said, it was very difficult to appreciate the value of these Supplementary Estimates, with copies of the original Estimates to which they were Supplementary being in the hands of hon. Members. He had found on inquiry at the Vote Office that there was scarcely a copy to be obtained. He had, however, succeeded in obtaining a copy, and on looking at it he found that the figures given in the Supplementary Estimates did not agree with those which appeared in the original Estimate. The original Estimate was for £62,000 odd for National Education Buildings; whereas the sum now put down in the present Vote as the original Estimate was £59,478. He desired to ask one or two questions in regard to this particular Vote, which was one that had come before the Public Accounts' Committee on more than one occasion, and after subjecting it to a detailed examination the result had invariably been unsatisfactory. Last year the Committee were assisted by a representative of the Board of Works in Ireland, and it was found that several irregularities had occurred during the financial year then under discussion. The Representative of the Treasury who appeared before the Committee was utterly unable to give any explanation of the relations between the Treasury itself and the Board of Works in Ireland with respect to the expenditure of public money. The Treasury official, however, admitted that certain irregularities had taken place on the part of the Board of Works. Hon. Members might suppose on looking at this Supplementary Estimate that there was some unforeseen expenditure to be met in the financial year amounting to £13,000. According to the original Estimate, it would appear that the whole amount for the year was £75,478; but that sum had been reduced by £13,000, showing an apparent economy to the extent of £13,000. There could not be a more misleading case. The economy effected in the Vote figured last year at the sum of £13,000; but the Committee were now told that the grants for ordinary literary schools, in addition to a Vote of £35,000, were required to the extent of £13,000, that being precisely the sum which they stated to have been saved. In fact, this Supplementary Estimate wiped away the whole of the economy effected last year in this Department. The whole Estimate was based on a system which had nothing to say for itself in respect of real economy; but it was calculated to mislead and delude the Committee of Supply. The Public Accounts' Committee on many occasions had found it necessary to consider the irregularities of the Board of Works in Ireland, and the fact that they were in the habit of spending large sums of money without the Treasury knowing anything of the matter until months after the expenditure had been incurred. At present he would content himself by asking the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) whether this sum of £13,000 represented the sum which was put down last year as a saving?

said, he was always afraid that any proposal to save money upon Irish Votes was only made the means of simply throwing good money after bad. They had been given to understand lately that the financial authorities of the Government were about to take steps to minimize as much as possible the Supplementary Estimates. There were unusually favourable circumstances why that should have been done this year, seeing that there was no apprehension of war, and no Supplementary Estimates for the Naval and Military Services. So far, however, from the Department having taken the trouble to avoid Supplementary Estimates, they had come to the House to ask it to pass Votes greater in number than ever. The Civil Service Supplementary Estimates would be found to be a fat volume—a good deal more numerous than in previous years. Some of the items were ridiculously small in amount; in one instance he saw that the amount to be voted was only £1.

said, the hon. Gentleman was referring to Estimates which were not now under the consideration of the Committee.

said, he felt that he had gone somewhat beyond the consideration of the present Vote. He thought, however, it was a lamentable fact that the Departments were not able to cut their coat according to their cloth.

I am precluded by your ruling, Sir, from following the hon. Gentleman into the Vote of £1 that becomes necessary on the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade; but the Supplementary Estimates on this occasion are not, as the hon. Member has described, "a fat volume." They are by no means as large this year as they have been in previous years. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: I said more numerous.] If the hon. Gentleman will examine them, I am sure he will find that they are fewer in number and considerably smaller in amount than they have ever been on any previous occasion. The Supplementary Estimates this year are about £130,000, whereas last year they amounted to £515,000. That shows, I think, that great care and effective control have been exercised by the Department, and the Department itself may take credit for the examination to which the Estimates were subjected before they were presented to Parliament last year. As to the control exercised over the expenditure, I think there has been a greater improvement in the administration than ever characterized the previous Estimates. There is another point which touches one of the questions raised by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor)—not one of these Estimates would have been evaded, and the fact that they have been so little exceeded in amount is due to the action of the Department, and those responsible for examining the Estimates as originally sent in. In answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for East Donegal, I find the first objection which he took was on comparing the original Estimate with the amount now required in the shape of Supplementary Estimates. The discrepancy between the original Estimate and the statement which now appears in the Supplementary Estimate is accounted for in this way. The hon. Member will remember that last year there was a proposal to take £3,000 for the Ulster Canal. The House of Commons decided to strike that item out, and consequently the original Estimate was reduced by £3,000, which, it will be found, represents exactly the difference between the original Estimate and the statement given in the Supplementary Estimate. The total sum for new works and alterations was £62,478 in the original Estimate, owing to the fact that £3,000 were asked for the Ulster Canal. With regard to this very item, I may point out that the reduction of the general Vote has nothing to do with the Supplementary Estimate which is presented on this occasion; because the hon. Member, if he refers to the original Estimate, will find that the sum taken for grants for ordinary literary schools was £35,000. As a matter of fact, the expenditure proved to be more than £35,000, and the £13,000 the Committee are now asked to vote is the amount, with certain savings on the general Vote, which it is necessary to provide in order to make up the amount expended on the National literary schools. The fact referred to by the hon. Member that the sum of £13,000 now asked for represents the reduction on the Estimate as compared with 1886–7, is a mere accidental coincidence. These grants are dependent upon the progress which has been made upon the building of schools to which the grants are applied, and the favourable weather in the past year enabled greater progress to be made with the buildings than had been expected. It is rather difficult to estimate beforehand how much in a particular year the Treasury may be called upon to grant. I hope I have shown that there is no discrepancy between the original Estimate and this Supplementary Estimate; and, further, that the cutting down of the works estimated on a former occasion has nothing to do with the sum the Committee are now asked to pass. The two questions are entirely distinct, and, as I have pointed out, it is due to greater progress having been made with the buildings for which, the grants were made than it was possible to foresee.

I do not see that the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury errs on the side of lucidity. I was just as wise when the hon. Member sat down as I was when he got up. The hon. Gentleman gave two reasons for these Supplementary Estimates. One was that £3,000, intended to have been spent upon the Ulster Canal, were not included in the Vote, although that expenditure had been estimated for in the original Vote for Works. Now, I want to know what possible connection there can be, or ought to be, in this Supplementary Estimate between Votes for building ordinary literary schools and a Vote for the Ulster Canal? Can anything show more clearly the ridiculous jumble in which the Estimates are presented to Parliament than to drag in the Ulster Canal in connection with the ordinary literary schools? The hon. Gentleman says that the expenditure on the ordinary literary schools has been greater by £13,000 on account of the extraordinarily favourable weather for enabling progress to be made with building operations. Before I accept that statement, I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee what was the particular month of the year which was so extraordinarily favourable for the purposes of building as to enable this increased sum to be spent. That is the sort of explanation which is given from time to time when information is demanded in regard to increased expenditure. There is only too frequently an explanation of this farfetched and rococo character instead of the explanation which the Committee is entitled to demand. The original grant for ordinary literary schools last year was £35,000. Why, then, did the Treasury allow the Board of Works to expend £13,000 more? Was it done with the sanction of the Treasury, and did the Board of Works apply directly for the sanction of the Treasury? I think that the whole of this amount might have been well included in the Estimates for the coming year, if the statement of the hon. Gentleman is correct that last year the Vote showed a saving of £13,000. The whole of that saving appeared now to be eaten up by the increased Estimate now presented to the Committee. All I can say is, that the whole treatment of financial matters submitted to the House of Commons is distinctly illusory, and discreditable to the Treasury.

The explanation of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) was not only an explanation of the Vote upon the Paper, but an answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), who asked certain questions. The noble Lord does not seem to appreciate that the amount was cut down on the one hand and was raised on the other. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: That is what I am appreciating.] The noble Lord did not appreciate it, because he asked why my hon. Friend had referred to the reduction of £3,000 on the Ulster Canal. As the hon. Member for East Donegal had alluded to the cutting down of the original Estimate, it was the duty of my hon. Friend to explain why it had been done. The statement was not that of my hon. Friend, but that of the hon. Member opposite; because my hon. Friend pointed out that the cutting down of the original Estimate had nothing to do with this particular Vote. As to the increase in the Vote, I frankly admit—and I am sure that the noble Lord will join with me—that the general situation in which the Treasury and the Board of Works stands in connection with the National Schools in Ireland is a most unsatisfactory one, and requires continual watchfulness. It is more or less an automatic expenditure, over which the control of the Treasury is not anything like what it ought to be. The intention has been that the Board of Works should give this money without the previous assent of Parliament, which I think is a monstrous proposition. I entirely demur to the idea that Parliament should have no control over the amount that is to be spent in a given year, and over the measures that should be taken to exercise control over the expenditure upon the schools. Unless that is done, it will never be possible for Parliament to know distinctly in any given year how much money is likely to be expended. It appears that more has been spent this year than is generally spent; but it is not the fault of the Treasury that there should have been an excess this year. I can assure the noble Lord that every care will be taken to prevent a recurrence in future of the unsatisfactory state of things which has been complained of.

May I be allowed to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Board of Works can spend money on these schools without the assent of the Treasury? I apprehend that they cannot; but that any expenditure beyond the Estimate must have obtained the sanction of the Treasury. I want to know whether that is not the case?

Yes; but I think I can satisfy the noble Lord that the Treasury, as far as possible, took every precaution they could. [Lord Randolph CHURCHILL made a remark which was inaudible.] Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to answer the question in my own way as far as I can. I must first state to the Committee how the matter stands and how these grants are made. The grants are made to the extent of two-thirds of the estimated cost of building schools in Ireland. Applications are sent to the National Education Commissioners in Ireland, by whom the grants are made. They have, in the first instance, to give their approval to every scheme for the erection of schools, and the grants are made to them. Plans are sent to the Board of Works, and the Board of Works are charged with the duty of paying the money which has been granted by the National Education Commissioners. The Board of Works makes the payments from time to time on the certificate of the architect and surveyor that a certain amount of work has been done, and certain amounts become payable. Towards the end of last year I went over to Dublin, and in the course of my investigation, I found that the amount of money that had been voted by Parliament for these services had been exhausted. [Mr. Arthur O'CONNOR: What month?] In December. I at once caused a letter to be written to the Education Commissioners drawing their attention to the fact, and pointing out that no more money was at the disposal of the Treasury for the financial year. The consequence of that was that a stop was put to the payments by the Board of Works, and no furthur payments were made without the sanction of the Treasury. I think that is an answer to the noble Lord's question as to whether the Board of Works spent the money without the sanction of the Treasury. I have pointed out that the Board of Works did not spend money without the sanction of the Treasury, and I will now explain why the sanction of the Treasury was given. These schools for which grants have been sanctioned are spread all over Ireland. The sanction to their erection is first given by the National Education Commissioners, and subsequently by the Board of Works. It would entail extreme hardship if, after the grants have been made, and the buildings have made progress in the belief that under the conditions of the grant, the money expended would be repaid, it would entail extreme hardship to arrest their progress, and moreover would be extremely difficult to do so. I have called the attention bath of the Board of Works and of the National Education Commissioners to this matter in such a way that I believe in future the making of these grants will be placed on a better footing; but I do not feel that the Treasury would be justified in repudiating them, because they would have been repudiating what was a distinct contract entered into between the National Education Commissioners and the Board of Works on making these grants. If economy is to be effected, it must be on the original granting of the money, more than upon the Estimates. The money which becomes payable this year is not the money granted tills year. A portion of the money expended this year was granted in 1884–5, a further portion in 1885–6, and a third portion in 1886–7. It must necessarily be that the payment of the money and the build-of the schools must follow at some considerable period subsequent to that on which the grant was made. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has touched slightly upon what has been a difficulty in the past. I think there has been a misunderstanding as to the power of the Commissioners of National Education to act separately and independently of the action of the Board of Works. I can safely say that in future the Estimates will be framed in conjunction with and upon the approval of the National Education Commissioners, and we shall, as far as it is possible to do so, limit the grants within the year's Estimate so as to prevent any excess in a future year. I do not say that that will be possible next year, because, now that the question has been raised, I feel it my duty to be perfectly frank with the Commissioners, and I may tell them that when I went to Dublin and discovered this fact—that not only had the grant of last year been exhausted, that not only had the Board of Works no more money at their disposal, but that grants, which in the ordinary course will and must be met before the end of the financial year, had been made by the Education Commissioners in excess of the provision made by Parliament. Immediately this was discovered, I determined to put the system upon some better footing; but that is too late now. If the House of Commons is anxious to say that the system of making grants for these buildings by the National Education Commissioners from day to day and week to week shall be stopped, then of course Parliament has the power to do that, and will take the responsibility upon themselves. But as the matter stands at present, I do not think the Treasury has power to interfere with any of the grants already made, and I think I have shown my noble Friend that I have endeavoured, as far as I can, to put a stop to the present condition of things. My noble Friend referred to the way in which this Estimate is submitted to Parliament and to what I said about the Ulster Canal. Now, the amount which appears in the original Estimate of the year for the Ulster Canal was struck out, and that accounts for the discrepancy between the amount stated in the original Estimate and the amount which now appears in the Supplementary Estimate. If my noble Friend will refer to sub-head B, he will find that it covers various items besides grants for ordinary literary schools, and unless you are to have separate Estimates, I do not see how you are to avoid mixing up two or three subjects of this sort, all of them coming under the provision of the Board of Works and for which they are responsible.

said, he desired to support the course which his hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had taken in regard to this Estimate. It was not often that he found himself in accord with the noble Lord the Member for South Padding-ton (Lord Randolph Churchill); but he did so on this occasion, and he desired to thank the noble Lord for the remarks he had made. It was obvious that the Estimates were purely illusory, and that the Government took no pains to ascertain how much money the National Education Commissioners had granted, notwithstanding the professions of economy with which they came to Parliament. Those professions of economy they knew to be altogether unreal. He had no wish to attribute to the Treasury that which he had no right to attribute to them; but it was quite clear that they paid away money without knowing what the real requirements under this head were, for it was evident that the Government were in ignorance of what was required until the Secretary to the Treasury went to Ireland in the month of December. Nothing could be more monstrous than the way in which these Estimates were prepared. The difference between the sum of £59,000 and £62,000 was accounted for by the cutting off of the item for the Ulster Canal; but the main objection was that a saving of £13,000 had been put forward which could only serve to delude the public. The Government appeared to take no pains to ascertain what amount of money they might be called upon to pay, and, according to the Secretary to the Treasury, he had discovered on his visit to Dublin, very much to his surprise, that it would be necessary to make provision for £60,000 more than he had any previous knowledge of. He protested against the Committee being asked blindly to vote a sum of money they know nothing about. They were obliged to take it on trust from the Treasury, and the Treasury appeared to know quite as little as they did about it.

I will answer at once the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton. The economy of £13,000, to which he has alluded, had no reference in any form, shape, or manner to the question of the erection of literary schools.

said, that it happened to be the same amount.

That is only an accidental coincident.

said, the hon. Gentlemen had said that until he went over to Ireland he did not know what grants had been made, and he then discovered that it would be necessary to make provision for £60,000 more. He understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the £13,000 had actually been expended.

I should like to keep the hon. Member to the £13,000, which happens to be the same amount as the saving effected last year. I wish to inform the hon. Member that the amount provided for the ordinary Public Works Vote proved to be sufficient, and more than sufficient, for the work done. The £13,000 deficit has reference to the grants for literary schools; therefore it is altogether inaccurate to say that the Government came to the House with illusory Votes, seeking to deceive the public. I would ask the hon. Member to consider the difficulties we have to encounter with regard to this Vote. The Treasury receive from the Board of Works an Estimate that will come in payment in the course of the year. That Estimate has to be framed in the month of November, and it is an Estimate of the sum likely to be expended in carrying on the building operations in certain schools in different parts of Ireland, some of which may not oven have been begun, and the information as to the progress of which cannot be determined by the Board of Works Itself, except upon a very rough and general Estimate. It is quite impossible for the Board to determine beforehand what schools will be begun at all within the financial year, and to say 15 months beforehand what progress will have been made with them during the year. I think I have shown the hon. Member that the £13,000 to which he has alluded have no reference to any public works except the literary schools.

said, he must trouble the Committee again. The matter had not been made clear yet. He understood the Financial Secretary to say that this money was granted in 1884–5 and 1885–6. Why, then, in November, 1886, when the Estimates were being prepared, could not the Secretary to the Treasury learn that which he learned afterwards? Why should he not have communicated with the authorities who controlled the building, or have learned what buildings were going to be undertaken during the year. He (Mr. Bradlaugh) would not say that the Estimate had been made out with an intention to deceive; but why should it have been made out in a manner which certainly had the effect of deceiving the House? The Government professed to be economical, whereas there was no saving at all.

the Secretary to the Treasury has tried, with some success, to throw upon the National Education Commissioners and the Board of Works in Ireland the responsibility for the excess which amounts this year to £13,000, and next to £60,000, for contracts they have entered into without the consent of Parliament. What I say is, that if the Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer desire to throw the responsibility on the National Education Commissioners and the Board of Works, they are trying to divest themselves of a responsibility which belongs to themselves. Everybody knows that the National Education Commissioners and the Board of Works will grant money lavishly, and with great freedom, if they have the power to do so. The only control over those two Bodies is the Treasury, and it will net do for the Secretary to the Treasury to get up in this House and throw the responsibility upon those Bodies, when we know that the Treasury itself possesses an absolute power of veto. It will not do, therefore, for the Treasury to say that the fault rests with the Commissioners of Education and the Board of Works. The very fact of the Commissioners of Education and the Board of Works having committed a fault shows that there must have been complicity on the part of the Treasury. I object, therefore, to the hon. Gentleman getting up in this House and endeavouring to exculpate the Treasury by throwing the responsibility upon other persons. Another point on which there has been a misunderstanding is that which was raised by the hon. Member for East Donegal and the hon. Member for Northampton. This is an Estimate for works amounting to more than £59,000, and the Supplementary Estimate this year shows that there has been no diminution. The Secretary to the Trea- sury may give any explanation he likes, but he cannot get rid of that fact. It is too much the habit in presenting a Vote to Parliament to present it in a light as favourable as possible; but invariably, when a saving is shown, it is discovered that all the economy is eaten up by an excess next year. The fact remains in this instance that the control of the Treasury over expenditure of this nature is illusory.

I will take the last point of the noble Lord first. I think the Committee will be prepared to accept from my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury the fact that, whatever the appearances may be, the deficiency of £13,000 has had nothing to do with the original Estimate. There is no connection between the two things. There must have been items to the amount of £13,000 cut off in the original Estimate; but they had nothing whatever to do with the present deficiency, and facts are facts. For the reason stated by my hon. Friend, the two figures which appear in the two sets of Estimates are identical. If one had been £15,000 and the other £8,000, instead of £13,000, it would have been necessary to make an intentional reduction in order to present an illusory balance sheet. Let me direct the attention of the Committee to this point—what object can the Government have in cutting down the expenditure if it is likely to lead to a Supplementary Estimate, because the credit gained for the reduction of the Estimate is certainly nothing like the discredit thrown upon the Government in regard to the introduction of a Supplementary Estimate! No Administration would run the risk of reducing the original Estimate if they foresaw that a Supplementary Estimate would be necessary. I therefore repudiate on the part of the Government the charge that they have been guilty of the conduct which has been imputed to them. And now I come to the next point—namely, the control of the Treasury. It is a fact that it has been held by the National Board of Education, erroneously I admit, but assented to by successive Governments, until the present Administration, that the National Board of Education in Ireland may make grants, and that to the extent of two-thirds of the expenditure. Parliament was bound to vote the money, the locality providing the remaining third. I am bound to say that, so far as I am concerned, I was not prepared to vote that principle for a moment, and I am obliged to the hon. Member opposite for having taken up the matter, because the discussion which has taken place will strengthen our hands in the future arrangements we make with the National Board. The National Board undoubtedly believe themselves to be acting within their right. We do not admit that, but until this year it was erroneously considered that where the locality provided one-third of the money to be expended, Parliament was bound to vote the remaining two-thirds. I come now to a third point, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, with regard to the alleged laches of the Government in not having determined in November last how much money should be spent. I can assure the hon. Member that there is nothing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasery desire more than to ascertain how much money will be spent in building operations in the course of a given year; but there is nothing more liable to fluctuation. We have not got the matter in our own hands. We do not build the schools; but they are built by contractors or by the local authorities, and in large operations it is impossible to say how much money within a few thousand pounds is likely to be spent in a given year. I admit that every effort must be made to ascertain that sum; but it is not an easy task, and the Treasury are unable to withhold the few thousands of pounds that may be necessary, seeing that their refusal would involve a suspension of the erection. If the schools are wanted, and more good progress is made with them in the financial year than was originally expected, it would be undesirable to withhold the public money which must be paid a few months later. Of course, it is very inconvenient to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has to make his calculation in regard to the Public Expenditure; but I think it is more advisable to carry on works of this nature rather than to turn away a large number of men who are engaged in the building of these schools towards the end of the year, in order to prevent an expenditure that would be sanctioned as a matter of course in February or March. The Secretary to the Treasury simply put down the money that was wanted when the Estimate was originally prepared.

The Secretary to the Treasury said that there had been no communication from the Board of Works.

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I said there had been no communication from the Commissioners of National Education. I did not say there had been no communication between the National Education Commissioners and the Board of Works.

That only shifts the responsibility to some other Board.

The Board of Works are our agents in Dublin, and they made the best Estimate they could in November last year; but in the case of buildings not yet commenced, it is a difficult task to know what money it would be necessary to spend within a given year. I trust the Committee will see that there has been no negligence on the part of the Treasury in regard to this matter.

said, he was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not appreciated the point of his observations, possibly because he was not in the House when he made them. He thought the Committee would recognize that, although this item looked very simple and innocent, there was a great deal behind it which had not come to light, and which it was desirable to draw the attention of the Committee to. What they had to deal with lay hidden behind that sum of £13,000. He was making no attack upon the Secretary to the Treasury. The Secretary to the Treasury did his work as honestly and as well as any man who ever filled the post, and he (Mr. O'Connor) would have no objection to make to anything the hon. Gentleman had said or done. His point was this—that the Board of Works, who were the agents of the Treasury for Irish purposes, did not deal with the Treasury in London as the Treasury ought to be dealt with. They did not communicate to the Treasury all those items connected with the public expenditnre which they ought to have communicated, and if there was any point upon which the Financial Secretary was to blame it was not in insisting in having that information. The hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, and he must have known that those and other irregularities had not been made known to the Treasury until a month after the money was granted, showing the perfunctory carelessness with which money was granted, and proving that there was anything but a rigid and careful examination. The hon. Gentleman said that that item had nothing to do with the whole Vote. He (Mr. O'Connor) demurred from that view altogether, because if they had a surplus on one particular item in a Vote and a deficit on another, the Treasury ought to be able to balance the deficit by the surplus without going to the House. The Financial Secretary had informed the House that with regard to all the rest of the Vote the money voted by Parliament was more than sufficient for the purposes of the Board of Works in connection with other works, and that this Supplementary Estimate would otherwise have been required to deal with a larger deficit which had been prevented by applying balances obtained from other items in the Vote. Now, he could not understand how economy could be practised in a Vote by applying surpluses obtained from particular items for which more was asked than was absolutely necessary, and then discovering that upon one item there was a large deficit. This Vote covered buildings for the Hibernian schools, Coastguard stations, Metropolitan buildings, lunatic asylums, Science and Art buildings, Revenue buildings, and other institutions, as well as the unfortunate Ulster Canal. He was afraid that the examination of the details of the original Estimate was anything but satisfactory. The National Education Commissioners contended that they were within the terms of the Act of Parliament; that they had to furnish Estimates for the Board of Works, who ought to have full information as to what purposes the money was required for. It was admitted that the Board of Works knew, as far back as November and December last, that there was a deficit on this particular Service; but the Committee now learned from the Financial Secretary that it was not until he went over to Dublin, and investigated the matter on the spot, that he ascertained that not only had all the money which had been voted been ex- hausted before two-thirds of the financial year had lapsed, but that there was a further liability to the extent of £60,000 of which the Treasury knew nothing at all, and of which he himself would have been ignorant if he had not gone over and investigated for himself. That, to his (Mr. Arthur O'Connor's) mind, showed very lax administration of the public money. The Board of Works last year spent a great deal of money they were not authorized to spend by Parliament, or checked by the Treasury, except in regard to the reception of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales in Dublin. In the previous year the same thing occurred, and money was expended by the Board of Works without the authority of the Treasury or the sanction of Parliament. The Treasury had come to no decision in the matter at the time the Public Accounts Committee was appointed. The letter of the Treasury communicating the decision to which they had arrived last year, and the decision of the Public Accounts Committee, was not communicated to the different Departments until the month of January this year, or more than a month late. As a rule the Treasury letter was communicated in the month of December; but this year it was not sent out until January. The whole of this business showed looseness on the part of the Board of Works and of the Treasury which almost amounted to carelessness. He entirely believed that the Financial Secretary was innocent in the matter; but the whole attitude of the Treasury in regard to the Board of Works in Ireland was one which required to be revived. These irregularities should not be allowed for one moment. The Board of Works should not be allowed to spend money they were not authorized to spend, nor should they render themselves liable for the expenditure of thousands of pounds of the public money without communicating full information to the Treasury.

said, that this Vote for the building of schools was very much on the plan adopted in connection with the Science and Art Department. The grants were given in proportion to the amounts raised in the localities, but only on the understanding that the total annual vote for this service was not exceeded, and late applicants must be put off for a subsequent year. So far as the Science and Art Department was concerned, he did not think that any question had ever been raised as to the way in which it carried on its duties in this respect, simply because it was understood that no money could be expended without the approval of Parliament and that in no case should a given vote be exceeded. If money was to be spent without the sanction of Parliament simply by a locality claiming it, the control of Parliament over the expenditure was lost.

said, he was perfectly satisfied with the explanation of the Financial Secretary: but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had opened up the ground of policy in regard to the way is which the education of the Irish people was administered. There had been a great desire expressed to extend education in Ireland, and upon a system which had been settled for a long time, in order to avoid quarrels between different religious denominations. In order to carry that out and leave the Government free, the system had been automatic, so that any school could be established in any place, if it were not too near another school. It was the duty of the Commissioners of Education and the Board of Works to see that the locality had a sufficicient population. As the people of Ireland paid £7,500,000 towards the Imperial taxation, he thought they had some right to receive some little good out of the expenditure. He knew the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to economize; and he would point out a way in which that object could be accomplished. At present the system only permitted the erection of a school where a piece of land could be obtained. It was not the practice to build a school in the best place, but only where a bit of land could be got. The result was that where four schools might be sufficient, they had to build 10, because they were not erected in the best places. A Bill to remedy this defect had frequently been brought in by the Irish Party. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to effect a considerable economy if he would insist on the schools being built in the best places. Moreover, fewer teachers would be required, and a great deal more than this £13,000 would be saved. Instead of grumbling about the expenditure of this £13,000, he believed that the money had been very well spent indeed.

I will certainly take a note of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion. The point, however, is to check the expenditure of the National Education Commissioners. Parliament will, I hope, insist that the Treasury shall have more authority over the amount expended in a particular year than they have hitherto had. Looking at the enormous way in which these schools are being built, I think that Parliament should insist that there should be a limit upon the expenditure on these schools in a particular year. The House of Commons ought to expect the Government to determine how much money shall be expended in a particular year, and keep to that amount rigidly.

said, that when the hon. and gallant Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan) maintained the right and privilege of Irish Boards to spend money without the sanction of Parliament, he thought the British taxpayer might fairly tremble. At the same time, the Government had admitted that in regard to this particular Vote there were anomalies which ought to be remedied. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not gone a little further, and told the Committee that next year there should not be a Vote of this kind, but that the Irish Board should be given to understand that they must get their coat cut according to their cloth, and not spend more than the money voted by Parliament, whatever that amount might be. He sincerely hoped that there would be no discussions of this nature in the ensuing Session.

I can assure the hon. Member that no one would regret the recurrence of such a discussion more than I should.

I have one or two words to say upon this matter. I think the Vote stands still more in need of explanation than the last, and that there are matters connected with it that ought not to be passed over in silence. What I object to is a Supplementary Vote for works which Parliament did not consider and vote money for last year. The Vote last year for the erection of these buildings was £30,000, and the Government and the Treasury have allowed £12,000 more to be spent within the financial year than they took power for. If the Government will turn to the Vote they will find that their Estimate was even more gravely defective than that, because it will be found that the original Estimate was £100,000. That, I suppose, was the Estimate of the Board of Works; but the revised Estimate now placed before the Committee amounts to £145,000. When the Treasury came before Parliament and asked for a Vote to purchase part of a site and erect new Science and Art buildings and a national library, they told Parliament that the cost would be £100,000, and it is now found that the expenditure will be £45,000 more than the original Estimate. I think that that is not only objectionable but discreditable, and it throws the greatest possible suspicion on the value of the Government Estimates. That is a general complaint in regard to all works, and I put it to the Secretary to the Treasury why it should be allowed. I know that the hon. Gentleman will tell me that to have arrested the progress of the building would, of course, entail great confusion and a loss of money. But if the Treasury had said that they had no more money to devote to this purpose this year, the public would have known that it was the bad management of the Board of Works that had caused all the loss and confusion. If a great stand of that kind were once made, I do not think that it would occur again, but as long as the Government allow the Board of Works to spend more money than they originally estimated, and consented to pay the excess, so long as this loose and unbusinesslike way of conducting business goes on, there will be loss and confusion. I think that the Secretary to the Treasury owes an explanation to the Committee of this Vote even more than upon the last one.

said, that in addition to the point raised by the noble Lord, he desired to call attention to the fact that these Estimates were being constantly revised. He found that the original Estimate sub- mitted to the House was £100,000. Then came the revised estimate of £138,571, and during the financial year that Estimate of £138,571 had been again revised and brought up to the £145,191 to which the noble Lord had drawn attention. Therefore, the Estimates laid before Parliament turned out to be utterly worthless, and he wished to have some explanation of why the Estimates should grow every year in this manner.

asked, how much of the money was to be spent for the site?

I am afraid that I have not got the amount for which the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked. The noble Lord has brought two Questions before the Committee—one is as to the amount of the Estimate originally presented to Parliament, and its subsequent enlargement or revision; and, secondly, as to the unwisdom of allowing the expenditure to exceed the amount voted by Parliament, and not stopping it in the way suggested. I may say that I am not responsible for that original Estimate presented to Parliament. But I would venture to ask any Member of the Committee, who has had any experience of building operations, to consider for one moment how difficult it must be for anybody before an actual contract could be obtained, to estimate accurately what the cost of a building would be. I am afraid that that is actually impossible, and I am sure that the noble Lord knows perfectly well, from his own experience, that estimates for building operations are seldom sufficient to carry out works of this character. I may point out that the Estimates have been revised from time to time, possibly in consequence of alterations in the plan. It may be said that the plans ought to be made complete in the first instance; but we know that from time to time alterations are found to be necessary. With regard to the amount which has been expended in excess of the Estimate, I am sorry to repeat what I said in the previous case. I merely stated what the explanation was, and it is apparently an explanation well founded. When I was in Dublin, both in conversation with the contractor and with those who are responsible for superintending the building, I learned that the contractors in this case have acted most energetically. There has never been a single day on which the works have been stopped, and I cannot admit that it would have been good policy to have turned these men away from that building, simply because the money voted by Parliament had been spent, and to have kept them idle for months. I cannot think that Parliament would have justified the Treasury if we had taken that course. It is most difficult, and in some cases impossible, to calculate how much progress will be made in a large building of this character during the year. I am extremely sorry to have to come now and ask for a Supplementary Estimate. I can only plead that although the money is raised this year, instead of next, it does not add one single sixpence to the cost of the building to which Parliament is committed, and the circumstance is entirely due to the fact that the building has made much greater progress than was contemplated when the Estimate was framed last year. I, therefore, do not believe that the Board of Works are deserving of censure, because they framed their Estimate as far as the information they had to guide them enabled them to calculate the amount that would come in course of payment during the year. The original Estimate for the service was £100,000. I cannot say when that original Estimate was formed, and I am afraid that I have not the particulars as to why that sum had been so largely exceeded.

Does the hon. Gentleman mean the Committee to understand that he thinks the increase in the Estimate from £100,000 to £145,000 is such a reasonable increase as would happen in the ordinary affairs of life?

Speaking from my own experience I should say "Yes." I should say "It is not at all an exceptional case;" and I must say that Parliament must have sanctioned the increase on a former occasion; therefore the Treasury is not responsible. It is not surprising that the Estimate has been enlarged, partly by reason of the improvements which have been sanctioned in the construction itself. Even during the last year I must plead guilty to having sanctioned a further addition of £1,800, because it was very strongly represented to the Treasury that unless the Rotunda was raised a little higher than was intended in the original plan, the general appearance of what everybody admits to be a magnificent building would be spoiled.

said, he thought that the Treasury ought to exercise the utmost care in dealing with public Departments. They seldom heard of a case where the expenditure fell below the Estimate. The practice of exceeding the Estimates for building was not only common, but habitual, and for that reason he thought that the Treasury ought to exercise the utmost care and even rigour in dealing with the public Departments, so that they should not allow the expenditure to be so largely exceeded. £184,155 had already been sanctioned by Parliament in connection with these Science and Art buildings in Dublin, and that sum was likely to be still further exceeded by the £ 1,800 to which the Secretary to the Treasury had alluded. At any rate he should be glad to learn whether the £1,800 was in excess of the £184,000.

said, that this was only a typical case of the enormous increase over the Estimates in regard to buildings erected in connection with the Science and Art Department. There were buildings at South Kensington Museum, in Edinburgh, in Jermyn Street, and elsewhere, and in all cases it had been found that the Estimate was so absurdly below the real cost as to require very strict notice. He thought that an increase of about 50 per cent over the original Estimate was very excessive. He had had a good deal to do with building, and he could not help thinking that this was an excessive amount of increase. The item of £1,800 was the keynote of the whole difficulty, because, although only a very small sum, it showed that the plans were not properly and carefully considered originally. They were prepared economically in the first instance, with the idea that it would in that case be more easy to get the Treasury to allow an increased expenditure afterwards. He was satisfied that the only way of effecting economy in the cost of building operations was by going carefully into the plans at first, and by its being understood that the House of Commons would not consent to increase the amount afterwards. He thought it would be a wholesome thing for the Committee to throw out the increase on the present occasion.

said, it would appear from the Vote that £184,155 had already been sanctioned. Was this a new Estimate or part of the Estimate that had already been passed?

This sum which has already been sanctioned will, I hope, complete the works. In regard to the sum of £1,800 which the hon. Member referred to as having been sanctioned in the past year, I am afraid it may happen that that sum will prove to be an excess over the Estimate. It would, however, be an unwise thing to spoil a building like this for the sake of £ 1,800. Everybody must admit that the alteration proposed to be effected in the Rotunda will be a very great improvement.

Does this item include this sum of £1,800?

Yes, certainly.

said, they were told that the favourable weather in the past year had enabled greater progress to be made with the building than had been expected; but now they were told that the Estimate included a portion of the Rotunda which had not been sanctioned by Parliament.

asked, whether the architect received a larger fee for the increased amount?

The hon. Member rather mistakes the matter. It was arranged, in the original plan, to go a certain height; and the question has since arisen whether it was not desirable to put four or five feet more on the top of it in order to give it a better appearance. It was originally arranged that the boilers and heating apparatus should be placed in the basement of the main building; but, later on, when it was seen that there was a possibility, at some time or other, of the electric light being adopted—for which, additional machinery would be required—the question came up for consideration whether it would be desirable or safe to put in the basement of the main building all the appliances for heating and lighting—engines, boilers, and so on. It was suggested that there was a piece of ground outside the building which might be used for an annexe, if that were ultimately determined upon, and that the boilers and heating apparatus might be put outside of and separate from the main building. It seemed to him that that would be a valuable improvement, alike as regarded safety, convenience, and economical working; and that it would be better to adopt that plan than to carry out the original suggestion.

said, that the explanation of the hon. Gentleman showed very clearly how these things grew; how, when a plain building was estimated for, all sorts of additions and improvements were asked for. In the first place, the House was led to sanction an outlay of £100,000, and then was led on to sanction one of £200,000 or £300,000. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), he was sorry to say, did not seem to condemn the system under which they were asked to sanction, bit by bit, an enlargement of an original Estimate.

assured the hon. Gentleman that neither the Board of Works in Ireland nor any other body in the United Kingdom found the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury too yielding or easy in regard to these matters. This was one case in which his hon. Friend had given way; but for this one case which appeared before the House of Commons, there were 50 cases in which he had not given way, and in which he received considerable abuse for the hardness of his heart. He hoped the hon. Member would not judge the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury by this case. A great building was concerned, and his hon. Friend had made a slight concession; but he was stoney-hearted generally, unless a strong case was made out.

said, they all knew from experience that however large an Estimate was, it was certain to be exceeded in the long run. It was, therefore, far better to allow a certain latitude than to draw hard and fast lines which they found it impossible to observe. If this Vote was refused, the result would be that the Local Authorities would be compelled to make their Estimates in future considerably larger than at the time might seem necessary, in order to provide for unforeseen contingencies.

said, the explanation of this Vote was very simple. There was a tender called the Richmond, which carried stores to the lighthouses off the coast of Rocky Island. A hurricane came on when this tender was making for the shore. The tender was blown on the rocks, and injured. This expenditure consisted partly of repairs, partly of the hire of a schooner to do the work during the time the Richmond was laid up, and partly of the cost of assistance in getting the vessel off the rocks. The occurrence was an accident, and no blame attached to anyone.

said, he believed that £1 was the smallest sum which it was competent for Parliament to Vote, and he had purposely made the charge £1 so that the Committee might see at once that the voting of the money was a mere matter of form. The Committee would understand that although the fees were sufficient to cover the whole cost of the service, there had been in the original Estimate a Vote for £68,920 for salaries. There had been an increase of fees, and, in some cases, an increase of salaries to the extent of £7,044; but, unless a Vote of the House was taken, those salaries could not be dealt with in the Appropriation Account, because they would never have received the sanction of Parliament. The Treasury had power to issue from time to time to the Board of Trade in aid of Votes of Parliament, out of the receipts arising from fees, stamps, and dividends, any sums which, might be necessary to meet the charge estimated by the Board of Trade in respect of salaries and expenditure. They had done this, but there would not be Parliamentary sanction of the salaries unless they took a Vote in this form. That was why the Vote was taken.

said, he supposed they might take it that the receipts from the working of the Bankruptcy Act wore in excess of the expenditure.

said, the salary of the official receiver at Liverpool was £1,000; whereas, the official receiver at Manchester was paid a salary of £1,200 and had an assistant receiver who was paid £600. The business of Liverpool was considerably in excess of that at Manchester, and, therefore, it was thought that the salary of the Liverpool receiver should be placed on an equal footing with that of the Manchester receiver. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) whether there was anything included in the Vote for the purpose.

said, there was nothing included in the Vote for the particular matter to which his hon. Friend referred. An application on the subject of this gentleman's salary had been sent to the Board of Trade, and, of course, it would be fully considered.

said the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) that this was a formal matter must be taken with some qualification. A great deal more than £1 was involved in the Vote. When the Bankruptcy Act of 1883 passed through the House, an alteration was made in the Estimates. It was then agreed that a statement should be annually laid before Parliament, showing the amount of fees realized under the Bankruptcy Act, and the amount expended in the administration of the Act. Apparently there was no charge on the Public Treasury in connection with the Service, but the appearances were misleading. As a matter of fact there was just as large a charge against the Public Treasury in connection with this Vote as in connection with any other Vote in the Estimates, because if this money was not spent in extra salaries and in large travelling allowances it would go into the Exchequer. The officials under the Bankruptcy administration were at pre- sent battening upon the fees obtained in bankruptcy proceedings. Of course, as the charge did not come apparently as a direct charge on the Treasury, the House was not very much inclined to look with scrutiny into the matter; but he contended that it was the duty of the Treasury to keep down this Vote as much as possible. This involved an extra charge of £7,000, and was justified on the ground that the fees were enough to meet the outgoings. They were, unfortunately, more than enough, and that involved an injustice to the suitors and to the estates under the Bankruptcy administration. Seeing how much money was realized by these fees, it would be very much fairer, and more in accordance with the spirit which was manifested and expressed at the time the Act of 1883 was passed, if Bankruptcy fees were very considerably lowered, at any rate, in a great number of cases. He would like to know whether the Treasury had conferred with the Board of Trade as to the possibility of lowering some, at least, of the charges under Bankruptcy administration.

said, the Treasury and the Board of Trade were constantly in communication with regard to this expenditure. Perhaps he ought to explain that, although the total sum was £7,044, it really was not an increase of £7,044, because there were the Subheads E and F, which, he believed, came under the Vote for the first time this year. Hitherto they had been paid out of the fees of the estate, and an arrangement had been made, which was thought to be more economical, whereby they should come on the Votes. He would bear in mind what the hon. Member had said regarding the fees. He believed that since 1883 the fees had amounted to £485,000, while the expenditure had been £460,000. There was, therefore, a balance of £25,000. The fees more than covered the cost, but the margin was rather small.

said, he wished to point out that under the heading "Law Charges" there was a sum of £784 required in addition to the original Estimate, and, on turning over the page, he found that this was due to exceedingly heavy litigation. He desired to know whether this sum was made up in part of costs in connection with the prosecutions of supposed fraudulent bankrupts?

said, he believed it was not so made up; on the contrary, it arose from an increase of litigation which was consequent upon the administration of estates by officials of the Bankruptcy Department and questions arising out of it upon which the decisions of the Court and of the House of Lords had had to be taken.

said, that some cases of criminal prosecution directed by the Board of Trade appeared to him to be most improper and even oppressive—cases in which juries could not reasonably be expected to convict. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he should look into the matter, and put a check, if necessary, upon the eagerness of over-zealous officials.

said, that the reason why a Supplementary Estimate was to be taken at all was that the Endowed Schools Commission's year ended on the 31st of December, and the Act under which the Commission was appointed was included each year in the Expiring Laws Bill. The ordinary financial year ended on the 31st of March, and, therefore, three months had to be provided for in a Supplementary Estimate. It had been suggested, and he thought it was desirable, that both years should end on the 31st of March.

agreed that it would be desirable to make the change suggested by the Secretary to the Treasury and thus avoid the need of any Supplementary Estimate in this matter. He was sorry the hon. Member who was connected with the Charity Commission, and who was the ordinary means of communication between the Commission and the House, was unable to be in his place in consequence of an accident, but, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Sir William Hart Dyke) would be able to answer the question he (Mr. J. E. Ellis) wished to put. It would be remembered that the Endowed Schools Commission which sat in 1886 and 1887 were of opinion that the introduction of the representative principle in the Governing Bodies of the schools was a matter of great importance. In Section 12 of their Report they declared it to be essential that the sympathies of the localities should be enlisted by giving the people a large share in the management of the schools by representation, either direct or indirect, through elected bodies. The point he wished to call attention to was this—whether the Endowed School Commission was now really carrying into effect that recommendation. If the Committee would turn to the Report of the Endowed Schools Commission, it would be seen that there was an Amendment moved to the effect that the words "a large share" should be left out, to substitute a share in the management by "a majority" of representatives, and that this was only lost by the casting vote of the Chairman. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would agree that there was a strong expression of opinion on the part of the Committee that the representative principle should find a larger place on these bodies. The matter was not a Party one at all. It cut both ways, and he had no doubt that under the principle of election hon. Gentlemen on the opposite—the Conservative—side of the House, would find places on the governing bodies of the schools just as they did now. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would be able to give the Committee an assurance that the Endowed Schools Commissioners were carrying out the representative principle in the schemes they were framing.

said, that as a Member of the Endowed Schools Commission he could say that it was the opinion of that Committee, after taking a considerable amount of evidence, that the Endowed Schools Commissioners in framing their schemes did have regard to the principle of representation. The Commissioners themselves gave evidence in support of the principle of representation. How soon it might be desirable to extend the principle was another question, but he did not think the granting or refusing of the money now asked for could be determined by the opinion of the Committee on that point. No doubt it was desirable that the Governing Bodies of these endowed schools should be in full sympathy with the sentiment of the localities and should have the confidence of the public. It was the policy of the Charity Commissioners, he believed, to act in accordance with that view, and they had accepted the decision of the Select Committee as being in accordance with their own well established system. That, however, was not the only element to be considered in the constitution of those bodies, as there were others which should be kept clearly in view. The question of how far the principle of representation should be extended would not be affected by this Vote.

said, he apologized for taking part in the debate, and only rose because the hon. Member who usually answered for the Endowed Schools Commissioners, was not able to be in his place. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) had conceded the point urged by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. J.E. Ellis); that was to say, that the representative principle should have effect in these schemes so far as the localities were concerned. He would point out, however, that they might go too far with the representative element, and he did not think the hon. Member opposite desired that they should do that. A Motion had been brought forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for Lichfield Division of Staffordshire to deal with this question of representation, and he did not suppose that the Committee would go so far as that Motion. Though he (Sir William Hart Dyke) was not a Member of the Endowed Schools Commission, he was constantly in communication with the Commissioners, and he could assure the hon. Member, without any further communication with them, that they were perfectly well aware of the language used in the Report to which reference had been made. It would be found that reference was made to the proceedings of the Select Committee in the Report of the Commissioners themselves, so that that was evidence, at all events, that the Commissioners considered the recommendation of the Committee as worthy of their attention. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that so far as the Charity Commissioners were concerned they had taken note of the matter, and that in every scheme they were framing now, or would frame in future, they would take care that the representative principle should have a place.

said, he should like to ascertain some particulars with regard to this loss of £7,100 on foreign bronze coin, as it appeared to be equal to 33 per cent on the £22,578 withdrawn from circulation. Would the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) or the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) explain what portion of the loss arose from the sale of coins, and what portion was on account of expenses connected with it. There was a public announcement made, he thought, in July last, to the effect that the French Government intended to withdraw their copper coins. Now, the bulk of the coins which were withdrawn in this country were French, and that would have been a very favourable opportunity for getting rid of the French copper coin in this country without loss beyond the cost of carriage from London to Paris, which would have been about £1 per ton or less than £100 in all. He wished to know whether that intimation was conveyed to the Government and how they could account for the heavy loss?

said, that the intimation was conveyed to the Government, and they endeavoured first to ascertain whether the French Government would be willing to accept this coin. It must be borne in mind, however, that this foreign copper coin in circulation was not entirely French. There was some Italian coin and some belonging to other countries. He regretted to say that the negotiations with the French Government were not successful. They did not want the coin, and the arrangement to which the hon. Member referred—namely, the withdrawal of copper coin in France, had not been carried out. The Government further thought it possible that the French Government might say that they had got a large quantity of English copper coin, and might ask Her Majesty's Government to take it in exchange. Her Majesty's Government were perfectly ready to do this, but they had not the opportunity. The decision to call in this copper coin was taken very much with the sanction of every hon. Member of the House at the time. The circulation of this coin was considered to be such a great source of inconvenience and difficulty to a large number of poor people that it was determined to call it in. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he believed, insisted upon the matter being brought to a Vote of the House so as to emphasize what the loss on the transaction had been. The loss might really have been dealt with in the Mint account—the matter might have been handed over to the Mint and dealt with as Mint questions usually are dealt with. They were face to face with two alternatives—one was to melt the coin down as bullion and make it into copper coin, and the other was to sell it to the best bidder. He could not, with his commercial mind, admit the force of the sentimental objection to selling it to the best bidder. They hunted about and tried to find a buyer, and after some negotiation sold it at the best price they could get. He might point out that if they had melted it up the loss would have been £20,000, with the price at which copper was at that time. It seemed to him that it was much more economical to dispose of it as they did, though the arrangement was besot with some little difficulty, and it was only reasonable that they should try and save £15,000 out of the fire. There were certain expenses connected with the collection by the General Post Office—sending the coin to London and Paris, shipping charges and insurance, packing and sorting, and such like matters. In addition to all this there were about six or seven tons of coin which had been defaced and could not be passed. He believed that some of the enterprizing traders in London—he was not quite sure whether it was an eminent firm which deals in soap—were responsible for having stamped the coins with the names of their firms. Those coins could not be passed into currency. This coin having passed into the Mint at the rate of £400 a-ton, and having to be sold as bullion at the rate of about £45 per ton—for that was then the price, although it had gone up considerably since—this in itself resulted in considerable loss. He believed that under the circumstances the best arrangement had been made so far as the financial question was concerned. Hon. Gentlemen knew pretty much the circumstances at the time, and he hoped, therefore, that the Committee would approve of what had been done.

said, he did not think the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had answered his question as to what portion of the loss resulted from the sale of the French coin. He did not think there was any question about the policy of not melting the coin up, nor did he believe that there was any regulation to withdraw coin that had been defaced by being stamped with the advertisement of the soap merchant referred to; but he should like to know whether the Government had invited competition for the purchase of the good French coin. He had pointed out to the Secretary to the Treasury how a small portion of the coin could be sold at 4 per cent loss, and he failed to understand what the large increase in the loss incurred, as set forth in the Supplementary Estimate, was owing to. What he wished to ask was simply what proportion of the loss arose through the sale of French coin?

said, he was afraid he could not state accurately what the proportion of the loss was; but he believed, taking it all round, that the coin was sold at a discount of 17½ per cent. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Montagu) would remember that he (Mr. Jackson) had consulted him as one from whom he had thought he would be likely to get valuable information. He had hoped that they would have got a better bargain than that they ultimately had to make. It was a question of getting rid of the French coin at once or spreading its sale over a long period of time. They had sent through the markets and had made the best inquiries they could. They had succeeded in getting some competition for the money. Ha could not say he was proud of the bargain which had been made, as he had hoped to make a better sale; still he believed that, considering all the circumstances, the best had been done.

said, he did not object to the course the Government had taken. The question had been a difficult one, and he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had acted for the best. What he could not understand was why, if this French coin was made of the same metal as that which was used in the manufacture of our own pence, it was not sent into the Mint, re-minted, and re-issued as English pence?

said, that if that had been done the loss would have been £20,000. They might have manufactured the bronze into pence, but how would they have put the pence into circulation? They had put now as many pence into circulation as they could through the ordinary transactions of trade. Besides, if they had used the French money for the manufacture of English pence, they would have been buying the bronze bullion at a price infinitely above the market price at the time. It appeared to him that the wisest course had been taken in sending the money back to France. If they had themselves attempted to put the money into circulation in France they might have done so at the rate of about £100 a month, or in some similar way, but when they had £25,000 worth of centimes it was obvious that it would have taken years to dispose of the coin in this retail manner. Under the circumstances, he thought his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had taken the best course he could in getting offers from several French firms for the purchase of the coin. It would have been a very dangerous course, and one prejudicial to the public interest, to have smelted down the coin.

said, the right hon. Gentleman's answer was perfectly satisfactory. He had been under the impression that copper coin was still being issued; but if this was not the case, the plan adopted was clearly the best.

said, he hoped that great care had been taken to prevent these French coins getting into circulation again amongst the poor. Was it understood that the coins had been sold out of the country?

It was delivered in France.

said, he thought the Committee should have some explanation of the large increase in the Vote over the original Estimate. He had thought that the amount for the County Courts was a fixed Estimate, and they ought to be told whether the number of Judges had increased, whether the salaries had increased, or what the increase of £38,073 was owing to.

said, he was sorry he had not risen at once to give an explanation of the Vote, but he had thought the Committee was aware that this was one of the Votes which very often resulted in a Supplementary Estimate. The expenses were paid according to the amount of business. For instance, the Registrars were paid £4 for each 25 cases, and he did not think it was very easy to judge beforehand how many cases would be brought into the County Court during the next 12 months. An Estimate was usually taken as near as any approximate estimate could be made to cover the number of cases, but the real fact in the past financial year had been—and, no doubt, hon. Members would notice it—that the growth of expenditure was not only considerable in itself, but was disproportionate to the growth of receipts from fees. The explanation of that, he understood, was that the Registrars were paid so much per case, and the fees depended on the amounts which were involved in the cases. He understood that there had been a considerable increase in the total business, whether or not due to bad trade he could not say. There had been not only a considerable increase in the total business, but there had been at the same time a considerable increase in the cases involving very small amounts, and that accounted for the amount of fees not having grown proportionately with the amount of expenses, because the expenses were paid at so much per case, while the fees were collected according to the amounts involved in the cases. The Committee would see that it was not possible for the Government to correctly foretell the number of cases that would be brought on. He admitted that £38,000 was a considerable increase on an Estimate something short of £400,000, but he hoped the Committee would recognize that an expenditure of £400,000 on such a business represented in itself an enormous amount of work, and that it must necessarily be very difficult to estimate with anything like accuracy the amount that would be required. He hoped also, if he might say so at this stage, that the Committee would not be too severe and that the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) would not be too severe on the Treasury for not asking for large sums of money merely for the purpose of avoiding Supplementary Estimates. There was no check on expenditure which the House and the Treasury could exercise so effectually as being able to say "The amount of money voted is exceeded, and therefore we cannot give you any more."

We do not say it.

said, his noble Friend remarked that the House did not say that; but he would be more correct if he said "On some occasions we do not say it." The Treasury did not ask for large sums when there was necessarily uncertainty as to the amount which would be required.

said, he wished to ask, whether the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury could tell the Committee how much of this money was for additional payment to Registrars? At the rate of £4 for 25 cases, the Supplementary amount asked for would represent 208,000 extra plaints, which would be an enormous number.

asked, whether the effect of paying Registrars by the case was not that some of them received salaries higher than the County Court Judges themselves?

said, he was afraid he had not very much knowledge on that subject; but he certainly did happen to know of one case where the fees of the Registrar became so large that it was thought desirable to cut them down by appointing someone else to help him to take them. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Kingswinford Division of Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill), he (Mr. Jackson) was afraid he could not supply the details asked for.

asked, if the hon. Gentleman would inquire whether it was true that many Registrars were now receiving by the scale of payments by case a higher sum of money than was paid to some County Court Judges; and whether, if that turned out to be the fact—as he believed it was—the Government would take some immediate steps, by legislation, to remedy that most outrageous state of things?

said, he would promise to inquire as to the facts; but he was afraid it was another question whether legislation would be brought forward. He must leave that to someone else to answer.