doned as a mail-packet station. As regarded the Portpatrick Railway Company, although the proposition which they lately. made was still under consideration, yet they had at last agreed to give up Portpatrick as a point of departure. They still asked, however, that the spirit of the Treasury Minute should be carried out, and that they should retain the privilege of conveying the mails from some other point. He believed that the whole sum asked for in the Vote for Portpatrick would not be required, inasmuch as it was likely that the staff would be got rid of in the course of the year, although it might be necessary to continue the salary of the superintendent until the repair of a breach which had been made in the pier in January was completed.

(5.) £37,310, to complete the sum for MR. ALDERMAN LUSK said, this Vote certain Lighthouses Abroad, &c. was increasing year by year, and some exMR. CHILDERS desired some explana-planation was necessary with regard to it. tion respecting a sum of £11,650, which was put in the Vote for the Little Basses Rocks (at Ceylon) spare lightship. Was it the case that this lightship had answered?

MR. GOLDNEY said, when the Conservancy Bill was passed £5,000 was given up to carry out certain drainage improvements, and power was given to impose a certain rate upon the owners of property, for the purpose of diverting the drainage. They were now asked to vote a sum of £15,000 to accomplish the same object, and they ought to see that it was not paid twice over. It ought also to be seen whe- | ther they were not in this Vote dealing with the drainage of the whole town.

MR. BENTINCK drew attention to the item of £500 for cleansing and restoring pictures in Hampton Court Palace. They were not, it appeared, the property of the nation, but of the Crown, and the Crown ought to pay the expenses connected with them.

MR. LABOUCHERE said, he could state that no part of the sum asked for in respect of Royal Palaces was devoted to the drainage of the town of Windsor. He thought we had a great deal too many palaces. The palaces which were not in the occupation of the Crown cost about £50,000 a year. The orangery, vinery, stables, and outbuildings of Hampton Court Palace cost £7,313. Now, those who resided in that palace were, from early association, rather reckless in their habits, and in order to point out to them the excellence of economy, he should move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £5,000. £2,313 was quite sufficient for Hampton Court Palace.

LORD JOHN MANNERS explained that, under the Act of 1866, the Conservators of the Thames gave notice that the drainage of Windsor Castle should no longer find its way to the Thames; it was necessary to divert it at a cost of £8,000, and there was every reason to believe that the plan suggested for the purpose would be found to work well. With respect to the sum necessary for the removal of the lock and other works connected with it, the Conservators had applied to the Government for a contribution towards defraying the expense of the works. Their request was that one-half the sum to be expended should be re-paid by Government, in consequence of the importance of the works for the water supply of Windsor Castle. The expenditure was estimated at £11,000, but the Government only proposed to contribute a sum not exceeding £2,500. In addition to that, the Government had been called upon to divert the drainage of Hampton Court Palace from

the River Thames, and he hoped the plan under consideration would effect that in a satisfactory manner; it would cost £4,500. Under the head of Buckingham Palace there was also an item of £2,150 for cleansing the ornamental water. This explained how the excess on the present Vote had arisen. It would be found that all these additional items together amounted to £17,152, while the excess of the Vote over that of last year was only £14,293. With respect to the pictures at Hampton Court Palace, there had always been a small Vote for cleansing and restoring them. The collection was increasing from year to year; and was under the management of a very competent person, who bestowed great care and attention upon them; and when the hon. Member for Finsbury said these palaces were of no advantage to the public, he could only say that Hampton Court Palace was open to all the world, and the pictures were arranged in such a manner as to render a visit to Hampton Court not only extremely agreeable, but instructive. As to the gardens, they too were open to and much enjoyed by the public. A great portion of the inhabitants of the metropolis habitually derived the greatest possible pleasure from visiting the palace.

MR. CHILDERS remarked that there was no claim on the Government for the lock referred to. There was only a claim for the machinery which sent the water up to Windsor Castle; and it could not cost £2,500 to put the machinery in order.

MR. FAWCETT said, the Vote contained many objectionable items, but there was one he considered particularly objectionable-namely, that of upwards of £7,000 for St. James's Palace. He could not understand the use of this palace. Her Majesty did not reside there or hold Her Courts there. Recently Her Majesty's Courts had been held at Buckingham Palace; and if Buckingham Palace was not large enough for the purpose, he should be in favour of additional expenditure in order to make it sufficiently large. He could not conceive why they should sanction the extravagance of keeping up St. James's Palace, when at most it could be used only two or three days in the year, and when there was another palace in the neighbour. hood. Everybody who had ever been at a Court at St. James's Palace agreed that it was a most uncomfortable palace for the purpose. He believed that the state of the finances, as it was to be described next

Thursday, would be most disastrous; and | into consideration. The next was a matter he therefore gave notice that, after the that especially degraded us in the eyes of Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for foreigners he meant the meanness of Middlesex (Mr. Labouchere), he should charging a penny for permission to enter move that the vote for St. James's Palace the vinery. He hoped the noble Lord be reduced by £5,636. would take this matter into his own hands, and make such arrangements as would remove this paltry toll so offensive to the visitors of the vinery by next Sunday.

1009

MR. SERJEANT GASELEE understood | at present incurred in the maintenance of that, as he wished to move a still larger St. James's Palace might be saved, and reduction, he must do so before the Amend the site of that building might be turned ment of the hon. Member for Middlesex to some useful public purpose? If he were was put. He therefore moved the reduc- not satisfied on this point, he should bring the matter before the House on a future tion of the whole Vote by £15,000. day, and move for a Select-Committee.

he

THE CHAIRMAN stated that Amendment could not be put, inasmuch as it had been proposed to reduce certain items in the Vote. After such proposals had been decided, it was not in the power of hon. Member to move a reduction of the Vote itself.

any

MR. SERJEANT GASELEE had taken care to propose his Amendment in time; and was disappointed to find that his submission to the ruling of the Chairman had rendered the proposal of his Amendment irregular.

THE CHAIRMAN reminded the hon. Member for Portsmouth that his Amendment could not, in any case, have been put, inasmuch as it had been previously proposed to reduce an item in the Vote, and the House had divided on that proposal.

LORD JOHN MANNERS said, that the Question of the hon. Member for It was Brighton was one to which it would be imsible to give an off-hand answer. only after the most minute and careful inquiry that the possibility of adapting Buckingham Palace for the holding of drawing-rooms and levees, and the cost of such an undertaking, could be ascertained; and he was not, therefore, then prepared to give the hon. Gentleman the information for which he asked. In answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck), with respect to the pictures at Hampton Court, he apprehended there could be no doubt that the pictures were the property of the Crown.

MR. FAWCETT hoped that the noble Lord would make the necessary inquiries respecting the point upon which he had asked for information.

MR. AYRTON had always understood that the rules by which the deliberations of the Committees were guided precluded any Member, after any particular item had been decided, to move any reduction in an antecedent item. He had, however, never heard that, after the Committee had decided on particular items, it was incompetent for any hon. Member to move a reduction in the entire Vote, and, as he did not see how their proceedings could be carried on under the rule just laid down, he should take the liberty of moving that the Com-sooner it was brought under the consideramittee report Progress.

THE CHAIRMAN said, that he had acted under no rule of his own framing, as the following Resolution, agreed to by the House on the 9th of February, 1858, would show-

"That where it has been proposed to omit or reduce items in a Vote, the Question shall afterwards be put on the Original Vote, or the reduced Vote, as the case may be, without Amendment."

MR. BENTINCK asked, whether the pictures at Hampton Court were the property of the Crown, or of the nation. Were they not maintained by sums voted from the Consolidated Fund?

MR. AYRTON said, he felt it his duty again to advert to the question of Order already raised. If the rule laid down by the Chairman were permitted to stand, it would amount to a complete estopping of their privileges, as it would make it impossible to move anything but the reduction or omission of particular items. This was a question of such importance that the

tion of the House the better, with a view to its being cleared up. In former times, there were no explanatory items; but now these were so numerous that the effect of the rule might be to cause their whole proceedings to be stopped by the most trivial Motion. For instance, if a Member chose to move a trifling reduction, say of £5, on an Estimate and divide the House upon it, no other Member would thereafter be permitted to move the reduction of the Vote, however weighty might be his reasons for so doing. The question was so grave in its nature that he begged the Committee not to proceed further until an explanatory Resolution had been come to by the House.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER fully conMR. FAWCETT said, he wished to ask, whether in the opinion of the Go-curred in the view of his hon. and learned vernment, it would be possible to adapt Buckingham Palace for the holding of drawing-rooms and levees, so that the cost

Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets. It was most important that the Committee of Supply should have the fullest liberty

in dealing with the Estimates. They | Resolution should be passed upon the should be able to discuss the Votes in the subject. gross, as well as in their items, with a view to the proper control of the expenditure.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, the Resolution read by the Chairman was founded on a very distinct principle-namely, that the House should not divide twice on the same question. If the wish of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) were complied with, a very unsatisfactory state of things might occasionally arise. One Member might move a reduction of £5,000 in an item and, though he might be unsuccessful, another Member might immediately afterwards move that the whole Vote be reduced by £5,000, which would be virtually seek ing a decision twice over. Then, another case might arise. One Member might unsuccessfully move a reduction of £5,000 on one item, a second might move a reduction of £10,000 on another item and be in a minority, and a third might propose a reduction of £7,000 and be in a minority also; yet, the three sections of the Committee who had supported these several Motions might combine, to reduce the whole Vote by the three sums taken together. That state of things would cause great confusion, and prevent the Government from ascertaining with clearness what was the opinion of the House upon the question involved. For these reasons, he thought the Resolution of the House should be adhered to.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER said, he would ask the Committee to suppose a case where one Member wished to reduce a Vote of £200,000 by one-half, while another Member wished to move the total omission of the Vote. If the Member in favour of the omission of the Vote moved first, the other Member could not be heard; and if on the other hand the Member in favour of the reduction of the Vote by £100,000 moved first, the other would, according to the ruling of the Chairman, be precluded from bringing forward his Motion.

THE CHAIRMAN said, he might an swer the hypothetical difficulty raised by the hon. Baronet by saying that it would be his duty to decide such a question when it arose. Of course if the whole Vote were affirmed it would be too late to move any reduction; but the hon. Baronet had fallen into an error in supposing that any one could move the omission of an entire Vote. There was no such Motion. It would be a mere negation of the Motion that the sum of £200,000 be granted to her Majesty.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER: That is no answer to my objection. When once an Amendment has been moved to any item of a Vote the Vote must be put, it is now stated, without Amendment. This pre cludes any Member who wishes to move that the whole Vote be omitted from do. ing so.

Mr. AYRTON repeated his belief that THE CHAIRMAN: If a Motion be the rule would place an unreasonable re- made for reducing a Vote, and that be straint upon the action of Members in negatived, any other number of Motions Committee of Supply. He insisted on the may be made afterwards. The hon. Baronet right of every hon. Member to question talks of a Motion for the omission of a the expediency of any vote as a whole. In whole Vote. I say that no such question a Vote of £175,000, there might be, as is put from the Chair. The question is as in this case, an item of £1,219 for put from the Chair that the whole Vote "Albert Road.' According to the ruling, be granted, and the Member who desires if one hon. Member who objected to the to see it omitted says "No." But the rule odd £19 made a motion to that effect, is that when once a Motion has been put another hon. Member who wished the total from the Chair for omitting or reducing amount reduced by £25,000 would be an item forming part of a Vote, after that precluded from what was his undoubted the reduction of the Vote itself cannot be right. To object to particular items was moved. That is the Resolution of Feb. unwise, and generally useless; the consti-ruary, 1868, and it is in plain and extutional policy was to move a general re- press terms. duction of the amount, leaving it to the Government to re-apportion the smaller sum among the different items. The construction now put upon the Resolutions must deprive the Committee of one of its most important powers, and rendered it absolutely necessary that a supplementary

MR. GOLDNEY thought the position of the question was this. A Vote might be proposed in its total amount which any Member might move to reduce. If that Motion were negatived it would still be open to him to move the reduction of any item. The ruling of the Chair seemed to him per