§ House in Committee; Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
§ The following Votes were then agreed to:
- (1.) £16,474, National Gallery.
- (2.) £5,039, Magnetic Observations Abroad.
- (3.) £500, Royal Geographical Society.
- (4.) £1,000, Royal Society.
- (5.) £4,050, Bermudas.
- (6.) £6,878, British North American Provinces.
- (7.) £3,388, Indian Department in Canada.
- (8.) £24,728, West Indies and other Colonies.
- (9.) £20,550, West India Colonies and Mauritius.
- (10.) £10,230, Western Coast of Africa.
- (11.) £7,262, Saint Helena.
- (12.) £960, Heligoland.
- (13.) £4,376 Falkland Islands.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that there was no actual increase of expenditure. It was necessary to maintain those islands in an efficient state, inasmuch as they afforded a most valuable harbour of refuge, on which account solely they had been occupied.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (14) £6,021, Labuan.
MR. WILLIAMScomplained that the Vote for this colony, the value of which was very questionable, was yearly increasing.
LORD STANLEYsaid, the island had been occupied for eleven years at a total expense of £50,000. Its occupation as a coal station was but an experiment; but he was bound to say that up to the present time that experiment had not proved very successful. There was not a very convenient access to the harbour, and the difficulty of obtaining coals was found to be very great. Considering, however, the great expense this country had been put to for this colony it was thought inadvisable to give it up without affording a little longer trial to this experiment. If, however, it should continue to cost much, and to give us no return, he thought that it would then become a question of serious 1269 consideration whether the Government should not abandon that place, as regarded the objects for which it was maintained.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (15.) £10,000, Hong Kong.
MR. WILSONremarked, that it was quite time that this expenditure should cease. The sum of £10,000 had been granted last year on the express ground that the war in China had entailed burdens upon the colonial treasury in connection with Imperial objects. Now, however, another Vote of £10,000 was proposed, contrary to the pledge given to Parliament, and which was intended for purely local purposes. The revenue of the colony was rapidly increasing, and he thought it should bear the burdens of the expense to which the Vote referred.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he did not seek to defend the application of Imperial funds for colonial purposes, but he must remind the Committee that there was nothing new in this Vote. The colony of Hong Kong had been established for purely Imperial purposes—in fact for the promotion of our political, military, and commercial relations with China. The colony, however, had never until lately been self-supporting. A heavy expenditure had been incurred upon it, and in 1856 the grant was, for one year, discontinued. An attempt had been made to bring the colonial expenditure within the revenue, and in 1857 a Vote was again obtained nominally for Imperial, but practically in aid of colonial purposes. The management of the finances of Hong Kong had not been entirely satisfactory; but the Government had rigidly examined the proposed expenditure, and had struck out every item not absolutely necessary. This Vote would not be brought forward again, and it would not have been moved even in the present instance but for the great financial embarrassment produced in the island in consequence of the war with China. The population was chiefly Chinese, and great additions had been required in the police force and in the gaol accommodation, while an unusual number of patients from all the consular ports in China had been thrown upon the Hong Kong hospitals.
MR. WILSONsaid, after the explanation given by the noble Lord, he would not persevere in his opposition to the Vote for this one year more. He would remark, however, that the sooner a colony became independent of the mother country with regard to finance, the better it was for the colony.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he had some time ago seen a statement from Sir John Bowring, that the colony would be self-supporting, and therefore he (Mr. Williams) was surprised to see this Vote. It had no doubt arisen out of the Chinese war, for which the present Government was not responsible. We had got into Canton, and what advantage was it? At the same time he must compliment the President of the Board of Control on the frank and straightforward explanations he had given.
§ Vote agreed to, as were also,
§ (16.) £7,914, Western Australia, and
§ (17.) £12,828, Emigration Board.
§ (18.) £11,000, (Captured negroes, &c).
MR. GILPINsaid, he must express his strong conviction that our whole system of keeping up a large number of cruisers on the coasts of Africa and Cuba, which endangered our relations with foreign Powers, was a blunder from beginning to end, and would never effect the objects which we had in view. However, as an opportunity would be soon afforded of discussing the whole matter he would not further allude to it.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (19.) £117,527 (Consular Establishments Abroad).
MR. WILLIAMScomplained of the expense attending some of our Consular establishments. There was a Consul at Cincinnati, with a salary of £400 a year, and yet, he would venture to say, no British shipever went within 150 miles of that city.
MR. FITZGERALDsaid, he could inform the hon. Gentleman that the office in question had been abolished.
§
(20.) Motion made and Question proposed,—
That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary for the Extraordinary Disbursements of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad, to the 31st day of March, 1859.
§ MR. WISEsaid, that the House had determined some time ago that the sum of £180,000 a year should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the diplomatic expenditure. In addition to that, this Vote of £40,000 for extraordinary expenses was now asked for; while £45,000 more was required for special missions, to say nothing of the charge for outfits. The item of £40,000 was one that had long been steadily increasing. It had increased from £16,000 to £40,000, The corresponding item for last year, which was a very expensive year, succeeding as it did to the peace, was £30,000, and how 1271 an additional £10,000 should now be demanded he was at a loss to conceive. If our diplomatic officers took pains to qualify themselves properly for their situations, the constantly recurring charges in these estimates for "copies of translations," and for "interpreters" would no longer appear. The items for miscellaneous and contingent expenditure under this head ought also to be discouraged; and, indeed, it would be much more satisfactory that the whole Vote for any particular service should be taken together, so that they might at once see what the expense was. He did not know whether the £1,000 included in the item of £3,784 for miscellaneous charges had anything to do with a Vote brought forward last year—that of £2,000 for the chapel at Paris; but he thought it required explanation, as also did many other items, such as £4,267 for postage, £5,990 extra couriers, and £1,229 extra copying. Our system of sending diplomatic agents to the various German Courts did not produce reciprocity. The minor German Courts did not have representatives in England. Bavaria, Frankfort, and Saxony were the only German Courts, besides Austria and Prussia, which sent Ministers to this country. The small Courts of Germany and the German people who desired unity would prefer to have a Minister from the Diet resident here. He had so often sought to reform our diplomatic system, but in vain, that he was afraid it would be useless to divide; but unless he received satisfactory explanations he should certainly wish to limit this Vote of £40,000, which was £10,000 in excess of the largest sum spent in the most expensive year at the close of the war, to £30,000.
§ MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that the chief items commented upon by the hon. Gentleman did not apply to the current year, but to the year 1856–57, for which the present Government certainly were not responsible. The ascertained expenditure under this head for last year was £37,000, and the practice was to take a Vote which, judging from the experience of the past, was likely to meet all the requirements of the coming year. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would, he was sure, examine this expenditure closely; and if, as he hoped, a peaceful policy was steadily maintained, no doubt means would be taken to effect considerable reductions in this and other heads of charge.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought 1272 some explanation should be given as to the increased expenditure of £10,000.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, that though the whole of this sum should be voted, the whole of it would not necessarily be spent. But in the present year circumstances had occurred, and were occurring, abroad which were likely to lead to considerable expense. The Conference of Paris would necessitate constant communication not only with this country, but also with the representatives of the foreign Courts interested in the questions at issue. There were also pending the questions of boundary between Montenegro and Turkey and the settlement of the Danubian Principalities, both of which would probably entail some outlay, which could not well be estimated beforehand. In fact, this branch of expenditure did not come within the ordinary category; and though he promised that it should be carefully and vigilantly watched, with a view to economy, by the Government, it would yet be imprudent and improper to mislead the House by omitting to provide for charges which might have to be met in the current year.
MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, that the House generally voted about £100,000 per annum for contingencies, and the expenses to which the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs referred might be defrayed out of that sum.
§ MR. A. SMITHremarked, that that explanation was not satisfactory, as he could not see how any heavy expense could be caused by communications with a capital so near at hand as Paris, and he should, therefore, call on the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Wise) to divide.
§ SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, the House had disallowed the £2,000 for the Paris chapel, and he understood that that money had been paid. He should be glad to know from what source? He believed that many Sessions would not pass over before the House would consider the propriety of sweeping away the whole diplomatic body.
§ COLONEL SYKESconsidered the explanation of the Government unsatisfactory. He wished to know how this Vote referred to 1856–7?
§ MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, the Government had framed the best Estimate of the probable expenditure of the current year at which they could arrive; and nothing could be more objectionable than to fix upon an amount lower than they could safely depend upon, and then look to the item of contingencies to make up for any 1273 deficiency. In this way the Vote asked was £40,000 for the present year, and appended to it were some items of expenditure for the year 1856–7, which items had been referred to during the discussion.
MR. WILSONsaid, that the accounts for 1856–7 were the latest which the Government could possibly now have in their possession. The Estimate for the present year was only £2,500 above that of last year. Last year £37,500 was voted, and that Vote was some time ago exhausted.
§ SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he would ask whether this Vote included all extraordinary missions on the subject of the Danubian Principalities, or any other matter? He was at a loss to know why there should be voted £40,000 for a service the last account for which was only £30,000. It was very true that £37,500 had been voted last year, but there was no account of the expenditure of that sum.
MR. SEYMOUR, FITZGERALDsaid, he did not suppose that it would. The expenses incurred at such a place as Naples, where, though we had no mission, we had important business to transact, had to be met out of this extraordinary expenditure. He could assure the right hon. Baronet that the sum of £37,500 voted last year had not only been all expended, but a part of this Vote was intended to supplement that of the previous year?
§ SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, a far more important conference had been held in Paris than the present one—namely, that for the treaty of peace in 1856—and the expenses of that year were not so great as those now asked for.
§ MR. WISEsaid, that if the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth would look under the head "civil contingencies" he would find £45,000 charged there for special missions. The ordinary diplomatic expenditure paid out of the Consolidated Fund was £180,000; and then came this £40,000 more for extraordinary expenditure.
§ MR. ADAMSsaid, he hoped the late Secretary to the Treasury would give some explanation as to the application of this Vote for 1856–7.
MR. WILSONreplied, that he was quite unable to comply with this request. The officers of the Foreign Office had, however, he had no doubt, used great vigilance in regard to this expenditure.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was really no increase in the item for extraordinary expenditure this year. The Government could not give detailed accounts of all the items spent under this head last year, because they had not received this information themselves. But they had been drawn upon for this expenditure, and it amounted to about £40,000. As they had no reason to believe that there would be a decrease during the present year, they had thought they were pursuing a very proper and provident course in asking for a similar sum.
§ MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he wished to give notice that on the bringing up of the Report he would call for explanations from the Chancellor of the Exchequer relative to the Vote for the National Gallery.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDobserved, that the Estimate for extraordinary diplomatic expenditure was this year really smaller in amount than the sum actually disbursed last year.
§ SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that was the very evil of which he complained. They were advised not to grant small Votes and trust to the civil contingencies to make up any deficiency; and yet they found that, though they granted large Votes, an excess of expenditure was not thereby avowed. He wished to see this Estimate curtailed, but thought £10,000 too large a reduction to make in it. He would, however, vote for a reduction of £5,000.
§ MR. G. A. HAMILTONexplained, that owing to many portions of this expenditure being incurred in the remotest parts of the globe, delay in rendering the accounts to the Foreign Office and the Treasury was quite inevitable. There were in addition items for postage, extra couriers, and other things, which it was impossible to estimate accurately. He submitted that the Government could not properly ask for less than £40,000.
§
Motion made and Question put,—
That a sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary for the Extraordinary Disbursements of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad, to the 31st day of March, 1859.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 85: Majority 30.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. WISEsaid, that a great many hon. Gentlemen around him thought £10,000 too large a reduction in this Vote. But he had been pressed on all sides to move a 1275 reduction of £5,000 and he now did so accordingly.
§
Motion made and Question put,—
That a sum, not exceeding £15,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary for the Extraordinary Disbursements of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad, to the 31st day of March, 1859.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 81: Majority 12.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (21.) £162,889, Superannuations.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, there was an instance of a person who had received a pension since 1791, and another person had received £750 for thirty-four years in consequence of the abolition of an appointment of the Colonial Office. Why had he not been employed in some other office?
§ MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he was not answerable for what had taken place so long ago.
§ SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, that the late paymasters of the Irish constabulary had been most harshly treated by the late Government. He wished to know whether their claims would be reconsidered, and whether the present Government would rectify the injustice done by their predecessors?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, their case had been considered, and the determination communicated to them.
§ MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, what his right hon. Friend had referred to was the case of the police officers. On the matter alluded to by the hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Norreys) he had seen a deputation the other day, but no opinion had yet been expressed by the Government.
§ Vote agreed to; as was also
§ (22.) £1,978, Toulonese and Corsican Emigrants.
§ (23.) £2,000, National Vaccine Establishment.
MR. COWPERsuggested that the subject of this Vote might be referred to the sanitary department of the Privy Council. He hoped that there would be an alteration by next year.
§ Vote agreed to; as was also
§ (24.) £325, Refuge for the Destitute.
§ (25.) £3,515, Polish Refugees, &c.
§ MR. A. SMITHsuggested that the names of the recipients of this money should be given.
§ MR. G. A. HAMILTONthought that there would be no objection to that.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (26.) £4,281, Miscellaneous Allowances.
MR. W. WILLIAMSasked why at this day we had to pay a pension given by Charles II. without the authority of Parliament. He thought that this matter should be looked into.
§ MR. GRIFFITHsaid, he also thought that explanation was necessary.
§ MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, much of the money was given by the Crown in cases of extreme necessity.
§ SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, the French refugee clergy on the list must be extremely old. The money they got from this country seemed to be the elixir of life.
§ MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, a certificate was required before any money was paid in any case.
§ SIR DENHAM NORREYSasked if the amount diminished at all?
§ MR. G. A. HAMILTONYes, every year.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (27.) £2,717, Infirmaries in Ireland.
§ SIR DENHAM NORREYSsuggested whether it would not be better, as they had a perfect medical system in Ireland, to transfer these infirmaries to the Poor Law Board?
LORD NAASexplained that this Vote was for allowances to officers, which would be discontinued under the Medical Charities Act, when the recipients at the time of the passing of that Act ceased to hold their offices.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (28.) £2,600, Westmoreland Lock Hospital, Dublin.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, there was no such charge on the public purse in this country, and he was surprised that the pride of the people in Ireland did not induce them to endow and support their own hospitals.
§ MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Lambeth might have spared himself the observation he had made, for he believed there was no hospital in London which was self-supporting except Guy's.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that no hospital in England received one farthing of the public money towards its maintenance unless it was connected with the army and navy.
§ MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, the London hospitals were largely endowed, which was not the case in Ireland. The hospitals 1277 in Dublin were necessary in consequence of the great poverty there, and they were also necessary as medical schools.
§ MR. BRADYsaid, he thought the observations of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) were uncalled for and unjustifiable.
§ Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes:—
§ (29.) £700, Lying-in Hospital, Dublin.
§ (30.) £200, Coombe Lying-in Hospital, Dublin.
§ (31.) £7,600, House of Industry, Dublin.
§ (32.) £600, Meath Hospital, Dublin.
§ (33.) £2,500, House of Recovery, Dublin.
§ (34.) £100, St. Mark's Ophthalmic Hospital, Dublin.
§ (35.) £1,300, Doctor Steevens' Hospital, Dublin.
§ (36.) 285, Board of Superintendence of Hospitals, Dublin.
§ (37.) £9,341, Charitable Allowances.
§
(38.) Motion made and Question proposed,—
That a sum, not exceeding £39,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of Nonconforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1859.
§ MR. BAXTERsaid, that this Vote was nothing more nor less than a political bribe to the religious denominations which received it, and Lord Castlereagh had acknowledged that it was a means of making the relations between those bodies and the State more pleasant. It formerly appeared under the head of secret service money. There were twelve religious bodies in Ireland, and he objected to four of these bodies being selected to receive what he must call public charity, whilst the others were excluded. There could be no doubt that its effect was to dry up the sources of voluntary liberality among the Presbyterians of the north of Ireland. It had been admitted by an eminent member of that body that they were the most "beggarly denomination in Christendom." The Free Church of Scotland was a much poorer community than the Ulster Presbyterians, and yet since the disruption in Scotland that Church had by the voluntary efforts of its members raised no less a sum than £4,500,000, without any support from the State. He understood that the House had had made up their mind that there should be no fresh endowment, whilst the Vote actually included £346 for new ministers, so that there was actually a new endowment. He begged therefore to move that 1278 this Vote be disallowed with the exception of the suns of £366—the item for the widows and orphans of ministers of the Synod of Ulster.
§ Mr. P. O'BRIENsaid, he should oppose the Amendment. Although he was willing to go as far as any man in favour of the purely voluntary system he would never be a party to making this one particular class of religionists in the north of Ireland the only victims to the recognition of that principle.
§ MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he was also opposed to singling out one particular class for the purpose of sacrificing them to the voluntary system. He would be prepared at any time to consider the question of voluntaryism to the fullest extent, including the principle of maintaining the Established Church in Ireland, but he thought the present a very inconvenient mode of raising the question.
MR. GILPINsaid, he was an enemy to all religious endowments, and could not, therefore, vote for the present one. This beggarly pittance compromised the independence and impeded the usefulness of the body which condescended to accept it; for as long as they taught people to rely upon the arm of the State for support, they would sap every feeling of generosity on their part, and make them worse ministers of religion than they otherwise would be. He should support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he was quite willing to admit the good temper in which the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) brought forward his Amendment, and that he was only actuated by the one principle of compelling every religion to support itself. He (the Solicitor General), however, thought that so important a question as that involved in the voluntary principle ought to be submitted to the House in the shape of a substantive and distinct Motion, when the Government would be prepared to consider it, and not by such an Amendment as that proposed, upon a vote that concerned only one small class of religionists in Ireland. He could not look upon this Vote as a political bribe. From what he knew of the Presbyterians of the North of Ireland, he believed that they would be prepared to sacrifice ten times the amount of the present Vote rather than surrender one jot of their independence. Still he might state that the mode in which this grant was administered had operated as an inducement to Presbyterian 1279 congregations in Ireland to build places of worship, in the expectation that a portion of the ministers' salaries would be contributed by the State. The interests created under that system ought to be dealt with in an equitable manner, no matter what might be thought of the abstract principle of endowments. This system existed long before Lord Castlereagh was born, the first granter of the Regium Donum having been William III. The great majority of the congregations in the rural districts of Ulster laboured under a degree of poverty which rendered it impossible for them, if unaided, to maintain their ministers in a manner befitting their station and profession. The efforts made by the Free Church of Scotland were one of the marvels of the present century, and would be told, to its honour, as long as the history of that country lasted. But those efforts were the fruit of a religious movement which had convulsed a whole country, and to which the case of the Presbyterians in the North of Ireland presented no analogy.
§ MR. F. CROSSLEYsaid, he hoped that there would soon be an end to these grants, which he believed very much injured the ministers who received the money, for he thought they would be much better supported if they were left in the hands of their congregations. Moreover, it was well known that the people in the North of Ireland were better off than the rest of the inhabitants of that island. He could not agree that because the party with which he acted could not get all they sought for in respect to the recognition of the voluntary principle, he thought that they ought, at all events, to seek for an instalment of their demands.
§ MR. W. J. FOXanimadverted on the inconsistency of the State distributing this grant between Trinitarians and Unitarians, thereby providing these rival theologians with powder and shot to fire at each other. The Solicitor General was right in stating that this system led to chapels being erected which would not otherwise be built; because the parties knew how to manage matters so as to get hold of the largest part of the Vote. The consequence was, that the number of chapels increased without any corresponding increase in the number of worshippers to fill them. He saw no reason why the friends of the voluntary principle should not attack the minor grievance simply because they could not reach the monster one, of which grants like this were the outposts.
§ MR. EVANSsaid, he wished to ask for some explanation as to the fact of there being grants for new ministers.
LORD NAASsaid, if the hon. Member would look into the report he would see the whole practice of making these grants stated; and he would see also that the rules were exceedingly strict. Those rules were rigidly adhered to, and he did not believe that any abuse existed.
§ MR. CHEETHAMsaid, that the objection was to the principle of the grant; there was no objection to the way in which it had been administered.
§ SIR WILLIAM DUNBARsaid, as this was not a new grant, and as Maynooth College continued to receive a Vote of the public money, he would support the Vote as originally proposed.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the strong reason for stopping this grant was that it was going on increasing year after year. He might also state that seven-eighths of the people of Wales were Dissenters, and yet they had no religious grants.
§
Motion made and Question put,—
That a sum, not exceeding £366, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of Nonconforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1859.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 165: Majority 110.
§ Original Question again proposed.
MR. GILPINsaid, he would then move that the sum of £346 3s. 4d., the increase arising upon the Vote of last year on account of new congregations, be expunged.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he must resist this Motion on the same ground as that on which he had opposed the reduction moved by the hon. Member for Montrose. The sum proposed to be struck out was for the new congregations who had been induced to build their chapels on the understanding that they would share in this grant.
§
Motion made and Question put,
That the item of £346 3s. 4d., for New Ministers, be omitted from the proposed Vote.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 147: Majority 78.
§ Votes agreed to, as were also the following Votes:—
§ (39.) £424,285, Customs Department.
§ (40.) £712,258, Inland Revenue Department.
1281§ (41.) £1,026,031, Post Office and Collection of Revenue.
§ (42.) £242,875, Superannuations, &c., Departments of Customs, &c.
§
Motion made and Question proposed,—
That a sum, not exceeding £7,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expenses of the General Board of Health, to the 31st day of March, 1859.
MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained that the portion of the estimates they were now going into contained a great many items which there had not been time to look into. He hoped that the Government would postpone the matter.
§ MR. G. A. HAMILTONsuggested that they should pass the first three or four Votes, to which there was not likely to be any objection.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he thought that all events this Vote required explanation. The Board of Health, he was happy to say, expired at the close of next month, and they were now about to ask for a whole year's salary for five months' duty.
§ MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, no salary was charged for the President.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEBecause an Act of Parliament said he should have none. He had, however, not discharged his duties without salary. In the first place, there were no duties in reference to the Board of Health, but the duties which he had performed were those of Vice President of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education, to which office he had been transferred at a salary of £2,000. When they were told that the President received no salary for doing nothing, he did not think that they ought to be grateful to him. But, apart from the President, why was the Secretary to have £1,000, the Under Secretary £600, and the medical officer £1,500—a full year's salary in each case—for five months' duty? He begged to move that the Vote be reduced one-half.
§
Motion made and Question proposed,—
That a sum, not exceeding £3,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expenses of the General Board of Health, to the 31st day of March, 1859.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, if the hon. Member had referred to the papers he would have found that there was a reduction in this Vote of 1282 nearly £4,000, as compared with last year. The Estimate had been made in reference to existing circumstances.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he thought that this Board had put the country to expenses which ought never to have been allowed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not explained how it was that a twelvemonth's salary should be charged for five months' work. This Board might very well be called the Board of "Pelf," instead of the Board of Health. He thought it was quite enough to give these officers six months' salary for five months' duty.
MR. WILSONsuggested that it would be better to remodel this Estimate in accordance with the Bill now before the House.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, it was impossible to know how much would be wanted before the Bill passed. He proposed that they should not go on with the Vote now, and he would see if any reduction could be made.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman did not understand him.
§ MR. WALPOLEYes, I do.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEThen if so the right hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of this Vote. His objection had nothing to do with the Bill before the House. There was an Act which said that the Board should terminate on the 1st of September next, and this was au attempt of the Board to foist itself on the country for six months more, during which time it would be doing nothing whatever.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the existence of this Board had been prolonged from time to time by continuance Bills. The Government had brought in a measure of a totally new character, which instead of centralizing all these functions in London would localize and transfer them to different parts of the country. This reform would also be attended with very considerable economy, though he could not at that moment say what would be the amount of the saving. If, however, the matter were postponed he would inquire into it, and give the hon. Gentleman any information in his power.
§ Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
§ Committee to sit again this day at Six o'clock.