prepared to tell me, with some degree of precision when that Vote is reached, what is the cost of the telegrams from Constantinople and London in connection with Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's Mission. Unless the hon. Gentleman gives me that pledge I shall feel it my duty to oppose the Vote.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): I must inform the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) that I am not at this moment able to state what proportion of the charge for telegrams is due to the Mission of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff. I can, of course, make inquiries, and will do so if the hon. Gentleman wishes it, although it may possibly turn out that there would be some difficulty in ascertaining, because many telegrams may have been sent to Egypt respecting which it would be hard to say whether they ought to be deemed to belong to Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's Mission

or not.

SIR ROBERT PEEL: I wish to make one remark on what fell a short time ago from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who for three or four years has constantly brought up his service under Sir Henry Bulwer and the story of his pills. Now, I served under Sir Henry Bulwer, and I say it is a libel upon him to refer to him in this way. Poor fellow he has gone now; and, speaking from personal knowledge, I say that no public servant ever served his country better than Sir Henry Bulwer. I protest against the hon. Member's constantly bringing up this subject of the pills because he was in the Diplomatic Service at Constantinople. I was there at the same time, and I entirely dissent from the remarks of the hon. Member. But, with regard to this Vote, I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs one question. There are two distinct Votes for telegrams in these Estimates-one for the Foreign Office and the other for the Diplomatic Service -and I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman if he can tell us whether out of this Vote a considerable sum of money has been expended in connection with the special Mission of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff to Constantinople or Egypt? It will clear the ground if he will tell us that; and I would point out to the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler), as

well as to the hon. Gentleman, that it would be far better, instead of having two Votes as there are here, that the Votes for the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service should be amalgamated; because then the House would know exactly the vast sum of money expended on the telegraphic service of the country, which amounts to more than £100,000 a-year. I think if the hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that this will be done, it will go a long way to remove the confusion which exists.

MR. BRADLAUGH: The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs misunderstands me. I assume that every telegram sent to Sir Henry Drummond Wolff is recorded, and that the cost of every telegram to and from Constantinople and Egypt is also recorded for the purpose of making up the total we are asked to vote. It seems to me, therefore, that there can be no difficulty in furnishing the information desired, and, consequently, that there is no reason why the Government should not give it. I beg to move that the debate on this Vote be adjourned.

MR. BOURKE: I wish to state to the Committee what I know about this Vote, and to say, with respect to the inquiry of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), that I think it a very reasonable one in view of the form in which the Vote is given to the Committee. I have no doubt that if the hon. Member will give Notice to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs he will be able to obtain the detailed information which he desires. It is a fact, which, of course, everyone connected with the Foreign Office knows, that every telegram is noted at the Foreign Office; and it is, therefore, perfectly easy to make out a list of the different telegrams sent to Sir Henry Drummond Wolff. There may possibly, however, be a little confusion, owing to the fact that while Sir Henry Drummond Wolff has been in Egypt he has performed functions connected not only with his particular Mission, but with his general business in Egypt. Nevertheless, as I have said, the desired information can easily be obtained at the Foreign Office. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will not persevere in his opposition to the Vote. I am certain that if he asks the Question of my hon. Friend on another day he will get the

comes within the present financial year. It is quite clear that it would not be correct to include here the possible expenditure of next year, which should, of course, come forward in the Estimates of 1886-7. I understand, however, that the fees will meet the expenditure in question. The hon. Gentleman will probably be able to give some information on this subject.

information which he desires. With reference to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Blackburn (Sir Robert Peel) that it would conduce to the clearer understanding of the Vote if the two Estimates were put together, I am afraid that it would not have that effect. The object of keeping the Votes separate is simply to show the expense incurred for telegrams in England and the expense incurred abroad; and of course if they were mixed it would lead to great difficulty.

MR. BRADLAUGH: Mr. Courtney, I move the adjournment of the debate on this Vote, and shall persist in that course unless I get an undertaking from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the details of these items will be furnished. THE CHAIRMAN: It is not competent to the hon. Member to move the adjournment of the debate in Committee. The course of the hon. Gentleman is to move that Progress be reported.

MR. BRADLAUGH: I ask pardon for proceeding in ignorance of the Forms of the House. I repeat that unless the promise is given I shall have to move that Progress be reported.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): If the hon. Member will put a Question on the Paper asking for the information he desires I will do my best to get that information. Vote agreed to.

(6.) £500, Colonial Office.

(7.) £31, Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade.

MR. RYLANDS: There is one point in connection with this Estimate to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. C. T. D. Acland). I see that by this Supplementary Estimate there is a charge under B for Chief Official Receiver's Office to meet possible necessity for increased staff, amounting to £2,101, and under C for Country Receivers paid by Fees and Commission, to meet possible increase of remuneration amounting to £5,780, making a total additional sum required of £7,881 over the Estimate of 1885-6. Now, I presume that although this is put down as possible increased expenditure, there is reason to suppose that it is an expenditure which has been actually incurred, and that it Mr. Bourke

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD oF TRADE (Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND): The reason for bringing this Vote before Parliament in this form is that it shows the total expenditure for 1885. The sum of £1,164 originally voted by Parliament, it was believed, would have been sufficient for the expenses of the year. With regard to the additional sum required, there is no doubt that the whole of the amount will be received and handed over to the Exchequer in the ordinary course. The Treasury is authorized, under the Bankruptcy Act of 1883, Section 77, to pay over to the Board of Trade, in aid of the Vote of Parliament, out of receipts from fees and dividends on investments, any sum which may be necessary to meet the charges incurred by the Board of Trade for salaries and expenses; and, as I have said, there is no reason whatever to doubt that the whole of this sum will be received and paid into the Exchequer during the year. The present Supplementary Estimate of £31 has been presented for the purpose of bringing the facts clearly before Parliament.

Vote agreed to.

(8.) £2,371, Charity Commission. (9.) £2,100, Civil Service Commission. (10.) £7,490, Local Government Board. (11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a

granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge sum, not exceeding £3,430, be which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, for the Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Secretary for Scotland.”

MR. RYLANDS: I should like to say one or two words on this Estimate. The Vote before the Committee is a new one.

It is the first time that we have been called upon to pay for the expenses of the Office of the Secretary for Scotland. I believe the amount asked for is only a very small part of the expenditure, and

that when we come to have the full amount to be expended next year it will very considerably exceed the moderate sum now upon the Estimates. I suppose hon. Gentlemen from Scotland consider it necessary to have a Central Department for Scottish Business; but, for myself, I am bound to say that I greatly doubt whether it is desirable to take that Business from the Home Office, and in a way that must lead to a very large expenditure. But what I wish to draw attention to is the fact that we are constantly putting new officials in every Department of the State; we create new Departments or we enlarge existing Departments; and we bring new men into the Service, but we never seem to take any steps to utilize supernumeraries--that is to say, we are constantly pensioning the officials of various Departments, and we never consider whether these persons can be made available for the Public Service. The item of pensions is increasing so largely that I hope Her Majesty's Government will see that steps are taken, in connection with the retirement of public officials, to secure their services when they are required. I do not speak of the retirement of men past the age of service, but of those who are retired at an age when they have work in them. There are many who, having been retired, cannot get back into the Service, because all the vacancies are filled up with new men, who originate a new charge for salaries, and, in course of time, have to be pensioned in their turn. I dare say the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler) can, with regard to this Vote for the Office of Secretary for Scotland, give us some little information as to what the expenditure is likely to be for carrying on this Department.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): I quite agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands) in his remarks with reference to the unsatisfactory working of the pension system. I entertained the view when I sat below the Gangway, and I say now, that when a man is employed by the State, and is paid by the State, the State has the right to fix the work he shall do; and if the State has the right to discharge him, it has the right to appoint him to such other duties as he can perform. I say that it is not right that a man should be pensioned off at once

simply on account of the abolition of his office. That is my view, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley that I shall endeavour to uphold it to the best of my power. The principle which my hon. Friend advances has been carried out in connection with this Office. That was exactly what the late Government did when they appointed Sir Francis Sandford to be Under Secretary for Scotland. His pension amounted to £1,333 6s. 8d., and he is now only drawing £500 on account of that pension, so that there is a saving of £833 6s. 8d. of salary by that appointment. With reference to the staff of the Department, that was settled before the present Government came into Office; but we shall do our best rightly to estimate what the cost will be. The Vote may have a tendency to increase; and, doubt, it will become a question for the House to consider ultimately what is the entire amount necessary to carry on the Scottish Business. There is one item which does not appear on the Vote, and to which I think the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley ought to be called, and that is the rent of the office. I believe that a very valuable building, which would earn a large amount of rent, has been devoted already for the Secretary of Scotland Office. When the Estimates come forward later in the Session with reference to Public Buildings my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of raising and discussing that question; but the Vote now before the Committee is simply to provide for the working of the Office since October last.

no

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: The Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler) has referred to the question of rent as an expense which should be put against the Office of the Secretary for Scotland. The house referred to is known as Dover House, and it is one which I took a great deal of trouble to obtain as an office for the Secretary for Scotland, and also as an office for myself and my Successor in the position of Lord Advocate. I carefully examined that house for the purpose of seeing whether it was fit for use as an office; and I came decidedly to the opinion that no sane man would take it for what it was then intended-namely, a residencewithout an expenditure vastly in excess of what the rent of the house would be

in the next 10 or 14 years. The sanitary condition of the house was such as to make it quite unfit for a person who would use such a house as a residence, although it might be quite fit for a Government Office.

MR. J. WILSON (Edinburgh, Central): I trust the Committee will not, in any degree, be influenced by the remarks of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in regard to Scottish Business. Considering how large a Revenue Scotland yields, how loyal and peaceful are its inhabitants, and how little Government money is spent across the Border, I think this money should be voted without one dissentient voice. As to the building in which Scottish Business is now conducted, I visited the place the other day, and I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) in having secured such an excellent office. I remember when the Scottish Business was relegated to the third or fourth storey of one of the Home Office buildings-to a very small and dingy room, little else than a slum, and in which it was a perfect disgrace for any important official of the British Empire to transact business. But it was still more disgraceful for Scottish Business to be centralized in such an insignificant place. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) has questioned whether Scottish Business would be done more efficiently under the new régime than under the old. My experience of only a few days is that it is very much more efficiently done than before; and I have not the slightest doubt that my Friends from Scotland, when they see the fine building in which the Scottish Secretary's and Lord Advocate's Departments are now located, will be well pleased in the way in which the Business is now being done there. Although I always raise my voice for economy, I think this is a very proper expenditure; and I hope, therefore, that the Vote will be passed unanimously.

MR. RYLANDS: I should be the last Member of this House to oppose the wishes of Scotch Members. I have the greatest regard for them and their Business in the House of Commons, and I can assure the hon. Member that I could not for one moment desire that Scotchmen should not have the best opporMr. J. H. A. Macdonald

tunity for carrying on their Business. I am not an authority competent to form a confident opinion as to whether the Scottish Business will be more efficiently performed under the new system; but it is by no means necessary to show one's attention to Scotland by spending money which is not required to be spent. The point is, whether or not it is necessary to do so; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) has not shown any very great regard for the Scottish officials, because he has told the Committee that they had been placed in a house under such sanitary arrangements that no private individual would live there, because he would probably be carried off by typhoid fever or diphtheria. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not give the exact facts with regard to the sanitary condition of the house; but I can tell hon. Members that our experience in the House of Commons is that when we begin to spend money on the sanitary improvement of Public Offices, we often go on to a very much larger expenditure than we at first · imagine, or is justifiable. However, that will come on when we reach the Vote for Dover House. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has touched on what I wished to call attention tonamely, that a large establishment is growing up. It is all very well to say that this money should be voted unanimously; but it is not necessary to show our affection for Scotland by spending £20,000 or £30,000, when probably £5,000 would be sufficient.

DR. CAMERON: I was very much moved by the logical and patriotic appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. J. Wilson); but the matter to which he referred was not one which touched on the economy of the house in question. It touched upon the conduct of Scottish Business; and I much regret that the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) is not in his place to give the Committee some information on the subject. The Secretary to the Treasury has referred to the experience of Sir Francis Sandford in another Department-that is to say, the Education Department. The Scottish Secretary is now the President of the Education Department for Scotland. In the Education Department, as formerly constituted, Sir Francis Sandford was for a