HC Deb 07 July 1851 vol 118 cc297-301

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.

Clause 5, which provides that the Treasury may assign separate duties to each Commissioner.

MR. HUME

wished to know what it was understood the Commissioners were to do as a Board? It was very extraordinary, if there was to be a Board, that each Commissioner was to be responsible for his own acts.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

said, the Commissioners of Woods had been in the habit of transacting their business without the aid of a Secretary. He should like to know if it was intended in future that they should sit as a Board, without a Secretary?

LORD SEYMOUR

said, the department of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests would be arranged by the Treasury. He really could not say what that arrangement might be until it had been settled by the Treasury.

MR. HUME

would, therefore, submit that the noble Lord (Lord Seymour) ought not to press this Clause until he could say who were the parties whom the Commissioners might employ, what were their duties, and what their accountability.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

said, perhaps the noble Lord (Lord Seymour) proposed by this clause that the Treasury might assign certain duties to the Commissioners. If that were so, he (Viscount Duncan) was in favour of the proposition. He only wanted to know if it was intended that those gentlemen should act as a Board. He might add that he entertained a strong objection to Boards acting without Secretaries.

LORD SEYMOUR

said, the clause gave power to the Treasury to assign separate duties to each of the Commissioners, and to make each individual Commissioner responsible for his own acts. The Commissioners would not sit as a Board, but they would as accountants; and they would be jointly liable for their accounts, though in other respects each would be responsible for his own acts.

Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 6 to 10 inclusive.

Clause 11.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

suggested that after what had occurred on the last night the Committee sat, it would be better to strike out Clauses 11, 12, and 13.

MR. VERNON SMITH

objected to the striking out of Clause 11. The time might come when it would be thought best to get rid of the Commissioners, and to have the business done by the Surveyor General. He wished to leave the Government the option in the matter. His opinion was in favour of what the late Mr. Bentham used to call "single seatedness in office." He regretted on that account that the superintendence of his noble Friend (Lord Seymour) was taken away, who, he thought, ought to have the responsibility of the work as well as of the revenue.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, he had a doubt in his own mind as to which course was the best—whether to act through the Commissioners, or through the Surveyor General, and in that respect he should be willing to follow the course which the Government deemed most advisable. It was because he understood the Government preferred the former course that he voted for it on the last night. He objected, however, to leave it in the power of Government to supersede that arrangement without coming to Parliament.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

said, that he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. V. Smith) in his remarks with respect to individual responsibility, and with his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) as to not leaving the option in the hands of the Executive Government.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, that it became the Committee to pay attention to what they were about to do. By this 11th clause it was optional for the Government to place the management of the Woods and Forests under the management of a Surveyor General. But they should recollect that they had at present two Commissioners of the Board of Woods. If they appointed a Surveyor General, the services of these gentlemen would be no longer necessary, and they might at once proceed to give them a retiring allowance, which would entail an additional expense upon the public. As he, however, stood alone, he would not oppose his individual opinion against the wishes of the Committee.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

considered it was a very different thing to leave it optional with the Government to appoint a Surveyor General, and to say that the Commissioners of the Board of Woods should be dismissed coute qui coute. It was very desirable that the Government should have the power specified in the clause, which needed not to be en- forced unless the public service specially demanded it. The adoption of the clause by no means necessitated an additional charge upon the revenue.

Clause agreed to; as were Clauses 12 to 21 inclusive.

Clause 22, which regulates the duties of the Commissioners in relation to the Royal Parks,

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

inquired whether there would be annual estimates of the expenses of the different lodges in the parks?

LORD SEYMOUR

said, that there were two classes of lodges—one allotted to the gatekeepers, and the other held by grace and favour. The expense of the former was inserted in the annual estimates; but that of the latter, which was only for keeping them wind and water tight, was defrayed out of the land revenues of the Crown. The occupants of these lodges were obliged to defray all internal and other expenses.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he believed that the lodges referred to were splendid mansions. Rumour said that they were furnished at the expense of the public. Parliament ought to have the items of their expenditure in the annual estimates.

MR. TRELAWNY

said, a very considerable revenue could be derived from leasing these lodges, many of which would fetch large sums. If this money were added to the revenue, the public would have the advantage of it.

MR. SLANEY

considered such a proceeding would be a direct violation of the understanding which had been made with the Crown when the House undertook to defray the expenses of the Civil List. The right to bestow these gifts for distinguished services was retained and vested in the Crown.

LORD SEYMOUR

concurred in the opinion which had been expressed by his hon. Friend.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

did not wish by any means to interfere with the grace and favour of the Sovereign. What he objected to was simply this, that the expenses of the park-keepers' lodges should be provided for by an annual estimate, while those of the other class should be defrayed out of the landed revenues of the Crown. He did not see the reason for a distinction.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 23 to 35 inclusive were also agreed to.

Clause 36.

LORD SEYMOUR

proposed that this Clause should be struck out, in order to substitute for it certain other Clauses that would give a sufficient audit of accounts, according to the suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby).

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

wished to know what was the nature of the new clauses.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, his noble Friend need not give himself much trouble about these new clauses, as they had been proposed by the Commissioners of Audit.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

was glad to hear that, which he had not before understood, but still he would like to see the clauses.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

thought they ought not to trust any Commissioners, but to examine the clauses for themselves.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

wished to know whether all the receipts and expenditure in reference to the land revenue, putting aside that for works, would be embodied in the accounts as referred to the Audit Board? Whether all the accounts were to be examined and certified, whether they were to have access to all documents and vouchers, and if any errors were found, they would have the power to refer the accounts back to the department, that they might be remedied, and whether they were to have access to all documents and vouchers, and to transmit the accounts to the Treasury when audited, with such remarks and suggestions as they might think proper to make, to be afterwards laid before Parliament?

LORD SEYMOUR

said, that in his department of Works there would be no difficulty, as the expenditure was there voted by Parliament; but with regard to the Commission of Woods it was different. He apprehended in that case, however, that all the accounts would be laid before the auditors, and if they were not satisfied and should require further information, they would call for it and it would be supplied; and as soon after the audit as the House met in each year the accounts, as audited, would be laid upon the table of the House.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

said, that when the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer asked him to place implicit confidence in the Commissioners of Audit, he could not help informing the Committee of an answer which had been made to him by Messrs. Wells and Dowton, who repre- sented the Audit Commisssioners on a Committee over which he had had the honour to preside. He asked if there was a want of strength in the audit department? The answer was, "Undoubtedly, but not so much in numbers as in persons of businesslike habits and experience." There were 145 persons and six Commissioners in the Audit Office endeavouring to do that which 246 persons and eighteen Commissioners had failed to do. The consequence was, that great arrears had accumulated. He did not think it was asking too much to desire to have an opportunity to look at these Clauses when they had been printed.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, there was no objection to the clauses being seen before they were agreed to, and with that view he would suggest that the clauses should now be received, and the Bill reprinted, when they could be considered on bringing up the report. With regard to the arrears in the Audit Office, he could assure the noble Lord that they had been much reduced since the time to which he referred.

MR. HUME

wanted to know whether the same rule did not apply to clerks in the Audit Office as to all the other public offices—that they should have a year's trial before they were engaged?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the rule was the same as in all the other offices, and he believed there was not a more efficient board in the public service.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

said, he would not oppose the reception of the Clauses now, but he wished to observe that the annual statement of the Commissioners of Lands, which ought to be laid on the table by the 30th of June, had not yet appeared, and he gave his noble Friend (Lord Seymour) fair notice, that on bringing up the report he would move that that statement should be made never later than the 30th April.

Clause struck out.

Clause 37, for saving the rights of parties.

MR. HENLEY

wished to know what rights there were to be saved.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, there was one valuable and important piece of patronage that would be preserved to him—the right of appointing a steward of the Chiltern Hundreds.

Clause agreed to; as were the remaining clauses.

House resumed. Bill reported.