PUBLIC REVENUE AND CONSOLIDATED FUND CHARGES BILL.

HC Deb 14 June 1854 vol 134 cc141-54

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee, Mr. BOUVERIE in the Chair.

Clause 1.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, he wished to make some inquiry relative to a statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the schedules in the Bill were to be recast, and the judicial officers of Ireland placed in the same position as those of England.

MR. KEOGH

said, an alteration had been made in the schedules, which would exempt the Master of the Rolls and Masters in Chancery in Ireland from the operation of the Bill.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he approved of the principle of the Bill, but thought, if the schedules had been altered, the alterations ought to be printed, and in the hands of Members, before the Committee were called on to consider them.

MR. NAPIER

said, there were other persons than those holding judicial offices —those, namely, who held freehold offices under Acts of Parliament—who objected to be placed in a position in which their salaries might be interfered with from year to year. They ought, before passing the Bill, to have an exact statement of what was proposed, and to see that precisely the same course was pursued towards Ireland as towards this country.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he had not the least objection to except the actual Judges of the land from the operation of the Bill, but he did not see why the Masters in Chancery in Ireland should be excepted. The judges of the county courts in England were much more important officers than the Masters in Chancery in Ireland, and their salaries were voted annually. He thought both countries should be placed on equal terms.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Lambeth, that Ireland should be treated the same as England; but his complaint was the reverse of the hon. Member's—that Irish offices were included, whilst English offices of an analogous character were not. The hon. Member had shown his utter ignorance of the functions of the Master of the Rolls in Ireland when he said the functions of county court judges were much more important. [Mr. W. WILLIAMS: I said the Masters in Chancery.] That was just as great a mistake as the first. The Masters in Chancery in Ireland disposed of a vast quantity of judicial business, and decided the most difficult questions. There never was a greater mistake than to subject the salaries of high legal functionaries to annual discussion.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD

said, he fully concurred in the opinion that the Masters in Chancery in Ireland decided the most important questions, and that they ought to be excluded from the operation of the Bill. He also considered that the Commissioner of the Insolvent Debtors' Court and the assistant barristers for registring voters in Ireland should be excluded. He could not conceive why the former should be placed in a different position from any other judge, and the salaries of the latter were charged on the Consolidated Fund by a Parliamentary compact made only three years ago.

MR. FRENCH

said, he thought it exceedingly objectionable to bring the salaries of these officers annually under discussion.

MR. AGLIONBY

said, he must remind the Committee that they were now discussing the schedule upon the first clause, and he would suggest that it would be better to postpone that discussion until they came to the schedule.

MR. J. WILSON

said, the real object of this Bill was to bring before Parliament every year all the various charges, as far as possible, in the expenditure of the United Kingdom. It had been a policy of law to make the judges of the land independent of Parliamentary supervision, and therefore they were excluded from the Bill, to prevent the possibility of its being supposed either Parliament or the Government of the day exercised any influence over them. The object of the Bill was to bring all other officers, not within that class, under the annual supervision of Parliament, and he apprehended there would be no great risk incurred, because he knew no instance in which Parliament had not respected the existing holders of office. But it often happened that discussions upon Estimates were attended with the most beneficial results. Disagreeable as they were to the Secretary of the Treasury, they brought before the eye of the public the institutions of the country, and prepared the public mind for great improvements in the reconstruction of offices or their abolition altogether. If hon. Members had waited until they came to the schedule, they would have found that in the amended Bill exceptions were made of the Master of the Rolls and the Masters in Chancery in Ireland. It was the desire of the Government to place England and Ireland upon the same footing; and if Irish Members, before the third reading, could point out instances of offices in Ireland being included, which were analogous to offices in England, not included, but paid out of the Consolidated Fund, the Government would be prepared to consider the propriety Of making alterations in the Bill.

MR. G. BUTT

sail, he must complain that the schedule recited upwards of 100 Arts of Parliament without specifying the officers created under them. It was, in fact, giving no information to Members. The hon. Gentleman spoke of paying the high judicial authorities out of the Consolidated Fund; but did he (Mr. J. Wilson) not consider the Judge of the Insolvent Debtors' Court a high judicial officer? Yet he was to be subjected by this Bill to an annual vote. Why not include all the judicial officers of Ireland in the exception? Everything that had fallen from the hon. Secretary to the Treasury was a condemnation of the schedules of the Bill.

Mr. J. WILSON

said, the Parliamentary mode was to refer to the Acts of Parliament, because offices authorised by these Acts might or might not exist, and some might hereafter be created, Which, if the offices were named, would require another Act to bring them under the operation of the law. He must deny the interpretation put upon his words by the hon. and learned Member for Weymouth, and he considered that there was no reason why the Judges of the Insolvent Debtors' Court in Ireland should be provided for out of the Consolidated Fund, any more than such Judges in England. The Judges of the Insolvent Debtors' Court in Ireland were in exactly the same position as the Judges of the Insolvent Debtors' Court in England, and he thought that they ought therewith to be content.

MR. NAPIER

said, the case of the assistant barristers had not been answered at all. He should certainly take the sense of the Committee with regard to all officers holding their appointments for life and during good behaviour.

MR. CHAIRMAN

said, he must remind the Committee that any Amendment on the schedule must be moved upon the schedule, and not upon the clause now before the Committee.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he was quite as anxious as the hon. Member for Lambeth to subject every officer to the cognisance of Parliament, but he objected to judges being subject to annual discussion, as Mr. Serjeant Adams was some time since.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, no one ever objected to Mr. Serjeant Adams's salary, but when he came for an increase the question was discussed.

MR. KEOGH

said, he did not think that his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had done himself justice in explaining the trouble he had taken in framing the schedule of this Bill; and he (Mr. Keogh) could bear witness to the able and clear specification of officers in such schedule. As to the Judge of the Insolvent Court in Ireland, the Committee would remember that only two nights ago they had voted the salaries of the Judges of the English Insolvent Debtors' Court, and he could not see why the Irish Judges were to be put in a different position from them. As to the revising barristers in Ireland, he had advised his hon. Friend to omit them from the schedule, and he had consented to do so. It had been stated that a deputation from Ireland had come to England relative to this Bill, and he had seen Master Lyle, who represented such deputation. The result of his interview with that learned gentleman was, that, subject to certain alterations, which would be made, Master Lyle generally approved of the measure.

MR. WILSON PATTEN

sail, he must deprecate this irregular discussion on the. schedule, because it would be again repeated when the Committee came to consider it. This Bill had been recommitted at his request, to allow the authorities of the Isle of Man to make some representations to the Government in opposition to their being included, and he wished to know whether those parties had had an interview with the Secretary of the Treasury, and submitted to him the objections they entertained.

MR. J. WILSON

said, a misunderstanding to a certain extent had arisen between the Government and the Isle of Man. It was the practice to send to the Lieutenant Governor copies of any Bills affecting the island, and this Bill was sent down before the recess, with an instruction that it would not be committed until afterwards. On Friday se'nnight, however, the Bill passed through Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinking that the authorities of the Isle of Man would have all opportunity of raising any points of objection on the third rending, and therefore that no injury could possibly ensue. The Lieutenant Governor was again written to, and informed that the Bill had passed through Committee, but would not be read a third time until after the recess. Subsequently, at the request of the hon. Member for Lancashire (Mr. W. Patten) the order for the third reading was discharged, and the Bill was now recommitted. The interest which the Isle of Man had in the Bill was this—that against the Customs duties of the island were charged, first, the cost of collection; secondly, the cost Of the government of the island; and, thirdly, certain improvements, chiefly of the harbours. But the same system existed with respect to Scotland, where the whole judicial functionaries were paid out of the Customs duties before the balance was received by the Imperial Exchequer. The authorities of the Isle of Man objected to Parliament dealing with tile Customs revenue. On the ground that the whole amount of revenue should be expended on the island. Now, Parliament had never recognised that claim, but had imposed duties on the island, the balances of which had been received into the public Exchequer. It was quite obvious that Parliament would still refuse to recognise such a claim, because a similar claim might as well be preferred by Ireland or Scotland. Under these circumstances, the Lieutenant Governor had been informed that the Government attached no importance to the objection, although, to keep faith with the authorities of the island, the Bill had been recommitted. He was not aware that any one was in London authorised to make any objections on the part of the Isle of Man; but there would still be an opportunity, as the third reading could not take place until Friday.

MR. WILSON PATTEN

said, he must express his acknowledgments for the statement of the hon. Gentleman, particularly as the Isle of Man was not represented, and no one had charge of its interests in that House. He believed a deputation intended waiting upon the Treasury, to represent the arguments on which their objections to the Bill were based; but after the kindness of the Government, he should not press for further postponement.

MR. J. WILSON

said, if the deputation had arrived in town they would have an opportunity of seeing him before the third reading on Friday, but until this Bill pass- ed they could net proceed with the large Estimates on revenue charges, which were waiting consideration. The authorities of the Isle of Man had not been taken by surprise; the Bill was sent the Friday before the recess, and there had been sufficient time for them to consider it and send a deputation if they thought it advisable.

MR. AGLIONBY

said, he must complain that the Government had not supported the Chairman in putting a stop to the irregular discussion on the schedule, and he begged to say he would not continue it further than to warn the Government not to make too large concessions.

MR. V. SCULLY

said, he understood the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was to be exempted from the Act. Other parties were also to be exempted. The Judge of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, however, was not included in the exemption, and he saw no reason for making any difference between the case of that Judge and other judicial functionaries. He objected to the transfer of the names of other gentlemen connected with the courts from the Consolidated Fund to the Estimates. They enjoyed their salaries during good behaviour, and many of them had effected insurances on their lives in the belief that their position would not he disturbed; he, therefore, contended that the proposed alteration was a direct breach of faith. Another objection which he entertained to the Bill was, that its provisions would have the effect of setting aside the veto of the Judges, and of enabling the Treasury, by a single vote of the House of Commons, to centralise or abolish all the courts of Ireland. No such provision was made with respect to the officers in the English courts of law, and he therefore considered the proposition with respect to the Irish officers still more unjust than it might otherwise have appeared. He entered his strongest protest against the interference of the Treasury, with any of the judicial officers in Ireland, particularly as no interference was contemplated with such officers in this country. It was his intention to move a proviso to the following effect— Provided, however, that no person who now or hereafter exercises judicial functions in any part of the United Kingdom shall, in respect of his salary and remuneration as such, be, or be deemed to be, included in the said schedule B; and further, that nothing in this Act contained shall operate so as to interfere with the vested rights of any existing officer, or to place his salary and remuneration in a more uncertain or a worse position than the same would have been but for the passing of this Act.

MR. J. WILSON

said, the clause suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman was inconsistent with the intentions of the Bill. So far as the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman went to the preservation of existing rights, they were deserving of the attention of the Committee, and he would endeavour, before the third reading of the Bill, to devise some means of protecting those rights.

CAPTAIN SCOBELL

said, he must complain of the irregularity of the discussion, and of the Committee being mystified by the hon. and learned Member for Cork County (Mr. V. Scully). He had always been for introducing an exact similarity into the mode of dealing with England and Ireland, and as the hon. Secretary for the Treasury had already given an assurance that parallel offices in the two countries would be dealt with alike, he hoped that would suffice, and that the Government would not allow itself to be badgered out of what they considered good in their Bill.

MR. GEORGE

said, the Government had already consented to alter two objectionable features in the Bill; but there still remained another principle of the Bill scarcely less objectionable, namely, that which declared that a body of men holding ministerial offices, who had hitherto been paid their salaries from a fixed and unfluctuating source, should be now turned round upon and told that their salaries were dependent upon an annual Vote of the House of Commons. And although an assurance was to be given to existing holders of office that they would be secured against loss, still he must define to give his sanction at all to a rule making even prospective appointments subject to such a contingency.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, he could see no reason whatever why sheriffs in Scotland, who by the Bill of last Session were to receive salaries varying from at least 500l. to 1,000l. a year in the case of the sheriff substitute, and in the case of the sheriff principal from 500l. to any sum which the Treasury might choose to give him—why these gentlemen should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, while revising barristers in England, who only received a salary of 200l. a year, had to submit to have their stipends annually voted by Parliament.

MR. J. WILSON

said, the principle which had been acted upon was this—when the duties of an officer were purely civil, they were to be voted out of the Estimates for the year. But when they were partly civil and partly criminal, they partook of a different character and form, and the reason why the sheriffs in Scotland were placed in Schedule A was, that were judges not only in civil but in criminal cases. The revising barristers in Ireland were in a similar position, and the two classes were therefore placed in the same schedule.

MR. V. SCULLY

said, he would defer moving his Amendment until he saw the course to be taken by the Government.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (The annual financial accounts shall be made up to 31st March).

LORD SEYMOUR

said, that hitherto the financial accounts had been made up to the 5th of January. Now it was proposed to make them up to the 31st of March, and, therefore, the House would not be in a position to act upon them till June, so that in discussing such matters it would be necessary to refer to accounts two years back. He wished to know if there was to be a double set of accounts, one for the 5th of January and the other for the 31st of March, or whether it was intended to do away with the first set of accounts altogether?

MR. J. WILSON

said, that many years ago, when Parliament met before Christmas, the accounts were made up from the 5th of January to the 5th of January. Lord Althorp afterwards altered the financial year to the 5th of April, in consequence of the Parliament not assembling till February, but the financial accounts continued to be made up to the 5th of January. The change was only partial, and did not extend to the whole of the accounts, and led to inconvenience and incongruity. The financial accounts were made up to the 5th of April, but the financial accounts published were made up to the 5th of January, and never corresponded with the Votes of the House, or the expenditure sanctioned by the House, and the object now contemplated was to complete the arrangement made by Lord Althorp. The operation of the clause was not to be compulsory in the first instance, and every endeavour would be made to avoid the inconvenience which had been pointed out by the noble Lord. In making the change now proposed, a suggestion had not been lost sight of in relation to the propriety of meeting before Christmas, and probably it might be desirable to revert to the old system.

Clause agreed to; as were also the remaining clauses.

On Schedule A being proposed, which includes the salaries, pensions, compensations, &c., charged on the Consolidated Fund.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, he would beg to move the omission of the words relating to sheriffs and sheriffs substitute of Scotland.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Salaries of Sheriffs and Sheriffs Substitute, per Act 16 and 17 Vict. c. 30."

MR. DUNLOP

said, he did not think time omission of the words would effect the object of his hon. Friend.

LORD ELCHO

said, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Craufurd) was always in the habit of "running a muck" against these unfortunate sheriffs. Last year he brought in a Bill to abolish them altogether; but the Bill was rejected by a majority of two to one of the Scotch Members. A Bill was afterwards passed for the reform of the Sheriffs' Courts, and the salaries were fixed at between 500l. and 1,000l. It was important that those salaries should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and not brought forward annually in order that the parties might be subjected to the attacks of hon. Gentlemen.

MR. J. WILSON

said, he would state to the Committee the reason which influenced the Government in putting the sheriffs and sheriffs substitute into Schedule A. By the Act of Union a reservation was made that the whole of the public officers in Scotland should be paid out of the revenues of Scotland before they were transmitted to England. As it was now proposed to bring the whole of the revenue of Scotland into the Exchequer, it became necessary to provide for the payment of the pubic establishments in Scotland. The principle which had been followed was this:—There were permanent judges, civil and criminal, who ought not to be the subject of an annual vote. If such mode of payment was necessary in England, it was doubly so with respect to Scotland, from the circumstance which he had just pointed out. In removing one security which they were entitled to by the Act of Union, it was the duty of Parliament to give them the next best security that could be offered.

MR. CRAUFURD

But by the Act of last Session an increase of salary was obtained for those officers. He would only mention that he knew an instance of a sheriff leaving his seat on the bench to go and address the populace at an election gathering; and although the gentleman in question coincided with his (Mr. Craufurd's) views on politics, still he must say such occurrences ought not to take place. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 21: Majority 89.

Schedule agreed to.

Upon Schedule B,

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he wished to know on what principle the schedule had been framed, for some officers who ought to be included in it were omitted. He also objected to the provision in the Bill that the accounts of expenditure should be presented on or about the 30th of June, as he considered that would be too late to admit of their discussion.

MR. J. WILSON

said, he could only repeat the explanation on this subject which he had given at a previous stage of the debate.

MR. GROGAN

said, he considered the explanation given by the hon. Secretary to the Treasury as most unsatisfactory. It appeared to him that this schedule was framed upon no definite or intelligible principle whatever. Unless stronger reasons than those they had heard were assigned for such changes as this measure proposed to make, he thought it would be very wrong for the Committee to agree to it.

MR. J. WILSON

said, it was his intention to propose some alterations in the schedule.

LORD NAAS

said, he wished to know what was the nature of the alterations which the hon. Gentleman proposed to make in the schedule? There was no use in discussing the matter until those alterations were laid before them.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he was greatly surprised to find that the Vote for the Irish police was not in the schedule.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he was astonished to hear any objections urged to a measure which he thought was calculated to effect one of the most important financial reforms that had ever been introduced into Parliament.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, that his objection to the schedule was that it was crude, and not properly arranged. He knew an office in Dublin which was regulated by Act of Parliament, which was left out of the schedule. He thought that the Government would do much better by adjourning the consideration of this schedule for a week, in order to its being revised and altered in the way intended. The office to which he alluded as being omitted from the schedule was the Fines and Penalties Office.

MR. J. WILSON

said, he saw no reason for the postponement of the Bill. On the contrary, such a delay would be attended with considerable inconvenience to the public service. The preparation of large Estimates depended on the passing of this Bill. With respect to the Irish constabulary force, that force was charged on the Consolidated Fund by an Act of Parliament proposed by Sir Robert Peel. At present they did not see their way clear, as to placing that expenditure on the Estimates; therefore they should leave this charge, and several others, on the Consolidated Fund, as provided by the various Acts of Parliament which related to them.

MR. NAPIER

said, that the more they discussed this matter the more difficult it was for him to understand upon what principle this schedule was framed. What they differed about was as to the application of a principle. The Government ought to proceed upon some clear and intelligible principle of exemption. He found that Masters in Chancery and assistant barristers were exempted because they were judicial officers. But, he asked, were not the Commissioners of the Insolvent Court judicial officers also? And if so, why should they not be placed in the same category as the others? He thought that the fair course to pursue would be to allow further time in order that the schedule might be more maturely considered. He was, therefore, of opinion that the proposition for the postponement of this schedule was most reasonable and just.

CAPTAIN SCOBELL

said, the Bill was a very great concession to the managers of the public purse, and they ought not to fritter away their time with little matters in the schedule, which was a course that was not worthy of that House. Since the discussion began he had seen no less than three or four different sets of hon. Mem- bers in the House, and in consequence the same explanation had to be given over again; at that rate they would never get through the business.

MR. BARROW

thought the Bill was brought forward in an imperfect state, and he must complain that the Government reserved to itself the right of making verbal alterations.

MR. KEOGH

said, only three such alterations had been made. The Bill had gone through Committee in the presence of all the Irish Members on the other side of the House, without a single objection being raised to either Bill or schedule. It was now again in Committee simply on account of some alterations which had recently been made in it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, exempting the Master of the Rolls, the Masters in Chancery, and the revising barristers. It was utterly incorrect to say there were any blunders in the schedule.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he wished to know why several clauses had been omitted from the schedule? He would mention only one—which, however, involved a very large sum—the Irish police.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he must express his regret that this Bill did not contain every item of public expenditure. He admitted at the same time that the present Government, in bringing forward this measure, had done more to carry out a great scheme of financial reform than any other Government which had ever existed in this country.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, there were repeated inconsistencies in the Bill; and if they should divide upon the subject, he would give his vote against the schedule under discussion. He thought that all judicial appointments should be placed under the control of Parliament. He should move that the county court judges be included in Schedule B.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that county court judges were not upon the Consolidated Fund at all.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, that, in these circumstances, he should move that they be brought under the control of Parliament.

MR. V. SCULLY

said, that if the officers of the Irish Chancery and common-law courts were to be placed in the Estimates he did not see why the English judges should not be put in the same position.

MR. KEOGH

said, that the English judges were at present in a much worse position than their Irish brethren, having been recently put upon the Suitors' Fee Fund, which in Ireland was in an almost bankrupt condition.

MR. V. SCULLY

said, that practically the Suitors' Fee Fund was part of the Consolidated Fund.

MR. GROGAN

said, he would suggest that the schedule should be delayed, in order that hon. Members might have an opportunity of making up their minds. There were many important points which could not be discussed satisfactorily at that time. He was inclined to move, therefore, that the Chairman should report progress.

SIR JOHN YOUNG

said, he must express the hope that it would be allowed to pass through Committee without the necessity of an adjournment.

LORD NAAS

urged the propriety of delaying the discussion upon the schedule till some future day. He admitted that the Bill was a very good one, but he must complain that its details were defective, or, at least, were such as required careful consideration.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 82: Majority 49.

House resumed. Bill reported.