§ House in Committee of Supply, Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
MR. WILSONsaid, that before placing in the hands of the Chairman the first Vote which he intended to propose, he designed, in pursuance of the notice he had given last evening, to make a general statement with regard to the great increase that had taken place in the expenditure upon certain Votes in the Civil Service Estimates. The hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) had, indeed, questioned whether he would be quite in order in making that statement after going into Committee of Supply. As far as he was concerned, it was a matter of indifference whether he made that statement before going into Committee of Supply or in Committee of Supply; but the question having been referred to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, to whom it must be the wish of the House to defer, and the right hon. Gentleman having, as he thought, on good grounds decided that this statement would be best made in Committee of Supply, he hoped that he should be held to pursue the best and most consistent course in adopting that plan. He was aware that it was a novel practice to make a general statement on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, but circumstances had somewhat changed of late in regard to these Estimates. Some years ago, the Civil Service Estimates amounted to a very small sum. It was customary in those days to place every description of civil expenditure upon the Consolidated Fund, but a more wholesome and Parliamentary course had since been adopted, of placing this expenditure upon the Voles of Parliament. These Votes had now increased to so large an amount that it was fair that Parliament should occasionally—he did not say every year—be informed of the grounds upon which this large expenditure had taken place. In making this statement, he did not wish to set a precedent for the future, but he should rather ask the Committee to allow him to take that course as a matter of indulgence, as it was only just, 1690 seeing the extensive manner in which these Estimates had been criticized, both in the House and the Country, that he should have an opportunity of explaining, on the part of the Government, the chief grounds on which the large increase had taken place, in order that the House of Commons should exercise its discretion, and determine whether it would proceed in the course it had pursued of annually increasing certain important Votes, which had led to the augmentation in these Estimates. Hon. Members would see in Parliamentary paper No. 136 of the present Session the amount under every head of the Civil expenditure as it had been voted since 1830. Hon. Members, on casting their eyes over this statement, would find that since 1838 the amount of the Civil Service Estimates had been increased from £2,393,182 in that year to no less a sum than £6,724,250 last year. It mast be admitted that this increase of expenditure was not unnaturally a subject of anxiety and alarm, both in and out of the House; but the Committee should bear in mind it had been caused in a great measure by an alteration in the practice which formerly prevailed of placing very large sums on the Consolidated Fund. For example, when it was determined by the House to pay the large amount required for the Irish Constabulary, that charge, amounting to £630,000 per annum, was placed on the Consolidated Fund, and was not found in the Civil Estimates voted by Parliament. In those days, and up to a comparatively recent period, too, all the charges for the Board of Works, the land revenue, the public parks and pleasure-grounds were paid out of the revenue of those departments before it reached the Exchequer. That practice was now altered. The House had not only properly prevented any expenditure from being withdrawn, after collection of revenue, on its way to the Exchequer, but it had entirely abandoned the plan of placing charges upon the Consolidated Fund, which, never coming before Parliament, by that means escaped the attention of the House of Commons. Every fresh item of expenditure sanctioned by Acts of Parliament was now placed in the annual Votes of Parliament; and, therefore, the House was enabled to consider, not only the question to which the expenditure referred, but also the amount and character of that expenditure. He did not propose to trace back those Estimates so far as 1838, but 1691 in the discussions which took place in the last Session, and in the speeches since made out of Parliament, it had almost become as familiar as a household word, that the Civil Service Estimates had increased during the short period between 1852 and 1856 by not less than £2,300,000. He was free to admit that this increase was not only a fitting subject for discussion by that House, but also by all who took an interest in the economy of the public service; and this being the point to which public attention had more particularly been drawn, he proposed, avoiding a discussion of individual Estimates in Committee, to call attention to the manner in which this large increase of expenditure had taken place, that the committee might see the exact amount of this increase, and the distribution of that amount, and determine whether it would proceed in the same course that it had of late years pursued. As to that increase of expenditure, the Government were not responsible. Every shilling of that amount had been voted by the House of Commons, and every item which went to make up the gross increase had been discussed in, and resulted from the deliberations and decisions of Parliament. It was, therefore, proper that the Committee should now have the opportunity of seeing the result of the various acts that it had done during the last four or five years, and of coming to a determination whether it would proceed in the same course for the future. He would now read to the Committee the amount of the Civil Service Estimates from 1852 to 1856. 1852, £4,407,754; 1853, £4,802,318; 1854, £6,648,522; 1855, £6,586,062; 1856, £6,724,250. The Committee would observe that the Estimates of 1854 showed an advance of rather more than £2,000,000 upon those of 1852—(a point which he begged hon. Members to bear in mind since, on the increase of that year, he should found many of the observations he should have to make); that the Estimates of 1855 were somewhat less than those of 1854, and that those of 1856 were somewhat greater. However, the Estimates for the last three years—1854, 1855, 1856—were nearly the same, the great increase having taken place in 1854. He would now give the increase of the Estimates of the following years, as compared with those of 1852. That increase was as follows:—1853, £394,564; 1854, £2,240,768; 1855, £2,178,308; 1856, £2,316,496. 1692 What he proposed was, not to trace the causes of the increase in each year, but to take the year 1856—the year of the largest amount, which would in a general way represent the causes of the increase in the years 1854 and 1855. In the first place, he must remind the Committee of the existence of a strong feeling manifested by the House on many occasions, and most of all expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) as to the inconvenience and loss that arose from the fact that a large portion of the expenditure was by Acts of Parliament imbedded in charges on the Consolidated Fund, and that another large portion was annually paid out of the gross revenue on its way to the Exchequer, since in these cases the House of Commons had no opportunity of saying a word on a single shilling of that expenditure, nor any opportunity of controlling it. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) took steps to remedy this defect, and among the many signal services performed by that right hon. Gentleman none were of greater importance than this. Early in the Session of 1854 the Treasury prepared, at the request of the Government, a Bill for the purpose of transferring from the Consolidated Fund all charges of a nature that could be voted by Parliament, and withdrawing from the Customs, the Exchequer, and the other revenue Departments, all payments either for salaries or other purposes. In pursuance of that Bill the House of Commons in 1854 removed from the Consolidated Fund thirty-four items of public expenditure. Therefore, in 1854, they voted for the first time for these items no less a sum than £977,600. By the same Act they transferred from the Customs twelve Votes, amounting to £205,800. They also transferred from the Navy and the Commissariat Votes to the extent of £29,600. For postages transferred from army, navy, and gross revenue, they annually voted £85,000. In addition to that, it had been the custom to pay a great number of persons by fees, but the House having condemned that practice, salaries had been paid instead, and the fees handed over to the Exchequer. In some cases these fees had been converted into stamp duties. Therefore a considerable number of new Votes were represented by fees paid annually into the Exchequer, or by stamp duties in lieu of fees, the total amount of them being £138,000. Adding these various 1693 sums together, it would be found that no less than £1,436,000 of the increase of £2,316,000 had been transferred from the other funds by which they had previously been defrayed, and were now borne on the annual Votes of Parliament. This reduced the large amount of £2,316,000 which looked so alarming when stated by itself, to only £880,000, and he wished to state how this sum of £880,000 had arisen. There was an increase for education in Great Britain of £291,000—in Ireland, £63,000; the department of science and art, £25,000; and the National Gallery, £15,000—making together £394,000. Now the Vote for education was one to which he desired to call the special attention of the Committee, for a very large increase would again be found in it this year; and if the present system was to continue they must expect the augmentation of this item to proceed still further. In 1852 the entire educational Votes, including England and Ireland, science, art, and the National Gallery, amounted to £440,000. In 1838 the corresponding sum was only £130,000; in 1856 it had risen as high as £759,000. The sum proposed for the present year was £850,000; He remembered a few years ago, when this Vote was about £263,000, some hon. Member complained, and the noble Lord the Member for the City of London expressed an ardent hope that it would very soon amount to half a million. In the present year, the Vote for England alone was £541,000. That was a thing for Parliament to meet; it was not a matter which the Government could exercise any control over, further than bringing it before the House. Hon. Members—those, at all events, who were in favour of an extended education—would feel that it must be some consolation to know that the cause they had at heart was not being neglected either by the Legislature or the Government. The next item was for Holyhead Harbour and other Harbours of Refuge. Upon this the increase in the plan of last year, as compared with that of 1852, was £170,000. When the first Vote for Holyhead Harbour was taken, a very large scheme was proposed to Parliament, founded on the recommendation of the Admiralty; but owing to the jealousy of Liverpool and the neighbouring ports, together with a scepticism on the part of that House as to the utility of the project, the undertaking was reduced from a plan that would cost £1,200,000—the original 1694 sum suggested—to one that would cost only £808,000. The smaller project was the one actually adopted; but to such a remarkable degree had the expectations of those who advocated the more extensive scheme been realized, that even during the progress of the works the Harbour was so much resorted to in its incomplete state, and so inadequate to receive the vessels having recourse to it, that the Government had been compelled to come down to the House and propose increase after increase in the Vote until they had reached the highest amount contemplated in the original plan, and the present estimate was £l,198,000. The following table, taken from the report of Captain Skinner, the Superintendent of Holyhead Harbour, showed the number of vessels which had entered it from 1852:—
The importance of this harbour was very great, because not only did the Irish postal packets go to and from it, but it was for the convenience of the metropolis that the American steamers should land their letters, &c., when they arrived off Holyhead. One cause of the large increase upon this and similar works was, that it was found advisable to complete them as expeditiously as possible. It was due therefore to the exertions of the late Mr. Rendell, who had had the supervision of this harbour, and whose great professional abilities everybody would admit, that they had been able to expend a large sum in the execution of this undertaking in a single year. If important public works of this kind were to be carried out at all, the quicker they were advanced the better for the interests of the community. [An ironical cry of "Hear, hear!"] While the works continued unfinished a vast capital was lying idle from which the public derived no advantage, whereas—as he begged to remind hon. Members who cheered—the soon they were brought to completion the sooner would the country reap the benefit of its expenditure. Although Holyhead and some other harbours would not continue to be an annual charge to this extent, yet, from the interest generally taken in the state of the harbours of refuge along our coast, and from the absolute necessity of these improvements, if he might judge from the number of applications 1695 to Government, not only for the sake of the navy but for the safety of life and property connected with our mercantile marine, it would be for the House to determine whether it would persevere in outlays of this description in time of peace. The next head of charge was printing and stationery, the amount of which would no doubt produce some surprise. The increase since 1852 was no less than £241,000. He should not be doing justice to M'Culloch, who was at the head of this department, if he did not state his belief that no public servant had exerted himself more than that gentleman had done to economize and keep down this expenditure; although certainly his control over it was but limited, the head of the stationery branch being as it were but a sort of warehouseman for the other departments. The charge for stationery had augmented as follows:—
No. Tonnage. 1852 … … 514 … … 34,650 1853 … … 1,293 … … 106,392 1854 … … 1,788 … … 137,058 1855 … … 1,607 … … 119,413 1856 … … 2,394 … … 198,666 This augmentation was subject to a diminution which the Committee would view with satisfaction. The difference between the items for 1852 and 1856 about (£242,000) was composed thus:—The printing of patents had been transferred to the Stationery Department; and though that item now cost the country £40,000 a year, which was included in this Vote, yet the amount of fees paid into the Exchequer was upwards of £100,000. Instead, therefore, of this forming a charge, it was on the whole a source of profit to the Exchequer. There was a sum of £30,000 in respect of a transfer to the stationery office for the purchase of stamps on parchments, which were repaid by the public in the purchase of those stamps. There was therefore an amount of £70,000, which consisted of a mere transfer from the Patent Office and the Inland Revenue Office, thus reducing the amount of increase to £171,000. Besides, the war had caused a very large increase in the demand for stationery. Hon. Members were probably aware that it had been the policy of the Government for many years past to bring into the Stationery Office the whole of the business connected with the purchase of paper, books, and the printing of documents for all the public departments; and even to such an extent had that been carried that the cartridge paper for the regiments had been purchased at the Stationery Office, by the Ordnance Department. It 1696 was obvious that the gentleman who was at the head of the Stationery Office, and who had frequently to make contracts with paper manufacturers for every description of paper, was more likely than the Superintendent of the Ordnance Department to enter into an advantageous contract for the supply of paper for the service of the army. In the War Department there had been an increase of £65,000, and in that of the Admiralty an increase of £16,000, making together £81,000, a large portion of which might be considered as temporary and attributed to the late war, and thus the £171,000 was further reduced to £90,000. As might naturally be expected from the increase of public business, the printing of that House had increased during the last few years. During the period, between 1852 and 1856, the Parliamentary printing had increased by £13,000—a considerable sum of money; but he hoped the measures which were being taken by the Printing Committee, and which the Treasury and Stationery Office would only be too happy to carry out, would have the effect of checking that piece of expenditure by leading to a wise consideration of the Returns which were made and of those which were omitted. The Committee was aware that it rarely happened that Motions for the printing of Returns were opposed by the Government; and why? Simply because the hon. Members who made these Motions almost invariably said that they intended to found Resolutions upon the papers for which they asked. But when the papers were printed, and they were frequently very bulky, not more than five or six persons cared to read or look at them. The increase in Parliamentary stationery was £3,000; increase of stationery in the Foreign Office, £3,000; Board of Trade, £4,000; Board of Customs, £8,000; Inland Revenue (owing principally to the increased number of printed forms required for the income and other taxes), £17,000; Post Office, £16,000; prisons and convict establishments, £4,000; making altogether £70,000; which was reduced, however, by £20,000 scattered in small sums over the whole of the public services. He might here refer to the Report of Mr. M'Culloch in page forty-three of the Estimates. In that memorandum Mr. M'Culloch said—
In 1848 it was … … … £302,362 In 1852 … … … 216,509 In 1856 … … … 458,275 But, independent of the war with Russia, which may be looked upon us accidental, there is, 1697 speaking generally, a strong tendency to increase the demands for printing and stationery. This arises partly from the increasing population and connections of the empire, and the growing desire for publicity, and partly from the establishments of schools and libraries, either wholly or partly supported by the public. The latter include the various establishments connected with the Committee of Council on Education, the military and naval schools and libraries in barrack, garrisons, and ships; the schools and libraries in gaols, penitentiaries, hulks, &c. The outlay on these different heads is already large, and is rapidly increasing; and as it would appear to be a branch which is peculiarly liable to abuse, it should be sharply looked after. If I might presume to give an opinion on such a point, I should say that the books and stationery supplied to the schools and establishments now referred to are of a much too costly description, and that articles of an inferior quality and price would answer every useful purpose quite as well.No doubt it was most desirable that the establishments here referred to should be supplied with suitable libraries; but Mr. M'Culloch had frequently had to protest against unreasonable demands for books quite out of the range of convicts, soldiers, or sailors. A public servant more anxious to maintain a careful watch over his department than Mr. M'Culloch did not exist. The amount of increase under the head of which he (Mr. Wilson) had been speaking, though large, had been shown to consist in great measure of sums merely transposed from one department to another, or it had been caused by circumstances like the Russian war, which must he considered as accidental; or lastly, it was owing, in some small degree, to charges with which the Committee would not wish to interfere, so long as they were kept within proper bounds. The next head of increase was that of prisons and convict establishments, and the amount of the increase was £114,907. That was a subject which recent discussions in that House rendered peculiarly interesting. The particulars of that increase would indicate to hon. Members the steps which had been taken by the Government since 1852. The following was a tabular comparison under this head between the charges in 1852 and 1856—1698 The Committee would no doubt be surprised at the vast expenses for convict establishments in the colonies, after the abandonment of the transportation system some three or four years ago; but it ought to be borne in mind that, although they had ceased to send convicts to the colonies, there was yet a very large number of convicts there whose sentences must expire before they could be set at liberty. For some considerable time, therefore, an establishment as vast almost as that which was in existence when the transportation system was abolished would have to be maintained. But that was not all; for, about two years ago, in consequence of the increased cost of living in Australia, the salaries of the officers who superintended the convicts had to be considerably increased, and the maintenance of the convicts had also become more expensive. This Country, therefore, had at the present moment to bear the expense of two systems for the punishment of convicts, and it would be some time before one of them—namely, the transportation system—ceased to be a charge upon the country. The number of prisoners in England and Ireland during the year 1852 was 12,172; in 1856 it was 12,769, being an increase of only 597; so that, notwithstanding the cessation of transportation for the last few years, the increase of prisoners in the home prisons was only 597, which was lather surprising when one thought of the great outcry which was made a few months ago about the alarming increase of crime in England. Hon. Members were aware of the improvement which had taken place within the last few years in the management of the home prisons. That improvement especially marked the prisons in Ireland, and it was due in great measure to the visit of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle to the convict establishment at Spike Island, when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), when he paid that visit expressed his surprise at seeing so many prisoners there. [Sir. J. GRAHAM: Hear, hear!] An accidental circumstance had brought the subject under the notice of the Treasury, and a Commission of inquiry was appointed, the result of which was the establishment of a permanent Commission, consisting of a Chairman and two members, for the management of convict establishments in Ireland. Since then two large new prisons had been erected at Cork and Philipstown, 1699 at the cost of £22,000. In England three such buildings had been erected, at Brixton, at Chatham, and at Fulham, the total annual expenditure on which was £180,917, so that it appeared that more than the whole increase was attributable to prisons erected since the year in question, and not to any increased expenditure connected with prisons existing at that time. The next increase to which he would refer was that in respect to public buildings, amounting to £81,000. These buildings were divided into six heads. Upon palaces in the occupation of Her Majesty the increase was only abort £3,000; upon those partly occupied by Her Majesty the increase was also very trifling; and upon palaces not so occupied at all the difference was also insignificant. The great increase arose under the head of buildings for the public Departments placed under the charge of the Board of Works. In England the charge for public buildings had increased by £68,517; in Scotland, by £12,500. In the first instance, this increase included the rent of offices hired on the part of the public, which in 1852 was £8,832; and in 1856, £42,638; the cost of furniture in 1852 being £23,600, and in 1856, £34,979. This increase had arisen in a great measure from the consolidation of the War Departments, and from the great number of public offices now hired for temporary purposes, for commissions, for the Merchant Seamen's Fund, and a great variety of new offices which had been created within the last three or four years. The total cost to the Exchequer on this account was now £81,000. These sums altogether amounted to somewhat more than the balance he had to account for, but he had only taken the principal items, preferring not to weary the Committee with the small changes involving a decrease of expenditure which had taken place. They arrived, therefore, at this comparison between 1852 and 1856. The increase of which they had heard so much was £2,316,496, and it was accounted for as follows:—
1852. 1856. Inspection and general superintendence £16,196 £16,783 Government Prisons and Convict establishments at home 261,522 415,906 Maintenance of prisoners 159,123 161,595 Expenses of transportation 101,041 25,485 Convict establishments in colonies 253,586 286,605 £791,468 £906,374 Unfortunately this was not all. There 1700 was a very large increase in the Estimates of the present year, and he should now endeavour to show how that increase arose, namely in—
Transferred from Consolidated Fund and gross revenue … … £1,436,000 Education … … 394,000 Holyhead harbour … … 180,000 Printing and stationery … … 241,000 Prisons and convicts … … 114,000 Public buildings … … 81,000 £2,446,000 Showing a net increase of nearly £600,000 in the Estimates of the present year as compared with 1856. To these items he would now call attention. In the first place he found that the head of Education figured for a large proportion of the increase. The Vote for Education this year in excess of that for 1856 amounted for England to £90,020; for science and art the increase was £9,310; the National Gallery, £5,526; the British Museum, £34,000. In respect to the National Gallery, he might say in passing that the increase which had taken place was almost entirely occasioned by the splendid bequest of the late Mr. Turner, and he thought that no Member of this House would begrudge the £5,000 spent in providing for the magnificent collection of pictures so given to the nation. Here, therefore, was an increase of £138,856 attributable to the items of education, science, and art. Then with respect to class 3, hon. Members would bear in mind that last year a Bill was passed by which a portion, not exceeding one-fourth, of the police rates of counties and boroughs was paid out of the Consolidated Fund. An attempt was made to induce his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey) to consent to a larger expenditure on this head, and it was not the fault of the House of Commons that such an expenditure did not take place. As it was, the charge for police under the Act of last year amounted to £145,980. Then, another Bill was passed respecting County Courts, upon which there was a strong combination, which the Government found themselves wholly unable to resist. They proposed what they believed to be a fair and liberal remuneration to the registrars, but the House doubled the amount they proposed by a majority of nearly two to one. He thought, therefore, that the Government were at all events not responsible for this very large increase of expenditure 1701 an increase which this year amounted to no less then £195,212, though it would be something less in future years, for the Vote then taken was for a year and a half. Then, again, hon. Members consented to a heavy charge upon the Consolidated Fund in respect to the salaries of the Judges, in which perhaps they exercised a wise discretion instead of making those salaries a matter of annual discussion in Parliament. Again, however, the Government had a very narrow escape, a demand which had nearly been successful being made that the salaries of the Country Court Judges should be increased by £20,000 a year. Under the Bill to which he alluded the total cost to the country would be, at the very least, £231,000 a year, thus made up. There would be an annual charge upon the Votes of £144,320; the salaries charged upon the Consolidated Fund would be £76,900: he compensation given to Judges of local Courts replaced by the County Courts, £10,000; making altogether, £231,220. Another point upon which the Government were foiled by the House had reference to the fees charged in these courts. It was argued that justice should be made as cheap as possible to the poor man. But he thought, judging from what had happened, it would be found that, instead of making justice cheap to the poor man, Parliament had encouraged an amount of litigation which would compel it in a very short time to reconsider its decision. In most cases he believed, particularly in the manufacturing and mining districts possessing a large population, the business of these courts had increased by fifty per cent. Now, if that increase represented legitimate attempts on the part of small traders to recover their debts, it could not be objected to. But he was told that small traders and hawkers, who in populous places went from door to door tempting poor people to buy upon credit, were systematically making use of these courts as a regular machine for the collection of their debts. They first induced people to take credit, forcing their goods upon them, and as soon as their customers got into debt to the extent of 20s. or 25s., they put them into the County Court, obtained judgment for a fee of 9d. or 1s., and then got the debts collected through an officer of the court at the rate of, perhaps, 1s. per week. In many instances it was found that these hawkers trusted the same 1702 persons again, and the same process took place, until the bailiffs of the court in these districts were fast becoming mere collectors of these small traders. He had dwelt upon these subjects at some length because out of the total increase of £598,666 in 1857 as compared with 1856, no less a sum than £341,192 was entailed by the two measures of which he had been speaking, passed in the last Session of Parliament. He wished to show the House of Commons that it really lay with them, rather than with the Government, to support measures of economy, and that in some instances the Government had been striving to enforce economy while the House had preferred something akin to extravagance. Then, as another example, in the present year there was an increase of £24,543 in prison and convict establishments; and in public buildings, also, there was an increase of £24,882. Here, again, was an increase attributable to the House of Commons, and not to the Government. Some years ago a Committee sat upon the Dublin Hospitals. Every one felt that to vote £16,000 or £20,000 a year to the Dublin hospitals, and nothing to the hospitals of Edinburgh, London, or other large towns, was an abuse, and the House determined that the Vote should be reduced by £1,000 a year until it expired altogether. The Vote was in process of extinction, and had been brought down in 185,3 to £13,000, when the hon. Member for Dublin gave notice of a Motion for recurring to the original Vote. He (Mr. Wilson) being then, as now, at the Treasury, opposed the Motion, but he was beaten in a tolerably full House, and the hon. Member obtained the appointment of a Committee. The Committee was fairly composed, for on it there was a majority of English and Scotch Members, and they recommended that the original Vote of £16,000 a year should be retained, and that it should be made permanent; so that there again the Government was foiled by the House of Commons, and they had nothing to do but to carry out the views of Parliament. The consequence was that £19,000 figured this year in the Estimates for the Dublin hospitals. Then there was a further additional charge of £12,000 for the constabulary, and some charges connected with alterations in the Court of Chancery; and thus upwards of £560,000 out of the 598,666 of increase was accounted for. 1703 The remainder was composed of small sums, but the increases which he had now explained were—
Class 1. Public works and buildings … £24,882 Class 3. Law and justice … 330,010 Class 4. Education, science, and art … 123,385 Class 5. Colonial, consular, and other foreign services … 61,950 Class 6. Occasional charges … 13,490 Total increase … 603,753 Deduct decrease in Class 2, Salaries and expenses of public departments … 5,087 Net increase … £598,660 The total increase from 1852, including the Estimates for the present year, amounted to no less than £2,978,000, or nearly £3,000,000 in five years upon the Civil Service Estimates:—
On education, science, and art, &c. £138,856 Police for counties and boroughs 145,980 County Courts 195,212 Prison and convict establishments 24,543 Public buildings 24,882 Dublin hospitals 19,000 Court of Chancery and constabulary 12,000 Total £560,473 Of that amount £1,436,000 represented charges transferred from other branches, while £1,545,682 represented altogether new charges or increases upon old charges. He had now stated as clearly and distinctly as he could the grounds upon which these respective increases rested, and he thought that the Committee would agree with him that the causes lay in a very small compass. The questions in which the Government were particularly concerned were few in number; they were matters peculiarly fitting for the consideration and decision of Parliament; they were all questions of high policy and not of small Governmental details; they are all questions mixed up with the interests, social and commercial, of the country, and therefore they were especially subject which Parliament ought to deal with. The Committee would shortly he called upon to deal with these questions on the Votes for items similar to those which he had been explaining. They would then have an opportunity of discussing the principles upon which the expenditure of the year was based, and of deciding, amongst others, whether this large increase of expenditure for education was to be allowed. His own impression was that they would decide, not only that the Vote now proposed should be sanctioned, but that it should go on increasing. They would have the opportunity of considering whether they would go on expending the moderate sum of £200,000 a year—for, after all, it was a moderate sum for a great country like 1704 this to expend—in the improvement of harbours of refuge. He should propose next week the appointment of a Committee to consider this subject as a whole, and to devise some scheme for systematically improving our coasts, with a view both to safety and commercial purposes, and to the improvement of the fisheries on the coasts of Scotland and Ireland. If the House should agree to a policy of that description, it would very probably be incumbent on Parliament to vote a considerable sum of money annually for that purpose, in order that they might proceed on some intelligible and systematic plan, instead of working piecemeal and without system, while Irish Members were crying out for Votes for Irish harbours, Scotch Members for Scotch harbours, and English Members all round the coast for harbours for the different places which they represented. They would have an opportunity also of considering whether they would proceed with the improved mode of managing convicts, which had led to so great an increase of expenditure; and, judging from the debates which had lately taken place, he had no doubt that they would persevere in that source of expenditure. With regard to public buildings, they all knew that there were three or four which were most urgently required at this very moment. We wanted a new Foreign-office, a new Colonial-office, and a War-office, and he thought that they would be unanimously of opinion that those works had been too long delayed. It would be seen, therefore, that all these increases of expenditure related to matters which were peculiarly for the consideration of the House of Commons, and he did not see how they could well escape the dilemma of spending even more money in that direction than they had hitherto done. The branches of expenditure to which he had referred were only those of a large and an important kind, which accounted, in a great measure, for the increase which had taken place. He had not referred to the Governmental departments of the country, in which, if an improvident spirit existed, a very considerable increase of expenditure might have been looked for—he meant the great Governmental departments in London, not the Customs or the Island Revenue. The Committee must be aware that there had been a very large increase of business within the last few years in all the public departments. There never had been a pe 1705 riod in the history of the country when there had been so rapid a development of its trade, its intercourse, and of everything which marked the material progress of a nation as had taken place in this country within the last few years. If he took the exports and imports as affording a broad and tolerably accurate indication of this fact, he found that the exports had increased from £78,076,854 in 1852, to £115,890,857 in 1856; that the imports had increased from £109,345,409 in 1852, to £172,651,823 in 1856, while shipping had increased in the same proportion. We had established steam communication with all parts of the world, and we had now a monthly steam communication with Australia, carrying the mails in about fifty days between Sydney and London. We had telegraphs established, or being established, connecting all parts of Europe, and arrangements were in progress for connecting the whole of our Mediterranean possessions with London by telegraph. The terms were being arranged by which we should be enabled to communicate almost with the rapidity of thought with Malta and Corfu. The telegraph was being laid also between the west coast of Ireland and Newfoundland, the service being already complete between Newfoundland and North America, and being disseminated over the whole of the United States and Canada. All these matters had led to an enormous increase of labour in the different Government offices. He found that in the Board of Trade there were—
The amount transferred was £1,436,000 Education, &c. 532,726 Holyhead Harbour 180,000 Printing and stationery 241,000 Prisons and convicts, law and justice 486,074 Public buildings 105,882 Total £2,981,682 showing an increase of work of 150 per cent. In the Foreign Office there were—
In 1852 papers received 19,600 In 1856 (to Nov. 20) 50,470 In 1852, papers despatched 14,835 In 1856 (to Nov. 20) 34,692 And beyond that large additional amount of correspondence which the Foreign Office had to conduct, the introduction of the telegraphic system had added almost as much to the labours of that department, in communicating by that means, as their correspondence in the shape of despatches had been augmented. In the Treasury the increase had also been very large. Notwithstanding this large increase of business, and notwithstanding there had been a revision of these establishments, which had led to an increase in the salaries and incomes of the leading officers, 1706 who had intellectual work to perform, there had been little or no increase in the general amount expended for salaries. Taking the Treasury, the Home-office, the Foreign-office, the Colonial-office, the Privy Council-office, and Educational Department, the Board of Trade, the Office for the Registry of Seamen, the Office of Paymaster General, the Office of the Comptroller General, the Office of Public Works, the Departments of Works and Woods, the State Paper-office, the Poor Law Boards for the United Kingdom, the Mint-office, the Office of Inspectors of Factories and Mines, the Office of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the Office of Public Works for Ireland, and the Office of the Paymaster of Civil Services (Ireland), and one or two others, the whole of the salaries in 1852 amounted to £332,899, and in 1857 to £332,976, being an increase of only £77. But that was not all. The Board of Trade had to carry out the Mercantile Marine Bill, which had led to an increased expenditure for salaries in that department of £12,717, and there had also been increased expenditure on account of the Department of the Inspectors of Mines of £6,725, in pursuance of the Bill passed by that House. Those two charges amounted to about £20,000. If that sum were deducted from the present charge for salaries, there would be an absolute diminution of expense for those offices in 1857 of about £20,000 as compared with the amount in 1852. He thought that that explanation would show that, while this enormous increase of expenditure in the Civil Service Estimates had taken place, it did arise in sources over which that House peculiarly had a direct control, and in almost every instance the House had expressed a direct opinion of its own, and had frequently exercised a pressure upon the Government against the opinion of the Government; and that, with respect to that class of expenditure peculiarly in the hands of the Government, and in regard to which, if the Government had been prodigal of the public money, and inclined to increase its influence and power by a wasteful expenditure, an increase might be expected to be seen there, notwithstanding a large increase of business, there was, instead of an increase, an absolute diminution on account of salaries of about £20,000. He would only advert to one more point, and then conclude. It was not for him, more than any other hon. Member, to recommend anything to the 1707 House of Commons, but there was one particular point which his experience at the Treasury would induce him to submit to the attention of the House. If hon. Members wished to study and promote economy, it was, above all things, necessary for them to look with a jealous eye at every proposition, from whatever quarter it might come, for removing local expenditure and placing it on the Consolidated Fund. Nothing had led to greater abuse, was more destructive of economy, or detrimental to the public service than that course. One of the arguments against a general poor-rate was, that the establishment of such a rate would remove the wholesome check now existing against an uneconomical administration of the rate. The same argument applied against placing local charges on the Consolidated Fund. Where there was a local rate, every one was careful to reduce it to the lowest amount consistent with the efficiency of the public service, but if the rate were placed on the Consolidated Fund, then every one would be trying to get the largest share of the bone. He would allude, in illustration, to one single case. In 1835 this House consented to take on itself the charge of half the cost of prosecutions throughout the country. Now, so long as the public Exchequer paid only one-half, there was no great harm done, because the counties, having to pay the other half, would, of course, be vigilant in watching the expenditure. But, unfortunately, in 1846, that House consented to place on the public Exchequer the remaining half. The object might have been good, but the consequences were very prejudicial, for the counties had no longer any motive for vigilance, and the sum annually increased, until at last the country was saddled with £250,000 for that charge. The Government had therefore been obliged, during the last three or four years, to send out Treasury officers for the purpose of controlling and checking this expenditure, in which object they had succeeded. In Scotland alone, out of £30,000, £5,000 or £6,000 had been struck off; and in the total quarter of a million the saving was in about the same proportion. Still, after all, the control thus exercised was very imperfect. Without saying that the county magistrates wished to swell these expenses, he must observe that they were not so vigilant as when the charge was paid out of the 1708 county rates. He had alluded to that case as an illustration of the evil and danger of removing these local charges to the Consolidated Fund, and he should now conclude by placing in the hands of the Chairman of the Committee the first Vote—
In 1852, papers received and sent 32,043 In 1856 57,914 showing an increase of 25,871 (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £136,146, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray, to the 31st day of March 1858, the Expense of maintenance and repairs of Royal Palaces and Public Buildings.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he rose to express his opinion, not so much on the statement of the hon. Gentleman, as on the course which the hon. Gentleman had taken in making that statement after Mr. Speaker had left the Chair. It was a course, in his opinion, extremely inconvenient and inconclusive, and he hoped it would not be drawn into a precedent. The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Speaker had stated that it was the best time to make it; but what he (Sir. J. Pakington) had understood Mr. Speaker to say was, that it was competent for the hon. Member to make it, and not that it was the best time for so doing. He (Sir J. Pakington) thought, and he believed the Committee would agree with him, that it was a bad precedent, and that it was an inconvenient time, and he was moreover of opinion that it would have been far better, and certainly far more convenient, if the hon. Gentleman had made his statement on the question that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair; for, if Her Majesty's Government should take that course for a continuity, it would be open to every Member of the Committee to raise a general discussion upon each Estimate, and it would be difficult to resist the temptation of following all the items, so as to lead to a desultory debate upon a great variety of subjects. He hoped, therefore, that the course taken by the hon. Gentleman on this occasion would not be drawn into a precedent in future. He (Sir J. Pakington), however, also rose to notice the injustice that had been done by the hon. Member, unintentionally, ho was sure, to his (Sir J. Pakington's) right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, and, as his right hon. Friend was not then in his place, to, in so far as he was able, rectify that wrong. He (Sir J. Pakington) agreed with the hon. Gentleman in his general eulogium upon the financial talents of the right hon. Member for the University of 1709 Oxford; and though there were some financial measures proposed by that right hon. Gentleman to which he (Sir J. Pakington) could not give his assent, still no one could doubt for a moment the distinguished manner in which the finances of the country were conducted by him while he filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. But that was no reason why the credit due to others should be given to that right hon. Gentleman; or rather, it was a reason the more why it should be given only where it was justly owing. The hon. Gentleman had said that the right hon. Gentleman in question was the first Minister who had brought the annual charge of collecting the revenue under the control of Parliament. In so far as bringing the matter under the control of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman's statement was perfectly true; but it was due to his (Sir J. Pakington's) right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire to state that his right hon. Friend, in laying his plan of finance before the House, had clearly announced the views of the Government to which he belonged, with regard to the expediency of bringing the collection of the revenue under the control of Parliament; and that he then informed the House of his intention to bring the matter before the House at an early opportunity. And furthermore, in answer to a question put to him by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams), he had repeated his intention in still more distinct terms. In this case, therefore, as in the case of the reduction of the duty on tea, though the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford had carried them into effect, it was announced by his right hon. Friend that such was his intention if he remained in office; and the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford had frankly admitted such to be the case. With respect to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, he (Sir J. Pakington) could only say that after the great extent to which the attention of the House and the country had been directed to the great increase which had taken place of late years in the Civil Service Estimates, Her Majesty's Government had, in his opinion, taken a wise and discreet course of laying such a statement before the Committee, and he would add that he thought it could not have been made in a clearer manner than it had been by the hon. Gentleman. He also felt bound to express the opinion that the hon. Gentleman had upon the 1710 whole satisfactorily explained the great increase which had taken place. The hon. Gentleman had stated that since 1852 there had been an increase of nearly £3,000,000, and that that increase was divided into two parts, one consisting of transfers and the other of new items of expenditure. The hon. Gentleman had not explained what had been the nature if the increase which had taken place before 1852; but if he remembered rightly a very considerable amount of transfers of local charges to the Consolidated Fund hen took place, and if the hon. Gentleman had given any explanation, it would have been very similar in character to the one which he had laid before the Committee. During that period, those charges for the administration of justice which had previously been defrayed by local rates had been placed upon the general revenue of the country; still, as regarded the observations of the hon. Member respecting the increased cost of the administration of justice since it had been thrown upon the Consolidated Fund, he (Sir J. Pakington) was certain, though the hon. Gentleman had cited the example of Scotland, that he had no ground for saying there had been any improper increase of the expense in that particular—he could speak confidently for his own county at any rate; and he did not believe generally that the cost had increased a shilling more since the change had taken place, and he thought he might say the same of most other counties. The hon. Gentleman had made it clear, on the one hand, that one-half of the increase since 1852 had arisen from transfers, and he was willing, on the other hand, to admit that, so far as a great portion of the other division, namely, that of new items, it had been occasioned by the necessity of the times in which we lived, and was rendered necessary by the great social improvements which had taken place. No one who heard the hon. Gentleman could fail to be struck with the great increase in the cost of stationery, which was equal to two-fifths of the whole amount, and which, in two years, had brought it to two millions and a half. He did not think the war fully explained that increase; but, if there was one item which he was inclined to regard with more doubt than another, it was that one connected with the expenditure of County Courts. He did not call into question the benefit which arose from the system of County Courts, but he thought that the improvements 1711 which had been made, might have been carried out without saddling the general revenue with so large an item of expenditure as it was now called upon at present to pay. As regarded County Courts, he could only say that he wished that in one item—the salaries of the Judges—Parliament had been more liberal. As regarded the Police Act, he (Sir J. Pakington) considered it as an unqualified blessing to the country, and he believed that Her Majesty's Government had acted both justly and wisely in undertaking the expense of that measure. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the large and interesting increase which took place year after year in the Vote for education. He (Sir J. Pakington) would not then enter upon that subject; and he would, therefore, only say that he would go entirely with the hon. Gentleman in the wish that the grant might be an increasing one every year, provided always that it could be shown the present system of education was the best for the purposes for which it was intended. He should never object to any increase on that Vote, so that an equivalent could be proved; but at the present time he considered that no such equivalent existed; and, moreover, he believed that the principle of local control held good in this case, as in the case of the poor rate, cited by the hon. Gentleman, or as in the case of the administration of justice. With these few remarks he would conclude, only repeating that in his opinion the Government had done well in laying before the House a statement such as they had—a statement which he could not but look upon as satisfactory.
§ MR. BRISCOEsaid, he had derived great information from the statement of the hon. Gentleman, but he wished to know whether the sum now proposed, £136,146 would be voted at once, or whether the several items would be taken separately, as he considered that it was absolutely necessary for the House to watch closely the expenditure of the public money. There was one item with regard to which he was very anxious to obtain some information, and that was an item for the purchase of furniture.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he rose to order, as he understood the discussion that evening was to be taken upon the general question raised by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury and not upon the details of particular Votes.
§ MR. BRISCOEwas under the impression that he was perfectly in order in referring to the items contained in the Votes under their notice. He had no wish, however, to persevere in addressing the Committee if to comment upon the details of that Vote were deemed to be irregular; but he was anxious to put a question before he sat down to the right hon. Baronet the First Commissioner of Works in reference to the park at Hampton Court. Notices, he had been informed, had recently been posted up in that park to the effect, that those persons who had hitherto enjoyed the privilege of having a key admitting them to it would be allowed that privilege no longer, except upon condition of the annual payment of a guinea. That was an announcement which had given much dissatisfaction to the people in the neighbourhood, and he should, therefore, wish to know why it had been made?
§ MR. W. EWARTalso complained that the park and gardens of Hampton Court were closed against the public, and reserved entirely for the privileged persons who resided in the palace.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, it might be convenient that he should state to the Committee what he understood to be the form in which their proceedings were to be conducted that evening. He was clearly of opinion that the course which had been proposed was that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury should make a general statement with reference to the expenditure under the several heads embraced in the Civil Service Estimates. That general statement having been made, he of course could not preclude any hon. Member from entering into a general discussion upon it, and he thought it would facilitate the progress of public business if that course were then taken; but, if any question arose in reference to the specific items of a Vote, that explanations should be asked for and given when the particular Vote was under discussion.
MR. W. WILLIAMSagreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) that the course pursued by the Secretary of the Treasury, in making his statement in Committee, was a most inconvenient course. The straightforward and usual course would be to make it while Mr. Speaker was still in the chair, for in that case there could be a discussion on the subject. He (Mr. Williams) complained of the extravagance of the Votes in every department of the Government—army, navy, civil service, 1713 revenue, &c.—one and all they had been increased to an enormous extent; and at no period of the financial history of this country had propositions for so large an amount of expenditure during a time of peace been made by many millions. In 1828, under the Canning Ministry, the Civil Service Estimates only amounted to £2,012,000; in 1830, under the Duke of Wellington, they fell to £1,930,000; in 1834, under Lord Grey, they were £2,007,000; in 1838, under Lord Melbourne, they were £2,061,000; in 1845, under Sir Robert Peel, they were £2,034,000; while this year, 1857, they were £7,250,000. There was nothing in the situation of the country to warrant such an increase, and yet it had gone on, and would still go on, unless it was cheeked. As regarded County Courts the increase of the salaries was much greater than the House had sanctioned; and as regarded the Dublin Hospitals, he (Mr. Williams) did not see why these institutions should be supported by the State more than the hospitals of any other town. The hon. Gentleman, however, charged the House with being the cause of this extravagance. He was sorry that he must agree with him in that opinion, for he had often seen the House disposed to adopt the propositions of the Government, however extravagant; but after the challenge made to the House by the Secretary to the Treasury, he hoped hon. Members would be prepared to show that they were not disposed to take for granted everything proposed by the Government. He believed that if the Government would grant a Select Committee the House would be able to make immense reductions, not only in the Civil Service, but also in other departments.
§ MR. AYRTONwished to remind the Secretary to the Treasury that the late Mr. Hume had for twenty years endeavoured to bring all the income of the country into the public Exchequer, and that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), when Chancellor of the Exchequer, was, to his credit, the first Minister who saw the advantage of that course. He trusted that next Session an investigation would take place with the view of relieving the revenue from the great charge now imposed upon it from the erroneous principles adopted relative to the expenses connected with County Courts. It was alarming to see the increase which had taken place of late years in the Vote for education. He hoped there would be no further increase 1714 in this Vote until the Government had brought the whole question of education under the notice of Parliament in a distinct and intelligible form. There was nothing more unconstitutional than for the Government to slip in an addition to the education Vote of £50,000 in one year and £100,000 in another, to be disposed of by the Committee of Council on Education as they pleased, without any settled plan of education having rceived the deliberate sanction of Parliament.
§ COLONEL SYKESfelt that there was a want of verification and explanation in order to satisfy the Committee that the Estimates were wanted. One half might possibly do where the whole was asked for; but how could he tell? For instance, there was an item of £6,218 for Hampton-court Palace, stables, and outbuildings. There was no explanation of this item; nor of £7,960 for Treasury and other Government offices in the Whitehall district; nor of a charge of £4,901 for furniture for the Secretary of War. If these Estimates were previously submitted to a Committee for the purpose of being examined there would then be some grounds for asking the Committee to vote them. At present he felt utterly incompetent to declare whether these sums ought to be voted or not.
§ MR. W. EWARTsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was right in stating that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) was the first Minister who made the proposition to bring all the income into the Exchequer; but the Member who first originated this reform was Sir J. Bowring, who was then Member for Bolton. He agreed with the hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury in the opinion that local affairs ought to be left to local government as much as possible, and thought it would be better if the criminal and police expenditure were left to the county and borough authorities, instead of being paid out of the national funds. With regard to education, it would never be in a satisfactory state until it was established as in Scotland and the United States—upon a popular basis, managed by the people themselves, and paid out of the rates. The Secretary to the Treasury had stated that the salaries of the clerks in the Government departments had diminished rather than increased of late years, and there was reason to believe that in many cases the salaries of the most useful administrators in our public 1715 departments were much below their proper amount.
§ MR. STAFFORDsaid, he must make this general observation that during the whole time he had been in Parliament he had never seen hon. Members receive Estimates so easily, or pay so little attention to retrenchment, as they had done this Session. The election speeches and addresses which he had read led him to hope that the expenditure of the country would undergo some scrutiny; but the reckless way in which the Estimates had been recently voted for the Army and Navy was not merely a temptation, but a stimulus to extravagance, on the part of the Government. No exhortations to economy of any importance or coherence had been addressed to the Government by hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side; but, from quarters in which an ardent and sometimes even an indiscreet zeal for reductions used to prevail, such as the representatives from Southwark and other places, positive appeals had been made in favour of further outlays, beyond what even the Government themselves had thought necessary. Every subordinate department of every Government office was always calling out to its superiors for increased expenditure, and every Government office was always calling on the Treasury to sanction such increased expenditure. With this pressure from the subordinate departments, not to mention other influences, what chance was there of enforcing economy upon the Government by mere carping and nibbling at minute Votes of £100, without giving them a diligent and comprehensive study before approaching their discussion? It was ridiculous to content themselves with proposing to refer the Estimates to a Committee. According to the practice of our constitution, a Committee could not take the place of the Ministry of the day. The skill of the Secretary to the Treasury was shown as much in what he skimmed over as in what he fully explained. If hon. Gentlemen opposite did not bestir themselves to redeem some of the electioneering pledges which they had so lavishly made in favour of economy, they might one day find that they had taxed too far, not the credulity only, but the endurance of their constituents. He hoped they would display more knowledge and more care in discussing the present Estimates than they had displayed in regard to the Votes for the Army and Navy, because, to do hon. Gentlemen 1716 justice, less knowledge and less care than were exhibited on that occasion he had never seen.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he wished to draw a conclusion very different to that which the hon. Gentleman had drawn from the course the House had pursued in regard to the military and naval Estimates. The hon. Gentleman inferred that because no great objections were offered to those Estimates, hon. Members had forgotten the pledges they gave at the hustings to enforce economy, and had shown a blameable want of industry in not making themselves masters of the details of the several Votes proposed to Parliament. He (Lord Palmerston) must beg leave to draw an exactly opposite conclusion from that fact. He inferred, and was justified in inferring, that if there had been no prolonged discussions on the Army and Navy Estimates, it arose from this plain and simple fact—that hon. Members having paid attention to the details of those Votes—having exercised great industry—in making themselves masters of them, and in comparing the Estimates now presented with those which were presented during the war were struck with surprise—as he know many were—that the Government had been enabled in so short a space of time to make such great reductions in regard both to the army and navy. Therefore he took, as a tribute of praise to the care and attention which the Government had bestowed on the economical arrangement of these branches of the public service, the hon. Gentleman's admission that the Estimates had met with the general acquiescence of the House. And speaking now seriously on the subject, those who were the most competent judges, and had bestowed attention to the subject, were satisfied that the Government had done as much as they possibly could do in the course of the year that had elapsed since the war, in reducing the charges of the public service. He would say a word as to the course his hon. Friend (Mr. Wilson) had pursued in regard to these Estimates. He was surprised that any one who had attended to the course of public business in that House should hold that his hon. Friend ought to have made his statement while Mr. Speaker was in the chair. Had he done so, he would have departed from the course always taken in analogous cases. It was always customary when it was necessary to introduce Estimates by an explanatory statement 1717 to make that statement after Mr. Speaker had left the chair, and when the House was in Committee of Supply. And that was obviously the more convenient course, for the debate on the Estimates being a desultory discussion, it ought to take place in Committee, when hon. Members not being fettered by the strict rules of debate, were more free to state their opinions upon the various items therein, and to receive such explanations as it might be requisite to give. So far, then, from his hon. Friend having adopted a new course, he had strictly followed that which was always taken in reference to the Army and the Navy Estimates, and that which was in every way the most convenient to the House. But, independently of these considerations, the Chairman had ruled that his hon. Friend was in order in the course he had pursued, and the opinion of Mr. Speaker himself, and also of other hon. Gentlemen who were high authorities as to their forms of procedure, was to the same effect.
§ Mr. HENLEYobserved that this question was not so much one of order as of convenience. No doubt, strictly speaking, the Secretary to the Treasury had been in order; but there was no perfect analogy between the Estimates for the Army and Navy and those for the Civil Service. The former were more or less one subject, and turned on general considerations as to the number of men required for both those services; whereas the Votes for the Civil Service were entirely miscellaneous in their character, and as different from the Army and Navy Estimates, and also from each other, as light and darkness. They related to a motley group of heterogeneous subjects ranging from the cost of a Palace at home to the charge for consular establishments abroad. However, he understood from the Secretary to the Treasury that his practice on the present occasion was to be considered exceptional, and was not to be adopted as a precedent. He should be sorry to see these Estimates referred to a Committee, which would probably only lead to their being increased 50 per cent. A Committee had neither body, soul, conscience, head, tail, nor anything else, and there was no kind of enormity which might not be practised by a Government under its shelter, as it could not have that information as to what was necessary and what was not which the Ministers possessed. He was glad the noble Lord derived 1718 so much satisfaction from the silence of hon. Members behind him on the Army and Navy Votes, but thought it possible the noble Lord's explanation might excite in their minds as much suspicion as their silence had done in the minds of others.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYwished to know whether the Vote for buildings at Hampton Court included any outlay on the "stud house?" He thought that as there was an annual sale of blood stock at Hampton Court connected with the breeding establishment, it was scarcely fair to throw the expense of the stud buildings upon the country.
§ SIR ERSKINE PERRYinquired if the expense of keeping up the paddocks for a stud, at Hampton Court, was borne by the public? There being an annual sale of the stock, he thought the charge should be borne by those who received the produce of such sales.
§ MR. BENTINCKcomplained that there was no controlling power in the Government to decide what should be the proportionate expense of each department. The same discussions took place night after night and year after year, and the same result was always come to—namely, that the Vote was passed, and the money paid. He thought a general revision of the whole subject was necessary.
§ MR. BLACKBURN, having referred to the Estimates of 1852, wished to know how it came to pass that the Estimate for the present year on account of Royal palaces showed an increase of £80,000, or 70 per cent.?
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, the sum voted last year for the Royal palaces was £41,862, and this year it was £39,690. As to the Hampton Court Palace expenses alluded to by the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley), none of the items charged had any reference to the lacing stock, but was entirely for the stud which was kept up for Her Majesty's use. In answer to the question of the gallant Colonel (Colonel Sykes), who said that £4,901 had been granted for furniture for the Secretary of War, he had to say that that amount was the sum granted last year, and only inserted in the present Estimates for the purpose of comparison. As to the £6,218 for Hampton Court Palace, there had certainly been an increase of £783, arising from the employment of police instead of sentries, and from 1719 the repairs of the chapels, making good some wood earvings. It was never intended that a charge was to be made for admission to the Hampton Court gardens; but, with a view of putting a stop to certain nuisances, it was intended that, if gentlemen wished to have keys to pass through the private park, they might have them on payment of 20s. a year.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the statement just made by the hon. Baronet was additional evidence as to the inconvenience of the course taken that evening. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson) in an able and laborious statement, instituted a comparison between the expenditure of 1852 and 1856. Hereupon a question was put to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir B. Hall) as to the increase which had taken place in the Vote now under discussion between 1852 and 1857: hut the right hon. Gentleman replied to this "Don't talk to me about 1852; I know nothing of that year, but I am prepared to answer any questions with respect to 1857." Now, if this were to be the result of the course taken by the hon. Secretary to the Treasury, he thought that the Committee had gained nothing by his exordium, but for all practical purposes were rather more in the dark than they were before. Surely the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury, who had originated this mode of proceeding, was bound to explain the increase that had taken place in the Vote immediately before the Committee. Every subject that could possiby be thought of was opened up by the statement of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was not justified in saying that, as to the half million of money about to be voted for educational purposes, they were utterly ignorant as to how it was to be applied. The member of the Government to whom that department belonged should have immediately risen in his place to furnish the hon. Gentleman with the information for which he sought. He contended that the great subject of education was greatly prejudiced by observations of such a nature—observations which were induced in consequence of the inconvenient mode of proceeding adopted that evening by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury.
§ MR. AYRTONexplained.
MR. WILSONsaid, that the increase of expenditure in public buildings and palaces in 1856, as compared with 1852, 1720 was £81,000. There had been no increase in palaces occupied by the Queen, but the great increase had been in two items of public buildings and offices in England and Scotland. In 1852 the rents for public offices was £8,832, while in 1856, the rents were £42,638; and there had been an increase of £7,856 for furniture. There had been voted last year £6,000 for the repair of King's College, Aberdeen, and £5,000 for the purchase of land for the erection of an office for the Scotch Poor Law Board, and all those items made up the increase of £81,000 for 1856.
§ MR. SPOONERinquired why an item of £7,000 for Burlington House and Marlborough House was separated from the Vote of £73,000 granted for the Department of Art and Science?
§ COLONEL FRENCHasked, by what authority the right hon. Gentleman took it upon himself to charge £1 for entrance into Her Majesty's Parks? The last time he was there, he observed that the trees had been greatly injured by the horses that were now taken into the park in lieu of cows, because the former paid a shilling a week more.
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he was rather struck by the observations of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, (Mr. Stafford) with regard to the conduct of the House on the Army and Navy Estimates. The hon. Member said that hon. Members had made wondrous statements on the hustings as to what they would do when they came into the House, but when they came there they did nothing. The hon. Member should have recollected that, in order that hon. Members of that House should be able to do something, they must have knowledge of what they were going to do, and that could only be gained by experience. He had collected from the statement of the hon. Gentleman that he found fault with the Naval Estimates, and blamed the House because they did not interfere, and propose reductions in them. He would ask whom could the House be more ready to follow in the reduction of these Estimates than the hon. Gentleman? If knowledge obtained by experience of office was necessary to deal with these Estimates, he ought to have acquired it. The hon. Gentleman said the Naval Estimates were extravagant: who was more capable of pointing out extravagance—of putting his finger on items of extravagance—than 1721 the hon. Gentleman? But he had set an example of shrinking from that duty—and should he be the first to blame hon. Members who had just come into the House for making professions on the hustings, and then not making those criticisms on the Estimates which the knowledge and experience of the hon. Gentleman rendered him fully capable of making? He (Mr. Roebuck) could well understand gentlemen, on their first entrance into political life, saying on the hustings that they would be ready to sanction and support every possible reduction. He would ask whom were they to follow in an attempt to make these reductions? If his lamented Friend, Mr. Hume, were there now, there was no one they would more readily have followed; for, although Mr. Hume had never been in office, he spoke with an authority derived from long experience on the subject of the Estimates. But if there was a gentleman who had a right to know something of the Naval Estimates, it was the hon. Member for Northamptonshire himself, and if any man could have pointed out extravagance, it was the hon. Gentleman; and he ought to be the last man to have sneered at new Members who did not propose reform and reduction in those Estimates. He (Mr. Roebuck) would allow that the Estimates required special attention, and he believed the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Treasury, with his skill and ability in putting a gloss on matters, could overturn any inexperienced Member; but he could not overturn the hon. Member for Northamptonshire. That hon. Member could have met the other hon. Member almost on equal terms. He did not say that he could have met him on equal terms as regarded the capability of putting a gloss on the case; but still the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) had some power of making the worse appear the better cause. Indeed, if he (Mr. Roebuck) had to select two cocks for an arena, he did not know that he could choose a better match than the Secretary to the Treasury and the hon. Member for Northamptonshire; and he thought that the Committee would agree with him, that it did not lie in the mouth of that hon. Member to accuse the new Members of that House with not redeeming the pledges they had given to their constituents. He would now refer to a special matter. With respect to the mode in which the Estimates had been brought 1722 before the Committee, he quite concurred in the criticism which had been expressed by the right hon. Member for Droitwich, because, as there had been a departure from the proper method, there seemed to be no means now of leading Members away from the general discussion, and of confining them to the details of the special matters in hand. The course which ought to have been pursued should have been, that a general statement should have been made, on the Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair, as it was notorious that the discussions in that House were more solemn and serious when Mr. Speaker was in the chair. He wished to know when the general discussion was to close.
§ MR. STAFFORDsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right in saying that he (Mr. Stafford) had learnt something of the navy, and he had learnt one or two other things besides. One of these was, to take good-humouredly and easily any attacks made upon him. He had had so many, and such bitter attacks made on him, that he had ceased to be very thin-skinned. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated—not what he did say, but almost the very opposite of what he said. He had made no attack on the Naval Estimates; he was present all the time they were being discussed, and so far as he remembered, there was not one article to which he objected, because he was content with supporting Her Majesty's Government. But, at the hustings, he made no pledge of retrenchment. They, the county Members, were supposed to support prodigal establishments, and to maintain a wasteful expenditure, and the arguments if hon. Members opposite—of those who would supplant them in the good opinion of constituencies—said, if they came into Parliament, they would cut down the Estimates, and retrench the public expenditure; but that, if those country gentlemen were returned—those wasteful Tories—it might be expected that the establishments would be large, and the expenditure heavy. Now, he had ventured to apply the principles of those hon. Gentlemen to their conduct; and he repeated that he, not having come into Parliament with pledges of economy, was perfectly consistent in supporting Ministers in maintaining the necessary establishments, while the addresses and speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite certainly hail led him to expect other things from them. If they had modified their 1723 principles, or altered their opinions—if they had been taught that it was desirable to maintain larger establishments than when simple citizens and private gentlemen they thought to be necessary, so much the better for them—so much the better for the Government—and so much the better for the country. It was a change on their part on which they must permit him very respectfully—but very good-humouredly, and very heartily—to congratulate them.
§ MR. SPOONERasked if they might not now conclude that the general discussion had terminated? It was ten o'clock, and not one Vote had been agreed to?
§ MR. MOWBRAYwished to have some explanation about the Vote for Burlington House, and whether any plans had been prepared for the conversion of that building to public uses?
MR. WILSONexplained that the cost price of Burlington House in 1853 was £140,000, and it had been purchased with the view of building public offices upon the site. Plans were prepared during the period that the late Sir W. Molesworth presided over the Department of Works, but no steps had been taken to carry them out, and the Government had no present intention of doing so. In consequence of the great demand for space at Somerset House, arising from the increased business which was caused by the succession duties, it was found necessary to remove the learned Societies from the wing which they had occupied in that building, and to transfer them temporarily to Burlington House. A Vote of £4,758 was asked for making a large hall in which the meetings of those Societies could be held, and in which also the examinations of the London University and for the Civil Service could be conducted.
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford) had told the Committee that he supported the Government upon the Navy Estimates because he found nothing in them to which he could take exception. The Committee would judge whether the statement of the hon. Gentleman originally was not finding fault with Members for not objecting to the Navy Estimates, and he (Mr. Roebuck) could not forbear adding that the next time the hon. Gentleman read a lesson to the House, at least he should have some foundation for it. The hon. Gentleman 1724 said he was thick-skinned, and he (Mr. Roebuck) had no desire to wound the hon. Gentleman under that thick skin, but could assure him that his own temper was as unruffled as the hon. Gentleman's.
§ MR. KERthought it would be better to desist from personal discussions and proceed with the public business.
COLONEL HERBERTthought that such discussions as those which had taken place between the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford) were very much to be regretted, as tending to obstruct the progress of the Committee.
MR. GILPINsaid, with reference to the remark of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, he was one of those who had been alluded to by the hon. Gentleman as having advocated reduction on the hustings, and having since falsified his pledges by his conduct in that House. He had made those pledges, he was not ashamed of them, and he meant to redeem them. He had learnt a lesson in that House, and that was, that hon. Gentlemen should not talk of that with which they were imperfectly acquainted, and before he committed himself to deal with any particular measure he was resolved thoroughly to understand it—he would endeavour to learn before he attempted to speak. He believed that the cause of retrenchment and economy, which he did not advocate at the expense of perfect efficiency, would be better promoted by hon. Gentlemen learning and gaining experience by the conduct of affairs in that House.
§ COLONEL SYKEScommented upon the inconvenience which arose from the accumulation of questions in such a manner that, notwithstanding the right hon. Baronet's willingness to afford information, it was impossible for him to bear in mind all the points upon which hon. Gentlemen had asked for information. He had asked for explanation upon some points, but other hon. Members interposed with other questions, and his had been overlooked. He had already risen seven times to put his third question, and he again wished to know the meaning of the item of £7,960 for a long list of rooms, houses, and mansions, to be hired, as he presumed.
§ MR. WISEthought they were proceeding in a very unsatisfactory manner. In order to extricate the Committee from the position in which they were placed, he 1725 should move that the Chairman report progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he thought it would be more convenient if hon. Members would allow him to answer one question before others were put. He was perfectly ready and willing to give any explanation that might be required.
Mr. W. WILLIAMSwas going to put a practical question. He intended to propose a renduction of the Vote.
THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that the Motion before the Committee was, that he do report progress.
§ COLONEL FRENCHhoped that the Chairman would not report progress until the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) had had an opportunity of answering the questions which had been put to him. The right hon. Baronet had just informed them he was quite ready to answer the four or five questions which he had been asked, hut he had sat down without replying to any one.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYreally thought the best course would be to report progress. He had called attention to the point of order yesterday, as he foresaw what would take place. It was impossible in a general discussion of Estimates containing 130 distinct items to consider any one point as it should be considered.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that several very serious charges had been preferred against the House that evening. It had been accused of lavishly voting the Army and Navy Estimates. It had also been imputed to it that it had been somewhat prodigal of money with respect to the Civil Service Estimates. He thought it would be liable to the charge of wasting time if, at that hour of the evening and with so much business before it, it was not to make but to report progress, simply because the questions which had been put to the Chief Commissioner in a desultory and, perhaps, not very intelligible manner, had not been answered in a way which some hon. Gentlemen seemed to expect. He was quite sure that it was the wish of the Chief Commissioner to answer every question which might be put to him, find which he understood. His right hon. Friend had already answered a large number. Whatever questions remained unanswered, the Chief Commissioner, when they were 1726 brought plainly before the House, would answer to the best of his ability. In these circumstances it was to be hoped that the Motion for reporting progress would be withdrawn, and that the House would be allowed to proceed with the Estimates.
§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTONthought it was unfair to blame the Chief Commissioner for any want of courtesy in refusing to answer questions. The fault, if any, lay in putting such a vast number of items in one Vote. How was it possible for the House, whatever might be its anxiety to guard the public purse, to discuss in anything like an orderly manner a Vote which extended over eleven closely printed pages? He would suggest that the various items should be taken in the order in which they appeared on the Vote, and that, after one had been disposed of, no hon. Gentleman should be allowed to go back upon it.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLthanked the noble Lord for his observations, and asked how it was possible for him to answer questions which not only required time for their consideration, but were put in such rapid succession, and referred to so many different items scattered over the face of the Vote, that it was extremely difficult even to understand them? There were, as far as he recollected, only three questions which he had not answered. The first, put to him by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn), required him to institute a comparison between certain Estimates for 1852 and those for the present year. He was not prepared to do so at the time, but, having immediately sent for the book which contained the Estimates for 1852, he was now in a position to give the hon. Gentleman the result of his examination. In 1852 the expenditure for the Royal palaces was £45,427, while in the present year it was £39,690, showing a decrease of between £5,000 and £6,000. The next question—that of the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) referred to the sum of £7,960, expended on public offices in the Whitehall district. Those offices were the largest in the various departments, and, as compared with last year, there was a diminution of no less than £2,000. The third question was put by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. F. French), who asked who was responsible for the charge of £l per annum for keys of admission to Hampton Court Park? His reply was, that as Chief Commissioner of Works, and having charge of the parks, he was, responsible 1727 for it, and, if any further explanation were necessary, he would merely say that the park in question was a private park, that it had never been thrown open to the public, that keys were given to certain persons as a matter of favour, that the privilege had been abused in many instances, and that the charge now made was less than that demanded for admission to similar places elsewhere, and could in no sense be called exorbitant.
§ MR. W. EWARTinquired why the pictures at Hampton Court were not classified and labelled in the same way as those in the National Gallery and other public collections?
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLstated, in reply, that as soon as the pictures sent to the Manchester Exhibition were returned he intended to have them classified, and the names of the artists and the titles of the subjects affixed to them.
§ MR. WISEremarked, that his only object in moving that the Chairman report progress was to save the time of the House; and, on the distinct understanding that they were now to proceed with the business before them, he would be happy to withdraw it.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
MR. W. WILLIAMSproposed to make a reduction in the Vote, which he said contained a great number of things all jumbled together in the most unaccountable manner. He did not wish to propose any alteration with regard to Her Majesty's palaces, but there were other palaces in a different position. There was a charge "for the internal and external repairs of Clarence-house, the apartments of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge and the apartments of her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge," &c., amounting to £2,689. Kensington Palace, with the stables and out-buildings, £945. Hampton Court Palace, with the stables and outbuildings, £6,218. Purchase of the lease of the water-mill on the bank of the Longford river, and for fixing a pump, &c., £950; Hampton Court-gardens, £110; Hampton Court stud-house, and paddocks and buildings in Hampton Court Park, appropriated to the stud establishment, £1,881; Kew Palace, and buildings on Kew-green, £897; the Royal Observatory, Kew, £450; military knights' houses, Windsor, £301. Richmond Park, &c., £130; furniture, &c., for the repair and cleansing of furniture and fittings at 1728 Kensington, Kew, and Hampton Court Palaces, £1,180; making a total for palaces not in the personal occupation of Her Majesty of £18,160. There was a charge of £4,725 for Burlington-house; £720 for offices for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; £500 for the Board of Health; £50 for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's stables, Scotland-yard; £8,208 for Holy-rood Palace; £245 for Linlithgow Palace, and other charges of a similar nature. He proposed to reduce these various items one-half—namely, £17,834. These reductions would bring down the additional Vote for Royal Palaces to the sum of £118,312.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £118,312, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray, to the 3lst day of March 1858, the Expense of maintenance and repairs of Royal Palaces and Public Buildings.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYwished to know whether any of the money appropriated for Hampton Court Palace and stables, and Bushy-park, gardens, and stables, was applied for the purposes of the breeding studs in those places?
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLNone, whatever.
§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTONwished to know whether, if the whole Vote were reduced as proposed by the hon. Member for Lambeth by the sum of £17,834, the several Votes mentioned by that hon. Member would be reduced in the proportions stated by him?
§ MR. BLACKBURNnoticed that there was a Vote taken in these Estimates for Sandhurst College, while a Vote for the same college had been taken in the War Estimates. One department might be pulling down what the other built up.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that this was the last time the item would appear in the Civil Service Estimates, for next year it would be handed over entirely to the War Department.
§ MR. J. L. RICARDOconcurred in what had been stated by the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton) that if the Committee should determine to reduce the whole Vote it would even then have no security that the particular items would be reduced in the way desired by hon. Members. He therefore thought that the Chairman had better report progress, in order that the Estimates might be brought before the Committee in a more convenient form, and so that the items might be considered separately.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Committee ought to bear in mind that this was not the first year in which this class of Estimates had been laid before them. It was convenient to adhere to the form in which they had been voted for a long series of years for the purpose of comparison. It was true that the Vote consisted of a greater number of items, and that formerly the items were not given in such detail, but that had been done in deference to the frequently expressed wish of the House. He was asked how it was possible the Committee could, if they wished, omit an item of £4,500. Any hon. Member could move to reduce the Estimate by that amount, and if it were carried on a division, the Government would consider themselves bound by the decision, and not apply that sum of money to the object to which it referred. That was the ordinary practice in dealing with Votes in Committee of Supply, and was not peculiar to the Civil Service Estimates, but was common to the Army and Navy Estimates.
§ MR. HENLEYadmitted that it was convenient to adhere to precedent in the form of the Vote, unless good reasons could be given for departing from it, but thought it was very unjust indeed to Her Majesty that a large Vote of £196,000 should be asked for palaces and public buildings, when by far the greater part was for public buildings with which Her Majesty had no more to do than the hope. The amount for public buildings had grown out of all proportion to the amount for Royal Palaces, and he thought it would be very convenient if in another year the Vote were divided. Many hon. Members might not wish to strike out the £4,500, but might wish to strike out a larger sum, and he apprehended, if the Vote were reduced by the lesser sum, they could not further reduce it.
§ MR. BENTINCKdid not think they would lose the advantage of comparison if the Government put the Votes in a more distinct form. The number of large sums which appeared under one head produced confusion and rendered it difficult to discuss them.
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished to impress upon the Committee the objection of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire. Supposing the smaller sum were carried, and he wanted further to diminish the amount, he believed, by the form in which the Vote was placed before the Committee, 1730 he could not do so. The Chairman would tell him that the Committee had determined to vote £118,000, and he could not propose a less sum. No comparison was really afforded by the printed Estimates, and the whole thing was therefore a delusion.
§ Amendment by leave withdrawn; Original Question again proposed.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYthen moved that the Vote be reduced by £1,500—the amount of the item for the residence of the Crown Equerry.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £131,646, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray, to the 31st day of March 1858, the Expense of maintenance and repairs of Royal palaces and Public Buildings.
§ MR. ROEBUCK, said, he would now put the question distinctly to the Chairman. Supposing the smaller sum to be carried, and supposing he wanted afterwards to reduce the amount by £7,960 for the Whitehall district, could he move an Amendment which would have that effect?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, it would not be competent for the hon. and learned Gentleman to move a further reduction.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, when in Committees of Supply propositions were made for the reduction of several sums it was the practice to propose the reduction of the largest sum first. For example, if on the Vote then before the Committee one hon. Member proposed to reduce it by £50,000, another by £40,000, another by £30,000, and so on, the practice would be to put first the reduction of the £50,000, and if that were negatived, then to put the reduction of £40,000, and so on till the Committee arrived at the least reduction; but if the largest reduction were agreed to, then it would not be competent for any hon. Gentleman to move the reduction by a lower sum. With respect to the statement of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck), that the form in which the Votes were presented in the present Estimates led to delusion, inasmuch as it afforded no means of comparing the Votes for the present year with those of former years, if his hon. and learned Friend would refer to page 2 of the Estimates marked 2, he would see a comparison of the different Votes for the years 1856 and 1857.
§ MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, that the 1731 right hon. Gentleman had not met the real difficulty, for the case might happen that he wanted to reduce the Vote under consideration by £4,500, while another hon. Gentleman might wish to reduce it by £3,000, and he wanted to know if, by the rules of the House, the Committee could entertain one Motion after the other? The whole difficulty seemed to arise out of the practice, on the part of the Treasury, of including large sums in one item in the Estimates, in order to carry them by a single Vote, and so avoid discussion and trouble. After the decision of the Chairman he saw no alternative but to move that the Chairman report progress, in order that time might be given for the form in which the Estimates were presented being amended.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the difficulty which his hon. Friend (Mr. Ricardo) imagined to exist in this case was in reality no difficulty at all. It was perfectly impossible that an Estimate could be given without the details on which it was founded being given at the same time, and it was equally impossible that a separate Vote could be taken on each of its details. Every Estimate must necessarily include a great number of different items, and if any hon. Gentleman wished to object to any portion of the aggregate, he might move a reduction equivalent to the sum of which he desired to get rid, and if that reduction were carried it would be well understood by the Government that the particular charge, which was the subject of the reduction was not to be incurred. There was no difficulty in the matter.
§ MR. ROEBUCKThe noble Lord said those who objected to some particular portion of the aggregate sum might make the objection, and take the opinion of the Committee upon it. But suppose there were a dozen hon. Gentlemen who wished to take as many similar objections? There were something like 90 or 100 items in this Vote. The hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trelawny) objected to No. 3, and he (Mr. Roebuck) objected to a great number besides. What was he to do? According to the decision of the Chairman of the Committee he could do nothing. He was absolutely driven by the admirable system, which the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) eulogized, to sit down and hold his 1732 tongue. He (Mr. Roebuck) wanted to get at the different items in the proposed expenditure, and with that view he would put a question to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Works. He wanted to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had looked into the accounts respecting those different items, or, if he had not, who had, and who was answerable for the sums put down? He (Mr. Roebuck) found this item put down as part of the Vote under consideration:—
St. James's Palace.—For the internal and external repairs of Clarence House; the apartments of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge and the apartments of her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge; and for the external repairs of houses and apartments not occupied by members of the Royal family and their respective households, £2,689.He wished to know who in that House was answerable for the correctness of that item?
§ SIR DENHAM NORREYSthought it was quite time that the House should attempt to control the extravagance shown in the items included in the Vote under consideration, and he strongly recommended the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trelawny) to take the opinion of the House on his Motion.
MR. WILSONwished to explain how the dilemma might be surmounted, by stating what took place on the discussion of the Estimates last year. One hon. Gentleman moved to reduce an Estimate by £5,000, another moved to reduce it by £7,000, and another by £3,000. In that state of things the Chairman put the lowest sum of all to which the Vote was proposed to be reduced, and in so doing the object of all the three was secured. He would only add, that he could not see any good arise from the Chairman reporting progress at that hour of the night.
§ MR. HENLEYthought the statement of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson) was open to some exception. The hon. Gentleman said one hon. Member moved to reduce a Vote by £5,000, another by £7,000, and a third by £3,000. Each of the three hon. Members would make a Motion to that effect, and how the Chairman came to put only the lowest sum to which the Vote was proposed to be reduced he (Mr. Henley) did not understand. Objections to different items did not really make one aggregate amount for reduction, inasmuch as one hon. Member might be inclined to retain what another wished to strike out. He wished 1733 to have an explanation from the Chair upon that point.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that, supposing that three reductions of a Vote of £50,000 were proposed by different Members—the first of £5,000, the second of £10,000, and the third of £20,000—it would be his duty, in the first instance, to put the question upon the reduction of £20,000. If that reduction were carried, it would not then be competent to any hon. Member to propose another Amendment; but if it were negatived, it would be his duty to put the reduction of £10,000; and if that were rejected, the reduction of £5,000. If either the first or the second of these reductions were assented to by the Committee, it was not open to any hon. Member to propose a further reduction.
§ MR. HENLEYthought that, as such various objections were taken by hon. Members to the items of this Vote, the best course would be for the Government to withdraw the Vote, and put it in such a form that its details might be brought more clearly before the Committee for discussion.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGbelieved the Chairman had stated most correctly the course which ought to be followed with regard to questions of this kind. At the same time, he must confess he had always been of opinion that the practice pursued in Committees of the House was open to great objection. It had been suggested that the Votes should be subdivided, and, consequently, that a greater number of Votes of less amount should be submitted to the Committee. He believed, however, that if that were done the difficulty would not be obviated. Ho thought the best plan would be for the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Speaker, and other hon. Members of experience, to consider the matter, with the view of simplifying the Votes, for under the present system some hon. Gentlemen were anxious to effect one reduction, and some another, while none of them knew for what they were really voting.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLbelieved the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) was quite correct in his opinion that, however the Estimates might be divided or subdivided, the same difficulties as were now experienced would continue to exist so long as the forms of the House remained unchanged. He had endeavoured to comply, as far as possible, with the wish 1734 of the House by framing the Estimates of his department in such a manner as to render them easily intelligible, and if he remained in office next Session he would place the items included in those Estimates under different heads;—for instance, in No.1 Estimate he would give the expenditure for palaces, for public buildings, and for furniture, separately.
§ MR. PALKsaid, that if such were the difficulties to old Members, how great must be the difficulty for those who now entered the House for the first time. He thought the suggestion that these rules should be referred to a Committee acquainted with the subject a good one, and the best thing would be to agree that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
§ MR. AYRTONsuggested that the best plan of avoiding confusion would be to enable hon. Members to move that particular items be struck out of the Estimate.
§ COLONEL SYKESsaid, the withdrawing of the Estimate would not advance the matter in the slightest degree, because a principle was at stake, and that principle was the privilege of every Member of the House to object to any Vote. An Estimate might contain fifty items. If, however, he proposed to reduce the Estimate by the amount of one of those items, and was unsuccessful, no other hon. Member could object to any item in that Estimate. If such was the rule of the House, as he understood it to be from the explanation of the Chairman, he thought the sooner it was amended the better.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, that he believed the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen was mistaken in supposing that if his Motion for the reduction of an item was negatived, he would be precluded from proposing the reduction of another item in the same Estimate; the case only arose when the Motion for reduction was carried. He did not think the forms of the House were so objectionable as some hon. Gentlemen seemed to suppose, for during a long experience he did not remember any similar difficulty to that which had been experienced that night. Generally speaking, the items had been fewer in number and much less in amount, and therefore the difficulties which had arisen that night had not been experienced in the same degree. The Government having decided, in compliance with the general wish of the House, to afford detailed particulars of each Estimate, 1735 the inevitable consequence was, that it was now necessary to consider a number of separate Votes which were formerly comprised in a single Estimate. He did not think that the forms of the House presented the difficulties which had been suggested, but the best course to pursue would, he believed, be to assent to the course suggested by his right hon. Friend, in order that the Government might have an opportunity of reconstructing the Estimate. He did not see any other way out of the difficulty, and he was by no means sanguine that any good would result from an attempt to alter the forms of the House. Those forms had been adopted after a very extended experience, and had very recently been submitted to the consideration of some of the most experienced Members of the House; and nothing would be more dangerous than suddenly and rashly to alter forms which, in point of fact, embalmed the experience of centuries of Parliamentary legislation.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLwould consent to withdraw the Vote for the present, on the understanding that the Committee would proceed with the next Vote. He was only actuated by a desire to meet the wish of the Committee, and also to get through some business that evening. He would therefore consent to withdraw the Vote upon that understanding, and to bring it forward divided into three heads on a future occasion.
§ SIR DENHAM NORREYSconsidered that the forms of the House to which reference had been made occasioned a great deal of inconvenience. They were a new Parliament, and they ought to begin new ways. If he found himself supported by the House, he would himself, before the next Committee of Supply, move an instruction to the Chairman that when any hon. Member objected to any particular item the discussion should be confined to that item until it was disposed of by the Committee.
§ MR. J. L. RICARDOwished the right hon. Baronet to understand that he did not accept his proposition to divide the Vote into three heads. Many hon. Gentlemen thought that it ought to be divided into more than three heads. The present form of the Estimates was most inconsistent. In one Vote items which had no relation with each other were mixed up together, while he found that there were two separate Votes for the harbours of Holyhead and Port Patrick.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment and Original Question, by leave, withdrawn.
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £75,781, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray, to the 31st day of March 1858, the Expense of maintaining and keeping in repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, and other charges connected therewith.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, that he did not understand why the people in different parts of the country should be called upon to pay for the establishment of parks in the neighbourhood of London, and he should therefore move that the Vote be reduced by £8,069 14s., the sum asked for Battersea Park.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £67,711 6s., be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray, to the 31st day of March 1858, the Expense of maintaining and keeping in repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, and other charges connected therewith.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that when the Civil Service Estimates were under the consideration of the House last year, he was urged to complete Battersea Park. When he came into office, it was almost a swamp, without a shrub or a walk in it, and it was not yet quite laid out. He, however, would do his utmost to throw it entirely open to the public by the month of August in the next year. It was now in part open, and was frequented by thousands of persons.
§ SIR JOHN TROLLOPEobserved that, as he understood the Vote under consideration, it involved the £11,000 to be voted for the works in St. James's Park. Now, a distinct assurance had been given upon the part of the Government that that particular item would not be pressed that evening, and he should like to know why that assurance had not been adhered to.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLI propose to reduce the Vote by the amount which the hon. Baronet has just mentioned.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £64,096, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray, to the 31st day of March 1858, the Expense of maintaining and keeping in repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, and other charges connected therewith.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that the result of that proposal upon the part of the Government to move an Amendment upon their own Vote, would be that no other Motion for its reduction could be put. He 1737 saw on the Estimates a considerable item for laying down new iron posts and railings in Hyde Park, and he should wish to have some explanation upon the point.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLThat is an additional Vote.
MR. BENTICKobjected to the Votes relating to St. James's Park, on the ground that the Committee was not in possession of the requisite information.
§ MR. BLACKBURNthen moved that the Chairman report progress. Owing to the confusion which prevailed with respect to the Vote, he thought that the best course which the Committee could adopt. It was impossible to proceed at that hour (five minutes to twelve).
§ SIR DENHAM NORREYSthought the Committee ought to have dealt with the proposal of the hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. Dillwyn) in reference to Battersea Park before they entertained the subject of St. James's Park. The system of thus proceeding from one point to another without arriving at a decision upon any, was productive of great inconvenience.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that as certain papers connected with the Vote would not be delivered to hon. Members until Monday morning he was prepared to assent to the Motion for reporting progress.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
§ The House resumed. Committee report progress; to sit again on Monday next.