I have to raise a question of some importance in reference to an item in this Vote which relates to the restoration and repair of the Tower of London. In order that I may raise the question in a regular manner, I propose to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £50. The House will recollect that for some years very important works have been proceeding in connection with the Tower of London. They were commenced about three years ago by the pulling down, in the first instance, of two large warehouses, which had been built there about 100 years ago, and which greatly disfigured, and almost hid, the White Tower from the River, the object being to replace the old external walls of the Tower. The estimate of the expense of restoration was very moderate. There was in the Votes of last year a sum of £1,750 for this work of restoration. The money that was voted was not spent because some delay was experienced in pulling down the buildings to which I have referred. A few days ago I paid a visit to the Tower of London, and, to my surprise, I found that all the work of restoration had been stopped; and, on referring to the Estimate now before us, I find that there is no Vote for the continuance of the works this year. Therefore, I presume the Government have definitely abandoned the work to which I allude. Now, I think that if any hon. Member will visit the Tower of London and see what its present state is, he will admit that it is absolutely necessary to proceed with and complete the work of restoration. I found, on my visit there, that in consequence of the stoppage of the works, it had been found necessary to shore up the Wakefield Tower with timber. The Wakefield Tower, after the White Tower, is the most interesting portion of the Tower of London; and, in my opinion, it is nothing short of a scandal that the work should be left in the state in which it now is. In consequence of the demolition of the buildings which stood close to the Wakefield Tower, that tower itself has been left in a dangerous state, and the walls are exposed to injury from the action of the weather. As I have said, it has been found necessary to shore up the tower with timber, and to cover one part of it with tarpaulin; if that had not been done the tower would have been suffered to go to ruin, and the surface would have been seriously injured by exposure to the action of the weather. Now, it appears to me to be absolutely essential to the preservation of the Tower of London that these works should be carried out to their completion. I believe the original estimate of the work was £8,000; of this £5,500 has been spent, and for a sum of money something like £2,000 the whole can be completed. I may remind the House that when the work was commenced, three years ago, a model of what was intended to be done was placed in the tea-room of this House, where it was seen by hon. Members; but not a single objection was ever made to the work it was contemplated to undertake. Curiously enough, I find, on referring to the proceedings in Parliament, that, although hon. Members had an opportunity of seeing what the work was which was intended to be done, no objection whatever was made to the carrying out of this important undertaking. As far as the work has proceeded, everybody who has seen the Tower of London will admit that, now that the very unsightly buildings to which I have referred have been removed, and that the old walls extending to the Lanthorn Tower are being rebuilt, the restoration will, when completed, effect a very great improvement. The appearance of the Tower of London, as far as the work of restoration has been carried out, has been much improved; and I think it would be an unworthy act on the part of this House not to carry them out to their full completion. I, therefore, wish to ask the present First Commissioner of Works on what ground the Government have decided to abandon the works? Why it is that an item for the completion of the works is now omitted from this Estimate, and why is there no intention of proceeding with the work further? If the works have been abandoned on the ground of economy, I would point out the inconsistency of the Government in omitting an item which amounts to little more than £2,000, while, on the other hand, they have inserted an item of more than £2,000 for the decoration of Hyde Park Corner, in distinct contravention of the declaration which was made in this House some time ago, as I shall show later on when the Vote containing that item comes before the Committee. I would suggest to the Government that they should take a Vote for the Tower of London, and abandon that which they propose to take for the decoration of Hyde Park Corner.

I rise to Order. This Vote does not apply to Hyde Park Corner.

The right hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the Vote under discussion.

I was merely, by way of illustration, pointing out that if the work of restoration in connection with the Tower of London has been stopped on the ground of economy, it is, nevertheless, proposed to waste a sum exactly equal in amount in the unnecessary work of decorating Hyde Park Corner. All I wished to say was, that the Government might find an easy way of getting the money by cutting it off in another direction. I shall be able to show, when the other Votes come on, how that could be done. I maintain that it is not true economy to leave the Tower of London in its present state. It is obvious to anybody who takes the trouble to look at the work that it cannot possibly be left in its present condition, and that something must be done. It appears to me that it would be wise economy on the part of the Government to go on with the work of restoration; and I do not think these changes of policy which constantly take place when one Government comes in and another Government goes out with respect to works agreed upon by the House, is wise or proper. It has been thought generally that a Government coming into Office should carry out the work commenced by their Predecessors with the approval of Parliament, and commenced with the full knowledge and authority of the House of Commons. In this particular case there has been no difference of opinion upon the subject; no single objection has been made to the work, and the House of Commons had full knowledge of the intentions of the Government. The original scheme, however, appears to have been abandoned, and, in order that the matter may come fully within the knowledge of the House and the country, I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £50, which is the item inserted for the repair of the Wakefield Tower, and is the sum, I presume, which is necessary for the shoring up of the Tower.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Item of £1,140, for Repairs in the Tower of London, he reduced by the sum of £50."—( Mr. Shaw Lefevre. )

The right hon. Gentleman has asked me two questions—namely, whether the Government have arrived at a determination to abandon the work of restoration in connection with the Tower of London, and what are the circumstances under which the sum which appeared in the Estimate last year has not been re-inserted this year. The first question of the right hon. Gentleman proceeds upon an assumption which is wholly unfounded. The Government have not decided to abandon the restoration of the Tower of London. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is a work of great importance, and that when it is completed it will greatly improve the appearance of that part of London and will give a very fine view of the Tower itself, which is one of the most interesting buildings in this country. There has been no inclination on the part of the Department to stop the works; on the contrary, they have been pressed on by the First Commissioner of Works of the present Government, and by right hon. Gentlemen opposite until the end of last year. What occurred then was this. We were informed that it would not be possible to spend the sum of £1,750 which had been included in the Estimates, except so far as one branch of the work was concerned. The reason was, that when steps were taken to carry on the rebuilding of the wall to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred it was found impossible, for some time, to ascertain what the foundations of the old wall were; and, therefore, the work of restoration was not proceeded with until an investigation was made. It was then found that, in order to ascertain the lines of the old wall, it was necessary to throw down a house which, in comparatively recent times, had been built over it. That is the reason why the work of restoration were not presssed forward, and why the money voted last year has not been spent. We were informed, at the end of last December, that if the work was to be proceeded with it would be necessary to revote a sum of £1,600, and also to ask for a further sum of £1,400, making altogether £3,000, for the purpose of carrying on the restoration of the old walls, and it was under these circumstances that the Treasury came to the conclusion not to abandon the rebuilding, but to hold the matter over for a short time without asking Parliament to vote the money now. In the meantime all possible precautions are being taken to secure the preservation of the old boundary walls. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he is not more anxious than I am myself to restore and preserve everything that remains of the Tower of London. I am also desirous of seeing the old Ballium wall and the rest of the works completely restored as soon as possible.

. I presume the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works thinks that the Government may be out of Office next year. He does not definitely state that the works have been dropped; but he seems to think it necessary to allow no Estimate to be taken for the completion of the work, so that the burden of the expenditure may possibly be thrown on the next Government, which the right hon. Gentleman seems to anticipate may be in Office in the course of next year. As far as I can gather from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, the only sum expended last year was £150; the sum voted was £1,750, so that there would be a balance of £1,600. I should like to know what has become of that balance. I have never yet succeeded in discovering what happens in regard to money voted by this House which is not used. Is it returned into the Treasury?

Yes; and never repaid.

My right hon. Friend says that it is returned to the Treasury and never repaid. If that is so, I think this Estimate ought to be reduced by that amount.

I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the discussion now taking place is altogether inappropriate to the Question before the Committee.

I am very glad to learn that the Government have not definitely abandoned the plan of restoring the Tower of London, but, under the circumstances, I cannot quite understand why the work has been deferred for a year. The work of restoration has been going on for two or three years, and why it should have been suddenly stopped when there was work actually in hand, and postponed for a year, I cannot imagine. In the meantime, it has been found necessary to shore up the Lanthorn Tower, and, in order to prevent injury by exposure to the weather, it has been covered over with tarpaulin. I venture to express a hope that the Government will go on with the work; and I think I shall be able to show, later in the day, good reasons why they should abandon other expenditure of a much more unwise character than this. I trust the Government will undertake the work as soon as possible, and I fail to see why it should be deferred for another year. I am satisfied that the action of the Government is not in the direction of true economy. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

As the right hon. Gentleman for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) has withdrawn the Amendment, I will not trouble the Committee with the remarks I otherwise intended to make; but I would suggest that there can be no sort of economy in deferring something which Parliament has determined shall be done, and in the meantime shoreing up very old walls which must be injured by that kind of treatment, in addition to the expense which is thus unnecessarily incurred.

I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works for an explanation in reference to two or three items on page 22. The first is an item for sanitary improvements in the Public Offices—£3,000 on account; and then there is a statement indicating that the probable total cost will be £50,000. Three or four years ago a long debate took place in this House in reference to the sanitary condition of the Public Offices, and a very disgraceful state of things was then disclosed as to the manner in which the new Public Offices had been built, and provision for drainage made. The House was very much startled to find that it would take £30,000 to complete the drains and sewers of the Public Offices; and as we are now asked to sanction £50,000 for this purpose, I trust my right hon. Friend will give the Committee some explanation, so that we may put the saddle on the right horse, and prevent any person from being employed hereafter in the Public Service who can be shown to have been a party to the disgraceful manner in which the new Public Offices have been built. It certainly is a most extraordinary thing that we should have built new Public Offices, and then discover, immediately after their completion, that it required a sum of £50,000 to put them right. I also wish to have an explanation of an item of £5,687, of which £1,962 is a re-Vote, for the Royal Courts of Justice. I thought we were coming to an end of our expenditure upon the New Courts of Justice; but it would appear that a sum of £10,000 is still to be spent, and we have not yet received any intimation as to what is intended to be done with the waste piece of ground adjoining the Courts. Then, again, there is an item for the maintenance and repair of the Chapter House at Westminster. I should like to know from my right hon. Friend whether the Chapter House is not part of the property of the Dean and Chapter, and whether it ought not to be repaired and maintained out of the Capitular Estates? I wish to know whether that is so, or whether the Chapter House at Westminster is under the control of the First Commissioner of Works?

As to the first question of my right hon. Friend in reference to the sanitary improvements in the Public Offices, it is quite true that the Estimate originally formed of what was required in order to carry out the sanitary improvements, which were felt to be so much required in 1880–1, was £30,000. Since then it has been found that for various reasons it would take a larger sum than that. In the first place, there has been a considerable addition to the buildings under the charge of my Department; and, in the second place, when the work was begun in 1880–1, it was only possible, of course, to make an approximate estimate to the cost. It has now been discovered that the drainage arrangements of the Public Offices are, to use the words of my right hon. Friend, in a disgraceful condition. It has been found necessary to undertake new works, and that is the only reason for this increase in the Estimate. The work is going on as rapidly as it can be done, and the only wonder is how the people who live in these offices got on as well as they did in buildings in such an insanitary condition. That is the explanation in regard to the first question of my right hon. Friend. His second question had reference to the Chapter House at Westminster. I may inform, him that this is a building which the Crown is entitled to maintain, and the sum which appears in the Estimate is required for the heating apparatus which has been found necessary, owing to a deficiency in the existing arrangements.

My right hon. Friend has not answered my question in reference to the Courts of Justice.

I do not think it is possible to say, at present, what will be done with the waste land my right hon. Friend referred to.

I wish to reiterate the objections I have in former years urged against this Vote, which I consider open to challenge in a higher degree than any other in the Civil Estimates. The mixing up of outlay on new buildings with charges for rent, water supply, and other items of current expenditure, is just as wrong as can be. The new buildings outlay represents capital invested in almost a permanent form, whereas the other charges leave nothing behind at the end of the year. The information about the buildings is defective, owing to this mixture of items. I hold that the Vote for new buildings should be separate, and this Vote should cover the charge for all new works in the United Kingdom. Then the expenditure in different years on the same work ought to be shown. The best form for this end is the Vote in the War Office Estimates. No doubt, more space would be needed for exhibiting the total charge for er Civil buildings; but this means great facilities for the Treasury and Members of Parliament to check this kind of charge. Indeed, with this fuller information, the preparation of the Estimates would be facilitated. I have do doubt that the present condensed information requires more labour to prepare than would be needed for the detailed form. There is also an item of £2,800 for rent of Dover House, Whitehall. To whom is the money to be paid?

I wish to ask whether some useful purpose cannot be found for the Whitehall Chapel? Though the amount in connection with it in the Vote—£45—is small, the maintenance of the building and the services in it cost a large sum altogether. The congregation, as many hon. Members may have seen, is ordinarily very small-fewer even than the number of Members in this House during the dinner hour, and there is no Division Bill to procure a larger attendance. Select preachers have spoken to me of the Chapel as the most melancholy and disheartening place to conduct Divine Service in they have even seen, and the services are carried on in a careless and slovenly manner. I should be the last to oppose the use of the building as a chapel, if the attendance shows that it is wanted and valued for that purpose. But it is a very fine and valuable building architecturally, and in a fine position, and though unsuited for a church it may be used and be valuable for some public purpose, such as a museum.

With regard to the question which has been raised by my hon. Friend in reference to Whitehall Chapel, I am afraid it is a very large question indeed, and I think there would probably be a great deal of opposition to any proposal which might be made for utilizing it in any other way than that in which it is utilized at present. Therefore, I should not like to express an opinion upon the question now. No such proposal as that which has been made by my hon. Friend has, I think, ever been made before. My hon. Friend proposes that it should be used for some public purpose. I think that it would be utterly unfit for the use of any Government Office at all events.

I only suggested it.

I am sorry that I am unable to give any opinion upon the matter. In regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine (General Sir George Balfour), he must be aware that this is not the time to discuss the Vote for the Secretary for Scotland. All I can say is that Dover House has been appropriated for the Department of the Secretary for Scotland; and I think that the office has given great satisfaction to all who have had to transact business there.

I also asked a question as to whether it is not possible to subject the miscellaneous Civil Estimates to the same ordeal upstairs as that which the Army and Navy Estimates are required to undergo; and whether the separate items may not be placed before us in a more complete form—showing what the total expenditure is under each separate head?

I will promise the hon. and gallant Member to consider the matter, and ascertain whether some more convenient plan cannot be adopted. I would, however, point out to him that there would be considerable objection to the carrying out of any alteration in the mode of presenting the Estimates to the House, unless some very good reason could be given for it. For the purposes of comparison, the value of the Estimates would be very much destroyed. I will, however, consider the point, which I admit to be one that very well deserves consideration.

It appears to me that a rent of £2,800 a-year is a very large sum to pay for Dover House. I believe that the Scotch Department is an extremely small one, and I think that it might have been housed for a very much less figure. The present Government, however, are not responsible for the arrangement, which is due, I believe, to their Predecessors.

That is not so.

Then I am mistaken. I thought it was a legacy presented by the last Government to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. However, it appears to me that an Office of very much smaller dimensions may be obtained at a much less cost than Dover House. Personally, I have always been of opinion that Dover House should be appropriated for the residence of the First Lord of the Treasury. I do not know a building which could be more appropriately adapted to that purpose. Certainly, to pay £2,800 a-year in the shape of rent for the very small offices of the Scotch Department is, in my view, a somewhat extravagant arrangement. There is another matter referred to in this Vote to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee—namely, an item of £6,000 for the improvement of the accommodation in the National Gallery. It is added that this is a sum on account, and that the total cost is £55,000. I wish to know if this sums exhausts all the further payments on account of the new rooms which were opened on Monday, and also what has been the total cost of carrying out that work?

I regret the manner in which an English Member has made objection to the accommodation provided for the Scotch Department at Dover House. It seems to me that this is almost the only one matter of late in which Scotland has been liberally and generously treated, and the Scotch Members are grateful for it. But anyone who has had much business to transact at Dover House must be aware that the Department is by no means over-housed, although, no doubt, it is liberally housed. It should be remembered that it includes the Education Office as well as those of the Lord Advocate and of the Secretary for Scotland. I believe there will be but one opinion on both sides of the House among Scotch Members—Conservative as well as Liberal—that, having obtained possession of Dover House, the Scotch Department should remain there.

I should like to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, outside the condition of this matter in regard to the accommodation of the Scotch Department, the Government have it in contemplation to provide a residence for the Secretary for Scotland in addition? It is a curious fact that the Scotch Members are never prepared to abide by their principles of economy whenever Scotland is concerned. In every respect they are rigid economists except when the money is to be spent upon Scotland. Perhaps I may be allowed to compare the office for the Scotch Department with the Irish Office. Looking at the population of Ireland, and comparing it with that of Scotland, the expenditure upon the Irish establishment is infinitely less, £5,500 a-year is considered to be sufficient rent to pay for the accommodation of the Irish Department, and yet, forsooth, we are to have, in the case of Scotland, an outlay of £2,800 a-year in the shape of rent, together with additional expenditure for other purposes in connection with Dover House. There are other items in this Vote which, in my opinion, are objectionable and require explanation. I wish to know if the item of £100, which has already been referred to for the warming apparatus in the Chapter House of Westminster Abbey, is not really an extension of the obligations undertaken by Parliament in connection with the Abbey, and whether the Dean and Chapter ought not fairly to be called upon to defray this expenditure. There is a similar item of expenditure in the case of Scotland. I refer to an item of £400 for the repairs of the fabric of Glasgow Cathedral. In this country so long as the ecclesiastical and monumental buildings are enjoyed by a section of the community only, I think that the ecclesiastical funds should be exclusively called upon to provide for the maintenance of those buildings and their repair. I wish to know how far this liability on the part of the public is to go in the direction of maintaining buildings which are only enjoyed by a section of the community. I think the House of Commons ought to look with some jealousy upon the increasing expenditure in this direction. I can only say that we are setting a very bad example if we allow this expenditure in connection with ecclesiastical buildings in Scotland to go on, because, before long, we may have similar claims in regard to buildings of the same kind in England. Then, again, in regard to the Chapel Royal, Whitehall. I wish to know whether this item—undoubtedly only a small one of £45—appears in the Votes for the first time? In the City of London we have seen a large number of churches which had very small congregations, or no congregations at all, diverted to other purposes by means of the facilities given by Parliament; such as museums and other public purposes of a useful character. I maintain that there can be no greater scandal than to maintain ecclesiastical buildings at a very considerable expense when they have no congregation.

I think that the Scotch Department has hardly had adequate justice done to it in the discussion which has taken place in reference to Dover House. The fact is that the Government had upon their hands this particular house, which was very unhealthy, and in which no one would live. Therefore, not knowing what to do with it they gave it to us for the Scotch Office, and they charge us a most exorbitant rent for it. That is the real state of the case in regard to Dover House. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) has complained that the Scotch Members are not very economical when the money proposed to be voted is intended to go to Scotland, and we have been told that the Scotch Members cannot expect to keep up their prestige for economy so long as they are anxious to retain for themselves an expensive building in Whitehall like Dover House. I think the hon. Member is altogether wrong, and that he is interfering in a matter of which he knows little. Indeed, so ignorant is he that he appears to have thought that the Secretary for Scotland lives at Dover House. The great complaint we Scotch Members make is that he lives nowhere. He may be found in the Scotch Office at intervals, but I am not aware that he is able to be found anywhere else. As a matter of fact, he is not even a Member of the Cabinet. The Scotch Office is a merely ornamental one, and, therefore, I complain of the high rent we are charged, because we really have very inadequate machinery and organization. If we had our Scotch Secretary in this House, and in the Cabinet, we should have some value for the expensive office in which the Department is housed; but, certainly, until the machinery is very materially improved, I shall continue to think that the rent paid for the office is much too high. As I understand the sum paid goes into the Treasury, I am sure that the Scotch Members will sympathize with me when I say that instead, of charging us £2,800 a-year for Dover House £800 would be quite enough. In that case the Scotch Members might fairly admit that justice was done to them. So far as the rent itself is concerned, I understand it is merely a change of hands. It comes out of one pocket and goes into another. I think the Scotch Members are fully justified in the complaint they make that, although they have a Scotch Department, very little work is done in it; and the Scotch people have by no means received that amount of justice and consideration to which they are entitled.

I only rise for the purpose of emphasizing the remarks of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) in reference to the public expenditure on ecclesiastical buildings. The question, I think, is a very important one, and I hope the First Commissioner of Works will tell us whether the State is pledged to any further expenditure in this direction?

Attention has been called to the large sum which has been expended in sanitary improvements in connection with the Public Offices since their erection. It is an undoubted fact that a very great mistake must have been committed in the construction of the new Public Offices. But what I desire to call public attention to is, that so long as mistakes can be committed with impunity, and nobody is made responsible for them, so long will the House of Commons be required to go on voting money for purposes which not only involve a very large expenditure, but also the question of the health and lives of valuable public servants. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to make any statement, at this moment, upon his own personal knowledge; but I do hope that some assurance will be given to the Committee that the persons who are responsible for the disgraceful condition of these new offices will be required to pay the penalty in some way or other.

I am afraid that the repairs of ecclesiastical buildings, which have been referred to by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) and the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Cossham), have been going on for a good many years, and that, in order to make anybody personally responsible, it would be necessary to call them back from that "bourne from which no traveller returns." I believe that the persons who were originally responsible would, if they were living now, be a good many hundred years old. I think, however, that I am entitled to say that the repairs have been extremely well done, and carried out as economically as possible. I believe that the completion of this work is not very far off. In regard to Westminster Abbey, the only expenditure which is charged in the Estimates is for the Chapter House. The Chapter House is no part of Westminster Abbey proper; and I may add that no portion of the Abbey is repaired out of the Public Funds except the Chapter House, and some of the old monuments of the Kings. The Chapter House itself is the place where old records and memorials of the past are deposited, and the warming of that part of the Chapter House is a matter which concerns the Government. As to the Scotch Cathedral at Glasgow, I am not very well versed in the details of that matter; but I believe that some time ago the tiends—as they are called in Scotland—were taken over by the Crown, and, in return, the Crown incurred certain obligations. The tiends are now paid into the Exchequer.

Am I to understand from an item in the Estimate, which speaks of the Admiralty being occupied by the First Lord, that the First Lord of the Admiralty resides there?

No.

Then how does he occupy it?

It is used as the Admiralty Offices.

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has not answered the Question I put to him in connection with the National Gallery.

I may say that the new portion of the building of the National Gallery is now complete, and that the new rooms were opened on Monday last. I may add that the alterations have been extremely well done.

I understand that, in answer to a Question put to him by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. Esselmont), the First Commissioner of Works has said that the First Lord of the Admiralty occupies offices in Whitehall, and pays no rent for them. Under such circumstances, I cannot help thinking that it is somewhat remarkable that the Scotch Department should be charged a heavy rent for Dover House.

I wish to call attention to the fact that the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty has a residence provided for him. I should like to know why it is that a residence should be provided for the First Naval Lord, in addition to his salary, when other officials, occupying similar positions, have no residences provided for them.

I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £700. The case just referred to by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) is an example of how things are done. We have a First Naval Lord, who receives, I think, £2,000 per annum. The appointment is a political one, and the holder of the Office changes with the Ministry. I presume that at one time the First Naval Lord was allowed to live at the Admiralty, and probably he was sup- plied with one or two rooms. It may have been thought desirable that one of the Naval Lords should reside on the premises. Alterations, however, have now been made at the Admiralty, and, possibly, the Department want all the rooms for themselves, and, therefore, the First Naval Lord has had to leave. We now discover, from these Estimates, that the First Naval Lord, with his £2,000 a-year, is to be lodged at the expense of the nation, in a very comfortable House at Queen Anne's Gate, overlooking St. James's Park, at a rent of £700 per annum. From my point of view the whole thing is perfectly ridiculous. I have watched that house carefully, as I have had a thought of taking it myself. I have, therefore, taken an exceptional interest in it; but I suddenly discovered that plate-glass windows were being put into it; and, on inquiry, I found that it had been taken for the use of the First Naval Lord. I have, however, seen no item yet for the cost of doing the house up, although, undoubtedly, in addition to the £700per annum we shall have to pay in the shape of rent, there will be an item, somewhere or other in the Estimates, for doing the house up. In any case, I do not see why in the world a Gentleman who receives a salary of £2,000 per annum is to have a house provided for him, at a cost to the country of £700 per annum, when all the officials who sit on the Bench opposite are not provided with residences at all. There is no earthly reason for this expenditure, and I have only pointed it out to the Committee in order to show how gradually an official, like a worm, works his way, and gets more and more out of the country every year. Even if it were desirable to give the First Naval Lord a residence, I maintain that the rent paid for this house is excessive. It is a matter of experience that whenever the Government find it necessary to take a good house, they are compelled to pay a good deal more for it than it is worth. There are two houses which have been taken recently at Queen Anne's Gate for public purposes. I am not certain what the numbers are. [An Hon. MEMBER: 16 and 18.] Well, the Government are paying for them a rent of £1,500 per annum. I think that this is an excessive rent for houses which ought not to obtain a rent of more than £500 per annum. I know that fact, because I have a house there myself, and consequently I am speaking upon a matter of which I know something personally. I certainly know the price and the value of these houses. The two I have referred to have been taken for the Intelligence Branch of the War Department. They overlook St. James's Park; but I have no doubt that the Government are paying for them more than the market price of the houses on each side of them. In addition, the Government seek to provide the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty with a residence which is to cost £700 a-year. I see no earthly reason why the First Naval Lord should receive this grant of £700 a-year. It is much too heavy a price to pay for the services of the First Naval Lord, and in order to accentuate the opinion of the House, not against the present Government, but against the late Government also, and with a view of protesting against the system of making things comfortable for the officials, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £700.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Item of £700, Rent of No. 34, Queen Anne's Gate, Residence of the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—( Mr. Labouchere. )

I can confirm what the hon. Member for Northampton has stated in reference to the high rent paid by the Government for the houses they take. One of the houses which have been taken by the Government for Admiralty purposes was offered to me for £350 a-year, with a ground rent which would probably have brought up the annual cost to £500. I have no doubt that whenever the Government go into the market they are compelled to pay an extravagant price.

I am not aware of the particular circumstances under which this house has been taken; but I understand that the ground on which it has been taken is, that it has always been held that the First Naval Lord should have a residence provided for him in the immediate neighbourhood of the Admiralty.

At the Admiralty.

Either at the Admiralty or in the immediate neighbour- hood. The present arrangement is only a temporary one pending alterations. I do not know at what price the hon. Member for Northampton is willing to let the house which he appears to be anxious to get rid of. Perhaps it may be for the advantage of the Treasury to put themselves in communication with the hon. Member.

May I ask what sum of money has been expended in putting this particular house in repair so as to render it a fit habitation for the Naval Lord?

I am not aware of the exact sum. The expenditure was incurred before I came into Office.

Do I understand the First Commissioner of Works to say that there have been previous cases of the First Naval Lord being provided with a separate private residence?

Yes, I believe there have.

The First Naval Lord used to have a residence immediately adjoining the Admiralty somewhere, I think, in Spring Gardens. That house has recently been pulled down in consequence of the arrangements which have been made for the reconstruction of the Admiralty, and it was considered necessary to find a residence for him in the immediate neighbourhood in place of the one which has been pulled down. Personally, I have always been of opinion that it is not necessary to find an official residence for a First Naval Lord, and I think it would be better to give him an increase of salary in lieu of a house, but that is not the view which has been entertained of the matter by successive Governments. It has been considered that inasmuch as the Office held by the First Naval Lord is a temporary one, and that he retires from Office when any change of Government occurs it is right to provide him with a house. No doubt, in this instance, the rent is high, but I am sorry to say that whenever the Government goes into the market the rent of houses immediately rises. With regard to the other two houses which have been mentioned, as I know something about them, I may be allowed to say that they have been fitted up as offices for the Intelligence Branch of the War Department, and that the arrangement which has been made is, in my opinion, an economical one.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 107; Noes 174: Majority 67.—(Div. List, No. 287.)

Original Question again proposed.

May I point out that no answer and no explanation has been given by the First Commissioner of Works of an item which appears on page 24, in reference to the stables at Dover House in Whitehall. Dover House has been allotted to the Secretary for Scotland as the office of that Department. I understand that the value of these stables is £150 a-year, and I want to know why they should have been allotted to the First Lord of the Admiralty. If I receive no explanation I shall move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £150, in order that the Government may recover that amount by letting the stables.

I am very sorry, if I unintentionally omitted to answer any inquiry of the hon. Member. The explanation I have to give on this matter is simply this—that for some years there was a sum of £150 charged for stables for the First Lord of the Admiralty. We have now ceased to pay that sum of £150 for the First Lord's stables, because it is considered more economical to give the stables at Dover House than to pay rent for others.

Am I to understand that the First Lord of the Admiralty, in addition to his official salary, has £700 a-year for the dwelling house?

No, he has a dwelling house in the Admiralty, but there are no stables attached to it, and provision used to be made for him in that respect by hiring stables. As I have said, it is now considered more economical to give him the stables at Dover House rather than pay rent for other stables.

Should not the value of the stables be deducted from the rent of Dover House? You are evidently saving the sum of £150 a-year, and you appear to be putting it upon poor Scotland.

Question put, and agreed to.

(3.) £10,970, Furniture of Public Offices, Great Britain.

I desire to put a question to the First Commissioner of Works in reference to this Vote. I want to know what is the system under which deductions are made in respect of depreciations of furniture. I believe that in the last 12 months a certain sum has been recovered from an ex-Minister—a First Lord of the Treasury—on account of the depreciation of the furniture used by him. There are a very large number of officials who have furnished residences supplied to them, and I want to know why they are not all of them called upon to pay, in the same way as the First Lord of the Treasury, for the depreciation of the furniture. I desire to put this question to the First Commissioner of Works, in order to ascertain what the system is.

The principle upon which this deduction is made was established by a Treasury Minute of 1883. The principle is that an outgoing Minister shall be debited with the value of the furniture just as he has received it, and with the cost of new furniture, and with the repairs which it is found necessary for his Successor to make. He is credited with the value of the furniture as he left it; and I think, in the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman, a sum of £400 has been charged to an outgoing Minister. Of course this sum is only paid when a Minister leaves Office, and it arises simply from the fact that the value of the furniture has been depreciated.

I should like to know what the system is under which the deductions are made, because there are a large number of persons who obtain furnished residences, and yet it appears that deductions are only made in connection with some of them. Why, for instance, should a deduction be made in the case of the First Lord of the Treasury, and no similar deduction be made in the case of the First Lord of the Admiralty?

I believe that the rule is applied to all persons who are supplied with official furnished residence.

The question which has just been put and the answer which has been given by my right hon. Friend afford a strong confirmation of the view I have always en- tertained of the objectionable character of the arrangement to supply officials with furnished houses. The system is most expensive and unsatisfactory, and I think if the Treasury would terminate the arrangement, or largely reduce the sums spent upon these furnished houses, they would meet with general support from all sides of the House. There are two or three points in connection with this Estimate upon which I desire to obtain some information. This is an Estimate for the furniture of the Public Offices, but I find that it does not include all the furniture that is provided for the Public Departments. As a matter of fact, the Estimates placed before us are altogether illusory, because they do not show the entire payments under a particular head. I find that in addition to this Estimate for the furniture of the Public Offices in Great Britain there are, under other heads, items for furniture in the House of Commons, the Royal Palaces, the Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds, the Customs, the Post and Telegraph Offices, Inland Revenue Buildings, County Courts, the Metropolitan Police Courts, Sheriff Court Houses in Scotland, surveys of the United Kingdom, Science and Art Departments, Industrial Museum, and Geological Survey Office, Edinburgh, and Diplomatic and Consular Buildings. An item for furniture is taken under each of these separate Votes. I think it is very desirable that when the Committee is asked to vote money for furniture for the Public Offices, we should know the entire amount that is being voted and that it should not be split up under different heads. I entirely agree with the remarks which have been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kinkcardine (General Sir George Balfour), that the form in which the Estimates are presented to the House is very objectionable, because it prevents a comparison with the expenditure of previous years, which is of vital importance in considering the total cost. I certainly think there ought to be some means by which we could ascertain at once that the gross sum for furniture is so and so. I think the House will be very much startled when it is put in possession of full information, especially when it sees the enormous sums of money that are expended in matters over which the Committee has no control. I only call attention now to the fact that the great bulk of the expenditure for furniture is not included in this Vote, and I would impress upon my right hon. Friend the absolute necessity of instituting the most careful and rigid supervision over the Vote for furniture. The remarks which the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) made a short time ago are perfectly true, that when the Government want to buy property, as well as everything else they go into the market to purchase, they are called upon to pay a great deal more than the real market price. I will only say that any private individual spending his own money would never dream of incurring this expenditure. Let me ask the hon. Members who have the Votes in their hands to turn to page 31 and see what has been expended, in furniture during the past year, and then I would ask them to remember that during the last nine years this has been a constantly increasing Vote. As a matter of fact, during nine years £152,000 has been expended upon the furniture of the Public Offices, and that does not include by any means all the Public Offices. Let me take the case of the Admiralty. There is, under this Vote, a sum of £4,000 for new furniture, and let it be remembered that the Admiralty is supposed to be already fully furnished. I am speaking to practical men who know what the cost of furnishing is. For the Charity Commission there is a sum of £1,077 for new furniture, and the next item is one of a somewhat striking character for Chelsea Hospital. The sum set down is £994, and for the Military School, Chelsea, £679. Now, the expenditure for Chelsea is taken under the War Office. Then why are not these last two items included in the War Office Vote, when the Committee would have full control over them? I come next to the Scotch Office Vote. Perhaps that is somewhat tender ground, as far as Scotch Members are concerned. The Scotch Office ought certainly to have been furnished for less than £1,800. A railway board would never have thought of spending such a sum for such a purpose. As a matter of fact, I believe that this country systematically pays 30 s. in the pound for everything it buys. For the War Office there is a sum of £1,850 for new furniture during the past year. Then in page 30 there is an item of £500 "to furnish a house in Spring Gardens to be vacated by the Admiralty." I think that must be an inaccuracy. I suppose it is for this house now being taken. We are spending £15,000 or £16,000 a-year on furniture, and I cannot bring my mind to believe that that sum represents the actual annual depreciation.

I should like to learn what record is kept of the furniture actually in the possession of the Government. A great deal has been said by the Public Accounts Committee about keeping separate inventories of all the furniture in the different Departments. If that were done, when these annual claims for new furniture are made, we should know what furniture it was intended to replace.

I have no wish to prolong this discussion; but I wish the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had challenged a Division upon the Vote. It appears to me that the way in which the accounts are rendered does not enable anyone who does not possess special knowledge to know what money the Committee of this House is voting from time to time. I take precisely the same objection in regard to this Vote for furniture which I took with reference to the cost of the Royal Family in which was included the first item we had to deal with. So, also, with regard to the furniture in the Royal Palaces. No one without official knowledge could even guess what the total expenditure is. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not thought it right to emphasize his view by taking a Vote in the Division Lobby. If he had done so, I should certainly have voted with him, and as long as I have a seat in this House I shall be prepared to divide against any Vote unless we are supplied with that technical and detailed information, without which no person who does not possess special knowledge is able to know what is being done with the money voted.

Now that we are at this point, I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the mode in which this part of the business is transacted, and why it is that, as we are told, we are paying for the furniture in our Public Offices at the rate of 30 s. in the pound. The probability is, that this is the result of dealing with one manufacturer only, instead of with the trade generally. However that may be, I ask whether Estimates are taken for the furniture required; whether specifications are sent in, and what process is gone through with regard to the purchase generally?

The question raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite is no doubt a very important question; but it is not one that is so free from difficulty as he appears to think. It is quite impossible, in the particular form in which the Estimates are presented, to give the total cost of each item in the Vote, unless the plan were adopted of giving an accompanying statement or note showing to the House the information asked for. But that question is raised for the first time.

I beg pardon. I raised the question last year, and intimated that I should raise it and divide every time until the information was given by a separate memorandum or appeared in the Estimates; and I raised it in Committee the other day.

That was I believe on the Vote for Royal Palaces. I am not prepared to say that this is not desirable; but the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman is one which requires the most serious consideration, and I point out that it is moreover a question which will involve a very large expenditure in each Department. If, however, the House of Commons requires the information to be given in that way, it is of course entitled to have it, and I trust hon. Members will not think I have any desire to prevent the House knowing the total. The Estimates have been presented to the House in their present form for a great many years; but they have been altered from time to time according to the desire of the House, and the Committee which is sitting upstairs will no doubt make further modifications which will have effect when the next Estimates are prepared. In the meantime, I am bound to say that my sympathy is entirely in favour of giving the House the fullest information with regard to the items in the Votes, and the Committee may rely that anything which lies in my power to effect in that direction will be done. I was certainly greatly surprised, I may say shocked, at hearing the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works under the late Government say that whenever the Government wanted anything the fact became known beforehand.

My remark had reference to houses only.

Exactly. I say that it would be the very last thing that the Government would do—namely, when they wanted to buy or rent a house, to allow the owner to know their requirements beforehand. With regard to the remarks which have been made with reference to the furniture for the offices of the Secretary for Scotland, the amount under this head is no doubt considerable. The expenditure has been compared with that of the Irish Office; but the experience of the right hon. Gentleman opposite will tell him that the tendency has always been to average the Estimates up to the highest, and not to go from the highest to the lowest. The right hon. Gentleman's observations would tend to emphasize the demands which are constantly been made upon the Treasury, and refused. With regard to the Offices of the Secretary for Scotland, there are one or two things which ought to be brought before the Committee. It is a new Office, and in it is conducted practically the whole of the Business of Scotland, including education; and, although the rent may seem high, I am informed that the accommodation provided is not in excess of the requirements, and that, on the contrary, there are constant demands for increased accommodation; the house is in a good situation, and is an exceedingly good one. That being so, it is easy to see that a house which offers so many advantages must be paid for at a proportionate rate. With regard to the inventory system, I am informed that it has not been found to work in every respect satisfactorily, and that the question is one which should be settled by the Public Accounts Committee. The question is a most difficult one; and when you are setting up a new Office, it is not easy to settle the point as to whom the responsibility should rest upon. Are you going, when a new Office is set up, to accept the statement of the officers of the Department, or are you going to make my right hon. Friend responsible? I am informed that an experiment has been tried in one or two Offices, and that the question will be submitted to the Public Accounts Committee as to whether the maintenance of the system will be worth the cost which it entails. I am sure that the experience at the Treasury of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) will bear me out in saying that when application is made for sanction to the Treasury in every case where the Department making the application cannot justify it, sanction is withheld, and no item is passed that can possibly be struck out. The hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) has asked whether any Estimates are taken for furniture supplied to the Offices. I think, on consideration, the hon. Gentleman will see that it would be difficult to have an elaborate system with regard to the chairs and tables that may be required from time to time. I understand, however, that several manufacturers are employed, and that special tenders are required when anything important is wanted. The statement is far from being correct that there is no check upon the supply and cost of furniture; I have to state, on the contrary, that a complete scrutiny is brought to bear on every item, and I would, therefore, now ask the Committee to allow the Vote to be taken.

I confine my remarks simply to the question of hiring houses; and I say that if it is known to be necessary for the Government to hire a house in a particular district, it is impossible to prevent the fact leaking out, and the rent is consequently raised. But that is not the case with furniture; and I do say, from my own experience, that the Government purchase this at reasonable prices. As to the furnishing of official residences, no doubt the expense of that is great; but if you provide a high official, such as the First Lord of the Treasury or the First Lord of the Admiralty, with a residence, it follows almost as a matter of course that you also supply him with furniture, because the changes of Government are so frequent, that it would be almost impossible for each fresh official to buy new furniture. But I agree that these arrangements ought to be confined within the most rational limits, and that we should rather curtail than extend the number of official residences. If it were not out of Order, I should like to refer to the expense of residences in this great building. I believe the expense of them is extremely great, and I have reason to believe that some officials are lodged under this roof who need not be so provided for. I would also refer to the charge for the Scotch Office, on account of which there is a charge of £600 in addition to the sum provided in the former Estimate. I believe I am correct in saying that the Secretary for Scotland is provided with a splendid suite of rooms, in which the Minister gives entertainments, and that in this respect the Office can only compare with one other Department—namely, the Foreign Office.

I have on several occasions felt it my duty to refer to the system under which these arrangements are made. I consider that all bills sent in should be certified by the Heads of the Departments for which furnished, which would, in my opinion, do away with much of the extravagance that exists.

I think it would be well, in cases of this kind, if the authorities were to act in the same way as the General who sent an aide-de-camp to cut off a tassel in one of the rooms of his house that had been recently furnished, in order to ascertain the price at which it could be bought in a shop, and who, finding that it could be bought for 30 per cent less than the price charged to him, deducted that percentage from the whole of the items in the tradesman's account. There are old-fashioned firms who go in for large sales and small profits, and other firms who take a large profit on small sales. Now, I think, if you go into this matter, you will find that the firms who send in the tenders belong to the old class, and they say among themselves—"You shall have this furnishing, and we will have another;" and unless you let in other firms you will always fail to get a fair value. There is, I see, a charge for £400 for the renewal of the examination table at the Civil Service Commission Office. I suppose the table is only made of deal, and the charge is perfectly absurd, because for that money you could get a table large enough to seat all England round it. Then there is a charge on account of the Stationery Office for a supply of new racks, which I suppose are for hanging hats upon. I should like to know what firm it was that had the contracts for these things, because I am convinced that if the right hon. Gentleman goes to a large firm, such as Messrs. Maple's, he will find that furniture can be supplied from them at 80 per cent under the price here charged.

I want to emphasize the fact that this is a practical matter. What we want to know is the entire cost of the furniture provided for under this Vote. The Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) says that if we alter the mode of keeping accounts, it will involve a great expense, and that if the House of Commons asked for that alteration it was entitled to have it. Now, I venture to say that when that demand is made, in order to get at the Expenditure of the country, the answer will be that the expense would be too great. We are only dealing here with a few thousands of pounds; whereas we shall hereafter have to deal with far larger sums. The Furniture Vote this year for the House of Commons is £4,500; Customs, £1,900; Post Office, £6,100; Inland Revenue Office, £3,100, and we find that the Irish Office is by no means behind in this matter, the modest charge on that account being £18,000. Now, all that I ask for, and what I think the Committee should insist upon, is that this Vote shall in future show on the face of it in a Note the entire expenditure for furniture in all the Departments of the Public Service. And the second point is that the two great spending Departments, the Admiralty and the War Office, should not be allowed to put their hands into the pockets of the Civil Service; but that the entire expenditure should be defrayed out of the Votes for those Offices.

I think I stated to the Committee that my desire was to supply the House of Commons with every information, and that, as far as it lay in my power, it should be done, Is may be early now to say what steps will be taken; but my intention was to make clear my own views upon the subject. I, therefore, hope my right hon. Friend will understand that, so far as the information relating to the public expenditure of each Office is concerned, my view is that it ought to be given, and that, as far as I am able, I will meet the wishes of my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the fact that there is a large sum down for furniture at the Admiralty. I understand that this charge is not for the account of the Admiralty, properly speaking, as we understand the term; but that it is in connection with an outside office which had to be furnished for the accommodation of clerks who were displaced. I believe that the item of furniture is due to the circumstance that the houses in Spring Gardens had to be vacated, because it was expected that they would be pulled down; they were not pulled down, however, and, further accommodation being necessary, they were re-occupied, and hence the expense. It is, no doubt, desirable that the whole of the Admiralty expenditure should be put on the Vote for that Department; but my right hon. Friend knows that the Treasury has very little control over the Estimates of the War Office and Admiralty, which stand on a footing different from that on which the other Votes stand and over which we have control.

I think the question of expenditure on small works is one which may very well be referred to a Committee of this House. As an instance of the excessive cost of work of the kind, a short time ago a lock was required to be placed on a door in one of the Public Offices; it could easily have been replaced for 5 s.; but an Inspector was sent down, and the cost, which included railway fares, amounted to £3 10 s. The reason why I rise, however, is to complain of the waste of time we are put to in investigating Government Business; and I think the remedy would be to reject one or two Votes where the charges are high, which would compel the Government to make such arrangements as would prevent the recurrence of the dissatisfaction which exists with regard to the expenditure on Public Offices.

I feel bound to repudiate the general statement that has been made as to the excessively extravagant cost that is incurred in supplying and replacing the furniture in the case of the Public Offices. There is absolutely no foundation for it.

I cannot help saying that the accounts presented to us here show an utter want of character; and I think it the duty of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to review some of the items, after bringing this question to an issue. I am sure that the time of the right hon. Gentleman could not be better expended than in investigating the cases of extravagance which have been brought to light this morning.

We have not been informed what is the rate of the depreciation represented by this large expenditure. If the sum of £17,000 represents the rate of depreciation, the valuation of the furniture would be represented by £340,000. I do not think that the cost of new furniture ought to exceed 5 per cent of the value of the furniture in existence. We have been told that there is an inventory, and we might gain such information from that source as would enable us to ascertain the value of the furniture, and whether the arrangement is an economical one or not.

Vote agreed to.

(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £138,627, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the Customs, Inland Revenue, Post Office, and Post Office Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, including Furniture, Fuel, and sundry Miscellaneous Services."

There are some items in this Vote to which I wish to call the attention of the Committee. The amount of the Vote is very considerable, and the Committee will observe, on referring to previous years—

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

I find that, since 1879, we have spent £1,431,000 upon Revenue Department Buildings, and in that sum the present Vote is not included. There is the same objection to this Vote as that which I raised on the last Vote; and we are, therefore, obliged to go again over part of the ground which was traversed when the latter was under consideration. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the Vote for Customs, and say how it is that this Vote never shows any decrease. The Vote is stereotyped in amount, and the sum we are asked for is £28,935, which is most unevenly apportioned in respect of the various branches of the Department throughout the country. For instance, there is £1,000 for furniture for London, as against only £900 for the whole of the other parts of the country; the Inland Revenue Vote has £1,800 for furniture in London, but only £950 for the branches in the rest of England and Wales, and £300 for Scotland. The same disparity occurs with regard to fuel, light, and water. We have £2,300 for the Offices in London, and for the country, the rest of England, Wales, and Scotland, £750 only is asked for. These items never show any decrease, and although I agree with my hon. Friend that there is careful supervision with reference to new demands, yet there is a tendency on the part of the Departments to consider that they are entitled to have the same sum again which has been voted in previous years. But the particular object I have in rising is to call attention to the Vote for Post Office Telegraph Buildings, and I am, therefore, glad to see the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes) in his place. I have, in the first place, to reecho the remark which has been made as to the delusive mode in which these Votes are presented to the House. There is here a sum of £140,000 which does not appear in the Special Vote for the Post Office and Telegraph Department; and, therefore, when the Postmaster General comes forward in this House, and says that the Post Office produces so much revenue, the account on which he makes his statement is incomplete, the fact being that the loss in connection with the Telegraph Department is much greater, and the profit from the Post Office much less, than we are led to believe. I ask again that we should have, on the face of the Votes, the entire cost of the Departments; and this question was raised by me some years ago, when the late lamented Mr. Fawcett was Postmaster General, and that gentleman agreed with me as to the extravagant mode in which these Departments were conducted, and condemned the practice of one Department spending money which is voted for another. In the first place, then, I object to the Post Office Department spending money without being reeponsible for that expendi- ture; and, secondly, I object to what I may call the very expensive manner in which the work on the buildings constructed by the Chief Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) is carried on, and I think that the evidence before the House with reference to the expenditure on the War Office and new Admiralty Office will show that the Estimates of the right hon. Gentleman are totally different in respect of cost from other buildings. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman is not present; because it has been pointed out that there is a large disparity per cubic foot between the cost of buildings erected by him, and such buildings, for example, as St. Thomas's Hospital, on the other side of the Thames. I am aware that there is a large expenditure upon the General Post Office in London, and I feel great difficulty in isolating specific post offices; because it would happen, no doubt, that every Member whose constituency is involved would got up and say that the expenditure in the case of his town was requisite to meet the growth of the place. But I venture to say that hon. Members ought not to look at the question from the point of view of their several towns. The total sum which the House is committed to by the original Estimate for New Works, alterations and additions in connection with Post Office buildings, is £388,118, and that is a sum which has been added to and will be added to in the coming year. I wish to know why the cost of buildings required for the same purpose differs so considerably in various instances, and for the purpose of obtaining an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman I will take two or three typical cases. There is my own locality, Birmingham, which has two suburbs, Aston Manor and Smethwiek; in the first the post office costs £3,270, and in the latter £2,250. What is the cause of the large expenditure at Aston Manor, where, to my knowledge, the postal requirements are very small? Then we have for the office at Douglas, Isle of Man, £3,600; a new sorting office at Hampstead, £2,250; the same at Highgate, £1,800. What is the cause of this difference? Then I find that, while £4,000 is spent at Dumfries, Inverness requires £12,000, with regard to which I am obliged to say that I do not think that this disparity is accounted for by the difference between the postal requirements of the two places. The same remarks apply to the sums asked for in the case of Poplar and Tottenham; and then I find £5,000 for Wandsworth, but for Willes-den only £1,700, and for Wimbledon £2,700, while instances of the kind can be multiplied. I am at a loss to account for these discrepancies, except on the principle that the work goes on by rule of thumb. There is no question of sites here. I can, of course, understand that these cost considerable sums of money; but the Committee will see that they are provided for separately in the Post Office Estimates, and it follows that there must either be too costly accommodation for Post Office purposes in some cases, or insufficient accommodation in others. During the last three or four years this Vote has not been checked to the extent that it ought to have been, and my object in calling attention to these figures is to point out the necessity there is for introducing into this Department the same system of competition which exists in others, and I am satisfied that if the matter is investigated it will be found that this public accommodation could have been provided at much less cost.

I think it is obvious that if you take a large number of items of cost in town and country you may be able to point to differences of expenditure which at first sight are difficult to account for; but you must recollect that these buildings are for the requirements of the country, and that in them profitable business is carried on. And, therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the requirements of the locality not being known and the rule of thumb in the Department, I can assure him that he is entirely wrong, because we have full information with regard to the requirements from the Post Office; and, on the other hand, we have to satisfy the Treasury, besides which we have no desire whatever to swell the Estimates of the Department. The explanation of the differences which the right hon. Gentleman has pointed to is that some of the places mentioned are growing places, and the expenditure is necessary to meet their increasing requirements. I particularly remember that this was the case with Birmingham. The suburb of Aston Manor was shown to be growing rapidly, and it was, of course, necessary to supply the postal needs of the place. Then the right hon. Gentleman asks why the cost of furniture varies so much with different places, and one reason for that is that it has been found in some cases cheaper to hire a furnished house than to build one and then furnish it. That is a circumstance which accounts for the apparent discrepancy in the cost of furniture as between London and other places in the country. No doubt it was shown before the Committee on Public Sites that in a particular case the building was rather an expensive one; but it must be remembered that the Admiralty and War Office Buildings were to have been of a handsome and ornate kind. However, the Committee reported against the scheme for War Office and Admiralty combined, and I trust that a different plan may be carried out, the expense of which will be less. I cannot agree that there was evidence to show that in all cases the expenditure of others engaged in works of the kind has been exceeded by the Department.

This is one more instance of the great mistake that is made by not putting down to a Department the whole expenditure that belongs to it. Of course, we know that the Head of each Department wants to be able to say, when he comes before the House of Commons, that there is no increase in his Estimate; but the Head of a Department has only to go to the Treasury, and if he can get them to agree to the expenditure the money is spent, and it does not appear in his own Estimate. In this way thousands of pounds may be spent, and yet the Head of the Department may come before us, and say that in his particular branch there has been no increase of expenditure. That is one reason why we want the whole of the expenditure of each Department to be put down to its particular Vote. The right hon. Gentleman has said that these Post Office buildings ought to be paid for, because the Post Office is a source of profit; but I take it that people do not send more letters because the post office in their town happens to be a handsome building. They will send the same number of letters if the post office is an ugly building; and it is no answer to the charge of reckless and wasteful expenditure to say that it pro- duces profit. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that if we can show a balance to the good, nothing more is wanted; it does not signify to him whether that balance is large or small; whatever it is, we ought to spend in a large and grand fashion. The right hon. Gentleman has put forward a fallacy in saying that it is a question of difference of cost as between country and town. But my right hon. Friend has shown that the disproportion which he complains of takes place in the vicinity of London, and he has pointed to the cases of Wimbledon, Willesden, Wandsworth, and Highgate. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works says you must extend accommodation where the place is growing; but, take the places I have mentioned; they are not growing, but grown places; but taking them as grown or growing, one place is about the same as the other; and, therefore, I say the defence of the right hon. Gentleman does not apply. But he has not answered the question of my right hon. Friend, who asks who is the architect and surveyor, and who is the person who really decides of what class the building is to be, how it is to be built, and what is to be the expenditure upon it? I see that the total original Estimate for all this work was £388,118, and that the revised Estimate is £400,413. Of course, the revised Estimate is brought up above the original Estimate; and I have no doubt it will be found, on further revision, that the works will cost yet more money. That is the process we go through in all these cases. When the House is asked to vote the first sum, we are told that the work will cost so much; then we are told that there has been a mistake, and that the contractors must have so much more. But we say that the contractors have no right to come to the House, and say, "We want so much more;" and, further, we say that it is ridiculous to go on covering the face of the country with large and fine postal buildings. There have been post offices in all these places before; but I think the late Mr. Fawcett was responsible for the scheme for building new post offices all over the country; and I have since then seen places round London where post offices have been built, although none were required. I think we ought to make our protest, not only against the amount of the expendi- ture generally, but against these revised Estimates, which make the cost greater every year. I shall, therefore, move to reduce the Vote by the excess sum of £12,297; and I trust the Division will be such as to show the right hon. Gentleman that in future, when Estimates are presented to, us they must be adhered to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £126,330, be granted for the said Service."—( Mr. Labouchere. )

I think my right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) have rather misunderstood the position of the Office of Works in this matter. They appear to think that the Office of Works is extravagant. Having served both at the Office of Works and at the Post Office, I think I can throw some little light on the subject. I ought to point out that the Office of Works is in fact in respect to these matters a branch of the Treasury; it is interested in these expenditures from a Treasury point of view; it is closely supervised by the Treasury, and cannot spend a single penny without the authority of the Treasury; I often used to feel myself in these matters to be as a clerk under the Treasury. The superintendence in these matters has been given to the Office of Works rather as a check upon the Post Office than otherwise. It is said that the transfer of the building of post offices and telegraph offices from the Office of Works to the Post Office would tend to economy; but, in my opinion, it would result in exactly the opposite. The Office of Works, in fact, acts as a kind of drag upon the Post Office, continually exercising an influence in the opposite direction to expenditure; and if I were to look at the matter from the Post Office point of view, I should say that the drag has been put on sometimes rather too closely. The truth is that the demands of the Public Service in respect to postal and telegraph business are continually increasing in the most formidable manner. The country, through Parliament, is continually putting upon the Post Office fresh duties, and the business of the Departments is in- creasing to such a degree that few people who have not served the Departments have the least knowledge of, and, therefore, there is a continual pressure on the Treasury from the Post Office to make provision for the increase of the business; and, on the other hand, there is a continual pressure on the part of the Treasury, and through them on the part of the Office of Works, for the purpose of avoiding expenditure by the Post Office if possible. Again, you have pressure from the people in various localities asking for increased accommodation for their postal business, and who are interested also in the buildings being erected of a fine and handsome character. I think that when towns like Bradford, Birmingham, and Manchester demand that their post offices should be offices of a somewhat spacious and grand character you cannot altogether resist a demand of that kind. On the whole, I am inclined to think that if any fault can be found with the Office of Works and the Treasury with respect to the building of postal and telegraph offices it is on the ground rather that they have limited the demand more than is expedient than that they have been too expensive and too generous. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) called attention to the evidence given before the Committee on the Admiralty and War Office sites. I will not, at the present moment, refer to that subject; when the proper time comes I shall have a good deal to say upon it; but I think my right hon. Friend might have pointed out that evidence was given before that Committee with regard to the building of the General Post Office in London. It was said that that building had been erected at a very low cost as compared with other public buildings in the country. If I remember rightly its cost amounted to only 9 d. per cubic foot. [Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER: 11 d. per cubic foot.] No; not 11 d. —I think my right hon. Friend is wrong. However, I know this, that the General Post Office in London was erected at a cost very much less than any other public building has been erected, and certainly it is one of the most convenient and one of the best which has been erected in London in modern times, and it is a credit to the Department which was concerned in its erection and the officer who gave the orders for it. I do not believe the De- partment generally can be found fault with for being too expensive in these matters on the whole, and I think it would be wise economy in the long run to hasten the works which are undertaken. If there is a fault, it is the fault that in order to minimize the demands for the year the expenditure is carried over too long a period, and the works are not constructed so quickly as they might be. That, I believe, is the fault, if there is any to be found at all with the administration of this part of the work. I must point out again how very growing are the demands on the public purse in this respect. From almost every part of the country demands are made. So great are they that it is almost impossible for the Post Office and the Office of Works to keep up with them. Before I sit down there is one other point I should like to refer to, a point that has not hitherto been raised—it is the proportion of the cost of these buildings, which is put down to the Post Office and the Telegraph Departments. I raised the question on the Post Office Vote not long ago, and ventured to suggest then that the proportion to be put down to the credit of the Telegraph Department was too much in proportion to its work. I should like my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General to consider the point, and to consider carefully whether the proportion put down to the credit of the Telegraph Department should not be somewhat less than is now the case. I would also ask him whether it would not be wise to lay before the House a capital account of the Telegraphic Service, showing what has been done during each of the last four or five years in respect to public buildings and so forth? I think that such an account would be of the utmost value, and would tend more than anything else to show what is the real financial position of the Telegraphic Service, and how far we are earning or losing money at the present moment in that great concern. This, however, is a matter which infringes, perhaps, on another topic, and which is hardly germane to the question which is immediately before us; but I venture to throw it out as a suggestion to the Committee.

The right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) have selected Wandsworth as one of the illustrations on which they seek a reduction of this Vote. Amore unfortunate illustration for the success of their case could not be found than that of Wandsworth. I was about to address a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes) as to why it is that for two successive years a Vote has been taken for £2,500 for the new office at Wandsworth, which is very much wanted to meet the rapidly increasing requirements of the district, and that not one penny has been expended? I call in aid of my argument the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary to the Treasury himself; and I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) throw some little light on this question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford has spoken of the Office of Works as a drag upon the Post Office. I have no doubt they have been such a drag as to induce the Postmaster General not to spend a penny at Wandsworth, to the great injury of my constituency, a constituency of 75,000 people, and in which there is not a single building appropriate to a post office at all. It happens we have very excellent tradesmen there, who perform the postal duties to the satisfaction of the public, but still not amply enough for the needs of the place. The question I have to put to the Postmaster General is, where the new post office is to be, when he proposes to commence building, and on what scale the building is to be erected?

I intend to support the Motion of my hon. Colleague (Mr. Labouchere), for the reason that in dealing with the last Vote the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), I will not say avoided, because that would be an unfair way of putting it, but certainly did not promise—he carefully refrained from doing so—that he would use his influence with the Treasury that a Memorandum should in each case accompany the Estimates, so that it may be possible for a Member without official knowledge to know the total expenditure in each and every Department. The Secretary to the Treasury suggested that if that were done it would involve an enormous amount of expense. That can hardly be so. If the accounts were fairly made out, as I have no doubt they are, it would only be a little additional accountant work to prepare such a Memorandum. We ought to have it, or otherwise we are voting blindly. The fact that we have under this head several thousands of pounds which we ought to have been considering under the Post Office Vote serves to illustrate what occurs again and again in nearly every Department of the State. I have not sufficient technical knowledge to follow the objections of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), but I did notice that they were passed over sub silentio by the First Commissioner of Works, and no reply given except as regards post offices. I shall insist upon pressing to a Division each Vote until the Treasury say, aye or no, whether they will give the Memorandum I ask. If they say no, I shall take such opportunities as are afforded of raising the question in the House in order to obtain its decision. I object to being a party to trying to understand accounts which are rendered impossible of comprehension by the fashion in which they are prepared.

I should like a word of explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), or from some other occupant of the Treasury Bench. It appears we are under some misapprehension as to the facts of the case. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton called attention to various items, and among others to £3,270 for the post office at Aston Manor, and £2,500 for the post office at Finsbury Park. The right hon. Gentleman based his argument entirely on the hypothesis that these were two buildings of the same character, and he asked why more should be expended in the one case than in the other. The argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) appears to be based on the same consideration. If I understood the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) correctly, he pointed out that this was a Vote not only for new works, but also for alterations and additions. We cannot, therefore, without more knowledge than we have before us, compare the two cases cited; one expenditure may be for an extension of an already existing building, and the other may be for new works. I do not know whether I correctly understand the state of the case; but if I do, it occurs to me that we have really no information before the Committee which would in any way enable us to judge whether the expenditure is too great or too small in these cases. I cannot help thinking it would be a great convenience another year if the Government were to have notice given to them of the particular items on which information would be required, so that they could come down to the House with such details as would enable us to form a proper opinion. If I have correctly stated what the facts before the Committee now are, I submit that we are really acting in the dark, and are unable to form an opinion unless we have further information given from the Treasury Bench as to whether the expenditure in these cases is justified or not. As far as the evidence which has come before the Public Accounts Committee is concerned, I am bound to say that I quite agree with what has fallen from my right hon. Friend below me (Mr. Shaw Lefevre)—namely, that it would not result in economy if the responsibility of erecting post office buildings were transferred from the Office of Works to the Post Office. On the whole, I think we have had no sufficient case made out that there has been any undue expenditure; and, therefore, although I think the discussion has been very interesting, and I hope it may lead in future years to our having better information, still, if I have correctly understood the state of the case, I do not see that a case has been made out for the reduction of the Vote.

My hon. Friend the Member for the London University (Sir John Lubbock) has raised what I am sure is a very interesting suggestion, and it would be of advantage if it could be carried out—namely, that we should have some notice hereafter as to the items in the Votes which are to be challenged. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) laughs. I suppose that when he was at the Treasury he was so thoroughly prepared to meet every point that could be raised that he required no notice whatever. [Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER: The Secretary to the Treasury ought to be.] My hon. Friend (Sir John Lubbock) is quite right in saying that buildings at two places which may be named are not necessarily of the same size, and that, therefore, they are not necessarily of the same cost. The course which is adopted is this: a demand arises in a particular district—it may be a very rapidly growing district, or it may be a district which has outgrown, although slowly, the provision made for the postal business—the Post Office first prepare a statement of the amount of accommodation, either of new or of additional accommodation which is required. The Office of Works then prepare an estimate of the expenditure which will be involved in providing that accommodation, and they subsequently have to obtain the consent of the Treasury to that expenditure. I think somebody asked who was the architect. Well, the plans are prepared at the Office of Works, in the Office of Works, and by the architect there. The plans and specifications are then issued, and tenders for the erection of the buildings publicly invited to enable the Government, as far as they can, to secure that they get the buildings erected at the lowest possible price. I will give one instance which occurs to me of the difference between an estimate and a revised estimate—a difference which everybody knows who has had any actual experience of business occurs almost invariably in every case. I suppose anyone who has had anything to do with building operations knows perfectly well that between the original estimate and the ultimate cost there is often a considerable difference. It may be there is an alteration in the plan during construction; it may be there is some default found in the foundation. I have in my mind at this moment a case which came before me, that of Dumfries. After the plans had been prepared, after the contract had been made, after the expenditure had been sanctioned, it was discovered that the foundation was a very bad one. What was the consequence? I believe there has been an additional expenditure over the original estimate of nearly £1,000. But we were obliged to incur that expenditure. [Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER: That does not appear.] I am afraid that next year the right hon. Gentleman will find that the figure will be enlarged in respect to the office at Dumfries. Now, some reference was made to the case of Wandsworth and Wimbledon. The expenditure depends very much upon the organization. One post office in a particular district may be a much more important post office than another post office in the same district; and the same remark applies to the post offices of two different districts. It depends very greatly upon the work or the organization of the post office. Some offices require a much larger staff than others; some offices have a large parcels and telegraph business, while others have not. All these questions are dealt with as well as they can be by the Post Office. Let me point out further that, suppose a district is a growing one, the Post Office will probably say that, judging by the experience of the past 10 years, the requirements of the district will within the next 10 years enormously increase. In such a case they very properly make provision for a much larger staff than they would in the case of a district which is growing very slowly. Therefore, you cannot compare expenditure on a particular office with the expenditure on a particular office in another district; neither can you compare the expenditure on two offices in the same district, because the circumstances may be totally different, In all cases the Post Office people make an estimate as to the probable future requirements of an office, and of the staff to be accommodated. The Office of Works then make plans and provide that accommodation; and, as I have said, tenders for the erection of the buildings are publicly invited. I really do not know that the Government could adopt any other plan by which they would secure more economy. Now, with respect to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) has said as to the need of additional information, I am very sorry I have not made the matter clear to him. I am in entire sympathy with him, but it appears I have not sufficiently pledged myself. I hope he will forgive me if I say I would rather fulfil a pledge I make than make a pledge I cannot fulfil. The presentation of a Memorandum such as he refers to does not rest entirely with the Treasury; all the Estimates are not prepared by the Treasury. The Admiralty and War Office Estimates, for instance, are not prepared at the Treasury, or under the supervision of the Treasury; but I have made some inquiry, and I may say that there is no objection on the part of the Treasury to supplying the information, and so far as it can be supplied it shall be.

The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has referred to the case of Dumfries; but he has not offered any explanation of the remarkable disproportion between the estimate for the Dumfries Post Office and that for the Inverness Post Office; £4,000 is taken for the office at Dumfries, and £12,000 for the Inverness office. Is there such an amount of business at Inverness as would account for such a disproportion? Furthermore, the estimate for the Inverness office has been raised by £3,500—from £8,500 to £12,000. Without requiring any omniscience on the part of hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, I think they might be able to explain such items as these. Then I find the charge for Halifax is £10,000, while that for Bradford is nearly three times that amount—namely, £28,000. Of course Bradford is a larger town; but I do not think it can require three times the cost of that of Halifax. Then, again, I see that the cost of the post office at Clapham Common has been increased from the estimate of £350 to £1,350. The cost of the Streatham office has been doubled—£1,000 to £2,000. I should certainly like a short explanation of these items.

Of course it is impossible to exhibit to the Committee all the circumstances connected with each of these offices, which would enable them to form a comparison as to whether a larger expenditure in one than in another is justified or not. I think the Committee will agree that that is impossible. After what has been said by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), who has himself been Postmaster General and First Commissioner of Works, I do not think I need labour the subject further. I only wish to say, as regards the Inverness and Dumfries offices, that the office for Inverness is an office of the first class, and a very large district has to be served by it, whereas Dumfries has a less important character. You cannot establish a comparison between the cost of the buildings which are required in each place, for they are offices of a wholly different class. The answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth (Mr. Kimber) is that the delay has arisen owing to the difficulty of obtaining a site for the post office. The office will certainly be built as soon as ever that difficulty is overcome. I trust that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton. (Mr. Labouchere) does not intend to press his Motion to a Division. The increase of the revised estimate over the original estimate is rather a proof, I think, that, in the first place, the Office of Works was anxious to do the thing as economically as possible, but that when they went into details they found that an increased expenditure was necessary. The increase which appears on the Estimate only amounts to £12,000, and I am sure that anyone who has had experience of the building of houses will agree that this is not a large increase, considering the great number of buildings over which it is spread.

I can corroborate what the right hon. Gentleman has said in regard to the post office at Inverness. There is no comparison whatever between Inverness and Dumfries, as has been attempted to be shown by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). A great deal of the business of the Highlands is carried on in the Inverness Post Office, and there is an immense amount of business done in the telegraph department. There have been complaints of late years concerning the post office at Inverness. It was found impossible, at reasonable cost, to increase the present building; and, therefore, the Post Office availed themselves of an opportunity offered to obtain a more commodious site in another place. I think they have only done what the necessities of the Highlands required.

I must express surprise that on a Vote of this magnitude we have heard nothing of the views of the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes). I shall be obliged to move to report Progress if the Minister whose Department is responsible for the large amount of the expenditure covered by this Vote does not give his opinion to the Committee on the points raised.

I am very sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) should have been disappointed. I should have thought that with his experience at the Treasury he must know perfectly well that this is a Vote for which I am not responsible, and one of which I cannot pretend to have any correct information. This is a Vote for which my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) is responsible, and as to which it appears to me he has given very accurate information. I can only follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton in the more general views he has expressed on this subject, and which, I think, have been very well met by my right hon. Friend and Predecessor the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), who has already spoken in this debate. But if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton believes that the Post Office is always in these matters demanding as much money as it can get from the Treasury or from the Office of Works, I can assure him he must be speaking from imperfect information. I will take the first item in this Vote, which is the largest, and that is the expenditure for the new General Post Office, North, in the City of London. A very great space was required for that building, and so large a sum as £30,000 has been voted. That was voted before I became connected with the Department at all; and although I believe the sum represents extremely good value at moderate cost, I have made it my business to consult the architect of the Office of Works, who very kindly came to see me on the question. I have suggested several methods of reducing the building, and I have asked him to consider the subject, and to report to me if he thinks any economy can be effected in the direction I pointed out. The part taken by the Post Office is certainly not to expand, but rather, if possible, to reduce cost. Well, then, there has been a great deal said, both by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton and others who have taken part in this debate, as to the desirability of carrying these build- ing Estimates into the Post Office. I can only say, with regard to that point, what I imagine anybody in my position would say — namely, that it appears to me to be most undesirable to put upon the Department the duty of defending and advocating Estimates for which they are not responsible. If these Estimates are the work of the Office of Works, if they are devised by their officers, and if they are carried out under their supervision and control, it is quite plain the Office for whom the building may ultimately be intended cannot be held in any way responsible for the expenditure incurred. We intimate to the Office of Works what we believe to be the requirements of the Service, and then the Office of Works place themselves in competent hands. I understand the arrangement, which has now subsisted for many years, has been found very economical to the Public Service—that is to say, that there should be one Department which, having its own experts, its own trained architects and surveyors, should undertake the building for all other Departments, and not that each Department should have a staff of architects and surveyors of its own, which would, in the long run, lead to great additional expenditure. Now, reference has been made to the cost of the post offices at Inverness and Dumfries. The case of Dumfries is one which has been before me more than once. It is the fact that there has been a very considerable subsidence in the site intended for the post office there; and no doubt there will have to be provision for some addition to the original estimate, though I think not quite to the amount of £1,000. Inverness is the capital of the Highlands. It is the centre of an extremely vast district. The post office there is of the first class; it has a very large staff, and it is a centre from which radiate an enormous number of postal lines. Inverness certainly requires a building altogether larger and more important than that which will suffice for a town like Dumfries. If I had known that any question was going to be raised with regard to the suburban places, I should have been glad to have obtained information to show why one office should cost £4,000 more than another; but I think it stands to reason that there must be certain discrepancies in the cost even of buildings of the same dimensions at places like Hampstead or Highgate or Wimbledon. You cannot have a hard-and-fast line as to the amount to be paid for each site, and I have no doubt it will be found on inquiry that the establishments at these places vary—that you have to provide in some places what you have not to provide in others. My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth (Mr. Kimber) has said something in regard to the post office in that important town. I can assure him that the Department is very fully aware of the importance of providing suitable post office accommodation at Wandsworth. As he is aware, a sum has been already voted to provide for that post office; but we have not, up to the present time, been able to secure a suitable site. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is prepared to supply us with a suitable site at a moderate figure; but until we obtain a site we are not in a position to commence building operations. I assure him and the constituency he so well represents that no time will be lost, and no pains spared, in endeavouring to find a site adequate to the requirements of so large and so important and increasing a population as that of Wandsworth. We must get on as well as we can until we are in a position to provide suitable and useful buildings. In regard to how places grow, I may say I have had an application made to me recently in respect to a very large and important burgh in Scotland, where what was considered a sufficiently large post office was erected, I think only eight or 10 years ago, at a total cost of about £8,000. The town has already completely outgrown the accommodation of the post office, and great pressure has been put on me to consent to an expenditure of at least £10,000 in providing an additional building. I am told that we might, perhaps, sell the post office which cost £8,000 for something like £4,000; but that, as I pointed out to the gentleman who came to me, would involve altogether an expenditure of £6,000 for an additional office, and therefore the country must be required to spend altogether £14,000 upon the post office at this place. I mention this to show that the Office of Works are fully justified when, from time to time, they appear to exceed the immediate requirements of a place. If a place is a growing place, it might be desirable to spend a sum larger than is actually required at the moment. In the particular instance to which I referred, the building, though a very excellent building, stands upon a very limited site, and there is no possibility of extending it; and, therefore, a new site will have to be obtained in the event of a new post office being provided. Having regard for the future is, I understand, the principle which has guided the Office of Works in dealing with this matter. It is certainly a principle which I shall be guided by in making any recommendation to the Office of Works. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) has raised a point which I think is very well worthy of consideration—that is, whether it can be found possible to present to the House, in the form of a capital account, what has been the expenditure in connection with the Telegraph Department. I feel, as others have felt, how very desirable it would be in regard to a Department which has to meet very considerable capital expenditure if we were allowed to have a capital account. I believe it would tend to remove much misapprehension which prevails in regard to the Estimates of each particular year, and it would certainly, I think, make the country more thoroughly understand the way in which this money is being expended. I think it is desirable to supply some Return of the description the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, and I shall be happy to confer with him as to the form of that Return, and then ascertain how far the Treasury are able to sanction such a Return being laid before the House.

Will the right hon. Gentleman present a similar Return with reference to the Parcels Post?

I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had in view when he made this suggestion that the telegraphs showed a deficiency and that the Postal Service showed a surplus. It was rather with the object of endeavouring to show how the deficiency was arrived at that he suggested the presentation of a Return showing the capital expenditure. There is not the same necessity for a Return in the case of the Parcels Post; but I will bear in mind the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella). I am afraid I must apologize to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), if I have not satisfied his curiosity in regard to details. I can assure him, however, that as long as I have the honour of filling my present position I shall not lose sight of the fact that the way to promote economy is to undertake the most thorough investigation in regard to matters involving expenditure.

I have a little knowledge upon the point, and I cannot allow the statements which have been made as to the relationship between the Treasury and the Post Office to go absolutely unqualified. I wish the Treasury had the power which the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General says it possesses, My experience is the other way. I can give the Committee a simple illustration of the power of the Treasury. Last year the Treasury made a very large reduction in the Post Office Estimates; but when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) came into power he re-presented the reduction which my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had made—re-presented the reduction in the shape of a Supplementary Estimate, and the power of the Treasury, or, at all events, the economies which the Treasury had intended to introduce, were for the time being swept away. The Post Office always prides itself upon being a paying Department, and I think it holds a very strong position as regards the Treasury and the Office of Works. I have been quite misunderstood by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, and also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), as to what I suggest. I did not suggest that the Post Office should undertake the building of these post offices; I did not suggest that the jurisdiction of the First Commissioner of Works should be in any way interfered with; but what I did suggest was that this expenditure should appear on the Post Office Vote, so that the House might know on the Post Office Vote what it was spending on Post Office buildings. Although it may be perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman is not directly re- sponsible—though. I think he is to a much greater extent than he appears to imagine—for the building Vote, what does he say as to the next sub-heads of this Vote? £2,888 is taken for "Ordinary maintenance and repairs of the General Post Office and branch offices in London;" £4,070 for "coals, candles, and sundry household articles for General Post Office and branch offices in London;" £730 for "coals, candles, and sundry household articles (including gas and water) in Scotland;" £3,700 for "coals, candles, and sundry household articles in England;" and £270 for "coals and sundry household articles (including gas and water) in Scotland?" I am not arguing that any one of these items is extravagant; but I say that the House ought to have heard of this expenditure on the Post Office Vote. While I recommend the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) not to press his Motion to a Division, I should like the Committee to see on the face of the Post Office Vote what the Post Office expenditure really is. I know that when I give illustrations of the variations in expenditure I shall be told that this place is an important place, and that place is a growing place. I do not rest my case on the few instances I gave. My point is this, that the cost of the site being excluded—that is, the largely varying cost—the cost of building is practically the same in the various parts of the country. [Mr. PLUNKET dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) shakes his head; but I do not think he will say that in Birmingham, in Bradford, in Leeds, in Halifax, in Newcastle, or in Manchester, there is any great discrepancy in the cost of building, at all events any such discrepancy as is indicated by the large differences in the amounts mentioned here. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works admits that the principle adopted—namely, putting all the work into the hands of a surveyor in London, is the most economical mode in which the work can be supervised and carried out. I am very glad we have had this discussion, and I hope that before it closes the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) will promise to consider the possibility of showing on the face of the Post Office Vote itself the entire expenditure upon the Postal Service. I must confess I was surprised to hear a gentleman in the position of Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee suggest that Members of Parliament should give Notice of all the items in the Estimates they are going to refer to. If that is to be done the sooner the Committee of Supply is given up the better. A Select Committee sitting upstairs might go through the items one by one, and obtain explanations from the Ministers and officials who were responsible for them. I am sanguine enough to believe that if a Select Committee were to examine the Civil Service Estimates, as a Select Committee is now examining the Admiralty and War Office Estimates, enormous advantage to the State would result.

I cannot allow the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) to pass without a word or two of explanation. I am quite prepared to undertake that if I hold my present Office when the next Estimates are made up, they shall show the cost of the sites of the different post offices.

I did not ask that.

As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman wants to find out the total expenditure on post office sites.

I want the expenditure to be shown on the Post Office Vote itself.

It is rather difficult to follow the right hon. Gentleman. I would like to ask him whether he wants the amounts of the expenditure to appear under the Vote of the Department which is not responsible—[Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER: Yes.]—or under the Vote of the Department which is nominally responsible? [Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER: Both.] Both? You may have it as an explanatory Vote, but it is impossible, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that the amounts can be stated in both accounts. If they are, you will have a duplicate entry.

There is some misunderstanding. I do not want a duplicate entry. I do not want a duplicate Vote. I want the money to be voted in accordance with Treasury precedent. I want the Vote for the Post Office to show that the sites cost so much, that the furniture costs so much, and so on, so that when the House of Commons is discussing the Vote for the Post Office it will know what the entire cost of the Post Office is.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman wishes it put in the Appropriation Accounts or not; but it will be seen that anything like duplication will involve difficulty in comparing the Appropriation Accounts with the Estimates, because the items will not agree. But, however, I am entirely at one with the right hon. Gentleman in this matter, and so far as it can be carried out it shall be. Now, the right hon. Gentleman spoke about the Treasury control, and he wished the Treasury had more control over Post Office expenditure than it has. The Treasury has really absolute control, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, over the Post Office expenditure, because the Post Office expenditure requires Treasury sanction before it can be incurred. The Treasury, therefore, can, if it chooses to exercise the responsibility, refuse any demand the Post Office may make. But I am bound to say that if the control which was exercised by the Treasury when my right hon. Friend occupied the position I now hold is to be the only control exercised Treasury control would be very small indeed. My right hon. Friend commenced by cutting down the Post Office Estimate by £195,000, and he calls that Treasury control. But does my right hon. Friend remember that before he went out of Office, and, therefore, before I succeeded to the Office, he had spent the sum he had provided for the whole year's service? [Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER: No, no!] My right hon. Friend says "No, no;" but what I state is the fact. He had sanctioned the cutting down of the Estimates by a very large sum; but before the 10th of August, before I came into Office, he had also sanctioned an expenditure equivalent to the total sum provided for the year. Therefore, my right hon. Friend had left me with no money at all to spend. It is all very well to exercise Treasury control like that. Now, I will tell you what I have done. I have said that the Treasury ought to be supplied by the Post Office with a detailed Estimate of the expenditure. I have said, further, that every application which comes to the Treasury for sanction shall, in the future, bear on its face, or else inquiry shall be made, whether provision has been made for the Service in the Estimates. By this means I shall be able to keep some sort of control, and not leave my Successor in the position my Predecessor left me. In this way I shall avoid very largely Supplementary Estimates. If the expenditure has not been provided for in the Estimates, I shall know it, and I shall sanction it with full responsibility, knowing it will require a Supplementary Estimate. I hope to thus secure real Treasury control over expenditure. I am not favourable to Supplementary Estimates, and I will not have them if I can avoid it.

Before this Vote is passed I want to draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) to a point which has been already mentioned. The other night I spent two hours in endeavouring to ascertain how much furniture has been supplied to the Public Offices; but I was unable to do so. The accounts are so jumbled up that if they were presented to the head of any business in the City or elsewhere they would be laughed at. I do not mean to suggest that the accounts are confused purposely in order to prevent criticism; but, as a matter of fact, it is almost impossible for anyone who takes an interest in the accounts to come to a fair and just conclusion regarding them. I understand the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury does intend to look into the present system of preparing the accounts, with the view of presenting them in future in a form which hon. Members can better and more readily comprehend. Let me point out that in this Estimate there are four or five different items for furniture—£10,000 in all. It is utterly impossible from this account to form the least opinion as to whether the expenditure is a necessary or unnecessary one. Let me go further still, and point out that year after year we are voting away money—upwards of £100,000 for furniture alone—for new furniture to replace that which is worn out or which does not suit the æsthetic tastes of some of the Heads of Departments, and yet in the whole of these Estimates there is not a single figure which shows what becomes of the old furniture. The item for old furniture may appear to be of very small importance; but if you spend £100,000 of the public money in the purchase of new furniture to replace furniture which is quite good enough for any Public Office in the country, but which does not suit the æsthetic tastes of certain officials, there ought to be some means of ascertaining what becomes of the furniture which has been discarded. It is no use denying the statement, because it has been admitted in the House, that the furniture in certain Public Offices did not suit the æsthetic tastes of the Heads of those Offices, and they demanded to have furniture of a superior or more artistic character, and got it. For aught we know, the old or discarded furniture may be a perquisite of the people who conduct the disposal of it. Now, £10,000, which is here shown, will buy a lot of office furniture. It is not as if ottomans and pianos and curtains for windows are to be purchased with it; but it is simply for office chairs and tables; £10,000 will, therefore, go a very long way; and the amount of furniture which £10,000 will replace is very large. Now, what becomes of the old furniture? Is it broken up for firewood? Is it sold; because, if so, why is there no item in the Estimates in respect to it? I see there is an item, "estimated extra receipts." Is that for this discarded furniture? What is meant by "estimated extra receipts?" No information whatever is given to the Committee upon this point. I cannot help thinking that the Committee is being bamboozled in this matter. I do not say it is intentional, but it certainly is the result of a very bad practice which has grown up. It is clear to my mind that the method of preparing these Estimates is most improper and misleading. I admit the Estimates are prepared with every endeavour on the part of the officials that no hole can be picked in them, but prepared also with the view that no hole should be picked in them in the sense that no criticism should be passed upon them. I trust the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will give us some information upon this point. At present there is no reason assigned for this large item which annually appears in this particular Estimate. There is item after item, "new furniture," "new furniture," "new furniture." One would think that half the work of the Government Departments of this country is the buying of new furniture, and yet when we are asked to spend this money we are given no information to enable us to say whether the expenditure is just or not. Now, I will put a practical question to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. Will he in future see that the information which this Committee is entitled to is given? Will he see that those who prepare these Estimates prepare them in a way which will be intelligible to ordinary business men; and will he tell us now, if he can, what is the amount, if any, which has been received for the discarded furniture?

The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Molloy) indulged in passionate eloquence on this point, although there is no ground whatever for it; because, in the first place, I must call attention to the fact that the Vote we are now discussing is Vote 8, and relates to the Customs' Buildings, the Inland Revenue Buildings, the Post Office Buildings, and the Telegraph Buildings all over the country; and if he comes to realize what that means, he will see that the sum asked for—£10,000—is not a large one at all. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that this sum not only covers the purchase of whatever new furniture may be required for all these buildings, but the repairing of old furniture, and the supplying of all the materials with which the offices are kept clean and the furniture kept in good condition. Indeed, I am not only the carpenter, but also the housemaid to these buildings, and it would be difficult for me to keep a record of the quantity of furniture which comes under my charge. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that no new furniture has been supplied to suit the æthetic tastes of anyone. It is only as furniture wears out that new articles are supplied. I am persuaded that if the hon. Gentleman calls to mind the immense number of offices throughout the country included under the four heads, Customs, Inland Revenue, Post Office, and Telegraphs, he will not think £10,000 an excessive amount for furniture.

I think the incidents the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works has given justify me in the observations I make. I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman did not give information upon the main point I put before him, and did not tell us whether the expenditure referred to was a just or an unjust expenditure. It appears that housemaid expenditure—that is to say, the expenditure on dustpans and so on—is put under the head of furniture; and that, I submit, is bound to be misleading, for these things cannot properly be looked on as furniture. The point I put is this—that there is a large amount of old furniture replaced year by year; and I complain that there is nothing in the Estimates to show what becomes of that old furniture. The point I raise now is identical with the point raised three years ago, when the attention of the Government was called to the fact that at the very time they were buying new furniture they had enough old furniture to serve for months. We were asked to point out where this old furniture was; but we replied to the Government—"It is your business to find out where it is—it is your affair and not ours, and you cannot call upon us to undertake your duty." We told the Government they must discover this furniture, and, in course of time, they did discover it. That was not in the time of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket); but it was, at any rate, found that the Department was in possession of a large amount of furniture stored up. To say that there is no old furniture to be sold—to say that if there is any old furniture it can only be used as a bonfire—is not a correct statement of the case. You are constantly replacing furniture. What becomes of the old furniture, I ask? Have you nothing to say as to what becomes of it? What is received for it? If your dealings with old furniture are anything in the nature of business like transactions, let the item be put in your accounts. I know it is difficult to look after all these matters, and I do not make a complaint against the right hon. Gentleman. I am endeavouring to help him, and am bringing to bear upon this point reliable information which has been given to me privately. The facts which have come to my knowledge, for obvious reasons, I cannot state in this House, because if I did I should have to make accusations without evidence to justify them, though I have evidence sufficient to render anyone morally certain of the facts. I want the right hon. Gentleman opposite to assure himself that none of the smaller officials in the Departments get no perquisite money for the sale of old furniture, and so on. I would ask that in future those whose duty it is to prepare these Estimates shall be compelled to put down whatever sum, whether it be a large or small one, which is obtained for discarded articles of furniture in the Government Offices. We have a right to know what the exact amount is, and to have an account before us, so that if anything goes wrong we may be able to check it.

Might I endeavour to enforce what was said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to the absolute necessity of putting the whole cost for every Department in one distinct account? For 20 years I have been connected with one of the Departments which has to do with the spending of money, and I am perfectly convinced that there is no greater source of extravagance than the fact of money being granted by one Department to be spent in another. The Post Office, Stationery Office, and other Departments are affected in this way. When a Department gets the money it spends directly, there is some probability of its looking after it to the best of its ability; but if it has to get anything from the hands of another Department, it is not guided altogether by the same principle of economy. It is like a locality getting money from the Treasury—the local rate expenditure, which it feels directly, it looks after keenly; but its aim often seems to be to spend as much as it can get out of the Imperial Treasury. I maintain that the first step towards practical economy in the Deparment we are discussing is to require that the whole sum expended upon each Department should be accounted for in the Estimates of that Department. In this way the accounts of each Department would show every penny it expends and every penny it receives, and you could account for its operations in that way. I am very grateful to the Government for saying that this system is to be carried out in the compilation of the Estimates next year, and I trust that this system will in future be universally adopted.

I do not wish to refer to what is going on in the Departmental Committee which is holding an inquiry upstairs; but I wish to say that I am glad the hon. Member opposite has dealt with this question as he has. Irise, however, to say how grateful we should be to the hon. Member on this side (Mr. Molloy) for having raised a new point and one of considerable importance. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works can answer the question; but I notice that at the foot of page 32 there are four items in connection with this Vote for furniture—four items in the nature of extra receipts amounting to £5,400—and I should like to know what they mean. The right hon. Gentleman probably knows what these items consist of, and whether any considerable part of the money is in respect of old furniture. At any rate, I think we should get from him the particulars of this Vote. [Mr. PLUNKET dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but I can only say that this is just one of those questions which we are entitled to ask, and which a Minister ought to answer. I should think he could ascertain without difficulty what that £5,400 has reference to—at any rate, with the assistance of the Secretary to the Treasury.

I should like before this Vote is passed to ask for some explanation upon the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), which no Member of the Government has since referred to. The point had reference to what appears on page 32—that is to say, the great disproportion observable between the charges for Customs Buildings in London and the charges for Customs Buildings in Liverpool and the rest of the country. The Port of Liverpool in regard to its foreign trade is about equal to the Port of London, and in some years it will even surpass it. No doubt the large coasting trade which London has makes its tonnage larger; but the foreign trade is about equal in the two ports. Well, in connection with the Port of London, I see there is a charge of about £1,000 for sanitary works under the head of Customs Buildings, where as the corresponding charge for the Port of Liverpool is only £50. The charge for maintenance and repairs in the Port of London £1,800, whilst in Liverpool it is only £680, For rent' insurance, and so on, the charge for London is £5,600, whilst for Liverpool it is only £670. For fuel, lighting, water, amp;c, London has £2,020, whilst Liverpool has only £850. I know that the articles imported into London, as a rule, bear much heavier duty than those imported into Liverpool; but still the disproportion between the Customs receipts in London and Liverpool is not likely to be such as to justify this enormous disproportion in the charges I refer to. I think this is a point upon which we should have some explanation.

I see in the Estimate that no less than £65,000 is taken for new works, alterations and additions of Post Office Buildings. Then, again, we have for Post Office Telegraph Buildings—new works, alterations and additions—an item of £14,273 charged. Well, under these Votes, what I want to know is, whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take any steps to compel the Railway Companies to render facilities to the public for the use of their telegraph wires? The Government usually give the stereotyped answer that they have no control over the Railway Companies; but I would point out that when large Railway Companies ask for new Acts of Parliament, it is perfectly competent for us to insist that these Companies should grant the use of their telegraph wires for the convenience of the public and for the good of the country. I should like to ask—

The subject the hon. Baronet is dealing with is totally irrelevant to the Vote we are discussing.

With regard to the question of the right hon. Gentleman, opposite (Mr. Childers), raised as to the extra receipts, I am afraid I have not the full details with me; but I should think that, practically, none of this item is for the sale of old furniture, because, so far as I know, no furniture is sold so long as it is of any value, or useful for the purpose of furniture. I think the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Molloy) has rather—I will not say exaggerated—but given reins to his imagination, in describing the expenditure as having been made on new furniture, for the purpose of replacing old furniture, merely to satisfy the æsthetic tastes of the heads of Departments. It is impossible for me to say exactly what the item is for; but it is based upon the average of preceding years. The extra receipts in preceding years have been—in 1883–4, £4,464; in 1884–5, £5,786; and in 1885–6, £5,887. I believe a very large portion of that is for rents, for old materials re-used, and items of that sort. These are all the extra receipts which come under the Department of my right hon. Friend. Then, the hon. Member for Leicester raises a question as to the difference in the expenditure upon furniture in different ports.

Not only furniture, but the difference in regard to other matters, such as fuel, fire, and water, insurance, and so on.

Yes; the hon. Member desires to know the meaning of the disproportion, under these similar heads, in the case of London and in the case of Liverpool. I would remind him that the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments have their headquarters in London, and that of course the expenditure in London due to that fact is very much larger than it is in other ports. I do not think any comparison can be drawn between the Port of London and the Port of Liverpool. We cannot make any comparison of the expenditure which is necessary for these offices by comparing the imports and exports at the two ports, because, as I have said, the headquarters are in London, and the main business is concentrated in London. The management of all other offices in the country is conducted in London through the Headquarters Staff. We cannot draw a comparison between the two places named. The amounts given here are only the Estimate, and if the hon. Gentleman will look at the Appropriation Accounts he will see the details all set out.

I hope that when this matter comes before us again we shall get some information upon the point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Molloy). It is a point of great importance, because, in the first place, I do not think that the sum in question is so small as the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury seems to think. Take the case of last year, when the item charged in regard to the furniture bought for the Departments was nearly £20,000, whilst the extra receipts only amounted to £50. That sum can hardly represent the value of the furniture displaced by the purchase of this £20,000 worth of new furniture. I take it, therefore, that there must be a good deal of disused furniture that might be accounted for in some way or other, even for firewood. If there is an opportunity afforded, under the present arrangement, for pickings and "perquisites" on the part, I will not say of any of the higher officials, but even on the part of the smallest and lowest employés, it should be known and corrected.

I will inquire into the matter.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(5.) £19,440, County Court Buildings.

(6.) £3,737, Metropolitan Police Court Buildings.

(7.) £1,070, Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland.

Resolutions to be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £150,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the Survey of the United Kingdom, including the revision of the Survey of Ireland, Maps for use in proceedings before the Land Judges in Ireland, publication of Maps, and engraving the Geological Survey."

On this subject I desire to ask one or two questions of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, especially with regard to surveys in Ireland. According to the Report we have as to the progress of the Ordnance Survey for 1886, which has just been published, I find that a complaint is made that the survey maps already issued are not such as to be available for the particular business for which they are most required—namely, the delimitation of holdings, especially small ones. On page 4 I find it stated that the 1-inch 2,500 scale map has only been published for one county. For nearly the whole of Ireland, therefore, there is no survey on a sufficiently large scale for the valua- tion and free sale and transfer of small parcels of land, and in the majority of counties there are no contour maps upon a proper scale to enable drainage and engineering works to be carried out. Considering that the Government are preparing to spend £50,000 on drainage works, and works of similar description in Ireland, it is of the first importance that these Survey and Ordnance maps should be as complete and on as large a scale as possible. On page 7 of the Report, to which I have already referred, I find it laid down that there is a general consensus of opinion that the revision of the survey of Ireland, now proceeding on the 6-inch scale, should be replaced by one on the scale of 1-inch in 2,500. The Valuation Acts provide that the Ordnance Survey maps shall be used in ascertaining the valuation, but the 6-inch scale maps are too small to show all the holdings. There are 70,000 holdings in Ireland of under two acres, and 100,000 so small that they cannot be given on the map. The completion of the large scale English survey affords a favourable opportunity for progress being made with the larger scale in Ireland. We have in Ireland for a long time felt the want of good Ordnance maps on a sufficiently large scale, but it has been perfectly useless for us to complain of that want as we have done year after year. I, therefore, do not seek to press this by any representation of my own. The Government have the official Report before them, and in the straightest and plainest and strongest terms they have it that, in view of the distinct and pressing national want, no orders have been issued for the supply of the larger survey and revision in Ireland, even though the work is completed in this country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us information of a satisfactory character in regard to this. Then the next point with which I wish to deal is as to the survey maps. There have been a variety of complaints with regard to the issue of the Ordnance Survey maps. It has been complained of in particular that the Government give certain agents and privileged persons a monopoly of the sale of these maps from time to time, and that up to the present there has been no satisfactory plan of issuing these maps adopted. The system of giving Messrs. Stanford a practical monopoly is not looked on with favour by the survey officials, and the concluding observations of the Report are, that it is a most desirable thing that the Ordnance Survey maps should be better known in the country districts of England, and should be more generally used for local purposes, such as valuation for rating, than they are at present; but that this end will not be facilitated by the appointment of a sole agent who has no sufficient inducement to push the sale of the Government maps rather than his own in provincial towns, That is the position you are placed in, that actually the man who has the monopoly is interested in not pushing the sale of your maps, but in pushing the sale of his own. The consequence of this system is that these Ordnance Survey maps are not so well known as they should be in this country, particularly in the country districts.

I hope the Committee will allow me to make a few remarks upon these Estimates; and, first of all, I desire to call the attention of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, if he will kindly give it to me for a moment, to the form of the accounts. In examining these accounts, I find that there are certain charges made for salaries, whereas in the whole Estimates of this class the requirements are for structures only, and, if there is any charge made for personal attendance, it is only in connection with the keeping of structures in good order. On the next page the Committee will observe a series of charges for salaries, but I cannot find in this class any charge for salaries except for persons employed in the construction or maintenance of buildings. On the next page, under the head Science and Art, you find buildings alone dealt with; but when you come to that item afterwards, in another class of the Estimates, you find a charge for salaries in connection with the Geological Survey. It seems to me to be a point deserving my hon. Friend's attention that we now have the salaries for the Geological Survey in one class of the Estimates, and salaries for the Ordnance Survey in a different class of the Estimates. That is one of those points that my hon. Friend should give his attention to in drawing up the Esti- mates for next year, but my object in rising was not so much to deal with that as to ask a question as to the progress of this Ordnance Survey. Hon. Members will be surprised when I tell them that it is now stated in the Report of the Ordnance Survey that it is nearly 100 years since the survey of this country was commenced, and the question I wish to ask is whether the survey of Great Britain commenced in 1791, will be completed in the year 1890? It is recommended that it should be completed in that year, and I wish to ask the Government whether the Estimate is on such a scale as to enable the survey to be completed in the year 1890, or 100 years after it was first authorized? I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Estimate actually placed upon the Table of the House, and which is the basis of this discussion is on such a scale that the survey will be completed in the year 1890? Then, I wish to call the hon. Gentleman's attention, if I may be permitted to do so for a moment, to the great importance of the immediate publication of this Survey. I quite agree with what fell from the hon. Gentleman opposite as to the diminution which has taken place in the sale of these maps. I point to that as a circumstance full of discouragement. What I wish to see is a large circulation of these maps—that all persons engaged in agricultural operations, whether as owners of land, as agents or as occupiers, should have the survey of their district at hand. I believe it would greatly tend to an increased knowledge of our own country, that the land would be better occupied, and that the capacities of the various soils would be better understood. I believe that we are deficient in this country in knowledge of the geography of our own land, and I believe that the free circulation of these maps would greatly tend to the promotion of that valuable knowledge. I find that though there are surveys completed in 42 counties the publication of maps is lagging behind, and I think the least the country could ask is that the publication of the maps should follow closely upon the accumulation of the information upon which the maps are based. It is a remarkable circumstance that the survey should be completed in Ireland and Scotland and not in England. That is one of the most curious illustrations of the way that Ireland and Scotland have gained upon us, and are in a position of more full information in respect of their own country than we are in England. ["No, no!"] Yes. The hon. Member opposite made reference not to the completion of the survey in Ireland, but to making progress with the survey on the larger scale. The survey on the small scale is is now complete. I think we ought to bear in mind the facts stated by the hon. Member that so far as the 6-inch maps are concerned there are 100,000 holdings in Ireland so small that they cannot be given on that map. That is a most remarkable circumstance of a statistical character—the extreme subdivision of the holdings in the sister country. The next point to which I wish to draw attention is one of great importance in the district and country with which I am connected—I refer to Lancashire and Yorkshire. Those counties are spoken of in the Report as being progressive counties, and everyone who knows what has taken place in this district is aware of the rapid progress which has been made, and is aware of what enormous changes have taken place. If you take up the Ordnance map of Lancashire or Yorkshire for any practical purpose you will find beyond a doubt that in order to render it useful you must add to it very considerably. In the lapse of time since the map was published the face of the country has undergone great changes, and what I would press upon the Government is that the revision of these maps should be advanced as rapidly as possible in these great centres of industry, so that we may have maps laid before us from time to time containing the latest information. Those maps only are of service to us which are not misleading—if they are misleading they are of little service to those engaged in the management of land. I would ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury this question, whether the Report in my hand recognizes that a grant ought to be made this year on such a scale that the arrears of the revision should be cleared off in six years? What I would ask is, whether the grant now asked for is of such a magnitude that all these arrears will be cleared off in the course of six years? There ought to be a constant revision going on, and I am sure that the period mentioned for revision is below the necessities of the case rather than above it. I am glad to have had an opportunity of making these few remarks. I do not wish to detain the Committee one moment longer than is necessary for my purpose, and I hope I may be forgiven for making those observations.

Before the Secretary to the Treasury replies to the questions which have been addressed to him, I wish to draw his attention to a matter which I dare say will be in his memory as it was mentioned by me some months ago. I wish to recall to his mind the question I raised as to the discharge of some persons engaged in connection with the Ordnance Survey. I should like to know whether the discharge of those persons took place because the survey was near completion? I think I am correct in saying that on the occasion to which I refer he told me that that was the case; but I have been greatly puzzled on looking under Sub-head H, and fear there is some confusion in this matter, because it seems to me that there is here an increase asked for which is inconsistent with the discharge of officials owing to the fact that the survey is approaching completion. I should, therefore, like the hon. Member to say explicitly whether it is true that the survey is approaching completion, and, if so, what is the meaning of this increase which is now asked for? We have here a huge amount for salaries under the head of Public Works, and the point to which I refer is, to say the least of it, an eccentricity of bookkeeping.

With regard to the observations made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell), I would point out that Ireland for a long time took the lead in the 6-inch survey. For a long period that survey was the principal one, but England is now taking advantage of the 1-inch 2,500 scale. It does seem to me that, looking at what is now going on in Ireland in connection with the land, and to the large number of small holdings in that country, that they should have a large scale Ordnance map as soon as possible. I will, therefore, back up the observations of the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). I should like to ask a question with regard to the issue of these survey maps in Ireland. It is said that there are a good many of these maps used by the Judges of the Land Courts in Ireland which have not yet been paid for, and I should like to know whether these arrears are increasing or decreasing? Then with regard to the observations which have been made by hon. Members as to the monopoly granted to Messrs. Stanford, I should like to ask whether that monopoly is to continue, and, if so, how long it is to last? The sale of maps is falling off. The amount realized is £4,000 less than the Estimate, and that would seem to show that the Government are not dealing with this matter in the best way. What commission do the Government pay their agent?

I wish to draw attention to a small matter—small, though important in one way—and to ask an answer from the Government. I am in a little difficulty with regard to it, because I do not know if it comes in this Vote or the next, which includes the Jermyn Street Geological Museum. The point I wish to raise appears to me to bear rather on the matter of the Geological Survey than on the matter of the buildings in Jermyn Street. I wish to ask if it is not possible in connection with the Geological Survey to make a collection for the Geological Museum—

The Geological Survey does not come under this Vote.

That is my difficulty. I see that under this Vote you have the expenses of the Ordnance Survey and of the engraving of the Geological Survey.

The engraving is not the making of the survey.

Then may I bring up the point I wish to mention in connection with the Vote on page 47—that is to say, on the Vote for 32, Jermyn Street, the School of Mines? I do not see why the Geological Survey is brought in at all under this Vote.

It is under Class 3.

. Yes; under Class 3, Science and Art Department.

I think, perhaps, as a matter of conveni- ence, I may be allowed to deal first with, the matter raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). It is quite true that there has been a discharge of a certain number of officials because the survey was to be completed in 1890. The survey will be completed by 1890, and, therefore, a considerable number of what is called field men have been dismissed, for the reason that they were not wanted. Then the hon. Member drew attention to an increase in an item under Sub-head H. Well, the explanation of that may be found in the fact that under an Act passed last year there are certain valuations to be made in connection with tithe rent-charge. That work has been thrown on the Land Commission, and they have used, to a certain extent, some portion of the staff of this Office; therefore, the Vote has been increased in that way, but most of it will come back again in receipts from the other Office. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), I am afraid I cannot say there is much improvement in the position of the account, so far as arrears of payment for Ordnance Survey Maps by the Land Courts is concerned. The question has been before the Public Accounts Committee again, and steps have been taken and arrangements have been made which I think, if my memory serves me, have resulted in maps being made a first charge, so as to make the security for the recovery of the price of the maps as good as possible. I believe that this is to be a first charge on the estates in future. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) as to the form of the accounts, I will look into it and see if anything can be done. The hon. Member asks whether the survey will be completed by 1890, and he asks that particularly in regard to the survey of the counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire. Of course, we all know that he is very much interested in those counties, and I may tell him that I believe the survey will be completed in 1890. The revision is proceeding, as a matter of fact, more rapidly than was anticipated. Provision is made in these Estimates for an expenditure of £15,000, which is the first expenditure upon the revision upon the new scale, and Lancashire and Yorkshire, I believe, are to be proceeded with first. I regret to say that I believe Lancashire is to be proceeded with before Yorkshire, but that is a merely personal matter. Then with regard to the method of distributing the maps and the agency of Messrs. Stanford, I may say with reference to the Report quoted by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that that is the Report of Colonel Wilson, and, if I remember rightly, it has been referred to the Stationery Office. The Stationery Office have, I believe, just reported upon it, and I am not sure that they entirely agree with the views of Colonel Wilson. It must be remembered that in that Report Colonel Wilson merely expresses his own individual opinion as head of the Department. He, no doubt, is anxious to see the sale of the maps proceed with greater rapidity; but, as a matter of fact, the alteration in the method of distributing the maps was made with that very object. Though it is true that an arrangement has been made with Messrs. Stanford constituting them what you may call sole agents—a privilege for which they pay, I think £600 a-year—they have in no sense a monopoly, nor ought the arrangement, nor is it believed that it will, make any reduction in the sale of maps. The country agents have still preserved to them the same privileges that they always possessed. They get 25 per cent on the sale of the maps.

But Messrs. Stanford get 33⅓ per cent.

That is true; but I am pointing out that the country agents get as much as they had before, and receive, therefore, as much encouragement as formerly. It was thought that by putting these maps into the hands of an agent who had a personal interest in their success, and who depended for his profit upon his own efforts to push them, the sale of the maps would be much larger in the future, rather than smaller. It is a fact that the sale of the maps has fallen off, and that condition of things must be remedied if possible; but still I would point out to the Committee that the fact is, that the sale of the maps was put into the hands of these people merely with the view of their pushing the sale.

For how long?

Seven years, I think.

No, I believe it is for 10 years.

I think I have now gone over all the points brought to my notice.

The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the survey in Ireland.

I have not much information upon that subject. The question is entirely one of expenditure. I quite agree that it is desirable to push on that survey; but I am free to admit that acting on the instructions I received to cut down everything which could be cut down, this is one of the Votes I attempted to reduce. I shall be sorry if the House of Commons will not support me in that, because if the House of Commons says that a thing which ought to be done is not to be done, and that you are to take the opinions of the Heads of Departments as to the amount of money to be spent in those Departments, you will very much increase the expenditure of the country.

I think, under these circumstances, as an Irish Member, those who recognize the reasonableness of the representations I have made, will consider me quite justified in moving the reduction of this Vote. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury says that he has mercilessly cut down wherever it has been found possible to cut down, and that he has reduced the Vote to which I have referred; but in this very Vote we have an item for the survey of Great Britain, and we find that the amount has been increased from £5,000 to over £15,000.

I am afraid the hon. Member did not hear the explanation I gave the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), who asked me to explain this increase, and to whom I stated it was owing to certain charges made on behalf of the Land Commission, which will ultimately be repaid.

I heard that explanation, but what I object to is this, that whereas you are prepared to vote money to the extent of over £10,000 extra in the present year for the purpose of making progress with the survey in Great Britain, in the case of Ireland where the want of an improved survey is generally recognized, and is notorious, you are cutting down the expenditure. The want of the larger survey maps has been pointed out over and over again—it is getting worse and worse every year. It is of the most pressing importance, in view of the possibility of many fresh transactions in regard to the transfer of land in the immediate future, and in view also of the matter of arterial drainage, it is of the most vital importance that you should have a really reliable and detailed survey. I believe that in the works contemplated in the basins of the Shannon and the Bann, it will be necessary to spend large amounts of money on surveys. You have no surveys which can be used. You have completed the 6-inch survey, but not that on the scale of the 1-inch 2,500. Under the circumstances, I move the reduction of this Vote by £10,500, the extra amount to be devoted to Great Britain; not that I begrudge for a moment that expenditure, especially as it is money which will afterwards come back on repayment, but as as a protest against this system of readily and generously spending money on matters that excite public interest in England, and stingily contributing money for similar purposes in Ireland.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Item of £15,500, for the revision of the Survey of Great Britain, be reduced by £10,500."—( Mr. Arthur O'Connor. )

I hope this Amendment will not be pressed. I gather from his remarks that the hon. Member believes that my statement was to the effect that I had cut down the Vote for Ireland. I did not say that; I was not for a moment thinking of Ireland. So far as Ireland is concerned, I made no alteration in the amount expended. There has been no restriction whatever made, so far as I know.

Yes, there has; under Sub-head C, the Vote for £36,000.

That is not for Ireland.

Ireland is included.

Certainly; but I thought the hon. Member was under the impression that I had out down the sum especially devoted to Ireland. I am quite at one with the hon. Gentleman that under the existing circumstances of Ireland, it would be very undesirable to limit the expenditure for the survey in that country. I regret to say that I have not got the Estimate papers here which bear upon this point; but I am under the impression that there has been no reduction; and if the hon. Member will accept my assurance for the moment, I shall be glad to look into the matter, and to do what I can to hasten on the carrying out of survey in Ireland.

I think there has been no reduction in the expenditure on the survey of Ireland; but if there should be a little additional necessary expenditure on revision on the 25-inch, instead of the 6-inch scale, that will be merely a matter of cost. I understand the Report from which the hon. Member quoted was the Report for last year.

For 1886.

There has hardly been time to make the change in obedience to that Report as yet; but, as I say, it is a matter of expense, and, as my hon. Friend has said, will be seen to by the Government, who will consider whether the recommendations can be carried out or not.

Representing, as I do, the town in England where most of the surveys are prepared, I must strongly protest against any attempt made to take money away from that town in order to give it to Ireland. It may be very proper that the 25-inch survey should be made for Ireland. I think with the hon. Member for Wigan that as Ireland is cut up into such small holdings, the time may come when we may have to make, not a 25-inch, but a 50-inch survey; but, at the same time, I must protest against the course proposed. If Ireland wants money for the purpose of completing the 25-inch survey, I am sure that this House will give it; but I believe Parliament will not listen to such a monstrous proposition as that we should take away money from one constituency, or from one part of the United Kingdom, in order to hand it over to another. I have no doubt that the explanation given by the hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury will strike terror into the hearts of a large number of the ordnance surveyors of Southampton. The hon. Gentleman says that the year 1890 will terminate all their labours; and that would probably throw a large number of most respectable men on the parish. That is the conclusion which may be drawn from the explanation we have heard to-night. I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will say a word or two from which these men may draw some consolation. A large establishment has been set up, and a large body of men has been employed; and I trust that these men may not be cast to the winds in 1890, more especially as we know that there are many counties in England where the survey already made requires revision. With regard to the sale of maps being in the hands of Messrs. Stanford, I have no doubt that this firm are excellent agents, and that they do the best they possibly can to increase the sale of those maps; but so far as I myself am concerned, I am altogether opposed to all monopolies, and I think that if the difference between the 25 per cent paid to the country agents and the 33⅓ per cent paid to Messrs. Stanford were handed over to the country agents, we should make more out of the sale of our maps. I should very much like to know why maps should be sent from Southampton to London to Messrs. Stanford, where Messrs. Stanford receive 33⅓ per cent for selling them, and that some of them should be sent back from London to Southampton, where the agents receive only 25 per cent for selling them.

I desire to invite attention to the fact that the Army Estimates are burdened with a large payment for the military pay of officers and soldiers employed on the survey.

I must call the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention to the question before the Committee, which is one for a reduction of the Vote.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I was keeping in view that Motion, by pointing out that the whole cost of the survey was not clearly shown, because of the military Votes bearing a large sum in the shape of military pay to officers and men employed, as these receive civil pay alone, borne by the civil branch. A reference to the explanatory notes will show that the estimated amount of military pay of the 29 officers and 451 non-commissioned officers and soldiers is £27,000 paid by the Army; whereas the Civil Estimates only bear £9,000 as remuneration, being only one-third of the charge borne by the Army Votes. This is a liability which ought not to be now thrown on the Army. I admit that the military pay has always existed, but that arose by the accident of the great survey of this Kingdom having been initiated in 1786 by an Artillery officer, whose expenditure for the survey work, being very small, was defrayed by the Board of Ordnance, and on the duties of that Board being taken over in 1855 by the Secretary of State for War, the then system of paying staff duties of the survey partly by military and partly by staff allowance continued to be charged on the Army Votes. Further, in 1870, when Mr. Cardwell transferred the survey to the Works Department from the War Office, the military pay, as at present, continued to be charged on the Army. That practice ought no longer to continue. The full pay and civil allowances now drawn by the military officers and men employed should all be charged in full on the Civil Estimates, because the work is for the people generally, and not for the military Service. I therefore urge that the Committee should, before diminishing the present Estimate, be made aware that the Civil Estimates do not show the full cost of the survey. I may here mention the large cost of the survey. Last year we voted more than £250,000 for the operations; whilst, 50 years ago, the sum voted was only £50,000. In 1870, under the War Office, it was increased to £120,000; on its transfer to the Works Department, it was raised by £30,000; and, year by year, the cost has swelled up to the present charge of nearly five times what the sum was in 1835–6. Now that the survey is finished, and revision only needed, I submit that the charge should be cut down to £100,000, including buildings and salaries.

I do not quite understand the position of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as to this 25-inch survey, and I think the point is a most important one. I do not know whether there is any definite estimate for the 25-inch survey of Ireland. If there is not, I say that it is much more important to have this 25-inch survey begun for Ireland at once than to have it continued in England, and I should be perfectly willing to a part of the English Vote being cut off, in order to facilitate this work in Ireland. Everyone can see that, in the present circumstances of Ireland, it is a most important matter that the survey of that country should be completed on the large scale.

The Committee should not lose sight of the monopoly of the sale of maps by Messrs. Stanford.

That point is not now in Order. There is a Motion before the Committee.

I want to give another reason, which has not been submitted to the Committee by any of the Irish Members, why this survey in Ireland should be proceeded with. I do not wish to see the suggestion of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), that the English survey should be stopped in order that the Irish one should be proceeded with, adopted. There are many counties in England that are already surveyed–25, I think; but in Ireland there are no rural districts surveyed on the 25-inch scale, but only a few towns. I believe I am accurate in that statement. This work ought to be proceeded with. The 6-inch scale is going out of date. I have often gone over villages in Ireland with the 6-inch scale in my hand, and have been scarcely able to recognize the face of the country—the houses marked on the maps or the enclosures of the fields. In very many places new houses have sprung up and old ones have disappeared, and the boundaries of the fields are changed and scarcely recognizable. Nearly all the enclosures have been altered. Great changes, of course, have also taken place in England—greater if possible. I remember, some years ago, going out with a surveying party from Sandhurst. We were looking for a certain road given on the map, and were unable to find it—that which was once a road being at that time occupied by growing trees. You must bear in mind that these surveys in districts where rapid changes are taking place are only good for 40 or 50 years, at the expiration of which time it is necessary that they should be gone over again. It is, of course, easy to correct a map—much more easy to correct an old one than to prepare an entirely new one. The work of correcting the 25-inch survey will not cost as much as the original preparation of the 6-inch survey. As I have said, the 6-inch scale is going out of date. It was a very good 6-inch survey up to date, and at one time no doubt was extremely useful; but it has long ceased to be so. We have a 6-inch map, that is very good so far as the geometrical lines are laid down; but the details are out of date and are useless for modern purposes. It is understood everywhere that the 25-inch scale survey is a thing that should be undertaken and not left on individual estates to private proprietors. Details are what are wanted in these matters, and on the small 6-inch scale map, it is perfectly impossible to show the details you want. Why, if you were to send up a map on the 6-inch scale to the Irish Board of Works, they would not even ask you to put in the small drains. You could not do it, the map would not hold them; therefore you have to send in your maps with the word "drains" written upon them here and there. I think it extremely desirable, in the present circumstances of the country, that we should have a proper system of maps in Ireland, and I think we ought to receive an assurance that the 25-inch scale will be commenced for that country without delay. The cost of its preparation would be partly repaid by the sale of the maps, and we should not only have the satisfaction of possessing a large map, but we should have a map that was not out of date.

If I may be allowed I should like to make a suggestion which may possibly have the effect of getting the Committee out of a difficulty. It is hardly possible that anyone could know the various details of every Vote in connection with so large a subject as this, and therefore I would ask a little patience from the Committee. I will do the best I can in the matter, and on Be-port I will endeavour to make suggestions which will be received by hon. Members. I regret to say that I am unable to answer the questions with re- gard to this survey in Ireland which are put to me; but I will undertake this, that when the subject comes up on Report, I will be prepared to give the information hon. Gentleman require. When the question comes up on the next stage, I will state what has been done, and what it is intended to do.

Will the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) also be prepared to state how many counties, besides the counties in England, are surveyed on the 25-inch scale?

I will.

Mr. Courtney, I admit that it is very unsatisfactory that we should have to come to anything like a judgment and go to a Division in the present incomplete state of our information; but, Sir, I wish to point out that the advantage of raising the issue here is that we may have the matter discussed at a time when the House is really in a position, so far as regards the hour, of debating it satisfactorily. The Report stage comes on at such an hour of the morning—1 or 2 or 3 o'clock—that we never have anything like a satisfactory discussion upon it. But I quite admit the disadvantage under which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is at present placed, and I will accede to his proposal and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. But before doing so I wish to point out what the Government have done. They want to effect a reduction of the Vote. Well, they have made a reduction of £36,000 from an item—C—which, if left alone, would have placed them in a position to proceed with the 25-inch survey. By cutting down the Estimate they are no longer in the position in which they might have been to continue this work. But where they want money for England they have no hesitation at all in increasing an item from £5,000 to £15,000. I hope that before the Report the hon. Gentleman will be in a position to inform the House that the work will, somehow or other, be taken up. That is the very least that ought to be done, and any other course would be attended by very great disadvantage. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

I would make an appeal to the Government, and suggest one reason why it is very de- sirable that this 25-inch scale map should be put in hand as soon as possible. The Government are now lending very large sums of money to individual holders of very small holdings, in order to enable them to buy out their landlords. It is of the greatest importance that they should have large maps, so as to be able to define those smallholdings properly; for what otherwise happens is, that they take a particular piece of ground and find out afterwards that it is some other piece altogether. This is a matter which should be settled, in view of the system now in operation, and which is likely to extend, of the buying up of large tracts of land occupied by a large number of occupiers, some of them being in the occupation of holdings of a very small extent of acreage. The parties who sell do not care, so long as they get their money, whether the Government will get it or not, and it is to the interest of the Government, far more than to the interest of the Irish people, that proper maps, on a considerable scale, should be made of these parts of Ireland.

I should like to know, Mr. Courtney, whether the Government are prepared to state now to the House that the 25-inch map for Ireland shall be commenced this year? It would be well if we could have an understanding on that point.

I really am not in a position to say. I can only confess my ignorance and express my regret. I have, however, promised that in the Report stage I shall be prepared to make a statement on the subject.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Certainly there can be no question that in Ireland it is absolutely necessary that every facility should be given for procuring these maps. I want to point out to the Secretary to the Treasury that at the present time we have in the Library of the House some of the finest surveys ever made in Ireland, and upon a very large scale indeed. They were made in 1808 and 1811 by Mr. Griffiths. You cannot buy them anywhere. I tried last year to get a copy, but there was only one copy for sale, and that was an incomplete copy. For that was demanded £8 8 s., which shows the value of the Report. Nothing would be more useful now than to have those surveys in our hands, and, if it were possible, the printed matter accompanying them also. I would suggest to the Secretary to the Treasury that, as the larger surveys which we ought to have, and which he has promised us, cannot be in our hands for some time, he might let us have a reprint of those old surveys. The cost would be very small indeed—it would come in under the expenditure here—with the methods of copying prints which they have now—and that would be invaluable for our purpose, and much cheaper than anything else. Perhaps he could let us have these. And now one word about the monopoly of Mr. Stanford. The reason assigned by the Government to-day, and the reason which was assigned for granting the monopoly originally, was that it was a means of increasing the circulation of maps in the country. But, as a matter of fact, from the day Mr. Stanford obtained the monopoly in 1886 until now, the circulation of the maps has decreased, and it has gone down as much as 10 or 15 per cent. The Government said, when the monopoly was granted, that it was better to put the maps in the hands of somebody who had agencies all over the country, as that would spread them over the country; but they forgot that it is not to the interest of Mr. Stanford to soil these maps at all. Mr. Stanford sells his own maps, and if you will go to his agencies you will find you can get any number of his maps ready on hand; but there is a considerable difficulty about getting the official maps. He only gets a percentage commission on the sale of the official maps, while on his own maps he, of course, gets the entire profit. Another point was mentioned by the Secretary to the Treasury. He said that Mr. Stanford paid a royalty to the Government of £500 a-year. That does not appear on the Estimates. I do not think Mr. Stanford does pay it; but if he does it should appear on the Estimates.

I think there is considerable dissatisfaction about this monopoly, and I should like to know how long it is to last?

One word about this survey in connection with mines. I do not know—I ask for information—as to whether the 25-inch scale applies to the Geological Survey as well as to the ordinary survey? If not, it would be desirable to have it so apply to the mineralogical maps of the country—it would greatly assist those who have any connection with mines. In America, the survey of minerals in all the principal States is on a scale of completeness quite unknown in this country; and it would be greatly to the advantage of the development of our mineral industries if we could have some scheme set on foot which would enable us to have a really good survey of mines and lodes of the different geological formations.

Order, order! That would come under the Geological Survey Commissioners Vote.

I want an explanation of a certain item in this Vote, and I call attention to the sum under Sub-head 2, letter C. We find, practically speaking, that this year there has been a decrease in the pay of the several assistants, meresmen, and labourers amounting to the sum of £36,722. Well, now, Sir, I want to hear a little more about that. We find at the present time, with a Conservative Government in power, that probably for reasons of their own, which I will not debate, but merely touch upon en passant, there is a certain amount of economy to be practised. But it is begun at the wrong end.

I can explain that in a moment. The reason why that decrease has taken place is because the survey is coming to an end. These men have, therefore, been discharged. But we have started a new revision so as to employ a portion of them.

If that is the case, I will try and point out to the hon. Gentleman, if he will kindly grant me his attention, what ought to be done. It is not by cutting down the pay of these unfortunate labourers, working people, that he will really bring about the economy which he has certainly intended to try and get, but by commencing at the other end—at the commencement of the chapter—and cutting down the large sums granted to the superior individuals. —those fine gentlemen who live at home at ease, and who are not workers working for their daily bread. Those are the people whose salaries should be cut down. I would not call attention to this were it not for the fact that in the course of these Estimates submitted to us day after day, we find practically on all occasions that it is the poor people—these labourers, assistants, &c., whose salaries are being attacked. Of course, I can quite understand the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury rising in his place and stating that the survey is nearly at an end. Well, Sir, even if it is entirely at an end, we have heard in the course of the remarks made from these Benches on the opposite side of the House this afternoon a variety of reasons why there should be a fresh survey taken. We have been told, in connection with these ordnance maps which have hitherto been supplied in Ireland, that they have been found to be totally inadequate to the present state of affairs. We have been told, Sir, practically—and I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman is now paying some little attention to what I am saying—that these maps are inadequate. But, Sir, if the maps are to be supplied as they should be, this staff should not be cut down. On the contrary, the staff should be kept on; and, Mr. Courtney, in a period of pressure like that which we are at present passing through there should certainly be—

It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report progress.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Friday.