HC Deb 04 June 1852 vol 122 cc1-17

Order read for receiving the Report of the Resolutions in Supply.


said, that it was most unusual to proceed with Supply at 12 o'clock in the day; hut in the position of public business he would not oppose the reception of the Report, or afterwards going into Committee, though he hoped the course now adopted would not be drawn into a precedent.

Resolutions reported.

The House then went into Committee of Supply; Mr. Bernal in the chair.

(1.) 17,920l. Board of Trade, Department of Practical Art, &c.


said, he was glad to state that this Vote had been productive of great public benefit, and that twenty-one Schools of Design, assisted by this grant, had been established throughout the country.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 2,006l. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Salaries and Allowances to certain Professors in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, to the 81st day of March, 1853.


said, he must oppose this Vote. He considered that as long as the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were mere sectarian insti- tutions, they had no right to come to that House, which represented the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland, of all classes and denominations, and to ask for public money in aid of their own resources, which were already sufficiently ample. The Church of England was the richest Church in the world, and, if the funds at the disposal of the Universities were insufficient, that Church could well afford to give them assistance. He had no objection to the items of grant—they were reasonable enough; but so long as the people at large derived no benefit from the institution, so long ought it to be supported out of its own funds, which were ample enough. Similar grants were not given to any dissenting body, and he saw no reason why an exception should be made in favour of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. He thought this grant to Oxford and Cambridge stood entirely upon the same footing as the Maynooth grant. The only difference was, that, in order to deprive Maynooth College of the grant now made to that institution, an Act of Parliament must be repealed, while, in order to discontinue the grant to Oxford and Cambridge, it was only necessary to negative this Vote. He might remind the Committee that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, which were not averse to receive a Parliamentary grant, had shown a stubborn determination to resist Parliamentary inquiry, and, in his opinion, grant and inquiry ought to go together. All they knew was, that these two Universities existed for the benefit of the Church of England alone; that they were largely and adequately endowed; that those who presided over them were "clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day;" and that yet they stood in need of this miserable grant. He regarded this as a sectarian grant of the worst description, and he should certainly divide the Committee upon it.


said, that he felt deep regret that these two national Universities should come annually to Parliament for a grant. He regretted the circumstance the more when he remembered their great wealth. The revenues of the University of Oxford alone amounted to about 75,000l. From the Report of the Commission appointed to institute an inquiry with respect to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, it appeared that there were in Oxford nineteen colleges, but only six out of the nineteen had kept any account of their revenues or proceedings. Six of the colleges had given an account, from which it appeared that the aggregate income of those colleges alone was 37,000l. a year. It was well known that some of the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge enjoyed incomes of 10,000l., 20,000l., 25,000l., and even 30,000l. a year; and, considering their vast wealth, they certainly ought not to apply to that House for grants of public money.


said, he was most unwilling ever to hear the Church of England described as a sect, and that such Votes as this were intended to support a sectarian establishment. The hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. C. Anstey) ought to recollect that if these expressions had been used twenty-five years ago, he would have had very little chance of ever sitting in that House. It was because a great profession was made that it was not the intention of those members of the Roman Catholic religion, who sought admission within their walls, that they would not avail themselves of the opportunity which their position in that House would give them of assailing the time-honoured and cherished institutions of this country, that the decision in favour of their admission to seats in Parliament was mainly influenced. He would now advert more directly to the specific charge of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal against the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. That hon. and learned Gentleman said that these demands ought to be met from the finances of the Universities themselves. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) contended that was a grant made originally by the Sovereign of England, and not by that House, as a dotation to science and literature, when the Civil List was not in its present mutilated form. It was contended, then, that it was most injurious to the interests of those Universities to bring under the discussion of that House the making of such allowances, inasmuch as the Crown could by its own unfettered act make the grant. He knew sufficiently well the minds of those learned bodies to whom the Vote was to be given, to be certain, that if that House would consent to relinquish the tax in the form of stamp duty upon degrees conferred by the two Universities, the Universities would cheerfully abstain for asking for this small vote. There were more than 2,600l. paid annually by those two bodies in the shape of stamps upon degrees. The hon. and learned Member said he was acting con- sistently in opposing this Vote, having also opposed the grant to Maynooth, Where would the hon. and learned Gentleman stop? There was a Vote on the paper for the Church of Scotland. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) would never consent to call the Church of Scotland a sectarian Church, yet they received a grant in aid of education. Then there was the University of London—


That is an institution which opens its doors to every class and every creed; it is not sectarian.


No; the University of London is not sectarian, hut it is worse than sectarian, because it is nothingarian. He found on the Votes Estimates for 3.957l. for the University of London, 7,500l. for the Universities in Scotland, 300l. for the Royal Irish Academy, 300l. for the Royal Hibernian Academy, 6,340l. for the Royal Dublin Society, 3,000l. for the Belfast Institution, 1,710l. for the Queen's University in Ireland. He did not, therefore, see why the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge should be made an exception. Upon these grounds, if the hon. and learned Member for Youghal felt it his duty to divide, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) would feel it his duty to oppose him—a duty he was prepared to discharge with the greatest pleasure.


said, he must maintain that the grant, when originally made, had been made by the Crown in its capacity as trustee for the Realm at large; and Parliament had always exercised a supervision over the application of the money. Either these supplies ought to be granted to every persuasion, or to none. Where an institution was founded solely for the benefit of one class of believers, it had no claims to support out of the national funds. He should, therefore, persevere in taking a division against the Vote, and against the whole of this class. He might observe, however, that the University of London, to which the hon. Baronet had referred, was not a sectarian establishment, but a national institution, open to all persons, without distinction of creed or class.


said, that it appeared from the statement of the hon. Baronet, that these Universities demanded this grant for the purpose of recompensing themselves for their contribution to the general revenue. This, he did not think just or proper. The Universities were the most richly endowed institutions in the country; and after the refusal of all but six colleges to render any account of their revenues, they were entitled to no assistance from the State, it being evident that they had something to conceal. There was no analogy between this case and that of the London University. The two older Universities had abundant means of their own, without coming to Parliament for assistance.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 78; Noes 8: Majority 70.

Vote agreed to; as was also—

(3.) 3,957l., University of London.

(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 7,500l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay grants to Scottish Universities formerly defrayed from the Hereditary Revenues of the Crown, to the 31st day of March, 1853.


said, he must complain that this grant was only applicable to a certain section of the Protestants of Scotland—the members of the Free Church, as well as Roman Catholics, being excluded from the Scotch Universities. He considered that these Universities were exclusive, and he, therefore, would oppose the grant. Besides that, there were included in this sum the salaries of various professors of divinity. Now, as he was against pensioning any religion at the expense of another, he found an additional reason for the course he was pursuing. And considering that the religion of about one-half the people was proscribed within the walls of these colleges, he did not think that the Committee would assent to this vote. The Free Church had set a noble example. In the course of a few years they had raised a sum of nearly 3,000,000l. for the support of their own creed, including educational institutions. It would have been more liberal had the Government proposed a grant to the members of this Church. He denied that these grants could not be touched because they had been originally made by the Crown. The same objection might be urged against any alteration of the Judges' salaries. It was a great pity, for the sake of religion, that religion was ever established in any country as an exclusive creed, to receive endowments out of the public revenue. Under these circumstances he should move the suppression of the grant—not out of any sectarian feeling, but on a principle of justice to the community.


said, he ap- prehended that whatever the power of Parliament might be, that House would always feel that, the hereditary revenue having been surrendered, the charges which had been imposed upon it by the Sovereigns of the country while they had it at their disposal, rested upon a very strong ground of justice as well as policy.


while admitting the benefits which the public had derived from the Scotch Universities, was opposed to the principle of charging these grants on the national revenue; he would suggest that the opposition should be confined to that part of the Vote which was for professors of divinity.


said, he could not vote for the withdrawal of the grant, because it included others besides theological professors.


said, he regretted that the House had rejected a Bill doing away with the tests required from professors in the Scotch Universities, which would have removed any objection to this Vote. The pittances allotted to the professors were most miserable; as a consequence, they were apt to be tempted away by more lucrative situations. The Treasury had been memorialised by the University of Edinburgh on this subject, and he hoped the matter would receive the attention of the Government.


said, he would take that opportunity of vindicating the character of the University of Cambridge, which had been termed sectarian. He himself saw a Dissenter attending lectures at that University.


said, he would adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), and move that the grant be reduced by 595l.

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 6,905l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay Grants to Scottish Universities formerly defrayed from the Hereditary Revenues of the Crown, to the 31st day of March, 1853.


said, that if any class of professors ought to have an exception in their favour, it was the theological professors, whose revenues were subject to a variety of charges. The Scotch Universities had no funds of their own; they were open to all sects; and none had derived more benefit from them than the Roman Catholics of England and Ireland. These Universities had been endowed by the Crown out of its hereditary revenues, when it had full and unlimited power over those revenues; and it was a mistake to suppose that Parliament had the slightest control over the application of those funds until the alteration which was made in the Civil List on the accession of William IV. It would be a gross breach of faith were Parliament now to reduce or abrogate this grant. As to the salaries of the Judges, no reduction had ever been made.


maintained that Parliament had a perfect right to deal with the grant in any way it deemed proper.


said, that theological instruction would be as easily attainable if this Vote was struck out as it was now. He should support the Motion in its amended form, as it did not interfere with the larger grant for secular education.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 86: Majority 70.

Original Question put.

Vote agreed to; as were the following three, namely—

(5.) 300l., Royal Hibernian Academy.

(6.) 300l., Royal Irish Academy.

(7.) 6,340l., Royal Dublin Society.

(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 3,000l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries of the Theological Professors at Belfast, and Retired Allowances to Professors of the Belfast Academical Institution, to the 31st day of March, 1853.


said, that it was his painful duty to renew his objection to this Vote. He did not object to the latter part of the grant, which was 700l. for the allowances of the retired professors; but he did object to the former and larger portion of the grant. The salaries of four professors of divinity were provided for in this Vote. He found first professor of divinity, 250l.; second professor of divinity, 230l. Then, again, he found first professor of divinity non-subscribing association, 150l.; second professor of divinity ditto, 150?. He should like to know what these four professors taught, and what was meant by non-subscribing association? He objected to the grant, because it was for sectarian purposes, and would move that the vote be reduced by 2,300l.

Afterwards, Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 700l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries of the Theological Professors at Belfast, and Retired Allowances to Professors of the Belfast Academical Institution, to the 31st day of March, 1853.


said, the non-subscribing association were a body of Presbyterians in the north of Ireland, who were allowed to make their own arrangements.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 13; Noes 90: Majority 77.

Original Question put.

Vote agreed to; as were also—

(9.) 1,710l. Queen's University, Ireland.

(10.) 21,350l. British Museum Build-ings.

(11.) 52,343l. British Museum Establishment.


said, he wished for some further explanation with regard to the new arrangements of the classes of the attendants at the British Museum, by which persons merely carrying wands were placed on the same level as those of superior qualifications.


said, the history of the matter was this: in the year 1836, after some inquiry by a Committee of that House, the attendants were divided into three classes, and the generality of appointments were made in the lower classes, though the trustees occasionally made appointments in the upper classes. The objection of the hon. Gentleman was untenable, because, if a man of superior capacity was placed in the lower class, he would still rise to the higher classes. The only difference since 1836 was that the attendants, instead of being paid daily pay, now received salaries. Formerly, if any attendant was absent, no matter from what cause, the day's pay was deducted. That did not appear just to the Committee when they looked into the affairs of the Museum, and all the attendants were placed upon salaries, from which no deductions were made; therefore, a material benefit was conferred upon all persons employed in the Museum. On that occasion the trustees again made a rule for dividing the attendants into three several classes, accompanying it with a notice that it would not affect injuriously those who were previously in the service of the Museum.

Vote agreed to; as was also—

(12.) 2,966l. British Museum Purchases.

(13.) 2,495l. National Gallery.


said, he might, per- haps, be permitted to offer a suggestion with reference to this establishment. He was most anxious to see measures taken for the gradual formation of a gallery of national historical portraits. Some years since, during the Administration of the late Sir Robert Peel, he had ventured to make this suggestion, which appeared at that time to meet with very general approval. No one who had visited Versailles could have failed to admire, amidst a largo collection of gorgeous modern paintings, one gallery in which were deposited original portraits of many of the most illustrious men whom France had produced. He thought they might easily provide for the gradual formation of a similar gallery in this country. It would only be necessary to vote a very moderate sum for such a purpose—say 1,500l. or 2,000l. a year; and to give power to certain commissioners to make purchases from time to time when original portraits of distinguished individuals were offered for sale. It would, of course, be understood that if no opportunities for such purchases occurred during the year, there would be no necessity for spending the money, but that it would be retained in hand until purchases could be made. He believed that original portraits of distinguished persons were occasionally to be obtained at a very moderate price; and if he should have the honour of a seat in the next Parliament, he would probably bring forward a specific Motion on this subject.


considered that the suggestion of the noble Lord was a very valuable one. He thought, however, that the whole question of the establishment of public galleries of art in this country was one which must come, without much delay, under the consideration of Parliament. Fortunately the subject had engaged the attention of that illustrious Prince who had done so much towards elevating public taste for art in this country; and be (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) entertained the hope that, with the sympathy and assistance of the House of Commons, and with the sympathy of the country generally, they might ultimately be able to erect a building for the reception of works of art which would remove, what he might almost call, a stain upon the national taste. He hoped that at no distant period the suggestion of the noble Lord would receive that consideration to which it was entitled.

Vote agreed to.

(14.) 14,920l. Museum of Practical Geology and Geological Survey.


said, he wished to referto a deputation which had waited upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to point out the importance of establishing a museum of economic and practical geology in Edinburgh. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to the deputation, admitted the importance of the subject, and he wished now to ask whether the Government had taken any steps with reference to it.


said, the representations of the deputation which waited upon him were most ably supported by the hon. Member; but the fact was, there were other claims of a similar character which had also been made on the Government, and considerable attention was required before the Government could arrive at any satisfactory decision. There were, however, many causes which induced them to hope that some steps would he taken for generally establishing scientific museums in the more important places in the United Kingdom. He could assure the hon. Gentleman, the subject was altogether one which had received, and would receive, the attention of the Government.


begged to call attention to the smallness of the sum (1,500l.) for the prosecution of the geological survey of Ireland, which was generally considered in Ireland, and he was sure by the Government also, as of great advantage to the agriculture of that country.


said, the Government quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman on the importance and value of that survey; but 1,500l. was considered sufficient for conducting its progress during the next year, according to the rate at which it had advanced in previous years.

Vote agreed to; as were the three following, namely:—

(15.) 4,018l., Scientific Works and Experiments.

(16.) 5,000l., Galleries of Art, Edinburgh.

(17.) 4,049l., Civil Establishment, Bermudas.

(18.) Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 7,747l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Ecclesiastical Establishment of the British North American Provinces, to the 31st day of March, 1853.


said, that although it appeared that this grant had been reduced from 11,228l. in 1850 to 7,747l. for the present year, he could not understand why the Committee should be called upon to assent to such a vote. All the grants included in this vote, with the exception of two to Presbyterian ministers, were for the benefit of the Church of England in the colonies. Why should the Parliament of Great Britain be called on to vote money for a Church establishment in Canada, and not in Australia, when they had no control over Canada or its expenditure, the Canadian Legislature being almost as free and independent as the Parliament of Great Britain? The first item was for the Bishop of Quebec, 1,990l. England did not pay for any other establishment in Canada. Then there was the Bishop of Newfoundland, 500l. They did not see the Roman Catholic Bishop of Newfoundland seeking any assistance. It was not pretended these sums were for the support of these officials, because they had already broad lands assigned for the purpose. He observed that, with the exception of 100l. to the Presbyterian minister of Argenteul, in Canada, and 75l. to the Presbyterian minister in Nova Scotia, all this amount was for the support of the Church of England, and he should certainly divide the Committee against the grant.


said, he should not vote with the hon. and learned Member, because all sects had had their fair share of assistance, and an understanding was some time ago come to, that as these persons died off, the sums paid to them would not be renewed to their successors. That accounted for nothing appearing under the head of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Newfoundland. If the hon. and learned Member for Youghal went back only a year or two, he would find the Roman Catholic Bishop of Montreal in the receipt of a very large amount.


said, his objection did not rest upon the grant being applied exclusively to one body of men. He objected to any such grants, and he should have just as much satisfaction in cutting off any grant to the Roman Catholics as to any other persuasion.


said, the hon Member for Lambeth had approached in a very fair spirit, and, unlike the hon. and learned Member (Mr. C. Anstey), had shown that he understood what he was speaking about. If the hon. and learned Member examined into the real state of the matter, he would find that in 1850 this vote amounted to upwards of 11,000l., and that in 1835 it was about 15.000l. The amount now proposed was 7,747l. The fact was, as had been stated by the hon. Member for Lambeth, that this was an expiring grant, now voted annually under an arrangement made twenty years ago. It was first made under a state of things very different from that which now existed; and as to the distinction which the hon. and learned Gentleman supposed to be drawn between members of the Church of England and Roman Catholics, he must observe, that not long ago there was an item of 1,000l. a year to the Roman Catholic Bishop of Quebec.


said, he should support this grant upon the plain and simple ground that what was contributed by all should be shared by all. He would not take advantage of this grant to followtheex-ample of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had attacked the College of Maynooth, and to raise a theological discussion. He might remind those hon. Gentlemen that on the other side the Channel Protestant ministers were supported by the Government, and were better paid than the Roman Catholic cures, although the majority of the people were Catholics.


willingly admitted that many of the Roman Catholic laity were actuated by the charitable spirit evinced by the hon. Member (Mr. P. Howard), but he did not think the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church were influenced by a similar spirit.


said, that seeing the amount was gradually diminishing, and that Parliament was pledged to maintain the grants to the present incumbents, he intended to support the Vote.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 112; Noes 10: Majority 102.

Vote agreed to.

(19.) 12,424l., Indian Department, Canada.


said, he wished to know what had been done towards colonising Vancouver's Island, which had been ceded to the Hudson's Bay Company. That Company was a trading and not a colonising Company, and he feared the island had been greatly prejudiced by being placed in their hands.


said, he must beg to be excused himself from entering into the policy of placing Vancouver's Island in the hands of the Hudson's Bay Company; that question had been fully debated at the time, and it was an arrangement to which the present Government were not a party. The question of the hon. Gentleman was, he understood, what had been done, in pursuance of the Charter so given, in the way of colonisation of Vancouver's Island. Not long ago, in answer to another hon. Member, he had stated partially what had been done, and he would now state it more distinctly. The Hudson's Hay Company had sold, with a view to colonisation, lands to the extent of 1,200 acres; the price was 1l. an acre, and the number of families that had settled there was nine; in addition, they had sent out a considerable number, about 100, of agricultural labourers and miners. That was the substance of the return which the Hudson's Bay Company were required by the Charter to make every three years to the Colonial Office, and which was the only return received, as a second period of three years had not yet elapsed; but in a communication with the Colonial Office last January, the Company explained that they had been unable to do more, owing to the complete derangement of everything on that coast of America, in consequence of the gold discoveries in California.

Vote agreed to; as was also—

(20.) 10,528l., Governors and Lieutenant Governors, West Indies, Prince Edward's Island.

(21.) 33,862l., Stipendiary Justices in West Indies, Mauritius.


said, whenever complaint was made of the amount of this item, the answer always was that no new appointments were made, and as the old Justices died off the vacancies were no filled up; but he could not discover that the lightest diminution had taken place. Had he not seen the result of two or three divisions to-day, he would divide the Committee upon this item.


said, he could only repeat the answer which the hon. Member said was always given, because it was the only answer of which the case admitted. The sum was reduced 2,000l. or 3,000l. as compared with last year, and no new appointments were made.


said, his principal complaint was that the sum was not charged to the Colonies. The Justices might be quite necessary, but the Colonies ought to pay for them.

Vote agreed to.

(22.) Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum not exceeding 13,780l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Civil Establishments on the Western Coast of Africa, to the 31st day of March, 1853.


said, perhaps the hon. Baronet would supply the reason why we paid 400l. for a chaplain in the unimportant colony of Gambia, and nothing to Sierra Leone? He should move that the vote be reduced by 400l.

Afterwards, Motion made, and Question put— That a sum not exceeding 13,380l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Civil Establishments on the Western Coast of Africa, to the 31st day of March, 1853.


said, he must express his regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman should consider all grants for the support of ministers of the Church of England subjects for complaint. There was a chaplain at Sierra Leone as well as at Gambia. The only difference was that from the smallness of the latter colony assistance was necessary, whilst the charge in the former was borne by the revenues of the Colony.


said, the hon. Baronet did him great injustice in accusing him of selecting grants to the Church of England for opposition. He opposed grants of every kind. He had voted against grants to Presbyterians and Episcopalians, and he should vote against grants to Roman Catholics. He considered the hon. Baronet's statement quite beside the question, and he should certainly divide the Committee.

The Committee divided:— Ayes 6; Noes 94: Majority 88.

Original Question put.

Vote agreed to; as was also—

(23.) 10,802l., Island of St. Helena.

(24.) Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 7,059l., be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Charge of Western Australia, to the31stday of March, 1853.

Afterwards, Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 6,159l., be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Charges of Western Australia, to the 31st day of March, 1853.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 9; Noes 114: Majority 105.

Original Question put.

Vote agreed to; as was also—

(25.) 491l., Port Essington.

On the Vote of 10,000l. in aid of the charges of New Zealand,


said, that it was stated that this Estimate was less by 10,000l. than last year, and the Governor of New Zealand represented that it would be diminished to 5,000l. next year, after which it was hoped no further aid would be wanted. He would further that benevolent wish of the Governor by moving that it be reduced by 1,190l. That was more than a tithe of the 10,000l., and he supposed it was given as a tithe to the bishop, 600l. to himself and 590l. to the chaplain and schools which were under his management.


said, as the hon. and learned Member would insist on a division, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would now move that the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


said, he had voted against all grants for religious purposes in the Colonies; he felt justified in doing so; and he should vote with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. C. Anstey) because he did not see any reason whatever why the people of this country should pay for religious instruction in the Colonies. If the Colonists wanted spiritual food, they ought to supply themselves.


said, before the question was put, he wished to draw the attention of the Government to a very material omission in the Estimates, by which a great number of very objectionable items did not appear there at all. A paper which he had moved for early in the Session, and obtained with some difficulty, threw some light upon the subject; for it appeared from that return that the following allowances were made annually (he believed) out of the funds in their passage to the Treasury, without any warrant from Parliament for their being so withdrawn from supervision and control:—Her Majesty's Commissioners to the General Assembly, 2,000l.; for defraying the charges of the Church of Scotland and the salaries of its officers, 1,100l.; itinerant preachers and catechists in connexion with the Church of Scotland, 2,000l. These sums were apparently defrayed from various sources, as the Woods and Forests, the Customs, Inland Revenue, &c. With regard to the Customs and Inland Revenues, he admitted the charges were not in themselves objectionable, but he contended they ought not to be made in this manner; they ought to be made on the authority of the Treasury, and an account rendered to Parliament. Having given notice of the matter, he hoped he should elicit from Ministers an explanation of the practice, which certainly did not commence with them, and probably they did not intend it to continue.


said, these sums, if they did not appear in the Estimates, appeared in the Finance accounts, which was the answer he was prepared to give when the hon. Member for Lambeth brought forward the Motion of which he had given notice.


said, the Motion of which he had given notice was to call the attention of the House to the fact that 7,000,000l. of taxation were intercepted in their way to the Exchequer. He had given way at the request of the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to give him an opportunity to bring forward the subject. Had the right hon. Gentleman any objection to his doing so on Thursday next?


said, he should always appreciate the kindness of the hon. Member in withdrawing the Motion at his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) particular request. There was great difficulty in making any arrangements; but it was his intention to give the hon. Member a fair opportunity of bringing forward the question, and he would see if it could be managed on Thursday.

House resumed.

Chairman reported progress.

Back to