in rising to move—

"That the time has arrived when the minimum charge for Inland Postal Telegrams should he reduced to sixpence,"

said, that it was 13 years since the Telegraph Service of the country came into the hands of the Government. The number of telegrams which were then transmitted was some 6,000,000 per annum. Now, that number had risen to 31,000,000. The capacity of the mechanism of the Telegraph Companies, or of the Post Office, which now represented them, had meanwhile been enormously increased by various scientific discoveries. When the transfer was made, the instrument on which, practically, the whole of the work was done was the old Morse system, the capacity of which was comparatively limited. At the time of the transfer the Wheatstone system was introduced, which at one stroke trebled the working capacity of the old system; and since then the duplex telegraph had been discovered, which still further increased the capacity of the work of the telegraph wire. Now, very few people had any idea of the rate which telegrams could be transmitted by the Morse instrument, which had been so long in use. It was possible to transmit not far short of a Times column an hour with a single operator at each end of the wire. By means of the automatic instrument or duplex system that amount of matter could be very largely increased. The result of the change which had taken place by the transference of the Telegraph Department to the Post Office was very remarkable. Two great changes had occurred, increased facilities had been afforded, and the prices of telegrams, which up to the time of the change were not uniform, were, on the assumption of the wire by the Post Office, made uniform, the minimum charge being 0031s. The result of the reduction in price was very noteworthy. At the time of the transfer, as he had already mentioned, the number of telegrams transmitted annually was 6,000,000—that was in 1869. In the year 1871–2 the number had doubled itself, and 12,000,000 messages were transmitted. In 1873–4 the number received trebled to 18,000,000 messages. In 1878–9 the original number was quadrupled; and in the year 1881–2, which was the last year for which they had the Reports, five times the number of messages originally sent had been transmitted. That showed the immense effect which the reduction of the price had had in increasing the number of telegrams sent. But, as proving how very materially that increased facility had tended to the same end, he might quote the case of London. In London, at the time of the transfer, there were 6d. telegrams. The system was not very well elaborated, and the consequence was that it was not very much availed of. At the time of the transfer there were 60 offices in London. There were now, or there were two or three years ago, 400 offices, and the result of this increase of offices, even though accompanied by the doubling of the price, was that between 1869 and 1880 the number of messages transmitted in London increased 600 per cent. That was a very remarkable fact, and it would seem to show that the increased facilities had even more to do with the development of telegraphing than reduced prices. But the statistics he had given regarding the increase in the whole country showed how very stimulating an effect the reduction of price had upon the increase of telegraphic receipts. Now, he gave the Post Office every credit for the way in which it had fostered the telegraph business; and he was free at once to confess that in every respect, except in the matter of price, the Telegraph Service of Great Britain would bear favourable comparison with that of any other country; but in regard to the matter of price it was much too high. Belgium and Switzerland and other countries had half-a-franc telegrams; in Paris, the telegraphic system was supplemented by a system of pneumatic tubes, through which they could send messages called telegrams, though they might be more properly described as pneumatic post cards, without restriction as to the number of words, at a cost of half-a-franc or less. Last year the Postmaster General, in replying to a Motion similar to that which he was now making, stated that the number of messages per day sent from all the telegraph offices in this country was 80,000, and it appeared that the number of post offices from which they were sent was 5,600. Now, that would give an average only of 14 messages per day from each of the post offices. He would ask the House to remember that 25 messages per hour was a fair average amount of work for an ordinary telegraphist with a Morse instrument. The state of things which they now had, therefore, amounted to this—that from each telegraph office in this country was sent a number of messages which afforded little over half-an-hour's work per day for the operator. It would, therefore, at once be seen that there was ample room for increased business, without any very great increase of expenditure. On the same occasion, the right hon. Gentleman told them that the present charges wore virtually prohibitive, not only in the case of the working classes, but with the middle classes also. As a matter of fact, these charges had remained unchanged for 13 years. Now, those circumstances would, he thought, tend to explain the impatience for reform which had been manifested in many quarters. In July, 1880, a very influential deputation from the Society of Arts waited upon the Postmaster General for the purpose of bringing the subject under his notice. He had the advantage of the right hon. Gentleman's friendship before he earned his well-merited promotion to the Treasury Bench, and he had the advantage at that time of hearing from his lips speeches and doctrines of profound wisdom, from which he hoped he had benefited; and amongst the other doctrines which he taught in those days was that, having once brought influence to bear upon a Government and induced them to admit anything which was right, they should make a point of pinning them down to their admission. He wished to profit by the advice of the right hon. Gentleman, and to endeavour to pin down the Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Mem- ber, to the admission of the propositions laid down by him. In his reply to the deputation to which he (Dr. Cameron) had referred, his right hon. Friend, in the first place, laid down two principles. He said—

"If the price charged for telegrams is not sufficient to make the Telegraph Service commercially remunerative, then the deficiency which will undoubtedly arise must he met out of the general taxation of the country."

And then he went on to point out very fairly that any such proceeding would be a violation of the true principles of economy, as much as it would be a violation to encourage any particular trade by way of bounty. But, on the other hand, he said—

"If a price was charged for a telegram which is more than sufficient to make the Service commercially remunerative, then the difference between the two—the price which would make the Telegraph Service remunerative, and the price which is charged—is really so much taxation imposed upon the people, just as if the tax-gatherer stood over every sender of a telegram and levied a tax at the time when the telegram was sent."

Now, he thought there were two very unjust principles which lay at the root of the whole matter. In reply to the deputation, his right hon. Friend discussed various propositions which had been made for giving increased facilities to the public, and he dismissed them for various reasons, with one exception. That exception which he proposed to make, and which, he said, the Post Office were quite ready to adopt, if the Treasury would only sanction it, was a system of 6d. telegrams based on this idea, that there was to be a modified word-rate system of telegrams. The right hon. Gentleman stated that almost entirely at the instigation and under the influence of England a word-rate telegram had been adopted in most of the countries throughout the world. Having pressed a word-rate system on other countries, it seemed only consistent that they should adopt it themselves. It would have a number of advantages. It would do away with a great amount of useless work which was now thrown upon the Telegraph Department in consequence of persons being allowed to send addresses to an unlimited extent. People constantly sent telegrams such as this example which he gave to the deputation—

"From Wm. Hy. Robinson to John James Smith, Something Street, such a town, such a district, such a country. I shall have the greatest possible pleasure in dining with you to-morrow;"

whereas he might have said—

"Robinson to Smith—Dine with you tomorrow."

And the right hon. Gentleman pointed out to the deputation that a system of word-rates would get rid of all these superfluous words which the Post Office was not paid for at all. He pointed out, further, that the adoption of the word-rate would do away with an anomaly which existed—that a person could actually send a telegram from the remotest point of Ireland or Scotland to Brussels or Paris at a cheaper rate than such telegram could be sent from the House of Commons to the City, for by the Postal Convention the charge for telegrams to Belgium was 2d. per word, and to any part of France 2 ½d. A sender in Ireland or Scotland could send, therefore, a short telegram to Brussels for 8d.; whereas the minimum charge in London was 1s. His right hon. Friend proposed to adopt a modified word-rate, making a minimum charge of 6d., and for 6d. he proposed to allow 12 words, and to charge above 12 words a halfpenny per word extra. He had no doubt in his mind that that would have many advantages over the present system. That was the proposal which the Postmaster General expressed himself willing to adopt; and he thought as a practical man, believing it to be an improvement, it was not his present business to discuss whether that was the very best possible improvement; it was his business to urge its adoption upon the Government. The only point which his right hon. Friend's reply to the deputation left untouched and unsettled was the expediency of taxing telegrams. On that point his right hon. Friend pointed out very clearly that it was not the business of his Department to decide as to that. That was a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He brought forward the Motion—and he did so last year—because he was absolutely opposed to the taxation of telegrams; and he believed that taxation could be levied in no other manner that would be so prejudicial to the commerce, intercourse, and convenience of the country. At the present moment there was practically no taxation of telegrams, or, at all events, the principle of the taxation of telegrams had not been affirmed. The surplus revenue earned up to the present time had been so small that it was impossible by sacrificing it to confer any substantial advantage upon the public. But the Telegraph Revenue was increasing; and it appeared to him that they had now arrived at a point where a remission of the taxation must be made in the shape of extra facilities for the public, or the vicious principle of the taxation of telegrams for the purpose of Revenue must be affirmed. They had, it might be contended, not yet arrived exactly at that point, but they were remarkably near it; and his object in bringing forward the Motion from year to year had been to afford the Government no excuse for allowing the point to be passed, but to bring up the subject every year; and the moment that it was admitted that a change could be made without loss to the general taxpayer, he should ask the House to indicate its opinion that that change might be made. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to the deputation, said he considered it would be better to wait a year or two, and to make the change which he proposed in a complete manner, rather than to attempt anything piecemeal. Well, they had waited a year or two—they had waited three years—and he thought that fact alone justified them in bringing up the matter at the present time. Now, what was the financial position of the question? When the Committee upon Postal Telegrams satin 1876, Mr. Stevenson Blackwood, a very able officer of the Post Office—the Secretary, he believed, he was—proposed to draw up a statement of the receipts and expenditure of the Post Office on the same basis as if it were a commercial Company, and in such a manner as to show what dividend it would pay were it a commercial Company. Those statements had been drawn up yearly, and he held in his hand a number of statements ranging over the years from 1876 down to the 31st of March, 1881. Unfortunately, the statement for 1882 had not been issued; but he had the necessary and important figures in regard to 1882 from the speech of the Postmaster General in reply to his Motion last year. From these statistics it appeared that in 1876 the amount of Revenue derived by the Post Office for telegrams, after payment of all expenditure except the interest on borrowed capital, was £197,000. That, again, had increased in five years up to 1881 to £440,000. In other words, there was an increase at the rate of £50,000 a year. In 1882 the wages of the telegraph operators were increased by £80,000; and yet the profit of the Telegraph Department was £400,000. [Mr. FAWCETT: That is only an Estimate.] Unfortunately, the Return had not been issued; but that was the Estimate which the right hon. Gentleman made in June or July last. But in any case, if that Estimate were correct, it would show that the amount of increase in that year, putting aside the increase of wages, was £40,000, which was very similar to the average of previous years. Well, he presumed that the Revenue was increasing. It must be remembered that they had not now to deal with the financial year 1882–3. If any change were to take place it would come into operation in the financial year 1883–4; so that they had two years to add to the profits that had been already shown. He could not tell whether the profits had increased at the same rate for that year; but, making an allowance for the payment of the extra wages to the telegraphists, if they had so increased, the Revenue, including interest on the borrowed capital, should not be far short of £500,000 sterling. If they had not increased, then it appeared to him that they had now reached a point when the stimulating effect of the reduction to the uniform rate of 1s. had been exhausted, and when, on commercial principles, they should endeavour to stimulate the business by making further improvements in its management. Of course, he could not guarantee these figures. The right hon. Gentleman had not intimated whether they were correct or not; but they could not be very far off the mark. Now, the charge for interest on borrowed capital was £326,000 per annum. Making allowance for that, the result of the commercial balance sheets drawn up by Mr. Blackwood had been to show that after paying interest on borrowed capital the profits in 1880 amounted to £28,000 in addition, the interest amounting to £326,000; in 1881, the net profit was £144,000; in 1882, with an extra sum of £80,000 added in the shape of increased salaries, the net profit was £100,000. But assuming an increase of £40,000 for the year now ending, and assuming the increase given by the right hon. Gentleman last year to have been near the mark, the free profit this year should be £114,000; and for the year on which they were about to enter—namely, 1883–4—it should be £154,000. He had described the alteration which the right hon. Gentleman proposed and said the Post Office was prepared to adopt if the Treasury would sanction it. The cost of that alteration had been carefully made out by Mr. Patey, one of the most experienced and trusted officials of the Post Office; and his right hon. Friend told the deputation that that Estimate had been made out on the safe side as regarded the expenditure, and that Estimate showed that the change could be effected by a loss in the first year of £167,000 on the existing Revenue; but he believed that in consequence of the increase of salaries to the telegraphists the Postmaster General increased that sum by £10,000, and put the cost at £177,000. But it would be seen that if matters had been going on improving at the normal rate, so far as the Telegraph Revenue was concerned, they would, in the year 1883–4, have a free profit, after paying all charges for interest on borrowed capital, of somewhere about £160,000 or £170,000. In fact, there would be almost the amount required to make the change. There might be a difference of a few thousands; but, as the right hon. Gentleman told the deputation and the House last year, Mr. Patey's Estimate had been considered to err on the side of excessive caution. If they lost a few thousands this year, it must be remembered that the Treasury had been pocketing a free Revenue from the Postal Telegraph Service ever since 1880, for the profit between 1880 and 1882 had been about £216,000, and if that progress should have been maintained during the year ending the 31st of this month, it would amount to £330,000; and if his Estimate, which, of course, was purely hypothetical, and which was based on a continuance of the increase of Postal Telegraph Revenue at the average rate of preceding years, were maintained, by the end of 1884 the amount pocketed, in the shape of absolute profit on the Telegraph Service, should be between £480,000 and £500,000. The cost of the reduction for the first year was estimated at £177,000, and the Postmaster General told the deputation that in three or four years the loss to the Revenue would be entirely made up by the increased business. He (Dr. Cameron) thought it would be made up much sooner than in three or four years; and he pointed in proof of his contention to the stimulating effect which the adoption of the 1s. rate had had on the development of telegraphy in this country. He could not doubt that if they made the reduction to 6d. the same tendency would manifest itself. If they assumed Mr. Patey's figures to be correct, and that it would take three or four years to reach the same position with regard to the Revenue as now existed, they would have this remarkable effect, which demonstrated the fallacy of his Estimate—that if they allowed the increase per annum in profits to be as at present, the total loss would only extend to £480,000; while if it took place at the slower rate four and a-half years would suffice to place the Revenue where it was, and the total loss would be under £500,000. He maintained that before the end of the present year the Government would have pocketed a sufficient amount out of the free Revenue of the Telegraph Department to wipe off any loss which might occur from first to last—even assuming Mr. Patey's pessimist Estimate to be absolutely correct. His later figures had been avowedly based on the Estimates; but he did maintain that if their had not arrived at the particular point at which the change might be made and 6d. telegrams adopted, they were within a very short distance of it. The two or three years which the Postmaster General spoke of when he addressed the deputation had now passed. It must, therefore, be only a question of months when the point would be reached at which the Treasury could assent, if it chose, to the principles which the right hon. Gentleman laid down in his speech. He maintained that the principle of taxing telegraphy was most erroneous. It was one of the worst taxes on knowledge—a tax on economy, on time, and on the production of wealth. Instead of maintaining a price which was prohibitory not only to the working but to the middle classes, they ought to take every means in their power to encourage telegraphy. They ought to educate the rising generation to it; and he would suggest to the Government that the composing of telegrams would form a useful part of the education in our board schools. As the Select Committee of 1876 had pointed out, the Postal Telegraph system differed only from a commercial undertaking in this—that it was taken over by the State primarily for the convenience of the public, and that all increase of traffic which could be created without loss to the Revenue added to national value of the system. The right hon. Gentleman had before expressed his adhesion to the principle, and therefore he had confined himself to the one point. He had endeavoured to show that, if not in this year—1883–4—at least in the next, the point would be reached at which the reduction could be made without, in the smallest degree, encroaching on the national resources. They were now at the very turning point of the question; and he trusted that the House of Commons would at least lay down the principle that telegraphy should not be taxed. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Postmaster General disputed his figures, he trusted that, at the earliest moment, at least the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared to express his entire adhesion to the economic doctrine which his Colleague had laid down, and his hearty approval in principle of that great improvement in the Telegraphic Service of the country, for which the Postmaster General had told them his Department was perfectly prepared.

seconded the Motion with great satisfaction, because it was a question, of all others, which demanded public attention. He knew the Postmaster General required no conversion on the point; but the question was, whether the Treasury were prepared to acquiesce in the proposed change? It by no means followed that the cheapening of telegraphy would reduce the Revenue; he thought experience showed that the reduction of the price of telegrams tended to greatly increase the business done. He knew that Mr. Pender's experience of the reduction of prices in cable telegrams was that it had resulted in an immediate loss to the revenue of the Company; but he believed it was the fact that in a short time after the reduction from 3s. a word to 1s. the revenue sprang up to what it was before the change. The proposed reform was one which was needed quite independently of the pounds, shillings, and pence part of the question. It was a reform which was needed in consonance with the other useful and practical reforms which had been inaugurated by the Postmaster General, and for which he received the grateful thanks of the community. If the minimum rate were reduced to 6d. half-a-dozen messages would be sent where one was despatched now, and the additional expenditure would be nothing like that in proportion; but even if the additional cost were fully up to the increase in business, still, in the public interest, this was a reform which ought to be accomplished. He considered that the estimate of Revenue was computed on an erroneous basis. It was true the capital of the original outlay was £10,500,000; but one-third, or at least one-fourth, of that amount ought to be written off. The interest on the whole amount was £325,000 a-year, which was considerably below the present net Revenue. A good deal was charged to Revenue that ought properly to be charged to capital. For instance, he understood that £30,000 was taken from Revenue for the building of a Post Office in Manchester, and the Revenue was hampered by charges of that kind. Another reason why the change should be made was found in the progress which was being made with telephones. It was the old custom to think that when gas came in there would be no more use for oil; that when the Underground Railway was built there would be no need for omnibuses, and so on. But experience had proved the folly of such ideas. In America, independently of the natural growth and increase of the telegraphic system, it was largely increased by and in consequence of the general use and adaptation of the telephone in that country, and he had no doubt the same result would be obtained here. Last year the Postmaster General suggested that a word rate might be adopted—namely, that 12 words should be sent for 6rf., and that one halfpenny should be charged for each additional word. If such a system were introduced, he thought, instead of charging one halfpenny for each word, the giving of three words for 1d. would be much more convenient and popular. On na- tional as well as on commercial grounds he hoped the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow would be adopted by the Government.

said, he agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) that the time had now arrived when an alteration should be made in telegraphic charges; but he also thought there was another subject that should be brought before the attention of the Postmaster General—namely, the question of telephones. There was no doubt telephones were making rapid progress in this country, though not such a rapid progress as was being made in other countries. He would like to ask the Postmaster General if it was possible, under present arrangements, for private individuals to undertake telephone arrangements for the Metropolis? He understood that a satisfactory Telephonic Service could be supplied at the rate of 2d. per message, delivered at the houses. The idea would be to have stations at an interval of one-eighth of a mile; and if that were done a profit could be made. A further proposal would be that individuals might be allowed to enter these offices, and for the price of 1d. to send a message to anyone within the Metropolitan district. The hon. Member for Glasgow had suggested that telegraphic education should be introduced into our board schools; and certainly, when the system of telephonic communication had been extended, it would be necessary to teach the young people shorthand, so that they might be able to take down the messages as they were delivered. He thought, however, that the time had not quite arrived when this subject could be dealt with in a practical manner; but he threw out these remarks, in order that the Postmaster General might have the opportunity of stating what objection he entertained to the introduction of a system of telephonic messages.

said, that the difficulty which the Postmaster General had to encounter in dealing with this subject was the extreme want of room, owing to the increase in every Department of the Postal Service. The letters had increased in one year 5¼ per cent; postcards, 10 per cent; packets, 12¾ per cent; newspapers, 5¼ per cent; registered letters, 8½ per cent. In 1872 the average number of letters for each individual in the United Kingdom was 28; whereas in 1882 the average had risen to 35. Last year the number of telegraphic messages was 81,345,861, which was an increase of 1,933,879 over the messages of the preceding year. It was a singular fact that, of all the telegraphic messages of the United Kingdom, five out of eight passed through St. Martin's-le-Grand. The Chief Office was so choked that it could do no move business; and he had it on good authority that the officials were worked under such unsatisfactory conditions that there was now a higher sick list than ever was known in the Department before. The Post Office was about to institute a Parcels Post, which he believed would develop into a most extensive business, and larger premises would be absolutely necessary for the efficient working of that and other Departments all crowded, and many at considerable distances apart. He suggested that acquiring the site of Christ's Hospital was the only way of meeting the increasing difficulties. Hon. Members were doubtless aware that a Royal Commission, consisting of Mr. Walpole, the late Recorder, Mr. W. E. Forster, the Dean of Christ-church, and Mr. Walter, had wound up an exhaustive Report with—

"For a thorough reform in the management and discipline of Christ's Hospital we think that its removal from London is indispensable."

Consequently, the opportunity presented itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Rive acres of land within 100 yards of St. Martin's-le-Grand—which was as nearly as possible the centre of the Metropolis—and within 700 yards of the Bank of England, were now to be had for £600,000, which he considered a reasonable sum. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer do in this matter what the Earl of Beaconsfield had done in Egypt. The noble Earl bought the Suez Canal Shares for less than £4,000,000, and to-day on the market they could be sold for £9,000,000; while in 11 years' time, when entitled to full dividends, they would at present value be worth £21,000,000. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer make up his mind and buy the five acres, which he would certainly find of the greatest service when the parcels business developed, as it certainly would if there was plenty of room for development. They must remember, too, that the Post Office ought not to be considered as a productive Department; it was intended, not to produce revenue, but to afford business facilities for the people generally. Last year, however, it produced a profit of £3,100,475, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer calmly proposed to look for a further increase of £200,000. The general convenience of the public was what the Post Office was intended to supply, and it ought not to be turned to any other purpose. He hoped the Government would put a bold front on the matter, and carry out the suggestion now made.

objected to the idea that the Post Office ought not to be considered a Revenue-producing Department. It was said that it was a tax upon the industry and wealth of the country; but surely a tax on its wealth was legitimate, large numbers of telegrams being merely sent for purposes of private convenience. A change in the system of return telegrams might, however, be adopted with great advantage, and, in his opinion, with little or no loss to the Revenue, by charging 6d. instead of 1s. for the return message.

urged the Government to extend telegraphic communication to outlying parts of the country, whether the localities were, or were not, prepared to give a guarantee to the Post Office for the due collection of the Revenue; and he pointed out that three places in his county would be greatly benefited by such a service, for one of which a guarantee had already been given and the communication established; but the other two places had not yet been able to arrange the guarantee, and, consequently, the lines had not been put up. He complained that the cost of establishing telegraphic communication between the Shetland Islands and the mainland had not been borne by the Government. The lines were, however, to be supplied, but at the charge of the fees levied upon the fish-curers of herrings, so that £1,000 was this year paid to the Telegraph Department out of the funds derived from the brand fees obtained from herring brands. The telegraph ought to be extended for the benefit of the people; and, whether there was a loss upon a particular line or not, he thought it should be carried out at the cost of the Department. The convenience of the public should be mainly considered, and not the profit which the lines might yield. Indeed, the country should be kept well informed as to the places not yet put in telegraphic communication with the world.

believed that, instead of involving a loss to the Revenue, 6d. telegrams would result in a gain. He thought that when they were considering this question they ought to take into consideration the suggestion which he had made last year with regard to reply telegrams—that a telegram and a reply might be had for 1s. 6d. He would be quite willing to allow the return form to be only available within 48 hours of the despatch of the message, and to limit it to 10 words.

said, the object at which the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) aimed was one which every Member of this House would wish to see Carried out at the earliest possible opportunity; and he, for one, was pleased that he should have raised the question now. He had only one word to say as to the mode in which that object should be realized. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman his Successor (Mr. Fawcett)—whom they were all delighted to see in his place again—would not say he was prepared to grant a 6d. rate at the cost of abolishing free addresses. He was convinced that the abolition of that privilege would be a very great privation and injury to the very large body of the poorer classes of the people who now used the telegraph.

The wording of the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow is such that I feel some doubt whether I am the proper Minister to reply to it. My hon. Friend lays it down distinctly that the time has now come when the charge for telegrams should be reduced. The position I have always taken up since I have been Post- master General is, that the decision of that question, involving as it does a sacrifice of Revenue, does not depend upon the person who happens to be at the head of the Post Office, but must be determined by the Government, or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is primarily responsible for the finances of the country. Some words were let fall by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, which might lead to the conclusion that there was a conflict of opinion between the Treasury and myself on this question. I should be extremely sorry if such a conclusion were accepted by the House. What I did say, in reply to a deputation to which my hon. Friend referred—and I am delighted to be pinned to everything which I then said—was simply that, as far as those who administered the Post Office were concerned, nothing would give us greater pleasure than to be told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or by the Government, that the time had arrived when the financial position of the country was such that they could afford to sacrifice the temporary loss of Revenue which the reduction in the charge for telegrams would involve. Whether that time has come or not, it would be obvious to the House that that is a question that cannot be determined by me. But as I have devoted a considerable amount of attention to the question—knowing how keen and widespread is the interest felt in it throughout the country—I hope the House will not think I am trespassing unduly upon their time, if I lay before them some facts which will enable the House and the country, and, perhaps, the Government, to form an opinion in reference to it. It unfortunately happens, in opposition to the opinion expressed by the Seconder of the Motion, that seldom, if ever, can great postal or telegraph improvements be carried out without leading for a time to some loss of Revenue. This was even the case with the penny post. The success of the penny postage has been remarkable; but great as has been its financial success ultimately, and incalculable as have been the advantages which it conferred upon the community, it is a singular fact that more than 16 years elapsed before the penny postage yielded as large a net Revenue to the State as was yielded before it was introduced. And, although I believe that ultimately the Telegraph Revenue would recover the loss which would result from a reduction in the charge, yet I am bound to tell the House frankly what the loss is estimated at. If telegrams are to be reduced in price, it can be done in three different ways. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow suggested, we may have a charge of one halfpenny a word, with a minimum charge of 6d., the address being charged for; or, secondly, as has been advocated by the noble Lord who preceded me in Office (Lord John Manners), we may continue to have the address free; and I would suggest that if that were done we should then have a minimum charge of 6d. for the first six words, with one halfpenny for every word beyond the six. There is no doubt much force in what the noble Lord has stated, and that the abolition of free addresses would bear most heavily upon the poor. A well-known man's address is generally a short one, and in many cases would be simply the name of the town in which he lives; whereas a poor person's address would often have to name the court and the street in which he lived. It would be found that the poor person's address was often several words longer than rich persons'; and, therefore, to charge for the address at one halfpenny per word would undoubtedly press somewhat heavily upon the poor. I believe it is the case that in no country except our own are free addresses allowed; but as the English people have been accustomed to them for 10 years, I am afraid they would feel their abolition a grievance. There is a third way, and a very simple way, in which the change might be carried out. You might give a free address, and then six words for 6d., 12 words for 9d., and 20 words for 1s. That would be a very simple plan. But, unfortunately, the costliness of these plans varies in proportion with their convenience. The first plan, charging one halfpenny per word for the address, is the least costly to the Department, but, I think, would be the least convenient. The second plan—a free address and a minimum charge of 6d.—is more convenient, but considerably more costly; and the third plan is the most costly of all. Therefore, we are reduced to a financial consideration; and the Government has to consider, when the change is adopted, what amount of Revenue are they prepared to sacrifice for the convenience of the public, and I will state what are the Estimates of the loss that would be involved; but I warn the House not to place too much confidence in these Estimates. They are the best we are able to obtain after great labour and difficulty, and I am sure they are sincere; but the House will see the difficulty of forecasting accurately the results of such reductions of charge. The problem depends upon three factors. In the first place, we have to estimate what will be the number of messages sent under a reduced tariff; and that, after all, is little more than guessing. Secondly, we have to consider, if a word rate is adopted, what will be the average yield of each message, or how many words on an average will be sent. Thirdly, we have to conclude what will be the cost of each message when the number of words is reduced. I have called to my assistance two of the ablest officials in the Post Office, who have had great experience of telegraphic work, and they have arrived at somewhat different conclusions as to the financial results. In order to be on the safe side, I will take the Estimate of the official who puts the loss at the maximum amount. He estimates that the loss in the Revenue, calculated on commercial principles, during the first year, if a rate of ½. per word were adopted, and if the address were charged for, would be, as stated by my hon. Friend, £177,000; but that loss would rapidly diminish, and in four years' time the telegraphs would yield as large a net Revenue under the reduced tariff as they are yielding at the present time. That is the most unfavourable Estimate. With regard to the second plan—free addresses and a charge of 6d. for the first six words—although I think that would be a more acceptable plan to the public, it would, unfortunately, be more costly; and the Estimates agree that the loss, if this plan were adopted, instead of being £177,000 in the first year, would be £150,000 more, or £320,000. That would reduce the present commercial revenue from telegraphs to the very small sum of £40,000. But in stating the advantages which belong to free addresses, and also admitting the disadvantages which would attach to charging for each word of the address, I think I am bound to point out a consideration of no small importance on the other side. There can be no doubt that the present plan is extremely waste- ful, as I can show by a very simple statement. Since I last addressed the House on this subject we have been at some pains to obtain Returns from all the Continental countries as to the number of words in their telegrams, and we have made a calculation of the average length of telegrams in our own country. "We arrived at this very striking result—that the average length of Continental telegrams, including the addresses, is 16 words; whereas the average length of our telegrams, including the addresses, is no less than 29 words, or about 80 per cent more. I cannot help thinking that the reason we have such a high average is that people often put in unnecessarily long addresses, and think that, as they have paid for 20 words, whether they need use them or not, they might as well take advantage of the full allowance. In many cases I believe that is done, and that often the only results are that the officials are given more trouble, whilst the telegram is made much less distinct, and more liable to mistakes than it otherwise would be. But I am anxious, before I sit down, to point out some of the advantages which I think would result from a reduction in the price of telegrams. In the first place, I cannot help thinking that there is great force in what was urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, that considering we have, at the present time, 5,700 offices from which telegrams are sent, and 175 offices, in addition, at which business is carried on under a system of guarantee, only 80,000 telegrams, on an average, are sent each day, or 14 or 15 telegrams from each office, the business done is, after all, small. I cannot help thinking, too, as I said on a previous occasion, that 1s. is a prohibitory charge. It is, to a great extent, prohibitory to a considerable section of the middle and poorer classes. We know the great anxiety which prevails in cases of illness that friends should know the latest possible information about the patient's state, and the number of anxious inquiries that are made. We know, also, that poor people's feelings in such cases are the same as those of the rich; and if a poor woman in London has a daughter ill in Manchester she is naturally as anxious to be informed, with the same promptitude, of any change in her child's condition as would be the wealthiest in the land. When I re- member that this is only one instance of the extent to which the telegraph might be used if the charge were reduced, I cannot help coming to the conclusion that, when the day arrives on which the Government says we are in a position to be able to afford the sacrifice of Revenue which we are told will take place, that announcement will be received by the great majority of the country with satisfaction and with gratitude. There is another consideration, and that is, what would be the effect of cheaper telegrams upon our commercial interests? The telegraph is now a means of commercial communication. No inconsiderable portion of the business of the country is done by telegrams. English trade has had, during the last four or five years, many and increasing difficulties to contend with. We who keep absolutely, as I hope we always shall, to a strict policy of Free Trade, have constantly to face tariffs framed more and more in a hostile spirit against us; and I think it is no exaggeration to say that, taking a review of the past few years, English trade has had greater difficulties to contend with from the protective system which is maintained in other countries than it ever had formerly. This being the case, it seems to me of great importance—because when a struggle is keen and close a very small point makes a difference—that, as far as we can help it, English trade should be placed under no disadvantage. The fact is not to be denied that, comparing the minimum telegraph charge in England with other countries, and regarding the telegraph as an important means of commercial communication, our minimum charge is no less than 140 percent more than is the minimum charge in most Continental countries. We are actually in this position—that we can send a short telegram from any part of England to any part of Belgium for 8d., and from John o' Groats to any part of France for 10d. and yet, if we want to telegraph to a place only a few miles distant, or even from one part of London to another, we have to pay 50 per cent more than we should pay for a short telegram to Belgium, and 20 per cent more than we should pay for a short telegram to France. I cannot help admitting that this is a very striking anomaly. In order partly to meet it, it has been suggested that we should re- turn to the old system, and have two different rates of telegraph charges; that we should give up the principle of uniformity; that we should send a telegram, for instance, in London and in the large towns for 6d. I have made, to the best of [my ability, a calculation as to the financial result of that, and I find the saving would be so very trifling that it would only diminish the loss upon a general reduction by some £50,000 a-year. It seems to me it would be much to be regretted if the important principle of uniformity were infringed upon; and, as far as my opinion is concerned, I should not recommend any deviation from that principle. Again, the suggestion has been thrown out that a smaller charge should be made for a return telegram. I am perfectly willing to consider that subject; but it seems to me that, if we have 6d. telegrams at all, it is better not to do the thing by driblets, but to wait until we can have the change completely and effectually introduced. Now, I come to a part of the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, from which, unfortunately, I have considerably to differ. I should be very glad, indeed, if I could accept his hypothetical figures as the figures of the case. My hon. Friend correctly gives the commercial Revenue from telegrams in 1880–1 as £440,000; and he calculates that between 1876 and 1881 there has been an annual increase of £50,000 a-year in the commercial profits. He assumes that, as it were, by an irresistible law of nature, this increase has gone on; and, upon that hypothesis, he estimates the commercial Revenue of the Telegraph Department in the present year at over £500,000. [Dr. CAMERON: Under £500,000. I said £474,000.] Well, under £500,000; but, unfortunately, that increase, which had gone on steadily between 1876 and 1881, when the commercial profit of the telegraphs was £440,000, took an extraordinary drop between 1880–1 and 1881–2; and this drop, although I believe it will ultimately be recovered, has not yet been recovered. I will give my hon. Friend and the House the Revenue of the Telegraph Department, calculated on commercial principles, during the last three years; and my hon. Friend will at once see that this law of continuous growth does not, unfortunately, apply to the Telegraph Service. In 1880–1 the com- mercial profit upon the Telegraph Service was £440,000; in 1881–2 it sank to £353,000; and during the present year—? with the increased capital expenditure of £200,000, and upon which, of course, interest ought to be allowed—the commercial Revenue is estimated at £363,000; but, reckoning £6,000 for interest, it is only about £4,000, instead of £50,000 better than the previous year. No doubt the falling-off of the Revenue has been due to the circumstances at which my hon. Friend hinted. The salaries of the telegraph employés have—I will not say by the pressure of the House, but, certainly, with the approval of the House—been increased. I do not regret that increase; I think the extra pay they received was duo to them; and if I had not thought so no number of Memorials would have induced me to recommend the Treasury to have made such a large sacrifice of Revenue. But I hope, as I sometimes hear that there is still in certain quarters some discontent, that it will be borne in mind that £80,000 a-year is a very large sum to take from the taxpayers of the country; and the result of it has been that it has reduced the commercial profit of the Department by that amount; because, of course, you cannot spend the money and keep it too—a simple maxim that appears to be sometimes forgotten. Let us consider what is the financial position of the Service? The capital may be taken at £10,500,000; and £353,000—which was the commercial profit of the year 1881–2—would represent an interest on the capital of about 3J per cent. The profit of the present year represents 3¼ per cent, or a trifle more. Therefore, from this point of view, the Telegraph Service may be considered at the present time to be just a paying concern, yielding a current rate of interest on the capital that has been expended. But there is another consideration which I feel I should not be dealing frankly with the House if I did not say a few words upon. The capital of the Telegraph Service—£10,500,000—represents the sum which was paid by the State for the Telegraphs. But owing to the blunder committed by the Government and sanctioned by Parliament—for both the Government and Parliament were alike responsible in the matter—wo are saddled with what may be regarded as a useless capital expenditure of £3,500,000; because I have been told on the highest authority—and great pains have been taken to investigate the subject—that if, instead of the £10,500,000 that were paid for the Telegraphs, £7,000,000 had been paid, that would have been a large if not an extravagant sum. It is scarcely fair, after making that mistake, to say to a Department—" We hand you over a concern for which we blundered into paying £10,500,000, when the utmost we should have given was £7,000,000; and you must make a commercial profit, not on the real commercial value of the thing we handed over to you, but on the amount which, through carelessness, was squandered?" I think that is a very fair way of putting the case; and if we take the capital account of the Telegraphs at £7,000,000, we shall then find that in the present year, taking the commercial profit at £360,000, we are making a profit of about 5 per cent. I have now endeavoured to redeem the promise that I would frankly state the facts that are in my possession. The question before the House is one that does not rest with me to determine. I can only say that although there may be some difficulties about buildings, as has been pointed out by the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Peek), those difficulties at the present moment have, to a great extent, been removed. What we may require in the future I cannot say, because there really seems to be no limit to the increase of business connected with the Post Office if increased facilities are afforded. But, whatever buildings may be required, I believe they will and must be supplied; because I feel certain the public would never sanction being deprived of any postal facilities through want of buildings. But, leaving future wants to the future, we are supplying those buildings which we think are necessary for our present wants; and, whether the day comes soon or whether it comes late, the very moment we receive an instruction from those who are in superior authority over us, either from the Government or from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Revenue is in a position to lose for one year £170,000, and for four years an aggregate loss of £450,000, I can only repeat that that news will be welcomed at the Post Office. All that we consider we have to do is to make what Revenue wo are ordered to make for the Govern- ment, at the same time giving the utmost facilities possible to the general public, either in the way of postal or telegraph service communication.

said, he thought a larger question lay behind that as to the blunder in calculation made in 1808 and 1869. It was quite true that the Telegraph and the Post Office ought to be regarded as one Department; but this Department ought to be managed for the public benefit. He questioned the propriety of the Government making money by a Department; all profit made should be utilized for the benefit of the country. He held that they should long ago have had 6d. telegrams and halfpenny letters, and they would have had them if the money made by the Department had not been taken hold of by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for buying powder and shot, and for every other purpose not connected with the Post Office. Instead of appropriating the income arising from it to the good of the community, in connection with the Department that made the money, he appropriated it to the general Revenue of the country. The Government ought not to be so anxious to make money. What was this £170,000 a-year which they asked for to the Government? The Postmaster General was tied hand and foot simply because the Chancellor of the Exchequer was short of money. He did not think the money so appropriated by the Government was fair and legitimate Revenue. The Revenue was, in fact, made in an unfair way, because the public were charged more than they ought to pay. All they asked was that out of £3,100,000 made by the Department, £170,000 should be devoted to an enormous public advantage; and he thought they ought, if possible, to compel the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give up this sum. He hoped the Government would not renew the blunder made in 1868 and 18G9, and that the boon now asked would not be refused simply because they had given 50 per cent more than the telegraphs were worth; and, therefore, he should vote in favour of the present Motion.

said, he had been appealed to from both sides of the House, and very properly by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, to state upon this very important question what the view of the Government, as distinct from the purely administrative view of the Post Office, might be upon this question. He would say, to begin with, that he conceived when the Government undertook the purchase of the Telegraphs, and when the rate was fixed at 1s. for 20 words, it was so fixed with the distinct understanding—in fact, it was so stated—that a reduction would take place in the rate when the state of the Telegraph account would admit of that reduction. He quite agreed that the reduction of the rate from 1s. to whatever sum the condition of the Revenue permitted would be a great boon to the public; and he did not deny that when they compared the system on which telegrams were paid for abroad with the system on which they were paid for in this country, the comparison was, except with regard to charging for the address, to our disadvantage. In all these respects he quite agreed with what had been said in support of the Motion on both sides of the House; but the question was, could the Government legitimately, at the present moment, agree to reduce the charge to 6d. with the modifications which his right hon. Friend had so fully explained to the House; or would it be more expedient to wait until the financial condition of the Telegraph Department was shown to be more satisfactory than it was at present? Now, supposing the reduction were made, there would, at any rate, be a loss of £170,000. ["No!"] He had great respect for the opinions of hon. Gentlemen; but he felt bound to say that, considering the Postmaster General had given that figure last year, and that after a year's experience he adhered to that statement, he must attach more weight to it than to the opinions, however valuable, of those who had not had the advantage of his right hon. Friend's knowledge on the subject. On a question of this kind he thought the authoritative opinion of the Postmaster General ought not to be lightly put aside. But what was the lowest estimated loss? The Postmaster General had stated to the House that, taking the profits on a 6d. telegram at 1½d., there would be a loss of £170,000; and, before accepting his right hon. Friend's estimate as final and conclusive, it was only right that it should be scrutinized to the bottom; but, having held the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer only a few weeks, it would be impossible for him to accept the responsibility of stating that the los3 estimated by his right hon. Friend would be the total loss. His right hon. Friend had explained that the average amount received on each 1s. telegram of 20 words was 1s. 0½d.—that was to say, the excess over the minimum rate was only ½d.: but in the calculation of the sixpenny rate it was assumed that the average length of a telegram would not be represented by 6d. or 6½.d., but by 10d., or an excess of 4d. So that, while at present the average excess over the minimum rate was 4 per cent, in future the average excess would be 66 per cent over the minimum rate. That might be the case; but, as the whole question depended on that calculation, it would be the duty of the Treasury, before accepting it as a basis, to be perfectly satisfied of its correctness. He should certainly hesitate to assume, and he would warn the House not to assume, that the loss on the reduced rate would only amount to £170,000 until they had had an opportunity of testing the matter. Even assuming that the loss would only be £170,000, he was not prepared to say at that moment that the House ought to pass a Resolution consenting to the loss of that sum. He had heard with surprise in the course of debate some of the statements which had been made in regard to the unimportance of large items of expenditure; and he was all the more surprised when he remembered the great anxiety which had been expressed during the present Session in regard to the Public Expenditure and the care which ought to be taken over it. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Peek) had suggested that the Government, for the extension of the Post Office business, should at once purchase property in the City of London for £000,000. But what would the House say if the Government were to ask for £600,000 more taxation? Hon. Gentlemen who were so indignant on this subject would be the first to denounce the Government for its extravagance. He also heard with surprise his hon. Friend who spoke last say that they ought to spend the profit derived from the Post Office on buildings, and so on, and giving greater facilities. That was all very well; but hon. Members should recollect that if the£3,000,000 the Post Office produced were spent in that way the House would have to find taxes to meet that loss of receipt. That £3,000,000 enabled them to reduce taxation for which they would otherwise have to come to Parliament and ask for an additional 1½.in the pound of Income Tax, or some other impost. In his opinion, it was necessary to proceed with caution. He would remind the House what they were doing that year for the Post Office. On their recommendation Parliament had already passed the necessary Act for the carrying out of a postal parcels system, in which his right ton. Friend had taken so admirable an interest, and which he had perfected in its inception, and in obtaining for it the approval of Parliament. That would add to the cost of the Post Office an expenditure of upwards of £400,000 or £500,000 a year. It was true that there would be an equivalent addition to the receipts, and that the country would not be losers; but was it prudent, in the same year when they were undertaking so large an expenditure as that, also to largely increase the Telegraph business of the Post Office at an undoubted loss of £170,000 a year, and without knowing that it would not be greater? He did not believe that it would be wise to undertake the responsibility of that expenditure at the present moment. Once again, however, he would most explicitly state that he was most strongly in favour of a reduction of the telegraph rates as soon as it became feasible. In 1868, when the original proposals to purchase the telegraphs were brought before Parliament, he had advocated them; and he well remembered the promise held out that the reduction to 6d. was only a question of time. But he hoped that the House would not agree to the Motion. This, however, he would undertake—that between the present time and next year the question should be most thoroughly investigated; and if they could find any mode in their power of carrying out the proposal they would only be too glad to ask Parliament to adopt it.

said, with regard to this sum of £170,000 or £177,000, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to have forgotten for the moment, with reference to the question of the change costing £170,000, that there had been another Estimate furnished by another official of the Post Office, and that, therefore, it seemed to be a moot point even in the Post Office. Business men, however, were quite competent and able to apply business tests to a question of this description, and they knew as well as the authorities at the Post Office and the Treasury knew that one uniform law in business was that a reduction in the price of an article meant an increase in the consumption of that article. Therefore, they believed that a reduction in the charges for telegrams would be succeeded by an increase of business in that Department. He did not think that the figure was too high. He was quite willing to accept it at £170,000; and he was prepared to say that, for the convenience of the public, and having regard to the general regulations of the Post Office and the Telegraph Department, that was an expenditure that the House ought to sanction. The question of the sanction of that expenditure was not a question either for the Post Office or the Treasury; it was one for the House to determine. There had not been a single argument used that night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer against this proposition which could not have been used with equal force and effect, and was used, he might say, with equal force, but happily not with equal effect, against the introduction of the penny postage. The Postmaster General told them that it took some 16 years before the Revenue recuperated itself for the loss through the adoption of the penny postage; but that argument held good as an argument now, because if it had prevailed then they would never have had the penny postage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said—" We do not wish to increase the Expenditure; "but when they knew the nature of the Votes to be proposed that night, the extravagant expenditure under the Civil Service Estimates—there was a proposition he learnt, for example, to continue a subvention of £250,000 to turnpike roads—he thought even the most economical Member of that House would be favourable to sanctioning a diminution of Revenue of even £200,000 a-year to confer this great boon upon all classes of the country, and specially the poorer classes. He was sure the proposal would be warmly accepted by the country; and, as regarded the objection that they must wait till they saw their way clear, that time would never come if they did so. He firmly believed that the House would be found quite willing and ready to find the money when it was wanted. On the broad general principle that the cost of telegrams should be reduced, he hoped his hon. Friend would proceed to a division.

in rising to call attention to the Reports of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues: and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, should make any further purchase of land,"

said, the facts he had to submit were not only novel, but had a direct bearing upon the Motion which had just been carried; for if Her Majesty's Government desired to find a place where they might save not less than £50,000 a-year, the Department of Woods and Forests was that locality. His proposals would be in the direction of the recommendations contained in the Report of a Committee in 1854, which had never been carried out. When this Department was established, the Crown Lands were divided into two categories, the one producing no revenue being placed under the Department of the First Commissioner of Works, and that which was held to produce revenue being placed under the Department of Woods and Forests. From that arrangement Windsor Forest was excepted, on the ground that it produced revenue, and the domain of Windsor extended over 14,000 acres. In principle, however, there was no difference between Windsor Park and the Royal Parks in London, for all produced revenue for grazing or sundries. There was no good reason why the £20,000 a-year excess of cost at Windsor should be charged to the Land Revenue which did not apply to the £110,000 a-year voted for the maintenance of the Royal Parks in the Metropolis. Besides parks, the Department of Woods and Forests had 70,000 acres of agricultural land, of which 17,000 were in Lincolnshire, 13,000 in Yorkshire, and 8,000 in Wiltshire, producing an annual rental of more than 32s. an acre. There were also 500 houses let at rack rents, and 5,000 houses built by lessees of Crown Lands. In urging the sale of the saleable portion of this property he was proposing no change of law, but only that the Commissioners should do what their Act already permitted to be done. The public supposition was that the Department of Woods and Forests dealt only with a grand domain; but in reality it was a land jobbing business, dealing with estates in various parts of the country. In 30 years it had sold more than 20,000 acres for £1,000,000 sterling. The Land Revenue was increasing mainly because of such matters as the new lease of Messrs. Spiers and Pond's premises, of the "Unicorn" in Jermyn Street, and of the Old Colosseum in Regent's Park, where the land had been let from time to time at advanced rates. Within the last three years the Department had spent £80,C00 in the purchase of ground rents in Shoe Lane and Farringdon Street, and they had sold £80,000 worth in Pimlico to the Metropolitan Board of Works. These were specimens of the traffic in real property which was carried on by this Department, to the great advantage of the agents and solicitors who managed the business, and who made very considerable fortunes through their connection with the Department. In his opinion, a Department of the State ought not to compete with the middle classes in the purchase of ground rents. No doubt the income of the Department was paid into the Exchequer, but only during the lifetime of the Queen; and whatever augmentation went on until the demise of the Crown would be of advantage, not to the public, but to the inheritor of the value of the land revenue on the demise of the Crown. He wished particularly to call attention to the deduction which was made from the gross income received. If, say, the Land Revenue Department received £390,000 a-year, the total deduction, including the Vote of £22,000 by that House, amounted, according to one of the Commissioners, to the amazing amount of 22½ per cent, or £110,000 a-year. The disadvantages under which the Commissioners laboured as agricultural landlords had a direct bearing upon the discussion which would go on for many years as to the advantages or disadvantages of State ownership of land. The cost of managing farms by this Department was not less than 13 per cent. In letting a farm in Hampshire one of the Commissioners declared that he never had so much trouble in getting rid of a tenant, and that a private landlord could have got rid of him much quicker. It was one of the obligations of the Crown in letting farms that it should be done by tender. With regard to the letting of a farm in Scotland, the Commissioner regretted that he was not able to accept the second tenderer, as he was sure it would have saved the Crown and the public £7,000. It would not be possible to make a statement showing more clearly the disadvantage of Corporations being in possession of land. The Crown lands might be divided into two categories—Royal parks and forests, over which there were no powers of sale; and other lands, with regard to which such powers existed. The former were lands which the nation ought to dedicate to the Royal dignity and public recreation. And as to all the other class which had been placed in the commercial category, the Commissioners ought to be encouraged to exercise their statutory powers of sale, and to invest the proceeds in the Funds. All he asked was, that Her Majesty's Government should encourage the sale of the saleable lands. Her Majesty had made a request that she should be permitted to purchase the Claremont Estate. It was for the public advantage that Her Majesty should become the purchaser of Claremont, and he desired to extend a similar privilege to every other person, as that would be for the public advantage. There was nothing in the Crown Lands Acts which pre- vented the Commissioners of Woods and Forests from selling those lands. The advantage of such a policy would be that it would put an end to the present traffic in real property by the Department. The State or any other Corporation ought to be permitted only to hold such lands as were required for the purposes of the State or of the Corporation. That change would promote the abolition of the Department of Woods and Forests, and would save directly the sum of £22,000 a-year, which was voted by the House. But that would be only a small part of the saving. The value of the lands over which the Department had now absolute powers of sale, if invested at 3 per cent, would produce £440,000 a-year, which, compared with the present net income of £390,000, and taking into account the annual Vote by the House, would involve a saving of £70,000 a-year; in fact, he believed it might be made £100,000. He would only add that the policy he advocated was not a new one. His object in bringing forward this Motion was to effect a large economic change, as well as to secure, as far as possible, a reduction of the extent of land held in mortmain, and the abolition, as soon as might be, of the practice of Corporations holding real property under that condition. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution which stood in his name.

in seconding the Motion, said, that the management of the Crown lands was most expensive. He certainly must condemn a system which enabled Corporations to abstract land from the general market, and to hold it in mortmain; and to his knowledge there was a strong feeling springing up in the country against any Corporation holding lands, especially agricultural. The management of Crown lands in his county—Bedfordshire—had not been wise or proper; and it might be remembered that, two years ago, he had brought that fact under the notice of the House. Among other matters, he would call attention to the fact that no less than 28 cottages on these estates had been sold, and to the great mistake which had been made in the management of the estates by so doing; and he asked would any landlord adopt such a policy on his estate? In his opinion, the fact showed the utter unfitness of the Department of Woods and Forests to manage property. He contended that a lack of interest had been shown by the Administration, not only in the condition of the farmers, but also in that of the labourers, in support of which contention he read a report of the sanitary authority of Bedfordshire having reference to those estates. He would pass to another feature of the case, and would see how the interests of the public had been looked after; and, in the first place, there could be no doubt that far too much money had been given for those estates. But, leaving the Crown estates of Bedfordshire, he would ask what had been the history of the management of Delamere Forest, which contained something like 5,000 acres? He was informed that in 1851 Mr. Naylor was anxious to purchase the property, and offered £370,000 for it, but it was refused. A few years afterwards a clearance was made, and some of the lands and three farms were set out; but the expenses were very large and swallowed up all the proceeds derived from the sale of the timber. The revenue from the property had never been more than £4,000 a-year, and for a considerable period it was not more than £2.000 a-year. He had made a calculation that if Mr. Naylor's offer had been accepted, and the money invested at the time in Consols for the public benefit, the income would have been about £12,000 a-year; consequently, the country had lost £250,000.

Sir, I hope it is not the intention of my hon. Friend to press this Motion on the House. At the same time, I speak with a good deal of sympathy for the general views which he expressed in very distinct and definite terms—at the time he brought forward the larger and, in my view, the clearer question last year, the question of the land held by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The effect of the debate on that occasion was, I think, to place the question more favourably before the public, and to clear the ground for ulterior proceedings. My hon. Friend appears not to have thought fit not to return to the discussion of that subject, but rather contemplated a kind of circuit amongst the different classes of property held in mortmain. That is a very large question, and I will just say a very few words on the Motion, and then on the views he entertains on the subject of mortmain. I am not able to follow the Mover of the Motion into the particular propositions he laid down, and I may perhaps observe, I hope in no censorious spirit, that the Motion which he has just made does not appear to me to be in entire conformity with his speech or entirely adequate to the purpose he has in view. He says there have been expensive transactions in the Office of Woods and Forests, to the management of which he has paid a marked and, I think, a very just tribute. But he has found fault with the practice that has been largely in use in that Department of investing the proceeds of sales in the purchase of ground rents. He objects to the purchase of ground rents, because he says the Office of Woods and Forests becomes a competitor with private individuals desiring an investment, and he recommends instead that they should purchase in the Funds. But he refutes his own objection by recommending a purchase in the Funds. It is perfectly clear that in purchasing in the Funds the Office would compete with private investors as much as in the purchase of ground rents; and looking at the law as it stands, and considering we are not about to recast the law—which in point of fact we could hardly do without opening all the questions which are more conveniently considered at the commencement of a Eeign—I am myself disposed to give relative commendation to the purchase of ground rents, because it tends in the direction of economy. It very much simplifies the operations of the Departments, and so far is, I think, entitled to the sympathy of my hon. Friend and those who think with him. Not only so; but I think both the Mover and the Seconder will agree that if there is to be mortmain at all, mortmain appears before us in a much more innocuous form and entails far less inconvenience when it is confined to ground rents, than when it embraces the management of agricultural land. Therefore, I should be sorry if it were supposed I am prepared to concur in the censure as to the purchase of ground rents. And with respect to the purchase of these ground rents, they have a more profitable investment. I understand the net income obtained by them is not less than £3 18s. per cent, and besides the net income there is undoubtedly the expectation of a large additional value in reversion, some portion of which may accrue to us during the present Reign, and the rest of which, of course, comes in the first instance to the Throne, but still would probably be made the subject of negotiations at the commencement of a new Reign similar to those which took place at the beginning of the present and the past Reigns. My hon. Friend suggested that a very simple process, as he appeared to think, would be to carry over to the Office of Works the ownership, or at any rate the maintenance and management, of forests, which, as he says, ought to be preserved for the purpose of public recreation. [Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I referred only to the New Forest.] I will take it that way, and must say that my hon. Friend is extremely liberal to the happy and fortunate individuals who enjoy recreation there; but I am by no means sure that my hon. Friend is equally liberal to the public. If we are told that as a perpetual institution of this country the New Forest is for ever to be held for public recreation, I must ask myself some questions. At what cost to the public will it be so held, and what number of individuals and what proportion of the public will be able to enjoy the recreation which is secured for ever at that cost? I do not know whether my hon. Friend has gone into that question, which is undoubtedly a very large question; but I am not by any means prepared to say at this moment that we can sanction the transference of these forest properties to the Department of Works. With regard to Delamere Forest, it appears, from the remarks of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. J. Howard), that there has been an opportunity of making a large increase of the revenue, and I am inclined to believe that the same thing would apply to the New Forest. I do not know whether it is intended to convey a censure on the Department for not accepting the offer of Mr. Naylor. I rather apprehend that the Commissioners would not have been, permitted by law to accept the offer.

I merely wished to show how unfit the Department were to manage such property.

The question is whether by law the Department could have accepted the offer.

There were certain negotiations.

Unless the hon. Gentleman is in a position to say that the Commissioners were free to accept the offer, he cannot use the point to show their incapacity. Looking to the Motion before the House, and after what I said as to the purchase of ground rents as a profitable, safe, and secure proceeding, and one which is provident with reference to the future, and tends greatly to diminish the inconvenience of the mortmain, and to simplify and cheapen the management, I think it would hardly be desirable that the House should arrive at a general proposition, which would, as I understand it, distinctly condemn the purchase of ground rents. Of course, the Resolution would have no effect upon the law as it now stands; but it would be an expression of the opinion and judgment of this House, which is no slight matter. It is not desirable that we should go to a vote on this subject; it is a subject which is conveniently considered at the commencement of a Reign, and there are considerable difficulties in approaching it at other periods, because we rest on a contract in regard to our power over the management of Crown lands, and an alteration of that contract might be attended with some difficulty. Here is another argument which ought to have great weight with the House. It is true that there is an element of mortmain involved in the holding of Crown land, and especially a strong element of mortmain as regards the agricultural part of it. But the agricultural land is but a small part of the whole and the great mass of the whole leasehold property and ground rents is very much less obnoxious to the argument against mortmain than the holding of agricultural lands. Both on that account, and because in respect to other descriptions of mortmain there is no question as to compact with the Crown to be considered, I submit that in the natural order of things we should do well first to consider a case where the objection to mortmain applies with very much greater strength, and where there is no embarrassment in approaching it, if we desire to approach it, and to postpone to a more convenient season the passing of a Resolution with reference to Crown lands, at any rate, with respect to the principle of holding property in the land. There are vast masses of agricultural land held, first of all by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—the richest Corporation in the country—and secondly, by endowed institutions of every description. I suppose I am correct in saying that it is millions, and not hundreds of thousands, that they amount to. [Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD: £2,000,000.] It is a grave and serious question whether some attempt ought not to be made for the liberation of that land. I think any hon. Gentleman would be well employing his time to examine into that subject with the view to practical results, whatever form and degree and in whatever direction it might seem desirable to apply his efforts. I think in saying this I am only repeating what appeared to be the general feeling of the House when the question was discussed last year with regard to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Undoubtedly this time is not favourable, because the market is not in a strong and healthy condition for receiving any large portion of property of this description; but, on the other hand, those who have been accustomed to attach in former times a very high and perhaps exaggerated value to the holding of land as by far the best form of holding property, have had a lesson during the last few years which perhaps may tend to open their minds on the subject, and diminish the resistance which, at another period might have been experienced in introducing some modification of the present law. Therefore, while I retain my general good will to the general purposes of my hon. Friend, I would point out that it would be premature in us to pass a Resolution of this kind, which certainly, if it were passed, ought not to remain without result, and which, at the same time, it would be difficult and contrary to usage to follow up by attempts to alter the conditions of the law at the present time. Likewise, I think it is too wide an assertion to make, that no portion of the proceeds of Crown lands ought to be invested in the purchase of ground rents. There is really an element of reform and improvement involved in that kind of transaction, and we should be inconsistent in condemning such a course as that before we took any effective steps for dealing with the general question of the Law of Mortmain, where property is held in mortmain, under conditions the most unfavourable that can be conceived, and which is managed in a great number of instances by bodies that are essentially and practically unfitted to deal with it or turn it to good uses.

in rising to call attention to the unfinished state of the Central Hall of the Houses of Parliament, said: I very much wish, Mr. Speaker, that I knew, or could imagine, what there is that can be said against the Notice of Motion which stands upon the Paper in my name. It would then be easier for me to make a speech in moving it, and I should also, perhaps, be able, at the same time, to do something towards shortening the discussion to which it may give rise. As it is, I feel myself very much in the position of what the French call "preaching to the converted;" for I never yet met anyone, either in this House, or out of it, who denied that the decoration of the Central Hall must some day be completed, or who seriously maintained that having been begun in mosaics, it could be finished in anything else. What is it, then, Sir, that hinders its completion? Well, as I understand my right hon. Friend the present First Commissioner, simply and solely the want of an expression of opinion on the part of this House in favour of the decoration by mosaics; and this it is the object of the present discussion to elicit. It will soon, Sir, be 11 years since the decoration of the Central Hall was seriously debated in this House, and at that time there was a remarkable "concensus" of opinion in favour of mosaics on the part of all whose opinion was entitled to weight upon a question of the kind. Perhaps, the House will allow me to give them a few brief extracts from the speeches made on that occasion. The debate, Sir, took place on the 1st of July, 1872, and is reported in Vol. 212, of Hansard, pp. 444–5–6–7–8—

"Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: With respect to the representation of our patron saint, we were in what the Americans would call 'a tarnation tight fix.' In the Central Hall we had got St. George and the Dragon in mosaics up near the roof, and he believed it would he found more expensive in the end to take down that patron saint, than to put up the other three patron saints under this Mosaic Dispensation.

"Lord JOHN MANNERS: There would he a certain incongruity in having one panel filled with a mosaic, and the other three with frescoes. At any rate, the panel opposite to St. George ought to he filled with a mosaic. As a matter of congruity and harmony, it would he better to have all the panels filled with mosaic, of the enduring qualities of which there could be no doubt.

"Lord ELCHO: Under all the circumstances; the best course to take would he to complete the whole of the panels in the Central Hall in the same style of decoration as had been already begun.

"Mr. ALFRED SEYMOUR: It would be a thousand pities to destroy almost the only indestructible work of art in the House, and nothing could be more foolish than to put up three other frescoes, when those which they already had were tumbling to pieces.

"Mr. COWPER-TEMPLE; It was important, however, to avoid any retrograde movement, and as they had begun with mosaics in the Central Hall, it was advisable to go on with the work. The mosaic decoration being in its infancy, was capable of much improvement, and was admirably suited to large buildings; and, therefore, he hoped the decoration of the Central Hall would he finished in the style which had already been adopted,

"Mr. BERESFORD HOPE must protest against the idea that in striking out this item, they would be substituting mere decoration for fine art; they were simply preferring one process of fine art to another. If it was supposed that the mistakes made in the frescoes might be avoided, was there not ground for expecting that the mosaic might also be improved?

"Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK understood that Mr. Salviati was not satisfied with the execution of the work; therefore the most reasonable thing seemed to him to be that before they discontinued it they should try if it would not succeed when the work was better executed. Let them see whether on the Continent, and more especially at Borne, improved methods could not be found of dealing with the subject."

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

continued: I have also the authority of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland (Mr. Gerard Noel) for saying there was nothing he desired more, during his term of Office, than to have associated his name with the completion of the Central Hall in mosaics. But my right hon. Friend fell upon evil times; his years of Office were the "lean years" of Lord Beaconsfield's Administration, and, in a word, he could not get the money. But I know that objection is taken to the mosaic picture of St. George, which is already in its place. In the first place, hon. Members say that they cannot see it. That is due, by day, to the effect of painted glass in the windows; and the remedy is to remove the painted glass, and glaze the windows en grisaille; and, by night, I think it not improbable that the electric light may be tried with advantage for the illumination of the Hall; and here I should like, with the permission of the House, to read what Sir Henry (then Mr.) Layard thought it would be necessary to do, in order to give a fair trial to the decoration which he was then proposing to adopt. Speaking on the 28th June, 1869, he said—

"What he was about to do was undertaken at the suggestion of the architect himself. The hall was exceedingly dark for the greater part of the year, and even during the day it was necessary to burn gas. The lantern would be altered so as to admit more light.…The architect suggested that a mosaic surface, which would reflect light, might be applied to the panels; and the two artists selected for preparing cartoons for this work wore well known for their ability. Another part of the expenditure was for a change in the windows—such as had been advantageously effected in the gallery between the Queen's robing room and the House of Lords, when the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) was in Office."—(3 Hansard, [197] 684.)

In the next place, I am aware that fault is found with the design of St. George, and I quite understand that hon. Members would have preferred the effigy with which they are familiar on the sovereigns of Her Majesty; but the artist had to remember that he was about to place the patron saint of England in the company of an apostle and two bishops of the 6th century, who are not known to have shared his equestrian tastes. So Mr. Poynter set him upon foot, gave him two female supporters, and wrote underneath—"St. George of England." Well, then, as to the expense, the original cost was £150 for the design of St. George, and £500 for the mosaic. Both will cost more now. Mr. Poynter, having risen to eminence in his Profession, makes no more designs for £150, and mosaics, I believe, are dearer. But, in any case, a sum of from £3,000 to £5,000 will finish the Hall, which Sir Charles Barry always intended to be the principal feature of this stately pile. And the thing. Sir, once done is done for all time; while, for the cost, the sum required has been wasted ten times over on telegrams and printing, since the present Government has been in power. Mr. Speaker, I must be allowed to express my surprise that it has been left for an English Member to raise this discussion. I remember, it is not so many years ago since Society was convulsed with the wrongs of the Scottish Lion. But now, forsooth, the patron saint of Scotland is "left out in the cold" for a dozen years and more, and when Notice is given of a Motion on his behalf, Scotch Baronets are clamorous to know his name! Sir, there is no secret about the names of any of these holy men. They may always be had on application to the policeman on duty at the Central Hall. I, therefore, Sir, do hope that Scotch and Welsh and Irish Members will atone for their neglect in past years by supporting this Motion in debate, and that my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner will seize the opportunity, which will otherwise be snatched from him by a Conservative Successor, of associating his name with the completion of a work which will redound at once to his credit and to the taste of Parliament and of the nation.

said, he hoped that the First Commissioner of Works would not launch into any expenditure of this description. He would take his stand on two grounds. He would say either that it must be shown that the work proposed to be executed would be an excellent work of art, or else it must be shown that the employment of the country's money in this particular form would be an advantage to Art generally, and tend to its advancement. With regard to the mosaic work, not only in the Central Hall, but in connection with the Albert Memorial, it had been pronounced a failure by nearly all competent judges. It was impossible in the present day to obtain satisfactory results in mosaic. Artists in mosaic in the present day did not dis- tinguish themselves as their predecessors had done in the last century, or the century before. For this reason, among others, the Dome of St. Paul's was standing unfinished. A year or two ago an attempt was made to establish a School of Mosaic at South Kensington; but it was found impracticable to do so, and the attempt was abandoned. If the panels in the Central Hall were to be filled up, in his opinion it should be done with paintings in oil, and they would stand the climate well. The hon. Member would, he supposed, go to Venice for his mosaics. He was himself tolerably familiar with Venice, and he ventured to say that there was no artist in Venice at this moment who had the slightest pretensions to mosaic work, even of a third or fourth rate order. The plan was not one calculated to encourage art in this country, and he hoped such an expenditure of public money would not be sanctioned.

said, that this question was discussed in the House not only 10 years ago, as the hon. Member had said, but also two years ago, and on that recent occasion the hon. Member failed to receive support from any quarter of the House. Even the Scotchmen, and Irishmen, and Welshmen to whom he had appealed did not think it necessary to say a word in favour of the Motion. He could say no more than he said on that occasion. He fully sympathized with all the hon. Member had said as to the beauty of the Central Hall, and he believed it would be desirable to complete it in a manner that would be worthy of the House, and would stand the criticism of art. If he could have seen his way to the attainment of that result, he would not have hesitated to recommend any expenditure that might be necessary; but he was bound to say that, in the present state of opinion upon the subject, it would not be possible for him, with any chance of success, to make any proposal to the House in that direction. The mosaic which now filled one of the panels had been condemned by almost all the highest authorities on art. Mr. Ayrton, when First Commissioner of Works, had a Committee appointed on this subject, which was composed of well known artists, and they unanimously condemned the picture, and did not recommend that the remaining panels should be filled with mosaics, but strongly recommended the adoption of frescoes. Mr. Ayrton submitted a Vote for that purpose; but so hostile was the general feeling to any expenditure on frescoes that he was compelled to withdraw the Vote. Since that time no action has been taken in the matter; and, in all probability, if he were to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Schreiber), and propose an expenditure of £5,000 for filling the three panels, he should also fail to carry the Vote. Under these circumstances, he could not hold out any hope that this expenditure would be incurred. The hon. Member was wrong in supposing that the work could be executed for the sum he had named, because, as had been pointed out, the School of Mosaic set up in South Kensington had already ceased to exist, and they should have to go to Venice or some other place abroad for artists to execute the work. Under all the circumstances he could only repeat what he said two years ago—namely, that no good purpose would be served by entering into the question until he could obtain a general concurrence of opinion on the part of hon. Members as to what ought to be done. He believed, indeed, that it would be wise to complete the decorations of the Central Hall at some future time. But it was undesirable to fill the three vacant panels with works of art which would not be worthy of them.

in moving to reduce the Vote by £1,068, said, it appeared to him to be high time for the House of Commons to put its foot down pretty firmly in order to prevent the continual enormous increase of our Expenditure, especially with regard to the Civil Service Estimates. There had been a large increase in the amount of the Estimates for the Army and Navy; but while hon. Members knew that there had been exceptional causes for these increases, it was still necessary to see that each and every Estimate was so prepared as that the Committee of Supply could keep a check upon its various items. There were several Members of the House who had been long trying to do this. Some economists thought the only way to bring about a reduction of Expenditure, at any time when it grew excessive, was to change the Government, and so bring new life into the conduct of Departments; others were of opinion that the end in view would be gained by iterated and reiterated protests on every occasion when the Estimates were under consideration. His own view was that the most effectual course would be to attack the Estimates in every possible way, and, if necessary, to take exception to, and cavil at, every item. The very raison d'etre of the present Government was that it should reduce Expenditure; but the country did not see that they were fulfilling the function for which they were chosen to any extent. No doubt, it might be said that the whole of the Estimates for the present year were less than they were last year; but looking at the original Estimates of this year, he found that they were very little less, as far as this particular Department, at any rate, was concerned, than those of last year, and he had no doubt that if the Committee agreed to them as they stood, Supplementary Estimates would be hereafter introduced which would bring them fully up to the old figure. He would, in the first place, say that while he moved the reduction of this Vote, he was not the man to oppose the granting of any sum necessary to provide everything that might be required by Her Majesty for her own comfort and convenience, and he felt sure the unanimous feeling of the Committee would be with him in saying this. Parliament would readily grant all that was requisite in this respect; but he thought he should be able to show that this Vote could be safely reduced without trenching in any possible way upon the requirements of the Queen, whom he held in every possible respect. There was a reduction under the head of New Works and Fittings; but that was a matter of course, because the new works and the renewal of fittings had been finished, and no further new works or fittings were at present required. But the whole Vote showed an increase of £1,068, as compared with last year's Vote, and this he looked upon with some jealously, because he did not think it was required by the necessities of the Public Service, and because he thought it the duty of Parliament to put its foot down, wherever possible, in order to prevent any needless expenditure of public money. He would, without going at length into details, show by reference to some few items why the Committee ought to make the reduction he proposed, or perhaps it would be more correct to say why they should refuse to grant the excess which was demanded by the Department. There were several unnecessary items of charge, which, if disallowed, would much more than cover the small reduction which he proposed, and they were items which he could not believe were asked for by Her Majesty herself, but were intended to provide for the convenience of certain great people about the Court, whose requirements, if they were all provided for, would cause a continual increase in the amount of the Estimates. For instance, he found, under the heading of Charges on Account of Buckingham Palace, a sum of £500 set down for the erection of a permanent covering at the Privy Purse and Equerries' entrance. He could not see that this was at all necessary. The gentlemen in question might use umbrellas, and certainly did not require more or different permanent coverings than any other persons. Then, when he came to the case of Windsor Castle, he found an item of £150 for paving the roadways on each side of the cow-houses, and he could not understand that this was, in any sense, a national expenditure, or that Her Majesty would desire it to be so regarded. These might be, perhaps, regarded by some as small affairs; but it must not be forgotten that "every mickle makes a muckle," and the only way to keep down Expenditure was to watch and control it at every point where this could be legitimately done. Under the heading of Charges on Account of St. James's Palace, he found an estimate of £150 for preparing and fitting up the residence of the Assistant Keeper of the Privy Purse, together with a further sum of £550 for furnishing the residence of the same gentleman. He had no information as to the functions of this official; but he could not help thinking that the sums proposed to be expended on his account might well be saved as far as the National Expenditure was concerned. Without further going into details, he might say that the items he had mentioned as being items which ought not to be charged to the public, would cover by more than £300 the reduction which he proposed to make in the Vote. He therefore moved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,068.

in seconding the Motion, said, he thought his lion. Friend the Member for Swansea was very moderate in the amount of reduction which he proposed. In his view, the reduction ought to have been such as would bring down the cost to the State of maintaining Royal Palaces to a sum not greater than it was half a century ago. At that date the charges for maintenance of Royal Palaces fell on the Crown, and were defrayed out of the Crown Revenues. But from the year the Civil List was paid and the Crown Lands handed over to the country, the cost of the Royal Palaces had increased, and now the outlay was upwards of £36,000, of which only £13,000 was this year charged for Palaces in the occupation of Her Majesty, and the balance of £23,000 for palaces mainly occupied by Royal personages and by private persons. It was perfectly true that the amount asked to be voted was smaller than that voted in 1881–2, but that did not alter the fact that it was still far too large. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea that Parliament ought to, and would willingly, vote whatever might be required for the convenience or comfort of the Queen; but it must not be forgotten that St. James's and Kensington Palaces wore used, to all intents and purposes, as private residences, partly by Royal personages, but mainly by others as offices and as private residences; and that Hampton Court Palace was wholly set apart for the accommodation of persons who before they went there had not been accustomed to live in palaces, and who would be more comfortable if they were provided with the means of living elsewhere. In addition to these occupants of so-called Royal Palaces, who deserved to be provided for in some way, there were others who were not on the same footing, and of whose names he had moved for and obtained leave for a Return in the last Government, but, out of delicacy, he had abstained from pressing it, not wishing to make known the parties who had been lodged, by order of the Queen, in that Palace. His own view was that the whole sum voted for the maintenance of Palaces not actually occupied by the Queen ought to be disallowed; and he warned the Government that so strong a feeling in this respect was growing up, particularly in Scotland, that if the present system of extravagant Estimates went on much longer, there would be a change of Government. It was the duty of the Liberal Party to adopt an economical policy, and he warned them that they must act upon their obvious duty, or they would be superseded in the government of the country.

said, he wished, before the First Commissioner of Works replied to the criticisms of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), to ask whether it was possible for him, which he greatly doubted, to give some satisfactory explanation of the item for "Ordinary Repairs and Maintenance," which appeared on page 4 of the Estimate? The amounts put down under that heading were almost incredible when they came to be looked into. Although, no doubt, Royal Palaces were kept up with a greater amount of care and luxury than was the case with ordinary private residences, he did not think the difference in cost, as far as "repairs and maintenance" were concerned, ought to be more than 25 or 30 per cent in favour of the Royal Palaces. So far from this being the ease, however, he did not hesitate to say that the difference was not less than 200 to 300 per cent. For instance, the cost of the ordinary repairs and maintenance of the Royal Mews at Pimlico was put down at £1,350—an amount which he regarded as being simply preposterous. How many horses did, or could, the Royal Mews at Pimlico hold? Were there 50 or 60 or 70 horses there? There were lots of private stables that would hold as large or a larger number of horses than either of those he had mentioned; and he ventured to say that in none of them did the "ordinary repairs and maintenance"—which he understood to mean bricks and mortar and carpentry—come to more than £10 a stall. Yet, as he had stated, the sum set down for the Royal Mews was £1,350. Then, when they came to the Windsor Castle Vote, they found an item for "Ordinary Repairs and Maintenance" on account of the Home Park and the Royal Kitchen Garden amounting to £6,000. A charge of that kind passed beyond all ordinary belief. There was not a gentleman in this country, with the most profuse style of living, who would tolerate such an expense for a moment on his own property. Many hon. Members were acquainted with the cost of keeping up large estates, and he asked them whether the amount he had named was one which the Government ought to demand or the Committee to grant? It was clear to him that there must be serious extravagance, if not even robbery, somewhere. Then, when he came to the items for St. James's Palace, he found £1,408 set down for State Rooms, Gardens, and Offices, and £1,560 for Residences of Members of the Royal Family; so that it came to a sum of close upon £3,000 a-year, for bricks and mortar and carpentry, asked for the maintenance of one of the most dingy and disreputable looking buildings of its class in the world, on which he did not believe more than £300 a-year were spent. He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would give some details as to these items of expenditure; and whether he would state to the Committee that he had himself ever gone through the items? If the right hon. Gentleman could not do so, it was only possible to say that it was matter for deep regret he should have asked the Committee to agree to the Estimate, and it was to be hoped the Committee would insist on full and most complete details being supplied. The question would, however, arise again upon another Vote, and he would now say nothing further than that he was surprised the hon. Member for Swansea had not asked for a larger reduction.

said, he also was surprised that his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea had not asked for a larger reduction; but he was not surprised that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had withdrawn from the House during the progress of the Vote, for the reading of the items contained in the Vote must have been exceedingly melancholy work for him. He also felt sure that the First Commissioner of Works must feel it an exceedingly difficult task to come and ask for this Vote in his official capacity. He shared the regret which had been expressed, that his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea had not asked for a larger reduction of the Vote. The proposal of his hon. Friend was an exceedingly moderate one, and the least that those who shared his views could do would be to support him. His own opinion was that the Vote ought to be reduced by £35,954, because the only item of any sort of value was one of £99 for a Royal Observatory, which he presumed was of some use. He noticed that there were 15 Palaces; but it was very well known that Her Majesty hardly ever resided in any of them, for she had houses of her own which she preferred to occupy. Among them was Clarence House. This was inhabited by the Puke of Edinburgh, who enjoyed an annual income, given to him by the country, of £25,000. If a house was given to him, in addition to this large sum of money, surely the least thing he could do would be to keep it in proper repair, as Members of that House did, instead of coming sponging on the country, and asking for every little bit of furniture that he wanted. Then he noticed that there was an item of £946 for Hampton Court Stud-house, and a little lower down in the Estimate there was £507 for the Buck-house, Garden, and Stables. This last house, he believed, was occupied by a gentleman who received a salary for looking after the stud-house. So here they had £1,453 spent on this stud-house for the raising of yearlings, independently of the wages of stablemen, cost of keep, &c, and if the country could make any profit out of the business, he saw no reason why the yearlings should not be raised; but he looked in vain for any account of the sums received for their sale. It was too bad of his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea to have proposed so astoundingly moderate a reduction, which, in the circumstances, they could not do better than accept. [Mr. E. N. FOWLER: Oh, oh!] It was but natural that the worthy Alderman, with the instinct of his class, should be opposed to economy, and in favour of extravagance. Let him, therefore, go into the Lobby alone, or in company with the Government and their supporters. His own view was that, disregarding the answers with which they were constantly met, that these were mere questions of minor detail, they could only bring about a system of economy by attacking the Estimates at every vulnerable point. With changing Ministries—it did not matter whether they were Conservative or Liberal—the Estimates were brought in year by year with little or no alteration, simply because they had been brought in before. The Liberal Party had put the present Government in power in order to obtain a reduction in the Public Expenditure, and until that reduction was obtained, they would oppose not only this particular Vote, but every other one.

said, that whatever criticisms might be passed upon the Civil Service Estimates for the current year, as a whole, he did not think the present one was fairly open to objection. Since he had held his present Office there had been very considerable reductions made in the Votes for this Department. As compared with two years ago, the reduction was £8,000 on this particular Vote, and as compared with last year it had been £4,000. He could only say that a great many of the demands made upon the public purse had been cut down with no scrupulous hand. His hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) and his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) took exception to several items included in the Vote; but the Vote itself was a decrease this year in the amount of the Estimate, as compared with last year, of no less than £5,376; while there were only a few small items of increase amounting, in the aggregate, to £1,068. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) thought that the reduction of £5,376 in the expenditure was scarcely sufficient, and therefore proposed, in addition, to cut off the £1,068 of increase. The first item of increase was one of £500 for the erection of permanent coverings to the Privy Purse and Equerries' entrance. That was not a very large item, and it was required in order to provide a covered entrance for the ladies and gentlemen attending the Court festivities, in order that they might be able to ride up under cover. Hitherto the ladies and gentlemen attending the Court had to drive up without any covering for their carriages, in evening dress, exposed to rain and all kinds of inclement weather. The amount had been asked for years ago, but it had always been delayed in consequence of other works having been required. Now that they were making a large reduction of expenditure, it was thought to be not unreasonable to include in the Vote a email item for an improvement that was imperatively required for the comfort and convenience of ladies and gentlemen attending the Court. Then came a small item of £150 for preparing and putting up a residence for the Assistant Keeper of the Privy Purse. That was an expenditure which the Government were bound, under positive arrangements with the Crown, to undertake. In 1858, when the Royal Palaces were taken over and placed upon the Civil Service Votes, an express arrangement was made with the Crown that the internal repairs of certain Palaces, including the furniture, should be maintained by a Vote in the Estimates annually brought before Parliament. Among other cases were those of St. James's Palace, Windsor Castle, and various other Royal Palaces, in regard to which the external repairs only were taken over; but in the case of St. James's Palace, the internal arrangements, including the furniture and the repairs of the private apartments of the persons residing there, were undertaken by the State. This small item of £150 was for putting the house of the Assistant Keeper of the Privy Purse in a proper state of repair; and there was another sum of £550 for furnishing the residence of the same officer. As he bad already explained, this expenditure they were bound to undertake, under the express arrangement which was made with the Crown in 1838; and on that ground it was imperative to insert the amount in the Estimates. There was also a small item of £150 for the paving the approaches to a cow-house at Windsor Castle—a very small matter, indeed, to which he did not apprehend that his hon. Friend would raise any serious objection. It was a very trivial matter, and affected the entrance to the Home Park at Windsor. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) took exception to the expenditure on repairs generally; but he could not imagine that the noble Lord was serious in some of the remarks he had made. The noble Lord said the expenditure was "monstrous," and talked of it involving "robbery."

wished to explain. He had only made use of the word "robbery" in the conversational way in which it was employed to denote extortion, and not in the way of imputing absolute crime.

said, he was glad to hear that explanation. He was glad to find that the noble Lord had only used the word in a conversational sense; but, at the same time, he did not think it was an expression which ought to be used in that House even in a conversational sense.

Why not?

said, that after the explanation of the noble Lord he would pass that matter by. No doubt, the Royal Palaces did cost a very large sum for repairs; but it must be remembered what huge buildings they were. Windsor Castle, as everbody knew, covered an enormous extent of ground. He did not believe that there was a private residence in the country which at all approached it in size. Indeed, he did not think there was a private residence one-half or one-third as large as Windsor Castle; and he was of opinion that the relative expenditure on the repairs of that great building were not at all excessive. As an illustration, he would take one of the items which appeared in the Estimate—namely, the repairs of Hampton Court Palace. Probably, hon. Members might think that the sum asked for was rather large; but it must be borne in mind that Hampton Court Palace covered a very large area of ground, and was a very costly building to keep in repair. Hon. Members might feel surprise at the annual cost; but the building itself contained a considerable number of apartments, and provided homes for from 40 to 50 families. Several hundreds of people resided in that Palace in one way or another, and he was informed that the Palace itself covered something like six acres of land. When they had a building covering such an immense extent of land, and inhabited by so large a number of people, hon. Members must not be surprised that the Government were compelled to ask Parliament for a considerable expenditure in the shape of repairs. The roof alone cost a large sum annually to keep in repair. He could not undertake to go positively through every item of the repairs of all these Palaces and explain all the details; but he could assure the Committee that he had from time to time gone into specials accounts in regard to individual Palaces, with a view of forming an opinion as to whether the repairs were excessive or not, or the expenditure legitimate or not, and he had almost invariably come to the conclusion that the repairs were justifiable, and that the expenditure ought to be incurred and appear upon the Estimate. In particular, he had gone through the items included in the next Vote—namely, that for Marlborough House—to which the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had made special reference. With regard to that Vote, he had made a close examination of every item, and he had satisfied himself that the work could not be done for a less sum. He only mentioned the case of Marlborough House by way of illustration. As he had said, it was impossible for him to go into every item connected with the repairs of these Royal Palaces; but, from time to time, he had taken here and there individual cases which came before his Department in which there had been an increase, and the result in every case had been to satisfy him that the expenditure was justifiable, and either that the money had actually been spent, or ought to be spent, and placed on the Vote. Under these circumstances, seeing that the Vote which he now submitted to the Committee showed a reduction of £4,308 as compared with last year, and of more than £8,000 as compared with the previous year, he did not think that hon. Members would very strongly call this particular Vote in question, what- ever view they might entertain of the expenditure upon the Civil Service of the country generally. It must also be recollected that this was a Vote which Her Majesty's Government had absolutely no interest in enlarging.

wished to say a few words to express what he thought in regard to these Estimates. He did not consider that the expenditure was at all excessive. For instance, the sum asked for the Royal Kitchen Garden in the Windsor Home Park was only £908 this year, whereas last year it amounted to £5,107. Therefore, upon that item alone, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works had effected a saving of more than £4,000, because there was a very large expenditure last year, and only a comparatively small one this. He apprehended that that would be the case in regard to most of the items for repairs. It was found necessary to go to a large expenditure in one year, and in the next there was comparatively nothing to spend, and the total amount expended in each year was not unreasonable. Hon. Members knew very well that that was what generally occurred in regard to their own private expenditure. A considerable sum of money was expended in the repairs of a residence in one year, and in consequence of having incurred that expenditure, they reasonably calculated upon spending very little more for some time to come. What they ought to feel in regard to the present Estimates was, that the right hon. Gentleman had been able to effect a considerable saving this year, and the fact that there were, nevertheless, items upon which there had been an increase, was owing to circumstances such as those he had named. Repairs wore required in one year and not in another; and in regard to the present Vote, he thought the Committee ought to pass it without hesitation. He knew that the Vote was attacked on other grounds by his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere)—a very able critic. He had road with great interest a paper recently published by the hon. Member in a monthly periodical. It was not very often that he agreed with the hon. Member; but he had certainly read this particular article, if not altogether with agreement in the views it expressed, at all events, with a feeling that the hon. Member fairly depicted the state to which things were coming in this country. He would recommend all his Liberal friends to read the article, because he thought that in it the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) showed pretty plainly what the principles of Democracy were. He could give no better advice to his Liberal Friends than that they should carefully study the views of the hon. Member, who was a man of the future, and showed precisely what the principles of the Party were coming to. He was not surprised to find that an hon. Member holding the views expressed in the article in question should come down to the House, and without the slightest compunction suggest that the whole of this Vote should be swept away. His hon. Friend, no doubt, was perfectly consistent in the views he expressed, but those who differed entirely from his hon. Friend were quite satisfied to support the Government in the Vote which had been placed before the Committee.

said, he did not think that the answer given to the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works quite covered the ground, especially in regard to the items which related to Hampton Court Palace. The right hon. Gentleman told them that there were a great number of people living in that Palace. Then why did they not do the repairs themselves? He did not see why, because so many people were provided with residences in the Palace, that it was at all necessary for the Government to come to the House of Commons and require Parliament to make provision for the ordinary repair and maintenance of the apartments occupied by such persons. Comparing one side of the Estimate with the other, he found that while more than £6,000 were necessary to keep the Palace in repair; on the other side, a sum of £1,163 more was asked for in order to keep the Palace going. Why on earth these items should appear in the Estimates at all he did not understand, and he ventured to think that it was hardly fair to require Parliament to make such provision. Of course it was very well known that these Palaces were not in the occupation of Her Majesty, although they all appeared in the Estimate under the head of "Royal Palaces." The Committee were told that certain illustrious personages were provided with residences in them, some in one Palace and some in another. He would suggest that in future the grants to these various Royal personages should be so placed in the Votes, that they would appear side by side with the expenses incurred in keeping up the apartments occupied, and the nation would then be able to see how much was expended upon each of these Royal personages. At present the amount of salaries and pensions awarded to Royal personages appeared in the Votes, but everything else was put down to the credit of Her Majesty, whereas, in point of fact, Her Majesty had nothing whatever to do with the matter. He certainly failed to see what on earth they wanted a special rat-catcher for. How was it that a turncock was required for Buckingham Palace? Was he engaged in turning the cock all day long? He saw there was another turncock for St. James's Palace. Surely St. James's Palace was not so far off that the same turncock might not be made to perform the duty for the two places. Then, again, there were items included in the account for two bell-ringers, vergers, &c. He thought the matter was extremely ludicrous from one point of view, but altogether monstrous from another. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had been taken to task and scolded by the First Commissioner of Works for using the word "monstrous." He did not know whether the noble Lord felt inclined to withdraw that word, but if he did, he (Mr. Waddy) would certainly borrow it from him. He saw an item in the Vote for "military knights' houses at Windsor Castle," and he wished to know if there were really any military knights living there at all? If so, the same observation would apply to them as to the residents of Hampton Court Palace. He should certainly support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) for the reduction of the Vote if the Amendment went to a division; and he lamented, in common with his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and others, that the Amendment did not go a great deal further and knock off not £1,000 only, but a good many thousands which were included in the Vote.

wished to know whether any expenses were put down in the Vote for the loss occasioned by the fire at Hampton Court Palace, or whether the loss was covered by insurance?

said, it had not been possible to ascertain the cost of the repairs rendered necessary by the fire at Hampton Court Palace in time to insert it in this year's Estimates. He believed it would turn out that it would amount to about £6,000, and probably a Supplementary Vote would be asked for later in the Session in order to meet that expenditure. If it had been possible to ascertain the amount of the damage done, an item would have been inserted in the present Vote; but at the time the Estimates were made out it was not possible to give definitely an account of the expenditure that would be required. In regard to what his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Waddy) had said, his hon. Friend seemed to be unaware that the salaries of the various officers mentioned in page 6 were also included in sub-head A, in page 4 of the Vote. The sum of £1,100 odd represented the wages of various warders, and so forth, at Hampton Court Palace, and it was really required in order to pay the wages and salaries of the men employed in looking after the pictures and providing for the comfort and the convenience of the general public who visited the Palace. The item was in no way connected with what might be called the residential value of the Palace. As a matter of fact, there was no Palace more frequented by the public, or which gave greater pleasure to a considerable portion of Her Majesty's subjects, than Hampton Court Palace. He was quite sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Waddy) did not at all wish to reduce this expenditure; but what his hon. Friend did naturally take objection to was the expenditure on that portion of the Palace which was occupied as private residences. At the same time, it must be recollected that the sum asked for included the repairs of the Palace over the whole ox-tent of the building, and applied to a very large portion of the building that was thrown open to the public. In the case of private residences, the ordinary cost of maintenance was borne by the residents themselves. When a change took place, and an apartment became vacant, it was put in proper condition and order, and no further internal expenditure was incurred so long as the same person remained in residence. Under these circumstances, he did not think that the Vote was quite open to the exception which had been taken by his hon. Friend. As he had already stated, Hampton Court Palace covered such an enormous extent of ground, and was in every way so costly a building to keep up, that he did not think the House ought to complain of the sum asked for for repairs in connection with it. His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was under a mistake in regard to one of the items to which he had referred. His hon. Friend said the sum asked for was required in order to keep a house in repair which was occupied by one of the Royal Princes; but if his hon. Friend would look at the item he would find that it included no less than three separate houses, one of which was set apart by Her Majesty for the use of one of the French Princes. And he wished to remind the hon. Member that, although Her Majesty did not occupy these Palaces herself, the way in which they were disposed of was a matter entirely within Her Majesty's own discretion. And whatever hon. Members might think about it, it was not for him (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), in the position he occupied, to question what Her Majesty did; especially in a matter which, at all events, was entirely in her own discretion. Bushy Park was also given up to the use of persons nominated by Her Majesty, and Her Majesty was fully entitled, by virtue of the arrangement he had already referred to, to call upon Parliament to incur this expenditure.

remarked, that his hon. Friend the worthy and loyal Alderman who represented the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler) would naturally take exception to any comment that was made in an unfriendly spirit upon the expenditure incurred in connection with the Royal Palaces; but what he (Sir Drummond Wolff) regarded as the feeling of the Committee was, that while they were quite ready to maintain the Royal Palaces, and spend an sums of money upon them that might be necessary for their repair, it was really a question whether they were not spending a good deal too much for what they got in return. For instance, they were perfectly willing to maintain the Royal Mews at Pimlico; but the question was whether that maintenance ought to cost £1,350? His noble Friend had pointed out that if there were 40 or 50 stalls in the Royal Mews, £1,350 would be a very exorbitant sum to charge for the accommodation provided. They did not grudge Her Majesty every comfort and convenience; but what they did wish was that those who were intrusted with the administration of the public funds should take the same care as a private individual would in carrying out the repairs in his own private establishment. He really thought that the worthy Alderman and his noble Friend were at one in that respect. It was a question of amount, and not of principle. He thought the worthy Alderman had done a somewhat unkind turn to his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, because he had taken a very exceptional year in regard to the expenditure upon the Royal Windsor Kitchen Gardens to compare with the present year. Last year the expenditure was £5,107, whereas the sum asked for this year was only £908.

said, he had only referred to that item by way of illustration.

said, he was taking the same illustration. His hon. Friend said—" Last year you spent on the Royal Windsor Kitchen Gardens a sum of £5,107, whereas this year you have only spent £908, and therefore there is a saving of more than £4,000." His hon. Friend claimed credit to the right lion. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works for having effected a saving of that amount. In reality, there had been no saving at all; the sum of £908 was a simple diminution of the extraordinary expenditure of last year, and it ought, in fairness, to be distributed, not over one, but several years. In regard to Hampton Court Palace, it was asked why there should be any expenditure at all by the State in respect of the repairs in connection with the residential part of the building? and, personally, he could not understand why the loss occasioned by the recent fire at Hampton Court should fall upon the public. Were not the Royal Palaces allowed to insure themselves as well as other property? Was it forbidden? [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: No.] Then, why was it not done? Why were not the same precautions taken in the case of fire at Hampton Court Palace as were taken in regard to every private house throughout the country? Then, again, with regard to St. James's Palace. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works said that they were bound to furnish St. James's Palace. He did not grudge the furniture, and, no doubt, if they were bound to maintain the Palace they were bound to keep it in a proper condition; but what was the meaning of a Vote of £550 being asked for for furnishing the residence of the Assistant Keeper of the Privy Purse? Were these apartments that were now being furnished for the first time, or were they being refurnished, or were they new apartments for a new official? He thought the Committee was entitled to receive some answer to that question; because, if there were many officers to appoint, Parliament might be called upon to expend large sums of money in providing and furnishing their residences. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would answer the questions which had been put to him.

said, he concurred with the observations which had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), and he certainly should vote for his hon. Friend's Amendment. At the same time, he thought that what his hon. Friend had said only half represented the feeling entertained outside the House by the country in demanding a large reduction of the National Expenditure. Although he was prepared to support the proposal of his hon. Friend, he was disposed to think that it was useless to attempt to reduce the Estimates; and he regretted that they were discussing these items as general matters of detail, rather than as a question of principle. The only way in which they could accomplish a real reduction of the Estimate was by having all the items placed before u Committee, and going through them in a much more searching manner than in that fragmentary way. He had now been a Member of the House of Commons for several years, and he did not know that a single Resolution had ever been carried in Committee of Supply which had produced a permanent reduction. If they reduced an Estimate one year, it was certain to be increased in the next. His own opinion was that the proper question to discuss was the question of principle; and he thought they ought to alter entirely the principle upon which these Palaces were maintained. If they could do that, they might be able to effect a satisfactory alteration; but if they could not do it, then he was sure that these attempts to strike out £50 here and £50 there, with £1,000 or £2,000 on a special occasion, would produce no palpable effect. At the same time, if the officials in charge of these Departments were anxious to make substantial reductions, the mere fact that this discussion had taken place would strengthen their hands; and with that view, rather than in the expectation of obtaining much from the proposed Amendment, he should support the proposal of his hon. Friend.

thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) had rightly estimated the value of the discussions which took place in Committee of Supply upon the Estimates. They were not intended to effect directly any reduction in sums of money which had already been settled, and to which the good faith of the Government and of the House was pledged. The House of Commons, nevertheless, by that means showed its great interest in the questions which were raised by these Votes, and were not only desirous to put the Government on its defence as regards the Estimates, but looked with some anxiety to the time when the economical administration of the affairs of the country would bring about a reduction of the National Expenditure. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had risen for the purpose of making a few observations upon the matter which had been raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir II. Drummond Wolff) in regard to the sum charged for the furnishing of the apartment of the Assistant Keeper of the Privy Purse. It did not appear to him that the explanation of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works was altogether satisfactory. He took it, from the language employed in the Estimates, that this item was charged for furnishing a new residence which had been assigned to the newly-appointed officer. Was that the fact? [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: Yes; that is so.] It did not appear that was so from the explanation given by I his right hon. Friend. He was afraid that the Department brought down upon themselves an endless amount of criticism, and involved the entering into very small details in regard to the Estimates which were almost beneath the dignity of the House, in consequence of the meagre information which was supplied in the Votes themselves. The information was extremely vague upon some matters, although very full in regard to trifling items, such as the payment of £2 to a bell-ringer. There was one point upon which he wished to ask a question, and it had reference to the expenditure upon Holyrood Palace. Among the items of expenditure was one of £40 for an allowance to the Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland, for expenses attending the occupation of certain rooms in the Palace. It seemed to him hardly reasonable that the allowance to the Lord High Commissioner should be entered in that peculiar form. He presumed that the High Commissioner occupied these apartments when discharging his duties in connection with the Church of Scotland every year; and, of course, it was only right that accommodation should be provided for the High Commissioner free of costs. But it seemed very invidious to place the Lord High Commissioner in the position of receiving a trumpery allowance from the State when, in point of fact, he only occupied the apartments in Holyrood Palace as the Representative of Her Majesty; and it was absolutely essential that he should be provided with the necessary accommodation for the transaction of the duties of his Office.

said, that he would first answer the inquiry of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir II. Drummond Wolff). The Keeper of the Privy Purse was a new officer. There were formerly two principal officers attached to Her Majesty—namely, the Keeper of the Privy Purse and Her Majesty's Secretary. These offices had now been amalgamated, and General Ponsonby was attached to Her Majesty in both capacities. In the one capacity—namely, that of Keeper of the Privy Purse—he required an assistant, and this was, undoubtedly, a new office. The assistant had a residence in St. James's Palace, but the residence itself was not a new one. It was originally attached to another office; but when this new office was created, it was considered desirable that the Assistant Keeper of the Privy Purse should reside in St. James's Palace, and an arrangement was made by which a transfer of the residence was effected. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had referred to the allowance to the Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland, for expenditure attending the occupation of rooms in Holyrood Palace. The right hon. Gentleman would probably be aware that the Lord High Commissioner resided in the Palace every year for some 10 days, and the expenses attending his residence there were always charged in the Votes.

said, he thought the Committee had done very scant justice to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works for the defence he had made of this Vote. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had, on the whole, held his position very well; and he (Sir Andrew Lusk) now rose, in the interests of truth and justice, to say one or two words in favour of the right hon. Gentleman. Complaint had been made of the expenditure entailed by the necessity of keeping the Royal Palaces in a proper state of repair. No doubt there were many Members in that House who possessed large houses, both in the country and in town; and he would like to know how much it cost them per annum to keep their own residences in proper repair? He thought it would be found that, in many instances, it took as much as £1,000 per annum to keep them all right, and sometimes even more was expended year after year. Yet these private residences were not half as big as the Royal Palaces now under discussion, and which it seemed to be expected ought to be kept in a decent state of repair for nothing. If hon. Members could not understand these things, they ought to be made to understand them. It was self-evident that the cost of keeping up a large Palace, covering many acres of ground, must be very considerable. It seemed to be forgotten that these Palaces were their own property, and that they belonged to the nation. It should also be recollected that the amount for the work of repair this year showed a reduction of some £4,000 in comparison with the sum granted last year. He was satisfied that the Committee would be quite ready to vote everything that was necessary; and it was obviously necessary that they should see to their own property, and keep it in a satisfactory condition, as long as it remained theirs. What else could they could do but keep it in order? His right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works had gone closely into the matter; and, as far as he (Sir Andrew Lusk) was a judge, there was not much fault to find with the right hon. Gentleman. He thought it would be much better for hon. Members to reserve their criticisms for some of the Votes which would come on for discussion after this, where it was possible to obtain a reduction of thousands of pounds, instead of a paltry reduction of a few shillings. They were now nibbling at a few pence in connection with the repair of their own property; and he thought that the sooner the advocates of economy had their attention drawn to something else the more useful their labours would be.

said, that it amazed him to notice the singular manner in which the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had set out upon his economical campaign. He presumed that the hon. Member was posing there as an economist upon some principle of action; but the principle adopted by the hon. Gentleman seemed to him (Mr. Warton) to be a most extraordinary one, and a very rough-and-ready way of criticizing the Estimates. The hon. Member appeared to have looked down one side of the page, and to have found in one column that there was an increase upon various items of Expenditure amounting to £1,068. He ignored altogether the fact that in the next column there was a decrease of £5,376; and the hon. Member said—"We ought to go against this increase, whatever it is." Now, the increase consisted of four items. The first was an increase of £91 in salaries, wages, and allowances. Secondly, there was an increase of £174 for ordinary repairs and maintenance; and there was also an increase of £81 on the items for fuel, gas, and water. Upon those items the hon. Member said never a word; but he proceeded to justify his rough-and-ready criticism by referring to the general result of the increase, which amounted, in the aggre- gate, to £1,068. He (Mr. Warton) could not imagine what was the object of the hon. Member in bringing forward the Motion in so captious a spirit. The hon. Member asked the Committee to strike off all the items on which there had been an increase; but to not one of those items did he raise a special objection, nor did he say a word in favour of the Department for the decrease of expenditure which had been effected. It seemed to him (Mr. Warton) that that was a most extraordinary way of conducting a campaign in the interest of economy in a rational and consistent manner. He failed to understand the reason why the hon. Member should select the sum of £1,068 as the sum to be struck off the Vote, because it had certainly nothing to do with the specific complaint which the hon. Member made. In point of fact, it was more like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Comments had been made upon trifling items in connection with the employment of rat-catchers and bell-ringers; but nothing whatever had been said upon the items on the other side of the account, which went to make up the sum of upwards of £5,000. He was of opinion, himself, that before the Committee accepted the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) they should carefully scrutinize the items on both sides of the account.

said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works should be more careful in regard to the information which he gave to the Committee. His hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had asked a question about the new residence provided for the Assistant Keeper of the Privy Purse, and he had inquired if the office was a new one? The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, in reply, stated that it was a new office which had been created, because Sir Henry Ponsonby was Private Secretary to Her Majesty and Keeper of the Privy Purse at the same time, and in his capacity as Keeper of the Privy Purse he required an assistant. That was the explanation which the First Commissioner gave; but on turning to a book of reference—The Court Guide—he (Lord Randolph Churchill) found that there were two Assistant Keepers of the Privy Purse— Captain Edwards and Captain Deacon—one of whom had been appointed for a considerable time. The First Commissioner had kept back the fact that when the new Assistant Keeper of the Privy Purse was appointed there was already an Assistant Keeper of the Privy Purse in existence, but of whose existence the Committee had not been made acquainted. He wished to point out to the First Commissioner that although the House was always ready to take a favourable view of the Estimates, if the Minister stated fairly and frankly what the meaning of a particular item was, yet there was nothing more fatal for a Government than to keep the Committee in the dark as to the real circumstances of the cases which they were called upon to defend. Now, in this particular case the Committee had been decidedly kept in the dark as to the fact that there was already an Assistant Keeper of the Privy Purse before the new office was created. So much for that point. He wished further to protest against the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) and his right hon. Friend the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth), both of whom concurred in declaring that there was no use in criticizing in detail, as the House of Commons had no power to alter the details of the Votes. If they were to begin to discuss the Estimates animated by this kind of sentiment, they might give up all idea of opposing any Vote, however objectionable it might be. He agreed with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that, as long as they had the power of criticizing the Votes, the House of Commons should put its foot down absolutely, and reduce the Votes by lump sums. They might depend upon it that the officials would then be more careful in preparing the Estimates next year, and would give plenty of details. Further than that, care would be taken that the Estimates were not submitted at too high a figure. He contended that the Committee had no right whatever to agree to this Vote in the absence of all explanation from the First Commissioner of Works as to the cost of the ordinary repairs and maintenance of these Palaces. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not attempted to deal with the statement which he (Lord Randolph Churchill) had made. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be utterly unable to give the Committee the smallest explanation of the expenditure upon the Windsor stables, or upon the Royal Mews at Pimlico, or the expenditure upon St. James's Palace, especially in regard to that portion of the Palace occupied by Members of the Royal Family. He asked the Chief Commissioner to undertake to produce, as a specimen, a detailed account of three items—first, the item of £1,350 for the ordinary repairs and maintenance of the Royal Mews, Pimlico; secondly, the item of £1,480 for the Chapel Royal, St. James's Palace; and, lastly, the item of £1,560 in connection with the residence of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge, Clarence House, and other residences of Members of the Royal Family and their households. If the right hon. Gentleman would, in the course of the present Session, lay before the House a detailed account of all that had been spent, he had no doubt the Committee would feel inclined this year to allow the Vote to pass, and they would be able then to begin to know whether these were ordinary items of expenditure which required to be incurred by the State. He thought that was a very fair offer to make to the First Commissioner of Works. Such a detailed account would entail no great expenditure in its production, and it would afford a favourable test in regard to all the other items which had been criticized. He hoped that the Committee would insist on extracting this information from the Government, and that they would not allow the Vote to be passed, even if it became necessary to have recourse to dilatory Motions, until full explanation had been given by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote.

wished to explain. His noble Friend had not properly understood what it was that he had said. What he did say, in supporting the views of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen), was that he considered it perfectly impossible to make any serious impression upon the expenditure by proposing to cut down various items in detail.

said, that, in reply to the request of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), he had no objec- tion whatever to give in detail the items of expenditure incurred under the head of repairs and maintenance. Of course, it could not be expected that he was able to carry in his own head the details of every single item of repairs. It was utterly impossible to do so; but if the Committee wished for a more detailed account he would endeavour to obtain it and lay it on the Table. With reference to the Vote for Marlborough House, as he had already stated to the Committee, he had obtained special information, and had gone through every item of expenditure personally. He had done so because he thought that would afford an illustration of the manner in which these matters wore dealt with generally; but if the House considered it desirable to have a detailed account under the several heads, showing the nature of the repairs undertaken, he would be quite ready to give it. In regard to what the noble Lord had said about the Deputy Keeper of the Privy Purse, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had not the slightest desire to keep the House in the dark. It was quite true that in addition to the Assistant Keeper, for whom the expenditure included in the Estimate was incurred, there was another officer who acted as Assistant Secretary; and now that the two offices of Keeper of the Privy Purse and Secretary to Her Majesty were amalgamated, there were two Assistants. One of these officers was a new Assistant, appointed specially in connection with the Privy Purse; and he believed that the two officers were now called Assistant Keeper of the Privy Purse and Assistant Secretary. The noble Lord was, therefore, quite accurate in his information. At the same time, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) himself was not inaccurate in saying that the office specially mentioned in the Estimate was a new one.

remarked, that the right hon. Gentleman had not given any explanation of the item of £946 for the Hampton Court Stud House, in addition to which there was a further charge for keeping up Bushey House gardens and stables. He was informed by an hon. Friend that about 14 or 15 yearlings were sold every year by auction from the Hampton Court Stud. They would probably produce about £1,400 or £1,500, against which, of course, was to be set the cost of keeping them and maintaining stablemen. He took it that, in all probability, the bargain was a very bad one, even putting aside the cost of maintaining the Royal stud-house, upon which they were required this year to spend £946, in addition to £800 spent last year. It really seemed to him that they were not investing their money in a speculation that was exceedingly remunerative; and he should like to know why they were to be called upon to embark into speculation in connection with the breeding of horses at all? Surely this was not a question of keeping up the Royal state and dignity of Her Majesty; but it was a pure question of pounds, shillings, and pence. He should like to be informed by his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works what was the object of keeping up this stud. Was it merely for the purpose of breeding 14 or 15 horses, and selling them at a loss at the end of the year? Nor did he know what became of the money. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell the Committee, because it was by no means clear, from anything that appeared in the Estimate, where the proceeds went to, or who got the money. He did not mean to impute anything in the shape of robbery or jobbery; but still it was evident that a certain sum of money did exist, and he should like to know where it went to. Somebody or other must get it; but if it came back to the country or not, there did not appear to him to be any earthly object in keeping up this stud-house, and he hoped the Committee would receive some intimation from his right hon. Friend that he would look into the matter, and see whether it was not desirable to put an end to the whole thing. There was only one other item in the Vote to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had defended the expenditure upon the Royal Palaces generally by asserting that it was part and parcel of the bargain made with Her Majesty at the commencement of her reign. He saw, however, a sum of £1,981 for fuel, gas, and water supplied to the different Royal Palaces. He could understand why a charge of this nature should be made in connection with Holyrood Palace, Hampton Court, and other places, which only nominally belonged to Her Majesty, and were used by other persons; but he did not understand the charges for Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, which were residences of the Queen, and St. James's Palace, the residence of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge. He was not aware that it was any part and parcel of the bargain with Her Majesty at the time of her accession to the Throne that the Palaces should be supplied with water, gas, and fuel at the public expense. He wanted to know if it did form part of the bargain or not? It should be clearly understood whether the nation was really required to pay for the water, fuel, and light supplied to these different Palaces, and to others lent by Her Majesty to Royal personages, such as the Due de Nemours.

wished to point out to the Committee that the ordinary account for the repairs and maintenance of the Royal Palaces amounted to something under £24,000, and that it included within it three or four of the largest buildings in the country. Some of these buildings were of considerable age, and, consequently, were more costly to maintain in a state of repair than more modern buildings. Now, it happened that he had had considerable experience as to the maintenance of buildings for many years past, owing to the position which he occupied as Treasurer of the Foundling Hospital—a large building about 130 years old. From 300 to 400 persons, including children, resided in that building, and he was acquainted with the annual expenditure incurred for repairs. He was fully within the mark when he said that it was found impossible to keep the cost of the repairs within £400 a-year, taking one year with another. There was always some thing in the wood-work, or in the brickwork, or roofing, of these old buildings that was giving way and required to be looked after. The result was that it was necessary to enter into a very considerable outlay year by year in order to keep any buildings of this kind in a satisfactory state. In regard to Hampton Court Palace, it was a building which, to all intents and purposes, was dedicated to the public, who had the full enjoyment of it. It contained old carvings, picture galleries, and other things of great historical interest. At the same time, the building itself was one of great antiquity, and must require the constant expenditure of money to keep it in order and in a proper condition. The remarks he had made applied to the general scope of the Vote; and, taking it on the whole, he did not think the sum of £24,000 was an extravagant sum for the repair and maintenance of the Royal Palaces. There was, however, one item contained in the Vote which he thought certainly needed explanation; and that was the item of £1,350 for the ordinary repairs and maintenance of the Royal Mews at Pimlico. This was, comparatively speaking, a modern building, and he could hardly imagine why so large a sum as £1,350 should be required for keeping it in repair. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had undertaken to lay before the House a statement in detail of the repairs which had been executed; and he (Mr. Gregory) could only hope that that statement would be satisfactory. He certainly thought that the last item to which he had referred required explanation. If it was found necessary to incur so large an expenditure it might be worth while to consider whether the building should not be reconstructed altogether, so that it might not involve so large a sum year by year for its repair and maintenance.

said, he thought that no discussion which had taken place in the House of Commons since the commencement of the Session would be received by the general public out-of-doors with more surprise and interest than the discussion which had taken place that night upon the Vote for the Royal Palaces. He imagined that some of the Metropolitan constituencies would be exceedingly interested to find that the most ardent advocates of this extravagant Vote were two Aldermen of the City of London representing Metropolitan constituencies. He did not like to venture upon the proposition that there was any necessary connection between Aldermen and extravagance, or the Corporation of London and servility; but he could not help calling attention to the fact that the two sturdiest supporters of extravagant expenditure on the Royal Palaces were both of them Metropolitan Members and Representatives of the Corporation of London. He had certainly been very much surprised to hear the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) a short time ago. He had always understood that gentlemen of the nationality of the hon. Member were rather of an economic turn of mind. No doubt it was the fact that in this case the hon. Member was not dealing with his own money; but, nevertheless, the worthy Alderman had posed before the House almost as an inspired apostle of extravagance. The hon. Alderman said—"These Palaces are your own property;" but he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would like to know which of them was to be considered the property of the nation, and which of them the people were allowed to enter into freely? Did the general public ever find their way into St. James's Palace? Windsor Castle was the only Palace thrown open to visitors, who came principally from America. His own opinion was that the general public would be very much surprised when the items comprised in the Vote under discussion were placed before them. In point of fact, if there was any Member of the Government who still adhered to Republican principles, the very best thing he could do would be to print and circulate throughout the country a copy of the first Vote in the Civil Service Estimates. He was satisfied that any hon. or right hon. Gentleman who took that course would gain a large number of converts to his views. What was it, he would ask the Committee, that this Estimate revealed? He remembered, not long ago, when it was proposed to give an annuity to one of the Royal Princes—he referred to the last occasion on which the proposal was made—there was a division in the House. The proposal gave rise to a little excitement, although it was only a proposal to give an annuity, he believed, of £6,000 to one of the Royal Princes. But if the public in the country were surprised at a proposition of that nature, how much more surprised would they be to learn that the repairs and maintenance of Windsor Castle cost every year between £4,000 and £5,000—nearly as much as was conferred upon a Royal Prince in the shape of an annuity? He had no intention of accusing the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works of any want of candour. He was satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly incapable of inten- tionally misleading the House; but he thought the Committee had "been, to some extent, led astray by the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of the discussion—that he had reduced this Vote by the sum of £4,000 since last year. As had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), there had been, practically, no reduction at all, because last year there was an extraordinary expenditure of £5,107 upon the Windsor Royal Kitchen Gardens, whereas this year there had been a reduction in that item from more than £5,000 to £908. Therefore, as a matter of fact, the general expenditure upon the Royal Palaces this year was very much the same as it was last. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth), speaking for the Front Opposition Bench, was very much in favour of leaving; the Vote as it was. Now, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) always observed that whenever the occupants of the Ministerial Bench found it necessary to defend extravagant expenditure, they always obtained strong support from the Front Opposition Bench. He did not like to apply to the two Front Benches the very old, although not very flattering, saying that "when rogues fell out honest men came to their own;" but it was certainly one of the least hopeful signs of administrative reform to find that, whenever the Public Accounts were under discussion in that House, Ministers on the Treasury Bench and ex-Ministers on the Front Opposition Bench never felt inclined to fall out in regard to the items. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works objected to enter into all the items contained in the Vote and give a detailed explanation of them. Nevertheless, in regard to one of the items, the Committee were informed that a Royal ratcatcher got £8 a-year, and a bell-ringer £2. The fault of the present Estimates was that they entered into minute details, where such details were altogether unnecessary; and that there was a total absence of details where large and important items of expenditure were dealt with. The details of the expenditure of £4,000 were muddled together; while, in the same Vote, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works could not ask the Committee to give £10 or £20 to a charwoman without entering into details of the most minute character. Nothing could be more anomalous than the way in which details were given in regard to small and unimportant items, while all large items were given in the lump with a total absence of details. He was satisfied that the discussion which had taken place that night would excite a considerable amount of attention in the country, and that it would be one more item, tending to fill up the heavy bill of indictment against the Government for having preached economy when out of Office, and having practised extravagance when in the full possession of power.

asked upon what principle the tradesmen who were employed to do the work at the Royal Palaces were engaged? Was there a schedule made out of the particular duties they were required to perform, and an estimate sent in? Was the work put up to competition, or was it placed in the hands of some particular builder, who was allowed to charge what he liked for it?

said, that an estimate was got out and a tender asked for, generally accompanied by a schedule of prices.

asked how many horses the Royal Mews at Pimlico were capable of accommodating, and the number actually kept there? This portion of the Vote could only be considered with advantage when the Committee were in possession of the cost per head of each horse, and this information he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would supply.

said, he was unable to state the cost per head of the horses at the Royal Mews, and could only repeat the promise made to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), that he would ascertain the expenditure under the three heads to which he had called attention.

said, he hoped a reply would be given to the question as to the Stud House at Hampton Court. The Committee were very desirous of knowing something about this, and had tried very hard to get information upon the subject from the right hon. Gentleman.

said, if the horses bred at Hampton Court were of a kind that would improve the breed of horses generally, there would be some excuse for the charge in the Estimates. But this was not the case. Some years ago he used to read the Returns of Hampton Court Palace; and he found that the horses bred there were, as a rule, half-milers, who could not stay, and generally ended their days in hansom cabs. He thought the question that had been raised should be fully ventilated for the benefit of the public, who knew little or nothing about the objects on which the money was spent; although they were told it was not of much use to discuss the Estimate even if a division took place, because matters of the kind were generally settled as the Government Whips decided. Nevertheless, the public ought to be enlightened on the subject of expenditure, especially on the part of a Liberal Government, and some steps should be taken in the direction of economy. This charge for breeding stock was one which the Government ought to be prepared either to defend on its merits or to withdraw from the Estimates in future. For his own part, he had long regarded this Vote as an anomaly; and in the entire absence of any defence of it on the part of the Minister in charge he should vote for the Amendment.

drew attention to the charge for keeping up sheds and stables for stallions at Hampton Court. There was no doubt, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), that the horses reared there had deteriorated greatly—the paddocks were, he believed, all used up, and the horses always got lumps in the throat, which was an obstacle to their success. However, he could say, from his own knowledge of the place, that £946 was a great deal too much for repairs to the stables for stallions.

said, this was a Vote concerning which the Committee would probably get more information than on the last, because the First Commissioner of Works had told them he had himself gone through the items of the Estimate. Marlborough House—the annual repairs to which were represented by the sum of £2,953 now asked for—was not a very large building. There were many private residences in London much larger; and it would be obvious to anyone who had experience of such establishments that the amount of the Vote was excessive. For his own part, he regarded the annual charge of £2,953, for what was called the repair and maintenance of Marl borough House, as altogether ludicrous, and beyond credit. Marlborough House, only 70 years ago, belonged to a private individual; and if he were to look into the records it would be easy for him to show that one-fifth of the sum now asked for was all that was necessary to keep it in repair. The First Commissioner, having himself gone through the Estimates, he would ask him if he had noticed in them anything beyond the ordinary items of bricks, mortar, and carpentering? Of course, if such things as furniture were included he would say that the Vote was moderate; but if only the items he had alluded to were provided for, it would be impossible for the Committee to pass the Vote without comment. Were the repairs executed by tender and contract every year, or were they done from year to year by the same builder who worked under a general contract? The Commissioner should have some information on this point; because if the repairs were done under a general contract, there was no difficulty in understanding why the cost of them was so large. Hon. Members would perceive that it was impossible to go on expending £3,000 year after year in repairing Marlborough House; and he was certain it was not good policy for the Members of the Conservative Party to encourage extravagant expenditure upon Royal Palaces. Every Member of that Party was willing and anxious that what was necessary for the maintenance of the Royal Palaces should be provided by the country; and he was sure that neither he nor his hon. Friends? would ever give a vote that would endanger this principle. Still, he was bound to say that the House of Commons ought not to be the last to detect extravagance in matters of the kind.

said, he entirely concurred with the remarks they had just listened to, and he had expected that the noble Lord would have concluded his speech by moving a reduction of the Vote; but, as he had not done so, he would himself move that it be reduced by the sum of £1,000. He would put a question to the First Commissioner of Works, with whose great experience, ability, and public spirit they were all acquainted—Did he, in his judgment, believe that the same amount of money would have been spent, if those who enjoyed the benefit of this Vote had to pay for the repairs out of their own pockets? The truth was that, as Representatives of the taxpayers of the country, the House was in this unfortunate position. When they placed at the disposal of Royal and distinguished personages these Palaces and houses, instead of saying to them at the time—"You must do all that is necessary to maintain the building in a proper condition. You must do, in fact, all the tenants' repairs," these Royal and distinguished personages were told they might order whatever they thought necessary in the way of improvements; that the Commissioners of Works would have it done, and that the taxpayers of the country would bear the cost of it. He remembered that when Mr. Ayrton was First Commissioner of Works proposals for enlarging Marlborough House were laid before him, on the ground that the family of the Prince of Wales was likely to be large; but Mr. Ayrton resisted the pressure put upon him at the time, and cut down to a much smaller amount the original Estimate, the plans in connection with which would have entailed an enormous expenditure. He (Mr. Rylands) had no doubt that if his own house were maintained at the public charge, many things would appear to him necessary for his comfort which he now regarded in a different light; and, therefore, he was of opinion that expenditure of the kind now under consideration should be paid out of the pockets of those who desired to have the improvements effected. He believed the hands of his right hon. Friend would be strengthened by cutting down the Vote by the sum proposed, and in that case the Committee would still think that a very large sum was being paid. In his opinion, the reduced sum would be amply sufficient for thoroughly repairing Marlborough House; and he trusted his right hon. Friend would see his way to accept the Amendment which he now begged to move.

said, he was not surprised that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock should have raised a question with regard to the present Vote. When he was asked to sanction a small increase in the Vote he had himself thought it necessary to go fully into the subject, because he considered the amount a largo one to be expended on repairs at Marlborough House. Having carefully examined the actual expenditure year by year, he had, however, arrived at the conclusion that the amount of the Vote was necessary for the repairs at Marlborough House, which was a much larger house than the noble Lord appeared to recognize. The stabling was very extensive, and it should be borne in mind that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales received a large number of guests. His Royal Highness, moreover, spent a large portion of the year at Marlborough House, and it was this continuous occupation which necessitated considerable expenditure. He had himself analyzed the expenditure for three or four years, and he was, therefore, in a position to give the Committee and the noble Lord some idea of the way in which the money was spent. In the first place, he would state that the repairs were executed on contract, according to a schedule of prices, and put up to competition every third year, the only arrangement that was practicable, owing to the great detail of the contract and the minuteness of the calculations requisite. The average charge of £2,000 for repairs during the last four years was made up of a very large number of items, which included lime whitings, gas fittings, repairs to floors, taking down, repairing, and re-hanging doors, repairs to wood-work, repairs to waste-pipes sinks, whitewashing ceilings and walls, varnishing and painting, sweeping chimneys, cleaning windows, woodwork, and glass, repairs to stoves, maintenance of water mains, repairs to roofs, &c. He had gone through the items with one of the most competent surveyors in the Public Service, and was satisfied that the expenditure of the last three or four years had been properly incurred.

said, he was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman stating that His Royal Highness and his guests spent their time in destroying the furniture; but he would show, from the right hon. Gentleman's own Estimates, that all this cost was excessive. He would take the British Embassies at Paris and Vienna as half the size of Marlborough House—though he did not admit that they were not about the same size—and he found that the casual cost of repairs at the Paris Embassy was £500, and at the Vienna Embassy £300. From this it was evident that the maximum expense at Marlborough House ought to be £1,000.

asked whether there had ever been a contract; and, if so, upon what terms?

said, he wished to know how it was possible to have what the right hon. Gentleman called a schedule of prices for repairs? He thought it would be better to have the matter dealt with once a year, to have a schedule made out of the repairs necessary, and then accept the lowest tender. It was not possible to take that course when it was not known what repairs were necessary. The right hon. Gentleman had made one remark which seemed very significant—that his attention had only been called to this matter because his sanction was asked for a small increase. Was the Committee to understand that a Gentleman in his position only paid attention to expenses of this kind when there was an increase on the previous year's amount? It seemed to him that the duty of the right hon. Gentleman was to see whether the expenditure, which he had to ask the Committee to sanction, was necessary, whether it was more or less; and he could quite understand items creeping in when the matter was dealt with in the manner indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. He only made the amount of the items mentioned £1,500, whereas the right hon. Gentleman made it £2,000; and with regard to the difference between last year and this year, he found that, although the expenditure this year was not much larger than last year, there was a sum spent last year which could not be expected to recur this year—namely, the cost of rearranging the hot-water pipes and of supplying gas to the external lamps.

said, he was very sorry the hon. Member had made these remarks, for he should have thought that Gentlemen on his side of the House would be only too glad to consider the comfort of His Royal Highness, and would not cavil at these small sums of a few pounds. The hon. Member had mentioned two items which appeared last year and not this year; but, as the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, last year no Vote was taken for painting the exterior. That was done only once in three years, and therefore the Vote was taken this year. He himself would have been glad if this Vote had been larger; and he considered that the Prince of Wales had a perfect right to come to the House for any legitimate expenditure for his personal comfort and for the comfort of the Princess of Wales and the family. There had been no Prince of Wales who had entertained more largely than His Royal Highness. If His Royal Highness was in any way stingy—as everyone knew he was not—this Vote might not be so extensive; but, for himself, he hoped it would be larger next year than it was this year. The Prince of Wales had always entertained sumptuously; and this somewhat large expenditure was, no doubt, partly owing to that. The hon. Member had said that these repairs should be put out to the lowest tender; but he did not think it would be a dignified thing that the repairs of Marlborough House should be put out to tender. The Committee might rely on the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and those who in future held his Office, to see that the money of the country was not wasted. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he had gone carefully into these matters, and had assured the Committee that the money was not wasted; and he, for one, placed implicit confidence in what the right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee, and should be perfectly prepared to vote for this sum of money. At the same time, he hoped next year the Vote would be somewhat larger.

said, he thought the hon. Member (Mr. Onslow), in the well-intentioned and loyal speech he had made, had somewhat mistaken the point before the Committee. No one on either side of the House wished to interfere with the comfort of the Prince of Wales, or with his entertainments; but the question under discussion was not whether his Royal Highness had too much given him—that nobody supposed—but whether or not more than their proper cost had been spent for glass and for the mending of drains; and whether or not the Department in charge of this expenditure were watching these matters with that close scrutiny which it was the duty of the House to require of them. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman how it was possible to have a triennial Estimate for repairs of which the exact nature could not be foreseen? He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he could not have an Estimate every year, because the items were of too complicated a character; but how was that got over by having a triennial Estimate? How could the Government think it the best plan to secure economy to have a triennial Estimate, when it was impossible to foresee the precise nature of the things required? Was it not certain that any tradesman giving in an estimate for things he could not know of in advance would be sure to allow a large margin? There could not be a more certain way of increasing the expenditure than this system of triennial Estimates. Marlborough House was not larger than an ordinary good-sized country house; and could the right hon. Gentleman suppose that any country squire having a house of this kind would spend £2,900 a-year for keeping it in repair?

stated, in regard to the schedule of prices, that tradesmen were asked to compete for particular classes of work under different heads. The schedule extended over three years; but the specific repair was only required for every year. It was a peculiar form of contract; but, on the whole, it was economical, and convenient. It would not be well to have a competi- tion every year, but was better to spread the competition over three years. The hon. Member had somewhat mistaken his remark about the expensiveness of Marlborough House. What he said was that the ordinary wear and tear by the extensive use by the Prince of Wales, his large family, and his guests, made the repairs expensive; but he was sure there were many private residences in the country of a large character which did not cost proportionately any less. The Department of which he had charge had no possible interest in spending more money than was necessary; and when it became necessary to increase the expenditure this year, he went very closely into the expenditure of the past three years, and he could assure the Committee that this expenditure was necessary.

said, he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman fully believed the expenditure had been incurred; but what proof had he of that? It was impossible to have a scale of prices for some of the items—for instance, the re-arrangement of hot water only occurred in three or five years. Was that on the three-year principle, or was it a special contract? [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: Special contract.] Then, why not have a special contract for everything? Then, again, why was there no item for the external lamps this year, as there was last year? He was afraid this Estimate had been diminished by £125, only that at the end of the Session, when nobody was looking after the matter, there might be a Supplementary Estimate. He considered the three-years' system bad; and he was not speaking without some knowledge of the subject, because he had had a great deal to do with building, and knew how builders were inclined to add to their bills. Nobody objected to the comfort of the Prince of Wales being secured; everyone was anxious that His Royal Highness should have everything he required; but they had a perfect right, when asked to pay nearly £3,000, to inquire whether full value for the expenditure had been obtained. He did not believe that a private individual would not have got the work done for a far less sum.

explained that he had not meant to imply that the system of schedules of prices applied to everything. Occasionally there were special contracts, and the re-arrangement of hot water was a special contract, which could not come under the schedule of prices. The external painting, however, was under the schedule of prices, which was submitted every third year.

asked whether there was any real competition or not?

replied, that there was, and that a considerable number of firms tendered for.

said, that after the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, he would not press his Motion to a division. He only wanted this assurance—that the First Commissioner of Works would revise the expenditure of Marlborough House. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think it was not in excess; but he was quite sure that no country gentleman living in a house of this size, and no nobleman having a house of this size in London, would spend anything like this amount. His impression was that the system was bad, and that the country did not get value for this expenditure. He hoped, therefore, some assurance would be given that the Estimate would, in future, be reduced.

said, he proposed upon this Vote to raise a question of principle, which he should, if he had the opportunity, raise upon every Vote in these Estimates in which it was involved. The principle was that the local expenditure, which, in all other towns in England, was defrayed from the municipal funds, ought, in London, to be borne by the municipal income of London, and not by the Consolidated Fund. He invited Members for boroughs in the country and for counties, who complained of the burden of taxation, to look at the question—Why London, the wealthiest city in the world, and proportionately the least taxed city in the Kingdom, should escape expenditure which, in all other large towns, fell upon the local funds? He very much deplored the absence, on this occasion, of several hon. Members who, under the late Administration, took a prominent part in assailing this anomaly. He thought hon. Gentlemen who took this view in Opposition ought to take the same view when in Office; and that, if it was wrong for the Parks in London to be maintained by Imperial taxation when the Conservatives were in power, it was equally wrong when the Liberals were in Office. Upon this matter he pledged himself to take a division on every possible occasion. He was not going to raise any question about what were called Royal Parks. He knew there was a great deal to be said on both sides as to Hyde Park, and St. James's Park, and Regent's Park; they were places which the great bulk of the people were interested in maintaining; and equally so in regard to Hampton Court Grounds, which was also a place of national interest and enjoyment. But he could not see why Battersea Park, Kennington Park, and Victoria Park, should be maintained out of the Consolidated Fund, when Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, and other large towns defrayed the cost of exactly similar undertakings out of their own funds. Originally such Parks were confined to London, and almost to what he would call Royal residences; but they had in modern times developed in all the large towns, and a heavy taxation was required to establish and keep up these Parks. That he considered a wise taxation. In the borough he represented (Wolverhampton) there was a beautiful Park which required a considerable rate; but he objected to the artizan population of Wolverhampton being taxed to keep up Battersea Park for the West End of London and Victoria Park for the East End. It might be argued in regard to Victoria Park that it was a poor-people's Park; but so were all these Parks. The entire Vote for these Parks was £113,000; but a 1d. rate in the Metropolitan district would produce over £100,000. He proposed to raise this question of principle by moving to reduce the Vote by £22,000.

said, he would not go into the question raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Fowler), except to say that he thought the hon. Gentleman's arguments would be extremely difficult to meet. He should go into the same Lobby as the hon. Member; but he should support the Motion for a reduction of this Vote on other grounds, and other but equally intelligible principles, which he hoped would command the support of the hon. Member. His point was that this Vote had not been framed in that spirit of economy which, considering the increase of general expenditure, and the failure of general revenue, ought to have animated the Office of Works. He wished, first, to draw the First Commissioner's attention to an increase of £947 for salaries and wages, for he held that the Department had no right in these times to consent to any increase, on any grounds, of salaries and wages in the establishment of the Royal Parks of London. This was not a moment at which to increase the expenditure in this direction; it was not essential to have this increase; and if the Department had gone on the principle of not increasing expenditure, and of seeing how it could be decreased, there would have been a considerable saving in this Estimate. If the Government were in possession of a Revenue advancing by leaps and bounds, and the country were in a state of extraordinary prosperity, the Committee, perhaps, would not scan too closely this increase; but when the Revenue was the reverse of prosperous, and the country was suffering from hard times, the Government was the only body which, instead of setting an example of economy, was setting an example of extravagance. There was not a man or a Corporation in the country who had not in the last few years tried to reduce expenses; but the Government was increasing expenditure. There was one item of £147 for increase in wages, and another of £143 for work; and, on looking at the details of works, what did he find? Why, he found these sums—£200 for a building in Battersea Park, £400 for a new house for the keeper in Bushey Park—obviously an unnecessary thing—and an extra ex- penditure of £565 at Kew. Last year—1882–3—again, they spent a considerable sum of money on works which might very well have been postponed. Hon. Members opposite seemed in so excellent a frame of mind on the subject of all this unnecessary expenditure that it was needless to make an appeal to them. Had it not been so, he should have called on them to insist upon the Government ruthlessly cutting down the Estimate. If these expenses were thoroughly overhauled, and the Government were pressed into cutting down all those which were unnecessary, he was confident they would be able to save from £150,000 to £200,000 on the Civil Service Estimates alone. He was sure of it; and though the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would be able to give very excellent reasons why these Votes should not be changed, still the broad, hard fact remained, that they had not got the money for such extravagance, and must, therefore, do without it. He very heartily supported the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. H. H. Fowler); and if there was not similar exception taken to almost every Vote in the Civil Service he would himself move reductions.

said, he found the same difficulty in the way of supporting the Motion of the hon. Member this year that he had experienced last year. The Parks about which the hon. Member complained were Parks belonging to the State or to the Crown. ["No, no!"] [An hon. MEMBER: He has excluded those.] He (Mr. Firth) was not aware that Kennington, Battersea, and Victoria Parks belonged to the people of London. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, who was in possession of all the facts, supported his view, that the Parks complained of did not belong to the Metropolis. Neither Kennington, Battersea, nor Victoria Park belonged to London; and if they wished the people of London to take care of them they must be prepared to sell them to them—they must, at any rate, be prepared to offer them, and leave the people of London to decide whether or not they would make the purchase. The State dealt exceedingly hard with the Metropolis—it did extremely little for it in comparison with what it did for the Provinces. It made an enormous profit out of London, particularly—hav- ing regard to its enormous population—in the matter of telegraphic and postal charges; and they must bear in mind that amongst other burdens London bore was the cost of maintaining the Detective Force. The ratepayers of the Metropolis bore, for instance, the whole cost of taking care of the Queen at Osborne, or wherever else she might happen to be—["No, no!"]—yes; that was so—the whole cost, except so far as there was a contribution from the State. The Metropolis paid the whole of the staff at Scotland Yard. In these matters the First Commissioner of Works was the Court of Final Appeal, although in this particular case the arguments of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton were met by the simple fact that the Parks referred to did not belong to the people of London. When they were offered to them they would consider whether they would take them over and pay these charges to keep them up.

said, he wished to ask one question, the answer to which, he thought, would probably throw a good deal of light upon this whole question. He did not see any mention made of certain large open spaces in London, which, though not enclosed like the Parks, answered in their respective neighbourhoods the same purpose as Parks, and on which there was, at all events, some little expenditure. He referred to such open spaces as Wandsworth Common and Clapham Common. He did not see Finsbury Park mentioned in the Estimate; and yet all these places must be the subject of expenditure; therefore, the argument just addressed to them was erroneous. The Parks he referred to were on the same footing as those to which the attention of the Committee had just been drawn. ["No, no!"] Well, they would hear about it in a moment from the right hon. Gentleman, the "Court of Final Appeal." On whom did the cost of maintaining Finsbury Park fall? On the people who lived in the neighbourhood; and, if so, why should they be called upon to bear such an expenditure?

said, the point raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was a very important and interesting one, and one on which, since he had held his present Office, he had frequently had occasion to address the House. He had frequently inti- mated his private opinion that at some future time the Metropolis should bear some portion of the expense now borne by the State in support of these Parks. His hon. Friend, he thought, had drawn a very right and proper distinction between what were called "Royal Parks" and those other Parks—Battersea, Victoria, and Kennington. As to the Royal Parks, there was a great deal to be said in favour of their being maintained out of money voted by Parliament. They had been dedicated to the public by the Crown; they still remained "Royal" Parks; they were adjuncts to the Royal Palaces; and it was only reasonable, having regard to the general position of London, and the number of people coming to it as visitors from all parts of the country and enjoying these special Parks, that the expense of maintaining them should be borne by the State. But between these Parks and those the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had referred to he owned there was a great distinction to be drawn. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) was right in saying that these Parks were not the property of the Municipality of London. They were paid for by money voted by Parliament for the purpose; they, therefore, belonged to the State, and not to the people of London, and the State had been to considerable expense in keeping them in their present condition. Finsbury Park had been bought by the Metropolitan Board of Works; therefore, the expense of maintaining it fell on the ratepayers at large; and commons, such as Wandsworth and Clapham, had been taken over by the Metropolitan Board under the Commons Act, and the cost of their maintenance had also fallen on the Metropolitan ratepayers. On the other hand, the Parks referred to had been bought by the Government; and, therefore, their maintenance had hitherto been borne out of the Votes provided by Parliament. It was, of course, an important question whether that should continue; and he owned he thought that whenever London was provided with a Municipality, this was one of the questions which would have to be considered in the relations between the Government and the Metropolis. It certainly did appear to him that Parliament should not be called upon to vote for the maintenance of Parks which were not enjoyed by the people of the whole of the country—Parks which were bought for the people of London and solely enjoyed by them. Whenever the proper time came this would form part of the general reconsideration of the relations between London and the Government. He would tell the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, however, that the account was one on which the credit was not all on one side, and that there was a great deal to be said from the other point of view. It so happened that London contributed much more largely to the maintenance of the police than other parts of the country. The City of London, for reasons best known to itself, had never called on the Government to contribute its share to the maintenance of the police of the City; but, whenever the whole of London became a Municipality, no doubt it would not be content with the position assumed by the City in this matter; and he was afraid that whenever the Government was called upon to pay one-half the cost of the City Police it would more than swallow up the whole saving that might be effected by throwing on the Municipality the cost of the maintenance of these Parks. These two matters, however, and many other questions between London and the Government, would have to be considered as a whole; and the Committee would, no doubt, agree with him that it would not be wise on the present occasion, by a Vote in Committee, to deal permanently with one part of the problem, leaving others unsettled. They should leave these matters until the Municipality of London was thoroughly taken in hand. The account would have to be carefully made up; and he would not at present say how he believed it would work out, although he would assure the Committee he did not think the interests of the general taxpayers of the country would be neglected. He trusted the Committee would be satisfied with this statement, and would not now think it right to go to a vote on the subject, as he did not think a vote would represent the feeling of the Committee with regard to it. It was clear they could not take it out of its present position at the present moment; and he, therefore, hoped that hon. Members would be satisfied with the discussion which had taken place, and would relegate its resumption to a later period. He would now deal with one or two points raised by the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill). Complaint had been made of increase to certain salaries. Well, he did not think the noble Lord had taken the trouble to ascertain the details of the cases to which he had referred; therefore, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would enlighten him. The whole of the increase in the Vote had been caused by the increase which had been made in the salaries of the Director and Assistant Director of Kew Gardens. The Director had been paid a salary which the Government, after careful consideration, came to the conclusion was very inadequate, either to that gentleman's position as one of the most eminent scientific men in the country, or to the services he had rendered to the State. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) really thought that there was no more eminent scientific man in the service of the country than this gentleman; and his salary was, until lately, only £800 a-year, for which inadequate amount he performed services of an important character, not only in relation to Kew, but also in connection with the Colonial Office, the Foreign Office, and many other Offices. On considering the matter, as he had said, the Government came to the conclusion that the salary was an inadequate one, and they had determined to increase it to the sum of £1,200. At the same time, the salary of the Assistant Director was raised. With regard to works, there was an item for additional works at Kew; but it was only a small one, and he did not think it would be possible to reduce it. The cost of the operations now going on at Hyde Park Corner should be taken into account.

What I said was that the two Estimates—last year's and this year's—balance each other.

said, that, but for the exceptional expenditure in connection with Hyde Park Corner, which, he trusted, would not occur again, the two Estimates would balance each other. The sum for Hyde Park Corner was £3,500, by which sum, of course, the aggregate of the Vote was increased.

said, that with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's last statement, if there had been no expense on Hyde Park Corner last year, there would not have been a balance of accounts. The right hon. Gentleman had not attempted to answer the principle on which he (Lord Randolph. Churchill) had advocated a reduction of the Vote—namely, that as every individual in the country had had to reduce his expenditure on account of the bad times, so the Government ought to do the same thing.

said, that if the hon. Member for Wolverhampton carried his Amendment to a division he should vote with him, because it was one of those cases in which, evidently, some hon. Members took the view of the hon. Member, whilst others took the view of the right hon. Gentleman; and it was, therefore, necessary to do what they could to strengthen the hands of the hon. Member. There were one or two points on which he (Mr. Labouchere) should like to have some explanation. They had, in connection with these Parks, Rangers and Deputy Rangers—those they were accustomed to; but what was the "Bailiff" of the Royal Parks? They had an item of £700, "equivalent to the civil and military pay of the officer holding the office." Who was this "Bailiff," and what did he do? So far as one could see, all he did was to travel; because, besides the salary of £700, there was an item of £80 for travelling. It appeared to him that this was one of the officials who ought to be moved off the face of the Estimate. He (Mr. Labouchere) did not know what he did, and assumed his office was one of those abominable sinecures which was given to someone for doing nothing, and taking a salary. When the right hon. Gentleman had explained that matter, perhaps he would give them some explanation in regard to Richmond Park. This matter was very curious—and he would ask the Committee to follow him here, because these Estimates were given to them in order, he supposed, that they might understand them. He would ask them how they could possibly understand this. "Salaries and Wages of Establishment, £91;" "Maintenance, £2,250." They might assume that the salary of someone was £91, and that the maintenance of the Park was £2,250; but what were the next items? "Ditto, Department of Ranger, Salaries, £711;" "Maintenance, £1,659?" He could understand the maintenance of the Ranger; but what on earth was the maintenance of his Department? He happened to know that Richmond Park was largely stocked with game, and it was the custom of the Duke of Cambridge, the "Ranger," to shoot that game. Where the game went to—whether it was sold or not—he could not say. There was some vague idea that some of it went to a hospital; but, twisted into this "Department of Ranger," and so on, there were a considerable number of gamekeepers. He was sometimes in the neighbourhood of the Park himself, and if he wished to go there and shoot a partridge, or pheasant, or something of that kind, no doubt he would at once be stopped by the keepers. No doubt, he would be prevented from doing that which he had a perfect right to do—namely, shoot on his own property, for the Park belonged to the country, and therefore to the taxpayers, of whom he was one. He asserted that the Park belonged to him, and that the only persons to whom it did not belong were those who received salaries in regard to it. What was done with the game which was shot? In the next item—namely, St. James's Park, Green Park, and Hyde Park—he found "Salaries of the Department of Ranger, £200;" and "Maintenance of the Department of Ranger, £175." Everybody knew that there must be more officials under the Ranger in these three Parks in London than in Richmond Park, unless in the latter there were kept a number of men to prevent the inhabitants—the proprietors of the Park, as he took it—from shooting the game, and to preserve it for the "Ranger."

wished to know under what Department the charge for keeping the game in Richmond Park came?

said, he could only explain that the Bailiff was an official who was appointed, four or five years ago, to have the management of all the economic arrangements of the Park. He was appointed because it was believed that there was a good deal of expenditure taking place of an unnecessary character; and he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was informed that since the appointment of this official there had been considerable economy in the management of the Parks, and many thou- sands of pounds had been saved. This economy had been shown, not in a decrease in the Vote itself, but in a better expenditure on the Parks. The Parks themselves had shown a very great improvement, especially in the matter of flowers, and this improvement had been effected out of the savings resulting from the management of the gentleman in question. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) could only say that if the salary of this gentleman were reduced, or a change were made in this matter, it would be a bad thing for the economic management of the Parks. As to the charges made in connection with Richmond Park, no portion of the money voted went towards the maintenance of game. The Ranger had the right of shooting game in the Park. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had stated that the Park belonged to him as one of the public; but, in point of law, that was not an accurate statement. The Parks were handed over to the public under an Act of Parliament, which specially reserved any beneficial rights that the Crown had in them; and amongst the beneficial rights that the Crown possessed, and which were reserved, was the right of sporting. Therefore, as a matter of law, the right of sporting had certainty been reserved, and had never been handed over to the public. The right vested in the Crown, and her Majesty the Queen had given it to His Royal Highness the Ranger. His Royal Highness had as much right to sport and shoot in Richmond and the other Royal Parks of which he was Ranger as any gentleman had to shoot in his own private park. His Royal Highness himself undertook all the expenses in connection with the keeping of the game, and no part of them came on the Votes.

There is a charge made for keepers.

said, that was not in regard to the game His Royal Highness had the right of shooting, but in regard to the deer with which the Park was stocked, which was a totally different matter. The deer were maintained for the sake of adding to the beauty of the Park, and their flesh was given away to certain functionaries of the State. He had no doubt the Corporation of the City of London received a part of it; and a part of it went, as he had said, to certain high func- tionaries and certain minor officials—of who he himself was one—of the State. He did not suppose the hon. Member would wish to see the deer in Richmond Park exterminated; and if he did not, he would admit the necessity of retaining the services of keepers to look after them. All he could say was that no part of the expense of maintaining the game, in the sense of pheasants, partridges, and rabbits, was borne by these Votes. It was borne exclusively by His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) trusted the explanation he had given on this point would be satisfactory to the Committee, and had convinced them that the money spent on Richmond Park was spent in the interests of the public.

said, the hon. Member for Northampton had expressed satisfaction at the statement made by the First Commissioner of Works; but he ventured to doubt whether that statement would be received with the same satisfaction by the people of London. For his own part, however, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had expressed his views on the subject so clearly, for the people in the poorer districts of the Metropolis would now know that the policy of the Government was that while the Parks enjoyed by the rich at the West End of London were to be maintained out of the Consolidated Fund, the maintenance of those in the other parts of London that were for the use of the poor would hereafter fall upon the ratepayers. [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: I expressed my own opinion only.] He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman had given that as the expression of his own opinion; but knowing his powerful influence with the other Members of the Government, with whom he had no doubt had conversations upon this subject, he was justified in assuming that they agreed with him, and that the right hon. Gentleman had stated, with perfect clearness, what was the policy of the Government in this matter. It would result from this that while the people whom he (Mr. Ritchie) represented at the East End would have to pay for the maintenance of Victoria Park, they would also be called upon to contribute their share of the cost of improvements at the West End, such as those in progress at Hyde Park Corner. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to the charge of £500 for regilding the railings around the Albert Memorial. The amount appeared to him unnecessarily large, and he considered that much better taste would be displayed if there were no gilding about the railings at all. He asked whether tenders had been solicited for this work?

said, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had misapprehended his statement; he had said nothing about the rich and poor in the Metropolis. It was not because Victoria, Kennington, and Battersea Parks were Parks for the poor, that he said they should be maintained at the expense of the ratepayer; nor did he say that the Royal Parks should be maintained out of the Consolidated Fund, because they were the Parks of the rich. He thought the hon. Member must by this time be aware of the individual exertions made by him in the interest of the people of the Metropolis, and that he was not likely to use such arguments as he had attributed to him.

had not said the right hon. Gentleman used the argument that some of the Parks were for the rich and others for the poor. His statement was that this was the effect of his argument, and in that way it would undoubtedly be regarded by the people. The right hon. Gentleman had not said this in so many words, but he had implied it.

said, he thought the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had given a very curious twist to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that, in his private opinion, at a future time the Metropolis should bear some portion of the expense now borne by the State in support of the Parks; but that, considering the large number of people who came to London from all parts of the country as visitors and enjoyed the Parks, it was only fair that they should be, at least, partly supported by the State. That was the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, who added that when the Metropolitan Reform Bill was brought forward it might contain some provisions under which a certain number of the Parks, if not all of them, would be chargeable on the rates. He (Mr. Rylands) regarded it as a positive boon to the people of London that a number of Parks were maintained as Royal Parks out of the taxes of the country. The right hon. Gentleman had, on a previous occasion, admitted that the expenditure in connection with them was very large; and, looking at the Estimates now before the Committee, he had a strong impression that it was excessive as compared with the expenditure upon Parks in other parts of the country. In every Department there seemed to be a disposition to spend more than was necessary for the due maintenance of the Parks in London, and his right hon. Friend had promised to see whether a reduction of expenditure could not be effected. He (Mr. Rylands) felt that if the Motion to reduce the Vote were carried, it would be found that, without closing the Parks, a very great diminution would take place in the expenditure.

asked if the First Commissioner of Works could furnish a Return of the expenditure on the great Parks at Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, and other towns, for the purpose of comparison?

said, the Returns would be interesting and useful, and he would inquire as to the possibility of obtaining them.

understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the cost of some of the Parks would be thrown upon the revenues of the Metropolis, but that the question should not be raised at present, because it was to be considered when the Municipal Corporation Bill was brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman also said he had made a representation on the subject to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Now, as this Bill had been mentioned in the Queen's Speech, he thought it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman agreed to the postponement of the present Vote until the Committee were acquainted with the nature of the Government proposal. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would inform the Committee when he intended to bring forward the Bill referred to.

said, he was unable to gratify the curiosity of the hon. Member for Portsmouth as to the exact date at which the Bill would be brought forward; but he might observe that the less protracted these discussions were, the sooner would the Bill be brought forward.

said, no one could say that these Estimates had not been fairly discussed. But the right hon. Gentleman implied that if they continued to be discussed the Bill would not be brought forward. The question raised on this Vote was a very serious one, so far as the ratepayers of London were concerned; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Bill referred to was really coming forward this year or not?

pointed out to the Home Secretary that there was no difficulty in laying the Bill on the Table of the House, if the Government were so disposed. It was an extraordinary position to take up, that a measure named in the Royal Speech was not to be produced until Supply had been hurried through the House of Commons; but that was the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman. He thought the Committee had a right to refer to the Metropolitan Reform Bill, in consequence of the remarks made by the First Commissioner of Works, who said the question raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was very important and commanded his sympathy; that he had made a representation on the subject to the Home Secretary, as the head of the Department, and that the question must be considered in the Bill for the arrangement of the Municipal Government of London. That being so, he did not think the Committee would be justified in agreeing to the Vote until the Bill was in the hands of hon. Members. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary seemed to think it ridiculous that the Bill should be asked for; but hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House were somewhat incredulous with regard to the professions of the Government, and considered it a good joke when they made promises to arrange the Water Supply, and to reform the Municipal Government of the Metropolis, but took good care never to introduce the shadow of a Bill for the purpose. He thought the Committee should not tolerate this mockery on the part of the Government. They had seen in The Standard newspaper, which was notoriously under the influence of Members of the Government, the authoritative announcement that the Bill which had been so often spoken of would not be introduced; but if it was the intention of the Government to bring in the Bill, then he thought the First Commissioner should withdraw this Vote, on account of the question which had been raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton.

said, as far as he could see, there was no chance of the Estimates being hurried through the House that Session. He understood the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler) to advocate the transfer of the expenditure for maintaining the Parks from the Consolidated Fund to the Metropolitan rates. But he pointed out that the Motion of the hon. Member would not have that effect; if it were carried, it would only have the effect of suspending the maintenance of the Parks at the present time. He could understand, therefore, the object of raising this discussion; but he could not understand the object of reducing the Vote, which would only result in the Parks not being maintained in the manner they all desired. Under the circumstances, having raised this discussion, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division.

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not rest satisfied with having raised this discussion. He also trusted that the Home Secretary would not be led away by the herring which had been dragged across his path; but, at the same time, he could hold out no hope that any promise which might be made would cause hon. Gentlemen on those Benches to abate their watchfulness in the smallest degree. Returning to the question of the expenditure for Richmond Park, he would put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the reply of the First Commissioner of Works was satisfactory or not? He had complained of certain expenditure in connection with Richmond Park, showing that the charge for the Ranger's Department there was more than the total charge for the same Department in connection with the Green Park, Hyde Park, and St. James's Park, this charge being in addition to the cost of maintaining the Park. He had complained that the great increase of expenditure on Richmond Park was owing to the fact of there being game preserved there. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply, said there were deer in the Park; but hon. Members knew well that it was absolutely necessary to have people in the Park to see that the game was not poached; and he (Mr. Labouchere), in repeating his complaint, asserted that the excessive expenditure was not due to the deer in the Park, but to the fact that other game was preserved there. They were told that some detailed items of expenditure would be laid on the Table. But this question had been discussed year after year; the same things had been said by others as he was now saying, and the same kind of replies had been given; and, therefore, he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, when they presented the promised details, he would also furnish a list of the persons who received salaries, and let the Committee know what this enormous item for the Department of Ranger at Richmond Park was composed of?

said, there was great force in the observations of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Lubbock), that, if the Motion before the Committee were carried, there would be no one charged with the maintenance of the Parks. The responsibility rested with no one, and the consequence would be that the Parks would be ruined, there being no power to make rates for their maintenance and improvement. There was, however, much truth in what had been urged by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) in advocating a reduction of the Vote. He (Mr. Gregory) understood that the State had paid for the Parks at Battersea, Kennington, and Bow, and that their maintenance constituted a damnosa hereditas. The question was whether this was to be borne by the State, and he confessed that he did not see the reason why it should be. It appeared to him that, as in the case of some other Parks, they should be maintained by the Metropolitan Board of Works; but at present there was no liability on that Department to undertake their maintenance, nor was it known that they were likely to assume that responsibility if the Parks should be thrown upon their hands. Therefore, until they had assurance of an arrangement under which some authority or Department would take over the Parks, he thought it would be inexpedient to alter the existing arrangements; and he suggested to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton that, having raised this discussion, and obtained a considerable expression of opinion in favour of throwing the cost of maintenance upon localities, he should allow the Vote to pass, on the understanding that next year some arrangement would be made to transfer the maintenance of the Parks to some authority or other. It would be most unfortunate if the Parks were left without anyone to take care of them, while, at the same time, the object which the hon. Member had in view was not attained.

reminded the Committee that one of the strongest arguments used by the Government in the course of the discussions during the Autumn Session was that, in future, there would be a most effective control of expenditure by the Committee of Supply. Whatever Bills might be awaiting the disposal of these Estimates, he would only say that they would not have the slightest effect with him in criticizing the unnecessary and costly burdens upon the taxpayers of the country. With regard to the argument of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), if London had no governing power, and was in a state of anarchy, there would be some force in the statement that the Parks would be left without anyone to take care of them. But it was not so. London had a Board of Works with ample powers and means of raising funds for its purposes; and he had no fear that anything would happen of the kind suggested by the hon. Baronet if the Motion before the Committee were carried. Assuming that the Government Bill was not brought forward, or that it was brought forward but not passed, they would be in the same position next year; the same amount would have to be borne by the community, and those who proposed a reduction of the expenditure would be met with the same arguments as they were met with now. He thought the First Commissioner of Works had rather led the Committee into a mistake by his argument with regard to the police, because the inference would be that the State did not contribute anything at all in respect of this force, so far as the London Police were concerned, and that at some future day a balance would have to be struck, and a large burden thrown upon the taxpayers, in order to place the London Police on the same footing as I the police of other towns. But he would j point out that the proportion of the cost of the City Police Force, to which the State did not now contribute, was insignificant; and when the time arrived he was prepared to run the risk of making that payment. That question, however, did not touch the principle of the Motion on which he intended to divide the Committee. He entirely dissented from the view taken by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) that the London Parks should be paid for out of the taxation of the country; on the contrary, he said that the Parks, in many large towns throughout the country, were paid for out of the local rates, and that the Parks in London ought also to be maintained out of the rates of the Metropolis.

believed that, so far from there being no funds to maintain the Parks, a certain sum of money, about £100,000, had been voted on account, out of which they could be maintained for this year. In other parts of the country wealthy citizens came forward to keep up great public institutions of this kind; and surely in London, where there were so many wealthy noblemen, like the Dukes of Bedford, Devonshire, and Westminster, who drew large revenues from the Metropolis, men might be found with sufficient public spirit to contribute to the support of these Parks, especially as, under the Attorney General's Bill, they would in future save considerable expense in elections.

said, there were two sides to this matter, and he could not agree with the view of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. There was a great difference between the Parks of London and those of other towns, like Birmingham; for, where one person from London went to see the Park at Birmingham, 50 went from Birmingham to the London Parks. These Parks were part of the embellishment of the national capital; and if they were to be put upon the public rates, so must the British Museum and all the public monuments. It seemed to him that these Parks, being an embellishment of the national capital, were properly charged to the National Revenue.

said, that in past times the House voted sums of money in aid of the provision of "Public Parks and play-grounds for the people." These Votes of money were originally made upon the proposition of Mr. R. A. Slaney, then Member for Shrewsbury. These Votes initiated many movements in the Provinces, and private subscriptions and local grants were stimulated by this kind of assistance. For instance, he might mention, as one of the pioneers of the Public Park movement, that at Manchester, where, 40 years ago, three public Parks were provided for the hard-working people, a grant, out of the Votes he had mentioned, was given by the late Sir Robert Peel, who, at the same time, gave his own personal subscription of £1,000.

said, he did not wish to detain the Committee by another division; but no satisfactory explanation had been obtained respecting Richmond Park. His intention was to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000; but if he could receive an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman would lay before the House details upon this subject he would not make the Motion.

said, that when the Vote for the Royal Parks was before the Committee last year a question was asked as to whether it was possible to give the public greater facilities for crossing Kensington Gardens after sunset, and the right hon. Gentleman promised to consider the matter, and said he hoped to be able to give the facilities asked for. The present state of things was that after about 4 o'clock in the winter there was no means of crossing to the other side of the Gardens except by going about half-a-mile round. Kensington Gardens were the only pleasure grounds in the West End of London in which such restrictions were considered necessary. In Hyde Park free traffic was allowed up to 12 at night, and in St. James's Park up to 10; whereas Kensington Gardens were closed at sundown. He wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered the question, and could give some hope of further facilities in Ken- sington Gardens? He was well aware of the objections raised to this proposal; but they would hold with equal force in the case of Hyde Park and St. James's Park. At present people could cross Hyde Park up to 12 o'clock; but when they got to the division between that and Kensington Gardens they were stopped.

wished to know what was going to be done with reference to the Wellington Statue? He found an item of £400 put down for a new railing and gate, and he wished to take this opportunity of asking what was the final determination with regard to the position of the statue; and whether there was any probability of the Committee, to which the question had been referred, coming to a speedy decision, and at such a time that the House would have an opportunity of considering their decision? That question led to another—namely, whether or not, as there had been a great alteration at Hyde Park Corner, facilities might not be given to use the road down Constitution Hill? Some years ago he took an active part in obtaining the use by the public of the road between Buckingham Palace and Storey's Gate. Great opposition was raised to that by the inhabitants of Carlton House Terrace, and other residents in the neighbourhood, but that was overcome; and it was found that the use of that road was no inconvenience to either the inhabitants of Carlton House Terrace or the occupants of the Royal Palace. Shortly afterwards he obtained the opening of Queen Anne Square; and it seemed to him that the time had now arrived when the right hon. Gentleman might consider whether or not the road from Piccadilly to Buckingham Palace might be partially thrown open to the public. He also wished to ask a question with regard to the Vote for St. James's Park. He believed the right hon. Gentleman had granted the use of the Park to foot-passengers during the whole night; but a strong iron railing had been erected on either side of the footway, and he did not find in the Vote any item for the cost of these railings. Therefore, he apprehended that the cost would come into some future Estimate. What he wished to know was, whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the propriety of making a carriage-way across the bridge in the Park? When he raised this point some years ago the First Commissioner of Works (Lord Mount-Temple) said that a carriage-way across the bridge would interfere with the right of way of persons who used the Park during the day time; but the erection of this new palisade had destroyed that argument, and he wished to point out that a road across the bridge would save 500 yards between the bottom of St. James's Street and Bridge Street.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration this point with regard to St. James's Park, especially as, a few days ago, he had stated distinctly that he would take the matter into consideration. A road across the bridge would be a great boon to the public, and would provide a much shorter way between St. James's Street and the House. The point had, he believed, been under the consideration of the authorities before, and he also believed that plans had been submitted. He did not urge this being done now, because he knew it would be an expensive matter; but he certainly thought it ought to be done. He had heard from many quarters how great a convenience it would be, especially at night, to be able to get across the Park in this way; and now that the Park was open at night to foot passengers, it would be only a small stretch to open it also to carriages.

said, the space now referred to was very small; and there was to be seen, either from the bridge itself or from the Buckingham Palace end of the water, one of the finest bits of landscape gardening in the Metropolis. He should be sorry to see a carriage-way made across the bridge, simply for the benefit of a few people. He hoped a proposal of this kind would not be hastily adopted. How many people were there who wanted to drive across the Park to Queen Anne Gate or Mansions? Very few people had houses there; and he would suggest to those who found it difficult to get home to the Mansions that very little physical exertion would be required to overcome this difficulty.

said, he could only repeat on this point what he had stated a few nights ago. He had recently made arrangements for opening the Park to foot passengers, and that, he believed, would be a considerable advantage; but the opening of the Park to carriages was a totally different matter. The bridge was at present totally inadequate, and it would be necessary to build a new bridge and construct a new roadway at great cost. He thought the balance of opinion was that a carriage-way would not create advantages commensurate with the disadvantages; and, on the whole, he was opposed to the proposition. With regard to Constitution Hill, that was a matter not within his power. It had always been considered as an approach to Buckingham Palace, and therefore in the hands of the Royal Family. He could not, therefore, be expected to give any assurance. In respect to the Wellington Statue, that was not yet so far deposed from its original position as to have made a further decision possible; but as soon as the Committee made their Report on the subject he would present their Report, so that the House should have a fair opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. He hoped the improvements would shortly be completed, and, at all events, that the new road would be opened by the 1st of May. The Archway would be completely pulled down, and, of course, the re-building of the Arch would take considerable time; and until that was done it would not be possible to make experiments with the monument. As to the opening of Kensington Gardens, he would consider whether in future they could be kept open, till dusk; but there were objections to keeping the Gardens open late, and it had been found necessary to close the Garden part of St. James's Park earlier in consequence of representations which had been made as to scenes in that part of the Park at night. That showed how necessary it was to be very careful, and he was not sure that it would be for the benefit of the Metropolis to keep Kensington Gardens open all night. He would, however, see whether they might be kept open somewhat later.

said, he did not suggest that the Gardens should be kept open all night, but till, say, 10 o'clock; and he did not see why the objections referred to would not equally apply to Hyde Park, which was open till 12, and was only separated from Kensington Gardens by a barrier. They were prac- tically the same place. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would go a little further, and consider the desirability of keeping one path open up to 10 o'clock at night.

expressed satisfaction at the answer the right hon. Gentleman had given in regard to a roadway across St. James's Park. He could not help thinking it would be a great misfortune if it were attempted to construct a roadway to Queen Anne Gate, as it would interfere materially with the enjoyment of a great many people who used the Park for the purposes of recreation and health. St. James's Park was a pleasure ground for that part of London; and in order to give the thoroughfare suggested, they would either have to cut the Park in two or carry a most unsightly viaduct across it, either of which alternatives would be a great misfortune. He was extremely glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to carry out the proposed alteration.

said, he did not see how, under present circumstances, the Park was so much used as a pleasure ground. There was a roadway already made with spikes on the railings. It was a long way round for Members of Parliament to have to go through the Horse Guards and down Parliament Street to get to the neighbourhood of the House; but to persons who were not Members of Parliament it was infinitely worse. They had to go a tremendous way round by Birdcage Walk. A medical gentleman of his acquaintance had complained to him of the great inconvenience he experienced in this matter when on his rounds visiting his patients. The Board of Works had had under consideration a scheme for making a thoroughfare through the Park; and he really thought if the right hon. Gentleman would go into it and find out what a bridge would cost it might result in something being done which would be a great convenience to the public.

asked whether there was any reason why the privilege afforded to Members of Parliament during the Session of driving through the Horse Guards should not be extended to them during the Recess?

The road through St. James's Park to Storey's Gate is open to Members during the Recess.

Always?

Yes.

asked whether there were any duties attaching to the office of Ranger and Deputy Ranger in Hyde Park?

They have, among other duties, the supervision of the Lodge Keepers, whose functions, obviously, are important.

denied that St. James's Park was used as a pleasure ground, for the reason that the public were locked out of it by spiked iron railings.

said, he hoped the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would inform the House what this Resolution was for. He did not wish to oppose, unnecessarily, the progress of the Municipal Corporations Bill; but, at the same time, they had had no discussion upon it.

said, the Resolution was merely one of a formal preliminary character.

Has the Bill been laid upon the Table of the House?

Yes; a month ago. It passed the House of Lords last Session.

I move that this Bill be now read a second time.

I object.

The Question is, "That this Bill be now read a second time."

said, he thought a quarter to I in the morning was not a proper time at which to bring on this discussion; therefore, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

said, that, as he had given Notice of opposition to the Bill, he was in Order in speaking to the Question of Adjournment. The measure was a very important one as regarded the labourers throughout the country; but the Bill had only been printed and circulated during the Easter Recess. He, in common with many hon. Members who sat around him, had had no idea that it would be taken to-day. It might be said that it had been printed some time before the second reading was proposed; but he appealed to hon. Members opposite whether, when a Bill was only printed and circulated during the Recess, when Members were not at home to receive their Papers, there was not a very valid reason, indeed, why they should ask the House to defer the second reading? He could assure the House there was a very strong feeling on both sides of the House—at any rate, on the Opposition side—with regard to the Bill. He could quite imagine that some hon. Members were very anxious indeed that the measure should pass; but he was right, he thought, in saying that when the second reading was moved the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill was not in his place in the House. ["No, no!"] Some other hon. Member moved it—not the hon. Member for Bristol. ["No, no!"] He believed it was the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Mr. Carbutt). On all these grounds, he put it to the House whether it would not be in accordance with the ordinary practice of the House—Members not having had time to see the Bill—to defer the second reading to another day? He had much pleasure in supporting the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

said, he rose to a point of Order. He wished to know? whether or not the course which had been adopted in regard to this Bill was regular? On the day before the Easter Recess the Bill was brought in by the Clerk at the Table. He (Mr. Warton), at the time, went up to the Table and asked the Clerk whether the Bill was one from the Lords, and, receiving a reply in the affirmative, asked whether there was anyone to move its introduction. At that moment he held in his hand a Notice of opposition to it. He was told that the Bill could not be road a first time unless someone moved that it be so read. Well, he had watched the thing until the last moment, remaining in the House for the purpose, and no one had moved the first reading. His second objection to the Bill being proceeded with was that he stated his desire to block it; and as this was the first time the Order for Second Beading appeared on the Paper under the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule the block was a valid one.

The Rule the hon. and learned Member refers to does not apply in the present case. The Bill has come down from the House of Lords, and stands for second reading, unopposed, on the Paper.

said, that, in reply to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), he wished to point out that the Bill had been two Sessions before the House. He ventured to say that no measure had been introduced which met with more general acceptance on both sides of the House.

This is not the old Bill.

said, it was the old Bill. They were only seeking to secure for the working men of England rights and protection which had existed for 60 years in Ireland, and in all iron and coal mines. Working men were entitled to this protection.

said, he would remind the hon. Member for Guildford that this measure was moved in the House of Lords by a noble Lord a friend of his (Mr. R. N. Fowler's), and—he had no doubt—of the hon. Member. Moreover, it was supported by the late Lord Chancellor Cairns.

claimed the indulgence of the House to ask what was the Rule—apart from the present Bill—as to the introduction of measures? Was it necessary for a Bill to be brought in from the House of Lords? He had seen the Clerk at the Table bringing in—physically bringing in—this Bill, and he had asked him—

Order, Order! The hon. and learned Member is not speaking to the Question before the House. The Question before the House is "That this Bill be now read a second time."

I can say no more now. I will call the attention of the House to the matter some other time.

I move, Sir, that you do now leave the Chair. ["No, no!"]

You cannot move it now.

I beg to give Notice that on going into Committee on this Bill I shall move—" That this House do, on this day six months, consider this Bill."