§ Order for Committee read.
§ House in Committee, Mr. BOUVERIE in the Chair.
§ The following Votes were then agreed to—
- (1.) 2,700l., Lord Privy Seal.
- (2.) 23,850l., Paymaster General's Office.
- (3.) 7,295l., Comptroller General of the Exchequer.
- (4.) 20,124l., Office of Works and Buildings.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished for some explanation with respect to the appointment of two additional secretaries—an assistant secretary and an architectural secretary—at 200l. and 400l. a year.
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, the appointments had been made in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission, who found that the increase of business warranted the additional assistance.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he should be glad to know what this increased business might be.
§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, the Commission, consisting of Sir Stafford Northcote and Sir Charles Trevelyan, had considered the question of the amount of business transacted in the Board of Works, and reported that it could not be properly performed without additional assistance.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYasked an explanation with reference to the assistant architect.
§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHreplied, that the architectural assistant had been for some time employed by the Board of Works to carry on the works at the Embassy at Constantinople. On his return to this country he continued in office in connection with the Board, and was at this moment employed in their service.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he did not quite understand the appointment of the Commission to which the right hon. Baronet had referred. He was sure that, if the right hon. Baronet had come to that House and said he required more assistance in his department, no one would have refused it. Why was application not made to that House?
§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHrepeated that the Commission had been named in consequence of an application made to the Treasury; and when their Report was laid before the House the additional secretary was appointed.
MR. HUMEsaid, he wished for some explanation as to the sum of 401l. inserted as the salary of the architectural assistant from November, 1853, to March, 1855, and would really like to know for what purpose such an office had been created?
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, that the office referred to was not in any way a new office, but had existed for some time. None of the public money was wasted by having such an officer to assist them, because if Government did not employ him, they must employ strangers, and that probably at a much increased rate.
MR. HUMEsaid, he was satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's answer, and he thought Government ought to have a competent person in this department whom they could consult when necessary.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) 22,846l., Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues.
§ MR. VANCEsaid, he must call attention to the large sum subscribed by Ireland to this Estimate, and at the same time he must complain that the sister country should obtain such a few corresponding advantages in the shape of city improvements, &c. The city of Dublin was, perhaps, the chief sufferer, and, as compared with the English metropolis, met with the most niggardly treatment. A street was very much required from the Dublin Four Courts to one of the great railway termini, but the improvement was not carried out.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that the salaries of two Commissioners were charged in this account. He understood Mr. Kennedy had been induced to resign his office. Was that office about to be filled up?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the office of Mr. Kennedy was virtually vacant. It was a serious question, and the Government had not yet come to any decision on the subject.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to call attention to the large sum of 1,500l., which was set down as the probable amount of the hills of the solicitors of the department in Scotland, although a very small portion of the Crown revenues in Scotland came into the public purse. He believed that those revenues were taken very good care of in Scotland, and applied to public objects in that country. The same observation applied to the sum of 300l., which was set down for the solicitors in Ireland.
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, in referring back to the question raised by the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Vance), he wished to observe that that hon. Gentleman was under a mistake with regard to the sources from which public improvements were made in London, and that no such improvements were made out of the income from the land revenues. It was true, that in the first instance the necessary payments were paid from that source; but ultimately the whole expense was borne by the inhabitants, who had suffered themselves to be taxed by an additional duty on coals for that purpose. The expense, therefore, of those improve- 1324 ments, although paid in the first instance by the public, ultimately fell on the inhabitants of the metropolis itself. The proposal which was made to the Government with reference to the city of Dublin, although he admitted it had the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, was at variance, as far as he (Mr. Wilson) was aware, with every precedent for the expenditure of public money in this country. With respect to the Crown revenues in Ireland, they were not so productive as some Gentlemen appeared to imagine. The amount of the legal expenses was to be explained by the fact that a great many sales of outlying properties had been effected, and other properties purchased in their stead, the object being to concentrate the property of the Crown as much as possible.
§ MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he must complain of the conduct of the Treasury in refusing to sanction the necessary outlay for the creation of the new street in Dublin, alluded to by his hon. Friend (Mr. Vance), and referred to the answer given last night on the subject of erecting a new building for the purposes of the Encumbered Estates Court. He was not surprised at the answer given to his hon. Friend on the subject of the new street after witnessing the ineffectual efforts of the Lord Chancellor, the entire bar of Ireland, and the whole body of the solicitors, who had petitioned the House of Commons for redress, to erect a proper place for the transaction of business where property amounting to millions was disposed of. He maintained that from wherever the funds came money ought to be found for so very essential a purpose. With regard to the large sum to be paid to the solicitor for Scotland, finding it entered under the head of "probable amount of the bills" of the solicitor for Scotland, he could not help stating that that was rather a loose way of asking for a Vote. He had no doubt, however, but that the amount of the bills would be made up to 1,500l. if the Committee voted that sum.
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he wished to observe that the Crown property was notoriously the worst managed property in Ireland, and that it was positively a source of nuisance to gentlemen whose property adjoined it. He thought the Government ought to take the very earliest steps to dispose of the whole of it.
MR. HUMEsaid, he wanted to know, seeing that a suns of 2,843l. was paid to 1325 the ranger of Richmond Park—and that ranger a lady of high rank—why it was that the public interests were not better looked after? He must say he altogether objected to individuals of Royal rank, who were otherwise amply provided for, being placed in situations where public money was misapplied or misappropriated. The House of Commons had long since declared that no situations were to be filled by deputy; and why, then, was it to be suffered that in this instance duties of importance were performed through a deputy. He believed that the time had come when all such appointments must be done away with.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he hoped the Government would not yield to the pressure which was attempted to be put upon them in reference to providing a place for the Encumbered Estates Court in Ireland. He objected to the application of public money to benefiting individuals in the disposal of their private property.
§ MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he believed that when Government undertook the important duty of reforming the administration of the law, it was bound to provide for the efficient carrying out of its own project. However, to meet the objections of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), he would say at once that he had no objection to see a small percentage charged upon the suitors to the Court, to create the necessary funds for the erection of a new building. What he desired to see was the perfect and satisfactory administration of justice in a Court which he believed, notwithstanding what had been said last night, was still destined to last from ten to fifteen years longer.
§ SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, that the whole question was still in abeyance, in consequence of its not yet being definitely settled whether the operations of the Court were to be conducted for the future through a reformed Court of Chancery, in which case it was obvious that any outlay upon an Encumbered Estates Court would be thrown away.
§ MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he must beg to remind the Committee that the right hon. Baronet and Gentlemen opposite had opposed a Bill of his for the reform of die Irish Court of Chancery, which in the course of time would have saved the country some 750,000l. on account of the Encumbered Estates Court; and this he did morely, as he believed, because the mea- 1326 sure emanated from that, the opposite, side of the House.
§ SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he must protent against the insinuation of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(6.) 2,791l., State Paper Office.
(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
That a sum not exceeding 3,463l. be granted to Her Majesty to defray a portion of the expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, to the 31st day of March, 1855.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, it was his intention to divide the Committee on this Vote. It was impossible that the public could derive any advantage from the property which this Commission managed. He admitted that the property had been improved; and, as a churchman, he approved of the application which had been made of the augmented income which had been obtained, but thought it most unjust that the expense of the Commission should be thrown upon the public.
§ MR. HADFIELDsaid, he also should oppose the Vote, upon the ground that the expenses of managing a trust estate ought to be paid out of the estate itself, before the parties beneficially interested took any advantage from it.
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, the Commission was appointed in accordance with an Act of Parliament, and that the objection ought to have been raised against the appointment of the Commission in the first instance, and not against this Vote now that it had been appointed.
§ MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, he should reserve some observations which he had intended to make in reference to the powers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the exercise of those powers, until the House should be called upon to give a second reading to a Bill, which he understood was about to be introduced, in reference to the Church Estates Committee. With respect to this immediate Vote, he believed there was an agreement between the Government and the heads of the Church, that this small payment should be made to defray the expenses of the Commission, and he also thought there was an advantage in bringing the consideration of this subject annually before Parliament. If, therefore, the hon. Member for Lambeth should press his Amendment to a division, he should not be able to support it.
MR. HUMEsaid, he thought the time was come when the Church—improved as 1327 she was in her prospects and in her property—ought to pay her own expenses. He must vindicate the right of the House to deal with this Vote, notwithstanding the existence of the Act to which the Secretary of the Treasury had referred, and he wished for some information as to the deficiency of 7,000l. or 8,000l., which had been discovered some time ago.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he thought it high time for the Government to reconsider this Vote. He did not see that it involved any great principle, but it was a Vote which ought not to appear on the Estimates, and he should certainly vote against it. If the matter were brought under the consideration of the Bishops, he did not think they could object to paying the amount out of the revenues of the Church.
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, it was important that the funds to be applied to the Ecclesiastical Commission in Ireland should appear in the same Vote. That Commission was most expensive and badly managed. It was desirable that there should be some control for the better arrangement and execution of the office. He hoped that the matter would be brought forward in such a way as would give some control over the Commission.
§ MR. J. WILSONreplied that the Commissioners were paid out of the funds of the Commission.
MR. HUMEsaid, he should like to know what had become of the 7,000l. to which he had alluded.
Question put, the Committee divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 56: Majority 35.
Vote agreed to.
(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding 210,902l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray Expenses connected with the administration of the Laws relating to the Poor, to the 31st day of March, 1855."
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the amount allowed for the administration of the Irish Poor Law. The sums were monstrous and should be reduced. He considered that there was no necessity for two Commissioners for Ireland. The number of Assistant Commissioners ought also to be reduced; also the number of architects and assistant architects. Those were now totally useless. They had been building and rebuilding workhouses at an enormous expense, and to an unnecessary extent. As pauperism had diminished it was mon- 1328 strous to have this enormous staff of architects to carry on buildings which were not required. He hoped that the Secretary for Ireland would give them some assurance of a prospect of a reduction in this Vote. He thought he (Colonel Dunne) could observe, on reading the Report of the Commissioners of the Poor Laws, great anxiety on their part to grasp other business than that which they had. They evidently saw that the country would not stand this expense much longer, and they were desirous of extending their duties. Before he sat down he must call the attention of the Committee to another item in the Vote, which he considered most unfair as regards Ireland. In the English Poor Law expenditure there were grants for the auditors and schoolmasters, but there were none for Ireland. There was also an item for the medical attendance for the unions in England, which was not granted to Ireland. He could see no reason why these sums should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund in England. He should be glad to know how any reformer could point out the difference between the two countries which would entitle the people of England to those grants and not the people of Ireland. He asked for a Committee to inquire into this matter, in order to prove the injustice with which Ireland was treated. As the Votes proceeded, he would point out how Ireland was exempted from other benefits in the expenditure of the public money.
§ SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he saw in the Vote for the Poor Law Board in England that there were no less than four secretaries who received salaries of 1,500l., 1,000l., 1,200l. and 800l. a year. A Lord of the Treasury was only paid 1,000l. a year; a Lord of the Admiralty received a similar sum; Sir Baldwin Walker, the Surveyor to the Navy, only received 1,000l. a year; the secretary to the Ecclesiastical Commission, 883l.; the secretary to the Woods and Forests, 1,200l.; and he could not understand the propriety of paying such large salaries as those which appeared in the Vote to the four secretaries of the Poor Law Board. He thought some oversight had been committed; and, for the purpose of making a deduction of 500l. a year, he would propose that the vote be reduced to 210,402l.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding 210,402l., be granted to her Majesty, to defray Expenses connected with the administration of the Laws 1329 relating to the Poor, to the 31st day of March, 1855.
§ MR. BAINESsaid, he wished to state, in answer to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Sir G. Pechell) that before the establishment of the present Poor Law Board there were three Commissioners, each of whom received a salary of 2,000l. a year, making altogether a sum of 6,000l. a year. In the place of these three Commissioners, a president and two secretaries were now appointed, and a considerable saving in the expenditure had been thereby effected, for, whereas the expense of the three Commissioners was formerly 6,000l. a year, the expense of the President of the Poor Law Board and two secretaries was only 4,500l., making an annual saving of no less than 1,500l. He might remind the Committee that it had been intended by the Government of Lord Derby to institute an inquiry into the whole subject of the Poor Law Board, and that, indeed, some steps were taken to effect that object. When he succeeded his right hon. Friend opposite (Sir J. Trollope) in the office of President of the Poor Law Board, he found matters in such a state that it was desirable to proceed with the inquiry. In the course of last year a careful and scrutinising inquiry was made, and the result was the Report presented on the 25th of February last, of "Committee of Inquiry into Public Offices and Papers connected therewith." In that volume a very full Report appeared upon the subject of the Poor Law Board, and the present Estimate was framed strictly in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee. The Committee inquired into every branch of the establishment, and if the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton would look over their Report he would find proper reasons given for any increase which might appear in the Estimate. No doubt, there were two points upon which an increase had been made, and one was with regard to the clerks. On looking into the subject, it was found that the clerks were much less paid, according to their merits and the amount of their work, than the clerks of any other Government department. Notwithstanding that the official duties of any one of these gentlemen might have extended over a period of twenty years, he had no claims to any superannuation allowance whatever, and in that respect the office was distinguished from those of other departments. The Committee found on inquiry that the 1330 increase recommended in the salary of the clerks was not more than was well warranted by the circumstances of the case. The only other head upon which there was any increase were the travelling and incidental expenses of the inspectors. He thought if the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton carefully read the Report of the Committee, he would not feel inclined to proceed with the Motion he had made.
§ SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, he trusted he might be permitted to add a few words to those just uttered by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board. He thought it his duty, when he held the same office as the right hon. Gentleman, to call attention to the condition of the clerks, and the low scale of their salaries. The diminution in the Vote which the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton proposed was exactly the reduction of that increase which had been made in the salaries of those clerks. He found, upon the representation of the clerks that they were paid much lower and on a much worse scale than the clerks of any of the other public offices. He did not think that it was just or right that they should be placed upon an inferior footing to that of other public offices, and he called the attention of the Treasury of the Government with which he had been connected to the fact. The Treasury, thinking that there was some foundation for those complaints made on behalf of those clerks, appointed a Commission of Inquiry, which was headed by Sir Charles Trevelyan. The Report of that Commission was in favour of a small increase to their salaries, and this increase, amounting to a few hundreds in the year, was made in favour of the junior clerks of the department. As the Irish department had been alluded to, he thought it might be fairly contrasted with the English Board. The income for the English poor amounted to about 6,000,000l., and the expenditure of the department was only 35,728l., whereas in Ireland the income did not exceed 800,000l., and yet the expenditure of the department was 40,794l. The Irish Poor Law Department appeared to be placed on a still larger footing than that of England. He must say he concurred in the observations of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) in reference to the propriety of cutting down the Irish Poor Law Board. He had no connection with the department, nor was it likely that he would ever again 1331 be called into the office he had formerly held, but nevertheless he must say that in his opinion that portion of the public service was conducted in as efficient and economical a manner as it was possible to conduct it. He could suggest no alteration for the better, and he found upon looking at the Report of the Commission that a number of persons who had been employed temporarily as copyists were recommended to be placed upon the permanent staff, so as to carry on the business more efficiently than could be done with the present limited staff of public servants. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman who now presided over this department was equal to any officer of the State in the zeal and fidelity with which he discharged his duties, as well as in the excellent and economical arrangements he had introduced.
§ MR. FRENCHsaid, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman condemned the wasteful and enormous expenditure of the Irish Poor Law establishment. It was his belief that a considerable reduction could be made. He did not see any necessity for two additional Commissioners, and thought a saving of 1,200l. a year in respect to them might be easily effected.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to bear his testimony to the efficient manner in which the department of the English Poor Law Board was managed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baines). Until he came to that department, the New Poor Law had got into bad repute, and was believed to be badly managed, but his right hon. Friend had reformed it throughout, and since he accepted the office of President of the Poor Law Board, he believed there had not been one single complaint as to the manner in which the affairs of the department were conducted. The expenses of the English Poor Law Commission were 35,728l., of the Scottish Board 3,880l., and of the Irish Board not less than 40,794l., for the management of funds which amounted to only one-eighth of time rates administered by the English Board. Such a state of things was perfectly monstrous.
§ MR. BAINESsaid, he wished to explain that the Commission had never recommended a reduction in the salary of the permanent secretary to the English Poor Law Board. The salary of the Parliamentary secretary had been reduced from 1,500l. to 1,000l. per annum, but the salary of the permanent secretary remained at 1,500l. He wished to take this opportunity of ex- 1332 pressing his confident conviction that there never was a public servant who discharged his duties with more ability, more diligence, and more efficiency than his noble Friend Lord Courtenay.
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he wished to call attention to the necessity which existed for reducing the expenses of administering the Poor Law in Ireland. These expenses amounted to no less than 40,794l. a year, as compared to 3,880l. in Scotland, and 35,728l. in England. At the present moment there were numerous workhouses in Ireland which were all but emptied of their inmates, and the table of the House of Commons was covered with petitions from Irish Unions, in favour of reducing the staff in such establishments, and removing the few inmates that remained to the workhouses of neighbouring Unions. These petitions also generally prayed for an inquiry into the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland—a measure which had been repeatedly called for since the occurrence of the famine in 1846, but hitherto without avail. Now, a Commission of Inquiry had been appointed in the case of England, the result of which had been to diminish the cost of the effective staff to 35,728l.; and he claimed for Ireland that the House of Commons and the Government should sanction a similar Commission to inquire into the working of the Poor Law there, with the view of making it more subservient to the wants of the country, and at the same time less burdensome to the owners and occupiers of property. He would not now propose to reduce the various items in the Vote, from a desire not to inconvenience the public service; but he certainly thought that one Commissioner, one assistant secretary, six inspectors, one architect, and several officers of that kind, might be dispensed with with great propriety.
§ SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, that there were some points of difference between the English and Irish Boards which ought to be borne in mind. The expenses of the auditors in England amounted to 15,000l. This item was not included in the Estimates, but the Irish Vote included the salaries of the auditors (3,300l.). It must be recollected that the system of Poor Laws, which had been long established in England, was in Ireland a perfectly new system, and the local authorities were not acquainted with the management and details of a Poor Law. It was necessary to appoint Commissioners to administer the law, 1333 and many duties and responsibilities fell upon them which did not fall upon the English Poor Law Board. That was one reason why more than one Commissioner was appointed in Ireland. The Vote for the Irish Board showed a decrease this year, the Vote of last year having been 48,131l., and of the present year 40,794l. The Vote of last year was also a reduction upon the two previous years. He would promise that inquiry should be made, and that every possible reduction that could be made without lessening the efficiency of the establishment should be carried out. The medical commissioner and the five medical inspectors were only appointed the year before last, in compliance with an Act of Parliament. The attention of the Poor Law Commission for Ireland and of the Treasury had for some time been closely directed to this question of the reduction of expenditure, and he would promise that in future continued attention should be paid to it, and that, where possible, further reductions should be made. It must be borne in mind, that the Act which created a medical commissioner and five medical inspectors only came into operation the year before last. Very lately a Commission had inquired into the remuneration of the clerks in the office in Dublin, and had recommended that the number of clerks should be reduced. That recommendation was about to be carried out. The expenses of the architect had arisen from the large number of workhouses which had recently been erected. A few years ago the number of workhouses in Ireland was but 131, now it was 161. The item of 3,000l. for contingencies which appeared in this Estimate would in future years be discontinued.
§ MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was a universal feeling in Ireland that the whole expenditure of the Irish Poor Law Board was unreasonable. There was a large staff of inspectors, but in many places there was no one to inspect. In one Union the guardians had applied for leave to shut up their workhouse, stating that the staff cost four times as much as the few paupers who were left in it. Great changes had taken place in Ireland. In many workhouses there were no paupers, yet the staff continued upon a monstrous scale. The labouring population were leaving their native shores, and were sending for their friends to follow them across the 1334 Atlantic. What they wanted was a pledge for a Commission of Inquiry into these expenses.
§ MR. KIRKsaid, he thought that a poor country like Ireland ought to be put on the same footing as England. He did not wish to offer a factious opposition to the Vote, but he certainly considered that a searching inquiry was necessary.
MR. HUMEsaid, he gave the hon. Members for Ireland great credit for the candid manner in which they had treated this question. As an inquiry had been made in England, the same kind of inquiry should take place in Ireland, and Her Majesty's Government ought to give a pledge to that effect. No distinction should be made between the two countries, but, if any were allowed, it ought to be in favour of the latter.
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he quite agreed with his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland, that they ought not to forget the differences in the circumstances of the two countries with respect to the relief of the poor. In England the system of administration of that relief was ancient in its character, and had fallen, by lapse of time, into abuse, which had been corrected by the Poor Law Amendment Act; but in Ireland the evil arose from the total absence of any organised system whatever until the recent enactment. When that system was first introduced it met with much resistance, but by the fostering care of the Government it had been ultimately received and attended with many advantages. He would, however, admit that all the appliances necessary to bring that system into effective operation in the first instance were not now required, and within the last five years the expenses had been greatly reduced; indeed, he understood, that within the last year the expenditure had been reduced from 48,131l. to 40,794l. The Government had been asked for a pledge for a Commission of Inquiry, but he was sure the Executive Government were more competent than any new Commission that could be appointed to inquire into the matter, and ascertain where the expense might be reduced, and he understood his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland to give a distinct assurance that a strict inquiry on the part of the Irish Government should be made. Another subject had been adverted to, that of the desirability of closing workhouses in certain Unions in Ireland, but he thought, although the 1335 number of paupers had decreased, the adoption of such a course would be totally inconsistent with the maintenance of the system. He was quite sure, if any reduction could be made which would not be inconsistent with the efficiency of the system, that it was the duty of the Government to make such reduction, and he understood his right hon. Friend to give that assurance.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, one important fact elicited by this discussion was that which had been recognised by the country at large—namely, the increasing prosperity of Ireland. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Board of Admiralty, that it would be extremely unwise to shut up the workhouses, for they had great effect upon Irish pauperism, and he was apprehensive, if they were closed, they would have a repetition of the scenes of vagrancy and pauperism which that country exhibited some years ago. He also thought the suggestion which had been made by his right hon. Friend was a sound one, that they ought not to delegate authority to any Commission of Inquiry, but that, as the right hon. Secretary for Ireland had given an assurance that he would make the inquiry and ascertain where reductions could be properly made, the responsibility should rest upon him.
§ LORD NAASsaid, he considered the assurance given by the Government satisfactory. The fact was that reductions had taken place of late years in far greater amount and proportion than the reduction in the poor rates. Two years ago a reduction was made of one-third of the inspectors, a large number of clerks were dismissed, and the general expenses of the establishment reduced more than one-third. That was in the year 1852. Still there was room for doing a great deal more. The number of inspectors might, he thought, with great advantage, be yet further diminished, seeing that there were a great many Unions in Ireland where there was now so much less to do than a few months ago only. As to the closing of Union houses, although there was at present a great increase of prosperity in Ireland, he thought they should not go too fast in that direction. At all events the workhouses should be kept in an efficient state, so that they might be available when required. He could not, however, see any great danger where the inmates of a workhouse did not 1336 exceed thirty or forty, in allowing them to be transferred to the workhouse of a neighbouring Union, at the same time taking care to keep the house from which they were removed, and necessary appurtenances, in a state of efficiency and good repair.
§ SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, that after the assurance which had been given on the part of the Government, he had no objection to withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he must complain that the pledge given by Sir Robert Peel in 1846, that certain charges which were borne partly by the county rate and partly by the Consolidated Fund in England and Ireland, should, in consideration of the altered system he introduced in the commercial policy of the country and the abolition of the Corn Laws, be thereafter transferred to the Consolidated Fund, had not been fulfilled to the same extent in the case of Ireland as in that of England. One expense was the removal of convicts. Then came the medical officers; half the expense of which, namely, 80,000l. a year, was borne by the Consolidated Fund in this country. Sir Robert Peel had said that Ireland was obliged to be exempted on the occasion in question, because the medical charities were not on the same footing as those of England. But they had since then been placed on an identical footing, and yet his promise was left unperformed by his successors. The right hon. Baronet opposite had said that Ireland got a moiety of the expense of the constabulary force in lieu of those advantages. But, though that was a great deal, he (Mr. Macartney) begged to remind the Committee, that this force was first established for the purpose of relieving the large military force previously kept up in Ireland; and that it had done so to the extent of 7,000 men in the space of three years. He (Mr. Macartney) had last year proposed a supplementary Vote for Ireland to meet this case. On that occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he was not aware of the promise of Sir Robert Peel, though the question as regarded expediency and policy was one that deserved consideration; but, at the same time, he stated he was not prepared to agree to the supplementary Vote. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland on that occasion, too, said the whole subject was worthy of consideration; but still nothing had been done to remedy the wrong. 1337 He (Mr. Macartney) had urged the question more than once upon the House and upon the Government; and he should continue to do so as long as the evil he complained of remained unredressed. All he asked for was inquiry into the subject. He rested on the promise of Sir Robert Peel and upon the admissions of the Government; and he hoped, therefore, that the matter would be taken into consideration.
§ MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he thought the large sum spent yearly in the salaries of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses for our Poor Law Unions was not so much money thrown away as absolutely applied to the detriment of the country, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board would concur in that opinion. The pauper schools existing throughout the country had the effect of raising up an hereditary race of pauper boys and girls, who became a burden upon the public. These schools were under the control of the guardians, who were generally a class of men who could not see very far before them, and who were seldom willing to make any outlay for any purpose, however important to the public, or however small the sum it required to be put down at the time, with the certain prospect of ultimate benefit and permanent saving to the country. Taking the number of pauper children in England at 25,000, they might be divided into groups of 500 each, and sent to district schools unconnected with the workhouses; and this sum of 22,000l. now voted for schoolmasters and mistresses would not only provide teachers, but would leave a surplus to be applied in aid of the voluntary subscriptions now being raised to establish district schools throughout the kingdom for this class of children. Three schools of this character had already been established in London, one in Hampshire, and another in Shropshire; and experience showed that they were a great improvement upon the existing pauper schools. The system of making loans from the Treasury for providing these district schools in different localities had been recommended, but that plan was clogged with the condition that the loans must receive the assent of the poor law guardians. If, instead of loans to a small amount, grants of larger extent were made, great advantage would accrue to the public, by removing these children from the workhouses and placing them in proper schools, where they would receive 1338 an education that would fit them to become useful members of society. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board whether he could not hold out some encouragement to his (Mr. Adderley's) own county, Warwickshire, and other districts where a desire was felt to set on foot schools of the character he had stated.
§ MR. BAINESsaid, that he had done his best to co-operate with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) in the object he had in view, the attainment of which throughout the country generally, he agreed with him, was likely to be attended with the most beneficial results, judging from the experience they had acquired in the working of these district schools in six instances where they had been already established. He (Mr. Baines) had therefore taken every opportunity of advising boards of guardians to adopt this system, which he believed would be a wise one even in point of economy; because nothing, in his opinion, would tend more to check hereditary pauperism, as the hon. Gentleman very properly termed it, than the general introduction of schools of the kind suggested, unconnected with the workhouses. At the same time, it was only right to state that at present there were many schools connected with large parishes in the metropolis, and one in Manchester, and another in Liverpool, and others in various parts of the country, where there could be no question that a great amount of good was done, and much evil averted, by the efforts that were made for the education of poor children. Nevertheless, he freely admitted, as he had said, that it would be preferable that the schools should form no part of the workhouse system. Do what they could, evils must arise from mixing the children with the adult paupers; and yet he feared that it was impossible to do away with those evils altogether. To mitigate them, however, the Government had applied themselves, and he trusted not without effect; and he hoped that when the guardians saw the success of the experiments that had been made in this direction, they would be induced to lay aside the prejudices that had hitherto prevented them from encouraging the institution of these schools. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had devoted themselves earnestly to furthering this desirable object; and the Government, who 1339 were fully impressed with its importance, would be wanting in no endeavour hereafter to advance it.
§ MR. J. BALLsaid, he concurred with the representation of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Adderley). He was clearly of opinion that grants in aid of local rates would be the best for the purpose in view. He agreed with the hon. Member for Antrim (Mr. Macartney) that the subject required revision, as regarded schoolmasters; and he hoped it would receive consideration. He (Mr. Ball) denied that the Poor Law in Ireland was more expensive than the Board in England, because it was a most efficient machine for the conduct of the public business. He was opposed to any small economy in the shape of reducing the salaries of clerks, and he hoped that no ill-judged change in that respect would take place.
§ CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he wished to caution the Committee against doing more for the education of pauper children, either in workhouse schools or in district schools, than was done—in the absence of any general system of education—for the instruction of the children of independent labourers. If they were not careful, they would hold out a bonus to persons to send their children through the workhouse to the district schools.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he was not anxious to propose any sudden or extreme change. The Irish people had paid over and over, in the income tax, the difference claimed. As to Sir Robert Peel's promises, they had all been violated. The Irish were like the Greeks in Turkey, they were allowed to pay taxes, but they were not permitted to defend their country by forming any part of the militia. The Poor Law had driven 2,000,000 of people from Ireland.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he thought the time was come to reduce the cost of the Poor Law in Ireland. The expenses of poor law inspectors were 17,336l., and he had no doubt that in many parts of the country the Poor Law would work without any inspector. He therefore hoped that a reduction in the number of these inspectors would be taken into consideration by the Government. There never was a time in the south of England when the agricultural labourers were better employed than at present; and he hoped, therefore, the subject of reduction in the expense of the Poor Law would be brought under consideration.
1340 Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
(9.) 82,504l., Mint.
In reply to Mr. APSLEY PELLATT,
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, that the Mint had been practically under the control of the moneyers, but it was now under the control of the Government; and there was no expense as regarded these persons but their retiring pensions, which were included in the Vote.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must complain that the expense of the Mint had increased, since 1849, from 43,000l. to 61,000l. He wished some explanation on the subject.
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, the additional sum on last year's expenses arose from the large increased establishment, working night and day for several. months. There were 12,000,000l. of gold and from 2,500,000l. to 3,000,000l. of silver coined on that occasion. The Mint now undertook to forward silver and copper coinage to the Colonies, which were entirely supplied at present from this country.
MR. HUMEsaid, he thought there ought to be particular statements on the subject—as to the cost of coining, the amount stated, and other items. He hoped a more detailed account would be presented next year, especially what quantity of silver money was called in and what quantity was coined; and if the Colonies paid the expense of their own coinage.
§ MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he wished to know whether any profit had resulted by the adoption of the new system of contract. He wanted to know whether a debtor and creditor account could not be rendered for the information of the country? He also wanted to know on what fund the retiring pension of 500l. a year given to one gentleman had been charged? He also wanted to know whether a new mode of compensation in lieu of retiring pensions could not be devised?
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, five years ago Estimates relative to the changes then adopted in this department had been laid on the table of the House, and they showed that the saving was about 25,000l. a year.
MR. HUMEsaid, he was glad to hear this statement. He only wanted all proper information on the subject.
Vote agreed to; as were also—(10.) 12,691l., Public Records.(11.) 15,115l., Inspectors, Factories, Mines, &c.1341 (12.) Motion made, and Question proposed,That a sum, not exceeding 1,700l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges, formerly paid from the Hereditary Revenue, to the 31st day of March, 1855.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he should move to reduce the amount by the sums of 98l. 16s. 6d., 98l. 16s. 6d., and 20l., respectively required to pay for the Queen's Plate to be run at Edinburgh, the Queen's Plate to the Caledonian Hunt, and the Queen's Plate to the Royal Company of Scottish Archers, or Queen's Body Guard. He objected to these votes, not because of their amount, but on the principle that the national money ought not to be wasted on such objects.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding 1,483l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges, formerly paid from the Hereditary Revenue, to the 31st day of March, 1855.
MR. HUMEsaid, he had a much larger item than those of his hon. Friend to object to—that of 840l. for the Queen's printer in Scotland. They had abolished the monopoly of Bible printing in Scotland, and they had thereby effected a saving of at least 100 per cent in its price; and he hoped this Session would not pass over before he had an opportunity of submitting a Motion to abolish the monopoly in England also. But while the monopoly was abolished in Scotland, they still retained an officer whose duty it was to examine all editions that were printed of the Bible, the Shorter Catechism, and the Scottish version of the Psalms, and they could only be issued with his sanction for their correctness. He thought the time was now come for the abolition of that office, and though he would not move the reduction of the salary now, he trusted the Government would consider whether the office might not be dispensed with next year. As to the Motion of his hon. Friend, if he pressed it to a division, he would vote with him.
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, he must congratulate the hon. Member for Montrose on the success which had attended his efforts for the abolition of the Bible monopoly in Scotland, and he thought the hon. Gentleman would have been the last to grudge the sum for the office of inspector, by which the country was reconciled to the absence of all other control over the accurate printing of the Bible. He would inquire, how- 1342 ever, whether it would be consistent with the duty of the Government to propose any reduction in this Vote for another year. With regard to the sums objected to by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) they were very small in themselves. They had formerly been defrayed out of the hereditary revenues of the Crown, and since the Parliament had had control over those revenues, they had continued them. He did not think it would be right now to withdraw from the societies alluded to these marks of Royal favour.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 68: Majority 25.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
(13.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding 6,283l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Salaries for the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1855.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, there was an item of 1,574l. 6s. 2d. for fifteen Queen's plates in Ireland, to which he entertained a similar objection to that he had stated with regard to the last Vote; but, having already taken the sense of the Committee upon the subject, he should not trouble them with a second division.
MR. PETOsaid, he wished to know what was the intention of the Government with regard to the continuance of the establishment of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland? Two years ago, when this subject was mooted, the country was led to believe that the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland was to be abolished.
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, the subject had been fully discussed two years ago, and the opinion then generally expressed in Ireland was certainly that the office ought to be continued. The Government of the day yielded to that expression of opinion, and he was not aware of any intention on the part of the present Government to come to any other conclusion.
MR. HUMEsaid, the question was whether the Lord Lieutenancy was conducive to the good government of Ireland? He was of opinion—an opinion shared in by men greatly interested in the well-being of Ireland—that if the office were removed altogether the way would be paved to a better and more responsible system of government in that country. The Ministry, two years ago, ought not to have been frightened by the Irish interest.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, the question had been decided two years ago in accordance with what he believed to be the true interest of Ireland. At one time Irishmen might have thought no great good would be done by retaining the office, but since then they had seen the Lord Lieutenancy of the Earl of Eglinton, and he defied any person who knew of the good results which attended that nobleman's administration to be of opinion that the office should be abolished.
§ MR. APSLEY PELLATTobjected to the item of 184l. 12s. 8d. for chaplains to the Castle of Dublin, thinking that a chaplain was a luxury which, if the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland wanted it, he ought, like the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs of London, to pay for himself. He should move that the Vote be reduced by this amount.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding 6,058l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Salaries for the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1855.
§ MR. VANCEsaid, he must defend the Vote, seeing no reason, as long as there was a Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, and a regular establishment attending him, why there should not be a Chapel Royal upon the same principle as in this country. The salaries for all the officers of that chapel were extremely moderate.
§ MR. MIALLsaid, he objected to the grant of public money for religious purposes, but did not think that the present was the best item that could be selected for trying that question, and he suggested to his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark that he should withdraw his Amendment.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he bad just voted against horse-racing in Scotland, and he could not allow the present Vote, which contained an item of 1,574l. for fifteen Queen's plates, to pass unchallenged. He objected to horse-racing being paid for out of the public money, and if at a commencement of a war they did not weed out expenses of this description, the very sound of which grated upon the public ear, they would not be wise. He moved, as an Amendment, that the vote be reduced by 1,574l. Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding 4,709l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Salaries for the Officers and Attendants of the Household 1344 of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1855.MR. HENCHY supported the Vote upon the ground that it was calculated to promote the breed of good horses.
COLONEL PEELsaid, he would beg to remind the Committee that the duty paid upon a racehorse was 3l. 17s. 6d. per annum, while upon other horses it was only 1l. 1s. Let them place racehorses upon the same footing with others, and he, as one of the representatives of the racing community, would never ask for Queen's plates or anything of the kind. He was quite willing to enter into a compact to that effect.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 85: Majority 34.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
(14.) 16,744l., Chief Secretary for Ireland.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he must congratulate the Committee upon the great reduction which had taken place in this Vote. He observed a reduction of nearly one-half in the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland since he first remembered it, and at the same time he never knew a gentleman who had performed his duty more efficiently than the present Chief Secretary.
Vote agreed to, as was also the next Vote—
(15.) 6,704l., Paymaster of Civil Services in Ireland.
(16.) 24,218l., Board of Public Works, Ireland.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that during three Sessions he had endeavoured to call the attention of the Government to this Board, and to the injury suffered by Irish proprietors from the way in which works had been carried on under this Board, and he wished to know if the Government intended to take any steps to redress the grievances and complaints which had been made to them?
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, he was sure that the way in which the Government had dealt with this subject showed a disposition on their part to do justice to those proprietors who had been aggrieved by the mode in which works had been carried out by the Board of Public Works. Measures were in progress for winding up such works as rapidly as possible; and the whole subject was still engaging the attention of the Treasury, because abuses had certainly prevailed, and the transac- 1345 tions alluded to had been attended with loss to the public.
Vote agreed to, as was also—
(17.) 32,000l., Secret Services.
(18.) 255,560l., Stationery and Printing.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to ask what local authorities they were to appeal to in case of overcharge of the income tax, and also what allowances would be made to collectors?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not see what connection existed between the income tax and the Vote now proposed, but he might state that, in consequence of the small number of appeals which took place in Ireland, it was considered unnecessary to maintain a Commission there, and, therefore, any appeals that were taken would be brought direct to the Commissioners in London.
MR. HUMEsaid, he thought the account for stationery and printing should be so made out as to show the amount that belonged to the two Houses of Parliament respectively. The mode now adopted of stating the Estimate was a very decided improvement, but it would be better still if this suggestion was attended to; and he could not help reminding the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much less the charge tinder the head of stationery and printing would be if the duty on paper was taken off. He would also press on the Government a consolidation of the Edinburgh and Dublin Gazettes with the London Gazette, and a reduction of the charges, so that it might circulate freely over the country and in the Army.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the charges for the Gazette had been already considerably reduced, and further reductions would be greatly facilitated if it was the opinion of the House of Commons, as it was that of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, that the three Gazettes should be consolidated. It was, however, only just to the Treasury to state that his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had made a most vigorous effort last year to get the Scotch Gazette consolidated with the London Gazette, but was not strong enough to effect his object, and was forced to make a most ignominious retreat, in consequence of the local and national opposition that was made to his proposal. A great saving had been effected in the expenditure of the Government both for printing and sta- 1346 tionery, and the great credit of this was due to that most able and efficient public officer, Mr. M'Culloch, for the unwearied diligence and great ability with which he was ever applying his mind towards carrying out reductions in this department. He was sure that any information which might be called for with regard to the working of the office would be highly honourable to that officer, and would show the reductions that had been effected. The earlier part of the Vote was not so much within the control of the Government, but he had no doubt a detailed explanation of it could be supplied, and he certainly thought it desirable that a distinction should be made between the printing and expenditure of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons. He would suggest that his hon. Friend should call for a return of the terms upon which printing work was executed for the Government offices and the two Houses of Parliament, and he thought be would be rather surprised when he saw the figures of that return.
Vote agreed to.
(19.) 68,600l., Privy Council Office and Office for Trade.
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, that before the Committee proceeded with the next Vote, he wished to make a statement respecting a Vote which had been deferred last night for want of sufficient information with regard to it. The Vote was that of 68,600l. for the Privy Council Office and Board of Trade; and he found on inquiry that the statement he had made last night with respect to the item of 2,500l. for the salary for the Clerk of the Privy Council being an increase of 500l. upon last year was correct. A Clerk of the Council was appointed under a patent of 1801, the salary was regulated by a subsequent Order in Council, and in 1821 Mr. Greville succeeded to the office. Previously to its regulation by the Order in Council the salary of the office had been paid by fees which amounted to a large sum, but it was then fixed at 2,000l. a year, to be increased to 2,500l. when the office had been held for three years, but it was made a condition that the additional 500l. should be subject to deduction if the individual holding the office should also fill any other place of profit under the Crown. When Mr. Greville acceded to the office in 1821, he received, according to the Order in Council, 2,000l. a year until 1824, when, in compliance with the Order, it was raised 1347 to 25,00l. He received 2.500l. a year until 1829, when he succeeded to another patent office in Jamaica which yielded him more than 500l. a year, and he, therefore, became subject, so long as he held that office, to a deduction of 500l. from his salary as Clerk of the Council, which was thus reduced to 2,000l. He held the office in Jamaica until last year, when, upon his resignation, he applied to the Treasury to have the full salary of 2,500l. restored, as he had a perfect right to do. The application was made in March last, and inquiry having been made into all the circumstances of the case, which would be found fully detailed in the evidence before the Select Committee of 1839, they satisfied themselves that they could not resist the Order in Council, and it therefore became their duty to provide for the increased amount of salary. These were the circumstances of the case, and he might add that arrangements of this nature were constantly taking place in the public service. The office in Jamaica, he might state, had been abolished. It was a patent office, the duties of which were performed by deputy, with the consent of the Governor and the House of Assembly, and the deputy now performed the duties at the same salary as he had formerly received. Mr. Greville had certainly resigned the office voluntarily, although its emoluments were much larger than the amount of salary he received instead of them.
In answer to a question of Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR,
§ MR. J. WILSONadded that no compensation had been given for the abolition of the office.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMShoped that, as the duties of the Clerk of the Council had been performed for many years at a salary of 2,000l. a year, the Committee would not consent to the proposed increase. No additional duties had been thrown upon Mr. Greville, and why, therefore, should he receive an increase of 500l.? It had been said that the Treasury had no power to alter the Order in Council. He hoped the Committee would not pass a Vote for which no ground could be shown except a mere Minute of the Privy Council.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he felt quite sure the hon. Member for Lambeth had no desire to impute any improper or unworthy motives to the Treasury Board in reference to this transaction, and that the hon. 1348 Member would be one of the very last persons in that House to suggest or countenance any departure from a rigid and just observance of any bonâ fide engagement that had seriously been entered into. The hon. Gentleman did not, however, appear quite distinctly to understand the real position of the case, and that Mr. Greville had received his appointment on the understanding that the salary was at first to be 2,000l. a year, and to be increased at a stated period to 2,500l. Mr. Greville was appointed regularly by an Order in Council. The Order in Council might be objected to as an impolitic one, but there it was, and the only question that remained was, not whether such Order was politic or not, but whether it had given Mr. Greville a certain right? What, then, did. the Order in Council do? Why, it gave Mr. Greville for a certain time 2,000l. a year, and after that time it gave him an increase of 500l. to his salary, which increase was to abate during the time he held any other office; but upon giving up such office, it was to revert to him. In this way a positive title had been conferred upon Mr. Greville to receive the increased salary, and the title was of such a nature that it could have been recovered by judicial proceedings. If there were any grievance really to be complained of in the matter, any complaints relative to the same should have been directed against the island of Jamaica, which ought to bear the burden of its own sinecures. As far as Mr. Greville, was concerned, there was no doubt that his title was clear and indisputable, and could claim its origin even from so early a date as the year 1808.
§ MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he considered the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury as satisfactory on the subject, although he was sorry the matter stood as it did.
MR. HUMEsaid, that it was evidently one of those cases that, under the present careful system of scrutiny with regard to these kind of Estimates, would not occur again; and it was a question whether it was worth while, under the circumstances, to discuss the matter further?
§ MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to have some explanation of the salary of the Registrar to the Board of Trade being increased from 700l. a year to 1,000l.
§ MR. J. WILSONsaid, in consequence 1349 of the increase of the duties attingent to, and the work connected with, the office of the Board of Trade, it had been thought just and expedient to increase the salary of the Registrar.
§ MR. SPOONERsaid, he did not consider this answer as satisfactory.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that the increase of salary had been made upon the recommendation of the Judicial Committee, who, in their Report, had advised the cessation of the former clerkship that had existed, and the creation of the present office of Registrar.
Vote agreed to; as were also the three following Votes—
(20.) 17,079l., Sheriffs' Expenses, Officers of the Court of Exchequer, &c.
(21.) 8,415l., Insolvent Debtors' Court.
(22.) 92,455l., Law Expenses, Scotland.
(23.) 55,470l., Law Charges, Ireland.
§ MR. M'MAHONsaid, he would suggest that the expenses connected with the prosecution of assaults and other offences against the person in Ireland should be defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund, as was the case with regard to that class of offences committed in England.
MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, he must advert to the circumstance of the salary of the Attorney General for Ireland being only 1,158l., and that of the Solicitor General for Ireland only 974l., while that of the counsel employed to advise the Government in matters relating to the slave trade was 1,200l. If the latter salary were not more than enough, the former must be less than sufficient.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to know why Ireland did not receive as much from the Consolidated Fund for the expenses of prosecutions as England did? Now that Ireland was taxed to the full as much as England, or even more, in comparison with her resources, she had a right to receive the same help from the Consolidated Fund.
§ MR. M'MAHONhoped that these matters would be put in the same position in Ireland as they were in England.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Dunne) seemed very anxious that, in the money arrangements of the State, no injustice should be done to Ireland. Now, he very much doubted whether, if he succeeded in pushing the question which he had raised to any issue, he would be at all favouring the pecuniary 1350 interests of Ireland. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that, inasmuch as the Government bore the whole expense of criminal prosecutions in England, they ought to do the same in Ireland. But it was quite impossible to accede to that proposition without acceding to the course proposed; for it must be admitted that the administration of justice could not be confined to the processes of the courts, and therefore they must look further, and he would ask who bore the expense of the police in England, and who bore it in Ireland? He found that a sum of 550,000l. was annually paid out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charge of the Irish constabulary, and therefore if the same principle were to be acted on in the case of the three countries, the Scotch and English police ought also to be maintained from the same source. He frankly owned that if his wishes were carried into effect, it struck him that on a balance of account, Ireland would be considerably the loser by the labours of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that this allowance had already been made a set-off for twenty other things. He maintained, however, and he would undertake to prove before a Committee, that Ireland was overtaxed, and did not receive that aid from the Consolidated Fund to which she had a right.
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the constabulary was forced upon Ireland for two reasons; first, to give a general system of police, by which a person could scarcely go from one part of the country to another; and, in the next place, to enable the Government to withdraw a very large military force from Ireland, amounting to no less than from 6,000 to 8,000 men, in two years after the establishment of the constabulary.
§ MR. LUCASsaid, he must contend that the issue raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer between Ireland and the United Kingdom was not an answer to that raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) between the State and a poor man who undertook to prosecute a criminal indictment under the existing state of the law.
§ MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, that the argument used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a perfectly legitimate one.
§ MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, in England the expenses of prosecutions were allowed or disallowed by the Judge. Most generally they were allowed; but in Ireland 1351 nothing of the kind took place; and the consequence was, that the property of poor people was, to a great extent, unprotected, because they could not afford to prosecute. He was surprised that right hon. Gentlemen opposite representing the Government of the country had not risen half an hour ago to say that this great grievance should be put an end to.
§ VISCOUNT BERNARDsaid, it had been distinctly pledged by Sir Robert Peel that Ireland should be placed upon the same footing as England, and with respect to the cost of the police it had been taken on the Consolidated Fund in consideration of the loss which Ireland was likely to suffer from the repeal of the Corn Law.
§ MR. WHITESIDEread an extract from Sir Robert Peel's speech, which sustained this latter statement of the noble Lord, and which set out the advantages which were likely to result (in that right hon. Baronet's opinion) from the whole of the police force being entirely under the control of the Crown.
§ MR. M'MAHONsaid, the people of Ireland would be quite prepared to pay the expense of the police if they had the same control over them as the people of England had.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(24.) 37,000l., Metropolitan Police, Dublin. The House resumed.