suggested is neither practicable nor desir- granted for the said Service."-(Mr.
able.
Whitley.)

MR. WYNDHAM : I must ask for used as a convalescent home for naval and notice.

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO Motion made, and Question proposed, THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVEN"That a sum, not exceeding £7,200, be DISH, Derbyshire, W.) said he could.

not answer that question off-hand. The gained by merely transferring the Vote matter of Osborne House was governed from one Estimate to another. by statute.

MR. COHEN (Islington, E.), as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, could not recollect ever having had a question of that kind to consider. Their duty was to see that money was applied to the purposes for which it was voted by the House of Commons.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham) also did not think it came within the province of the Committee to decide under what head a Vote should appear.

SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University) supported the view of the hon. Member for King's Lynn. Part of the functions of the Public Accounts Committee was to give recommendations to the House as to the way in which the Estimates should be brought forward.

*SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.) said the argument that this was a Royal palace, which in fact it never was, overlooked the statute which fixed the status of Osborne House. It was obviously desirable that a Vote applicable to the Army and Navy should appear in

MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It has been its proper class, so that the total Vote done before.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY said he could not remember any instance of that having been done. Could the hon. Member cite one?

for the Services might be known and correct, and although it was perhaps necessary that this Vote should appear, for this session only, where it now did, because it had its correlative in the original Estimate, he hoped the opinion of the Public Accounts ComMR. GIBSON BOWLES: Yes, but is mittee would be taken as to the position this in order? it should occupy in the future. But he rose in order to enter his protest against

*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member the great difference between the original

started it himself?

MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then I can assure the hon. Member that before his time and mine the question as to what Estimate a Vote should appear under was referred to the Public Accounts Committee.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY said his hon. friend evidently could not cite a concrete case. He seemed rather to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Osborne House was given by the King to the nation. It was a Royal palace, and to all intents and purposes continued as such. What object would be gained by shifting the Vote from its present place to the Army and Navy Estimates? It would only tend to deprive it of its historic character-it would be removing a small landmark for the mere sake of altering the accounts. The real duty of the Public Accounts Committee was to see that the nation got value for the money which was expended, and nothing in the shape of efficiency could possibly be

and the revised Estimate. In this case the revised Estimate was practically double the original Estimate.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.) said that as far as he could judge there was no necessity to discuss this matter further because the Government majority had arrived.

He

MR. J. F. HOPE (Sheffield, Brightside) said he would try to show that the spirit of vigilant criticism was not wanting on his side of the House. It had been very pertinently pointed out that this item was double the original Estimate. thought the Leader of the Opposition might have condescended to take notice of this great difference between the original and the revised Estimate. Surely they might have some explanation as to this very extraordinary discrepancy. They would like to know more about this scheme for turning Osborne House into a convalescent home. He remembered that on one occasion the hon. Member for Mid Lanark kept the House for a whole hour before the holidays discussing this

MR. WHITLEY asked if it was in order to discuss these matters on the Supplementary Estimate.

item, and it was surprising that a gentle- | on the Army Votes. He wanted to have man of his keen critical faculty should be some explanation as to why the amount absent. He should be glad to have some had been doubled. That was not a satisinformation as to the progress of the work factory way of dealing with the House of there. Commons. When voting money they wanted to know what they were about. No one could say that the House of Commons would grudge money for a matter of this sort, but how could there be adequate accounting and a proper check on expenditure if they were going to have a Vote doubled in this way. Generous as the House of Commons was they did not like to be asked in the first instance to vote a sum of money for a particular purpose and afterwards to vote twice the original sum when the bill came in.

*THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is going rather wide of the question, although he is entitled to ask why that sum is asked for and how it is to be expended.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: have a majority of fifteen now.

You

MR. J. F. HOPE said he wished to have some details given as to what steps had been taken to secure proper sanitary arrangements. He should like some medical Member of the House to give his opinion upon this point. This was very necessary in the case of Osborne House, because the Isle of Wight had an extremely relaxing climate. He had some doubts as to whether his noble friend could fully satisfy him on these points, but perhaps he would say as much as he knew, and he would perhaps answer them more fully when the arrangements had been more advanced. They could not scrutinise these items too much, for if they got into the habit of allowing £7,300 to pass without adequate attention they might get into the habit of passing £730,000 or £7,300,000 in the same way.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND said the Government majority now stood at twenty.

MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick) said the Government ought to give them a sufficient explanation when these points arose. This item ought to be treated as an Army Vote. Osborne House had ceased to be a Royal Palace, for it was a gift by the Sovereign for the purposes of the Army, and it was entirely misleading to treat it as a Royal palace. It was a very unsatisfactory arrangement for the Treasury to put upon the Royal Palaces Vote an expense of this sort, which ought to be put in its proper place

LORD BALCARRES said the hon. Baronet the Member for South Islington had complained of this Vote being included in the Civil Service Estimates instead of being included in the Army Votes. It might be that, as presented now, the Vote was misleading, but it would be still more misleading if it were put under the Army Votes. It was impossible to allocate this Vote to any single Department which would cover the whole service. Not only did it deal with Army and Navy matters, but it must be remembered that the Vote dealt with certain charges in connection with Osborne House, which, according to His Gracious Majesty's desire, was now thrown open to the public irrespective of Army or Navy purposes. It dealt with the grounds of the estate to which the public would have access; and finally it dealt with certain Royal residences which clearly must come under the Office of Works, and which could not possibly be allocated to the War Office. The hon. Member had asked him as to the progress of the work, and also in regard to the expenditure. He thought he could explain that. Two years ago His Majesty handed over Osborne House with the object of its being devoted to the purpose of a convalescent home, and it was found necessary so to redistribute the rooms as to make them more suitable for receiving patients. That was done at considerable expense, which the House voted last year. After that a very strong committee was appointed to supervise the convalescent home. It included the chief medical

officers of the Army and Navy and a number of eminent civilian doctors. These distinguished men visited the building, and came to the conclusion that certain hygienic measures should be adopted in order to make the home of a first-class character. They were displeased with the quality of the water supply. They considered that the system of treating the sewage required certain changes, and finally, the most important recommendation they made was that the whole of the furniture in the patients' rooms should be of the type which was to be found in all the great London hospitals and convalescent homes. That involved a serious outlay. He could assure the hon Member for Partick that it was not owing to any negligence on the part of the Office of Works that this expenditure had to be incurred. No doubt the cost could have been anticipated and placed in a lump sum a year ago, but the distinguished scientific men forming the committee desired to see the house as structurally altered before making their final recommendations. Certain alterations had been carried out in order to make escape in case of fire more easy. The Office of Works had been solely actuated by a desire to see that the place should be a real convalescent home. The staff was about to be appointed, and the Office of Works hoped that in about six weeks from now the house would be ready to receive convalescents.

after lunch. That had always been apparent, and he thought the result of their experience ought to make them go back to the old system. There was no need to go on with the discussion for the Government had now a good working majority. He had been in the House a long time, and he was a good judge of the course of events from the faces of the Whips. When he was in the Lobby he looked at all the Whips he could see. They were greatly agitated some time ago, but they were now in good humour. The hon. Gentleman could now allow the Vote to be taken, with the certainty that the result of the division would not materially affect the elections. He knew the times in which we lived were harassing, uncertain, and critical. One never knew what was going to occur, but it would be an objectionable thing if anything happened on the initiative of the hon. Gentleman opposite from Scotland, or if the blow should come from Peckham. That would be the irony of fate. Although he was opposed to the Government he sometimes pitied them. In order to give a helping hand to people who looked so dreadfully forlorn, he now announced that there was a Government majority and that there was no need for further anxiety.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES said that it would have been just as possible to have included this sum in the Naval Vote as the £40,000 for the naval cadets at Osborne. He had a definite pledge last year that it would not appear in the Royal Palaces Vote. On 21st April, 1903, he complained that this was a naval and military work and not a work on a Royal palace, and Mr. Powell Williams, whose loss they all deplored, said in reply

"The Motion of his hon. friend placed him in a position of considerable difficulty as a member of the Public Accounts Committee." And then he went on to say

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND said he rose to offer his sincere sympathy to the Secretary of the Treasury. He was sure it was the desire of all sections in the House that he should long continue to occupy the position he held. What did they find to-day? He had almost said that a malignant attack had been made upon the hon. Gentleman. He had been subjected to criticism of the most drastic description. Of course, the attack was somewhat mitigated in the minds of Mem-shown that the amount in question applied bers when they knew the peculiar circumstances under which the hon. Gentleman was attacked. When the Rules were altered so as to cause the House to meet

at two, instead of three o'clock, it was felt that it would be difficult to get a good and constant attendance of Members so soon

"It seemed to him that unless it could be

solely to that portion of Osborne House which was still a Royal palace it had no right to be on the Estimates before the Committee. It Navy should appear on the Army and Navy was obvious that a service for the Army and Estimates."

Had that pledge been carried out? As he understood the position, that undertaking was not really being carried out.

better to get more light on the whole subject as to how this money was to be laid out. The quicker this beneficent institution was completed the better. What amount was to be spent on recreation grounds? He always understood that recreation grounds were for men of active life, and not for convalescents. noticed that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had come in; and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could throw some light on this Vote? A great deal of money had been thrown away without proper consideration.

Sir JOSEPH LEESE (Lancashire, Accrington) rose in his place and claimed to move that the Question be now put.

Question, "That the Question be now put," put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly.

The Committee divided :-Ayes, 124; Noes, 161. (Division List No. 14.)