building at South Kensington. The right hon. Gentleman had just told the Committee, with perfect correctness, that the present building was a mere shed. He only hoped that the money would be appropriated in that way, instead of being spent upon wars in Afghanistan, or upon the police in Ireland. It would be much better to spend it upon art and science, in order that the arts of peace might be cultivated instead of the arts of war. He hoped, before the Vote was passed, that the Committee would receive some explanation as to the precise nature of the duties of Sir William Dunbar.

I must point out that this is not the occasion for discussing the duties of the Auditor General. We have not before us a Vote in regard to his office.

did not know if he was right or not; but it seemed to him that the practice of voting money for one object in Committee of Supply, and spending it upon another, was an exceedingly improper proceeding. There was too good reason for believing that the same thing was carried out in other Departments; and it was really not creditable, on the part of the Committee, to give their sanction to it. He did not mean to say that fraud often took place; but it certainly afforded an opportunity for irregularities which ought not to exist. As an illustration of what he meant, he might mention that he was told it was the custom in the Votes for the Navy to vote so many men for the Service of the country, and then to vote so much per week as wages, and that then it was the practice to give a certain number of men less than the sum voted, and others much more. That, he thought, afforded a good illustration of the irregularity of the system on which the House of Commons voted money in Committee of Supply, and it would be well if it were altogether re-modelled. He regarded it as a vicious system of management to retain particular gentlemen as standing architects for particular work. He thought that all the architects in the Public Service should be in the Department of the First Commissioner of Works, who should superintend the whole of them, and have them all under his control. General Scott seemed to have been badly paid in some years for the public work be did; but in this particular year, instead of having had one architect, they appear to have had several. Then, again, General Scott, in another year, instead of having much to do, literally had nothing at all. In one year he had only to spend a sum of £70, and for spending that sum he received a salary of £720. It was a system that was thoroughly absurd, and could not be defended. What ought to be done by the Commissioner of Works was that he should take general General Scott under his control, and see that his time was properly occupied. If there was not sufficient employment for him, let him go to some other Department, and occupy his time there. He had no wish to attack General Scott, and presumed that that officer was paid well for his services. Personally, he was unable to say whether he was paid too much or too little; but there ought to be something like continuous service, seeing that General Scott was a fixture in the public employment. If he found himself uncontrolled he would regard his present employment as a permanent occupation, and would not attempt to do any other work.

had no desire to enter into this discussion at any length; but if there was one thing more than another which he should like to see studied in this country it was science and art. He was sorry to hear his hon. Friends niggling and finding fault in so many ways with this particular Vote, because they had now been trying for many years to do their best, both in and out of the House, for the encouragement of science and art. They might find fault with the Army and Navy if they liked, and with many other things connected with the administrstion of the public money; but he did not like to see them throw cold water upon science and art. Science and art should be encouraged, as much as possible, in the interests of the people; yet they heard what the Vice President of the Council said, that the building at South Kensington was a mere shed, a miserable structure, and they had not availed themselves of the opportunities they had had of doing the best they could to improve it. He rather blamed the last Government for the state in which matters now were; but for many years things had not been what they ought to have been. He appealed to his hon. Friends not to show that they were animated by any penurious feeling in the matter, because what was done was for the good of the people, and in the best interests of the community at large. He knew very well that the public would not sympathize with any interference with this Vote. He had looked carefully through the Vote, and there was nothing in it that he could find much fault with. If they wanted to encourage science and art they must vote the necessary means, and not rest content with ignorance or blindness, and think that it was bliss. He hoped they would now pass the Vote, and go on to some other one. If they desired to manifest a spirit of economy in regard to the other Votes he was quite ready to go with them.

said, he had brought the bad form of showing the Civil Service expenditure under the attention of the Committee, because he thought it was desirable they should know that the statement of the disbursements did not show what they were really paying for. He had certainly not desired to speak of such an able public officer like Sir William Dunbar as a mere machine or a mere tool of the Treasury. God forbid that he should ever seek to cast any reflec- tion upon so distinguished a man. He valued the long and useful services of Sir William Dunbar much too highly, and fully believed that this gentleman would be the last to consent to hold a position reduced to such an objectionable condition. But he thought the Committee of the House of Commons ought to insist upon having every detail of charge so clearly stated in the Estimates that Members should be able to know what they were voting. It was quite impossible that they could know what the exact expenditure to be voted was so long as Estimates remained as they then were. These should be so prepared that they ought to be able to see at a glance what was the exact sum paid for General Scott's salary, as well as for everything else in respect to the sums paid to other individuals.

regretted that he should have misunderstood the hon. and gallant Member opposite (General Sir George Balfour) in speaking of Sir William Dunbar as a mere registering machine, and he would at once withdraw the expression. He repudiated the lecture which the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Andrew Lusk), the Alder-manic Member, had given them upon their proceedings in connection with this Vote. He thought it would be as well if the hon. Member would give some of his advice to the Civic Council, of which he was a member, and try to induce them to adopt a better administration in regard to the City Trusts. ["Question!"] The question which they were discussing was not that of the encouragement of science and art. They were there for the purpose of seeing that the public money was properly spent; and, so far as he was personally concerned, so long as he could find a legitimate excuse or reason for questioning the Estimates, he should consider that he was only doing his duty in continuing to call the attention of the Committee to them. A love of art and science was all very well; but there were other and more fitting occasions for manifesting it. He wished to know whether, in the Vote now about to be taken, they were to understand that, while this large sum of money was to be given to the Kensington Museum, an equal, or relatively equal, sum would be given towards an art building in Ireland? Surely the hon. Baronet would now see that he was really interested in art, not only in England, but in Ireland. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Baronet would withdraw the observations he had made.

thought that, with regard to this Vote, it was necessary he should ask the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he had good grounds for supposing that the figures which appeared in the Estimates under sub-head A, were really approximately correct, because the history of this Vote was one of inaccuracy and looseness, and strange and startling variations? The expenditure had seldom been anything like the estimated cost put before the Committee. In order to show that he was not speaking without book, he would direct the attention of the Committee to a Report issued by the Committee of Public Accounts in 1878. He did not know that it was possible for anyone, however hostile he might be to the administration of the Department, to use stronger language than was contained in this Report. The Committee said, upon Vote 23 for Lighthouses Abroad—

"The special attention of your Committee has been called to the very unsatisfactory character of the Estimates which were presented to Parliament for the Bird Bock Lighthouse, Bahamas."

It would be found, by reference to page 57 of the present Estimates, that the expenditure upon the Bird Rock Lighthouse was still continued. The Committee continued—

"The Treasury refused to sanction the application of sums of money on other sub-heads, in aid of the excess of £3,940 18s. 9d. incurred under sub-head A for that work, until all the circumstances had been submitted to your Committee. It was explained by the Accounting Officer for the Vote that the delay of more than four years in beginning the work after the funds had been provided by Parliament had been due to causes beyond the control of the Board of Trade. The original Estimate in 1866 of £10,000 for the entire works appears to have been prepared without sufficient consideration of the nature of the proposed site, or of the delay and difficulties that would probably occur in building on such an exposed and isolated situation."

A new and revised Estimate of £17,500 was framed in 1875, nine years later, by the present Inspector of the works— nearly doubling the amount. The Committee said that that revised Estimate was framed—

"Within nine months of the fixing and lighting of the apparatus, when those causes of increased expenditure should have been fully ascertained and allowed for."

This Estimate had, however, been exceeded by the sum of £7,214; the total cost having been £24,714, so that this work, for which the estimated cost was £10,000 in the first instance, and in connection with which not a single rock was moved for years, ran up in the second Estimate to £17,500—and that, too, nine years after the works were supposed to have been begun—and finally amounted to £24,714. He thought, when the details of the third Estimate were made up they ought to have been shown to the accounting officer, seeing that the previous Estimate of £17,500 was made within nine months of the completion of the works. The Committee went on to say—

"The explanation furnished by the Inspector of this great error in his Estimate is the delay of six months in the completion of the work, owing to bad weather, and the consequent large increase upon the wages and maintenance of the men employed. Your Committee cannot but think that the two Estimates were both prepared without duo care and forethought by the officers appointed by the Board of Trade, although the difficulty of controlling expenditure on works carried on at a great distance from this country must be great. The Board of Trade must be held responsible for the Estimates presented by it to Parliament, and it will be its duty to take all possible precautions against the repetition of such errors as those now under consideration."

These were the deliberate and authoritative words of the Public Accounts Committee as to the antecedents of this Vote; and he wished, therefore, to ask the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he would give the details by which the sum now asked for of £9,500 was made up, and whether that sum included any new works for which original Estimates were sent in this year?

pointed out, that the works in connection with these lighthouses abroad were carried on at very great distances from this country, and in very inaccessible places. Many of them were in positions that were very exposed, and it would be impossible to frame Estimates that could always be correct. He had no reason, however, to believe that the Estimates which appeared in the present Vote would not be found to be correct.

wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade, before the Vote was passed, what was the explanation of a Vote which appeared in page 57 for the salary of the Inspector for the Bahamas? This appointment was at present held by an officer in the Royal Engineers, who had been seconded. What was the meaning of that Vote?

presumed that it had reference to the position still held by the Inspector in the Royal Engineers; but he could not quite say what it was. It was not an item which came under the cognizance of the Board of Trade.

explained, that an officer in the Army would sometimes receive a portion of his pay for services rendered in this way.

was afraid that there was a mistake of some kind. He found in the Report of the Controller and Accountant General, mention made of an officer, Captain Brockley, who was receiving pay for these services in 1878 and 1879. His successor, Captain Simpson, also appeared to have received pay for services in the Bahamas. He wished to know whether these officers were receiving pay when seconded, and how it was that they came to receive Army pay at all?

believed the fact, in the case of the present Inspector, was that he did receive Army pay up to a recent date; but in October, 1879, his salary was paid as Inspector, and he had since received no Army pay.

said, he should wish to make a few remarks on the Vote, not with the view of opposing it, but in the hope that he might elicit from the Government some useful information with respect to it. A sum of £2,717 was asked for the Embassy Houses at Constantinople and Therapia, and for Con- sular buildings; and as he had a personal knowledge of those buildings, he desired to point out that although their extent was considerable, the sum set down in the Estimates for their maintenance for a year appeared to him to be excessive. The buildings in question included the Embassy House in Therapia, the Embassy House or Palace in Pera, and the Consular Courts in Galata, another quarter of the European suburb of Constantinople, the whole of which buildings were comparatively new. The chief building of the group was the Embassy House at Pera, which was virtually a new structure, having been completely restored after the fire which had destroyed its predecessor in the same spot some 15 years ago. He could not, therefore, conceive why it should be necessary to expend upon it any large portion of the sum of £2,717; and the same remark applied to the Embassy House at Therapia, which was a new wooden building. The Consular buildings, being also new, could not, it seemed to him, stand in need of any considerable expenditure this year for their maintenance. But, passing from the main item which he had mentioned to the sub-heads, he found that for new works and alterations at the Embassy Houses at Pera and Therapia, and in connection with the Seaman's Hospital at Galata, the sum asked for was £305. That was, he admitted, a small sum when spread over those three separate groups of buildings, and, no doubt, its expenditure could be readily explained and defended. He might, however, observe that £250 were required for the Seaman's Hospital at Galata, and he could not understand, unless it was proposed to enlarge the the buildings, why that amount should be necessary. The Vote included, in addition, an item of £450 for the salary of a superintendent of works, and that was a matter on which he should like to be enlightened. He wished to know who the person was by whom that salary was received—whether he had been sent out from England by the Board of Works, or whether it was some local person who was employed in the capacity of superintendent. He was all the more anxious to have an answer to his question upon that point, because, a few years ago, the duties of the position were performed, and the salary attached to the post drawn, by a gentleman who was then Vice Consul at Galata, who had no special qualification for structural work of any kind; but who, owing to the friendship of our Ambassador at Constantinople at the time, was pitch-forked into the situation; and he could not say that the result of the appointment was at all satisfactory. The scandal, however, to which the circumstance gave rise brought about its correction by the removal of the gentleman to whom he referred, and the substitution for him of an employé of the Board of Works, who was sent out from London. He wished, therefore, to know whether the person who now filled the office of superintendent was an employé of the Board of Works or not, because if the duties were discharged by a local person, such an appointment would be regarded as unsatisfactory, and must challenge remark. He felt bound, he might add, also to notice the absence of some items of expenditure which ought, he thought, to find a place in the Vote. There was no provision, he perceived, made for the insurance of the buildings of which he had been speaking, and which were very large and valuable. In that respect the buildings belonging to this country at Constantinople stood in a perfectly exceptional position. The Russian Embassy House there was insured, and so was the new German Embassy, as also the Italian Legation; indeed, all the buildings belonging to foreign Countries in Constantinople, except, perhaps, those of the minor Powers, were protected by insurance, and it was, in his opinion, a great mistake not to extend the same protection to the British buildings. When the Embassy at Pera was burnt down, 15 years ago, an outcry was raised when it was found that the large sum of £50,000 or £60,000, which its restoration involved, had not been covered by insurance. He might further mention that not only was that the case, but that the place was left most disgracefully denuded of all means of protection against fire. There was, in connection with the building, an old fire-engine which had been stowed away in one of the out-offices; and when it was brought out on the breaking out of the fire, it was found that the old hose was entirely honey-combed, with the result that the whole apparatus was perfectly useless. He was aware that a statement to the same effect as that which he had just made was contradicted at the time in the House of Commons; but the contradiction was in opposition to what he knew from his own personal observation to be the fact. He had been induced to make these remarks, because he felt that if those buildings at Constantinople were allowed to remain as they were then, unprotected, there must be somewhere a great neglect of public duty. He should be glad, therefore, to hear from the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Vote how the matter stood? He should like to be informed, also, how the money asked for was to be divided among the several places named?

said, that taking into account the number of buildings which they had to provide for at Constantinople, he did not think the sum asked for in the Vote for their maintenance in proper condition was at all excessive. The sum which had been voted the year before for the purpose was £2,680, and the increase this year amounted to only £37. Some alterations were required in the Embassy House at Pera, and at Therapia, and further outlay had become necessary for painting the Secretary's house, and for the renewing of window shutters and other repairs. In the Seamen's Hospital at Galata, also, it had been found expedient to make some alterations, acting upon the report of the medical attendant there. As to the superintendent of works, there could be no doubt that an European officer of some weight was required at Constantinople to look after the buildings which belonged to the British Government; and he was happy to be able to inform the hon. Member that the gentleman who now held the position of superintendent in that capital was not a local person, but a thoroughly competent officer, who had been sent out by the Board of Works, and whose services were of great use. It would be impossible, he was afraid, to dispense with such services, seeing the great number of valuable buildings which had to be looked after. The other day an earthquake had occurred at Smyrna, and the gentleman of whom he was speaking had to go there to report on the occurrence—a fact, which would serve to show the Committee that a man of understanding and weight was required on the spot to deal with the duties which he had, from time to time, to discharge. As to the question of insur- ance, perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not aware that the British Government did not insure any of its buildings, but was its own insurer; and he did not see, therefore, why the buildings at Constantinople should be placed on a different footing. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with this explanation, and that the Committee would agree to the Vote.

said, he wished to ask whether in Scotland poor children were allowed to enlist in the Army, and whether their relations were allowed to come before the Board and express their consent, or otherwise? He knew that in England children were allowed to enlist as band-boys in the British Army without their relatives expressing their concurrence.

said, the President of the Local Government Board would be better able to answer this question than he could, and, therefore, he asked the hon. Member to raise it again on Report.

said, he did not wish for a moment to raise any complaint against the gentlemen who occupied the office of Official Referees. Hon. Members were constantly placed in a difficulty when discussing the question of salaries to public officials, in being met by the imputation that they were casting some reflection upon the officers themselves. Now, he had no such intention. The question of the appointment of the Official Referees was one which had occupied the attention of the Committee on several previous occasions, on every one of which there had been almost universal testimony on the part of legal gentlemen that the scheme under which these Official Referees had been appointed had proved to be to a great extent a failure. He had laid this question before the Committee in 1878 while the late Government was in Office, and the then Attorney General (Sir John Holker) admitted that the Official Referees had entirely disappointed the expectations under which they were appointed by the Judicature Act. At that time he proposed a reduction in the Vote, and the late Attorney General said—

"The question now before the Committee was one of expenditure, and he did not see how the office of the Official Referees could he abolished without some arrangement being made for compensating the officers. All he could suggest was that if it was found that these gentlemen's time was not fully occupied, and if it should be thought that they were paid a large sum for doing a small amount of work, the best way would be to suggest that these gentlemen should be utilized for other offices."

That view was generally accepted by the Committee. But the present Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers), who supported his (Mr. Rylands'), views on that occasion, reminded the Attorney General that the Official Referees, being under the ordinary conditions of the Superannuation Act, if they retired, would only be entitled to £300 a-year. One hon. and learned Gentleman, not now a Member of the House (Mr. Bulwer), said, so far as the Official Referees were concerned, he protested against the view that their appointment was satisfactory, The hon. Member for Coventry also said—"Every one must agree that the present system was a failure." He had, in 1878, moved for a Return on this subject, and it entirely confirmed the information contained in the former Return with regard to the amount of business done by these gentlemen. It appeared that Mr. Verey was occupied during the year ending April, 1878, on portions of 59 days. He did not give the number of hours occupied by each reference, but it would seem that it was not very great. The next gentleman, Mr. Dowdswell, held sittings on a total of 71 days. Mr. Anderson stated that he was occupied during 647 hours, and the remaining Official Referee was occupied 491 hours in the course of the year. Now, he knew perfectly well that it would be said it was no fault of these learned gentlemen that they had not more business, and that they were ready to do more business if it was brought before them. That, however, was not a matter for the Committee to deal with. But they were entitled to say that if the Legislature made a mistake in passing the Act under which four gentlemen were appointed to duties for which there was no public necessity, the sooner they were removed from their official position the better. At any rate, if it was found impossible to occupy four gentlemen, it might be practicable to dispense with the services of two of them. But unless a larger amount of work was got through by these learned gentlemen, it appeared to him altogether out of the question to continue paying their salaries to the extent of £6,800 a-year. He had a letter from a barrister, who could speak disinterestedly, inasmuch as he did not practice in the Courts, and who confidently stated that the failure of the system had arisen from the objection of the Judges to refer cases to the Official Referees; that the Judges referred cases to Queen's Counsel as a matter of favour, and if the parties refused to act in accordance with the Judges' recommendations, they were almost certain to place themselves at a disadvantage; and that, in such cases, it resulted that the business which ought to be done by the Judge himself, or by one of the Official Referees, might extend over years. The writer went on to state that, in consequence of this, his clients had been put to a great amount of expense. He would put the matter impartially. Here was a case where, by, perhaps, a mistake in the draughting of the Judicature Act, they called into existence four Official Referees, and certainly for several years they had done a very small amount of public duty. He was quite willing to allow that there might have been a change for the better in the case of one or two of them. But he certainly thought that if four Official Referees were not required, the country ought not to be called upon to pay them salaries; and it was not an answer to that proposition to urge that these gentlemen had been put into their position by Act of Parliament. But if Parliament had appointed officers who were not required, it was time the Committee reconsidered the position, with a view to a smaller number of officials being retained. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

said, he was not surprised at his hon. Friend referring to this matter, because there was no doubt, at the time specially alluded to by him, good ground of objection existed to the salaries paid to the Official Referees, as well as to the small amount of work done by them. But he could assure his hon. Friend that the circumstances had now entirely changed. During the present year the four Official Referees had been fully occupied, almost all of them having sat on every day during the legal year, except in the Vacation, and some having been unable to get through the amount of work provided for them. Formerly, the fees charged were somewhat heavy; but a change had been effected, and one single fee of £5 was now paid by the suitor, however long a case might last. Before that change was made, rather than go to the Official Referees, parties used to go to special Referees, whom, of course, they had to pay. In consequence of the amount of work which now came before the Official Referees it would be impossible to dispense with the services of any one of them without causing delay in the discharge of business.

said, there was no class of public officers more hard worked than the Official Referees were at present, or who did more public service. It had been observed by his hon. and learned Friend that, under the present system, suitors could get the most complicated litigation conducted through- out several days successively for the uniform charge of £5. But the work of the Referees was not confined entirely to London. They heard the evidence of witnesses in the country, and thereby saved the great cost of their having to be brought up to London. This, it would be seen, was a great advantage in the administration of justice. It was quite true that these officers at one time had not the same amount of business to do, and that had, no doubt, misled the hon. Member for Burnley. He should mention that the Referees at present had only power to investigate cases, and make a report to the Court upon them; but he believed a Bill had nearly passed both Houses of Parliament to confer upon them not merely the power which they had under the Judicature Act, of making certain inquiries preliminary to investigate on by the Court, but also that of determining cases which came before them by way of reference. That, again, would have the effect of increasing the business of the Referees and facilitating the administration of justice. He hoped his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to press his Motion to a division, because he believed he would see, after the explanations which had been given, that there no longer existed substantial grounds for so doing.

said, some years ago he was not prejudiced in favour of the Official Referees, and he had expressed his opinion against them in that House. But, since then, his experience had entirely altered his views on the subject. It was only fair to say that the former impression he entertained had been entirely falsified by events. He agreed with the Solicitor General in saying these gentlemen were now giving entire satisfaction, and he had to recall the opinion he had formerly expressed. It was only just to say that the Official Referees discharged their duty in a most satisfactory manner, and he should be very sorry if anyone in the House were to cast any reflections upon the services rendered by these gentlemen.

said, he had no wish to insist upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Burnley going to a division. He rose to express his dislike at hearing so many learned lawyers justifying this Vote. The hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Watkin Williams) had, year after year, told the Committee that the Office was of no use whatever. Was the change in the views of that hon. and learned Gentleman due to the fact that he had changed sides in the House? He hoped, in future, when this Vote was under consideration, that the Committee would not be told, first that the office was of no use, and then that it was of the greatest use to the public.

said, he would suggest that if the office held by the four clerks referred to in the last item of the Vote was a sinecure, it would be judicious to transfer them to the Office of the Referees, whose business would thereby be facilitated.

said, the case of the Official Referees had a special bearing on the Vote to which considerable opposition had been taken a little while ago. The hon. and learned Gentleman sitting opposite (Mr. Watkin Williams) had changed his opinion on this subject during the last few years. But he was not the only Gentleman who had done that. The present Attorney General bitterly complained of the Office two years ago. He spoke of the work as work which the Referees professed to perform, and said that the public money would be squandered upon them, adding that all this time suitors were complaining that they could not get their cases heard. The late Attorney General said, in reply, that he must admit that these gentlemen had not much work to perform; but he thought they should have a certain amount of time in order to vindicate themselves, after which, if the result was not satisfactory, he should deem it his duty to communicate with the Lord Chancellor on the subject. He thought the difficulty in regard to those gentlemen would be met by paying them separate fees for cases brought before them, and so enabling the suitors to estimate pretty accurately the amounts which they would have to pay.

said, the only person who got any advantage from the change was the suitor, inasmuch as the Official Referees were paid fixed salaries, and would have no interest in protracting proceedings. The remonstrances which had been made had brought about an improvement in the existing state of things; and, therefore, he could not think it fair to charge those who for- merly made the remonstrance with anything in the nature of inconsistency.

called attention to an item in the Vote which struck him as being of a very extraordinary character. He alluded to the sum of £2,000 a-year for the payment of the stockbroker to the Court of Chancery. His experience of the Court of Chancery was that if any moneys were to be invested in the Funds through the agency of the Court, the suitor had to bear the cost, and the stockbroker had allowed to him a certain amount for brokerage. The same thing occurred when Stock was sold by order of the Court; and he could not, therefore, understand the principle on which the stockbroker was to be paid a salary in addition to a commission which he received in the ordinary course of business.

admitted that there were certain anomalies existing in reference to various offices connected with the Court of Chancery, and said that it would be attempted to remedy them as soon as the present incumbents of certain of the offices vacated them, by means of a process of consolidation.

hoped the question in reference to the stockbroker would not be pushed further, as the question of payment by salary in lieu of fees had not yet been decided, and might be prejudiced by a discussion, at the present juncture, of the general principle.

wished to point out that though £6,000 was charged upon the Consolidated Fund for the salary of the Lord Chancellor as Head of the Chancery Division of the High Court, that branch of his Office had practically, since the passing of the Judicature Acts, become a sinecure, in that the Lord Chancellor seldom or ever sat in the Court of Chancery as Head of the Profession. He made these remarks because he believed the present Lord Chancellor, when his attention was called to the subject, would be willing to assist in the Court of Appeal in a manner different from that in which the late Lord Chancellor acted, and so there would not arise the block in the business of the Appellate Court which had occasionally arisen in comparatively recent times.

hoped the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would see his way to reduce the Vote by the amount of £1,600 which was paid as salary to one of the Examiners and the Purse-bearer to the Lord Chancellor. He, therefore, moved to reduce the Vote by that sum.

said, that many of the offices to which exception was taken would be abolished as soon as they ceased to be occupied by the present holders; but as long as the existing members held their positions, he did not see how the offices could be done away with unless large sums were paid as compensation.

pointed out that, at the present moment, there was only one Examiner, the former one having received an appointment as Official Referee, notwithstanding which fact his salary was still charged upon the Consolidated Fund.

said, he could not admit the force of what had been said by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury as to the question of compensation, inasmuch as there could be no demand for compensation were there was no vested interest.

said, his impression was that the office of second Examiners had been filled up. But even if it was not so, and the Amendment of the hon. Member was agreed to, it would become necessary to appoint a special Examiner at considerable cost.

said, there had only been one Examiner for the last two or three years, and he objected to the proposal on the present occasion to vote the salary of a second one.

said, he was not aware that there had been a vacancy in the office.

pointed out that if the Vote was passed, and there did not happen to be a vacancy, there would be no additional charge upon the taxpayers. As regarded that, the House was now in Committee of Supply, and not of Ways and Means; and if there was found to be no necessity to appropriate the money to this particular purpose, it would not be so appropriated.

thought the Amendment ought to be passed if the office did not exist, because it was unfair that imaginary reductions should be made in the estimated expenditure through taking Votes for non-existent offices in one year, and in the following year taking credit for the amount which it had never been necessary to expend.

said, he was not prepared to discuss the niceties of the procedure in Committee of Supply, and Committee of Ways and Means; but he certainly failed to see how the taking of an unnecessary Vote in Supply could fail in the long run to involve an unnecessary charge on the taxpayers.

thought there was no doubt as to the fact of vacancy in the officer of Examiners; but maintained, at the same time, that the creation of the office, ab initio, was a mistake. The Vote was, in his opinion, altogether unnecessary.

moved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £2,740, which was set down as the remuneration of Judges' marshals. He had not the slightest objection to young gentlemen being brought up in the knowledge of their Profession at the feet of eminent Judges; but he could see no reason why they should be paid for the advantages which they so gained. Those who had been on the Circuits must have seen those marshals doing nothing and getting paid for it, to the intense gratification, no doubt, of their less fortunate brethren at the Bar. They would all, no doubt, regret, to a certain extent, doing away with an office of that kind; but they had now come to a period when it was desirable to reduce the expenses of the country as much as possible, and he thought £2,476 was too much to pay for the work which the country got out of these officers. He therefore moved, and he hoped the Committee would agree with him, to reduce the Vote by that amount.

said, he thought his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment (Mr. Thompson) had not altogether remembered what the duties of the marshals were. He thought the sum voted in respect of those officers was really not unreasonable. It was true that they cost £75 or £60 each while the Judges were on Circuit; but it must be remembered that their travelling and living expenses on Circuit were paid by the Judges. He would remind the Committee that during the time the Judges were on Circuit, they had numerous duties to perform, and it was not a very agreeable thing for the Judges to have to spend a considerable portion of their time in lodgings. The Judges' marshal had unquestionably duties to perform. He had to make an abstract of the record in every case that stood for trial, and an abstract of the depositions in criminal cases; and hon. Members who knew the amount of work that was thrown upon the Judges, and the number of hours they had to sit in Court, day after day, would not consider it an unreasonable thing that such an official should be allowed to perform these duties for them. Therefore, it was not correct to say that the office was a sinecure, and it was also a mistake to say that barristers were never appointed to it. It was a very common thing for the Judge's marshal to have received a legal education, and some of them had practised several years at the Bar.

said, he was very glad to have the opportunity of stating that, in his opinion, this was an office that ought to be abolished. The Judges who went down on Circuit had to go through a number of forms. They had to wear red cloaks, and most disagreeable things on their heads, and to have a great parade of officials, and carriages, and javelin men, and they had to go to church, whether they liked it or not. They had to have the attendance of trumpeters, and marshals, who were paid by the State for doing duties which the Judges would rather do for themselves. He, therefore, asked the Committee to consider whether these things should not be abolished. The Judges went down to discharge certain duties as lawyers, and to preside over the Courts, and their dignity and importance depended, not upon all this show, but upon their learning and ability, and the manner in which they discharged their duties. He objected to wasting time and money in absurd shows for the delectation of the vulgar and ignorant, and thought the sooner all this rubbish of javelin men, trumpeters, and carriages was done away with the better. He would like, also, to see abolished the absurdity of the Judges attending church and hearing their chaplains preach Assize sermons. [Cries of "Oh!"] He expected to hear those exclamations; but he regarded the going to church as a part-and-parcel of the unnecessary ceremony and expense, and he wished to see the Judges sit in the country in the same business-like manner as in London. When they sat at Westminster, they did not have all that paraphernalia; they went to do their work, and each had a clerk, and they did their work to the satisfaction of the country. Therefore, he entirely agreed with the Amendment, and regarded the abolition of Judges' marshals as the commencement of a sweeping away of a lot of old-fashioned rubbish which did no good at all. Although he had two brothers-in-law who were Judges' marshals, he should vote for the Amendment.

said, he could not at all agree with the hon. and learned Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Watkin Williams), who, in objecting to any public ceremonial in connection with the arrival of the Judges at Assize towns, showed a considerable want of knowledge of human nature. In London, Judges were not distinguished from other people in the street, but in the country it was altogether different; and he believed the habit of meeting them in state and ceremony had a very good effect, and to abolish that custom would be prejudicial to the dignity of the administration of justice. He dared say the time might come when they would be able to do away with everything of the hind; but before that could happen the whole country must be educated up to a very much higher standard than was likely to be attained within the next century at least. He had witnessed what the marshals had to do in Court, and could confirm the statement of the hon. and learned Solicitor General that they really were of great service. Their duties could not be performed at the same rate by anybody else. They acted as secretaries to the Judges, and were the medium of communication between them and the gentlemen of the country, besides preparing abstracts of the records and other matters. He should, therefore, support the Vote.

said, he would not have interposed in the discussion, had not the hon. and learned Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Watkin Williams) addressed the Committee from the Opposition side of the House below the Gangway, and thus created a probability of the "Fourth Party" being held responsible for his sentiments. He hoped the Government were not going to deal with the very twopenny economy that was proposed by the Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Thompson). The marshals acted as a kind of private secretaries to the Judges; and although, if it came to what was absolutely necessary, all private secretaries might be dispensed with, it was considered that a man had a certain accession of dignity when he had a private secretary, and he thought no one need grudge that to the Judges. Mo doubt, they found the marshals exceedingly useful; and they had not so many officers at their disposal, or so many luxuries in any way, that these need be denied.

understood the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) to say that this was a trumpery Vote. But he (Mr. Biggar) thought £2,746 a-year was a very substantial sum. He did not see why the duties performed by the marshals should not be performed by the Judges' clerks, who were selected by the Judges themselves, to their own satisfaction. At the same time, he considered that a little bit of show was not objectionable. Formerly, when he saw the Judges in their wigs and gowns, he used to be very much impressed by their wisdom and learning; but he did not now experience the same feeling when he heard how the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke in that House. However, seeing what the marshals cost, and that there was nothing to distinguish them in Court from private gentlemen, he thought they might very well be done away with, and that they did not add much to the dignity of the Judges.

said, he wished to draw attention to the fact that in connection with this Vote there had been, some years ago, some serious defalcations by a man named Holbeck. When these defalcations were discovered by the Treasury, they appointed two well-known officers to investigate the circumstance, the result being that they satisfied themselves as to the amount of the defalcation. The investigation was carried back to the 1st April, 1876; but the officers also satisfied themselves to that period. As, however, the accounts of the previous years had been finally passed, the Lords of the Treasury did not carry the examination to any earlier date. It seemed an extraordinary thing that, when the alleged defalcations were found to be real, upon investigation, the Lords of the Treasury should content themselves with ascertaining that to be the fact, and write off a considerable amount, without satisfying themselves that they had got to anything like the beginning of the fraud, and be content to leave matters as they were, without any further investigation. He hoped some explanation would be given on the subject. As, however, the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury did not answer the observations he had made, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £186.

said, the reason why he had not replied to the observations of the hon. Member was that he thought some hon. Gentleman opposite would probably have recollected the circumstances referred to, which occurred under the late Administration, and given an explanation. He trusted the hon. Member would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division.

said, the present had seemed the proper occasion to refer to the subject. It appeared to him that when a fraud was discovered in a Public Department, and the Treasury did not take the trouble to trace the whole history of the fraud, and ascertain the exact amount of the defalcations which had taken place, it was only proper, when the Committee were asked to vote money in connection with the Department in which the fraud was perpetrated, that some observations should be made and some explanation asked for of what appeared to be a neglect of duty on the part of the Treasury. However, as the noble Lord had said it was not the present Government who would be answerable for the state of things he had referred to, he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

said, that those who heard the statement of his noble Friend with regard to the Business of the House would probably think there was sufficient work to occupy the attention of the Committee. The measure referred to by the hon. Member was, no doubt, of considerable importance; but the Government, he thought, would do well not to introduce it this Session.

said, he wished to point out to the Committee a singular instance of the carelessness with which the Estimates and Accounts submitted to Parliament were drawn up. In the Report of the Controller and Auditor General of last year, there was an explanation of the savings in the item of salaries in connection with the County Courts, which was accounted for by the business of the Courts having fallen off. Then there was an explanation of the excess on extra receipts, which was accounted for on the ground that the business of the Courts had increased. So that, on the same page, there were two official statements contradictory of each other. That showed that the Accounts were often prepared with the greatest possible carelessness.

said, if the hon. Member had gone a little further he would have found that the Accounts in question had not been so carelessly prepared as he supposed. There were two Estimates, and after the first had been prepared it was found that the business of the Courts had increased.

said, last year the late Government introduced a measure amending the Acts relating to the County Courts. It passed the House of Lords, and was read a second time in the House of Commons. The measure was, in his opinion, a good one, and the fact that it was not passed had caused the continuation of unavoidable illegality with regard to certain charges in connection with this Vote. As the Home Rulers had undertaken the responsibility of displacing the late Government, and of placing a Liberal Administration on the Government Bench, and as that Administration had developed a marvellous faculty for assuming all the work introduced by the late Government, he hoped they would do so with regard to the Bill he had referred to. There was no reason why the same Bill should not be passed through Parliament that Session, and, perhaps, the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would say whether it was the intention of the Government to do so.

said, this Vote had been seriously challenged by the Committee last year. He saw on the Front Bench opposite one or two hon. Gentlemen who took a great part in the debate which arose on that occasion, when it was stated that no work whatever was done in the Office of Land Registry; that for a period of 10 years the officers had received their salaries, and had absolutely done nothing. There was no one who contributed more to that debate than his right hon. and learned Friend now the Home Secretary, and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. Those two right hon. Gentlemen condemned the Vote in the strongest language that could possibly be used. The right hon. and learned Home Secretary remarked that his impression was that the Land Registration Department practically did no work at all; it was one of those unfortunate failures of law reform due to the fact that land legislation was permissive; he believed land legislation would not be successful until it was made compulsory. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on in that strain, and finished by saying that he could not see why some reform should not take place in the office; at all events, so many clerks ought not to be appointed. The present Secretary of State for War had also opposed the Vote. He said that the Committee should fully understand the question before the money was voted; gentlemen who had for 10 years done nothing should be discontinued in their office. It was replied that the gentlemen in question had very little to do; but, on the other hand, it would be well to await the Report of a Committee which would probably contain some suggestion. The Committee had reported; but it appeared that the gentlemen who held the office would have nothing more to do than they had before. He ventured to say that the case ought to be taken into consideration by the Government. When they were in Opposition they clearly pointed out that they would vote for a large reduction of the Vote. He now called upon them to carry out those promises; and in order to test the sincerity of right hon Gentlemen opposite, he should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000.

said, his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had challenged him with reference to what he had said last year upon the subject of this Vote. He would state, most unreservedly, that he had not changed in the opinion he had expressed last year, and that the present Government would be under the responsibility of dealing with the matter. They did not consider the constitution of the Office satisfactory, and he trusted that next Session they would see their way to give effect to the opinion expressed last year.

said, he hoped the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would move the reduction of the Vote by £2,500, which he thought would be more satisfactory to the Committee. The office had been established in connection with the Act passed by Lord Cairns, which it was well known was a complete and utter failure.

said, as far as he could form an opinion, very little work was done in the Office; but he could not close his eyes to the fact that, before many years had passed, it would be necessary that the House should pass some Act dealing with the great question of the land of this country, and simplifying and cheapening its transfer. For that purpose, it would be necessary that there should be an Office of the character of that now in Lincoln's Inn Fields. If a Land Transfer Act were passed, there would be an Office ready to undertake duties in connection with it. On general principles he supported the views of the hon. and gallant Baronet. But he would support this Vote, in the sincere trust that before many months, the Office might have a great deal of work in hand for the benefit of the country.

said, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War must be conscious of the extreme lameness of the answer given to the Committee. Nothing could be more positive than the pledge under which the Government came into Office. They said they would propose this year a very considerable reduction of the Vote now before the Committee. But they had now been more than three months in Office, and yet they had not made up their minds upon a course to which they were thoroughly pledged last year.

said, the Vote could not be abolished, except by Act of Parliament, as the hon. and learned Gentleman was no doubt aware. He admitted that the present land system was a very bad one. What was wanted was something that would make the registration of land a reality, and it would certainly be premature to abolish this Office; and, having done so, to give the officials, in the way of compensation, something like the full salary they were now receiving for the rest of their days. He would remind his hon. and learned Friend that the Registrar was a gentleman of great ability, who gave up private practice, which brought in as much as the salary received by him under this Vote.

said, he could confirm the remarks of the hon. and learned Solicitor General as to the practice of the gentleman who accepted this Office. The Motion of the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was, in fact, a Motion for reduction of salary, and involved this—that after a gentleman, who had practised at the Bar, had sacrificed his professional prospects, he should be deprived of his Office by a Vote of the Committee, if the Office failed in its operation, and that, too, without compensation. This involved a large and general principle, and he thought the Committee should consider well before they adopted the proposal. It might be that the Office had not had the effect originally expected from it. If that were so, it might be a reason for abolishing the Office; but, surely, the holder of the Office was entitled to compensation for the salary of an office to which, practically, he had been appointed for life. But he ventured to say that the Office was not altogether a useless one. A certain amount of work was done there, and he could answer for it that the officials were most anxious to carry on their work as well as they could, and give every facility to the public. If there was little to do at the Office, it was not the fault of the Office, but of the Legislature. He had been a Member of a Committee upon the Land Question, who had made recommendations that would materially increase the functions of this Office; and if those recommendations were carried out, he ventured to think it would be necessary to continue the Office, but on a greatly improved basis.

said, as a general rule, he voted for economy; but in this particular case he should certainly vote against it, because he believed that one of the greatest tasks the Government had to perform was to simplify the sale of land. He thought the sale of land should be as simple a matter as the sale of a ship, and as inexpensive as it was in the Colonies, where it could be transferred at the cost of a few shillings. The Government were almost pledged to the policy of simplifying the transfer of land; but if they were to agree to the abolition of this Office, everyone would think they had thrown that policy over. He wished to express his views on this subject, because he had a great distrust of the opinions of lawyers, who, he found, used all their knowledge and power to muddle the question. If the transfer of land were placed on the same footing here as in other countries, we should very soon have a free and simple sale of it. This country would not be settled until there was a free sale of land, and he was perfectly certain that Ire- land would not be settled until that was effected. He thought it would be injudicious to make any reduction, and he hoped the Vote would pass without further opposition; indeed, he trusted that next year the Government would be able to ask for a large Vote to carry out an established policy in connection with the free sale of land.

said, that an assurance had been given by the Secretary of State for War that the Government were prepared to deal with the question, and propose a Bill for the consideration of Parliament. That would tend to increase the business that those gentlemen had to transact; and, although he was in favour of retrenchment as a rule, he did not think they ought to do anything in this case to prevent the prospect of a satisfactory solution of the question being arrived at. After they had received such an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, he hoped the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would see fit to withdraw his Amendment, seeing that the salaries of these gentlemen must be paid, and that they were now informed by the Treasury Bench that something would be done.

hoped that his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would go to a division in the matter. He was quite unable to understand the course adopted by hon. Gentlemen opposite. When they were in Opposition they voted for the reduction or the abolition of the Vote; but the moment they found themselves on the Treasury Bench they voted for its retention. He thought the reasons given by the hon. and learned Solicitor General in favour of the Vote were anything but sound. The hon. and learned Gentleman said they could not do away with the Office without giving compensation to the officials. Now, the question of compensation was another question altogether, and must be dealt with separately, and it was not a matter for Committee of Supply. Then the hon. and learned Solicitor General said—"You had better vote the sum this year, because it is possible that in a year or two's time the Office may turn out to be useful." No more extraordinary reason was ever given in support of a Vote. This was an Office in which no other work had hitherto been done. The Act which created the Office had been a complete and dead failure. The Government of the day were always refusing to give attention to the representations that were made to them upon the matter; and now they had the extraordinary spectacle of a Liberal Government, who went dead against the Vote while in Opposition, and declared their hostility to it year after year, the moment they got into Office having not a word to say against it, and electing to go on as before. If the hon. and gallant Member went to a division he would obtain considerable support; and if he withdrew the Amendment, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) was perfectly certain that matters would continue to remain in the same unsatisfactory state.

remarked, that if the Office was going to be kept open until it became useful and registration was made compulsory, a great deal of grass would continue to grow on the sill of the door, as he understood that it did now. He did not believe that Parliament was going to pass an Act to compel people to register their lands for many years to come. The landowners had a great objection to it. He had bought land years ago, and he had found that some of the owners refused to take the money for it because they declined to show their titles to the land they held. The landowners, as a rule, were very proud, and, having mortgages on the land, they were not anxious to produce their titles. He had certainly known that to be the case in reference to land purchased for railroads. He did not sympathize with the objection, and he would not have the slightest hesitation in registering the little land he held. He did not complain very much of the expense, except in regard to the stamps. If they took that off, it would very much cheapen the conveyance of land. It was said that it was expensive to convey land. He knew that it was, and that it was difficult also. Before now, he had bought half an acre of land for a railway for £50, and he had been obliged to pay £250 for the conveyance of it. Yet he had sold a quarter of an acre to a man, for the purpose of building a house, that did not cost him half-a-crown beyond the stamp. There were simply three or four lines on a bit of skin. It was all very well to console themselves by saying that the Office would be wanted, because they were going to make it compulsory on people to register their landed property; but that state of things was not likely to be brought about for a long time to come. A year or two ago, when the Conservatives were sitting on that side of the House, he had predicted that they would never consent to the compulsory registration of land. They were a very proud and haughty race of people; and if they were required to register their land, the fact that there were mortgages upon it would soon be disclosed. He should not like to see the present Liberal Government, powerful as it was, attempt to enforce compulsory registration. They would be certain to be defeated in that House; and, therefore, he should be sorry to see them attempt it. The hon. and learned Solicitor General had thrown out a hint that the Office might be wanted in the course of another year, and had given the Committee to understand that the Government were likely to introduce a Bill for the registration of land. Under these circumstances, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Sussex divided against the Vote, he (Mr. Davies) would support him.

was sorry he had not heard the whole of the debate; but he thought few of them would agree with his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Davies) with regard to the utility, or rather the non-utility, of the register. In this country, he believed they would never get a really cheap transfer of land until they had a proper register, and until they had a register so managed that there should be no incumbrance upon the land, and no transaction in regard to it except those which were put upon the register. He agreed with the hon. Member in one thing—that the landowners of this country were not fond of compulsory registration; but he would tell the Committee how he thought the registration might be made practically compulsory. If they were to pass an Act that, after a certain date, all transactions in connection with land should be placed on the register, and that no other transactions should prevail, he thought they would find that the land generally would come upon the register without a compulsory law. A great many people did not care to register their titles, because no transactions took place with regard to the land they owned, and there was no occasion for registration; but when they came to deal with the land they should be compelled to put it on the register. At present, they had not got a good map, and that was the first thing they should look forward to.

I must remind the hon. Member that the point for the Committee is not the question of registration, but that a particular sum of £3,328 be voted for the service of Her Majesty.

said, he had no wish to travel out of the record, and he had only referred to the matter as it had already been alluded to. He understood that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Sussex urged was that it was of no use to pay for that which did no good. They were, therefore, asked to reduce the Vote, and not to grant the Supply asked for. He could not say that he agreed with that proposition; because, if the Vote were rejected, it would be taken to imply that they thought the register was of no use. [Cries of "No!"] He was not prepared to agree to that. He had long held that the Act of Parliament was a nullity, and that it would always be a nullity. Until they arrived at a more thorough understanding upon the question, and more courage was shown on the part of Parliament, they would not have a proper register. Parliament had never shown any courage on the subject. Why should not land be dealt with as ships and Consols were dealt with? There was no difficulty in registering a ship, because the ship was on the register, and all the trusts were left outside of it. So he would have the owners of the fee of land on the register, and let the trusts remain outside just as they did with trusts of railway shares. He was sorry, although he agreed on many points with the hon. and gallant Baronet in regard to the question, that he could not vote for the reduction of the Vote, because he feared that the rejection of the Vote would convey a wrong impression. For his part, he held that registers were most valuable things. In Australia such registers were found to be most useful. There could not be a doubt among those who understood the question that in Australia, and even in Scot- land, registers were most useful. There might be difficulties about registration; hut he believed that all that was wanted was a thorough understanding of the question, and that they should act on the principle laid down in the Report of a Committee, 11 or 12 years ago, upon which, however, nothing had ever been done. If they had the courage of their opinions, they might soon have a thoroughly good register. On that occasion he should give his vote for the Government, although he was ready to protest that they ought not to go on voting that money, which did so little good, for a moment longer than could absolutely be avoided.

said, he was very sorry to stand in the way of the Vote. The hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) began by saying that he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) wanted to reduce the salaries of the Registrar, who, he said, was a most excellent man. Now, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had not a word to say against the Registrar. He believed him to be an excellent man. But the question they had to consider was a plain and simple one; and he was surprised to hear his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) come out with his land reform scheme, and say that he was a man who liked to pay beforehand for what he desired. That was exactly what was proposed to be done in this case. They had the sum of £4,511, which had been paid for 10 years for an Office which had done nothing. It might be true, or it might not be true, that the Government were going to bring in some great scheme of reform with regard to the land; but it did not follow that the business would go into that Office. It might be given to another Office, or the present Office might be re - modelled and reformed with larger salaries, in order to give work to new people, or the Office might remain absolutely the same. What he said now was this—that, at the present time, the Office had done no work. He had not touched the salary of the Registrar, or the Assistant Registrar; but there were a number of clerks who might be transferred elsewhere, and whose salaries might be curtailed. There could be no possible objection to doing that; and he should like to know—for he saw a good many hon. Members sitting below the Gangway on the other side of the House, and, notably, the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Bass)—he should like to know if, when in his business, the hon. Member found that his subordinates had scarcely anything to do, what was the first course he took? The first thing he would do would he to curtail his expenditure by turning off one or two of the gentlemen who had nothing to do. That was what he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was asking the Committee to do in this case, and he thought it was a very fair proposal. Last year, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) got up and said that, unless the Conservatives moved the reduction of the Vote, it was because they were disinclined to do anything contrary to the wish of the Government in Office. He called upon the hon. Gentleman to say the same thing now. There was nothing half so pleasant as when the House took matters of this sort into their own hands, and told the right hon. Gentlemen on the two Front Benches that economy must be practised. They might depend upon it that, when a general feeling of this sort was manifested, the House was right, and the right hon. Gentlemen on the two Front Benches were wrong. It was the only way of testing the sincerity of hon. Members who passed the Vote last year; and he would certainly press the Amendment.

said, that before the hon. and gallant Baronet had appealed to him, it had been his intention to rise and address a few remarks to the Committee upon that Vote. What was the Vote? It was one of a rather remarkable character. Two Acts of Parliament had been passed which had created a considerable staff of officials who were highly paid; but now it was found that, practically, those gentlemen had nothing to do. It certainly appeared to him (Mr. Rylands) that to call upon Parliament to vote, from year to year, a sum of money amounting to more than £5,000, for an Office in regard to which nothing was done, was a positive, public scandal, and a discredit to the House. He had said so in former years, and he said so now. His hon. and gallant Friend said they ought not to be led away upon a false issue. He quite concurred, in regard to the registration of land, that it was a matter which required to be put upon a proper and extended footing. That was one of the questions which Her Majesty's present Government had to deal with. His hon. Friend behind him (Mr. D. Davies) seemed to think that there would be no such question raised, and that any such measure would not receive the sanction of the Committee. He thought it could be shown by the language his hon. Friend used that he had not paid much attention to the great questions involved in the subject. He believed that Her Majesty's Government would deal with the question next year. Certainly, if they continually put off dealing with questions that were pressing for solution, he would be able to see no difference between them and the late Government; but he was quite sure that they would do nothing of the kind. He believed they would deal with the question; but still, he might ask, was that any reason why they should continue to vote an Establishment of that sort? He did not think that it was any reason at all. He thought they ought to deal with all questions that came before the Committee without any reference to what might be proposed hereafter by Her Majesty's Government. No doubt, when they came to deal with the question of registration in a future year, there would be a proper desire manifested to vote such sums as might be necessary to give effect to such legislation as might be passed. In the meantime, if the Vote was pressed, he should not have the slightest hesitation in voting, as he had done before, for the reduction of the Vote, in order to show his sense of the extremely objectionable character of a Vote of that kind, involving the continual payment of salaries where no services were rendered.

expressed a hope that the gentleman of great abilities who had been alluded to would have something found for him to do, even if it were not in the way of land registration. He thought it would be a great pity that his abilities should be lost entirely to the country. He did not know whether, as many hon. Members seemed to suppose, this gentleman had really been doing nothing for the last 10 years, or whether he had being doing something in his own interest. In the latter case, he thought he might well do with a less salary from the public.

said, he was himself very much in favour of the registration of land, not only because the registration of land would make titles much more easy, but because it would also prevent fraud. He was certainly of the same opinion as the hon. and gallant Baronet who had spoken from that side of the House (Sir Walter B. Barttelot)—that if they wanted to do anything they must press the Government home, and press them practically. He had been for a long time waiting to see the Law Officers of the Government rise in their place, and say something definite with regard to the question—something that should have some reason in it. They had been told that this land registry was an improper registry, because it had no business whatever to do; at any rate, comparatively speaking, it had nothing to do. Now, in Middlesex and Yorkshire, where the register was more complete than in other districts, they found that a very good system of registry existed; and he really hoped that the Liberal Members who were not thoroughly tied to the Government, and who in times past opposed the Conservative Government, because they considered that such a Government did not study the interests of the people, would be found voting not for or against the Government, but for the carrying out of a real and practical principle. He should very much like to hear something definite stated by the Government before the Vote was carried to a division; otherwise, he would certainly vote with the hon. and gallant Baronet behind him. He was prepared to vote with any hon. Member on questions which raised practical considerations of this kind.