HC Deb 31 March 1843 vol 68 cc303-8

On the question that 38,000l. be granted to defray the expenses and law charges incurred by the Treasury,

Mr. Hume

objected to the estimate. He found, that there was an expense of 15,000l. set down for the expenses of the late special commission. This sum, he considered too much. If the public money which was now wasted on such matters, were expended in giving the people employment it was probable that the riots would not have occurred.

Mr. T. Duncombe

thought this vote demanded explanation. The sum required on the face of it was 47,000l., and the sum asked for was only 38,000l., the expenses of the special commissions(15,000l.) being included in the former sum.

Sir G. Clerk

said, that the sum disbursed on the average of the last three years, added to the heavy expenses incurred by the late special commissions, made a total of 47,000l., but that the whole sum which would probably be required to cover those charges in addition to the fixed charges would be 38,000l.

Mr. T. Duncombe

called attention to the note which said, that The two items in the account for fees and expenses incurred for prosecutions, &c, were formed on an average of the last three years' expenditure, ending March, 1842, which, owing to the state of the country, was of an unusually large amount, and therefore it was hoped that 38,000l. would be sufficient to cover the expenses of the late special commissions and of the coming year. As the total amount of the law expenses of 1841 was 28,000l.; of 1842, 22,000l.; and of 1843, 38,000l., he did not see how they made this 38,000l. on an average of the last three years. He should wish the vote postponed until they had the items of this 15,000l. before them for special commissions to Chester, Stafford, and Liverpool. He wished to see how those Gentlemen were paid who afterwards came down to support their views in that House.

Sir J. Graham

said, that there was a difference between an estimate and an account. This 47,000l. was not the estimate for the ensuing year, but an account of the expenditure of the past year. The estimate of 38,000l. was explained in the note by Mr. Maule; and was expected to cover not only the ordinary current expenditure, but any outstanding debts on account of the special commission, the expenses of which formed an arrear of 15,000l. not taken in last year's estimates.

Mr. F. Baring

said, it was true that the 15,000l. was an arrear for last year, but the fees to counsel and expenses of the prosecutions were said to have been framed on the average of the last three years' expenditure. If that were so, the figures did not tally. That sum was beyond the estimate of 28,000l. and 22,000l. for the years 1841 and 1842. If the last year was very expensive, as it was said, where did the Government get their money? The right hon. Gentleman took only 22,000l., and yet the average expended appeared to be 32,000l.

Sir G. Clerk

said, that the average of the last three years only applied to the two items, for fees to counsel and expense of prosecutions; that the expenses of last year were 22,000l., that the sum proposed this year in the estimates was 23,000l., which being added to the 15,000l. arrear for the special commissions made up the sum of 38,000l. The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in thinking that the average was 32,000l. The real comparison was between the ordinary expenses of this year with those of last. He admitted that the estimate might have been formed more clearly, but he would give any requisite explanation in reference to it.

Mr. T. Duncombe

contended, that the House and the public had a right to know how the 15,000l. had been expended, more particularly as it seemed that there was a sum of 6,000l. more to be added to it. He could not believe that the legitimate expenses of the special commission would amount to 21,000l., and he therefore moved that the vote be postponed.

Mr. Lambton

hoped, as the vote was quite unintelligible, that the hon. Member's motion would be agreed to. He ventured to say that not a Member in the House could explain it.

Lord Stanley

said, it partook of the character of an estimate and account. The two items for fees to counsel and carrying on prosecutions, and which had been taken on the average of the years 1840, 1841, and 1842, amounted to 26,000l., which, with the salaries, made 32,000l., but it was expected that not more than a sum of 23,000l. would be required for the ordinary expenses of the year ending March, 1844, to which it was necessary to add 15,000l., not provided for last year, for the special commissions, making 38,000l., the amount of the vote now proposed.

Mr. F. Baring

declared, he was stupid enough not to understand it, and unless her Majesty's Ministers were prepared to say that it would be inconvenient to the public service to postpone the vote, he should support the motion of his hon. Friend.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

could not consent to the postponement of the vote, but would give every information which could be desired respecting it on bringing up the report.

Mr. T. Duncombe

said, he should divide the committee, as the Government would not give the explanation he required.

The committee divided on the question that the vote be postponed.—Ayes 43; Noes 115:—Majority 72.

List of the AYES.
Aldam, W. Napier, Sir C.
Baring, rt. hon. F.T. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Barnard, E. G. Ord, W.
Blake, Sir V. Paget, Col.
Bowring, Dr. Paget, Lord A.
Brotherton, J. Plumridge, Capt.
Browne, hon. W. Ponsonby, hn. C. F. A. C
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Rice. E. R.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Ross, D. R.
Crawford, W. S. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Duncan, G. Strickland, Sir G.
Ellice, E. Strutt, E.
Ewart, W. Thorneley, T.
Fergusson, Sir R. A. Trelawny, J. S.
Forster, M. Turner, E.
Gill, T. Vane, Lord H.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Wawn, J. T.
Hindley, C. Williams, W.
Horsham, E. Wood, G. W.
Hume, J. Wrightson, W. B.
Lambton, H. TELLERS.
Morris, D. Duncombe, T.
Muntz, G. F. Pechell, Capt.
List of the NOES.
Acton, Col. Boldero, H. G.
Allix, J. P. Borthwick, P.
Antrobus, E. Botfield, B.
Arkwright, G. Bradshaw, J.
Bailey, J. Broadley, H.
Baillie, Col. Bruce, C. L. C.
Balfour, J. M. Buller, Sir J. Y.
Baring, hon. W. B. Charteris, hon. F.
Barrington, Visct. Chelsea, Visct.
Bernard, Visct. Chetwode, Sir J.
Blakemore, R. Clayton, R. R.
Clerk, Sir G. Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.
Colvile, C. R. Knight, H. G.
Copeland, Mr. Ald. Lefroy, A.
Corry, rt. hon. H. Leicester, Earl of
Cripps, W. Lincoln, Earl of
Darby, G. Lockhart, W.
Dickinson, F. H. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Douglas, Sir H. Mackenzie, W. F.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Manners, Lord J.
Douglas, J. D. S. Marsham, Visct.
East, J. B. Martin, C. W.
Eliot, Lord Master, T. W. C.
Escott, B. Maxwell, hon. J. P.
Estcourt, T. G. B. Mundy, E. M.
Fellowes, E. Murray, C. R. S.
Fitzmaurice, hon. W. Neeld, J.
Flower, Sir J. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Forrester. hn. G. C.W. Pakington, J. S.
Fuller, A. E. Peel, J.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Plumptre, J. P.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Praed, W. T.
Glynne, Sir S. R. Pringle, A.
Gordon, hon. Capt. Pusey, P.
Goring, C. Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Round, J.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J, Ryder, hon. G. D.
Greenall, P. Sandon, Visct.
Grimsditch, T. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Grimston, Visct. Sibthorp, Col.
Grogan, E. Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Hamilton, W. J. Somerset, Lord G.
Hamilton, Lord C. Stanley, Lord
Hardinge. rt. hn. Sir H. Stuart, H.
Hardy, J. Sutton, hn. H. M.
Henley, J. W. Tennent, J. E.
Hepburn, Sir T. B. Thompson, Ald.
Herbert, hon. S. Tollemache, J.
Hervey, Lord A. Trench, Sir F. W.
Hodgson, R. Trollope, Sir J.
Hope, hon. C. Trotter, J.
Hope, G. W. Vernor, Col.
Hughes, W. B. Wellesley, Lord C.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Whitmore, T. C.
Jermyn, Earl Wortley, hn. J. S.
Jocelyn, Visct. Young, J.
Johnstone, H.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. TELLERS.
Jones, Capt. Freemantle, Sir T.
Kemble, H. Baring, H.

Original question again put.

Mr. Hume

said, that if they were not to have the details of the expenditure of the sum of 15,000l. required to defray the expenses of the late special commission, he should propose that the committee adjourn.

Sir J. Graham

thought be was not asking too much, when he proposed that the hon. Member for Finsbury should give notice of a motion for the information he required, and allow the Government twenty-four hours to consider what course they would pursue.

Mr. T. Duncombe

said, the committee ought not to be called on to vote the estimate without having the details of the expenditure first communicated to them. They were told to vote the money first, and ask for details after. This would be shutting the stable door after the horse was stolen. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) asked for time to consider whether the Government would give the details; but the contemptuous manner in which the right hon. Baronet had answered the hon. Member who proposed that the details should be given, or that the committee should adjourn, left very little hope in his mind that these details would be given. Under these circumstances, he should move that the committee report progress.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that the estimate had been laid on the Table on the 14th of March, and the House had had seventeen days to consider it and to call for any information that might be required; but the hon. Member for Finsbury had waited until the last moment, and now proposed to stop the progress of public business. He put it to the committee whether the Government ought not to have twenty-four hours allowed, in order to consider whether the return intended to be moved for by the hon. Member should be granted?

Mr. T. Duncombe

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in error in supposing he had not asked for information till the present moment. He had the other day shown to the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department a written statement of the information he wanted, adopting in that statement the precise words which appeared at the foot of this page in the estimates, and which were supposed to be explanatory of the vote. The paper, however, was returned to him, and he was informed that the Government could not understand it;—that was to say they could not understand their own words. Was there, then, anything unreasonable in his proposition to have the details of this expepditure? He should certainly move that the Chairman report progress.

Lord Stanley

said, the sum of I5,000l. in this estimate was required to cover bygone expenses incurred by the late special commissions; and if the hon. Gentleman required the details of that expenditure, he could give notice of a motion on the subject, and it would be competent for the Government to decide whether they would accede to the motion. Let the hon. Gentleman specify what it was he required, and not now refuse to pass a vote which it was confessedly necessary for the public service to pass.

Mr. F. Baring

said, that the postponement of the vote for two or three days would occasion no inconvenience; they had not yet come to the end of the financial year, and, with the exception of the sum of 15,000l., not 6d. of the money proposed to be voted could be spent until next quarter. He was ready to give her Majesty's Government time to consider whether or not they would give the information asked, but still hon. Members on his side of the House had an equal right to ask for twenty-four hours' delay to consider whether the sum asked for by the Government in this instance was correct or not. If his memory served him, he believed that information in detail as to criminal prosecutions had on former occasions been given. The Government was bound, in his opinion, to give such information as, without inconvenience to the public service, might justify the vote; and he must say, that to ask now for the grant of this money without the slightest detail whatsoever, was a course of proceeding which the committee ought to meet by postponing the vote until the right hon. Baronet was prepared to give some answer to the questions put to him.

Sir J. Graham

said he was extremely sorry that any hon. Member should think his conduct had been contemptuous to the House; if it had seemed so, it was more from his manner than from any intention on his part. Before the Government could make up its mind as to whether the information sought should be granted or not, it was necessary to know what was the precise information asked. He was by no means disposed to say on the part of the Government that the information should not be given, but still it was indispensably necessary he should know the precise details of the information required. This could be done by a notice of motion when the House resumed. He felt the force of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. F. T. Baring), and he would therefore accede to the proposition that this vote should be postponed.

Vote postponed.