Since this Bill was postponed on Friday last I have communicated with the agents for the promoters, and also with the Corporation of Dublin. I have received a letter from the agents, in which they say—

"We are instructed and hereby undertake to withdraw from the Bill all the provisions except those relating to the return of deposit money in Clause 4."

That arrangement is satisfactory to those for whom I am concerned, and therefore I shall not offer further opposition to the Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for War, What will regulate the status of Army Medical Officers on board ship or for choice of quarters, their relative rank having been abolished?

I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that relative rank was neither actual nor titular rank, but only a classification for precedence, allowances, and widows' pensions. As relative rank served no useful purpose, it has been abolished; but the classification which it represented remains and still regulates all such matters as those referred to in the Question?

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Superintendent of Army Clothing, Madras, in inviting tenders for the use of the Army Clothing Department for the official year, 1888–9, made the following stipulation:—"Articles of European manufacture are not required;" and, if so, what is the reason that goods of Lancashire and Yorkshire manufacture are excluded from competition in Madras with those of "local manufacture or indigenous origin."

It is a rule of the Indian Service that articles of European manufacture must be purchased through the Store Department of the India Office, in order that they may be properly inspected in this country. A large demand for Army clothing for Madras for 1888–9 is now being dealt with in that Department. Where it is more economical to use an article of local manufacture or indigenous origin, the purchase is effected in India. The expression referred to in the Question, which does not seem a very happy one, appears intended to give notice of this limitation of authority to purchase on the part of the Government of Madras. The attention of the Government of Madras will be called to the subject.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he has any objection to cause to be printed and published annually, the names, designations, and addresses of all persons who have died intestate in Scotland, and whose estates have fallen to the Crown as ultimus haeres?

I have no objection to giving an Annual Return, similar to that already given for England, as an Appendix to the Statement of the Crown's Nominee Account; but with such modifications in form as may be required to meet the requirements of Scottish law.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether a criminal charge against a Police Inspector of Glasgow can be proceeded with at the instance of a private prosecutor, at his own cost and risk, without the concurrence of the Procurator for the public interest; and, whether such concurrence can be refused by Law?

In Scotland it is competent for a private individual to prosecute at his own cost and risk, and that the person accused is a Police Inspector makes the case in no way different from an ordinary one; but the private party cannot do so without the concurrence of the Public Prosecutor. On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor cannot capriciously or oppressively refuse to give his concurrence. If the private party can show that the Public Prosecutor has refused to give his concurrence, either on improper grounds or from corrupt motives, the High Court of Justiciary will intervene to prevent the injustice.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the insanitary and inadequate nature of the accommodation provided for the staff of the Post Office Savings Bank Department at 147, Queen Victoria Street; whether the gross cubic space of one room, in which 40 employés have to work, allows less than 360 cubic feet of air per head, and the rooms are dark, ill-ventilated, and disturbed by the noise and vibration of adjacent machinery; and, whether, in view of the fact that these conditions are unquestionably detrimental to health, and that several years must necessarily elapse before a new building can be erected on the site which has been purchased under the sanction of Parliament, he will at once take steps to provide suitable accommodation in some other building or buildings?

I have personally inspected the premises, No. 147, Queen Victoria Street. They have been taken for a temporary purpose only, and were the best that could be obtained, it being necessary to have the accommodation as near as possible to the main Savings Bank Office. The premises are not all that could be desired; but I do not think they can be considered as very objectionable for a mere temporary purpose. I will, however, make inquiry whether improvement can be effected in the ventilation. Attention is also being given to the question of obtaining additional temporary accommodation to meet increase of business, and of thus relieving any inconvenience which may exist at present.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether in the towns of Keighley, Bingley, and Leicester, where there exist large unvaccinated populations (the Vaccination Acts being practically a dead letter) there have been more or fewer cases of small-pox during the past 10 years than in other towns where the Vaccination Acts are generally complied with?

I have communicated with the Registrar General, and am informed that, practically, there has been no epidemic of small-pox worth mentioning in any of the 19 great Provincial towns dealt with in the Registrar General's Reports in the last 10 years. Only one small-pox death was registered in that period in Leicester itself; but 10 more were registered in the Leicester Borough Hospital, outside the town. This gives an annual rate of nine in 1,000,000 living; a rate, however, which, small as it is, was nevertheless higher than the rates at Ports- mouth, Norwich, Plymouth, Bristol, and Bradford. Neither Keighley nor Bingley are towns for which separate statistics are published by the Registrar General. Both, however, are situated in the Registration District of Keighley, and have a population equal to about three-fourths of that of the whole district. The last calculated rate for this district is for the 10 years 1871–80, as given in the last Decennial Supplement. The annual rate in the district in that decennium was 270 per 1,000,000 living; and higher than in 25 out of the 32 remaining districts in the West Riding; higher also than in any of the following great towns, out of the 20 dealt with, in the Registrar General's Reports:—Hull, Bristol, Manchester, Leeds, Oldham, Bradford, and Brighton.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of batteries of Horse Artillery being so difficult to construct, so impossible to improvise, and in the interests of the efficiency of Cavalry in the field, the Government will postpone the proposed abolition of five batteries of Horse Artillery, out of a Home strength of 13, until this House shall have had an opportunity of discussing the whole question?

I am afraid that to give any such undertaking as that asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend would be to transfer to the House of Commons a responsibility which must be borne by myself. But, as the Army Estimates will be brought forward in a very few days, my hon. and gallant Friend will have full opportunity of raising this question at a time when he has before him all the reasons for this conversion.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether the system of promotion in the Central Telegraph Office is according to salary; and, whether that system places London clerks at a disadvantage, as compared with Provincial clerks, so that Provincial clerks junior in date of appointment are promoted to London vacancies over the heads of London clerks senior in date of appointment; and, if so, whether he will consider the possibility of placing London and Provincial clerks on a footing of equality as regards promotion?

I am not quite sure that I understand the Question; but if the hon. Member will call at the General Post Office, I will take care that he shall receive the fullest information.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a letter signed "T. W. Croke, Archbishop of Cashel," addressed to The Freeman's Journal, from "The Palace, Thurles," on the 17th February, in which it is said—

"Had a Manifesto against paying taxes been issued at the time (of the No Rent Manifesto), I should certainly have supported it on principle. I am precisely in the same frame of mind just now. Our line of action as a people appears to me to he in this respect both suicidal and inconsistent. We pay taxes to a Government that uses them not for the public good and in accordance with the declared wishes of the taxpayers, but in direct opposition to them.…. Our money goes to fee and feed a gang of needy and voracious lawyers, to purchase bludgeons for policemen to be used in smashing the skulls of our people, and generally for the support of foreign garrisons, or native slaves who hate and despise everything Irish, and every genuine Irishman;"

and, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any, and, if so, what, action in the matter?

Mr. Speaker, I can only say at present, in reply to my hon. Friend, that this matter is engaging the close and serious attention of the Government.

asked whether the assessed taxes, which were the principal direct taxes in England, were not imposed in Ireland?

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government of Madras is now making inquiries and collecting evidence with the view to re-open the Chingleput Case, which, five years since, created great excitement; whether a detective officer has for some months been specially employed to work up the case; whether the Collector of Chingleput, in 1882, obtained the sanction of Government to prosecute certain villagers for complaining against a magistrate; whether these villagers were sentenced to imprisonment for so complaining; whether an aged member of their number died in confinement; whether they and numerous witnesses were made to travel over the district for weeks together, with the camps of the Collector and Sub-Collector; whether, at last, the Native community throughout Southern India combined, subscribed large sums of money, and exposed the true character of the magistrate complained of; whether he then absconded, and deserted his post; whether he was subsequently brought to trial, convicted of stealing and making away with official records, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment; whether the Government then appealed against this sentence of the Mofussil Court; whether the High Court upheld the conviction; whether the Collector adopted the unusual course of bringing forward fresh evidence, and inducing Government to appeal a second time; whether the High Court refused to admit the relevancy of any of this fresh evidence, and again confirmed the conviction; whether the Collector urged on the Government the unusual course of over-ruling the adverse decisions of the Courts of Justice; whether the magistrate was released by a strained exercise of the Governor's prerogative; and, whether the Collector is now acting Secretary to the Government of Madras, Revenue Department?

The case referred to began in May, 1881. Certain ryots of the Chingleput District charged the Tasildar, who is a subordinate Native revenue official, with extortion. A variety of criminal proceedings took place; but as the records of trials in India are not sent to the India Office it is impossible to answer the Questions categorically. Some of the complainants appear to have been convicted of perjury, and the Tasildar himself of stealing and making away with official records. The Tasildar appealed twice to the Madras High Court. On the first occasion the sentence was reduced from two to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal; but on May 31, 1883, the Madras Government made an Order, stating that—

"The Governor in Council, after considering the further opinions expressed by the Judges of the High Court in this peculiar case, has come to the conclusion that it will be most consistent with justice to give the accused the benefit of the doubt raised by the subsequent evidence, and he is accordingly pleased under Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, to remit the remainder of the sentence."

Mr. Price, now Acting Secretary to the Madras Government, was Collector of Chingleput between 1878 and 1884. The Secretary of State is not aware of any intention on the part of the Government of Madras to re-open this case.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the senior member of the Madras Board of Revenue was last year engaged four months making a special Report on the district administration of Madura; and what action will Government take on the Report?

Yes; the action to be taken on the Report is still under the consideration of the Governor of Madras.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, What was the amount of the contract for the construction of Greystones Harbour; how much has been expended up to the present time; and, what is the balance in hands of the Board of Works out of the original grant and local contribution?

The amount of the grant was £10,000. The amount of the contract, exclusive of salary of clerk of the works, is £9,000. The payments made up to date are £4,617 4s. 1d., leaving in the hands of the Commissioners of Public Works available for completion £5,382 15s. 1d.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the Correspondence between the Cork Harbour Commissioners and the Commissioners of Irish Lights, and subsequently between the Cork Harbour Commissioners and the Board of Trade, with reference to the necessity for an additional buoy for the better marking of Daunt's Rock; whether the Cork harbour-masters have reported that a second buoy is necessary north-west of the rock, not for the requirements of local trade, which approaches Cork Harbour almost entirely from the eastward, but for the protection of the general oversea trade; and that at least one-half of the oversea sailing vessels approaching Cork Harbour do so by day to the westward of the rock, this course being much more convenient in certain winds; whether a sum of about £6,500 is collected annually in light dues through the collector of Customs at Cork; whether Daunt's Rock being outside their jurisdiction, the Harbour Board are unable to apply their own funds for the purpose in question; whether the Irish Lights Commissioners have refused to erect a second buoy; and, whether, under the circumstances, the Board of Trade propose to take any steps to protect the oversea trade of the port by requiring that the suggestions of the harbour masters shall be carried into effect?

The Commissioners of Irish Lights, who are the General Lighthouse Authority in Ireland, have considered with care the representations of the Cork Harbour Commissioners in favour of an additional buoy in the vicinity of Daunt's Rock. They are of opinion that, as this second buoy would be purely for the advantage of the local trade, they would not be justified in recommending that any expense in respect of it should be borne by the Mercantile Marine Fund. The Board of Trade do not propose to interfere with this decision of the Irish Lighthouse Board, and have no power to initiate new sea marks. Their function is to control expenditure.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the Board of Conservators of the Limerick District allow State weirs on the Lower Shannon to be fished for some time during the beginning of the season, without the Licence Duty, as directed by Act of Parliament, being first paid; whether any such weirs are being fished at the present time, the Licence Duty being still unpaid; whether the owners, lessees, or occupiers of such weirs are liable to heavy penalties and forfeiture of these engines for such offences; whether the owners of any such weirs, now being fished without licence, are conservators, magistrates, or both; whether he will cause a Return to be furnished, giving the names and addresses of the owners of such weirs, stating whether they are conservators or magistrates, also the names of the occupiers who may be liable for the penalties; and, if he will call the attention of the Inspectors of Fisheries to the case, and take any other steps to enforce the Law?

The Inspectors of Fisheries have been communicated with, and they have written to the Board of Conservators at Limerick for the required information. There has not been time for the receipt of their reply.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any, and what, information has been received from the Consul General of Brunei, as to the forcible seizure of the Limbang River by the Rajah of Sarawak, against the formal protest of the Sultan of Brunei, the Native Chiefs, and the Brunei Malays; and, if so, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take?

Her Majesty's Government have received no official information of the seizure of the Limbang River by the Rajah of Sarawak; but they have been informed by the North Borneo Company that news to that effect has been received. Inquiries about the report will be made by telegraph. The matters involved are complicated, and are receiving the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, If the Government would exclude from the Bill for the transfer of certain Parks to the Metropolitan Board of Works, the lands adjacent to Battersea Park, which constitute a separate estate from the Park, and which are mortgaged to the Public Works Commissioners for a sum amounting with accrued interest to about £173,000?

As the London Parks Bill stands at present, it proposes to hand over to the Metropolitan Board of Works the debt on the Battersea Park, at present amounting, with interest, to £173,000; but it also proposes to hand over to the same Body the Battersea Estate, on the security of which that money was borrowed, and which we estimate will, in a few years, produce £6,800 a-year, and we believe that would not be a bad bargain for the Metropolitan Board. But if, in Committee, it should appear to be thought better that the Government should keep the debt and the estate with it, I am authorized by the Treasury to say that we shall not resist such a change, so that, in fact, they may have it whichever way they prefer. If the latter suggestion be adopted, the financial result of the carrying of the Bill would be to hand over to the Metropolitan Board of Works, free of all debt, a property upon which has been expended, from Crown and Government grants, in respect of the acquisition of land, the construction of Westminster Bridge, and other works, sums of money amounting to a capital outlay of £500,000 in round numbers, while the annual maintenance may be taken at about £19,300 a-year, or less than 4 per cent upon the amount which has been contributed up to the present time from Imperial sources towards the cost of these Parks and other works.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that, because of the unprotected state of the decks of fishing boats, the gunwales being only a few inches in height, the estimated loss of life from these vessels by being "Washed overboard," "Struck overboard by the sail," and "Missing while alone on the deck," amounts to 50 per cent of the total loss from all causes; whether the Government intend to provide that owners of boats who neglect to provide guard-rails, and other life-saving apparatus, shall be made liable under the Employers' Liability Acts, or otherwise; and, whether this subject has been investigated by the Royal Commission on Loss of Life at Sea?

The loss of life from fishing vessels has, I am glad to say, fallen off very materially during the last few years. It is true that of the lives recently lost from fishing vessels about 50 per cent have been lost from falling, being washed, or knocked overboard. I cannot yet say what steps may be taken under the Employers' Liability Act, or otherwise, in the matter. The subject of the Employers' Liability Act has been brought to the notice of the Royal Commission on Loss of Life at Sea; but until the Report of the Royal Commission is received I am unable to say what action will be taken.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, What course the Education Department intends to adopt with reference to the scheme for the administration of Christ's Hospital, which was submitted to the Committee of Council by the Charity Commissioners in March 1886?

The course to be adopted in reference to this scheme is now under consideration.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a correct report is given, in The Freeman's Journal of the 13th December last, of a speech made by Major George Johnston, J.P., at Glenties, in the county of Donegal, on the occasion of the Plan of Campaign being adopted in that neighbourhood; and, whether the speech in question has been brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor?

The newspaper report of the speech in question was brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, who at once demanded an explanation. Major Johnston thereupon denied the language and action imputed to him, and the Lord Chancellor apprised him that he would closely observe his conduct in future. If any further reports should reach the Lord Chancellor he will at once investigate them.

Will the right hon. Baronet have any objection to bring under the notice of the Lord Chancellor any other magistrate in Ulster who within the last year delivered speeches in violation of the ordinary Criminal Law?

Anything that happened would be brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor at the time. This matter happened in December, and what the hon. Member refers to happened, I think, in June.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is intended to replace the present obsolete and decayed sheers at Pembroke by efficient sheers capable of lifting the boilers and machinery into the Aurora and Nile now building there, and any large ships which may be built there; if not, will it be the most economical course, and consistent with safety, to launch these vessels as mere shells and tow them round to other yards in a state of utter helplessness to be engined and completed?

The expense of replacing the sheers at Pembroke will be very considerable, and could not be effected in time to place the Aurora's machinery on board. The Admiralty do not feel justified in incurring the expense of new sheers solely for the Nile's machinery, being of opinion that it would be more advantageous and economical to tow the ship to Portsmouth. Such a removal it is considered can, under proper precautions, be made with perfect safety.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will lay upon the Table a Return showing the annual Revenue and Expenditure of the Office of Sasines, Edinburgh, from 1876–7 to 1886–7 (in continuation of the Return made in the year 1877)?

I stated on Tuesday last, in answer to the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. M'Ewan), that a separate account is not kept of the amount received in fees from each branch of the General Register House; and I am, therefore, unable to give the Return of the revenue and expenditure of the Sasines Office which the hon. Gentleman asks me to furnish.

asked the Secretary for Scotland, Whether, in reply to a Memorial from the inhabitants of Harris, the Under Secretary, on 9th November last, in a letter addressed to Captain Paterson, at Tarbert, of Harris, promised—

"A service of steamers which will call at Harris and connect the Island with Oban on the one hand, and Strome Ferry viâ Portree on the other;"

whether he is aware that the Postmaster General has since declined to connect Harris by steam postal service either with Oban or Strome Ferry; and, whether he will use his influence with the Postal Authorities to procure the facilities desired by the people of Harris?

In the letter referred to by the hon. Member, it was stated by my desire that arrangements were under consideration which would meet the wishes of the inhabitants of Harris in the manner indicated in tie Question; but financial difficulties have, unfortunately, arisen, which I will endeavour to remove by further communication with the Treasury.

asked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether, with regard to the 45,000,000 Boxer Martini-Henry cartridges made yearly, the cartridge cases are manufactured entirely by the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich, or whether any are made for the Government by private manufacturing firms, and if he will give the names of the firms; and, if he can state the cost per 1,000 at which they are manufactured for the Government, either by the Royal Arsenal or by a private firm?

I am informed that the whole of the rolled-case cartridges for the Martini-Henry Rifle are manufactured in the Royal Laboratory at Woolwich, and that their cost is £3 2s. per 1,000 B.S. No. 1.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to statements in the Press that Foreign Governments are largely purchasing horses for their military requirements at the various horse fairs in this country, especially in the North; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have recently purchased and are still contemplating the purchase of horses for their own military requirements in Canada and other parts of our Colonies?

I think that my hon. and gallant Friend will find that this Question has practically been already answered. The First Lord of the Treasury stated on Thursday last that Her Majesty's Government did not consider that necessity had arisen for restraining the exportation of horses; and I explained a few days ago our intention of purchasing horses in Canada, and the reasons for that measure.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether two detective officers are at present, and have been since the termination of the military occupation of Skye, acting as bodyguard to Sheriff Ivory in Edinburgh; and, if so, if he can state whether it is the city of Edinburgh or the county of Inverness that will have to bear the expense of thus protecting the sheriff from apprehended crofter violence?

, in reply, said, it was not the case that two detectives were at present, and had been, acting as a bodyguard for Sheriff Ivory in Edinburgh. That made it unnecessary for him to answer the latter part of the Question.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, What is the acreage of Brompton Cemetery; how many burials have taken place there since its establishment in 1837; what is the yearly average at the present time; and to what extent and under what conditions are coffins allowed to be placed one above the other; whether the local health statistics show that the area immediately surrounding the cemetery is far more unhealthy than any other part of West London; and whether, considering the enormous increase in recent years of population in the neighbourhood, any limit will be fixed to the number of interments; and, does the Government derive any profit from the cemetery?

Brompton Cemetery contains in ail 38 acres and 20 perches. There now remain available for future graves 4 acres and 34 perches. Since the first burial in Brompton Cemetery, in 1840 up to the 26th of February last, there have taken place 135,617 burials. The average number of burials in the last three years is, in round numbers, 5,000. The graves are of different depths, and the coffins are placed in the ground subject to restrictions laid down by the Home Office. I have not been able to ascertain the health statistics of the neighbourhood; but it is stated to me that the neighbourhood is not more unhealthy in consequence of the existence of the cemetery, which has sufficient open space about it. No limit can, unless by Act of Parliament, be fixed to the number of interments, except that each year there is less space available for the purpose. The Government does derive a profit, which was last year £7,070, from the cemetery. This is paid over to the Paymaster General.

inquired whether there were burials in old graves?

said, that interments took place according to bye-laws framed by the Home Office.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish Land Commission are taking proceedings in a large number of cases against glebe purchasers under the Irish Church Act for the purpose of foreclosing the mortgages held by the Commission for the instalments of purchase money; and, if so, whether he will state in how many cases such proceedings are pending?

, in reply, said, that the Irish Land Commissioners had informed him that there were 47 cases in which such proceedings had been taken as the hon. Member referred to.

asked if the claims of the glebe purchasers would be considered by the Government in connection with the projected legislation on the Land Question?

was understood to say that they would.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Will he state the dates of Sir George Bowen's appointment and resignation of the Government of Mauritius; the actual time he was on the island during his Government; the amount of Money he received while on leave, and while administering the Government; and, will he give similar information regarding Sir George Bowen's Governorship of Hong Hong, and the amount of pension on which Sir George Bowen retires?

It is not desirable to lay a Return upon the Table; but I will briefly give the information asked for. Sir George Bowen assumed the Government of Mauritius on the 4th of April, 1879, and received full salary (60,000 rupees per annum) from that date to the 9th of December, 1880; being in the island 20 months and six days. He was then on leave with half salary (30,000 rupees per annum) for two years. On the 9th of December, 1882, he was appointed Governor of Hong Kong; he assumed the Government on the 3rd March, 1883, and drew full pay (24,000 dols. per annum) till the 20th of December, 1885. He was granted leave on half salary (at the rate of 12,000 dols. per annum) from the 20th of December, 1885, till the 19th of June, 1887; but he will return to resume the Government of Hong Kong before the expiration of that leave. During his previous service of 29 years Sir George Bowen had had only 18 months' leave; and his leave from Mauritius and Hong Kong has been granted under strong medical certificates.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he can state the amount of money paid to the Submarine Cable Company for conveying messages from England to France and from France to England last year; also, the total amount paid to the Company for Continental messages last year?

I do not think I am in a position to give a categorical answer to the hon. Member's Question; but it may interest him to know that the Post Office received during the year 1886 on account of Anglo- French messages the sum of £37,906; and that the total earnings of the Post Office under the joint purse arrangements with the Submarine Telegraph Company were for the same year £132,223.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he can state the total amount of steel produced in the Government Factories at Woolwich in the years 1884, 1885, and 1886 respectively; and, what has been the heaviest weight of any single casting in each of those years?

said, that, before his right hon. Friend answered that Question, he should like to ask him whether the undertaking he gave the other day as to the Government employment of the steel trade applied to large ingots only, or to all the gun forgings required by the War Department?

The steel produced at Woolwich during the last three years has been as follows:—In 1883–4, 1,564tons; in 1884–5, 1,698 tons; in 1885–6, 2,279 tons. The heaviest single casting in each of the first two years was about 19 tons, and in the last year about 12 tons. In reply to the second Question, I have to state that my answer applied to forgings of all sizes; and I propose, subject to unforeseen contingencies, during the coming financial year to give to the trade nearly three-fourths of all the gun forgings which may be required.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact, as stated in The Western Daily Mercury of the 24th instant, that at the Raglan Barracks—

"an officer addressed his company in compliance with his orders, and told them frankly that he did not intend himself to give to the Imperial Institute scheme, and that they need not subscribe, if they were indisposed to do so," and that "there was not a single favourable response;"

whether the officers of the Army generally have received orders to canvass their men; whether such orders directed them to inform their men that

"they need not subscribe if they were indisposed to do so;"

and, in how many cases, where such liberty of choice has been afforded, a favourable response has been returned?

The officers of the Army have not received orders to canvass their men for subscriptions to the Imperial Institute. As to the other Questions of the hon. Member, I have no information.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could obtain such information?

said, it was not his business to ask whether officers or the Army subscribed to that or any other object.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Government propose to bring in, during this Session, a Bill enabling persons accused of crimes to give evidence in their own behalf?

The hon. and learned Member is, doubtless, aware that a Bill dealing with the matter referred to in the Question was introduced on Thursday last in the House of Lords by Lord Bramwell, and received the support of the Lord Chancellor. Her Majesty's Government hope that the Bill in question may be carried through both Houses and become law during the present Session. I wish to add that Her Majesty's Government had prepared a Bill dealing with the matter.

Did I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that it is intended that this Bill shall apply to Ireland? Because, if so, I shall oppose it in the strongest manner?

asked the Postmaster General, Is he aware that the people in the district of Grangegeith have been, and still are, paying out of their private purse the wages of a letter carrier and the rent of a post, office in their district for over eight months; will he try and hasten the inquiry so long promised by him; and, will he also say when the inquiry will be made into this matter, which is in itself a great grievance and hardship to the people of this particular district?

The facts are, I believe, accurately stated by the hon. Member. I can assure him that I shall carry out my promise to institute an inquiry into them, and I shall lose no time in communicating to him the result; but for obvious reasons it would not be desirable to announce in advance the time at which the inquiry will be made.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, The result of the inquiries promised into the confinement in a lunatic asylum for seven years of a female, alleged to be of sound mind, and whose case was recently under the notice of the Board of Guardians of Paddington Union?

(who replied) said: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer the Question. I have made inquiry, and have ascertained that the woman referred to in the Question was not an inmate of a county asylum, but of the asylum at Darenth, belonging to the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. The President of the Local Government Board has accordingly taken up the matter, and is making inquiries as to the case.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether, in view of the fact that, as lately stated by him, the price of postage of letters to India and China is only charged at the rate of 1½d. per half ounce to the Governments of France, Belgium, and Germany, whilst the price to British merchants is as high as 5d. per half ounce; any steps are being, or will be, taken to abolish this anomaly, and to reduce the rate to India and China to 2½d. per half ounce?

The low sea rate charged to foreign countries for letters carried by British Mail Packets to India and China is fixed by the Postal Union Convention; and, as a matter of reciprocity, this country has the right to send letters, on equal terms, to parts beyond sea by foreign steamers so far as they are available. The hon. Member is, perhaps, not aware that the sea conveyance is only part of the cost incurred by this country in sending letters to India and China. There is besides a foreign transit rate for the accelerated train service through France and Italy, amounting to another 1½d. per half ounce; a charge which is not incurred by either France or Italy for their own letters. The question of reducing the British postage from 5d. to 2½d. is one for the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention had been called to a report in the London Standard, of Friday, 25th February, in which is set forth a record of the proceedings of Mr. Smith, R.M., and the police under his charge, in connection with the carrying out evictions on the property of Mr. Montgomery, of Dowra, County Leitrim; whether Mr. Smith directed the police to charge with their bâtons the crowd gathered together to witness the proceedings; whether, subsequently, Mr. Smith gave orders for the police to load their rifles with buckshot, and ordered them to fire, when a number of people fell wounded; how many persons are seriously injured; whether any deaths are likely to result from injuries inflicted by the police; and, whether the Government will take steps to ensure the fullest inquiry into the whole of the proceedings?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state under what circumstances Mr. Smith, R.M., ordered an escort of police under his command to fire upon a crowd at Dowra, County Leitrim, on Thursday last; what was the injury caused by the firing; and, if any loss of life ensued?

I have obtained a full Report on this subject, and I would ask the House to allow me to quote from it at some length, as it shows the difficulties under which the police have to act on these occasions, and what is really meant by what the hon. Member (Mr. Conway) called "crowds gathered to witness the proceedings." The Sub-Sheriff of Leitrim proceeded last week, in the discharge of his duty, to carry out a small number of evictions in the neighbourhood of Dowra. Notwithstanding the fact that he was accompanied by a protecting force of 100 police, he was met by obstruction so violent and obstinate that the work occupied two days, the police on the second day being on duty for 13 hours. The mobs were composed, mainly of strangers gathered in from other districts. The stone-throwing was excessively violent—so much, so that the majority of the 100 police on duty, officers and men, were wounded more or less severely. One constable was rendered insensible for some time. On the first day there was no firing. The mob was charged by a party of bâton men. No woman or child was bâtoned. After this the crowds, though they continued stone-throwing, kept at a distance. On the second day the violent resistance was renewed, and it was greatly facilitated by the nature of the ground. After traversing a road which had been found blocked by loose stone walls and bushes, the Sheriff had to pass through a narrow defile, flanked by steep hills. The hills were occupied by parties of men, who flung volleys of stones, and hurled down large boulders, which were dashed with great force across the road. These people had to be dislodged before the Sheriff could be conducted through the defile; and this was done with difficulty, after the Riot Act had been read, but not until one round of buckshot had been fired. Later on, in order to reach, one of the houses, the Sheriff and his party had to ascend a very steep hill, when they were so violently assailed by the mob that it was found impossible to proceed until after 12 shots had been fired by the police. The crowds then moved off and commenced to reconstruct the barricades on the road by which, it was thought the police would return. The order to fire was only given as a last resort. Without it the execution of the writs must have been abandoned. It is not easy to get accurate information as to the result of the firing; but it is believed by the police that two persons were wounded, one badly. If any statement on this subject calling for inquiry is brought under my notice, inquiry shall be made. But at present I prefer to believe the Report from which I have quoted to newspaper gossip; and, judging from that, it is my opinion that the officers and men employed on this service did their duty well.

asked the right hon. gentleman to state whether, according to the medical evidence, the police were really injured, or whether it was only bogus?

asked if the right hon. Gentleman had taken steps to ascertain how many persons had been injured, and killed, and wounded?

said, he had already answered that, so far as the police had been able to ascertain, two persons had been wounded.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention had been drawn to the following cablegram:—

"New York, Feb. 24.—A Convention of smack-owners and others connected with the fishing interest has met at Gloucester, Massachusetts, and adopted Resolutions in favour of retaliatory measures against Canada."—Reuter;

and, whether any measures are being taken by the Government to reconcile the differences existing between the United States of America and Great Britain on this Fishery Question?

I am aware of the paragraph quoted by the hon. Member, and of other news showing the strong feeling entertained in the United States in regard to the Canadian Fishery Question. Her Majesty's Government are giving to the subject the earnest attention which the importance of the matter requires.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been drawn to the present unsatisfactory arrangements for coaling British ships of war in the Seychelles; whether this was pointed out by the late General Gordon in his Report upon the defences of the Seychelles; whether the agent for the Messageries Maritimes is also Consular Agent for France; whether, as agent to the Messageries, he commands nearly a monopoly of the coaling wharves; whether, in consequence of the decision of the Directors of the Messageries to make the Seychelles their tête de ligne in these waters on the Australian route, the agent has applied that the space between the coal island and that on the main pier should be filled in and let to the Messageries Maritimes; and, what measures the Admiralty intend taking to prevent a coaling monopoly in those islands being formed under foreign guidance and control?

My attention has not been specially drawn to the point referred to in this Question, but inquiries will be made into the subject. General Gordon's Report being confidential, I am not at liberty to refer to it. The Consular Agent for France is also agent for the Messageries Maritimes, and as the only coal importer he has practically a monopoly. This application should be made to the Colonial Office or to the Local Authorities, as we have no information on the subject. Pending an inquiry into the subject, I am unable to say what steps it may be proposed to take in the matter.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at Kilgarvan, County Kerry, on the 9th instant, a poor man named Samuel Downing was fired at by a Captain Taylor and his son, and brutally beaten by Captain Taylor with his gun, who left him (Downing) insensible on the road; whether the authorities have taken any steps for the arrest of Taylor and his son; whether the presiding magistrate at Kilgarvan Petty Sessions Court, on 15th instant, refused to grant informations; and, whether a magistrate of the county (in Kenmare) refused to grant Downing information or a warrant for their (Taylors') arrest, although a gentleman well-known to the magistrate said he would make an affidavit that Taylor absconded?

The circumstances, which are not accurately described in the Question, are about to form the subject of judicial investigation, as the police have received instructions to prosecute Captain Taylor for assault in the event of Downing failing to proceed himself. I cannot, therefore, make any detailed statement on the subject at present.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a telegram from Mr. H. M. Stanley, dated Zanzibar, 24th February, published in The Times of Friday, in which it is alleged that Portugal has seized upon a portion of the Zanzibar Coast, which a Commission had recently adjudicated to Seyyid Bargash in return for the surrender of important rights in the interior to England and Germany; that a steamer belonging to the Sultan had been seized and converted into a Portuguese transport; and that the Bombay Mail, carried by the Sultan's steamer Malacca, was detained, the Captain fearing capture by a Portuguese cruiser; and whether he can give the House any information on the matter; whether it is true, as stated, that Portuguese subjects at Zanzibar have been taken under the protection of Germany; and, whether any steps have been taken for the protection of British subjects and interests?

It is true that the Portuguese Government have seized upon a portion of the African Coast held since 1854 by the Sultans of Muscat and Zanzibar. It is not quite correct to say that a Commission had recently adjudicated that territory to His Highness. A Commission consisting of Representatives of England, France, and Germany, found that the territory in question was held by the Sultan and reported accordingly; but this declaration was not in return for the surrender of rights in the interior. A steamer belonging to the Sultan has been seized by them and converted into a Portuguese transport. The Portuguese Government have sent orders to their naval commander not to interfere with any Zanzibar vessels except those carrying arms or munitions to Tungi. It is, therefore, understood that the mail steamer will not be interfered with. It is true that Portuguese subjects at Zanzibar have been taken under the protection of Germany. British subjects and interests are protected by Her Majesty's Consul, and by Her Majesty's ships on the Station, but trade is inevitably impeded by the state of affairs. Her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with that of Germany, are taking steps at Lisbon and Zanzibar which they hope will lead to an amicable solution of the difficulty.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government question the legality of the purpose announced in the placard convening the Coolgreany meeting; whether he an cite any judicial decision establishing the right of the Lord Lieutenant, at common law, to prohibit the holding of such a meeting; and, if not, whether he can say upon what authority it is intended that the Lord Lieutenant possesses such a power; whether the attendance of Sir Thomas Esmonde at a public meeting on the day appointed for the Coolgreany meeting was the sole cause of his removal from the office of High Sheriff of Waterford; when the Lords Justices who superseded Sir Thomas Esmonde were sworn into office; when they inquired into the case of Sir Thomas Esmonde; when the order for his supercession was made and issued; when the order for the appointment of his successor was made and issued; when and where Colonel Hillier was sworn into office; and, whether any communication was made to Sir Thomas Esmonde inviting him to explain the circumstances which led to his supercession?

The Coolgreany meeting was not pro claimed on account of any tiling in the placard convening the meeting, but on account of what the Government had good reason to believe was the object and would be the effect of it, and what took place in the attempt to hold it put that beyond doubt. Judges have repeatedly laid down that an unlawful assembly may be dispersed by the conservators of the public peace, and Proclamations have frequently been issued by successive Lord Lieutenants warning persons against attending such meetings and of the consequences of their doing so. The Lords Justices removed Sir Thomas Esmonde for the reasons stated in their letter, which referred to previous conduct as well as to his attendance at these meetings. They were sworn into office early in the morning of the 21st instant, and inquired fully into the case as it stood in connection with the events of the preceding day. The office of High Sheriff is held "during pleasure," and can be determined at any time. When a new High Sheriff is appointed there is never any separate order for the supercession of his predecessor. The order for the appointment of Colonel Hillier was made on the 21st instant, and he was sworn into office the next day in Dublin according to law. No communication was made to Sir Thomas Esmonde beyond that which was published.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman could give any precedent for the removal of a High Sheriff by Lords Justices and not by the Lord Lieutenant, and any precedent for the supercession of a High Sheriff without previous notice or invitation to him to explain his conduct?

It is impossible for me to give an answer without Notice.

asked whether the frequent proclamations of meetings to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred were not all issued under statute—that was to say, under the Crimes Act; and whether the proclamations which had been issued by the late Liberal Government had not been issued under the provisions of the statute?

No, Sir. Proclamations have been issued when the Crimes Act was not in force.

What were the dates?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether a Memorial has been received from British Honduras, praying that the present Governor be not again sent back to that Colony; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take in the matter?

No such Memorial has been received.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Mr. Clifford Lloyd has left the Seychelles, and is now in this country; and, whether he still occupies the post of Governor at the Seychelles, or whether his services have been dispensed with; and, if so, on what grounds?

Mr. Clifford Lloyd never went to the Seychelles, having left Mauritius for England on sick leave before the Secretary of State's despatch appointing him to act as Chief Civil Commissioner of Seychelles reached Mauritius. He is now in this country. He has never occupied the post referred to, having remained in England on leave since his return from Mauritius. The Chief Civil Commissioner, whose place it was intended last year that he should temporarily fill, will shortly resume the duties of this office, and Mr. Lloyd's services will not be required.

asked whether Mr. Clifford Lloyd had come home in connection with the removal of the late Governor of Mauritius?

No, Sir; he has not. He has come here on sick leave.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Dog Tax is at present evaded in the great majority of cases; whether he will undertake to remove the existing exemption from it—

"of dogs kept solely for the purpose of tending sheep or cattle on a farm and by shepherds;"

and, whether, for the protection of the public and in the interests of the Exchequer, he will consider the advisability of increasing the Tax to 10s.

In answer to the first part of the Question I should not say that the Dog Tax is evaded in the great majority of cases, although, doubtless, there is much evasion. I cannot undertake to comply with the request contained in the second part of the Question. With reference to the third part of the Question, I have to say that I am not prepared to advise an increase of the tax to 10s. The hon. Member also sent me private Notice of the following Question:—Whether anumbered metal-ticket should not accompany every dog licence, and owners be compelled to attach this ticket to the collars of their dogs? I am not prepared, upon such short notice, to agree to such a suggestion as this; but I may say that I think the practice which the hon. Member advocates would be very inconvenient both to owners and dogs.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is a fact that the Board has declined to accept or recognize the reasons set forth in an unanimous Resolution of the Macroom Board of Guardians on the 29th January for changing the accounts of the Union from the National Bank (Limited) to the Munster and Leinster Bank (Limited), and whether the Board are now prepared to sanction such a change; what were the reasons which actuated the Local Government Board in refusing to sanction the change of treasurership; whether it is a fact that the National Bank dishonoured the cheques presented by the Union at first, when their overdraft did not exceed £1,493 1s. 5d., and, secondly, when the overdraft was diminished to £1,077 6s. 1d.; whether such action on the part of the said bank has seriously embarrassed the Union for several months, most of the officials and contractors not having been paid for several months; whether several of the contractors have threatened to discontinue supplies; whether the Munster and Leinster Bank offered the Union accommodation to the extent of £2,000; and, whether the Local Government Board will see fit to sanction and promote the change of treasurer in the said Union?

(who replied) said: This Question only appeared on Saturday, and the required information has, therefore, not yet been received from the Clerk of the Union at Macroom.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a report which appeared in The Belfast Morning News, of the 22nd February, of a meeting of the Banbridge Board of Guardians, held on the previous day; whether a relieving officer named Beck reported to the Board that he had been served with eight notices of intended evictions on the estate of Earl Annesley, and that he had not been informed of the date on which, the evictions would take place; whether several weeks often elapse between the service of notice on the relieving officer and the execution of ejectment degree by the Sheriff; and, whether the Government will require reasonable notice to be given to the relieving officer of the day appointed for carrying out those evictions, or if some other provision will be made to secure support and habitation for the tenants and their families pending their return to their homes?

I have to thank the hon. Member for having been good enough to send me a copy of the newspaper report to which he refers. I am not aware of any reason to doubt its accuracy; but the hon. Member did not give such notice of the Question as would have enabled me to confirm it by local inquiry. Assuming it to be correct, I am glad to see that the Guardians and the relieving officer appear to be fully alive to their duties and responsibilities in the event of relief being required by any evicted persons. I have no information before me to show that a change in the law is required, or that where Boards of Guardians and their officers are acting in the discharge of their duties the objects of the statute passed for the protection and relief of the evicted poor are not attained.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Report of the Royal Commissioners, presented to Parliament on 8th February 1882, recommended that the Commissioners of Public Works of Ireland should carry on their operations on the Shannon with a view primarily to the drainage of the country; whether the Canal, under the control of the Commissioners, leading from the Harbour of Lecarrow, County Rosecommon, to Lough Kee is a portion of the Shannon Drainage and Navigation Works; whether it has been allowed to be choked up with weeds and silted mud to the detriment of riparian owners and tenants; and, whether he will call the attention of the Commissioner of Public Works to the subject?

Lord Monck's Commission recommended that the Shannon should remain under the care of the Commissioners of Public Works, who, while maintaining the navigation should regulate the depth of water, so far as might be in their power, with a view primarily to the drainage of the country. This recommendation is, and has been, most scrupulously attended to. The Lecarrow Canal was constructed by the Shannon Commissioners as a temporary measure and solely for facilitating the execution of the works, but was treated for a few years as part of the navigation. There being no traffic, it was given up 15 years ago, and is now in great part choked with weeds and silted. I have communicated with the Commissioners of Public Works and learn that, the water surface being on a level with Lough Kee, the riparian owners and tenants could not be benefited unless Lough Kee were lowered, and this could not be done, looking to the necessity of insuring the preservation of the legal navigation depth, without incurring enormous expenditure.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether Her Majesty's Government will accept the introduction of a Clause into the Merchandize Marks Act (1862) Amendment Bill exempting watch cases from the compulsory obligation of assay in the United Kingdom, as recommended by Mr. Prideaux, Clerk of the Goldsmiths' Company of London, in his evidence before the Select Company of Hail-Marking (1878–9); and, whether Her Majesty's Government will confer with the Goldsmiths' Company of London before proceeding with the Bill, especially with reference to the results to the watch-making industry to be expected from the passing of the measure in its present form?

The particular question raised by the hon. Member can properly be discussed when the Bill is in Committee. I may say, however, that the Board of Trade have been, and are in communication with the Goldsmiths' Company as regards the Watch Clause of the Bill; and that, as at present advised, they do not see their way to exempting watch cases from the provisions of the law as regards hallmarking.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce at an early date a Bill for facilitating the acquisition of allotments by agricultural labourers?

It is the intention of the Government to introduce a measure of this character as soon as the state of Public Business will allow.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is intended to hold a Special Service in Westminster Abbey on Monday the 20th of June, in commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the accession of the Queen, and if he will recommend to Her Majesty to direct the Archbishops and Bishops to prepare a special form of thanksgiving and prayer for that occasion for general use throughout England and Wales, and also take steps to secure the observance of the day as a general holiday?

In answer to a question which last week I asked the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow (Mr. Corbett) to postpone till I could consult my Colleagues, and also in answer to the present Question, I wish to state that Her Majesty has been pleased to express her pleasure to attend a Thanksgiving Service on Tuesday, the 21st of June, at Westminster Abbey, and arrangements fitting for the occasion will be made. It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to recommend that the day shall be observed as a national holiday.

May I ask if the Government would request the hon. Gentleman to facilitate this laudable purpose by producing a prayer of his own?

Order, order!

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, When the Government intend to move for a Committee to refer the Army and Navy Estimates for examination and report; what the constitution of the Committee is to be; and, whether a Select or Standing Committee?

After the first Votes have been, taken the Army and Navy Estimates will be referred to a Select Committee, which will have power to send for persons and records and to take evidence. My right hon. Friend, in introducing the Estimates of the above-mentioned Departments, will state to the House what the constitution of the Committee will be.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that diplomatic relations with the Government of Venezuela have been suspended?

It is the case that Her Majesty's Government received intelligence that diplomatic relations would be suspended between Her Majesty's Government and the Republic of Venezuela on the 21st instant. We understand that the cause of the suspension is stated to be the difference about the frontier between British Guiana and Venezuela.

said, It is the intention of the Government to put down the Rules of Procedure for consideration to-morrow. I am not yet in a position to offer facilities for the discussion of any other subjects, however important, and I must decline to enter into engagements which I may not be able to fulfil.

Sir, I gave you Notice of a Motion which I proposed to submit on the Motion that you leave the Chair for the purpose of enabling the House to go into Committee of Supply. I do not find my Notice on the Paper, and, therefore, I wish to know whether you have ruled it to be out of Order?

This being a Monday, and the first Order of the day being for the consideration of Supplementary Estimates in Committee of Supply, it will be my duty the moment the Order is read to leave the Chair, without putting the Question.

Shall I have any other opportunity of bringing the Motion forward?

The hon. Member will have an opportunity of moving the Resolution of which he has given Notice when the regular Estimates come on.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the accounts of the proceedings in St. Paul's Cathedral yesterday have been brought under his notice; and, if so, whether he will give such orders to the police, as will, in future, prevent the recurrence of such disgraceful scenes?

I have seen the newspaper accounts of what took place in St. Paul's yesterday. Those accounts appear to me to be considerably exaggerated. From an interview I have had to-day with one of the officers of the City Police, who are not under my jurisdiction, I have no doubt that in future they will act vigorously in order to prevent any recurrence of the disturbance.

I have no desire to detain the Committee on this Vote, which is a Vote for the repairs of Marlborough House. The expenditure in the repairs of Marlborough House have, in some years, been very large indeed, and there is no good reason now for this supplementary increase; but my real desire is to secure that all the items connected with the cost of the Royal Family shall, in future, be placed under one head, so that the total may be easily and certainly known, and that the various items shall not be distributed in different parts of the Estimates, and only discoverable with official knowledge.

I understand that this item is for the repairs of Marlborough House. Now, Marlborough House is occupied by the Prince of Wales, and I want to know why the Prince of Wales does not undertake the repairs of his own house himself?

I wish to ask, whether, as a matter of fact, there are not some surpluses under other sub-heads in connection with this Vote which ought to render this expenditure unnecessary?

As the Committee are aware, this sum is asked for in connection with the works which have been undertaken for improving the drainage of the Houses of Parliament, and the work is being carried out in accordance with the Report of a Committee which sat last year to inquire into the sanitary arrangements of the House.

Then the sum asked for is only in respect of this Vote. Before entering into the Supplementary Estimates, I think it should be incumbent on the Government to make a complete statement in regard to the whole Vote, as far as the different sub-heads are concerned. I am not objecting to this charge; but I only ask whether there may not have been savings under other heads which might be utilized in reduction of these charges?

The total cost of the drainage works is £20,675; but there has been a saving under other sub-heads from which the balance of expenditure of the current year can be met; principally in connection with works for the restoration of Westminster Hall, in regard to which there will be a saving of £7,000. £5,000 will be included in next year's Estimates, and will complete the cost of the drainage works.

I think that, in a case of this kind, the real facts ought to be laid before the Committee. The Committee votes certain sums of money to be appropriated for specific purposes. For two years in succession several thousands of pounds have been voted for the restoration of Westminster Hall; but, when something else turned up, the Government have considered themselves entitled to stay the work in Westminster Hall, and spend the money for some other object that has not been authorized by Parliament. I cannot help thinking that that is a very bad system; and, if I had not made the inquiry, the fact would not have been brought out now.

The hon. Member is quite right; but I did not understand what his inquiry really was. It has been considered that this is the most convenient way of dealing with the matter. The works in connection with Westminster Hall were stayed in consequence of delays in the decisions of the House of Commons on the subject; and we have applied the money to other works which it was necessary to undertake at once. Among the other works undertaken have been the construction of a corridor which forms a new approach to the Strangers' Gallery, and which has cost £1,500. We have also supplied additional lockers for the use of hon. Members. They have often been asked for, and we have now made further provision in that respect, at a cost of £460, and there have been some slight improvements in the Reporters' Gallery.

I should like to know whether the drainage is now working properly, and is likely to stave off the prospects of fever and those other disagreeable consequences we were threatened with last year. If that is so, I do not think the House of Commons will grudge the money; but, at the same time, I think this plan of voting money for one thing and doing something else with it after it has been voted, is a very unsatisfactory one.

I should like to know how many additional lockers are to be given to Members of this House?

We propose to supply as many as we can find space for, and the cost is estimated at £460.

My object in asking the Question was to divide the sum voted by the number of lockers provided, in order that I might find out what the cost of each locker is.

I can assure the hon. Member that these lockers are very expensive, and I have had a hard struggle with the Treasury, under the pressure of the House, to obtain leave to make them. I do not think it possible to make them more economically than we are doing. As regards the Question put by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) I believe that the works are being carried out in a perfectly satisfactory manner.

As Chairman of the Committee which has considered the subject of the drainage of the House, I may say that I believe the House will be thoroughly satisfied with the work which has been done. It has been done in a completely workmanlike manner, and in my opinion the House will not suffer as it did last year. I certainly trust the Committee will see the desirability of voting this sum. I am quite sure that it is money well spent.

When we were considering this Vote last year, I drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the disadvantageous position in which Members of this House were placed as to the hearing of the House. I think I am in Order in referring to that subject now.

The hon. Gentleman will only be in Order in referring to the items under discussion now.

I understood that this Vote was the result of several Votes not set forth in the Estimate.

The discussion has been upon the item included in the Vote for the drainage scheme.

We have now under consideration a Supplementary Estimate for new works and alterations connected with the Houses of Parliament. I can certainly say, speaking as a private Member knowing a little about sanitary arrangements, that there is an immense amount of money spent upon these buildings, and with very little effect. The state of the House was found at the commencement of the Session to be very far from satisfactory. Upon one evening when the House was sitting a fog got into the building, which was so bad and so dense that I may legitimately refer to it as a November fog. I never saw a fog in the month of November worse than the fog which prevailed in this Chamber on the occasion to which I refer. I know that it was impossible at this end of the House to see the Speaker in the Chair, and I am afraid that the fogginess of the atmosphere may also have tended to obscure the intellect of the speakers. Therefore, I think that when we are asked to consider a Vote like this—a Supplementary Vote—and when we know the immense amount of money which has been and is being spent on the Houses of Parliament, we have a right to complain when we find matters so unsatisfactory as they have been. We ought not to ask the House to throw away the money of the taxpayers. Anybody who has ever looked into the subject—anybody who has seen proper appliances in connection with the filtration of the air and the atmosphere in other great public buildings, knows that the atmosphere can be rendered perfectly pure, and deprived of all those particles which we have here floating about us night after night. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh; but I am afraid they are not thoroughly acquainted with the subject. I will put before the House an actual case in connection with one of the largest hospitals of Paris, the "Maison de Dieu." In that hospital the air is filtered through successive layers of cotton wool. Not long ago I was speaking with a gentleman of intelligence upon the subject, and he stated that a London fog could be thoroughly filtered in this House, and deprived of all its fogginess. What I complain of is that we are asked to come down here night after night, to take into consideration the expenditure of large sums of money without any practical result, and I am afraid that we are making ourselves a laughing-stock not merely for England, but for the world at large. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. They are perfectly welcome to laugh and jeer at my observations; but I think that we ought to be here for some practical purpose, and that practical purpose, if we are to spend the Public Money, should be in return to secure that we have some value for it. What I maintain is, that we get no value for our money. The smells in this House are so bad, that only the other night I heard 12 or 14 Members complain bitterly of the horrible state of affairs, especially in regard to the galleries leading to the tea room. There is a powerful stench still existing there, which ought to be done away with at once, and if this Vote is pressed, I for one am prepared to go into the Lobby against it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman who has the conduct of these Votes to make some statement as to what the actual state of affairs is, and what is proposed to be done. I have no desire to weary the House, and I thank it for its indulgence.

I can only promise the hon. Member that if he will suggest to me how the evil he complains of can be remedied, I will have the matter inquired into. So far as the drainage works are concerned, for which the Vote is now asked, all I can say is that the works have been carried out to the entire satisfaction of Members in all parts of the House. Personally, I know of no plan of filtering the air which would prevent a fog from entering the House.

The right hon. Gentleman has stated that, according to his belief, these works are being carried on satisfactorily and with due regard to economy. I should like to know if they have been carried out by contract under specifications in due form similar to those which are made upon works of a similar nature are undertaken, outside this House.

Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman (Mr.Plunket) that I did actually put a case in point in which the air has been filtered through successive layers of cotton wool, which are taken out and renewed every three or four days. Seeing then that what I suggest is already done elsewhere, I think the matter is one which deserves the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman.

I have no wish to object to this Vote; but I should like to put the same question in regard to it, which I put in reference to the other, I want the right hon. Gentleman to state the condition of the sub-heads of the Vote, as it is not specified or set forth in this Estimate, As far as I have been able to ascertain, by a hasty reference to the accounts for the previous year, I find that there is a similar irregularity in regard to this Vote. A large number of Works are set forth as necessary and as about to be undertaken at once, and generally there is an appropriation of money for works which are not touched at all in the financial year. No doubt the sums have been voted; but the money has been applied to other works which have never been before Parliament at all; but which have been taken in hand on the authority of the Treasury and money spent on them which has never been obtained from Parliament. In 1884–5 there was an excess in various items in that way, which amounted to £6,700; and if that were taken from the amount of £9,275 asked for now the Vote would have been reduced to £2,500. That would be the entire sum for which the Treasury would have any occasion to draw. Therefore, I ask upon this Vote, as upon the previous one, for some explanation of the real condition of the services for which the Vote is asked.

This Vote covers a special grant for the Mint, and thus affords me an opportunity of saying a few words as to the regulations of the Mint and their effect upon the coinage.

The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the building of the Mint, not to the regulations of the Mint.

There is one point upon which I should like to ask for information. I see that these Estimates show a considerable amount of excess. Under sub-head E there is an item of £1,400 for the extra cost of gas, and it is stated in an explanatory note at the foot that "the cost of gas was greatly under-estimated," I should like to know what system is adopted in regard to forming this calculation for the year for this purpose, because I think that an average estimate might be accurately formed every year. This is a matter in which a very large excess seems to have been incurred; and I wish to know from my right hon. Friend what the system is that is adopted, because I do not remember an excess of this kind in such an item before.

I believe the explanation of this excess is a very simple one. Of course, it is not difficult to estimate the cost of gas if we are to judge by the experience of different years. The simple explanation of this excess is, that the gas in some of the public buildings, owing to a fear of outrage or attack on them, has been kept alight nearly all night throughout the year, which was not the case in previous years.

I perceive that a sum of £3,000 is required for works at Dover House and buildings in Whitehall, Surely that is a very large sum to be expended in improving Dover House. There has been some discussion on previous occasions in regard to the unsatisfactory position of Dover House: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that at last, after the expenditure of this additional sum of £3,000, Dover House will be placed in a proper and satisfactory condition; and that adequate protection will in future be afforded to the Secretary for Scotland, the Lord Advocate, and the officials connected with the Scotch Department.

Dover House, when taken over by the Scotch Office, was found to be most defective as regards drainage, and there were constant and very loud complaints on the subject. For instance, it was found that the drain was connected with another drain in the covered way under the Treasury, which was of a very old pattern, and in a very bad state indeed. Those who have passed along that passage must have noticed the bad smells which proceeded from it. It was ultimately discovered that the Dover House drain went into it, and that it was not in working order at all. The works which have since been undertaken in connection with Dover House have been expensive, but they are intended to place that building in a proper condition both with regard to drainage and all other matters.

There is an item in this Vote of £840 for alterations, &c, at the residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think it would be satisfactory to the Committee if we were supplied with some particulars, or had some accurate information given to us in respect to the manner in which this expenditure has been incurred. I believe that for some years past no Chancellor of the Exchequer has resided at this official residence, and this is certainly a large sum of money to be voted away for alterations. It must also be remembered that this is only a Supplementary Estimate, and I should like to know what other sum has been expended for this purpose. When sums of money so large and extravagant are brought forward in the Supplementary Estimates, the Committee ought certainly to be supplied with full particulars. As a private individual, I should like to have some information as to how this expenditure has been incurred—for instance, whether the money has been actually paid away, or is only about to be spent in the ornamentation of the building.

There is another item in this Vote—namely, a sum of £1,400 for works connected with the transfer of the Seamen's Registry to the Custom House. I should like to have an explanation of that item. It appears to me that the contractors, or persons engaged in carrying out works of this nature, who get contracts from the Treasury, are able to fix their own terms; and it would certainly seem that the system of inviting tenders by the Treasury is altogether at fault. I am told that it is only those persons whose names are down on a list who are invited to send in tenders. That may not be a corrupt system, but I think it is a mistaken one, and it is altogether unfair to the public. I think, in a matter of this kind, when public works are being carried out, that the Government should submit their contracts to the whole nation, so that all persons should have an opportunity of competing. I believe that if that were done the Estimates would be very materially reduced. The system of keeping a list, and receiving tenders from specially favoured persons only, is a system which leads to gross extravagance, and ought to be put a stop to.

In regard to the residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I may say that when the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland occupied that position, he proposed to live in the house in Downing Street, which had not for some time previously been used as an official residence; and it was, therefore, found necessary to undertake certain alterations, which alterations have been carried out. The work has been done as economically as possible; but it was not possible to include this item in the Estimates of last year. It is, therefore, necessary to insert it in the Supplementary Estimates now brought forward. In regard to the question of the transfer of the Seamen's Registry to the Custom House, I think I can also give a satisfactory explanation to the Committee of that matter. The nation has, in fact, made a very good bargain. The sum included in the Vote is £1,400; but this expenditure, by providing accommodation for the Registry in the Custom House, has given a clear profit of £98,000 to the country, by enabling it to sell the old building. In regard to the tenders sent in for Government contracts, I believe that a general competition is invariably invited, and the Government never refuse any respectable firm the liberty of tendering. When the tenders have been sent in, they are carefully gone through, and the Government almost always accept the lowest that may be submitted by a solvent firm.

I should like to have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to the other sub-heads in this Vote?

The Vote includes the sum of £160 for the Stationery Office, and that work is complete. Then there is a sum of £3,000 for sanitary works required chiefly in connection with Dover House, and certain buildings in Whitehall. That also is complete. The other items are £1,400 for works connected with the transfer of the Seamen's Registry to the Custom House; £840 for alterations in the residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; £300 for providing protection from fire for the Exchequer Chamber, Edinburgh; and £775 for improved accommodation for the Fisheries' Inspectors in connection with the Board of Trade. The whole of those works have been completed.

The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I did not ask him whether the work was complete or incomplete, so far as these separate items are concerned; but what I desire to ascertain is the condition of the different sub-heads of the Vote A, B, C, D, and so on. In some of these items Supplementary Votes are asked for, but there have been economies effected in reference to others which I think ought to be set off against them.

I am afraid I have not got the information which my hon. Friend asks for in regard to the subheads mentioned in this Vote. If, however, there is any surplus, it must, of necessity, be surrendered every year.

In theory what the hon. Gentleman says is the case; but in practice it is altogether different. The balance is not always certain, and it by no means follows because Supplementary Estimates are asked for, that the Treasury has not enough money in hand to supply all its wants. We had a notable instance of that before the Committee of Public Accounts last year, when it was found that instead of wanting £7,000, there were actually savings of £10,000 on one head and £20,000 on another.

In reference to the item for the alterations in connection with the residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mouth Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) was the last Chancellor who lived in that residence. As to the item of £300 to protect the Exchequer Chamber in Edinburgh from fire, I should like to know how it is that offices in particular localities can get these sums of money spent upon them, while in other places no such provision is made at all. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, that the Exchequer Chamber in Dublin has a very valuable library attached to it containing a large number of books that are priceless in value, and it would be most deplorable if anything were to happen to them. It would appear that the Exchequer Chamber in Edinburgh is able to secure a grant of public money for protection from fire; but in other parts of the Kingdom no such protection is afforded. I want to know why that is so, because I believe that in Dublin if a fire were to break out, books worth many thousands of pounds would be at the mercy of the fire brigade. I should like to have a guarantee from the Government that they will look into this matter in connection with all the Law Courts and places where books of value are deposited.

The explanation of this item is that it has been found necessary to provide fire-proof rooms for the valuable records now in the Exchequer Office in Edinburgh. This work was recommended to be done in the year 1882–3. So far as the Law Library in Dublin is concerned, I presume that no similar representation was made in that year to the proper authorities in Ireland. I have nothing to do with it in my Office, but I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member that it would be most deplorable if the valuable library he has mentioned were to be destroyed by fire, through carelessness, or from any other cause.

I would press upon the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury the importance of the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny) as to the manner in which these contracts are issued. As I understand, the method pursued by the Treasury is this—they have a certain number of firms on their list, and the members of those firms have an opportunity of tendering for public work. I should say, judging from the extravagant rate at which all the public works of this country are maintained, that that is a valuable monopoly to the persons who possess it. Some time ago, a gentleman came to me—a contractor—and told me that some official in the Treasury had removed his name from the list of contractors. He represented the case as a very hard one. The person of whom he complained was not the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but I think it was his Predecessor in Office, and the man stated that in consequence of having been taken off the list of contractors he was deprived of the greater part of his income. Now, there can be no doubt that the reason why this privilege was worth so much to him was that the Government work is done at a very extravagant rate, and that only a certain number of persons are allowed to compete for it. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if there is any objection whatever against opening up these public contracts to every firm who is able to compete for them? If the Government have any doubt as to the solvency of any particular firm who may tender for a contract, they could easily make inquiry, and compel the contractors to give solvent bail. I think it a most unbusinesslike proceeding to make a sort of select list of contractors, and by that means prevent the general body of the public from having any opportunity of tendering. The right hon. Gentleman has already, I understand, agreed to reconsider the manner in which the public advertisements are given at the present moment to a select coterie of newspapers. I shall be happy if the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make a similar announcement with regard to tenders for contracts.

The practice where the contract exceeds £500 is to advertise for tenders, except in a few special cases—such, for instance, as the works now being carried on in connection with the Houses of Parliament for drainage and other improvements. In such cases as that the work is put up to competition among a few very well-known firms; but, as a rule, in any contract involving an expenditure of over £500 there is an advertisement inserted in the newspapers inviting competition.

I would point out to the hon. Member that the question of advertising the tenders rests with the Treasury.

I really cannot altogether understand what is the use of repairing a house for gentlemen who never live there. We have been told that the last two Chancellors of the Exchequer have not resided at this official residence; and I understand that the present right hon. Gentleman who adorns that high and exalted position has another residence which he prefers. Therefore, I do not see the necessity of bringing on this Estimate now for doing work which is not required, and making the public pay for what is practically of no use whatever. Then, again, the last sub-head is somewhat singularly drawn up. It is an item of £1,400 for fuel and light, and then in a foot-note there are these words—"The cost of gas was greatly under-estimated." Surely when right hon. Gentlemen assume the position of Secretaries of State and Ministers of the Crown they ought to enter upon their duties in a businesslike way, and ought not to tax the country in the manner we find they are doing. Such an item as this, if submitted in connection with any public building in the City of London, would certainly not be tolerated without a protest. I ask for some clear explanation of this subhead "fuel and light," and why the cost of gas was "greatly under-estimated?"

I think that all the items included in these sub-heads ought to undergo careful consideration. It is difficult to understand how the Departments have been so much out in their calculation of the Estimates as originally framed.

There is an item in Sub-head E of £775 for improved accommodation for Fisheries Inspectors in connection with the Board of Trade. This item seems to me to apply to the Inspectors of Fisheries appointed under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 92. In my opinion such Fishery Inspectors are a wholly useless and valueless body of men; and their salaries, together with the expenses of the office, have more than devoured all the revenue derived from the fisheries. Under these circumstances, it is a matter of surprise to find that money is now asked for to provide Inspectors with improved accommodation. I trust that I may succeed in eliciting some information as to these Inspectors from the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant.

This item refers entirely to offices in Great Britain, and not to the Irish Office.

I wish to know whether the Vote includes accommodation for the Irish Inspectors?

It has nothing to do with the Irish fisheries at all.

As there are a number of Scotch Representatives, I think they ought to ask for some information in respect of the constitution of the Fishery Board in Scotland.

Order, order! There is no reference in this Vote to the Fishery Board in Scotland.

I never like to propose the reduction of a Vote unless I feel that there is a very substantial ground for it; but I think that in regard to this Vote there is ground of a most substantial kind for asking the Committee to reject it altogether. The Vote as it stood originally in the Supplementary Estimates amounted to £374. Since then there has been a further paper circulated stating that that was a mistake, and that the sum required is £800. I do not allude to that fact, except so far as it illustrates the uncertainty of the position of the Treasury in regard to the Public Services. The ground on which I object to this Vote altogether is that a very serious irregularity has been committed by the Treasury in connection with it—an irregularity, as far as I can ascertain, which is absolutely without defence or explanation. Now, Sir, in the Vote for 1884–5 there was a surplus of £22,241, which ought to have been surrendered to the Exchequer. Of that £22,241, £17,000 were, in fact, surrendered; but £5,241 remains in the hands of the Department with the sanction of the Treasury. That is a course which is at once unusual and seriously irregular. The Treasury has no right to keep over from one financial year to another admitted balances on any one of these Votes. The surrender of this money—£5,241, which the Committee will see is very far in excess of the Supplementary sum now asked for—was promised by the Treasury in March last year. In July the Paymaster General stated that he then had sufficient cash in hand to enable him to make the surrender; and he desired instructions from the Treasury as to whether he should, in compliance with the law, pay over the amount or not. But no surrender was made or ordered by the Treasury. In September or October the Department over which the First Commissioner of Works now presides asked the Treasury what they were to do with the money; and on the 26th of October last, or up to that date, the Treasury still refused to acquiesce in the surrender of it, and said the money would be kept until it had been ascertained what amount it would be necessary to ask Parliament to vote in a Supplementary Estimate on account of the Service in the present Spring—that is to say, at the time at which we have now arrived. The Treasury—I do not know on what ground, for I do not think there is a precedent for such, a proceeding—persisted in retaining in its hands this sum of £5,241. It is perfectly clear that no alteration of the balance of the Vote of 1884–5 can lawfully be appropriated, either for the service of the financial year for which these Supplementary Estimates are being taken, or for the financial year we are now about to deal with. The money has been improperly and, as I think, illegally detained by the Treasury; and, having this sum in their hands, they now come down to the House of Commons and ask, first of all, for £374 for the new Admiralty and War Offices, and then for a sum of £800. It is quite clear that in this matter the Treasury have acted, not only in an unusual manner, but in a manner evidently irregular and illegal. Under these circumstances, I shall oppose the granting of the Vote.

I should like to have some information in regard to this Vote of £800 for legal expenses in connection with the purchase of property under the Public Offices Site Act of 1882. What kind of legal expenses are they? I presume that the Government have their own legal officers, who are perfectly competent to transact the legal business of the country on matters of this kind. Does this sum go towards the payment of the expenses of these officers, or is it for stamps, or some other purpose? I should certainly like to have further information as to the particular character of these legal expenses we are asked to vote. I. should also like to know whether, in connection with the new Admiralty and War Office, it is proposed to carry a new road from Charing Cross to the Mall, or whether that proposition has been abandoned?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works will inform the Committee what course Her Majesty's Government intend to take in regard to the erection of new buildings. There was a plan proposed by the late Government which I should have been very sorry to see carried into effect. Since then I have heard a whisper that my right hon. Friend and the Government are about to take a new action in the matter. I should like to know whether part of the new scheme is that the existing Admiralty building should not be taken down? I think we should all regret if the portico there, the well-known work of Robert Adam, were to be destroyed. Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Departmental Committee to consider the matter?

In answer to the questions of the hon. Members opposite, and also of my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), I may say that the way in which the case stands in regard to the Admiralty and War Offices is this. Last year there was a considerable amount of feeling expressed in favour of reconsidering the whole question as to whether it would be well or not to pull down the old Admiralty House, and to carry out the new plans for housing the Admiralty and the War Office under one roof. After some communications on both sides of the House, a Committee was granted by the late Government for the purpose of considering this question. But the Committee was never actually named, and, owing to the Dissolution of Parliament, it fell through. The present Government have undertaken that as soon as possible a similar Committee to that which was proposed last year by the late Government shall be appointed for the purpose of considering the subject. I have given an undertaking to the House that no further expense shall be incurred in the way of building until a final conclusion is arrived at. That is the way in which the case stands at present. The Committee will report upon it, and, if it be necessary, the House will be asked to decide upon their Report before any further steps are taken. As regards the particular item under consideration, I may mention that it has been increased from £374 to £800, in consequence of the unexpected receipt in the present financial year of a bill of costs incurred in connection with the purchase of one of the sites for the new building. It was not expected at the time the Supplementary Estimate was first framed that we should be able to enter the cost of that transaction, as the bill had been sent to be taxed. It has been returned, however, and we have had to provide for the increased sum which now appears in the Estimate. As regards the balances in the hands of the Treasury, I am afraid that I cannot give a very lucid explanation. It is rather a technical question; and I can only say, as has been explained to me, that the simple fact is that if these balances had been paid into the Exchequer it would have been necessary to vote the money again in this House. Part of the balances will be applied to the works now in hand, and whatever surplus remains will be paid into the Exchequer later on.

Really this matter is so important that I must press the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to give the House a full explanation of the circumstances under which the distinct terms of an Act of Parliament have been departed from. It is clearly illegal to appropriate for the purposes of any other financial year than that for which it has been voted any portion of a surplus which ought to be surrendered to the Exchequer. The Department in this case had a clear surplus of £22,241. They admitted their liability to the extent of £17,000, which sum they surrendered to the Exchequer; but in regard to the balance of £5,241 they distinctly refused to do so. They have refused now for the whole of the financial year. They were invited by the Paymaster General to give him permission to make the necessary surrender, and they refused their sanction. They were then asked by the Department which has the balance in hand what was to be done with it. The Department knew perfectly well that they could not in law make use of it; but the Treasury said—"We will not surrender it until the beginning of next year." We have now reached the beginning of the next year, and we now find the Treasury asking for a Supplementary Estimate of less than £1,000, while they are retaining illegally a sum five or six times as great, and which ought long ago to have been surrendered. If they are able to do that on a particular Vote without challenge in this House, then good-bye to all the check this House holds over the Expenditure of the country. The appropriation of money will become a perfect farce, and in the course of time the Treasury will claim the right to retain, without surrendering them, all the balances. If they are allowed to do that now, they will, undoubtedly, do it on many more occasions, and the whole of our paraphernalia of Committee of Supply will be mere moonshine.

There are other objections to this Vote besides those which have been urged by my hon. Friend. I should like to know into whose pockets this sum of £800 goes! Only a few days ago—on the 23rd of February—when this Supplementary Estimate was first presented, the sum set down for this purpose was £374, and it has since been raised to £800. So far as I understand the matter, the property which is being purchased by the Admiralty is simply the transference to the public of a certain amount of property belonging to the Crown. It is altogether a fancy thing. There can be no dispute whatever about the title; and as there are no stamps to be purchased, I should like to know into whose pockets this £800 is to go?

Was the Estimate £374 before the bill of costs was taxed, and was the amount increased to £800 after taxation? Does the taxed bill of costs represent the entire cost to the country?

The hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) has asked a question as to the amount of surplus which, in his opinion, ought to have been surrendered to the Exchequer. The matter is somewhat complicated, and yet, at the same time, to those who have any knowledge of the subject, it is very simple. It is difficult, however, to explain. The hon. Member is perfectly right when he says that there was a surplus in the year 1885–6.

The hon. Member is mistaken; it was 1884–5.

No; it was 1885–6, as I understand, that that surplus would, in the ordinary course of events, have been surrendered. It so happens that the Vote which was to have been taken—I believe £25,000—was put down in the Estimates of the current year for the Admiralty and War Office building. As a matter of fact, no Vote was taken, and, therefore, no expenditure can be made; and the reason for this Supplementary Vote now arises entirely from the fact that, without the sanction of Parliament, it is impossible to pay the money. The manner in which the surrender of a surplus is made, as I understand, is this. If, at the end of the financial year, there is a surplus of, say, £10,000, and for the succeeding year a Vote is taken for £12,000, then the sum of £10,000, the amount of the surplus, would be written off the £12,000, leaving only £2,000. If we had surrendered the surplus of 1885–6, we must have issued money unnecessarily from the Exchequer. I hope I have made it quite clear that there has been no desire on the part of the Treasury either to make a fresh pre- cedent or to violate any rule that has existed. The difference between the item now under consideration and the sum of £374 originally asked for I have already explained, and I hope the Committee will agree to the Vote with the assurance I give that the surplus in hand will be surrendered at the end of the year.

The liability of the Treasury in reference to the surrender of the original surplus is perfectly clear, and they admit it themselves. They permitted the surrender of £17,000 out of £22,000, and there was no reason why they should not have sanctioned the surrender of the whole surplus. It would have been quite as easy, seeing the condition of the present year's Estimates, to surrender £22,000 as it was to surrender £17,000. Why should a distinction be drawn between the two portions of the surplus? My contention has reference to more than the mere matter of convenience. I say that what has been done is irregular and illegal. [MR. JACKSON: No.] The Comptroller General has so reported it, and he has refused to recognize the arrangement at all. According to the argument of the Secretary to the Treasury, it would appear that if this House votes a sum in any single year for such a thing as a monument to General Gordon, and the expenditure does not reach the full Vote, there being no Vote for a similar service, it would be impossible to surrender the surplus, and it would have to be hung up for the present.

What I stated was that if it came to the knowledge of the Treasury that further works of the same character would require to be undertaken in the succeeding year, the surpluses should be retained in order to avoid an unnecessary issue from the Exchequer.

The Treasury have no right to appropriate for the payment of the liabilities of one financial year sums of money which have been voted for the service of the previous year. The Treasury have taken this sum of £5,200 into their own hands, and they know they have done wrong in doing so. I believe they will find it impossible to point to another instance in which the Treasury have acted in the same manner. The whole thing is grossly irregular. Why should the Treasury ask for a sum of £800, when they admit that they are retaining a sum of more than £5,000?

I hope that this Estimate will be withdrawn. The whole business appears to me to be illegal and irregular. On the year closing all moneys not used out of the year's grants are yielded up. It is well known to many Members of this House that it is contrary to law for the Treasury to retain, or to allow Departments to retain, the year's unexpended balances in their own hands. I hope that in future this system will not be continued.

I trust that before the Committee leaves this Vote some right hon. Gentleman opposite will take the trouble to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) as to how this sum of £800 has been spent. The attention of the Government has been called to it in most unmistakable terms, and strong objections have been taken to the Vote. I know that an answer has been given from the Treasury Bench; but in that answer the objection of my hon. Friend in regard to this charge for illegal expenses was entirely passed over; and the Secretary to the Treasury devoted his reply to the objections taken by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) to the appropriation by the Treasury of certain cash balances. I think it would be well for the Committee to appreciate exactly the position of the Government with regard to this Vote. On the 23rd of February they presented an Estimate in which they asked the Committee to vote in respect of legal expenses in connection with the new Admiralty and War Offices a sum of £374. They then came up to the Committee on the 26th of February with another Estimate, in which, instead of the sum of £374, they ask the House to give them £800. They are directly challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton to tell the Committee how that sum of £800 is made up, and they have been asked whether any portion of it is for stamps, or whether any part of it consists of the cost of inquiries as to title. But the right hon. Gentleman has not given us the slightest information on the subject. What I understand my hon. Friend to want in the way of information from the right hon. Gentleman is that he should give the Committee a full detail of the original item of £374, and also of the sum of £800 we are now asked to vote. At any rate, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will condescend to give the Committee a sufficient amount of detail to enable them to form some opinion as to how an item of £374 on the 23rd of February was converted into one of £800 on the 26th.

I thought I had explained to the Committee already. The affair is as simple as possible. These expenses are legal expenses incurred in connection with the purchase of property in the neighbourhood of Charing Cross and Spring Gardens, and of arbitrations which have taken place in connection with that purchase. These legal expenses have not been incurred since the Supplementary Estimates were first laid on the Table. But when the Supplementary Estimates were circulated, the costs which had been incurred had not been returned by the taxing officer; but before the Estimate was brought on for discussion the return of the taxing officer did come in, and it has been thought better to submit the whole sum to the Committee.

I wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works in reference to a reconsideration of the site and plans for the new Admiralty and War Offices. I will ask him whether it is not possible to reconsider the proposed site for the Admiralty and War Offices, with a view of setting the building back very considerably from the point shown on the plans now before the House? I would also ask if it is the intention of the Government to utilize the whole of the site at Charing Cross, including Messrs. Drummond's Bank, in order to open up The Mall to Trafalgar Square? Most of our public buildings have been spoiled in consequence of there being no point from which they can be seen, because of their not being set back far enough from the street. Take St. Paul's, for instance; it is impossible to obtain anything like a view of it without going to the top of some of the houses in the neighbourhood. I hope that such a gross blunder will not be perpetrated in the year 1887. On the other side of Charing Cross and Whitehall there is land having frontages to these streets and the Victoria Embankment which the Government have or could acquire that would add to the beauty and importance of these handsome buildings; and I think something should be done to preserve the view of the new Public Offices. I am informed, in reference to Messrs. Drummond's Bank, that a very unwise promise has been given that it will not be interfered with. Now, that appears to me to be a very shopkeeping view to take. The preservation of Drummond's Bank will destroy very nearly the whole of this magnificent building for the Admiralty and War Offices. I think it would be far better to provide some accommodation in the new building for Messrs. Drummond's if it is found impossible to get rid of them in any other way. I cannot help thinking, however, that Messrs. Drummond or any other bankers would be only too glad to take the proper value of their property if the site is required by the public. Certainly, the site ought not to be spoiled by confining it to too small a piece of land; and, therefore, I trust that some arrangement will be made to set the proposed new building back and open up The Mall to Trafalgar Square.

I am afraid that I cannot satisfy the hon. Member. It is not for the Government to decide the question, seeing that the whole matter has been referred to a Committee. Therefore it is not for me to say what they will or what they will not do when the question conies back from the Committee. The hon. Member is quite right in saying that the taking of Drummond's Bank is no part of the present scheme; but I cannot give the hon. Member any further explanation until the Committee shall have concluded their investigation and presented their Report.

We now know, for the first time, what these legal expenses are. We now hear that some portion is the costs of arbitration. I think the Committee ought to be told what sums have been awarded by way of arbitration, and what amount of money we shall have to pay upon the awards which have been made against us. We are here to represent the taxpayers of the country, and we know that in the case of trans- fers the law costs are always estimated upon a scale of value. We should like to know what the value of the property proposed to be transferred is in this case, so that we may have some knowledge of the scale of the legal costs incurred in proportion to the value of the property.

With regard to the enormous increase of the original Estimate, I cannot conceive how it was possible to make such a mistake in the estimated cost of the transfer. Surely it ought to be possible to estimate to a nicety what the cost of a transfer is likely to be, when the value of the property is ascertained. It is complained that the Treasury have entirely failed to give the Committee information in sufficient detail in regard to the real manner in which these Votes are presented. I see, under the head of Details, that there is only an announcement that the sum of £800 is required for—

"Legal expenses in connection with the purchase of property under the Public Offices Site Act, 1882."

But for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal happened to be acquainted with the manner in which the Treasury have acted in regard to the non-surrender of a balance in their hands, amounting to upwards of £5,000, the Committee would have been induced to vote this sum of £800 without demur. We now find the Treasury coming here with a demand for £800, for which there is only the slightest need. They have in their hands a sum of £5,241, and if they pay this sum of £800 out of it, they will still have more than £4,400 left. The Treasury, there can be no doubt, have acted illegally in regard to this balance. In March, 1886, they promised to surrender it; but they have not surrendered it yet, and there has been no proper explanation at all in regard to it. It appears to me that the Committee are asked to sanction a Vote of £800, which the Government ask for without having the slightest necessity for it. They have already a sufficient surplus in their hands if they want to enter into further expenditure. I am quite at a loss to know what they propose to do with this £5,000. We know perfectly well that in nearly every case in which the Government come down here with Supplementary Estimates they have a sufficient balance at their disposal to discharge their debts, if they only choose to do so. The law which compels the Departments to surrender all balances, although strictly binding, is a law which is constantly violated. In this case we find that it has been violated; and the Treasury, who talk about having no money at their disposal, have really more than they want. I should like to press for a further explanation of the matter which has been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Coleridge)—namely, an elucidation of the singular increase of this Vote by the sum of £426. Is it for the cost of conveyancing, or of stamps, or of arbitration?

As this is a matter in which I had some concern, I may inform the hon. and learned Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield that the cost of this property was estimated at £160,000, and as that sum represents a very large amount of property, I have no doubt that this item of £800 represents a part of the legal charge involved in the arbitrations. The question which has been raised by the hon. Member for East Donegal appears to me to be an extremely important one; but I hope I may be permitted to remark that it comes before the Committee in the shape of a correspondence between the Auditor General and the Treasury. It has not yet come before the Committee on Public Accounts. It is necessary that it should go before them, and I presume that it will be then thoroughly investigated. I would, therefore, suggest to the Committee that it would be as well to postpone any further discussion until we have their Report on the matter. I quite agree with the hon. Member that an important principle is involved; and if the statement of the Comptroller and Auditor General is right, there has, undoubtedly, been some indiscretion on the part of the Treasury.

(Kirkcaldy, &c.): The question of the surrender of the Treasury balances is a very important one, and I hope to hear more on the subject. So far as the details are concerned, we may wait for them until we get the Report of the Committee on Public Accounts. I have always understood that what sums were not spent in the financial year ought to be surrendered. That is a very important principle, and the Treasury have now set up an. entirely new principle. What I understand the Treasury to say is this—if we refuse to surrender the balances and prefer to keep them over for another year we may do so, on the understanding, however, that the money is not spent until the expenditure is sanctioned by Parliament. If that is so, it destroys altogether the principle that the balances ought to be surrendered every year. I think it is a most dangerous doctrine, and I hope I have misunderstood the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. At any rate, I trust the Committee will receive some further explanation.

The explanation of the increased amount of the present Estimate is a very simple one. The Treasury put in an Estimate of the sum that was required for a certain purpose up to a certain date. It subsequently came to their knowledge that a further sum would be required; and they took the first opportunity, after they obtained that knowledge, of submitting a further Estimate giving the altered sum required. An hon. Member has said that there is no necessity to vote this sum now, because the Treasury have in hand a balance more than sufficient to meet it; but the Treasury have no power to pay a single shilling of money except after the sanction of Parliament to the payment has been obtained. It is, therefore, necessary to ask the Committee for this sum in order to enable the Treasury to pay it. With reference to what the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) has said, I have laid down no new doctrine at all. What I endeavoured to explain was, that the surplus of a previous year may be written off the Vote of a succeeding year. That is a simple question of book-keeping, and it merely saves the issue of the sum so written off. In regard to the principle that all surpluses must be surrendered, there is no difference of opinion upon that point at all. That practice is invariably followed, and I believe it is impossible to find a single exception.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not suppose that I do not regard the explanation of the alteration of the amount of the Vote as satisfactory. I think the explanation is ample. The hon. Gentleman says that certain bills of costs have come in since the Estimate was first drafted, and that they have been added to it; but in regard to the other and much larger point, I must say that I failed to gather any explanation, or any excuse, for the line of conduct which the Treasury have pursued. I must draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Treasury have admitted every allegation which I brought forward, and now I will make another, and that is that in March, 1886—because this transaction relates to 1884–5, and not, as the hon. Gentleman supposes, to 1885–6—in March, 1886, the Treasury promised to surrender the sum of £5,241; but they have retained it in their possession ever since. They are retaining it now, and they are detaining it irregularly and illegally. It is perfectly true that if it had been voted in 1886–7 the unsurrendered balance would have been treated as a set-off by transfers, and instead of being paid actually into the Exchequer it would have been taken as a diminution of the Vote for the coming year. That is quite clear, and is in accordance with the usual practice; but when there is no Vote it is impossible to treat a surplus in that way. On several occasions money has remained unspent and unaccounted for, and at this moment the Department is in irregular and illegal possession of £5,240 with the consent of the Treasury; and, that being the case, the Government come down and ask for a further sum under this Vote. In reply to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), to the effect that the matter will come before the Committee on Public Accounts, and that they will deal with it, I am willing to adopt that course if the Treasury will agree to the postponement of this Vote until the Public Accounts Committee have inquired into the matter. [Mr. JACKSON: No, no!] The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury says he cannot do that, and in that case I have no other course to take but to protest against what is undoubtedly an illegality, and to divide the Committee on the Vote.

I think the hon. Member for East Donegal will, on consideration, see that we cannot agree to his proposal to postpone this Vote until the Public Accounts Committee have had before them the question which has been referred to by the hon. Member. We are now approaching the end of the financial year, and we cannot, therefore, postpone the Vote.