§ House in Committee.
§ (1) £2,000,000, Exchequer Bonds.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONPerhaps, 1435 Sir, the Committee will allow me to answer the question put to me by the hon. Baronet. I will not occupy your attention for more than a moment [Cries of "Order, order!"] upon which the noble Viscount resumed his seat.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to call the attention, of the Committee to the fact that a hope had been held out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Session that £1,000,000 of these bonds would be paid off, and that there would consequently be only £1,000,000 of those Exchequer bonds to provide for.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the additional million had been issued. That, however, was a matter to be explained in the general financial statement when it came under consideration.
MR. W. WILLIAMSremarked, that the point was this—there bad been £2,000,000 of Exchequer bonds issued instead of paying off £2,000,000 according to a solemn engagement entered into by the Government.
MR. WILSONobserved that this was too important a step to be taken as a mere matter of form. They ought not to be called upon to discuss it in so small a House. The Committee were asked to repudiate a distinct engagement entered into with the public for the repayment of £2,000,000 of the public debt. He contended that there was a specific agreement entered into that those Exchequer bonds should be paid off in a specific time. The Government paid higher for the money in consequence, for it could have been borrowed upon more favourable terms. Last year it was one of the most difficult points with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to obtain the assent of the House to the renewal of the £2,000,000 Exchequer bonds, instead of paying them out of the ways and means of the year; but the obligation once disregarded it seems easier to disregard it on a second occasion. The obligation entered into by the Government was broken last year, and that too, without the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinking it necessary to come down to the House to offer any explanation on the matters. There was a large increase of the receipts in the present year from one source in particular, namely, from the sale of old stores, the most expensive mode by which the Exchequer could be replenished. Notwithstanding the receipts had increased about £1,500,000 since the last financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1436 the Government were now about to break the engagement they had deliberately entered into with the public.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEexplained that what the House was asked to do was to authorize the Government to pay the Exchequer bonds issued in May, 1854, and redeemable in May, 1859. If the House were dissolved before the 8th May, the Government would not be able to pay off these bonds without a vote authorizing them to do so.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he wished to impress upon the Committee that when the Government asked for votes on account with regard to the public service, they only asked for what was merely necessary to continue the current services of the year. They did not ask the House to assent to any new principle. When this debt was contracted on Exchequer bonds there was a kind of obligation entered into that when they fell due means would be found to discharge them without borrowing money or permanently creating £2,000,000 additional to the national debt. He did not, however, think that the Government could adopt any other course than the one proposed, without previously making the financial statement for the year. It might be difficult, under existing circumstances, to expect even the financial statement. When, however, the dissolution took place two years ago he filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he thought it his duty to give a statement before that dissolution. He then proposed to Parliament and obtained its assent to the most material measures for the arrangement of the finances of the year. On the present occasion they were going to a dissolution without any such arrangement, and the House was called upon to authorize Government to pay off £2,000,000 of Exchequer bonds, without knowing on what terms the debt was to be renewed. [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It is not to be renewed at all.] Then he presumed that there would be sufficient income from present taxation, or by additional taxation, to pay off these £2,000,000 in the course of the next year. That raised a totally new question for the consideration of the House. Last year £2,000,000 Exchequer bonds fell due, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would pay off the bonds, but take power at the same time to issue £2,000,000 more; and he held out the hope that the ways and means of the year would be sufficient to pay of £1,000,000. 1437 He saw by the last account that the expectation had not been fulfilled, and the £2,000,000 Exchequer bonds had been re-issued. The House was now called on to vote money to pay off £2,000,000 additional Exchequer bonds; and it ought to know whether it was intended to pay off by re-borrowing, or out of the Ways and Means of the year.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he could not anticipate the financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
SIR GEORGE LEWISThen, the House was left in uncertainty on that point. This was a question wholly unconnected with the current service of the year. He wished distinctly to understand whether it was the intention of the Government to defray those £2,000,000 out of the Ways and Means or by re-borrowing. He had his doubts whether the Committee ought to vote this large sum of money without some explanation as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the necessity of obtaining a Vote to pay those Bills was obvious. The bonds would become due on the 8th of May, and if faith with the public creditor were to be kept, the Government must have authority to pay him. He understood the hon. Member for Devonport to argue that if the Committee were to give the authority they were now asking for to the Government, it necessarily implied that the Government were to renew the debt in some other way. He protested against that inference altogether. It was not possible for him at that moment to anticipate the financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All they asked was to be empowered to keep good faith with the public creditor.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that of course there was nothing objectionable in keeping faith with the public creditor, but that House had certain constitutional rights and one of them was not to grant money until it was satisfied that the money would be properly applied. This was not a mere vote for carrying on the current services of the year, like the payment of soldiers' wages; it was one of an extraordinary character. He did not mean to say that he should ultimately object to this Vote, but the House was entitled, before consenting to it, to know something more than it knew at present. Let the Government state whether it was their intention to pay the £2,000,000 absolutely out of the Ways 1438 and Means of the year, or to pay £1,000,000 by re-borrowing, and the other £1,000,000 out of the Ways and Means.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis) had referred to the constitutional right of that House in respect to matters of finance. But no one had ever called those rights into question. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that one of those rights was to enter as largely as possible into questions of finance in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman had largely availed himself of the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to enter into this matter. The right hon. Gentleman could not, he was sure, expect from him (Sir John Pakington), the only Member of the Cabinet present, to enter into this question which was altogether extraneous to his own department, or to anticipate in any degree the financial statement of his right hon. Colleague. But so far as he understood the question, the proposal was, to ask the House for authority to pay off £2,000,000 of a debt which would fall due on a day when it was very well known there would be no Parliament sitting, and for the payment of which the Government had not the means. It was merely a proposal to provide for that emergency. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Radnor said that the course pursued was unsatisfactory, and that they ought to know before the House of Commons consented to the grant what were the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the permanent arrangement on the subject of those bonds. The best explanation he could give was, as his right hon. Friend was not present, that this Vote should be postponed until to-morrow, or some more convenient time. The Government had no desire to take the House by surprise.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the course suggested by the right hon. Baronet might entail an unnecessary loss of time. He believed that there was no real objection to this Vote. It was desirable, however, that some explanation should be given as to whether the debt was to be paid out of Ways and Means or by re-borrowing. Nevertheless, be thought that they might agree to the Vote, upon the understanding that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would enter into an explanation on the subject upon bringing up the Report.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was 1439 ready to concur in the suggestion of his right hon. Friend that the explanation should be given on bringing up the Report. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty made a sort of complaint that this question should be discussed in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was something like the complaint made to the effect that the Members on the Opposition side of the House were responsible for the dissolution of Parliament. He was not responsible for the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, as the Vote had been proposed, there was no reasonable ground of complaint on account of comments made in respect to it.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he did not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of bringing forward this question improperly. As to the responsibility of the dissolution of Parliament, he (Sir John Pakington) thought that the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends were exclusively responsible for that proceeding.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he trusted that the Vote would be postponed, and that the Committee would not consent to Vote £2,000,000 without knowing whether the money was to be paid out of the Ways and Means or borrowed.
§ MR. MALINSobserved, that this was a public debt which would fall due early in May, and the public honour required that it should be properly met; but the right hon. Member for Radnor (Sir George Lewis) and the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain whether this debt was to be wholly discharged out of the revenue, whether it was to be continued, or whether it was to be partially paid off. It would, however, be impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to afford the explanation requested without entering fully into a statement of the general finances of the country, and he thought it would be most unfair to force the right hon. Gentleman to adopt such a course in the present condition of public affairs. He hoped the Vote would now be agreed to, leaving the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make any statement he might think necessary on the Report.
MR. WILSONsaid, he did not object to the Vote being taken, but as in the middle of last week the Government balances were £500,000 below their engagements, and that amount of deficiency bills was required 1440 to make up the quarterly statement, it was not probable that in the course of four or five weeks the excess of revenue over expenditure would enable the Government to meet these bonds out of their existing balances without some financial arrangement. He thought, therefore, that the House was entitled to some explanation on the subject, either now or on the bringing up of the Report.
§ COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask whether the Government had the money in hand, or would have to borrow it?
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONreplied, that the money was in hand; and the only question was, whether Parliament would authorise its appropriation.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, there was no question as to the renewal of the bonds, but the Committee were asked to provide for their payment, and any explanation that was needed would, no doubt, be afforded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a future occasion.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he thought the best course would be to agree to the Vote, but he maintained that, before it was finally sanctioned, the House ought to be informed whether it was intended that the debt should be extinguished out of the Ways and Means of the year, or whether the Government meant to extinguish it simply by the creation of a new loan. That was a reasonable question, and as he understood there was an engagement on the part of the Government that it should be answered on a future occasion, he would suggest that the Vote should be now agreed to.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that as the matter was put by the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Lewis), the explanation required would involve a general financial statement for the year. What he (Sir John Pakington) had intended to state was, that the money was in hand to pay off £2.000,000, but he had not meant in any way to compromise his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or to anticipate the financial statement which it might be his right hon. Friend's duty to make. He did not dispute the right of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to put his question, but if he made his assent to the Vote conditional upon the answer he might receive, the better course would be to postpone the Vote to another evening, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer would he prepared to afford an 1441 explanation. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman did not make such a condition, the money might now be voted, and the explanation might be given on the Report.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he thought it was desirable that the Vote should now be taken, but the House was entitled to some further explanation, which might with perfect propriety be given upon the Report.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he had always strongly objected to this mode of raising money which had deranged our finances ever since the Crimean war. These bonds were issued, in the first instance, to the amount of £6,000,000. He believed that of that amount £2,000,000 had been extinguished, and he wished to know whether £4,000,000 was yet due?
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEwas understood to say that none of the bonds in question had been extinguished, but he believed they were all out.
§ Vote agreed to; as were also,
§ (2.) £13,277,400, Exchequer bills, and
§ (3.) £1,125,000, on account, Revenue Departments.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,—
That a sum not exceeding £1,854,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge of certain Civil Services, to the 31st day of March, 1860.
§ MR. LINDSAYsaid, he rose to inquire as to the nature of the works at Kingstown Harbour, for which there was an item of £10,000?
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it was, and the various Votes would be set out in the Act.
§ MR. LINDSAYsaid, he would beg to draw attention to the fact that the Votes on account of the Harbours of Dovor and Alderney had been omitted.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would afford some explicit explanation respecting Dovor Harbour.
MR. WILSONobserved, that taking the Vote in cumulo would embarrass the Appropriation Act. He, when Secretary of the Treasury, took a Vote on each item, and thus he was able to particularize them in the Appropriation Act.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYremark- 1442 ed, that in 1857 there had been two Appropriation Acts—one following a Vote in cumulo, and the other a series of Votes.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONobserved, that he was not aware that, in the preparation of these Votes on account, any Estimate for the works at the harbours referred to had been omitted. He would certainly have asked for a Vote on account, because he was satisfied that it was most desirable to proceed with the works in question, and he hoped that before the new Parliament met, the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Lindsay) would reconsider his avowed intention to oppose all Votes for these purposes. The question fairly open to the decision of the House was one of degree—how much further the works at these two harbours should be carried; but he hoped that no hon. Gentleman would endeavour to induce the House to stop altogether these important works which had been carried on at great cost for a series of years. The abandonment of the works in their present state would be a course most injurious to the public interest.
§ MR. LINDSAYsaid, that he was one of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of Harbours of Refuge, and he had devoted three or four months to that inquiry. The harbour of Dovor had not been inquired into, but he collected a good deal of information with respect to Dovor, which, with the permission of the Committee, he would lay before them. If they went on with the construction of Dovor on the small plan of Mr. Walker, it would cost £4,500,000, in his opinion, while the large plan would cost £6,000,000. He would put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether the better course would not be to complete the harbour as a packet station, without expending enormous sums with the view of rendering it available for military purposes. He thought the proper course would be to proceed in the first instance with the construction of harbours which were necessary for the convenience and safety of the mercantile navy, delaying further expenditure upon such works as those at Dovor and Alderney.
THE CHAIRMANintimated that the hon. Gentleman was out of order in discussing the question of Harbours of Refuge on that Vote.
§ MR. LINDSAYsaid, in that case he would simply move that the Vote be reduced by the £10,000.
§ Amendment proposed, to reduce the sum by £10,000.
1443§ Question proposed, "That the sum be reduced by £10,000."
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, be hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment, as the Government, in taking a Vote on account, would undoubtedly limit their expenditure to purposes of absolute necessity, until the Estimate was brought as a whole before the House, when the question could be fully discussed.
§ MR. LINDSAYobserved, that if this suggestion were acted on, he would withdraw his Amendment.
LORD NAASsaid, the Vote in this respect was only intended for the continuance of the works already commenced.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to state that the Appropriation Act would take the form of that of 1857.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYexpressed a hope that the Appropriation Act would set out the details, and that these would be submitted to the House in print.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, as this Vote included the costs of the Probate and Divorce Courts, he wished to take the opportunity of calling attention to the state of business in the Marriage and Divorce Court. The most serious complaints were made of the large arrear of business in that Court, which amounted, he believed, at the commencement of the term, to about 150 causes. It was due to the learned and able Judge who presided over the Court to say, that he was untiring in his exertions to cope with the pressure of business, so that with reference to the probate causes which came under his separate jurisdiction as Judge Ordinary, there was an arrear of only nine cases. It was, however, necessary that the Judges should attend the full Court, and the arrears had arisen, not from any want of industry on the part of the learned Judge Ordinary, but from the difficulty he had experienced in obtaining the assistance of other learned Judges. In cases of such a peculiar character as those which came before this Court delays were attended with much more serious inconvenience to the suitors than in cases of ordinary litigation where questions of property were concerned, and he had received many applications from persons who had instituted proceedings for divorce, who complained, that although their cases had been set down in the month of October last, there was no probability of their being decided until next November. So far as the 1444 Judge Ordinary was concerned, he had devoted himself with the most untiring industry to the transaction of the business of his Court, but the question was, whether additional judges ought not to be appointed, and he hoped the subject would receive the immediate and serious attention of Her Majesty's Government.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was deeply sensible of the great public inconvenience resulting from the state of affairs which had been brought under the notice of the Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone; but it was one thing to express—as he (the Attorney General) now did—his regret that the public should have been exposed to such serious inconveniences, and another, and a more difficult thing, to suggest a remedy under existing circumstances, and at the present moment. Notwithstanding the great ability and the close application of the learned Judge who presided over the Divorce Court, it was found impracticable to carry on the business of that Court with the same despatch as, he was glad to say, now prevailed in all the other Courts of the kingdom, and it was quite obvious that no effectual remedy could be applied except by the creation of additional Judges. The Committee were aware that under the existing law, in order to constitute a complete Divorce Court the attendance of certain of the common law Judges was indispensable; but those Judges, in consequence of their other numerous occupations, had found it impossible to attend in sufficient numbers and with sufficient regularity to carry on effectively the business of the Court. Efforts had been made by the learned Judges to assist Sir C. Cresswell, the Judge of the Divorce Court, but it had been found utterly impracticable to keep down the arrears of business. The subject had, of course, attracted the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government, and he hoped that a remedy might be applied at the earliest possible moment; but looking to the present state of public business and the approaching dissolution of Parliament, as well as the difference in opinion which existed as to the number, qualification and station of the Judges to be appointed, it was evidently almost impossible that any step could be taken until the new Parliament assembled. He could assure the Committee that not only had the matter engaged the attention of the Government, but that he would lose no time in communicating with noble and learned 1445 Friends in the other House, with the view of ascertaining whether it was possible during the short remaining period of the present Session to apply a practical and efficient remedy to the grievances which the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone had brought under the notice of the Committee.
§ MR. MALINSsaid, he believed that the present state of the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial causes was a great public evil, owing to the narrow area to which the selection of the Judges for the consideration of the full Court was limited it could not be assembled oftener than once in two months. The Committee had also been informed that there were not less than 150 cases in arrear, some of which had been waiting ever since October last, whilst there was no possibility of their being disposed of before November next. Now, that was a state of things which existed in no other tribunal in the country. In the Court of Chancery, for instance, it was never known that a case had to wait more than six weeks for hearing; and on the rising of that Court on the 26th of last month, virtually not a single case was left undisposed of. The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone was quite right in stating that if there were any part of the law on which there should be no delay, it was where an application had been made for a divorce; because, if the application were well founded, they could not too speedily have the question decided: whereas, if it were unfounded, they could not too speedily relieve families from that state of uncertainty and misery in which such an application must necessarily involve them. The delay, he feared, would continue certainly until June, and perhaps during the present year. He regretted that nothing could be done before the assembling of a new Parliament with a view to provide a remedy, and he apprehended that even when the new Parliament had met no remedy would be immediately applied. He trusted, however, that his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) either in the present or early in the next Session would take an opportunity of setting a matter right which so loudly called for correction.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.