asked if the Government would obtain Admiralty Reports with regard to the condition of the new harbour works of Peterhead and Dover, for the expenditure on which that Department account?

I should like to ask a ques- tion of the present Government as to whether it is proposed to go on with the harbour works at Dover?

That question does not come under the present Vote. The question may be asked with regard to it as a matter of courtesy; but it is not relevant to the Vote.

I wish to direct the attention of the Government to the question of the harbour works at Holyhead, not that I object to the expenditure which has taken place there already, but because I wish to bring to the notice of the Government the necessity for additional expenditure. Since the year 1835 various Committees have sat to consider this matter, and different Governments have spent something like £2,000,000 in constructing a harbour at Holyhead. The work has now become one of national importance; and what I wish to call the attention of the Secretary to the Board of Trade to is that the value of those harbour works have very much lessened, owing to the non-completion of a portion of the scheme. In the new harbour there are two rocks, one of which, the Platters, is rather dangerous, and so long as these remain there it is impossible for the new harbour to be really utilized, because vessels cannot pass them. When storms arise there is usually a block of vessels in the old harbour, while the new harbour is only partially available, owing to the danger and obstruction of these rocks; and what I want to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade is, whether he will take steps to carry out the original scheme, so as to get rid of those rocks and to make the harbour what it ought to be—namely, a splendid national harbour, worthy of the great amount which has been spent upon it?

The question of Holyhead Harbour has received the serious attention of the Board of Trade for some time. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Vote has been increased by £12,500, and that that increase is to be accounted for by the fact that Sir John Hawkshaw has recommended dredging for that part of the harbour used by the mail packets, in order to facilitate the entry of those packets into the harbour. I am aware of the complaints which have been made by the Steamship Company. I quite admit that the harbour might still further be improved. It is suggested that the rocks alluded to by the hon. Member should be blasted. I must, however, point out to the hon. Member for Merionethshire that works of this kind involve considerable outlay, and that I am not prepared, on the part of the Board of Trade, to undertake this work at once. The work, when undertaken, will have to be extended over a certain number of years. I trust we may be able to devote an amount of money for the improvement of the harbour, which I agree requires improvement.

The value of the increased amount which the hon. Member states has been spent upon the old harbour is very much lessened by the fact that the new harbour cannot be utilized. The very complaint is that the old harbour becomes so full, and that this is the case particularly when northwesterly and northerly winds are blowing. Any amount you may spend on improving the old harbour is very much thrown away, unless you devote money to the completion of the new harbour, by blasting the rocks to which I refer so as to procure an increased accomodation of 40 or 50 acres.

The hon. Member is, perhaps, not aware that the works in the new harbour have cost somewhere about £1,500,000. That is a large amount; and I do not think that I could pledge the Government to a further expenditure just yet. We think that by extending expenditure on the improvement of the new harbour over a certain number of years we may be able to put it in a state which will satisfy everybody: but, certainly, to do what the hon. Gentleman opposite proposes would cost more money than we can now spend.

With regard to the question I put just now, Sir, I understand from you that, at all events, as a matter of courtesy, I may be permitted to ask the Government for information. I wish to do so for the reason that last year there was a new Vote for Dover Harbour immediately following the one the Committee are now discussing. There was last year, and there is also this year, an item in the Votes in regard to the employment of convict labour and for the convict prison in Dover. Those items have reference to the proposed Dover Harbour indirectly, as it is proposed to employ convict labour in the work of construction. But it would not be competent probably to raise the point to which I am referring upon this Vote. At any rate, I do not know that I should be so much out of Order in raising the question of Dover Harbour on that Vote as upon the Vote now under discussion. But, Sir, following your advice, if only allowed to do so as a matter of courtesy, I should like to ask whether the omission of the Vote this year for the new harbour at Dover indicates that the Government have abandoned that project, and are not going on with it further?

I do not think it would be correct to say that the Government have altogether abandoned the idea of making a harbour at Dover; but when the Estimates were being prepared, and in view of the opposition last year to a similar Vote that was then on the Estimates—namely, £1,000—which was subsequently withdrawn, that Estimate being for the making of certain, borings with a view to the preparation of plans to be submitted to Parliament as an estimate of the cost of carrying out the works, it was felt that, at all events for the present, the work of proceeding with the harbour proper should be suspended. I do not say the works are abandoned; but the Government feel it desirable to give very full consideration to the matter before putting into the Estimates any further sum; and, therefore, they are not in a position to submit to Parliament any estimate of the total cost, or any figures on which Parliament can rely. With reference to the question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis) as to Holyhead. Harbour, he was answered by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Baron Henry De Worms). An expenditure of £12,500, I think, is the total estimated sum required for dredging, and that was sanctioned by the Treasury, at the earnest request not only of the Steam Packet Companies, but on the strong recommendation and after careful inspection by Sir John Hawkshaw. I understand that there was a difficulty in entering and making use of the harbour in consequence of the silting up of a portion of it. We have al- ready, last year, spent a large sum in improving the pier, and putting down a large quantity of chain—1,000 tons, I think—as a preliminary measure running it along the face of one of the piers, with a view to preventing damage by the washing of the sea. Therefore, so far as the entrance to the harbour and the convenience of ships is concerned, I think the Government have made sufficient preparation for the purpose of securing safety and easy access to the harbour itself. With regard to the question put to me by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir George Balfour) as to the Reports of the Admiralty, I sympathize with his views, and I think that the preparation of such Reports would conduce to the improvement of the work of the Department. I will undertake to call attention to the matter.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his present utterance and for previous utterances upon this question; but I would ask his attention to the fact that whether we take the question of Dover Harbour into consideration under this Vote, or any other Vote—

Order, order! I have already ruled that the discussion of that subject is inappropriate to this Vote. The question has been allowed to be put by courtesy, and the required information has been given. Any discussion on the point will be out or Order.

You are aware, Sir, that I always obey your instructions. I will not further discuss that matter. I only wanted to ask for information with regard to Dover Harbour. I felt before dealing with that subject that I ought to wait until the proper Vote comes before us; but I found that there was no Vote having reference to Dover Harbour which would be brought before us. I do not see that there will be any opportunity of raising the question. The Estimates of this year are changed—they are different to those of last year. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lafevre) stated, we had a special Vote for Dover Harbour last year, but this year we had not, so that Parliament has not an opportunity of asking for information on the subject. I have always been opposed to Dover Harbour being gone on with; but, as I am not allowed to make any further remarks upon this matter, I will ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will be kind enough to give us such information as Earl Granville prepared and put into the hands of the present Board of Trade? That is the document which the Secretary to the Board of Trade used in preparing the Report which we are informed is being prepared.

I will consider the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman; but I would point out that the Report in question is not the Report of the Board of Trade, but of the Dover Harbour Commissioners. It may be in possession of the Board of Trade, and I will see if it is possible to print it, and present it as a Parliamentary Paper.

I do not wish to transgress your ruling, Sir; but I should like to ask you as to where you think it would be possible for us to raise this question of Dover Harbour? In what Vote shall we be able to question the Government as to the abandonment—if it is an abandonment—of their expenditure for this object?

As there is no money asked for in Supply for this harbour, it will be impossible to call attention to the matter in Supply. If the question is entered upon at all, it must be by independent Motion.

If hon. Members will look at page 236 of the Estimates, they will see that on the question of convict prisons there arises an opening by a Vote of £5,000 for barracks for convicts to be employed on Dover Harbour, and I take it that it will be competent to raise this harbour question on that Vote.

Perhaps I may be allowed to ask a question of considerable importance with reference to Dover Harbour. I find that in Vote 12, Sub-head 3, there is a Vote for £5,000 for a convict prison at Dover. That convict prison was in connection with the Dover Harbour works for the purpose of employing convicts during the construction of Dover Harbour. I would ask you, Sir, whether, when that Vote comes on, it will be competent for us to raise the question of Dover Harbour?

I would rather wait until the Vote comes on before answering.

I think the hon. Gentleman, who raised the question of Holyhead Harbour has a good deal to complain of with regard to the answer he received from the Secretary to the Board of Trade. If the question had been asked by an Irish Member, and it had had reference to a purely Irish matter, I should not have been astonished at such an answer being returned; but coming, as the question does, from the hon. Member for Merionethshire, and having reference, as it has, to important works in Wales, I am exceedingly surprised at the nature of the answer. It appears, from what the hon. Member the Secretary to the Board of Trade says, that the Government have already spent £1,500,000 in the improvement of the harbour at Holyhead; and because the Government have spent that £1,500,000 the hon. Gentleman tells us that they are not prepared to spend any more in order to make the harbour really available for the purpose of shipping. What are the facts which are put forward? Why, the facts are that, though so much money has been expended, the harbour is not available for the passage of heavy ships except at full tide. It is a fact that a single rock has been left at the entrance to the new harbour, and that it is impossible for steamers from Dublin to enter the harbour except at those special seasons. £12,500 is to be expended upon the harbour works; but it has been shown that this is a matter of very little consequence indeed; and I would ask the hon. Member the Secretary to the Board of Trade to explain that enormous expenditure of £1,500,000. How is it that, after such an expenditure, for the sake of a few extra thousands the whole of it is to be allowed to remain practically useless? I would ask the Government, as one of those who have often felt the inconvenience of being obliged to land in the outer harbour on cold rough nights, to spend just a few more thousands in order to make the inner harbour thoroughly available. I would appeal to them not to adopt a cheeseparing policy in such a matter as this. It seems to me that we have had no sort of satisfactory explanation for the refusal of the Government to spend an other £10,000 or £12,000 in order to make the new harbour serviceable for the purposes for which it was originally intended. We have had reason to complain of the manner in which the Government, through the Irish Board of Works, have dealt with these matters in Ireland, and we are always prepared for refusals to requests which come from this quarter of the House; but we are extremely puzzled to account for the attitude the Government take up in reply to an appeal in reference to works at Holyhead. We wonder that they have not been more generous in their reply. It is all very well to say that the completion of these works should be spread over a large number of years; but I venture to say that such a method of proceeding would not be real economy at all. It would be real economy to complete without delay the works which are necessary to enable ships coming from Dublin and elsewhere to come into the inner harbour and thereby to protect themselves from storms or dangers which may arise in bad weather. The £1,500,000 which have been spent on the inner harbour are lying absolutely derelict, and might just as well have been sunk at the bottom of the sea as have been expended on the works on the inner harbour. Until the rock to which reference has been made is removed, the whole expenditure is practically useless. I maintain, therefore, that it would really be a work of economy to remove that rock out of the way. Let the Government spend £20,000, or double that sum, if necessary, in that work. I would ask the Government to say when we are to expect that this work will be completed; and I would also ask if the Government can give us any approximate estimate as to the amount required to bring about the completion of the works?

I fully recognize that it would be a great advantage if we could complete the works in the manner the right hon. Gentleman suggests; but in order to do that we shall not only have to blast the rocks, but, having done that, we shall have to remove the fragments from the bottom of the harbour. In order to carry out works of that description a considerable sum of money would have to be expended—far more than the amount sug gested by the hon. Member. The acreage of the outer harbour is 267 acres, and I would point out that there is a roadstead of 400 acres of deep water. It is a remarkably fine harbour, and one which up to the present time has been used with perfect safety. I admit that it would be better, if possible, to remove those rocks, and no doubt if we have the money to carry out the work we shall probably do so. I am not able to give an exact estimate of the price of the cost of the works which will have to be undertaken; but I can assure the hon. Member that £10,000 or £20,000 would go nowhere in removing these obstacles. The hon. Member must remember that the Board of Trade are fully alive to the necessity of doing something, but they have not the money to carry out the works at once.

I desire to ask the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade whether he will be willing to consider the suggestion I made one or two years ago as to the desirability of removing from the Vote the item on account of Harwich Harbour? The condition of Harwich Harbour financially is set forth in the Report which is supplied, and which this year is very much the same as it has been for a long series of years. The assets of the Conservancy Board consist of stores valued at £35, and a wreck-buoy, anchor, and chain of the value of £10, or, in ail, £45. These are assets, but unavailable assets. There is a balance due to the harbour master of 1s. 1½d. The liabilities amount to £14 10s. due to the harbour master, the conservator's travelling expenses £20, a balance due to the treasurer of £11, and sundry small accounts making up a total of £58. That is the liability, and what I have stated are the unavailable assets. Now the system adopted in connection with that harbour is this. The Conservancy Board are in debt to the Government, and they make a pretence of paying something or other to the Government every year; but the money they pay in that way is really money supplied to them for the purpose of making the payment. You have this absurdity—that you have had Votes in Parliament in the shape of Treasury advances to the Conservancy Board to the amount of £17,000; the Public Works Loan Commissioners have advanced them £10,000—that is to say, they have had £20,000 of public money, and they are paying back in the present year to the Public Works Loan Commissioners on account of instalments a loan of £205, and a total interest of £98. But they do not make that out of the revenue of the harbour—they get it out of this Vote. In the present year they are to have £225. Under this system, the conservators simply receive from the Government with one hand in order to pay back with the other; and instead of acknowledging that they are hopelessly insolvent, and that they never can meet their liability to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, a system is adopted which simply deceives the public. I would suggest that the loan of the Public Works Loan Commissioners should be wiped off, as many loans have been wiped off before, and the absurdity which I have described which is being perpetrated year after year in connection with this Vote should not be continued.

Two or three years ago we voted £1,000 to the Admiralty for the purpose of making inquiries and preparing Estimates on Dover Harbour. May I ask what has become of the money spent, and what information the Government can give as to Dover Harbour? Information has already been asked for on this point, and I trust I may be allowed to put that question to the Secretary to the Treasury.

I think the hon. Member refers to £1,000 which was put in the Estimates for last year.

No; it was in the Estimates before then.

I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the Vote was not proposed last year. I am afraid I cannot remember the items put down in previous years.

My recollection does not tally with that of the hon. Member.

This harbour is a Scotch harbour, and I should not be doing my duty if I did not call attention to it. I feel very strongly on the question as to the manner in which these harbour works have been conducted. There are some items here which we ought not to pass without information, and I would recommend to the Secretary to the Treasury that he should publish this information in detailed form. The original Estimate for this harbour was put at £250,000; it was then doubled, and now it is, in the present Estimates, increased to £750,000. I think information as to every penny of this expenditure should be given, for that is the only way in which we can get the matter placed upon the proper footing. I am convinced, if things go on as they are at present, we shall run up an expenditure of £1,000,000 before we know where we are. That will be the result, unless measures are taken to stop unnecessary expenditure. The Merchant Company of Edinburgh have made a large fortune out of the land which has been paid for this harbour; land which was only valued at 2s. 6d. an acre has been paid for at a much higher rate. The information which such a Report as I suggest would contain would be found highly valuable, not only in connection with this harbour, but in connection with other harbours, as it would show the manner in which expenditure is made, and, by comparison, would show where economies are to be effected.

The land necessary for the construction of this harbour has been taken under the compulsory powers of an Act of Parliament passed two years ago. Those who take the land simply pay for it what is ascertained by arbitration to be its proper value.

In connection with this matter I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote whether this Estimate of £745,000 is likely to be the final Estimate; because the amount paid in the Totes in the first instance for this particular work was £500,000? That sum has gone up now nearly another £250,000. The way those Estimates are drafted, especially the original estimate for land, is, apparently, a matter of haphazard. The amount has sprung from £500,000 in one year to £745,000; and I maintain that in connection with large figures of this description on which this House is expected to rely, to have increases such as this is a matter which requires explanation. We have never had any explanation of the increasing figures shown with reference to this service. Another point in connection with this harbour is this—that in other parts of the Estimates, take page 277, under the item of, I think, £5,000, you will find that provision is made for a prison which is to be erected for the accommodation of the convicts who are to have the harbour works on hand. Here id another illustration of the bad system which was pointed out at the last meeting of this Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). It is almost impossible to gather, from any one of these Votes, the outside figure which will represent the total public expenditure in connection with any particular service. I should like to ask upon what ground is the Estimate shown at the bottom of page 53 arrived at; whether or not it is a final Estimate; secondly, I should like to know why it was that the first Estimate of £500,000 was found to be inadequate? I should also like to know what were the other items in different parts of the Estimate which are connected with this service? This sum of £50,000, on page 277 of the Estimates, is one of those items to which I refer. I fancy there may very likely be others which I have not been able to trace. Perhaps the official in charge of the Vote will give me an answer upon these points.

I entirely sympathize with the objections which are taken to the very large increase in the estimated cost of these works; but I think it is right to point out to the Committee that the sum of £500,000, which was first stated as being sufficient to construct the breakwater or harbour, was the sum arrived at on evidence given before the Sub-Committee in 1884. The item was taken from the Report of that Committee, and I believe was the estimate made by Mr. Stevenson, the engineer, as the amount for which these works could be carried out. There are no details at all forming the basis of that figure; and I feel bound to say that Parliament appears to have entered upon the work apparently satisfied to accept figures which they themselves must have known to be more or less approximate.

If those figures were approximate we should have known it.

I imagine that Members of the House of Commons must have had before them the evidence given before the Sub-Committee, and the figures which form the recommendation of that Committee in the figures forming the estimated plan which had been put before the Committee. It has been estimated that the work can be carried out by convict labour for £745,000, and that the work will take about 23 years to complete. When the engineer-in-chief, Sir John Coode, was appointed chief engineer, it became his duty to submit to the Treasury more detailed estimates of what he considered would be the cost of the works. It is very difficult to gauge the cost of works carried out upon a large scale; and for this reason, and judging from what usually takes place in connection with Harbours of Refuge, I should be very sorry to pledge myself that even this sum of £745,000 will in itself be sufficient to carry out the work. But it must be borne in mind, and it is only fair to remind the Committee, that this work is undertaken with the double object; first, and I believe and foremost, may be put the object of finding employment for our convicts. I believe that opinions, more or less, will prevail that even though the employment of those convicts does not result in a very large saving in the cost of the work, there are other advantages accruing from the employment of convicts which are considered to be of great value to the State. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Donegal asks whether there are any other charges? Well, in addition to the charges to which he has referred, there are some charges in regard to law and engineering matters in connection with applications to Parliament which do not appear, and which have been previously paid. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: How much do they amount to?] I am sorry I have not particulars as to the total sum with me; but I am not quite sure that the total sum could have been placed before the House during the past two years, as some of the estimates, I believe, have only just been sent in. I believe all those charges are nett. The total estimate for the prison was £57,400, and the £745,000 was made up in this way. It was estimated that the north breakwater piers would cost £133,174, that the north pier would cost £547,272, and the retaining wall or quay £5,324, making a total of £685,770. In addition to this, there is a new road, which is to cost £300; land and buildings 132½ acres, exclusive of land for railways, estimated to cost £21,000; and certain moorings in addition estimated to cost £2,850—this was not included in the original estimate—and £36,000 for railways for the purpose of bringing down stone from the quarries. I think I have now given to the Committee all the information which is at my disposal. I submit that in connection with works of this kind it is difficult to estimate expenditure with approximate accuracy. I may be allowed to say this, that this question has been most carefully considered at the Treasury, because it was felt that the control which was being exercised was by no means either efficient or complete. The whole question has been most carefully gone into, and we have arranged that no expenditure is to take place without careful inspection, and investigation, and justification by an engineer from the Admiralty. I believe we have put the question in such a shape now as to provide that, at all events, whatever is expended the value of the money shall be obtained. We are doing our best to keep a check upon the expenditure, and to take care, as far as possible, as time goes on to see that the amount of work which is being done bears a fair proportion to the total estimated cost, and in that way to try and keep the expenditure within reasonable limits.

For the first time, the Government has failed to send one of its Members to endeavour to give a comprehensive explanation of the circumstances of this Vote. The Admiralty is responsible with regard to this Vote, and the Civil Lord of that Department is charged with it. I hold that one ought to have had information upon a subject of this kind from the Admiralty. We have been talking for the last hour upon a subject altogether connected with the Admiralty. That Department certainly has charge of these Votes. On page 53 you will see that there is a similar Vote in which the Admiralty have to account for the money, and it is upon that ground that I make these remarks. May I ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can give information with regard to the different details bearing upon the construction of Peterhead Harbour? From the beginning I have been opposed to the construction of this great harbour: and as I expect that the House of Commons will one day stop the work before it is completed on the scale at present contemplated, I suggest that the most useful portion of the work be gone on with.

I will meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman's view, and will arrange that once a year a Report shall be submitted by the engineer-in-chief as to the works at Peterhead, showing what work has been done, so as to keep Parliament informed, not only as to the work which is done, but also as to that which it is proposed to complete.

That is all very good; but I warn the Secretary to the Treasury that he will not get the detailed information he needs. No doubt, such a Report as he mentions would be valuable; but if he relied upon it, he would simply be putting himself into the hands of the engineers, and might then expect the expense to go on without the power of checking it.

I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will not give countenance to the idea that any part of the works which appear in these Estimates are not to be executed. I would remind the Committee that the formation of this harbour was decided upon after very long and careful consideration, and I can understand the opposition of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir George Balfour) seeing that he was himself favourable to this money being spent at Stonehaven, instead of at Peterhead. [General Sir George BALFOUR: No, no, no !] I know the hon. and gallant Gentleman was extremely anxious to see those works executed at Stonehaven, and not at Peterhead, and it is obvious, therefore, this is a sore subject with him.

That is a mistake. I am not sore about it in that way.

But there is no doubt that these works were decided upon after mature deliberation. A Royal Commission reported in 1879 that the employment of convicts on large public works, so as to combine reformatory with penal treatment, was an essential part of our penal system. This training afforded convicts a better chance of obtaining honest and useful employment when discharged from their prisons than they had previously possessed. In 1881, in consequence of the works on which convicts were employed becoming completed, a Committee was appointed to reconsider the whole question, and the report of that Committee, which was unanimously presented, was to the effect that it was quite essential, as part of our penal system, that convicts should be employed on public works. It was pointed out that some large public works such as these at Peterhead should be commenced, as the work the convicts were then engaged on were nearly finished. The question arose whether it was not proper that Scotch convicts should be employed on public works in Scotland, and a strong Departmental Committee which was appointed to inquire into the matter, having gone all round Scotland, and having taken evidence as to the various places where it was suggested that these large public works should be established, including Stonehaven, which the hon. and gallant Member (General Sir George Balfour) is interested in, unanimously reported that Peterhead was the best place for such works. The result of the inquiries of the Committee was submitted to Parliament, and for the purpose of commencing this large national undertaking an Act of Parliament was passed. It appears to me that it would be a very great misfortune if the idea were to get about that these works are not to be completed to the full extent of the plans which have been adopted aftermost careful consideration.

The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Asher) is under an entire misapprehension with regard to my position in this matter. I did not apply, and I never had any intention of applying, to have these harbour works constructed at Stonehaven. Whatever has been done has been done by the Government themselves. I have uniformly urged that a number of small harbours should be constructed around the coast of Scotland where they would be of use to the fishermen, and I hold that it is the greatest folly in the world to build this large harbour at Peterhead, when for the money which is being de- voted to it, it would have been possible to procure 10 or 12 useful harbours on different parts of the coast. I have always said that the works at Peterhead are a great folly and mistake, and the Government now see that the view I have consistently expressed from the first is being justified by the facts. This great harbour is not at all likely to be of commensurate use to the amount of money spent upon it; but I do not wish to occupy the time of the Committee by going further into the matter.

I entirely approve of the employment of Scotch convicts on this most useful work of constructing a harbour of refuge at Peterhead. I think it most desirable that convict labour should be utilized upon such National works; and if I am not out of Order, I would venture to suggest one of the best sites upon which works of this description could be under taken for the benefit of the convicts of the West of England and Wales—

Order, order ! It would not be competent for the hon. and gallant Member to go into that question on this Vote.

I cannot help bearing in mind the remarks upon this subject made by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) when he told his constituents the other day that it was utterly impossible for any Private Member in the House of Commons to understand these Estimates. The Votes and items are mixed up in such a way that confusion is rendered doubly confounded. The manner in which the duties of the various Departments, particularly those relating to the engineers, have been arranged is enough to puzzle the clearest brain. I find, in connection with this harbour, that it is to be built by convict labour. Well, the manner in which convict labour is applied to Public Works of this description, whether in Scotland or in Ireland, in the present day simply leads to procrastination to an extreme extent. We know how the great Public Works in Cork Harbour have been carried on—we know the number of years they have been in course of construction. I do not rise for the purpose of calling attention to the enormous amount of money to be expended on Peterhead Harbour. That has already been explained by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson); but I wish to call attention to a particular point in connnction with this Peterhead Harbour. In order to employ convict labour, you have, in the first place, to build a convict prison on a site of your works for the accommodation of the convicts, and for that purpose you have to purchase a certain amount of ground. Well, I find that the sum of £5,000 has been paid for the ground on which to build the prison in which the convicts who are to be employed on the Peterhead Harbour works are to be housed. Well, in the last Appropriation Account dealing with this subject, we find that the expenditure for the purchase of land under this item was £13,000—that was the grant; but the expenditure was only £9,718 14s. 9d. Well, Sir, of course, when it is found that more money has been given than has been absolutely wanted, when a saving of £3,281 5s.3d. has been effected, Members could not but look forward upon it as extraordinary, and when inquiry was made and reasons were asked for those making the inquiry were put off in an extremely plausible way. They were told that the money had been saved owing to such a good bargain having been made in the purchase of the land. But on inquiry into this matter, it subsequently turned out that, practically speaking, there has been no such saving at all, and that what really had happened was this, that this money was not saved at all, but that this heading, which states that the item was for the purchase of land and works, was inaccurate. The fact is, the item was for the purchase of land, there having been no works carried out. I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, in the first place, what works are being carried out on this land for which an expenditure of £5,000 stands on the Estimates? I also want to know why the money which was advanced for the purchase of this land on which the prison is to be built—

Order, order! The hon. Member is raising this question prematurely. The Vote upon which he will be able to discuss this matter is Vote 20 in Class 3, the Vote for the construction of prisons. The hon. Member's remarks must be reserved until we reach that Vote.

Perhaps I am not putting it as clearly as I ought to, Mr. Courtney; but I find here in the Report of the Committee on Public Accounts it is stated that this matter is somewhat mixed, a portion of the expenditure having been transferred from the Harbour Account to the Prison Account. I desire to have an explanation of the Accounts mixed up in this way.

These Accounts have been committed together, and have been brought before the Public Accounts Committee by the Controller and Auditor General. The amounts are voted separately, and the discussion of the Votes for the construction of convict prisons must be taken under Class 3.

Am I to understand that, in spite of the mixing up of these two Accounts, I shall have to defer the question I wish to raise until we come to the Vote for Scottish Prisons?

Any question relative to the convict prisons must be deferred until the Prison Vote comes on.

May I ask whether any of the money now voted will go to the service of the prison? Are we to understand that none of the money now voted will be devoted to the service of the prison, as has been irregularly done in previous years?

I am quite familiar with the item to which the hon. Gentleman refers; but I do not know that I can quite admit the correctness of the term irregularity. I quite remember the circumstance of this amount being brought before the notice of the Public Accounts Committee. As the hon. Gentleman knows it was found in this instance that by taking a larger quantity of land than was at first contemplated the land could be obtained at a less price per acre, and that, therefore, in making the purchase of the land which was necessary for the prison a larger quantity was taken than was absolutely required for that purpose, but which was necessary for other portions of the work. It is quite true that there appeared to have been some, more or less, confusion between the two Accounts; but the hon. Member must know perfectly well that whether the total sum was paid through the Prisons Account or through the Harbour Account was quite immaterial.

No, no.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman who says "No" would surely not contend that the Government, having to bear the responsibility of purchasing land for the purpose of building a prison and constructing a harbour, and assuming that land to belong to one person, should negotiate for the two pieces of land separately, having separate valuations and exercising their compulsory powers in two instances instead of one. Surely he must see that it was an advantage to deal with the purchase as a whole, charging the respective portions of the outlay to the respective works. It appears to me that that was the ordinary business-like course to take in a matter of this kind. I think the question was all made clear to the Public Accounts Committee, and that although there happened to have been some confusion, the result in the end was that the land which otherwise would have to be acquired by the two Departments, was acquired at a less cost by simply purchasing it in the first instance for one Department, and apportioning the cost between the two Departments afterwards.

To my mind, the manner in which these accounts have been managed, the manner in which the money has been expended, amounts to nothing short of a departmental crime. The error consists in the failure to obtain special Treasury sanction for the appropration of funds from the purpose for which voted to a different, though, perhaps, better purpose, so as to enable the Auditor General to report thereon.

I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury what is the meaning of this item, £28,000 for the "purchase of land and works"—the first item under that head? Does it mean that in purchasing the land we also purchased the works, or that we executed the works? I wish to know how much we have actually spent on purchasing the land, and how much we have spent upon works? I find that this sum includes £1,950 for salaries. Now, supposing £10,000 were expended on the purchase of land, that leaves us £18,000 for work done. If we are spending in round numbers £2,000 a-year on salaries, which only represents £18,000 of work, I would ask the Government to tell me what it means? It seems to me that £2,000 is much too large a proportion to pay for salaries to engineers, accountants, clerks, and such like technical people. It seems to me that this is a most extravagant way of doing business, and I trust the Committee will receive further information with regard to it.

I should also like to know whether, under the head of salaries, the £800 originally paid to Sir John Coode will appear?

Yes; the salary of the engineer-in-chief is charged. I see by referring to the sub-head that his salary is put down at £800.

That is not what I allude to. I want to know if the arrangement with Sir John Coode on his appointment as engineer-in-chief was that he was to get a £1,000 down as engineer of the works?

I think the hon. Member is rather confusing the arrangement made for the progress of the works with that relating to the completion of the plans.

Then my question would apply to the completion of the plans?

The £1,000 paid under that arrangement does not appear here, because that matter has been already settled. If the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Swinburne) would take the trouble to read sub-heads A and B, he would there find the whole of the details he is asking for. He will find that £28,000 is put down for the purchase of land and works—that being the head under which the items are charged. He will find under Sub-head A in the Estimate for 1887–8 that the sum of £28,000 is for labour and materials, and that nothing is included for the purchase of land. He will see that last year the sum was £28,000, but that of that amount £8,000 was for the completion of the purchase of land required for the works and railways. The item for salaries includes the salaries of the engineers who are there in attendance on the work, and I do not think we can very fairly estimate proportionately to the amount of money spent on the works the value of the services of these gentlemen, Of course, it is ne cessary to employ engineers. They have been engaged, and they have had handed over to them charge of the works, and one is an engineer-in-chief, while the other is an assistant engineer. The engineer-in-chief visits the works periodically, and is solely responsible for the conduct of the works; the other, the assistant engineer, is resident on the works, and is charged with the responsibility of carrying out the works on the spot.

It seems to me that the answer of the hon. Gentleman is exceedingly unsatisfactory to one who knows the facts in connection with this Vote. He speaks of Sub-head 1 as showing that last year £8,000 was taken for the purchase of land, and £20,000 for labour and materials, while this year a sum of £28,000, which is equal to the two items of last year, is taken exclusively for labour and materials. No one knows better than the hon. Gentleman that the sum granted by Parliament last year for labour and materials was not altogether appropriated for that purpose, and that £8,000 was devoted to the purchase of land. The distinction which he draws, therefore, is futile, and does not bind the Treasury to spend the money in the manner in which they ask the Treasury to spend it.

Taking the hon. Gentleman's own estimate, it is an extraordinary idea that we are to expend upon salaries 10 per cent of the amount we spend upon the whole work, and yet that was the state of things last year—supposing the whole amount was expended on labour and materials. It seems to me that no business man would think of making such an outlay as that. It seems to me that if these salaries are fixed, the sooner the works are completed the better. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he would state whether the £20,000 was spent last year on labour and materials?

I am afraid I have not got a copy of the Appropriation Act with me at this moment, and, therefore, I am unable to give a precise answer to that question. But I need hardly point out what the estimated sum is. If the total sum which is taken under Subhead A is for the purchase of land and works, clearly it is available for either the one purpose or the other. The hon. Baronet loses sight of the fact that at this particular time the works are only just in process of commencement, and that the comparison he makes—or, rather, the complaint he makes as to percentage—is not a fair one. I presume if the hon. Baronet were about erecting a large building himself, he would consider it necessary to employ an architect. If the operations he proposed effecting were estimated to cost £750,000, I take it that he would endeavour to obtain the services of the best engineer he could find, and it could hardly be supposed that he could obtain the services of an engineer of eminence, and get him to give his whole time and attention, for very much less than the sum which is put down here for the resident engineer.

There is an engineer over that one.

Precisely, with whom an arrangement has been made that he should receive a fixed salary, which salary certainly forms part of the whole charge. [Sir JOHN SWINBURNE dissented.] The hon. Baronet shakes his head. All I can say is that I should be sorry to entrust so large a work to any but the most competent engineer I could find; and if we must have competent engineers, certainly, in the first year, the expenditure upon their salaries must of necessity compare unfavourably with the amount of work done. In future years, if Parliament sees fit to increase the sum at the disposal of the engineers, they will, no doubt, be glad to carry on their work much faster, and to show a larger result for the amount of money spent.

The works have been going on two or three years.

Yes; but the railway is not yet completed, and the prison is not yet completed; and while these works are being completed, the salaries of the engineers are, of course, running on. They must of necessity go on. If the hon. Baronet himself builds a house, he must pay the salary of his architect whilst the foundation is being dug. The engineers must be paid from the beginning, even though at first there may be little to show for the money spent.

The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury did not answer the point I raised as to labour and materials. We know actually, from the accounts rendered us last year, that, practically speaking, there was a certain amount of money placed to the account of labour and materials which was really devoted to the purchase of land. I really think the hon. Gentleman should give us some assurance that a blunder which was evidently committed last year will not be repeated this year, but that he will take care, in dealing with these various sub-heads, that the money advanced for one particular object will be devoted specifically to that one object, and will not be transferred off-hand from one sub-head to another. I trust he will take care that money granted for labour and materials should be expended on labour and materials, and that money granted for the purchase of land should be devoted to the purchase of land, and nothing else. I trust the hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that these works should be carried out in a bonâ fide manner, and that next year we should see none of these mistakes which are observable in the accounts of last year, looking at them in the light of the present Estimates.

I would remind the hon. Member that I have endeavoured to explain to the House that this question has been most carefully considered. I trust that it has been put in a satisfactory position, and I promise him that I will give the point he raises my fullest attention.

I want to repeat upon this Tote, and I also desire to do it upon many other Votes, my objection to the way in which these Accounts are presented. We have in the Civil Service Estimates an account of the rates upon Government property, amounting to a sum of £132,000, relating to the War and Admiralty Departments. The charge for rates on Admiralty buildings is £52,000, and on the property of the War Department £80,000, making together the total I have named. What I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is, why these accounts cannot be brought into the Army and Navy Votes? I do not wish to alter the administration—let there be no mistake about that. I have no doubt that under the Treasury valuer the best arrangement is made which can be made as to the payment of these rates; but, in my view the Army and Navy Departments should themselves be charged with the precise amounts that they cost. I would make the same remark with reference to the Post Office. I said last Wednesday that the Post Office Accounts were illusory and delusory, for the reason that they did not show what the Post Office costs, and that the idea that we are making those large profits out of the Post Office is incorrect when we remember that these large deductions have to be made from them. The charge for rates in connection with the Post Office should come under the Post Office Vote, and not under the present Vote. I am anxious to hear from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury his opinion upon this matter; and I trust that next year the course I suggest will be followed with regard to all Departments, so that the saddle may be put upon the right horse.

the late Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) has made a suggestion which I have been advocating for the last 15 years. If the War Office receives fair treatment and a number of charges are removed from it which ought properly to be borne by other Departments, I shall be very willing to see it take over its due share of the Vote now under discussion, as has been suggested.

I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury that he should not wait till he finds himself on the Front Opposition Bench before attempting to initiate reforms or to advocate them. He has an opportunity of moving in the matter now, and if he will only avail himself of it he will do very good service. I hope he will not wait till he gets to the Opposition side of the House in order to force the hands of his opponents to get them to carry out the necessary reforms. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to explain if he can how it is that the rates in England and Scotland have gone up apparently uniformly, while, at the same time, they have gone down considerably in Ireland? The number of buildings have not diminished in Ireland, and I have yet to learn that the rates have decreased. Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform the Irish Members in what particular the amount expended in Ireland in aid of local offices has been lessened?

With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) has said, I endeavoured to make it clear when last we went into Committee of Supply, that I would try in the next Estimates, if I have the honour to be responsible for them, to arrange that the particulars which it is universally thought desirable to have furnished on the face of the Estimates, shall be given. I propose to carry that out as far as I can; but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he has carefully, and I think wisely, made it clear to us that he does not wish to alter or change the administration, and that the particular Vote he referred to as an instance shows how difficult it is to meet his views and wishes entirely and fully. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Vote for rates in respect of the Post Office ought to be charged on the Post Office Estimates. Well, now clearly you cannot charge it on the Post Office Vote or on the Post Office Estimate, if it is to be administered by the Treasury. All I can say is, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman himself will agree with me that it would be undesirable to remove the care and control of the administration of the rates on Government property from the inspector who now has charge of them, and that the work would be much better done in one Department by one officer than if it were done by each Department for itself. But what can be, and what shall be done is this, the amount that is paid in lieu of rates on Post Office property shall be stated in a foot-note on the Post Office Estimates, so that the House will be able to see at a glance so far as we get can at it correctly, the total amount for each service. I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) gave me some very sound advice as to what I must avoid doing, and he asked a question with regard to Ireland, but I am afraid I can give him very little information, seeing that I have not the details of particulars for England, Scotland and Ireland as separate countries. I think, however, upon the face of it, it must be evident that the building operations which have been going on in England to an enormous extent under the Post Office Department, involving large acquisitions of property, account for the discrepancy the hon. Gentleman refers to. It is evident that the value of the Government property in this country is increasing. There was an enormous increase in the Post Office Vote in regard to the acquisition of new sites last year, to which my Predecessor has called attention. That all means new property, the value of property in the centres of large towns and cities is, I think, constantly increasing. I do not think the increase which is shown in this item for rates in the present Estimates at 3 per cent is at all excessive or out of proportion to the actual increase in the value of property which is going on in different parts of the country. If the hon. Member for East Donegal desires it, I will obtain information upon the point he has raised, and show precisely, as near as I can, the details of this matter, as bearing upon each of the three countries, and the causes which have led to any discrepancy which may be observable.

I desire information as to the diminution in Ireland.

Yes, I will find out about that.

The hon. Member behind me refers rather severely to the attitude of Secretaries to the Treasury who have ceased to be responsible for the Estimates, and find themselves in opposition. I should like to put him in possession of one single fact, and it is, that I never had the honour of presenting to this House any sot of Estimates whatever. When I came into Office the Estimates had been prepared by my Predecessor, and when I left Office I did so before I had had time to present the Estimates. Therefore, I do not think it fair that I should be criticized for having neglected to do that which I never had an opportunity of doing. I do not altogether agree with what the hon. Member opposite said. I admit that he must be largely in the hands of the permanent officials, but with the present mode of keeping accounts I see no difficulty in carrying out the reform I require. Take the amount for the Admiralty—namely, £52,000. I see no difficulty in accrediting this amount as an extra receipt in the Admiralty Accounts, and I see no difficulty in debiting the Admiralty Accounts with rates on property. I am contending that the Admiralty Vote should show what the country pays for its Navy altogether, no matter by what departments it may be administered. The hon. Member will recollect that this subject goes through a large number of Votes. There are transfers again and again from one department to another, and there are contributions from the Indian Government to be taken into account.

For War Office purposes.

In aid of the War Office Vote. I think the same thing occurs in a great many other departments. In the Post Office Estimates this grant made in respect of rates on Post Office buildings might be entered as a receipt, and, instead of voting £226,105, we should then only vote the balance of the account. The Vote should show the entire expenditure of the Admiralty and War Office, and each department should be responsible for the amount it spends. I shall bring this question up again with much greater freedom upon the Stationery Vote on the question of principle. I shall contend that each department should deal with its own stationery account. My point is not to alter the administration, but to provide that the Admiralty Estimates shall show the whole account for the Admiralty, that the War Office Estimates shall show the same, and also the Post Office Estimates. What I want to bring about is this—that Parliament may see what each department costs. The hon. Member opposite knows as well as I that the disclosures which have been made upstairs before the Committee on the Admiralty and War Office accounts show that, in consequence of certain items not being. charged to the proper departments, enormous confusion prevails.

It seems to me essential that the management of this particular item should rest with the Treasury, and that the Secretary to the Treasury should be responsible under the Vote for it. I do not, for my own part, see how he can be responsible for a small share of the Vote if the Vote is split up and taken under different heads or attributed to different departments, and great confusion would necessarily arise; and I think that confusion must be avoided, although I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) that we should know what is the total cost of each separate department. I think the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has met this very fairly by proposing to put, in the form of a foot note, at the end of the aggregate vote, in italics, these items voted in other departments in this way. That will enable the House to see the aggregate cost of each department. Under the head Post Office there is an item of £21,000 for rates on Post Office property. That item should not be included in the Post Office Estimate, but should be shown separately, and be added to the Post Office aggregate, so that the House can see the total cost of that department. I do not think it would result in more economic management if you were to split up these Votes, and not to hold the Secretary to the Treasury responsible for all those items.

I hope the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will pause before carrying out the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). I admire the right hon. Gentleman's abilities, and I sympathize, to some extent, with his objects; but I believe that by the system he advocates he would upset the whole Treasury mode of making up accounts. I have had some experience of accounts myself, and I think it would not be altogether a waste of time if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would rise in his place and show the House what would be the result of keeping complicated accounts by a system of double entry such as that proposed. If I am obliged to make observations displeasing to my right hon. Friend I am sorry, and if I attach any blame to him I regret it.

It is stated in the newspapers that the Fire Brigade is so badly horsed that, in the event of a great fire occurring, it would be unable to send out engines for want of horses. I do not know whether that is correct; but, if so, it is a matter of great importance, and I shall be glad to hear a statement on the subject from the right hon. Gentleman.

I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any possibility of increasing this grant, because I can confirm not only what has fallen from the hon. Member opposite, that the brigade is deficient in horse power, but that many other materials are deficient which are necessary to efficiently dealing with fires in the Metropolis. As the Government grant forms one of the items of the Vote, perhaps my right hon. Friend will state whether the Government have any intention of increasing the amount.

I have seen in the newspapers the statements to which the hon. Member refers, but I have no special knowledge on the subject. With regard to the question of the right hon. Baronet, I would point out that this sum is laid down by Act of Parliament of 1865, and I presume that this payment is in respect of the services rendered by the Fire Brigade in connection with the protection of the Government Offices; but, as I have said, the amount being fixed by Act of Parliament, it would not be possible to increase it without the sanction of Parliament.

I do not know whether the Statute gives the right hon. Gentleman authority to increase the grant, but as the £1,000 is paid for the protection of Government Works, it would be a most material thing if there is any truth in the allegation, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will inquire into the matter.

I think that hon. Members representing Irish constituencies have some ground for complaint that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) is not in his place to answer with regard to this Vote; because it is almost impossible to ascertain what is the position of the Treasury in respect of the expenditure by the Board of Works in Ireland. With respect to every spending Department here, the position of the Treasury is more or less clear; but the Treasury Authorities themselves admit that they are not able to give the amount of check and control required by the expenditure under this Vote. In order that I may not be supposed to be speaking at random, I will refer to the answer given to the Public Accounts Committee on this very point. Mr. F. W. Hamilton, one of the principal clerks in the Treasury, was asked what real check the Treasury exercised on the expenditure of the Board of Works in Ireland, to which he replied—

" I should think it is rather difficult to say. It is a Department "which we consider to be directly under the Treasury, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury answers for the Department in the House of Commons; but it would be going into a very large question to define the relations between the Treasury and the Board of Works in Ireland."

From that starting point the interrogatories were continued, and it appears that all sorts of things have been done in connection with this particular Vote, which would not for a moment be attempted on the part of any spending Department here, while the Treasury have very little information, and no control, over the action of those by whom the money is spent in Dublin. It appears that without obtaining any authority from the Treasury, not only the money voted in items A, B, and C, but also that which is obtained from what are called extra receipts, which ought to be paid into the Exchequer, is appropriated, and that they have even taken upon themselves, without Treasury sanction, to compromise an action at law. There is no other Department which would carry on its business in that way. The Treasury is supposed to have financial control over every Department of the State, and there is no reason why the Irish Board of Works should form an exception—at any rate, the Treasury themselves decline to attempt to define the relationship between the two Offices. It is only reasonable that we should have expected the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to be in his place to explain how this money is spent, and why any money is spent irregularly. Again the Vote, I see, is not presented in the same form as last year, as hon. Members will see by referring to page 61, where, under the heading that included maintenance last year, there now appears a charge for furniture and utensils; and similarly with other sub-heads. Under those circumstances, it is impossible to compare the figures of this year with those of previous years. Therefore, I say that our position with reference to this Vote is very unsatisfactory. There are also one or two matters of detail with regard to the Vote on which I should like to get answers from the right hon. Gentleman. Especially I would ask him, with regard to the Ulster Canal, on account of which there is, on page 64, a charge of £705, as against £1,221 for last year. Now, that is a saving of the sum of £500 on this work alone. I regard the Ulster Canal as a monument of incapacity which the Board of Works will do well to get rid of, and which causes very heavy annual charges. The Government also propose to take £1,200, as shown on page 61, for work to be executed by the Shannon Navigation Company; and they have also introduced a Bill in reference to the transfer contemplated. Under that Bill they will take powers to make over to the Company their property in the Ulster Canal, which at present they hold as unpaid mortgagees, and which has proved a very bad security. I ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury how it is that the amount for the Ulster Canal has been brought down to the sum of £705?

The only explanation I can give of the reduction of the Vote on account of the Ulster Canal is, that last year the expenditure was in excess of the average expenditure, the consequence of special works which are, not to be executed this year. The works, I understand, were of the nature of repairs; £705 is the sum which we are advised would be necessary at the end of the year, and, of course, we ask for no more than we are advised will be necessary to discharge the obligations in connection with them. As the hon. Member says, we have introduced a Bill with reference to the Ulster Canal, which we hope to hand over to the Lagan Navigation Company, and in the passing of that measure I hope we may have the hon. Member's assistance, because we can, in that way, get rid, as he has suggested, of the responsibility in connection with the Canal. The Government have hitherto been unsuccessful in their endeavours to do this—I am afraid, owing to the opposition of the hon. Member himself. However, it would be very much to the advantage of those interested if the Canal were handed over to the Lagan Navigation Company, who would probably administer it better than has been the case hitherto. The hon. Member has asked me some questions with regard to the control which the Treasury has of the expenditure of the Irish Board of Works; and he has put his finger on certain cases, in one of which an action at law was compromised without Treasury sanction, and in another payment was made out of extra receipts. He has also referred to evidence given before the Public Accounts Committee—that it was not clear that the sanction of the Treasury had been obtained before the expenditure of money took place in connection with the visit of a Royal personage. I should not like it to go forth that there is any hesitation or doubt at the Treasury as to their duty of controlling expenditure for which they are responsible in connection with this Board. It is true that with respect to the items to which the hon. Member called attention mistakes have been made; but I believe it is also perfectly true that they have been made in these instances alone. [Mr. ARTHUR. O'CONNOR: In one year.] Yes; in one year. The accounts are subjected to the most rigid scrutiny by the Controller and Auditor General, and other gentlemen. The case in which the action at law was compromised without the sanction of the Treasury being previously obtained, was one of considerable difficulty; and I am not prepared to say or admit that the officer in charge, although exercising a power which was irregular and out of order, did not save money, and, under the circumstances, take the wisest course. I do not for one moment wish to lessen the efficiency of Treasury control; and, as far as my knowledge and experience at the Treasury goes, there is no hesitation or doubt whatever as to its being absolutely irregular to expend any money under this Vote without the Treasury sanction being first obtained; and, so far as I am able to judge, that is practically carried out in all cases. With regard to the answer of Mr. Hamilton before the Public Accounts Committee, to which the hon. Member has referred, without saying too much, it appears to me that Mr. Hamilton was dealing with a particular case in point, and must not be understood to mean that there was any weakness of control on the part of the Treasury. And, as far as I can, I shall always insist on a full examination of the subject before any action of the Board in the matter of expenditure is taken.

I shall always be anxious to effect economy in the Public Service; and in respect of the Ulster Canal, if the Government will consent to economize £12,000 in the Public Expenditure, I will consent to withdraw my opposition to the Bill—they will then get their measure, and the public money will be saved.

I observe that the official residences in Dublin cost the sum of £13,613. I have not a very great opinion of those who inhabit these residences; and I think, at least, their residences should be kept in repair at their own expense. I see that altogether there is a total increase of charge of £1,030 on account of the Viceregal Lodge, the Chief Secretary's Lodge, the Under Secretary's Lodge, and the Private Secretary's Lodge. I do not see why the Under Secretary and the Private Secretary should have lodges, and there should be an increased outlay on their houses, gardens, and demesnes. The whole thing smacks of a job. I have been to Dublin, and can see no reason why these things should be paid for by the public; and, under the circumstances, I shall move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of £1,030, which represents the excess of charge in this Estimate over last year.

My hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) has raised a question of principle on this Vote which I shall not discuss, although he only pro-proposes to reduce it by the amount of the excess over last year's Estimate. I do not know that we can get a better illustration of the extravagance of the Irish Government than is presented by the Vote before us. The sum voted this year for Palaces in the personal occupation of Her Majesty is between £12,000 and £13,000, and we are asked to Vote for Dublin Castle and the Viceregal residence no less a sum than £10,105. If hon. Members will look at the past accounts, they will be utterly unable to understand what becomes of the furniture in Dublin Castle. The maintenance of Dublin Castle, which is a furnished residence, and the figures I am about to quote are only a sample of what is expended every year, is £3,700; furniture and fittings, £2,100; fuel, lighting, service, and cleaning, £353. For the Viceregal Lodge and gardens, there is £3,100 for maintenance, £1,000 for furniture, and £370 for fuel and lighting. For the Chief Secretary's Lodge there is £900 for maintenance, £300 for furniture, and £155 for fuel and lighting. For the Under Secretary's Lodge, there is £600 for maintenance, £150 for furniture, and £120 for fuel and lighting. Now, the Chief Secretary has a salary of £4,500. I do not in any way grudge him the salary. He is, or ought to be, one of the hardest worked officials of the Government, but when, in addition to his salary, you give him £1,500 a-year for his residence in Dublin, you give him £1,000 a-year more than the Prime Minister. With the exception of the Lord Chancellors, the Chief Secretary for Ireland is the highest paid official in the Cabinet, and I think the attention of the House should be called to this circumstance. On page 67 the Committee will find all these sums put together, and by that they will get a very good idea of the enormous ordinary expenditure of the Irish Government, which is said to be at least double that for which a similar service could be carried on in this country. Where the control of the Treasury is with regard to it, I cannot say. I am sure the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will exercise all the control in his power, but I venture to tell him that the Irish Authorities will be too much for him, and that the officials in Dublin Castle will spend money under any circumstances. There is no Department in the State on which you spend more money, and get less for it than that which has in hand the ordinary administration of Irish affairs. I ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury for some information with regard to all these items.

I am afraid I cannot give very much information with regard to this expenditure. There is not a very large increase in the amount of charge as compared with previous years. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) who has been at the Treasury, knows perfectly well that this is not a Departmental but a Cabinet question; and if the whole system of administration of Ireland is to be altered, if you are to abolish the official residence of the Lord Lieutenant, that is not a question which can be raised on this Vote. It is a question of principle, and must be settled by the responsible Government. What the Treasury can do, and endeavour to do, is to take care that there should not be any unnecessary increase of expenditure, and that the expenditure which has been incurred shall be cut down if it is possible to do so. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that there is a considerable expenditure on this official residence in Dublin; but he will, of course, remember that it is used to a much larger extent than any of the Royal Palaces which are occupied by Her Majesty in this country. Whether the expenditure is large or excessive is a question entirely for the House to judge; I can only be expected, I think, to answer with regard to objections made on that ground, the question of principle being entirely beyond me. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) always goes to the point; he says he objects on principle to the maintenance of these offices. Well, of course, if the House comes to that opinion, the system will be altered; but I think that, at this particular stage of the proceedings, all we can do is to see that the Treasury shall exercise an efficient control over the expenditure.

I am astonished at the reply of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. We have, for the Under Secretary's Lodge and Demense, a charge of £600 for maintenance and £150 for furniture; but I point out that this Under Secretary's Lodge is not occupied at all. There is no such person, at the present moment, as the Under Secretary for Ireland. [Mr. JACKSON: Yes.] I stand corrected. We have an increased expenditure, and a diminished responsibility. I ask, in connection with the Chief Secretary's lodge and gardens, what amount of time the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has spent in that habitation, for which we pay? We all know in Ireland that practically the right hon. Gentleman has Boycotted the country in consequence of the Galway midwifery case, and we think that, if the right hon. Gentleman does not live there, there ought to be a diminished expenditure on account of his residence. We find, practically speaking, that the Chief Secretary's lodge and grounds cost this year £1,355, and that there is only a very small diminution in connection with the expenditure of last year. Again, with regard to the Dublin residence and the Viceregal Lodge, we have in those cases a charge of £6,200, as against a charge of £583. Everyone connected with Ireland knows that the Lord Lieutenant has left the country for some time past, and that he has practically taken up his abode in London, leaving the affairs of Ireland to be managed by proxy. Both these individuals—the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary—spend a greater portion of their time out of the country; and I maintain that we should not pay an increased sum in connection with their residences in Dublin. I hope the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) will divide the Committee on his Amendment, for I consider these items are disgraceful in themselves, and they cast neither honour nor glory on the Irish Executive.

I wish simply to point out that I am not asking the Committee to vote on the question of principle. My contention is that it is ridiculous that there should be so great a charge for the lodges of the Chief Secretary and Under Secretary, having regard to the cost at which the palaces in the occupation of Her Majesty are maintained. No one seems to be responsible for this expenditure, and, under the circumstances, I think we ought all to protest against the increase in this Vote.

I trust the hon. Member for Northampton will divide the Committee on his Amendment. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) has not given one tittle or shred of reason or excuse for the increase of this Vote. The question may be one for the decision of the Cabinet whether we should do away with Dublin as the outward and visible sign of a hateful system in Ireland; but the Vote now asked for is a departmental matter, and we are entitled to know the reason of the increased charge for furniture and keeping up these residences. We found the other day that there was a great deal of unnecessary expense in connection with furniture in England, but it seems that the state of things in Ireland is twice as bad. For these reasons I shall support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton.

We have not been able to obtain any information with regard to this Vote, but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury that we have received instructions specially from our constituents to look after this expenditure, and whether the amounts are large or small we are expected to see that there is no waste. We find here a charge of £3,500 for additional furniture at Dublin Castle, and another item of £1,000 on account of the Viceregal Lodge which also includes furniture, and we have asked what necessity there can possibly be for this increased expenditure upon residences which are already provided for on a large scale. As I have said, we cannot get any information. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary who is responsible for the affairs of Ireland will not come here, and the right hon. Gentleman who is supposed to supply his place is apparently gone. I do not know that Irish Members would be doing their duty to their constituents, or that we should be doing our duty to those who send us here if we allowed this money to be voted without making an earnest protest against the way in which the House of Commons is treated in this matter. I do not think it is fair, I do not think it is treating the Representatives of the people even with common decency to refuse the information we have asked for.

I would point out that as we Irish Members have never crossed the threshold of Dublin Castle, we are not in a position to say whether it is well furnished or otherwise, but we do object to the increased expenditure owing to the extravagance of that institution. As has been pointed out to the Committee, Dublin Castle is supposed to be permanently furnished; but, notwithstanding that, we have these large sums year after year for decorations and other matters. Anyone who visits the Phœnix Park, and looks at the residences of the officials, is surprised by the neglected and dilapidated appearance which they present, and if we ask the reason it is because they are left tenantless for the greater part of the year. We object seriously to this increased expenditure, and we feel it our duty to protest against a system which is at variance with the sentiments of the Irish people whom we are sent here to represent.

The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury did not seem to defend this Vote on very strong grounds. I certainly object to large sums being expended upon furniture of Public Departments, unless the necessity for such expenditure is shown; and therefore, when the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury got up to reply to the hon. Member for Northampton, and said that the question of the principle of the Lord Lieutenancy was involved, I must own to being greatly disappointed with his reply. We are not now discussing the question as to whether or not there shall be a Lord Lieutenant, but the matter of increased expenditure. I should like to have some reasons for this extra expenditure. I have no doubt that it is perfectly proper to expend this money; but I point out that we have not had any reason given for the increase.

It is impossible for the Under Secretary, or anyone, to give detailed information as to how the money in all the Lodges in Dublin is spent for repairs, maintenance, and other matters. Hon. Members must be aware that the cost of repairs in one year will vary as compared with that of another, and it is impossible to explain exactly why the sum in one year is larger than a given sum in another. I would call the attention of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down to the fact that the sum total of the Vote shows a substantial decrease of about £13,000, and I think it must be obvious from that fact that there can have been no extraordinary waste which could have been prevented. In reply to the allegation that the Viceregal Lodge is not occupied, I may recall to the recollection of hon. Members that the Lord Lieutenant has been in Ireland a good deal, and His Excellency will return to Dublin in the course of a few days. I think the hon. Member who has moved the reduction of the Vote, whatever may be his opinion with regard to the Vice-royalty, must be aware that it would not be acceptable to the country if the Castle and residences in Dublin were allowed to fall into decay for the want of repairs. I trust we shall now be allowed to take this Vote.

I find that there is a charge for maintenance and supplies at Dublin Castle of £3,700, and also a charge of £2,100 for furniture in the house. I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will state what is the character of the furniture on which this sum is expended. Every year it costs £2,000 for furnishing the Castle; and I ask, is the furniture such that it requires to be replaced yearly? It is a monstrous thing that this constant charge for furniture, of which we have no explanation, is placed upon the Estimates. It is manifest that we must conclude that these large sums of money are not spent upon furniture, but jobbed away by officials at the Castle. I know the Under Secretary's Lodge in Dublin, and I say that it is monstrous to suppose that £600 a-year can be spent upon it, or anything like it. The demesne is not very extensive; and I say that it is utterly impos sible that the money can have been expended upon it. For the Viceregal Lodge there is a charge of £1,000 for furniture and £1,300 for maintenance and repairs. It manifest that the money does not go for these purposes; it must go for some other purpose. The furniture is removed, and I say that we ought to know what becomes of it. It must be either that the money is not spent on furniture or else that the furniture is afterwards sold off and replaced at the cost of the State. For the Chief Secretary's Lodge and gardens there is a charge of £900 for maintenance and repairs and £300 for utensils, in addition to the enormous salary of £4,500 a-year, and the item for coals for the house in which he never lives. I pointed out that last item to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and said that the quantity of coals charged for was enough to warm at least five houses of the size of the Chief Secretary's Lodge, and the right hon. Gentleman was totally unable to tell us how the money was spent. It comes to this, then, that in addition to the salary of £4,500, there is a further sum of £1,600 which the right hon. Gentleman receives, and for this £1,600 a-year there is absolutely no explanation whatever. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary cannot fairly contend that this sum is necessary to keep his house in repair. In my opinion, if he kept his house in Dublin in repair for a long residence in the country it would cost him about £200 a-year; but when the Public Exchequer can be drawn upon the cost of repairs amounts to £1,600. Allow me to say that the Chief Secretary's Lodge is an exceedingly small house, and that every year it costs for repairs and furniture one-fourth of the sum that it would require to build a house of the size. Under these circumstances, I say that we are entitled to further information before the Vote is taken.

The hon. Member for East Mayo has spoken as if he was desirous of getting information on this Vote which the Government refused to give him; but I can assure him that that is not the case. I admit that the House is entitled to obtain all the information which it seeks; and, therefore, I venture to make the suggestion that, in order to make a full investigation, the matter should be brought forward on the Report stage, and the Vote now allowed to be taken. [" Hear, hear ! "] An hon. Member cheers that remark; but on Report I will endeavour to be prepared with fuller information that will satisfy the House as to what the expenditure is for and at what times it is made. I hope the Committee will accept that statement and my expression of regret that I have not with me at the moment the details which are necessary to reply to hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on this Vote.

I venture to make another suggestion—that we should pass by this Vote and take it up at the time when fuller information can be given and when we shall have the benefit of the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour). I think that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has scarcely done justice to the objections which have been raised. He says that it is impossible to give an account of every chair and table supplied at the Castle. We are not asking for that; our surprise is expressed at the circumstance that this sum should be required every year for the same purpose. We are met with a scale of extravagance which does not exist, I believe, in any other residence of similar character; and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman), in reply to our inquiries, tells us that it is unreasonable to expect information to be given at a moment's notice. But the moment for getting this information is when the Estimates are framed, and they have been drawn up for some time. It was well known that this Vote would be taken to-day, and one would therefore suppose that the hon. Gentleman would have employed his time in providing the information required. I think that the suggestion that I make is better than that which comes from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and, with the view of enabling him to show us how he deals with this subject, I shall move that the Chairman report Progress; and unless the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will undertake to pass by the Vote for the present, I shall be obliged to press my Motion to a Division.

I can hardly imagine that the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) is serious in making his Motion to report Progress. It seems to me that the offer made by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is a very fair one, as far as it goes, although I would ask for further information, which, perhaps, he might give on Report, if he cannot now do so. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman) has said that there is a decrease of about £12,000 on the total Vote; but I would point out that though this is so there is, under the head of furniture, an increase of £4,000. I have no doubt that a satisfactory explanation can be given of this, but I think the Committee ought to receive some explanation of this increase. The hon. Gentleman has promised to give the information asked for on Report. I hope he will also reply on this point. Under these circumstances, I think that hon. Members below the Gangway might now allow the Vote to pass and take up the discussion at the stage suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under Secretary for Ireland has told the Committee that there is a decrease of £12,000 on this Vote for the present year; but he forgot to tell us that this decrease is on public building. The Furniture Vote is increasing, and, as the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) pointed out just now, the point before the Committee is not the principle of the Vote, but whether it is to be £5,000 every year. Another point on which the Committee ask for information, and on account of which the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) asks for the postponement of the Vote, is that the Irish Votes, according to precedent, have always been taken together at a time when the Irish Members would have the opportunity of being present. Again, Lord Beaconsfield laid it down as a principle that whenever any Vote was being discussed the Minister of the Department to which it related should be present. I think, as a matter of respect to the House, we have a right to ask that the Cabinet Minister responsible for this Vote should be present when the Vote was under discussion. I ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to postpone the Vote, as requested by the hon. Member for Leicester, whose Motion I shall support if the hon. Gentleman does not consent to the proposal of postponement until a time when we have the Minister of the Crown present to whose Department this matter relates.

I have expressed regret at my inability to give the information required at the present moment, and I now say that if it is the wish of the Committee I shall have no objection to postpone the Vote. I do not know whether the hon. Baronet who represents the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) was present at an earlier part of the discussion; but the hon. Gentleman would have seen that under Sub-head C there is a decrease of £5,535, while under Sub-head D there is an increase of £4,140. This is the result of a transfer from Sub-head C to Sub-head D, which explains the circumstance to which the hon. Baronet alludes.

I hope the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will not for a moment suppose that I lack confidence in any promise that he makes, because I have the greatest confidence that he will fulfil his promise in any matter relating to the National Business and expenditure of public money. I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is willing to postpone the Vote, and I would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw the Motion for reporting Progress.

This Vote which is now before us has to do with the erection of the new Science and Art Buildings and National Library in Dublin. I want to know from the Government what the increase of £5,000 means? I put this question for the reason that some time ago the visitors, who inspected the premises and saw what was being done, gave it as their opinion that it was a very great mistake to curtail the amount which it was originally intended to expend in connection with the erection of these buildings. They did so, because in Ireland it is hoped that in connection with these very buildings a series of similar structures—of course not on quite so large a scale—will be erected throughout the country for the purpose of promoting technical education, which is one of the purposes for which these buildings are being erected. It was with the deepest regret that the Visitors found that the original designs had been departed from, and that, practically speaking, the work was to be curtailed. I find this year, however, that there is an increased expenditure of £5,000, and I sincerely hope that the Government of Ireland, which we consider a Government of commission and omission, will not be guilty of omission in this respect, but will push forward this Museum as well as they can. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) if his attention has been called to the fact that the roof of the annex to these buildings has been found to be totally inadequate and insufficient—that, practically speaking, it has been found to be leaky, and that if any specimens are placed in the Museum they will be completely ruined in consequence? Again, the Visitors called attention to the Library. They considered the dimensions at present determined upon to be much too small. From time to time we see in connection with large public buildings that certain portions of the structures are totally inadequate for the purposes intended. That has been the case with the British Museum; it is the case even in connection with certain portions of this House. I maintain that the Report of the Visitors as to the Library attached to the Science and Art Buildings in Dublin ought to command a certain amount of respect and attention; and, accordingly, I ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) whether it is intended to provide increased library accommodation in the proposed buildings? There is one other fact to which I must allude, and it has reference to the electric lighting of these buildings in Dublin. The Visitors gave it as their opinion that it would be very advisable to adopt the principle of electric lighting, because, in the first place, it would ensure a better atmosphere; in the second place, it would not generate the same amount of heat as gas lighting; and, in the third place, it would not produce the same amount of deterioration in the articles exhibited in the Museum. I have merely risen to endeavour to get increased attention paid to this structure, because we in Ireland consider it of paramount importance that the building should be a considerable one, and that it should be a building from which may radiate in all directions the increased light which will promote a system of technical education of the greatest importance to the success of our country. I trust the hon. Gentleman will excuse my calling attention to these points.

I have no complaint to make of the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Tanner) in respect to the manner in which he has brought forward this subject. With regard to the question of the roof, I may say that the defect has been noticed, and will be at once remedied. As to the increase in the amount put down for this year, it may be well that I should remind the Committee that the building is being raised by contract. The contract is for £110,000, and £30,000 is the portion which we estimate will come in course of payment during the coming year. The question of electric lighting has been brought before the Treasury. There has been no decision arrived at, and, of course, it is as well that no decision should be arrived at until the building makes further progress. The work is being pushed on, and is being done in a very satisfactory manner. It is hoped that when complete the building will bear comparison with other public buildings.

I should like some information about one item of this Vote. I see that £60 is charged for the maintenance and repair of the lighthouse at Cape Spartel, Morocco. Now, Morocco does not belong to this country; and, therefore, I want to know why this country is called upon to pay for the maintenance of a lighthouse, which probably may be of use to the ships of shipowners in Great Britain and Ireland, but which certainly must be equally useful to the ships of shipowners of other nations? I ask for an explanation of this item, because it seems to be an extraordinary thing that we should pay the expenses of this lighthouse.

This lighthouse was erected by the Morocco Government, and, according to an Order dated 1865, the cost of its maintenance was to be borne by Great Britain and 10 other Powers. The annual charge on Great Britain is only £60. The first Vote was taken in 1866.

I desire to move to reduce this Vote by the sum of £5,000 for the proposed Embassy House at Cairo. There was considerable objection on both sides of the House to the amount proposed in the Supplementary Estimates for this work. The subject has been very carefully considered in the meantime, and the Government have determined not to press this Vote.

I was just about to rise to move the reduction of the Vote by this item. I am very glad to find that the Government have agreed to abandon this work. The House will recollect that the proposal to erect an Embassy House at Cairo gave rise to a good deal of discussion on the Supplementary Estimates, and that the House, by a very small majority, sanctioned the sum of £500 in aid of the cost of purchasing the land. I presume that the Government will be able to say that that sum has not been expended.

There will be, I believe, no difficulty regarding our obligations in this respect. The bargain was, I am informed, a very good one for us so far as regards the purchase of the site, and there will be no difficulty in adjusting matters.

There are one or two items of this Vote I should like to refer to. Under Sub-Head D, for instance, I wish to call attention to the amount set down for the maintenance and repairs of the Embassy House at Berlin—namely, £725. I think that is an exorbitant amount, and I should like some explanation in respect to it. Further down, under the heading Copenhagen, there is an item of £120 for allowance to Minister in lieu of furniture. I think it would be more creditable and a great deal cheaper in the long run if the Government would propose to buy some furniture for this gentleman's house, instead of allowing him £120 a-year for all the years he is there. Then, under Sub-head H, Madrid, there is an item of £250 "for the maintenance and repairs of the building and of furniture in the chancery and chapel; architect's fee, £24." All through this sub-head you find items for the maintenance and repair of the Embassy Houses and their furniture. I should like to know how it is that the furniture has to be repaired every year in all these Embassies? It is a most extraordinary thing that money has to be voted every year for the repair of furniture. The furniture in this House is not broken every year; and it is an extraordinary thing that our Ambassadors abroad should have their furniture smashed and broken every year. I should like to have this point explained.

It is a little difficult to pick out the items which are extravagant without having special knowledge of the circumstances. I have compared the items of our Embassy expenses with those of foreign Governments, and I find that ours seem to be in excess in every instance. It is impossible to base any clear argument on the figures given in the Estimates; and, therefore, I suggest to the Government that a Committee, similar to that which is now sitting upstairs in relation to the Army Estimates, should be appointed to consider these Estimates. We are simply occupying time now without any very good result to say that this item or that item is extravagant compared with the expenses of some other Embassy; but yet it does seem to me that one is not doing his duty to pass the thing when there is so glaring a difference between our expenditure in respect to some services, and that of the United States of America, for instance.

It is difficult to go through all the different items of this Vote. Although the expenses at Berlin may seem extravagant to the hon. Member, it is satisfactory to know that there is a net decrease on this Vote by £12,806. As to what has been said by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), I think that the explanation of the circumstances to which he referred is to be found in this—that whereas the Representatives of other Powers abroad have the advantage of the fees which are collected, in the case of this country the fees are paid into the Exchequer. During the present year, at all events, the Estimates for these Services have been kept down to as moderate a figure as possible.

I must contradict what the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) has said; the American Minister, for instance, never receives fees. The reason why we spend so much on our Embassy Houses is that we give our Ministers and Ambassadors far higher salaries than the United States gives theirs. The whole system is bad, and we ought to go to the bottom of the evil. If a man has a large salary he wants a large house, and if he has a large house he wants a large salary. We ought to do away both with high salaries and large houses.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket), or some other Member of the Government, will say whether it would be possible during the coming year to have some complete investigation in relation to these Estimates such as is now being made upstairs in relation to the Army Estimates, especially as we have the means of comparing our expenses with those of other Great Powers. In every case in which I have compared the expenses, those of Foreign Powers are distinctly less than ours. I do not want to take up time by reciting the differences; but I think this a matter the Government might fairly consider.

I think this question is even now under consideration. Certain investigations are being made with the view of seeing whether this Vote can be reduced.

There is one point I should like some little explanation upon. Under Sub-head A, I see that £4,700 is taken for rents, & c, in China, Japan, and Corea, in respect of which the Government of India does not contribute; and under Sub-head B £1,767 for rent of Legation and Consular buildings in China in respect of which the Indian Government does contribute. I want to know how it comes to pass that, towards one class of Consular buildings maintained by this Government, the Indian Government is called upon to pay a portion of the rents? You might as well call upon them to pay a portion of the rents of the Consular buildings on the South Coast of Africa. I should really like some explanation; it appears to be a very extraordinary fact, and one we should not pass by without, at any rate, receiving some elucidation of it at the hands of the Government.

I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) if he will indicate to the Committee what amount of financial control the Treasury really has upon expenditure under this Vote? Now, in order to illustrate the point I wish to bring out, I may be allowed to mention that with regard to Berlin it came out in evidence before the Public Accounts Committee some little time ago that for an article described as a washstand £50 was charged. There was absolutely no defence for the charge. The responsibility for placing the washstand in the Embassy was not very clearly fixed. How it came to be put there did not very clearly appear; but, at any rate, the charge was made, and it was met out of money voted by this House. There appears to have been some mistake about some portion of the business; and when the contractor who put it in was asked to take it back again, or when it was suggested he might take it back again, he declared that it would not be worth £10 to him, or, for the matter of that, £5, though he had charged £50 for it. If that is the way money is lavished away in Berlin, it is quite possible that in other portions of the world money is spent to as little advantage. When we inquire from the financial officials of the Treasury what control is exercised in cases of this kind, the answer is—" Oh, yes; we have estimates sent in, and they are supervised by the supervisor to the Department, and if they appear to be reasonable they are passed." But in this particular instance it does not appear that even the Minister himself, in the first instance, sanctioned the putting in of the washstand or the expenditure connected with it—in fact, he was perfectly willing to do without it. There is another point which illustrates the lavish way in which the public money is spent. It is perfectly impossible there should be anything like effective control over the details of expenditure of this kind, because when the liability is incurred there is a danger of the Representative who opposes it being disparaged if there is any haggling about small sums. There ought to be some system by which money's worth should be obtained for the money spent. In all conscience enough money is voted, and I think very ungrudgingly. There should be some explanation of the overhauling of this Vote by some local officer, or by some travelling inspector, or by somebody who shall be in a position to give the Treasury an assurance that the works undertaken are really necessary and reasonable, and are paid for at a reasonable rate. I do not want to dwell upon this item of £50; but I give it as an instance of the way money is wasted, and in which the Treasury is shown to be without any power of effective control. Security ought to be taken that in future we should not vote money blindly as we really do now.

I am informed that this washstand was of rather a complicated construction, and that when part of it was taken away what remained did not prove to be very valuable; but I believe the total loss on the whole transaction was about £20. As regards the general charge of inefficient control, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the complaints I have received are exactly in the opposite direction, for the Representatives of the Government abroad are perpetually complaining of the extremely severe control which is exercised over their wishes and their wants. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) has just told me that when he was at Constantinople he felt in a very unmistakable way the pressure of the control exercised by the Department. I can assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) we have surveyors who are perpetually going about, and we never allow any item without being fully satisfied of its necessity. As far as I am concerned the control exercised shall not be at all relaxed. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) has raised the question as to the rent of the Legation and Consular buildings in China. Perhaps it would be as well if that question were to be addressed to my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India (Sir John Gorst).

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) will say as a matter of fact whether the washstand at the Berlin Embassy was not, in the first instance, placed there without sanction?

No; I do not think that was so.

In reply to the question asked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), I may say that there is a contribution made from the Indian Revenue of, I think, £15,000. That is made for certain Consular Services which are rendered by the Consular Body in China to the Government of India. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Government of India has close relations with the Government of China in regard to the opium traffic, and it is chiefly in relation to this traffic that Consular Services are rendered.

It may be some satisfaction to the hon. Member for North Fermanagh (Mr. William Redmond) to say that I happened to be at the Embassy at Berlin when the work on the roof or skylight referred to was being done, and that I can assure him that the money spent has been well spent.

It may be said, speaking generally, that in this country the big salaries are much too big, and the small salaries much too small. It appears to me that there are very few persons who have so much too much as the Lord Chancellor. Now, I find under this Vote £4,000 is voted for the Lord Chancellor. That salary is for presiding in the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor has two functions; he is a Judge, and he is President or Speaker of the House of Lords. As a Judge he receives £6,000 a year, and as Speaker of the House of Lords £4,000 per annum. His salary, consequently, is £10,000. Although he may only be a short time in Office, when out of Office he receives a pension of £5,000 per annum. Now, all this is very excessive. There was a time when the Lord Chancellor presided as Judge in the Chancellor's Court; but at the present time he does nothing but fulfil his duties in the House of Lords. It is perfectly true that he is, I believe, technically President of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; but if he attends this Committee once or twice in a year, that is certainly as often as he does attend. He does, of course, preside over the House of Lords when it sits as a Judicial Court of Appeal; but if the hours during which the House of Lords sits as a Judicial Court of Appeal and the hours during which it sits as a Legislative Body are taken together, it will be found that the House does not sit, on an average, one quarter as long as this House. It seems to me, therefore, that if our Speaker gets £5,000 per annum, it is very clear that the Lord Chancellor would, or ought to, be satisfied with £ 8,000 per annum. Heave the Lord Chancellor's £6,000 alone because I cannot touch it, for the reason that it is charged on the Consolidated Fund; but there is the £4,000 in excess of the £6,000, and, considering the pension and the very little he has to do in comparison with the Speaker of this House, I think it is very legitimate and reasonable to reduce his salary by the sum of £2,000. This will leave him £8,000 per annum, and also leave him the enormous, even colossal, pension which he receives. It may be said—no doubt it will be said—that the Lord Chancellor's judicial functions am important. But there are others who sit in the House of Lords on judicial matters, who sit there just as frequently as the Lord Chancellor, but who receive nothing. Lord Bramwell, for instance, sits there as a Peer, and if that Gentleman chooses to have himself made a Peer, as a lawyer he really must expect to do something for it. If he thinks it an honour and glory, let him pay for it. I am perfectly certain that £8,000 per annum ought to satisfy any reasonable man. I could find plenty of men just as good as most Lord Chancellors who would take the place for a great deal less. I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £2,000 in respect of the Lord Chancellor's salary.

I am sorry to disagree with my Colleague on this matter. The Lord Chancellor presides in the House as Lord of Appeal day after day, and when he does this I think he earns his salary. I do not think the salary of the Chief Judge of the Chancery Division, who, to accept the position, must forego a very large professional income, is too much. But there is a complaint in reference to the appeals in the House of Lords which would induce me to support the Motion for the reduction of this Vote. Suitors have very great reason to complain of the exceeding delay between hearing and judgment. The other day I addressed a Question to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) upon this point. It turned out that these several appeals have been waiting judgment for many months —two or three for over six months, and one for a longer period. This delay is absolutely ruinous to the suitors, and while I think that the Chief Judge of the Chancery Division should be properly paid, and that a lawyer eminent enough to occupy that position is not too highly paid at this sum, I do not think that suitors ought to be positively ruined by the long delay in the delivery of judgment.

I now beg to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £2,100, which is made up of £500 in respect of the Clerk of the Parliaments; £600 in respect of the Clerk Assistant; £800 in respect of the Black Rod; and £200 in respect of the Yeoman Usher. Now, these gentlemen occupy equivalent positions to certain officers of this House. The Clerk of the Parliaments is the same as the Chief Clerk here; the Clerk Assistant in the House of Lords is the same as the Second Clerk in this House; Black Rod is equivalent to the Serjeant-at-Arms, and the Yeoman Usher is equivalent to the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms. Taking into consideration official residences and other details shown in the Estimates, I have estimated that the salaries of these gentlemen exceed the salaries of our officers by the amounts I have stated—namely, £500, £600, £800, and £200. I think the Lords of the Treasury and everybody in this House will admit that the duties of the officers of the House of Commons are as important and far harder than the duties of the officers of the House of Lords. I am not prepared to say that our officers are not underpaid. [Sir ROBERT FOWLER: Hear, hear!] But I cannot, as the hon. Baronet knows, move that their pay shall be increased—no private Member can do so. All I contend at present is that the salaries of the officers of this House should be the same as those in the other House, who hold equivalent positions. I am sure that I shall have the vote of the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Fowler), because the real fact is that, if I were to carry this Motion, the result would be that the pay of our officers would be increased, because the Conservatives have a majority in this House, and they are not likely to cut off anything from the House of Lords. Therefore, those who are in favour of economy or for reduction of the salaries of the House of Lords may vote for my Motion, and those who are in favour of economy and not for reduction, but who desire that our officers' salaries shall be increased, may also vote for my Motion. I do not know whether this Motion will be accepted by the Treasury, but I have pointed out how everyone can vote for it. If my Motion is opposed I shall certainly go to a Division.

I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton that our officers are underpaid, and on that I shall have something to say at the proper time; but I entirely differ from him in believing that the officers in "another place" are overpaid. He says that those who serve Her Majesty in high offices are overpaid, while a great many servants of the Crown in inferior positions are underpaid. I stated last year, and I repeat it now, that I do not know any servants of Her Majesty, with the exception of two, who are overpaid. I really think that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) and the hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke), who have the right of private practice, are too highly remunerated. With these two exceptions, I do not know anyone, from the Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor down to the humblest person in the service of the Crown, who is overpaid. I see present a great authority on this matter, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), who lately occupied the position of Secretary to the Treasury. I do not think he will tell the Committee that, considering the work he was called upon to do when he was Secretary to the Treasury, he thinks £2,000 a year was too large a salary for him. Now, as to the amount of the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords, I might remind the Committee that the salaries are based on agreement between the two Houses. In former days certain fees were taken by the House of Lords, out of which they paid their officers. These fees were given up to the Consolidated Fund on condition that the officers should be remunerated according to a certain scale. The House of Commons, therefore, is bound in honour not to reduce the salaries paid to the officers of the House of Lords.

Surely this House is entitled to reduce the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords if it thinks fit. My hon. Friend the Member for London (Sir Robert Fowler) will remember that in former days the Pay-master General received fees and other emoluments from his Office, but that these were commuted for a salary, which salary has now disappeared, the Pay-master General receiving nothing at all. If it was competent for the House to do this in the case of the Paymaster General, surely it is competent to do it in the case of the officers of the House of Lords, though I am far from saying that I think the experience should be carried to the same extent. I, undoubtedly, agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for London that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are very greatly overpaid; but I think, in addition, that the officers of the House of Lords are overpaid, and that our officers are underpaid. Surely in this matter there ought to be equality between the two Houses—either the House of Lords' officers ought to have more work to do, or they ought to be paid less. At present they have far less work than our officers, and are paid very much more. I cannot see on what principle we are to allow this gross inequality to continue to exist. It cannot be argued that the officers of the House of Lords ought to be paid higher salaries because they have the honour to serve a non-Representative Assembly, while our officers have the honour of serving those who represent the people. I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) will go to a Division.

I am rather surprised that the Members of the Treasury Bench regard this question as one which does not require discussion. I think the case made out by my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) is unanswerable. Why, Sir, it is a universal complaint that the hours of this House now are so long as to test the strength of the very strongest man in the House. After all, Members of Parliament are in a very different position to the officers of the House, because they are able to leave the House—and do leave the House—for hours every evening, while the officials are not able to leave the House. I have seen you, Sir, go through an amount of fatigue, which not even the strong political differences between us have prevented me from sympathizing with you over. There are other officers of the House who suffer fatigue as great. Take the Serjeant-at-Arms and the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms, compare the fatigue through which these gentlemen go with that of similar officers in the House of Lords. Why, the officers of the Upper House are, comparatively speaking, lotus eaters in Elysian fields. To say that officers so differently circumstanced should have different and higher salaries is one of the most monstrous absurdities I have ever come across. What is the reason, is it because these gentlemen, being officers of the House of Lords, are to be regarded as superior beings to their brethren in the House of Commons? I think we have got past the day when the amount of gilt braid which an officer wears is to be any test of the amount of salary to be received from the taxpayers of this country. I am sorry we have not the advantage of the presence of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). We all admire the strong attitude the noble Lord has taken up in regard to economy; but surely this is just one of the matters in which economy may be promoted. Hundreds of thousands of pounds every year might be saved by economy in such matters as these. I know there are very conflicting opinions as to the strength at which our combatant forces ought to be kept. It is in salaries and in bloated pensions that economy must be attained. I am surprised that the proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) has so far been loft without the courtesy of a response from the Government.

I hope it will not be for a moment thought, that I meant any discourtesy to the hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere) in not rising before this. We are accustomed to this annual Motion, and really the question has been argued so often, and the facts been stated to the House so frequently, that it is not unreasonable to suppose that hon. Members are in possession of all of them. I may point out to the hon. Member for the Poplar Division of the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Buxton), who referred to the Office of Paymaster General, that although the salary of the Paymaster General has been abolished, there is no work which the Paymaster General has to do; therefore, the position of the Paymaster General is hardly a case in point. The salaries of the officials of the House of Lords are fixed by a Committee of the House of Lords.

What right have they to fix them? We pay for them.

I may point out, further, that an arrangement was come to with the House of Lords by which the fees paid in respect of Private Bills and by suitors are paid over to the Exchequer. Supposing you say you have nothing to do with these salaries of the House of Lords, they would be perfectly justified in retaining the fees which they receive in the course of the Business which they transact in that House. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Monstrous!] The hon. Gentleman opposite applies strong language to the arguments which I am endeavouring to put before the Committee. What I say is this—that it is perfectly clear that this arrangement was come to between the two Houses; and I think no one can contend that it is an unreasonable argument that in consideration of handing over the fees that they receive the House of Lords should have some voice in deciding the salaries they were to pay their own officers. I would point out that there is another way of looking at this matter. The hon. Member has spoken of the heavy work which is imposed upon the officers of this House. To that statement no one can object; but though that may be a reason for increasing the salaries of the officers of this House, it is no reason for decreasing the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords. I have no doubt if the gentlemen filling the posts of officials in this House could have their duties lightened everyone would welcome the change. I trust, however, the hon. Gentleman will not call upon the Committee to go to a Division on this question. It is perfectly clear that the salaries are fixed by a Committee chosen from both sides of the House, and that the fees received in the other House are paid over to the Exchequer. I am not prepared to say whether these foes are higher or not.

I think the explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has just given is not quite definite, and I should like to have from him a little more information. The question, if I remember rightly, is this. In former days the fees of the House of Lords covered all their expenses, and the House of Lords claimed the right to retain their fees and to settle the salaries of their own officers. As a matter of fact, they settled the salary of their Chairman of Committees and their superior and inferior officers, and when they had paid these Gentlemen there was a balance left which it was customary to invest as a fund out of which superannuations were paid. I think I am accurately describing the state of things which existed. But that system of things has entirely ceased to prevail, and at the present time the fact is that the fees which are received by the House of Lords do not by much exceed half their expenses. The expenses are given at £43,000, and the fees at £22,000. There is, therefore, now an exactly opposite state of things to that which formerly prevailed, when the public were not called upon to pay anything towards those salaries; and what is the result? Formerly the salaries were paid out of fees, and without the knowledge of the public; but now it has become absolutely necessary to put the salaries on the Estimates; because, unless you did so, and the salaries were voted by the House, there would not be a sufficient amount of money out of which to pay them. The Secretary to the Treasury must remember that formerly the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords received a salary considerably in excess of that paid to the Chairman of Committees in this House; but that was felt to be unjust, and the arrangement was altered within the last few years, and the salary of the Chairman of Committees of the House of Commons is now the same as the salary of the Chairman of Commit- tees of the House of Lords. Well, taking that in the light of a precedent, as it now becomes necessary for us to vote the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords, it is surely advisable for us to vote those salaries in an intelligent manner—that is to say, we must consider, having regard to the amount of work done, what are fair and reasonable salaries. I should be very sorry, on the very limited information which we possess upon this matter, to criticize all the salaries of the officials of the House of Lords in detail. Before interfering with those salaries, they certainly should be subjected to more minute criticism than can be given on the spur of the moment; but it does appear to me to be monstrous that the Clerk of Parliaments should receive £3,000 a year, whilst the Clerk of the House of Commons receives a much smaller salary. The work done by the Clerk of the Parliaments does not at all compare with the work of the Clerk sitting at the Table of the House of Commons. Unless I am very much mistaken the Clerk of the House of Lords sits after dinner during a very small fraction of the total number of days that the House is in Session, whereas the Clerk of this House has to sit here constantly until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning.

He has sat here, during the present Session, until 25 minutes past 2 in the morning.

My right hon. and learned Friend tells me that the Clerk of this House has to sit here until a period averaging to 2.25 a.m. Everyone knows that the work of the Clerk of the Parliaments is vastly smaller in amount than that of the Clerk to the House of Commons. Well, surely the time has now come when those holding the purse have the advantage in the matter; and if the Exchequer is called upon—which used not to pay those salaries—surely, I say, the time has come when we should use a rational discretion in settling these amounts. I would say, therefore, that unless the Secretary to the Treasury gives us better reasons than those which he has advanced at present, I do not see how we can resist the Motion of my hon. Friend. I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will corroborate strictly what I have said, for I must confess I have spoken from memory of what was the state of things some years ago.

Those offices in the House of Lords are, at the present moment, held by gentlemen—gentlemen on whom no imputation has ever been passed. They are doing their work, so far as I know, admirably. They are gentlemen who have calculated their expenditure on, an understanding that they are to receive the salaries at present paid to them. They have undertaken the duties of their office at those salaries, and I think we should be doing them a great injustice if, without any notice at all, we were to reduce their salaries by the very considerable amount proposed. At the same time, I must say I was very much struck by arguments which came from the other side. I see no reason why the officers of the House of Lords should be paid higher salaries than the officers of this House, and I trust that whenever any of the offices in the House of Lords become vacant the Government will consider whether some economical arrangement cannot be made on the re-arrangement of the salaries of those officials.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has forgotten that the principal office amongst those to which he refers has lately become vacant, and that the whole of this controversy arises out of the fact of that vacancy having been filled by patronage, the salary being retained at its old amount. The Secretary to the Treasury is incorrect in stating that this is an annual Motion. It has not been annually raised, but is simply made in consequence of the arrangements adopted when the office of Clerk of the Parliaments became vacant not very long ago. When that office became vacant there was a general feeling that Lord Farnborough, then Sir Thomas Erskine May, should have received the appointment. If he had received the appointment no objection might have been made, as it would have been regarded as the reward of an honourable and illustrious career in the service of this House. But instead of that a gentleman was appointed who was already in receipt of £2,000 a-year from another position. The present occupant of the office has only held it for two years; therefore we may take it that, so far as he is concerned, the matter is still sub judice. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member for the City (Sir Robert Fowler), he seemed to assume the justice of the old doctrine that public servants are underpaid. I will not respond to his challenge as to the officer he referred to; but I would point out that the Secretary to the Treasury keeps much longer hours, and works a great deal harder, than any clerk in the House of Lords. There is no imputation against the gentlemen who discharge the duties of these offices. They are gentlemen of high character, and I have no doubt that the clerical duties in the House of Lords are discharged quite as well as those in the House of Commons. But what we ask for is that the officers of the two Houses should be treated on a level. If there were any real mathematical apportionment made of salary according to work, there is no doubt that the officials of this House would receive the higher salaries of the two, because they keep much longer hours, and do much heavier work. But I think that no one has asked for that. No one desires that there should be an inequality between the two Houses; but we do ask that there should be equality. I think that unless the Government will give us some promise that some investigation shall be held to see if those salaries cannot be brought into something like a fair principle, I shall, like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), feel it my duty to vote with the hon. Member who has moved this Motion.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) is quite right in his statements as to the facts. He has referred to the circumstance that the fees in the House of Lords do not equal the amount paid to the officers of the House of Lords; but I would point out that there are two reasons for that. Since the time that those fees were taken in payment of the officers of the House of Lords, there has been a considerable reduction made in the amount charged to the public. That, of course, has all been to the advantage of the public. I may point out, further, that this year the receipts paid into the Exchequer only amounted to £22,000. That is a very small figure compared with the amounts which have been paid in on previous years. I notice that in 1882–3 the amount was as large as £39,008. The falling off is due partly to the reduction of the fees, and partly to the reduction in the amount of private business. No doubt, it will be the duty of the Government to carefully consider the position of affairs whenever a vacancy arises. I take it that no Member of the House would wish to interfere with the arrangements already made. The superannuations to which reference has been made are paid out of the Invested Fee Fund. I have given the Committee all the information I can. I promise that consideration shall be given to the subject, and no effort shall be wanting on our part to reduce these salaries whenever occasion arises.

The hon. Gentleman has corroborated what I said, and I am obliged to him accordingly. Now, what is his promise? Let us have it very precisely. If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is not able to do so, will the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) promise us that whenever a vacancy arises the new official shall not be paid more than the salary which is paid to the corresponding official in this House? That is all we want, and if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury or the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would give us that assurance, I appeal to my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) not to proceed with his Motion. I think that what I suggest is a very equitable arrangement.

I will undertake, on behalf of the Government, that the subject shall receive consideration in the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman suggests it should be considered. I cannot undertake absolutely that on the voidance of any office the salary shall be fixed precisely on the scale on which the salaries of the officials of this House are paid. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that there are circumstances which might make that impossible. I will give him an engagement, however, that we will at once give our consideration to the whole question, with a view to the reduction of the cost of that Establishment, and with a view of placing the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords, whose position compares with officers in this House, upon the same level. The right hon. Gentleman will understand the hesitation I have in giving the positive engagement he desires.

I think the undertaking of the right hon. Gentleman might be accepted. So far as I understand the right hon. Gentleman, while not undertaking that in each individual case there shall be an exact parallel between the salaries of the officers of this House and the officers of the House of Lords, undertakes that the spirit of such a parallel shall be observed so far as possible. He promises that the future form of this Estimate shall be upon that basis, and I must honestly say I do not think we can ask more than that.

I will undertake to open negotiations with the other House, with a view to carry out this arrangement at once.

We have got something, but not quite all we want. I can perfectly understand the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) pledging himself as to what would be done in the other House. It seems to me that he will have a good deal of difficulty with his Colleagues in the other House; and, therefore, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will himself be glad if we were to strengthen his hands by a strong expression of opinion on the subject. If I may venture, for once in my life, to speak in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, I will urge the House to vote in favour of my Amendment.

The proposition made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) seems to be one rather of compromise than of justice. He speaks of the officers of the House of Lords being remunerated on the same scale as the officers of this House. I object to such an arrangement entirely. The officers of this House do ten times the amount of the work the officers of the House of Lords do, and yet we are asked to assent to a proposition that the officers of the two Houses shall be paid at the same rate. I do not think such a proposition is a fair one, and I have always maintained that the salaries of the officers of this House ought to be raised, owing to the amount of work our officers have to do. I object to any understanding or arrangement which will put the two sets of officers upon the same level.

I do not want to detain the Committee long, but I must say a word or two upon this question. Let me, in the first place, call the attention of the Committee to the extraordinary difference in the situation that has taken place since the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury's first speech. The hon. Gentleman, when first he rose, led the House to believe, quite unintentionally no doubt, that all this money which the House of Lords was entitled to spend was derived from the fees obtained by the House itself. I know the hon. Gentleman is incapable of misleading the House; but certainly that was the impression left on this side of the House until the real facts of the situation were brought to light by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers). Now, as to the question of fees, does the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury mean to imply that those fees are the private property of the House of Lords? These fees are given for public purposes and are public fees. Therefore, Sir, to talk of the fees paid in respect of the work of the House of Lords as a justification of the House of Lords is an abuse of the meaning of the word "fees." But, as a matter of fact, a great part of those salaries so voted by this House comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers, because £26,000 is paid, and £22,000 alone comes from fees. Let me claim the attention of the Committee to one or two facts in connection with this Vote. I find that the Black Rodreceives £2,000, and in a note it is stated that this officer also receives emoluments as an Admiral on the retired list, and is provided with an official residence, and also receives fees for his own use as an officer of the Order of the Garter. Black Rod—an institution which is certainly more ancient than useful—gets, in addition to fees and emoluments and an official residence, £2,000. Take the case of the Clerk of the Parliaments. I say that in the mighty maze of jobs contained in these Estimates there is not a job more gross than that surrounding the office of Clerk of the Parliaments. The Clerk of the Parliaments receives the salary of £2,500, and an allowance of £500 for a house—£3,000 a-year for about an hour and a-half perfunctory work daily during six months of the year. I defy hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent constituencies in which there are many agricultural labourers or working men to defend his vote in favour of giving £3,000 a-year to a gentleman who does work that in any newspaper office in. London would be paid for at the rate of 30s. a-week. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh. I suppose they think that it is something like blasphemy to apply anything like a marketable standard to the supply of individuals in the other House. To any question in which dockyard labourers, for instance, are involved, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer applies the most rigid commercial rules; but when a gentleman with gilt braid and sword and black rod, and a member of the aristocracy and a retired Admiral, is concerned, all the economical leanings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer disappear. For my part, I am entirely dissatisfied with the promise given by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. All he has done is to promise that he will use his best efforts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has put it, we will endeavour to strengthen him in his efforts by defeating him in the Division Lobby. I maintain that the officers of the House of Lords ought not to be paid as well as the officers of this House. I maintain that they ought not to get half the salary of the Clerks of this House, for they do not do one-tenth the amount of work.

I think it is well to remind the Committee that the House of Lords, besides being a Legislative Assembly, is also a judicial tribunal, and sits during the day time during the Session, and also sits for the transaction of judicial work during the Recess. The officers of that House are employed not merely during the hour and a-half in which I believe the House of Lords occupies itself on the average daily in legislative 'work, but also during the day time from 11 o'clock till 4. The Clerk of the Parliaments is an important judicial officer, and it is necessary he should be a lawyer of some experience. Having said that I think that, on the whole, the House may be satisfied with the undertaking of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury—namely, that he will communicate with the officers of the House Lords with a view to establishing an equality between the salaries of the officers of that House and the officers of this House. It is obvious we cannot alter the salaries of the present officers, and a new arrangement can only be made whenever vacancies arise. I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to another point—namely, the official residences of some of the officials of the House of Lords. When I was at the Office of Works I was extremely anxious to increase the accommodation of this House, and it occurred to me that some of the officers of the House of Lords who are employed a very much shorter time than the clerks of this House and other officers of this House might, perhaps, as well receive an allowance instead of official residences, and that their residences might be given up to public purposes. I find, for instance, that the Librarian of the House of Lord receives a salary of £800 a-year, and is provided with an official residence containing 12 bedrooms. He is a bachelor, and therefore it appeared to me it was not unreasonable that the residence might be devoted towards increasing the accommodation of this House. The Black Rod is, no doubt, an important officer; but he has an official residence almost as good as that of the Speaker of this House. It is a very extensive house, altogether out of proportion to the salary he receives. It appeared to me not unreasonable to ask the House of Lords that that house might be appropriated for Committee purposes, and in that way increase the accommodation generally of this House. I think there is a great deal to be done in this way without interfering with the dignity of the House of Lords or interfering with the work of the House of Lords. I mention these matters with a view to future arrangements.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would be prepared to postpone this Vote until he has had an opportunity of communicating with the Clerks of the other House. Perhaps he will also state what are the exceptional circumstances to which he alludes. If we look at this matter from a practical point of view, we know perfectly well that directly a vacancy arises in any one of these official appointments it is filled up immediately, and then we are told it is too late to alter matters, and we must wait until the officer dies or a vacancy is created in some other way. I suggest to the Government that they should postpone the Vote until they have had an opportunity of communicating with the Clerks of the other House upon this subject.

I think the hon. Baronet will see that it will be exceedingly unwise, having regard to the period of the Session (July 13), to postpone a vote of this kind. I have undertaken that the matter shall receive the consideration of the Government. I will also undertake that the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) shall receive consideration at the same time. I assure hon. Gentlemen it is the desire of the Government to effect every economy in our power.

Will the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury be kind enough to tell us what are the miscellaneous expenses under Sub-head N?

The expenditure under this head during the last 10 years seems to have fallen off very much, because I notice that instead of it being £992 it is now only £300. The item covers certain expenditure of a miscellaneous character, including poundage of per cent receivable by the Accountant in the Department of the Clerk of Parliaments on the Bill and Bar fees.

Does the item include anything for the purchase of newspapers?

No.

With regard to the percentage of 1¼ on Bill and Bar fees, I should like to point out that these fees amount to something like £20,000 or £25,000 a-year; but, instead of being paid over as other receipts are paid over by every Department of the State to the Exchequer, the House of Lords appropriates them to itself, and, besides paying the poundage of 1¼ per cent to the Accountant in the Department of the Clerk of Parliaments, the House of Lords uses the money for the purpose of supplementary superannuation allowances to the officers of the House of Lords. I believe the Treasury itself has never sought to defend the present system. When before the Public Accounts Committee a Treasury official was asked whether any individual was interested pecuniarily in the retention of the fees of the House of Lords, his answer was—"I think the Accountant officer in the office of the Clerk of Parliaments will have to answer that question." The Treasury itself could not answer it, and therefore I presume it is useless to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to answer it now. The Fee Fund is now over £30,000 a-year. I believe some portion of it is paid into the Exchequer, but the Treasury has no check or control over the Fund. They are equally without check or control upon the superannuation allowances of the officers of the House of Lords; they check, and control, and very often limit the superannuation allowances of other officers; but the officers of the House of Lords elude all Treasury supervision. I ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) to explain to the Committee the system under which this Fee Fund is worked; to state what information the Treasury really possess in regard to its incomings and its outgoings, and whether the Treasury propose to alter the present system?

I think it right to say, in the first place, that I ought to have said, speaking of the poundage of 1¼ per cent paid on Bill and Bar fees to the Accountant in the Department of the Clerk of Parliaments, that the poundage was limited to a maximum of £250 a-year. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman says about the fees which are paid over, I may say that since the question was brought before the Public Accounts Committee I have given instruction for some inquiry to be addressed, with the view of endeavouring, if possible, to put the Fee Fund, so far as audit is concerned, in the same position as other accounts, and with the view of ascertaining what can be saved, and with the view of seeing, if possible, whether the account can be dealt with in the same way as all other accounts.

I should like to know whether the proposed scheme will involve the submitting of the superannuation allowances of the officials of the House of Lords to a vote of the House of Commons, or will the present system continue under which the House of Lords provides superannuation for its own officers out of a fund under their own control?

Every hon. Gentleman knows these superannuation allowances, although they are not bound to be submitted, are submitted to Parliament as a matter of fact.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the difficulty in making a frank statement to the House of Commons. Why should not the Government have equal control in regard to the expenditure of the House of Lords as they have in regard to the expenditure of the House of Commons?

If I may make a full and frank statement in answer to the hon. Member, I may say that the only reason why I have not spoken very decidedly on the point is, that the question only arose and was brought to my attention at the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee about a fortnight or, three weeks ago. Really, from the pressing work one has to do at this particular season of the year, there has certainly been no time to look into the matter.

I wish to say a word upon this Vote. I wish to appeal to my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) as I appealed to his Predecessor (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), and as I appealed to the late Lord Frederick Cavendish, to take into consideration the fact that the officers of the House of Commons are most inadequately paid. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Oh, oh !] The noble Lord says "Oh, oh !" but I maintain that the salaries of the officers of this House are most inadequate; as I said half-an-hour ago, in my opinion all those who serve Her Majesty are generally underpaid. We must bear in mind that these salaries were fixed at a time when money went a great deal further than it does at present—that a salary of £2,000 a-year does not represent what a salary of £2,000 a-year did 20 years ago. On the other hand, the work of the officers of this House has immensely increased; we sit to much later hours than formerly, and "Counts-out" are now of very rare occurrence. I agree with hon. Members that the officers of this House ought to be placed on the same level as the officers of the House of Lords; but I should level up and not level down. I do not think that the salaries of the officers of the other House of Parliament are too much; but I do think that those of our officers are scandalously too small, and therefore I make an appeal to my hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson) to take the matter into consideration. The Committee will recollect that the salary attached to the position which you, Sir, so worthily hold was taken into consideration some 10 years ago, and it was then resolved that the Chairman of Ways and Means should be put on an equality, so far as remuneration was concerned, with the Chairman of the House of Lords. What was done in regard to your Office, Sir, ought to be done in regard to all the other offices. I trust the matter will receive favourable consideration.

I do not quite agree with the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for London (Sir Robert Fowler). I do not agree with the proposition that the amount of money paid to the officers of the House of Lords should be in any sense equal to that paid to the officers of this House, because one must take into consideration in a matter of this kind the amount of work to be done. I presume that the offer of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) was that he would consider this question of salaries as a whole, and not as relating simply to the House of Lords. [Mr. JACKSON: Hear, hear!] I am glad I have not misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. Certainly I have never suggested any lowering of the salaries of any of the officers of this House; their work is very hard, and of late it has been enormously increased. They sit here night after night from a quarter to 4 o'clock to, upon the average, half-past 2 o'clock in the morning. I should like to recall the attention of the Committee to the remarks made just now by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre)—namely, that the Librarian of the House of Lords not only receives a large salary, but is also granted an official residence containing 12 bedrooms. Now, he is enabled to go home every night, say, at 8 or 9 o'clock. [An hon. MEMBER Half-past 5 o'clock.] I like to be generous, and, therefore, I put the hour at half-past 8 o'clock. I cannot understand why the Librarian of the House of Lords should be granted an official residence, while the Chairman of Committees of Ways and Means, who is in attendance every night, and often sits until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, should have no official residence. The Librarian's place in the House of Lords is an exceedingly pleasant one, after all. Compare the peace which surrounds the situation with the turmoil of this House, through which you, Sir, so very often have to sit. It is a monstrous thing to say that the Chairman of this House should be occupied here till the small hours of the morning, and then have to trudge home, no matter what the state of the weather may be—because it is not always that a conveyance can be had—while the Librarian of the House of Lords should be supplied with an official residence with 12 bedrooms in it. You, Sir, also hold the position of Deputy Speaker of this House, and is it reasonable that the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons should have no official residence, while the Librarian of the House of Lords is supplied with one? I beg the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to look into this matter, and see that justice is done. I object to any increase in the Estimates, but I do not look upon this as entailing an increase of the Estimates; I look upon it simply as a question of justice, and I think we shall lower our own dignity and be unjust to those who are in the service of this House if we do not see that they have not only the same advantages, but even greater advantages, considering the work they are called upon to do, than those who hold sinecures in the House of Lords.

The hon. Baronet the Member for London (Sir Robert Fowler) has indulged in that flabby talk which makes all efforts at economy difficult. If I were an extremely wealthy man, I should be happy to give a subscription towards the payment of the officers of this House; but I think it is monstrous to add anything more to the burdens of the taxpayers. I may point out that there is a very easy way of minimizing the laborious duties of the officers of this House. What is it that doubles, or trebles, or quadruples the labours, not only of officials, but also of Members of this House? It is the monstrously absurd hours to which this House sits. We are the only Legislative Body in the world that does not meet at a reasonable hour of the day, and separate at a reasonable hour of the evening. I should say that, on the average, the Legislatures of the world meet at about 12 o'clock in the day, and separate at about 6 o'clock in the evening, except towards the end of the Session, when Bills are being hurried through. Now, if the Speaker, or any of us, were to come down at 12 o'clock in the day and go home at 6 o'clock, we would have no complaint of overwork either from Members of the House or from the officers of the House; and I should say that, with all respect to you, Sir, if our hours were changed in this way, £2,500 would be a good salary for work extending over six hours a-day for six months in the year. I wish my fortune would bestow upon me equally large favour. Now, if my hon. Friend the Member for the Birr Division of King's County (Mr. Molloy) desires to raise the salaries paid in this House, he may count upon the support of the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Fowler), who is not averse to large expenditure of public money for any purpose whatever; but he certainly must be prepared to encounter very considerable opposition on my part. Now, I want to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Trea- sury (Mr. Jackson) to a small, but very important, matter. I assume that the Secretary to the Treasury, in company with some official of this House, has control of the internal arrangements of the House, including what is called the Reading Room in which newspapers are supplied. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury on what principle of inquisitorial canons newspapers are supplied for the use of hon. Members? Unfortunately, we have to recognize the fact that there are some differences of political opinion in this House. We are not all of the same way of thinking, even on such subjects as the government of Ireland, and small questions of that kind. I ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury if he will see that there are newspapers in the Reading Room which will furnish pabulum and enjoyment for hon. Members of different political opinions? I read with great interest every day many newspapers from the politics of which I entirely differ. Anyone holding such opinions as I do, and living in London, has to read a great many newspapers whose opinions are disagreeable to him. What would be thought if, because The Times newspaper happened to contain some very disagreeable statement, I were to suggest that The Times should be excluded from the Reading Room? Everybody would say I was carrying partizan feeling to a length entirely unheard of. I maintain that the Irish Members have just as much right to have in the Reading Room newspapers representing their views as English Tory Members have to have their newspapers representing their views. Why am I deprived of the weekly pleasure of reading United Ireland in the Reading Room of this House? Why does the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury deprive himself of the enormous amount of advantage and edification to be found in the columns of that newspaper? [Mr. PENROSE-FITZGERALD: Hear, hear!] I observe that a Tory Member opposite, representing an English, constituency, but of Irish nationality, agrees with me in that opinion. I am glad the hon. Gentleman for once agrees with me, and I trust I shall have his support in affording Members of the House an opportunity of receiving the political edification which the reading of United Ireland entails. Are we to be told in this temple of liberty what newspapers it may suit our political morals to road and what newspapers it may not suit us to read? I protest in the strongest manner against this Inquisition of the Holy Office which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is endeavouring to establish in this House. I shall look this week to see whether the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Penrose-Fitzgerald) and myself, as well as other Members of the House, are afforded an opportunity of perusing the contents of United Ireland.

Perhaps I may shorten matters by saying that, although the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has read me a very useful lecture, I have no power whatever in the matter he has raised. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Who has?] The management of the Reading Room does not come within the purview of the Secretary to the Treasury, but of the officers of the House. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: What officers?] The Serjeant-at-Arms, I believe. I trust that even if United Ireland were placed in the Reading Room I should not be compelled to read it. I have no doubt I should derive from the perusal of its columns a great deal of valuable information; but the onerous duties of my Office exclude me from the reading of many newspapers.

May I explain that I do not wish to compel the hon. Gentleman to read United Ireland; but I feel sure that its literary ability, and sound political moderation, will commend it to the perusal of the hon. Gentleman. Of course, I will not take the extraordinary step of moving any reduction of the Vote in regard to this matter; but I ask the Secretary to the Treasury to use his influence with the officers of the House that Irish Members may be afforded an opportunity of reading newspapers which represent their political views.

My hon. Friend was a little precipitate in thinking I desired to increase the salaries of the officers of thi9 House. The point I endeavoured to lay stress upon was that the Librarian of the House of Lords, and other similar officials of that House, have official residences; while our Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means, and two of our clerks, doubtless, who are kept here night after night, have no residence supplied them. What I want to know of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) is, whether arrangements cannot be made by which the residences in the House may be tranferred to those who really require them?

The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Molloy) seems to forget it is necessary to consult our officers as to whether they would like to have residences supplied them in this building.

I speak generally, and not with reference to the present holders solely.

As the hon. Gentleman desires, some inquiry shall be made. The difficulty I feel is really one of principle. Personally, I am entirely opposed to private official residences. An official residence very often puts the occupant of an office to a great deal of additional cost, and I am quite certain it puts the country to a great deal of useless expenditure. Anyhow, I will take care that the matter is inquired into.

I should like to say a word upon the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). The Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) seems to have forgotten that on the Supplementary Estimates the question of the supplying of United Ireland among the papers supplied in the Reading Room was raised, and on that occasion a correspondence was read which had passed between an hon. Member and the Serjeant-at-Arms. The Serjeant-at-Arms declined to make any alteration in the system which then prevailed. When the discussion took place—now some months ago—an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Finch-Hatton), who is no longer a Member of this House, but a Member of the other House, expressed his anxiety to have an opportunity of reading United Ireland, and even went so far as to suggest that the supply of back numbers would be advisable. It does appear to me that it is exceedingly arbitrary that newspapers of every type and class of opinion should not be supplied for the reading of hon. Members. During the discussion upon the Supplementary Estimates the Government promised to use their influence to secure that United Ireland should be supplied for the reading of Members. I should like to know whether this promise has escaped the memory of the hon. Gentleman?

It really is a monstrous thing that the officers of this House should have the power of saying what literature we shall read, and what literature we shall not read. The thing is perfectly absurd. I am sure that if an intimation were received from the Government that it was desirable that United Ireland should be received here, it would be received. Such a recommendation would be acted upon by the Serjeant-at-Arms. In the interest of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is desirable that United Ireland should come to the Reading Room. They are always quoting from it, and it is as well that they should have an opportunity of verifying all their quotations. I generally peruse Conservative newspapers; I know what Liberal newspapers are likely to say, and I am curious to know what Conservative papers think. I know that some Gentlemen have a perfect thirst to read the contents of United Ireland, and I do not see why the Serjeant-at-Arms should deprive them of the pleasure of perusing the paper. I hope the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) will use his influence in order to secure a copy of this paper being laid on the table of the Reading Room.

I am sure hon. Members of the House will sympathize with me when I say I am most desirous not to interfere with duties which really do not belong to me. This is a matter which does not come within the purview of my Department, but belongs entirely to the Department of the Sergeant-at-Arms. I will, however, call the attention of the Sergeant-at-Arms to the desire expressed by hon. Members, and I hope that the desire will be satisfied.

I am perfectly satisfied with what the Secretary to the Treasury has said, and now I hope he will allow me to bring another matter before him. I want to point out that the admission to the portions of this House open to journalists is a most valuable concession to newspapers. It is, pecuniarily, a valuable concession, and no daily newspaper is really able to compete successfully with any newspaper in the same city, except it has exactly the same privileges of entrance to the Reporters' Gallery and also to the Lobby of the House asits contemporary. Will the Committee believe that this state of things exists—namely, that a newspaper representing one set of political opinions in a city has an opportunity of having a representative in the Reporters' Gallery and a representative in the Lobby, and that another newspaper, representing another set of political opinions, is denied the privilege of having a representative in the Lobby. Everybody who has any association with newspapers knows that the Lobby of the House of Commons is the Bourse of news in this country, and that no newspaper which is not able to have a representative in the Lobby is able to supply its readers with anything like a satisfactory and able account of the state of political and Parliamentary feeling. Now, Mr. Courtney, I confess in this matter to no Party feeling, my sole desire being that equal facilities should be given to newspapers of all shades of opinion. The case to which I allude is this. In the city of Edinburgh there is a paper, as everybody knows, called The Scotsman. It is a paper conducted with the greatest editorial and business ability. Recently, a paper has been started in that city called The Scottish Leader. The Scotsman represents what is called Liberal Unionist opinion upon the great controversy now before the country. I regret that; but, at the same time, I should be very sorry to propose that The Scotsman newspaper should be deprived of all and every form of facility which it requires. Now, will it be believed that this state of things exists?—The Scottish Leader, which represents Home Rule opinion upon the Irish Question, is deprived of the opportunity of sending a representative into the Lobby of the House of Commons. I, as a journalist, maintain that The Scotsman newspaper reaps, in this preference, as great an advantage over its rival—The Scottish Leader—as if the Secretary to the Treasury were to make it a present of £10,000 a-year. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh. Do they know anything about the matter? If it will please hon. Gentlemen, I will lower my figure, and say £5,000. Perhaps that will satisfy the commercial instincts of hon. Gentlemen. Is it fair the privileges of this House should be used in this grossly unjust manner? The Secretary to the Treasury says this is not his De- partment. Whose Department is it? Are we to be told there is any body of men in this House who can disregard the authority and mandate of this House? In the absence of information on the point, we look to the Secretary to the Treasury. Upon these Estimates he is the mouthpiece of the Government in this House, and I trust he will see fair-play done between the different political organs of the country.

I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) should disclaim responsibility in this matter. We do not ask him to interfere unduly with the duties of the officers of the House; but we want him to use his influence in seeing that justice is done. This is not merely a question of the supply of United Ireland. There are many papers which ought to be found upon the table of the Reading Room—Reynold's, for instance, which is the only democratic paper I am acquainted with, ought to be supplied for the perusal of hon. Members. I do not want to give any special facilities for this or that paper; but what I suggest is that there should be a Suggestion Book in the Reading Room, in which suggestions as to the supply of newspapers and the like could be entered. There is another matter to which I wish to refer. I see the assistant in the Members' waiting-room receives £80 a-year. This assistant has very long hours indeed, and therefore it seems to me his remuneration is exceedingly small. I am not anxious to add to the burdens of the country by making wholesale additions to salaries; but what I do want the Committee to understand is that not only is the salary for this official very small, but he has to wait three months before he is paid. We have been discussing the question whether artizans and labourers shall be paid weekly; why should officials of this House have to work three months before they receive their pay? If the Secretary to the Treasury cannot see his way to suggest an increase of the salaries of the poorly-paid officials of this House, I trust he will see they are paid more frequently. Then there is the case of the servants and the refreshment rooms. We are told that £1,000 a-year is granted to the Refreshment Department. I do not say that that is too much, or too little; but what I wish to point out is, that the servants have to be on duty for very many hours. They have to be in attendance until the House rises. I think that when the Sittings are unduly prolonged, they should be granted some extra remuneration. I trust these points will receive the consideration of the Secretary to the Treasury.

My hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has alluded to the fact that the correspondents of certain newspapers are precluded from the privilege of entering the Lobby of the House. There is a kindred point to which I wish to call the attention of the Members of the Treasury Bench, and it is that the correspondents of foreign newspapers are not allowed into the House. Now, the correspondents of English newspapers are permitted to enter the French Chamber, the German Chamber, the Austrian Chamber, and there is a strong feeling— It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress.

said, he would probably be able to state to-morrow or Friday on what day the consideration of the Coal Mines Regulation Bill could be resumed.

said, he thought it would be satisfactory if the Bill were not taken this week.

said, he thought there was no prospect of its being taken this week.

said, as there was an impression that the Home Secretary was re-casting some of the clauses, he should like to know whether the House would have an opportunity of considering them before the Bill was resumed?

said, he was not aware that there was any foundation for the statement; but he would inquire.