CIVIL SERVICES

HC Deb 09 April 1877 vol 233 cc779-91

CLASS I
Great Britain:—	£
(18.) Metroploitan Police Courts Abroad:—	1,900
(23.) Embassy Houses and Consular Buildings	8,000

CLASS II.
England:-	£
(1.) House of Lords Offices,	7,500
(2.) House of Commons, Offices	8,500
(3.) Treasury, including Parliamentary Counsel	10,000
(4.) Home Office and Subordinate Departments	15,000
(5.) Foreign Office	12,500
(6.) Colonial Office	6,100
(7.) Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments	5,800
(8.) Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments	30,000
(9.) Privy Seal Office	500
(10.) Charity Commission (including Endowed Schools Department)	6,000
(11.) Civil Service Commission	4,500
(12.) Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission	3,100
(13.) Inclosure and Drainage Acts Expenses	1,500
(14.) Exchequer and Audit Department	8,500
(15.) Friendly Societies, Registry	1,000
(16.) Local Government Board (including Pauper Lunatics)	150,000
(17.) Lunacy Commission	2,600
(18.) Mint	8,500
(19.) National Debt Office	2,800
(20.) Patent Office	6,500
(21.) Paymaster General's Office	6,000
(22.) Public Record Office	3,800
(23.) Public Works Loan Commission	1,700
(24.) Register Office, General	8,000
(25.) Stationery Office and Printing	80,000
(26.) Woods, Forests, &c., Office of	4,500
(27.) Works and Public Buildings, Office of	6,500
(28.) Secret Service	4,000
Scotland:—
(29.) Exchequer and other Offices	1,100
(30.) Fishery Board	2,200
(31.) Lunacy Commission	1,000
(32.) Register Office, General	1,200
(33.) Board of Supervision (including Pauper Lunatics)	20,000
Ireland:—
(34.) Lord Lieutenant's Household	1,200
(35.) Chief Secretary's Office	4,500
(36.) Boundary Survey	100
(37.) Charitable Donations and Bequests Office	400
(38.) Local Government Board	22,000
(39.) Public Record Office	1,100
(40.) Public Works Office	5,000
(41.) Register Office, General	3,000
(42.) General Survey and Valuation	3,600
(43.) Pauper Lunatics	20,000

CLASS III.
England:—
(1.) Law Charges	10,500
(2.) Criminal Prosecutions	30,000
(3.) Chancery Division, High Court of Justice	30,000
(4.) Queen's Bench, &c. Divisions, High Court of Justice	10,500
(5.) Probate and Divorce Registries, High Court of Justice	16,000
(6.) Admiralty Registry, High Court of Justice	2,300

	£
(6A.) Wreck Commissioner's Office	2,100
(7.) Bankruptcy Court, London	8,500
(8.) County Courts	75,000
(9.) Land Registry Office	1,000
(10.) Police Courts, London and Sheerness	2,500
(11.) Metropolitan Police	110,000
(12.) Police, Counties and Boroughs, Great Britain	1,000
(13.) Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies	75,000
(14.) County Prisons, Great Britain	17,000
(15.) Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain	60,000
(16.)Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum	5,000
Scotland:—
(18.) Lord Advocate, and Criminal Proceedings	12,000
(19.) Courts of Law and Justice	11,000
(20.) Register House Departments	5,500
(21.) Prisons and Judicial Statistics	3,500
Ireland:—
(22.) Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions	14,500
(23.) Court of Chancery	7,000
(24.) Common Law Courts	5,000
(25.) Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency	2,000
(26.) Lanced Estates Court	2,000
(27.) Probate Court	2,000
(28.) Admiralty Court Registry	300
(29.) Registry of Deeds	3,500
(30.) Registry of Judgments	500
(31.) Dublin Metropolitan Police	35,000
(32.) Constabulary	275,000
(33.) Government Prisons, &c.	7,000
(34.) County Prisons and Reformatories	25,000
(35.) Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum	1,200
(36.) Miscellaneous Legal Charges	12,000

CLASS IV.
England:—
(1.) Public Education	500,000
(2.) Science and Art Department	50,000
(3.) British Museum	18,500
(4.) National Gallery	1,200
(5.) National Portrait Gallery	400
(6.) Learned Societies	2,100
(7.) University of London	1,800
(8.) Deep Sea Exploring Expedition	700
(9.) Paris International Exhibition	2,100
Scotland:—
(10.) Public Education	125,000
(11.) Board of Education	500
(12.) Universities, &c.	3,100
(13.) National Gallery	400
Ireland:—
(14.) Public Education	165,000
(15.) Commissioners of Education (Endowed Schools)	200
(16.) National Gallery	400
(17.) Queen's University	800
(18.) Queen's Colleges	2,100

CLASS V
(1.) Diplomatic Services	51,000
(2.) Consular Services	62,000

	£
(3.) Colonies, Grants in Aid	12,000
(4.) Orange River Territory and St. Helena	500
(5.) Suppression of the Slave Trade	1,300
(6.) Tonnage Bounties,&c.	3,000
(7.) Emigration	500
(8.) Suez Canal (British Directors)	300

CLASS VI.
(1.) Superannuation and Retired Allowances	115,000
(2.) Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions &c	8,500
(3.) Relief of Distressed British Seamen Abroad	5,000
(4.) Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland	4,600
(5.) Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain	1,100
(6.) Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Ireland	1,100
(7.) Commutation of Annuities	1,200

CLASS VII.
(1.) Temporary Commissions	5,100
(2.) Miscellaneous Expenses	1,500

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
(1.) Customs	165,000
(2.) Inland Revenue	300,000
(3.) Post Office	550,000
(4.) Post Office Packet Service	192,000
(5.) Post Office Telegraphs	309,000
	£4,046,100"

MR. RYLANDS

objected to so considerable a Vote on Account as interfering with the due discussion of the several items, and moved to reduce it by one-third—namely, £1,348,700. His object was to bring the Vote down to what had been usual at that period of the Session.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £2,697,400, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments, to the 31st day of March 1878."—(Mr. Rylands.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

would appeal to the Committee whether the Government had not done all in their power to bring forward Supply as early as possible. Owing, however, to the pressure of Business it had not been in their power to make the same progress with Supply as they had done last year. It appeared to be the wish of hon. Members opposite that the Secretary to the Treasury should this year make a Statement on moving the Miscellaneous Votes, and this Statement had necessarily taken some time, which, if otherwise employed, might have en- abled the Government to get a number of Votes. The hen. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would see on examining the different items that the Government only asked for two months' Supply on account, and that request was neither unusual, unnecessary, nor unreasonable. The Government did not desire to withdraw the Votes from discussion so as to evade criticism, and he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.

MR. GOLDSMID

objected to the charge of £500 for the Lord Privy Seal. The Vote had been supported against former attacks by the suggestion that the Lord Privy Seal was the odd man in the Cabinet, ready to take up any work that might arise which did not belong to other Departments. That had been disputed; and now the Prime Minister by accepting the office, had proved the incorrectness of the allegations. He should certainly propose to reduce the Vote by the amount charged by the Lord Privy Seal.

MR. DILLWYN

complained that the amount for these Votes on account was increased every year, and it was therefore time to put a stop to the system. These Votes on account prevented the House from having any control over the Expenditure, and he should therefore support the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He thought that by giving the Government as small a sum as was possible the House would exercise a greater control over them.

SIR WILLIAM FRASER

suggested to the Government the advisability of combining the two offices in future, and paying the full emoluments of both. For a rich country like Great Britain the Prime Minister was underpaid rather than overpaid, and he thought that the salary attached to the Privy Seal would be a willing addition to that of the Premier.

MR. PARNELL

referred to the Vote for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecution (Ireland), for which was required on Account £14,500, and the Estimate for 1877-78 was £85,428. This sum exceeded the past year's Estimate by £5,000, and he asked if the whole of the amount was required for this year.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, to the best of his belief, all the charges mentioned in the Vote were for the current year.

MR. WHITWELL

admitted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury had used due diligence in pressing forward Supply, but he objected to so large a Vote on Account.

MR. MONK

suggested that the Vote for £500 on account of Lord Privy Seal should be withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that it was not competent to omit any item after a proposal had been made to reduce the whole Vote, unless the Amendment were by consent withdrawn.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, what was proposed was, that if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would withdraw his Motion, the Government would propose to ask leave to withdraw the item of £500.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Motion made, and Question, That the Item of £500, Privy Seal Office, be omitted from the proposed Vote,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,) —put, and agreed to.

(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £4,045,600, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments, to the 31st day of March 1878. [Then the Votes set forth as before, in order, excepting Vote 9, Class II., Privy Seal Office, £500.]

MR. RYLANDS

proposed to reduce the amount by the sum of £530,100. He had very reasonable grounds for asking the Government to accept that proposal, for the amount they would receive would be equal to any Vote on Account which had been made during the last five years, and he was not aware of any exceptional circumstances which could induce the Government to ask for a Vote so much in excess of past Votes. During the past few years the Votes on Account for Civil Service had varied from £1,037,000 to £2,039,000 at this period of the year. If the large sum asked for were granted, the only effect would be to prevent opportunities for considering many of the items of expenditure being afforded hereafter. The reduc- tion which was proposed would not be such as to occasion any difficulty in meeting the exigencies of the Public Service.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £3,515,500, granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments, to the 31st day of March 1878."—(Mr. Rylands.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

thought the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley would amount to little more than a protest. He did not know of any sufficient reason why the particular reduction proposed should be made.

MR. CHILDERS

contended that it was not so much a protest against the Vote under discussion which actuated the conduct of the hon. Member for Burnley, as an emphatic protest against the large increase that had of late taken place in the amount of these Votes on Account. He could not understand on what possible ground it was necessary to have more than three months' pay in hand for the Irish and Metropolitan Police. They were paid at very short intervals, and the Vote on Account was now asked for for the first time. The Government asked for £110,000 out of £431,000 for the Metropolitan Police, and for £275,000 out of £1,086,000 for the Irish Constabulary.

MR. W. H. SMITH

stated that the amount asked for was the least which was necessary. It was unavoidable to ask for some of the Votes on Account. As for the Irish Constabulary they were paid quarterly, and their pay was now due.

MR. HERMON

objected to an item connected with the Trade Marks Registration Bill—the sum for the carrying out of the provisions of which he thought would be thrown away, inasmuch as the Act in question was mischievous and unworkable, had inflicted considerable injuries upon manufacturers in the North, and would before long have to be amended.

MR. W. H. SMITH,

in reply, said, it would be competent for the hon. Member to move the omission of all charges on this account when the Patent Office Vote was before the Committee.

MR. PARNELL

wanted to know how it happened that the Vote for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions (Ireland) had been raised from £5,422 to £10,422? The hon. Member the Secretary for the Treasury said a little while ago that to the best of his opinion all these charges were for the current year. He (Mr. Parnell) wished to direct the hon. Gentleman's particular attention to this special matter, as it was curious that the expenses for prosecutions and general law charges last year was £5,422, and this year it was nearly double. He wished again to ask him whether the whole of this £10,422 was incurred last year or this year?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, with regard to the matter, he had to repeat what he stated the other night—that the provision for the Law Charges had been insufficient for some time past, and last year there was a Supplementary Estimate passed, but this was for the service of the year, and was not intended to cover arrears.

MR. SULLIVAN

observed that that was not an answer to the hon. Member for Meath. What they really wanted to know was, if this £4,000 or £5,000 was the sum to defray the Phœnix Park prosecutions?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, it was not. Certain legal proceedings which had arisen out of what were called the Phœnix Park Riots in Dublin were still pending on appeal, and therefore the accounts relating thereto could not be closed. I Not more than about £140 had been paid out of the public funds during the year ended 31st March, 1876, on account for the costs incurred by the then Irish Executive in reference to the proceedings in question. The current expenditure for Law Charges in Ireland had been in excess of the provision for three years running, and the House had granted Supplementary or Excess Estimates to make up that deficiency. It was thought right that that should continue to be so no longer, and, therefore, what was voted in these Estimates was for the year.

MR. SULLIVAN

I want to know if the costs of the Phœnix Park prosecutions in which verdicts have been had against the Government have been paid? This is a matter of four or five years' standing, and we have not yet had a chance of discussing that transaction on a Vote of the House. If these are not those costs, when will those costs be brought before us to give us an opportunity of discussing the transaction?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sullivan) was in error as to the present Vote. The transaction referred to occurred in 1871. He believed that the House had already voted a small sum this Session in respect of the costs incurred amounting to some few hundreds of pounds. There had been decisions in favour of the Government pronounced by the Court of Exchequer, and there were appeals pending, and until the question was determined all the expenses could not be finally ascertained. He believed the appeal would be heard during the present year.

MR. BUTT

wanted a further explanation. He spoke in the recollection of the Secretary for the Treasury when he said that he believed there was a sum of £6,000 in this present Session in a Supplementary Estimate for these costs of the Phœnix Park prosecutions.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

No. That sum was for general legal matters connected with Ireland and included the small sum already referred to.

MR. BUTT

said, then he might be wrong. But £6,000 had been paid out of the public Treasury for the defence of the police who had acted with such severity against many poor people on the occasion referred to, the late Chief Secretary, and the Under Secretary for Ireland, and he wanted to know under what authority that was done and the money so applied? No public money should have been expended without the sanction of Parliament and it was a very unconstitutional proceeding to do as had been done in this matter.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, he was glad attention had been called to the subject, because for years past they had been watching the proceedings of the House with the view of obtaining a favourable opportunity for discussing the matter. They knew that law costs to the extent of about £5,000 had been incurred by the Government as the result of the Phœnix Park affair, and they had waited in vain to see the items composing it brought under the consideration of the House. They had been aware in Ireland for the past eight or ten years that a practice highly objectionable on constitutional grounds had prevailed. It was the practice of indemnifying Government officials for illegal conduct. There could be nothing more injudicious than the carrying into effect of such a principle of indemnity. Irish Members wanted to know if it was true that the Government had swept through the Committee of that House, without conferring on its Members a fair opportunity of discussing the matter, Votes for thousands of pounds expended in the direction he had named. For his own part, he waited last Session night after night watching the Estimates, and at that time he had a suspicion that some day they would wake up and be told that the Vote had already been passed in the bulk of the Estimates. What he wanted to know that night was on what date it had been passed; and, if not so passed, when it would be brought into the Estimates? He did not hold the present Attorney General for Ireland personally responsible, but it was quite evident that a responsibility rested with somebody. Juries had again and again declared the conduct of the police and of the Government illegal, but upon a flimsy technicality the Government had recourse to an appeal. He appealed to the Government to let them have some definite information and explanation on the subject.

THE CHAIRMAN

being about to put the Question—

MR. BUTT

said, that he did not think the Government ought to treat the matter with silent indifference. He really hoped some explanation would be given. Were they not intelligible questions? Could they be answered or not? Had large sums of money been applied to the defence of defendants in actions brought to recover damages for persons injured in the Phœnix Park riots? If the public money had been so applied, when was it voted by the House? It was not becoming on the part of Ministers to meet such a question with silence.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, that be should be very glad if, at that moment, he could give them some precise information on the subject. He had no doubt whatever that considerable sums of public money had been paid to meet the costs of the defence alluded to. Those amounts had, no doubt, been accounted for at the proper time. The expenses of each year had been paid by the Votes of Parliament in each year.

In the Estimates under discussion he did not believe that there could be said to be anything for prospective costs in the matter alluded to, for the simple reason that it had not been anticipated that any further costs would be required. He might, however, add that very little, if any, of the money had been paid since the present Government came into office, almost all the litigation having occurred under the administration of the late Government.

MR. PARNELL

observed that the right hon. Gentleman's statement appeared to be directly the contrary of that of the Attorney General for Ireland, who had said that the Vote included a sum for these costs.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

replied that he had referred to Excesses taken before Easter, and not to the Vote now before the Committee.

MR. PARNELL

asked, whether the Government had made any provision in the Estimates of the year for the costs of any pending appeal?

MR. MACDONALD,

considering the grave charge that had been brought against the Government by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), begged to move to report Progress. He thought that when a charge of such a description was made, and not answered directly or indirectly, such a course as he proposed should be adopted.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Macdonald.)

MR. GOLDSMID

trusted that the hon Member for Stafford would not press his Motion to report Progress. Her Majesty's Government could not well be charged with refusing to answer questions upon this subject, because they absolutely knew nothing about it, the circumstances in connection with it having occurred before they came into office. He thought hon. Members would be satisfied by an assurance from the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary that inquiry should be made into the matter, and all information with respect to it given at a future time. So many questions were put to the Government upon various topics, that they must be walking cyclopœdias to be able to answer them off-hand.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

wished to add to what had been stated by the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary and by the Attorney General for Ireland, that it was impossible for the Members of the present Government to inform the Committee precisely what was the amount which had been spent in the course of this litigation, because they were not in office when the chief part of the litigation was being carried on. His impression was—of course, he could not speak accurately on the subject at so short a notice—that information had been asked for and obtained as to the sums spent on those trials. At all events, it could never have been a secret that considerable sums had been expended by the Government on the conduct of these trials. If hon. Members representing Irish constituencies wished to raise any question with reference to these expenses, they should have done so upon the Vote for Law Charges in Ireland, in which, although not specially mentioned, these expenses were provided for. It seemed to him that the better course for them now to take would be to move for a Return of the sum which had been expended for this purpose. If, however, it was the intention of those hon. Members to object not to the amount of the costs incurred in this litigation, but to the policy out of which that litigation arose, it would be open to them to take that course on giving proper Notice. It was inconvenient that the subject should have been brought forward without Notice, and at a time when there was no expectation that it would be discussed, because the right hon. and learned Member for Londonderry County (Mr. Law), who was responsible for these proceedings having been taken, was not now in his place, although he had been in attendance on many previous occasions for the purpose of defending the conduct of the late Government in the matter. He (the Marquess of Hartington) trusted that if the subject were to be discussed on a future occasion due Notice would be given of the intention to bring it forward.

MR. BUTT

quite agreed with the noble Marquess that it was at an inconvenient time, and that the very best course the Government could take would be to assent to a Return setting fourth the money expended in defence of the actions raised. He did not think that anybody could have expected that the question would have arisen; but at the same time, since it had come forward, the Government should have no objection to give a clear explanation of the matter. However the decision might go, he would on a future day raise the whole question, and ask the opinion of the House upon it.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH

said, that if a Return of the expenses were moved for, he should be most happy to give every information in his power; and if the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt) would communicate with him on the subject he would, as far as possible, assist him.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RYLANDS

wished again to appeal to the Government to reduce the large amount now asked for, and he hoped they would accede to his request.

Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £3,515,500, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments, to the 31st day of March 1878.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 149: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 60.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.