§ MR. WISE, pursuant to notice, rose to move that, in the opinion of the House, it would be desirable to appoint every year a Select Committee to inquire into the Miscellaneous Civil Service Expenditure of the preceding year; into the payments made out of the Consolidated Fund; and into those on account of the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues. The hon. Member said he hoped hon. Members would not consider it waste of their time to give a little attention to the subject of his Motion. Whether they looked to the past expenditure of the country or to the fact that £55,000,000 were now required for the debt and defences of the country, the necessity for a stringent in- 447 quiry into the expenditure was apparent. It had been often proposed that the Estimates for the year should be referred to a Select Committee; but that he had always opposed, for he could not help regarding the scheme as a device to cast off from the Executive Government the duties and responsibilities which properly belonged to their office. But the proposal he now made was of an entirely different character. The desirableness of assisting the Treasury to exercise a further check and control over the national expenditure, and of assisting the House to come to some just conclusion on the matter, and to enable them to exercise a beneficial influence over the expenditure of the money they had to vote, could not be denied. He should he satisfied if the House would adopt the principle of his Resolution; but at present the Civil Service Estimates, as they came before hon. Members, were a snare to them. With the exception of the Army and Navy, and the Estimates for the British Museum, with one or two others, it was impossible for the House to come to a just conclusion upon them. He was therefore disposed to believe, without any want of confidence in the Government of the day, whoever they might happen to he, that an annual review by a Committee of the House of the expenditure and revenue of the Woods and Forests Department, of the charges on the Consolidated Fund, and of the miscellaneous expenses in connection with the Civil Service, would be attended with a considerable reduction in the amount of outlay. He was convinced he only echoed the general opinion of the country when he said that the Miscellaneous Estimates were increasing with excessive and alarming rapidity. Independent of the ordinary sources of expenditure, there were many secret drains upon the public funds, so mysterious and complicated that they seemed almost to evade the control of the Treasury, as they certainly defied the investigation of the House. The people of this country placed large sums of money in the hands of the Government with cheerful alacrity whenever they were asked for important national purposes; but they had a right to insist that these sums should be faithfully appropriated and frugally expended. He believed that if this Committee were appointed and the Estimates examined for a series of years they would find that among much that was useful many things had crept in that were of very doubtful utility if not absolutely useless. He thought hon. Members were bound to 448 listen to the questions which were always being addressed to them by their constituents as to what was done with all the money voted every year, and prove themselves really and truly the guardians of the public purse, by demanding a proper system of inquiry into the annual expenditure of the country. It was the practice of the occupants of the Treasury bench to declare that they were not responsible for the amount of expenditure, and that it was forced upon them by the House of Commons. Were hon. Members willing to accept that declaration and the responsibility which it devolved upon them? Were they prepared to admit that no inspection of expenditure was required, and that no reduction in its amount could be effected? He believed most hon. Members were agreed that the Civil Service Estimates were too large, that many of the charges upon the Consolidated Fund ought to be otherwise provided for, and that the Lands and Forests revenue fell below what it might be made by proper management. He was satisfied that the examination of a Committee would lead to the saving of thousands, if not millions of money, without any injury to the strength or efficiency of the public service. He wished to call the attention of the House to an important Parliamentary paper which had been issued, giving an account of the increase in the Civil Service Estimates for the last twenty or twenty-five years. In the year 1839 the total amount of these Estimates was £2,651,000, while last year they came to £7,880,000. In 1817, when we were at peace, they were only £1,480,000, and before the Reform Bill, in 1830, £1,872,000. The average for the ten years ending 1827 was £2,115,000; for the ten years ending 1837, £2,269,000; for the ten years ending 1847, £3,016,000; and for the last ten years, £5,710,000. The expenditure for the twenty years ending 1839 was £43,226,000; and for the twenty years ending 1859, £94,955,000. It was instructive to compare the totals of each class of expenditure in 1839 and 1859:—Public buildings, parks, &c, 1839, £197,000; 1859, £793,000. Salaries and expenses of public departments, 1839, £723,000; 1859, £1,413,000. Law and justice, 1839, £666,000; 1859, £2,544,000. Education, science, and art, 1839, £175,000; 1859, £1,328,000. Colonial and consular, 1839, £339,000; 1859, £428,000. Superannuation and allowances, 1839, £200,000; 1859, 449 £242,000. Miscellaneous,1839, £217,000; 1859, £985,000. It was stated that the Houses of Parliament, new and temporary, had cost the country no less than £2,716,000; and yet if any hon. Member would take the trouble, as he had clone, to walk round the building, he would find that the stone was already in a stale of decay, that numerous fissures were apparent, and numerous experiments going on to arrest the cracks. Buckingham Palace, he was sorry to say, was in much the same condition. But they had only to look at St. Paul's, Somerset House, the Banqueting Hall, or the Horse Guards to see that their ancestors did not make such errors as we did in the selection of stone. If there had been a Finance Committee appointed regularly every year he was sure that this matter would have been minutely and carefully inquired into, and no doubt some of the enormous expenditure might have been saved, or, at least, laid out to better purpose. The grants for harbours of refuge were considerable, no doubt; but the country did not grudge it, they wished to be a great maritime people, and they were willing to pay the cost; and all that was asked was that the money should be economically spent, and that value should be got for the money. He found that as much as £26,000 a year was spent in hiring departmental offices, and he could not help thinking that a miserable and wasteful plan of carrying on the government of a great country like this. Surely they might find a national building for the National Debt Office, which was to be regarded as a national institution if any was. A great many buildings were also rented for the use of Commissions; and he might mention, by the way, that since 1830 no less than £831,171 had been spout in Commissions. During the last twenty years the furniture in the public departments had cost £450,000. He freely admitted that the gentlemen connected with the Treasury and the offices of the Secretaries of State were generally not extravagantly provided for in that respect. He believed that in those departments the duties were very efficiently discharged. But still, taking the expenditure in the whole of the public departments together, it would be found that it was exactly doubled. This increase of expenditure did not arise—he was happy to say—in the charges for the two Houses of Parliament, which were in 1852, £89,000 and last year £80,000. As far as the House of Commons was concerned, the 450 whole expenditure was £52,000, of which £41,000 was supplied by fees. Probably in no public office in the metropolis, were economy and efficiency so combined, and all who had had experience of the House of Commons and its officers knew that the latter had always discharged their duties with an efficiency and a courtesy which deserved general thanks. Between 1839 and 1859 they had spent £6,000,000 in printing and stationery. In 1856, the item was £458,000, but he was happy to see that last year it was reduced to £337,000 He should be very sorry to curtail the printing of useful documents, but he thought the printing should be limited to papers of that kind. The stationery and official postage items were both very much abused. Gentlemen connected with the Science and Art Department, for which the charge was £93,000 a year—did not study economy in those respects. He received from time to time from that department, in common, he supposed, with every Peer and Member of Parliament, bushels of papers, which went into their housemaids' baskets. He had recently received one, rather more than usually attractive. It was in a huge official envelope, bearing on the outside, "Henry Cole, Science and Art Department, South Kensington—On Her Majesty's Service," and consisted of an almanac printed on a large sheet of paper. This almanac was sent him at the public expense; but he did not wish to obtain that publication in that way—he could afford to pay for his own almanac, and really he thought the Treasury ought to check this sort of nonsense. The next item to which he wished to direct attention was the Secret Service money; they imagined that they could not do without Secret Services, but under that head there had been an expenditure during twenty years of £954,600, and he very much doubted whether the secret information which had been obtained was worth the money. Then he found that of late years there had been a very great increase of salaries. When any complaint was made of increase of salaries they were generally told that a great number of salaries were paid in lieu of fees. In 1854 the fees amounted to £138,000; last year they had dwindled down to £111,000, and of that sum the House of Commons' fees supplied £41,000; so that the fees did not amount to any very large sum, and could not contribute as largely to salaries as was represented. He had a great respect for both Law and 451 Justice, but he thought the expenditure under that head, which had enormously increased, required revision. The item was £2,500,000 with the addition of £718,000 charged on the Consolidated Fund. He did not say that the charge on the Consolidated Fund was improper, because the Judges ought to be provided for in that permanent form. Into the important item of Education, Science, and Art, there was a Commission inquiring at the present time, but he was anxious to call attention to the fact that the expenditure under that head had increased from £175,000, in 1839, to £1,328,000 in 1859. He hoped the country was receiving an equivalent for that expenditure. They voted last year £230,000 for pupil teachers, and his experience taught him that the pupil teacher system was becoming a failure; that they married very early, if they were attractive young women, or went out as governesses; and that in one way or the other they left the service of the educational staff, so that they lost the services of these pupil teachers as soon as they had completed their gratuitous education. The Inspectors of schools cost £61,000 or £62,000 a year, and yet he feared that we had a very imperfect system of education. The next item was the Consular and Colonial expenditure. He was pleased to think that the Committee which sat on the Consular system two or three years ago had not been without its effect, and he sincerely trusted that Her Majesty's Government would carry out the recommendations of that Committee. Her Majesty's late Government entered very warmly into the question, and were, be believed, prepared to adopt measures likely to lead to great and beneficial changes. The Colonial charges were very large indeed, amounting in five years to £22,000,000. Then there were the Superannuation and other items, into the details of which he would not enter, but he begged to call the attention of the House to Class 7. Those Estimates were generally laid on the table at a very late period of the Session, when there was no time for investigation. They were termed temporary charges, but he was sorry to say, after the first appearance of an item in that class, it was generally continued for ever afterwards. One of his great objections to that portion of the public expenditure was that it included large sums for the improvement of the metropolis. With all respect for the metropolitan Members, he objected to the 452 large sums invariably demanded for metropolitan purposes. In counties they built bridges, made public gardens, and discharged at their own expense all the duties which No. 7 of the Estimates did for the metropolis. For instance, they had recently voted for Battersea Park, Chelsea Bridge, and Vauxhall embankment, no less than £525,000. The next portion of his remarks would embrace the second portion of his Resolution. With regard to the Consolidated Fund the items comprised in it were never brought before the House; they were printed in a blue-book at the end of each Session, but something more was required than an inquiry within the four walls of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, in 1854,, expressed an opinion that there was no point on which the House was more apt to be led into laxity than that of laying on the Consolidated Fund charges which it ought not to bear, the consequence of which was that in some measure they escaped the control of Parliament and were forgotten, and the right hon. Gentleman also said that it would be advisable to establish some means by which the attention of the House would be drawn periodically to these charges. That was exactly the principle which he (Mr. Wise) wished to carry into practical operation. The first item on the Consolidated Fund was £385,000 for the Civil List; and with that he had nothing to do, as it was a fixed charge on the revenue of the country—the only observation he would make with regard to it was to express a hope that Her Majesty would live many years to enjoy it. The present charges on the Consolidated Fund for the Civil List amounted to. £1,900,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in the year 1834, that of this sum there were 34 items which amounted to £970,000; but at this moment it was difficult to say whether any hon. Member would understand them. There were, he believed, 100 or 200 Acts of Parliament relating to them. Then came the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which cost from £50,000 to £60,000. He was glad to observe that there had been a great improvement lately in the revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, for a few years ago they used to bring in very little and cost a great deal. In the Duchy of Lancaster there was a Chancellor, a Vice-chancellor, an Attorney General, and fifty other officials; in short, to use Burke's 453 words, "all the apparatus of a kingdom to manage a country gentleman's estate." But if they had no right to inquire into the Civil List they had a full right to inquire into the management of the Lands, Woods and Forests, belonging to the Crown. By an Act passed in the reign of George IV. it appeared that the expenses of collection were the first charge on the revenues, then pensions, and whatever was left went to the State. It was high time that this mode of proceeding was altered, and the Committee on Public Monies was of the same opinion. In their Report they expressed an opinion, "that these charges should be brought under the system of votes for expenditure, just like the charges respecting other branches of the public revenue." But in answer to this Report the Treasury had made a minute to the effect that "My Lords" were of opinion that, considering the peculiar nature of this revenue, it was advisable to postpone any further consideration of this point until a further investigation took place preparatory to a new surrender of the Crown Lands to the public, and a grant of a new Civil List to the Crown. He never could understand the reason of the Treasury for recommending this postponement. Mr. Huskisson, Lord Monteagle, and other public men whose judgment should have great weight, were of opinion that the control of Parliament ought to he exercised over these revenues quite as much as over any other branch of the public revenue. According to a Parliamentary paper lately delivered, the revenue of the Crown Lands, Woods and Forests, from 1816 to 1859 was £13,273,295, and the expenses upwards of £6,000,000. The income for 1858-9 was £446,771, and the sum received by the Consolidated Fund was only £280,040, from which was to be deducted a Vote on Estimate 2, of £23,000, so that it cost £190,231 to get £256,540. In 20 years the total revenues from that source amounted to £6,705,917, out of which was to be taken £2,214,000 for management, and £995,000 for permanent improvements, leaving a net profit to the State of £3,495,000. This was as much as if a country gentleman, with a gross rental of £3,300 had to pay £1,100 for management and £500 for permanent improvements, leaving himself with an income of £1,700. What tenant for life would admire that state of things? Yet it exactly represented the position of the country with reference to the revenue of the Crown lands. 454 No doubt the gentlemen at the head of the department had effected considerable improvements of late; but there was still a vast amount of unseen and uncontrolled expenditure. Leaving the Lands, and travelling now to the mysterious recesses of the Woods and Forests, it appeared from this paper that the receipts of the Woods and Forests from 1803 to 1859 had been £2,589,183, and the receipts £2,085,304. In 1859 the receipts were £47,181, and the expenses £52,984; in 1858 the receipts were £68,743, and the expenses £58,170; and in 1857 the receipts were £63,811, and the expenses £55,469. In order that it might not be thought that he had selected an exceptional period he would take the four years ending 1852, in which he found that the receipts were £186,000 and the expenses £188,000. In the four years ending 1856 the receipts were £307,000 and the expenses £245,000. For the three years ending 1859 the receipts were £175,000 and the expenses £166,000; making for that period of 11 years a total of receipts of £673,000 and of expenses £600,000. Taking now three of these Crown forests, it appeared that in that of Dean the receipts last year were £11,900 and the expenses £11,300; in the New Forest £16,000 had been received and £11,000 expended; and in Windsor Forest, which from its vicinity to the Castle was exceptionally placed and required additional outlay in salaries, upon labour, and maintenance of deer, &c., the receipts had been £5,000 and the expenses £19,000. When the large establishments and expenses connected with the Woods and Forests were complained of, it was urged that they were absolutely requisite for the management of this extensive property, which amounted nominally, in forests alone, to 103,000 acres; but he believed it was the fact that they had not a really beneficial interest in more than 30,000 acres. A few years ago the Treasury directed three gentleman of eminence to visit these portions of the Crown property, and they proceeded during their term of inspection to Delamere forest, which he would take as an example of the injudicious mode of treatment that had sometimes been adopted. The Commissioners reported that the 4,000 acres of which the forest was composed "was in every respect unsuited to the growth of oak, and that such a crop ought never to have been planted upon it; the trees had been planted in such places and 455 of such sizes as to preclude all chance of their success; that considerable loss had been sustained by an unskilful mode of cutting down trees; that a very large amount in value of thriving larch trees, admirably suited to the soil in which they were growing and approaching rapidly to good timber, had been displaced to give room for stunted thriftless oaks, which were of no present value and never could attain any." He desired in an especial manner to direct the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the arrears which were permitted to occur in the rent accounts which were made up to April in every year. In 1857 the arrears which were thus permitted to remain due amounted to £220,241; in 1858 to £206,680; and in 1859 to £202,248. The Treasury certainly ought to have the power of checking this system, which seemed, at all events, to have existed for three years, and which must he attended with very injurious effects, as it permitted so large a sum as £200,000 to remain in the hands of the country agents and stewards charged with the collection of the revenues of the Crown. Another subject highly deserving of consideration was the manner in which the capital account was made up; for if there was one paper more unsatisfactory and mysterious than another of those laid on the table of the House it was the capital account of the Estates and revenues of the Crown. Within the last thirty or forty years Crown property to the value of £2,409,203 had been sold, and this system of constant sales and re-investments was attended with inconvenience and enormous expense. Last year an amount of no less than £13,037 was paid for legal expenses and plans incidental to these sales of Crown lands; and though it might be extremely desirable to consolidate this property, which was scattered through almost every county in England, and so to get rid of a large army of receivers, surveyors, stewards, and agents, he thought the improvement might be more judiciously effected than by this perpetual system of buying and selling, adding to the expenses and diminishing the revenues. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, a few years ago, taken the wise and judicious course of removing a great number of charges from the Consolidated Fund to the Estimates for the year; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, whom he believed to be at heart a sincere financial Reformer, would persevere in the same 456 beneficial direction. There were a number of changes which, in his opinion, might with great advantage be removed from the Consolidated Fund to the yearly Estimates, where they would be exposed to the consideration and criticism of the House. Among these he placed the charge for the Lunacy Commission of £12,500; that for the Audit-office of £6,300, which was in addition to the sum of £32,466, appearing on the Estimates for the expenses of that office. Then there was the sum of £10,000 for secret service money, in addition to the £32,000 in the Estimates; and this item he should like to abolish altogether, believing that it was opposed to the openness of the English character, and that the country had never derived any substantial benefit from such expenditure. The sums of £10,000 for the government of the Isle of Man; £17,000 for the augmentation of stipends to the Scotch clergy; and £20,300 to the West India clergy might in like manner be transferred advantageously to the Estimates. The salary of £20,000 to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland ought, perhaps, to be retained on the Consolidated Fund as long as the office itself was maintained; but it should be remembered that in addition to this £20,000 there were further payments on foot of Castle expenses to the amount of £4,378, and to the Household of £6,431 yearly. The allowance of £2,769 to the in-coming Lord-Lieutenant for his outfit was classed under the head of Contingencies, but the House would bear in mind that within a comparatively few years there had been eight Viceroys appointed. The allowance of £2,000 a year to the High Commissioner of the General Assembly of Scotland, and of £2,000 to the itinerant preachers, he should also like to remove; and last, and not least, he was particularly desirous that the £180,000 paid for diplomatic services should be brought into the Estimates. A Resolution which he proposed last Session was rejected by a majority of twenty-eight in a House of 256 Members, but he still hoped that Parliament would see the advisability of exercising a control over the expenditure in that department. The diplomatic service cost the country last year £268,898, and the consular service £252,796, making a total of £521,694. Besides this charge on the Consolidated Fund, he found that in the last eleven years there had been expended on the same account—miscellaneous, £248,000; special missions 457 £133,000; Embassy-house, £253,000; chapels, £96,500; rent and outfit, £108,000, and £70,000. So that, if some supervision were not exercised over these sums, they would go on increasing until in a few years the cost of these united diplomatic services would amount to millions, instead of thousands. He had given a plain unvarnished tale, with the object of inducing the House to adopt some measures that might more effectually check this stream of expenditure, which received but a very inadequate consideration, when the period of late sittings and hot nights came on, and when Members were tired and the House was impatient to enter on other business. The only conclusion at which he had been able to arrive was, that the people of England had too much money. Southey had said that a Government never could be too rich, but that the same observation did not apply to the people who were governed. To impose taxation was easy, and to disburse it was agreeable; but the payment of taxes, except in cases of great national emergency, was a process that was always painful and disagreeable. A rigid reform in the expenditure might be very annoying to many of those persons who represented ignorant incapacity and distinguished destitution; but to the people of England a more rigid economy would be very acceptable. Before placing any now burdens on the public, the House ought to inquire whether the money it had already granted was properly expended. There was no wish to diminish the efficiency of the national service, or refuse anything that would be for the national advantage. All that was asked was, that the public money should not be wasted, that the revenue should really be used for the public benefit, and the little interests of little men should not be allowed to interfere with the great interests of a great country. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he rose to second the Resolution, but after the able manner in which the subject had been introduced, he would only allude to one or two points. Some said the Government was to blame for the excessive expenditure, others blamed the House; but he feared that the enormous increase in the Estimates of late years could not be ascribed to the Government or the House of Commons alone, but that Parliament, the Government, and the public were all more or less involved in the blame. So many parties 458 were interested in a largo expenditure that the public had become apathetic, and this was among the influences at work which had induced the House to relax its scrutiny of the Estimates. It had been said that only the upper classes were interested in this expenditure. But on examination it would be found that the amount of the expenditure by which this particular class was benefited was really very small. The middle class had a very large share in the advantage of this expenditure, and so had the class of mechanics and workmen, the largest recipients of all, though out of the 63,000,000 of revenue collected, it was impossible to say that that class contributed more than 20,000,000, and that only indirectly. There was a combination of the influence of all classes to urge on an increase of the expenditure. Gentlemen who had attended the discussions on the Estimates must have observed how frequently those discussions turned, not upon the extravagant expenditure, but upon there not being enough spent in different departments. Some hon. Gentlemen took up the case of the officers employed in the administration of the Poor Law, others that of the mechanics in the different dockyards, or the officers of the Customs' Department. From both sides of the House they heard arguments why there should be an increase in the expenditure for the benefit of particular parties. Another principle also operated in the same direction. The Executive of the day, in order to carry out certain views of local government, would place on the Console dated Fund certain sums as charges in relief of local expenditure. The House sanctioned the practice, and the central Government gained greater control in a certain department of administration. But the result to the country was that the expenditure was raised to more than it would have been had it been borne either by the general or the local government alone. It was simply burning the candle at both ends. The education grant, large as it was, had in a great measure been swollen in that way. Then sums had been granted in aid of county rates—for prisons, county police, the medical poor law staff, and a variety of establishments of that sort. By the Act of 14 & 15 Vict, the office of Woods and Forests had been divided into two—the office of Public Works and that of Woods and Forests. The result was that each office cost nearly as much as one did before. The cost of the old office was 459 £28,000 a year; that of the Woods and Forests was now £23,000, and that of Public Works £26,570. There were two accounts kept at the Woods and Forests—the capital account and the income account—and many items appeared in one which did not properly belong to it, and ought to appear in the other. He looked upon the notion of the Crown at any future time reclaiming these lands as a mere myth. It would be a most dangerous proceeding; it would altogether alter the relations between the monarch and the people were the Sovereign to depend for his revenue upon any income arising from estates, and not voted by Parliament. The arrangement was a mere matter of form, but that form was a wholesome reminder of what was due from Parliament to the Sovereign, and also of what was due from the Sovereign, by showing that the maintenance of the Crown came from the same source as the Crown itself. He objected to the items of expenditure for the improvement of the Crown property, as, on the settlement of a future civil list, those would be used against the country, It should be understood, if there was any intention of retaining the estates, that no more expense should be incurred merely to increase the value of the property. He could describe it as nothing more nor less than a fraud upon the people. Knowing how impossible it was to get the Estimates fairly passed, and that it was only by going before such a Committee as his hon. Friend proposed that the results of this expenditure, and the grounds of them, and the reason why they should be discontinued, could be properly analyzed, he felt that no better plan could be devised than that which his hon. Friend suggested. He therefore cordially seconded the Motion.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed:—
That, in the opinion of this House, it would be desirable to appoint every year a Select Committee to inquire into the Miscellaneous Civil Service Expenditure of the preceding year; into the payments made out of the Consolidated Fund; and into those on account of the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues.
§ MR. LAINGobserved, the House was very much indebted to the hon. Member who had made the present Motion, for having brought under its notice a subject of great importance, and one which excited out of doors a considerable amount of public interest. The expenditure on the civil service was not very well understood, and a very general impression seemed to prevail throughout the country that it 460 had gone on of late years increasing to a very alarming extent, and that, too, notwithstanding it was supposed to be in a great degree under the control of the House of Commons, and, not like the expenditure for military and naval purposes, influenced by circumstances which might render a large outlay unavoidable. It was, therefore, that the civil service expenditure was regarded as affording the best test of the economy of Parliament, and it was for that reason, among others, that he held the opinion that if the specific Motion before the House—that of a Standing Committee to examine the expenditure of the preceding year—should be deemed to be well adapted to secure the end for which it had been brought forward, and which every hon. Member must be anxious to attain, it should he at once acceded to. It was quite clear, at all events, that, so far as the convenience of the Government, and especially of the Gentleman holding the office he had the honour to fill, was concerned, the appointment of the proposed Committee would be most acceptable, as relieving them from a very heavy responsibility; hut as responsibility could not be thrown to any degree upon one of two bodies without pro tanto relieving the other from its pressure, it was a point well worthy of consideration whether the accomplishment of such a result would in itself be expedient. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wise) had, it was true, contended that the objection which he had just pointed out might, in a great measure, be removed by submitting to the notice of the Committee, not the Estimates of the ensuing, but those of the past financial year; but as nearly four-fifths of the expenditure of one year were made up of sums which reappeared in the Estimates for the next, it was quite clear that the Committee, in sanctioning those items, would, to a very considerable extent, remove from the shoulders of the Government any responsibility which might attach to their re-insertion, and would furnish the Minister with a satisfactory answer to any such inconvenient questions which might be addressed to him by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) as to the largeness of the amount which the House might be asked to re-vote under any particular head. Be that, however, as it might, he felt it to be his duty to lay before the House the real state of the Civil Service Estimates, in order that hon. Members might be in a position to judge upon whose shoulders it was most desirable that 461 responsibility with respect to them should be permitted to rest. He should not, in endeavouring to effect that object, go further hack than the financial year 1852-3, or just previous to the period, when a large amount had been transferred from the Consolidated Fund to the Estimates, inasmuch as any calculations based upon their previous amount would, because of that change, be completely illusory. As an instance, the hon. Gentleman who had brought the question under the notice of the House had referred to the greatly increased expenditure in connection with the public offices last year as compared with the year 1846; but it was important, in dealing with that subject, to bear in mind that the increase was to be accounted for by the transfer from the Consolidated Fund to the Estimates to which he (Mr. Laing) had already alluded; the fact being that, instead of there being any increase, there was in many instances a slight diminution in the salaries of officers employed in our public departments. But, to proceed to the statement of the civil service expenditure, taking the financial year 1852–3 as a starting-point, he found that in that year the sum voted under that head was £4,407,000, while in 1859 it was £7,840,000, thus showing, in the expenditure in the latter over the former year, what at first sight appeared to he an actual increase of £3,433,000. It must be home in mind, however, that of that amount £1,500,000 must be laid to the account of the transfer which in 1853—[An hon. MEMBER: 1854]—had been made to the Estimates from the Consolidated Fund. That being so, hon. Members could not fail to perceive that, for the purpose of fair comparison, they must deduct that sum of £1,500,000, which would leave the real increase of expenditure for the whole of the civil service, as between the two years which he had mentioned, somewhere about £1,900,000. And how, let him ask, was that amount made up? Chiefly of items which were the result of legislation for which Parliament itself was responsible. Now, the first great item of increase during the seven years ending in 1859, which he should mention, was that under the head of education, science, and art, in which there was an increase of £860,000; the next was that which came under the head of law, justice, police, prisons, convicts, &c, in which the increase for the same period had been £550,000: that under the head of harbours being 462 £150,000; of public buildings, parks, & c. £150,000; of stationery, postage, telegraphs, & c, £100,000; making altogether a total increase of rather more than £1,800,000. There were, however, in addition other charges made in the Civil Service Estimates last year, which were in reality connected with naval and military objects, as, for instance, a sum of £130,000, which had been voted for the purpose of laying down a telegraph to Gibraltar, to enable us to communicate with that fortress and also with our fleet in the Mediterranean; and a sum of £60,000 in connection with the exchange upon remittances to troops in China, which, together with some smaller amounts, made up a sum of £200,000. This added to the £1,800,000 he had before enumerated amounted to £2,000,000, the total increase for the seven years ending in 1858 being, as he had said before, about £1,900,000. Thus upon a limited number of items he had accounted for the whole of the increase during that period. With respect to the expenditure which was incurred for the public departments he thought it desirable to make a few remarks with the view of removing from the public mind the erroneous impression that money was lavishly laid out in connection with them in order to increase patronage, especially for the benefit of the upper classes of society. Now, if such were the case—which it was not—the charge would apply to the expenditure for the Treasury, the Colonial Department, and the other great public offices, inasmuch as clerkships in those departments were much sought after by young men of good family hut scanty means. He, however, found that while the total expenditure for the Treasury was, in 1852, £54,400, it was in 1859 not more than £54,600; while in the case of the Colonial Office the expenditure, which in the former year was £38,815, was in the latter not more than £30,978, The only public office, in fact, in connection with which there had been any materially increased outlay in 1859, as compared with 1852, was the Foreign Office, and the increase in that instance was to be accounted for by the multiplication of telegrams and special messengers, caused by the increased activity of the diplomatic service of late years. In the case of the Poor Law Office there had been an actual decrease in the expenditure in 1859 as compared with 1852, the sum voted for it having been in the latter year £95,000, while in the former it had been only £59,800. Taking the Civil 463 Service Estimates generally, indeed, he found that, while there was a great increase in that expenditure which might he said to come more especially under Parliamentary control, a very considerable regard to administrative economy was observable in the management of the public offices. There were, for example, a great many items in the Civil Service Estimates over which the Government could hardly be said to have any control whatever, as, for instance, in those cases in which new establishments were brought into existence owing to a Vote of the House of Commons, with a fixed scale of expenditure attached to their maintenance. His remark applied especially to the department of law and justice. That House had seen fit to extend the advantages of cheap justice to the country by establishing the County Courts; hut that had not been done without considerable expense to the country. When such a system was once set going they could not disorganize it by arbitrary reductions; there was, therefore, but little control over such matters in the hands of the Government. He was afraid that in matters of expenditure a Committee would not be quite so satisfactory as the hon. Gentleman supposed; and he could not give a better instance of what was likely to occur than that which happened in the case of a Committee over which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Wise), presided—namely, the Committee on our Consular Establishments. The recommendations of that Committee were of great value, and led to great improvements in our consular system; but, in so far as economy was concerned, the result would have been an increased expenditure of £40,000 or £50,000 a year had the Government, in revising the consular system, and carrying out the principles of the Committee, not been able to do so in a less expensive way. But by employing commercial consuls in the less important stations they would, he hoped, be able to carry out the recommendations of the Committee at the more important places, without any national increase of cost. He referred to that as affording the House a proof of the difference that existed between the action of a Committee and a Government. Indeed, he could hardly recollect an instance in which a Committee had sat to investigate any matters involving expenditure—such as harbours of refuge, designs for the Foreign Office, or other public works—in which the result of their labours, however beneficial to the public, had not been op- 464 posed to the interests of economy. Another objection to the appointment of this Committee was that all the large items on which the possibility of carrying out an extensive system of economy mainly turned related to subjects of such general interest that the House could hardly be expected to listen to the opinion of any Committee, however respectable, in the event of its recommending a reduction in them. Among these was the Vote for Education, by far the largest and most important to which his hon. Friend had referred. The annual increase that took place in the Vote for Education alone swallowed up over and over again all that could be economized in smaller matters. If they were only to have regard to economy nothing would be easier than to say how the expenditure for education could be cut down; but, in the case of questions affecting the higher interests of the country generally other considerations had to be attended to. His hon. Friend referred to the Woods and Forests. There, again, a great difficulty—and that a constitutional one—stood in the way of such an inquiry as he suggested. If the Government or the country were absolute owners of the whole of the Crown property there might be no difficulty in saying what were best to be done. Probably it would be to convert the whole of their landed property into money, and invest it in securities, where no staff of officials or foresters would be required to guard it, because a large landed property scattered all over the kingdom, including a great amount of waste land, was just that sort of property that required all the supervision and economy of a private individual owner to manage it well. They all knew how the estates of joint-stock companies were ordinarily managed, and it was very probable that the State could not manage such matters better than a joint-stock company would do. But, then, there was the constitutional difficulty that the property belonged to the Crown, that we were not the real owners of it, and were not in a position to dispose of it. We had only made a bargain with the Crown, by which we agreed to manage it during the life of the Sovereign and they could not with a due regard to constitutional considerations, sell that of which we only had the temporary usufruct. The management of the Woods and Forests had, however, been under the consideration of Committees of that House from time to time. Some years ago a Committee, presided over by Lord Duncan, took great interest in the 465 subject, and many improvements were the result of its investigations. It was admitted that the department was much better managed now than formerly, and the gentlemen at the head of it, Mr. Gore and Mr. Howard, were exceedingly assiduous and attentive to their duties. He knew that they were anything but extravagantly disposed, and during the short time he had been in office he was able to say that they had endeavoured to manage the property in the best possible manner. He would say, in such circumstances, let the House watch the results, and if in course of time they were not satisfied, then let a Committee be appointed to discover abuses and infuse fresh vigour into the department. He believed the appointment of a Standing Committee would be open to the objection that it would relieve parties from responsibility to whom they ought to look for the right discharge of their duties; and he could not see that, with a responsibility resting partly on a Committee and partly on the Treasury and Woods and Forests, the system would work well. There only remained the question regarding the Consolidated Fund, and there also a difficulty arose on a point of political principle. The charges on the Consolidated Fund were those that, for certain reasons, they did not wish to subject to the fluctuating chances of an annual Vote of the House of Commons. Among these were the charges for the administration of law and justice, certain ecclesiastical and theological payments, and the grant to Maynooth, which were paid out of the Consolidated Fund to avoid exciting questions being raised in that House. In considering the appointment of a Committee to deal with these matters with a view to economy, the House should bear in mind that, on the question of transferring Votes of this kind to the Estimates, there was something to be said on the other side. Instead of leading to economy it was just as likely that there would be a pressure on them to increase the Votes, so that they might in reality have to pay larger sums than when the charges came out of the Consolidated Fund. He attached much force to this objection when he considered the increase that had been made in items which were annually open to revision. He had thus adverted, as shortly as he could, to the reasons which induced him, while agreeing in the object proposed by his hon. Friend, to doubt whether such Committee as he had suggested was the best mode of attaining it. In doing so he 466 had been obliged to point out that the abuses complained of arose very much from causes beyond the control of the administrative department; but before sitting down he was anxious to guard against being understood as meaning that every thing had been done that ought to be done to carry out economy in the public expenditure. If the Government were supported by public opinion and by that House in enforcing economical views, a good deal might yet be done,—he would not say to return to the Estimates of former years, but certainly to arrest that increase, which, if it went on as at present, would in a very short time be formidable indeed. Government really could not do much unless they were supported by the opinion of the country. If public opinion, as reflected by that House, was constantly urging a more liberal expenditure for objects of admitted utility, which, though, perhaps, separately forming but small items in the Estimates, yet made up a considerable aggregate, the Government could not long oppose a very effectual resistance. But if, on the other hand, they were supported by the House, there were some questions on which a good deal might be done. The question of education, to which his hon. Friend had referred, was one on which he did not say considerations of economy were paramount; but still he thought, if these were admitted to have due weight, a good deal might be done. Again, if every hon. Gentleman in that House who had a taste for architecture took every opportunity of enforcing it according to his own notions, with a total disregard of expense, a very large expenditure must be incurred, seeing the necessity there was for the erection of many public buildings. The same thing might be said in regard to harbours of refuge, in respect to which there had been a constant pressure from all parts of the country on the Government for the expenditure of a large sum of money; but if supported, as he trusted they would be, by public opinion and the House enforcing economy in these matters, he did hope the case was not altogether desperate. He could assure his hon. Friend and the House that the attention of the Government during the recess had been most earnestly devoted to this subject. He might say there was not a Vote in the Estimates for past years which he himself had not gone through carefully, anxious to make reductions. He could not venture to promise that the result of these reductions would be a very great diminution in mat- 467 ters which had gone far beyond control; but he did venture to hope that when the Estimates were produced it would be seen their exertions on the side of economy had not been altogether useless. He thought the best course the House could take was to leave the whole responsibility for the present on the Government, watching their progress very closely, scrutinizing very jealously every subject of expenditure in the Estimates, and if, after giving them a fair trial, they were not satisfied with the results, let them come down on them with a Committee, not a standing or annual Committee under which the Government might shelter themselves, but a Committee which would be a reality, and would bring home to the Government a sense of their responsibility.
§ MR. BAXTERsaid, that he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that both the House and the country were exceedingly indebted to his hon. Friend for bringing this important question before them at so early a period of the Session. He was rather disappointed with the speech of his hon. Friend the Secretary for the Treasury. It was obvious to every one that something must be done to check the public expenditure, and keep it within reasonable bounds. There was an absolute necessity for economizing the national expenditure, Even Gentlemen who were inclined to be liberal, if not lavish, in voting sums of money for the army and navy, and for the defences of the country, ought most carefully to examine the Civil Service Estimates. The hon. Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. Laing) said it was the duty of every member of that House to scrutinize the Votes as submitted to Parliament, especially those proposed by the Government. Well, ever since he had the honour of a seat in Parliament, for the last five years, he had attended in that House almost every Supply night, and he must say the conviction forced itself on his mind that no great benefit would or ever could result to the cause they all had at heart, of national economy, by debating and dividing upon a few of those small items which formed together our Civil Service Estimates. During the period to which he had referred he believed he was correct in stating, that with three or four exceptions, every vote proposed by the Government had been carried without reduction, although, perhaps, in double that number of instances Votes had been expunged in consequence of there having been a very narrow run the 468 year before; but this he held to be a very small result; and without objecting to each great subdivision of Votes, or examining each Vote carefully and seriatim, he did not think much progress would be made, or any great reduction effected until Gentlemen who, like his hon. Friend and himself, thought the expenditure was excessive, took a different course, and adopted such a plan as this at a very early part of the Session, saying to the Government, "We are not prepared to expend £7,500,000 on the civil service; we think £7,000,000 or £6,500,000 quite sufficient, and we wish you to form your Estimates on that basis." He held, in point of fact, that at present the House had no efficient control over the public expenditure. They ought to throw on the Government the responsibility of bringing forward those Votes which were absolutely necessary, but with some such limit as he had suggested. He was disappointed that the Secretary for the Treasury had not been able to state that the Government had been enabled very much to reduce the civil service expenditure. He had had considerable faith in the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was in hopes that he would have devoted his great abilities to this subject, and with success; for he was firmly convinced, not only that a great saving might be effected without difficulty or detriment, but with considerable advantage to the public service. If any one doubted this, let him read the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) upon this subject when last in office, who distinctly admitted that there was a very great profusion in the civil service expenditure. Besides, the expurgation of Votes would save a great deal of the precious time of the House. His hon. Friend objected to this Committee, and there was a good deal of force in his objection to it, being a Standing Committee; but he had looked in vain for any declaration of what the Government intended to substitute. The House and the country were agreed that the expenditure must be checked, and unless the Government were prepared on their responsibility to tell them that it should be reduced, he was to a considerable extent shut up to support the proposition of his hon. Friend; and should the result not be satisfactory, then he thought it would be the hounden duty of the House to affirm some such Resolution as he had suggested. It was true that the mind of 469 the country was not at present in a very economical mood, but sure he was the day would come when they would be forced by public opinion out of doors to devote more attention to this subject than they had hitherto done, and it would, without doubt, be one of the first great subjects discussed in the reformed Parliament, He thought they would show themselves exceedingly shortsighted, if, supposing there was no economical disposition on the part of the people, they attempted to blink what, in his mind, was one of the most important questions which could come under the consideration of the Legislature.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERMy hon. Friend (Mr. Baxter) has stated that he was not entirely satisfied with the tone and general effect of the speech of my hon. Friend the Secretary for the Treasury. If that be so, it must be because my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury did not wholly succeed in conveying his meaning to the mind of the hon. Gentleman. Nothing could be fairer than what my hon. Friend said. He stated that we have at present to contend with this difficulty—that the mind of the country is not greatly set upon public economy, and that as we live under a popular Government, in which, in the long run, the scale of expenditure is undoubtedly determined by public opinion, we must naturally expect, that when the public feeling is such as my hon. Friend candidly stated, that feeling will be reflected in the tone and sentiment of this House, as likewise in the tone and action of those who compose the Executive. Under these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman, I am sure, would not form excessive anticipations as to any strong and decisive impression being produced by any particular Government on a course of feeling which has become established, habitual—I might almost say inveterate—for some years past. We have been tending in all respects towards a great and rapid increase of expense, and it is in the nature of things that the remedies to be applied to such a state of affairs should be feeble in their origin, and that their first results, at any rate, should be moderate in extent. It is vain to hope, unless you have the concurrence of a powerful feeling out of doors, that the efforts of any particular Administration, at any particular moment, will be attended with great results in the reduction in your civil and miscellaneous expenditure. The hon. Gentleman may say—if your power is small, 470 you may, at all events, show that your intentions are good. Well, when we lay our Miscellaneous Estimates on the table and enter on their discussion, I think we shall be able to satisfy the House—I am sure we shall be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, than whom no hon. Member is more anxiously bent on economy—that we have given to this question our best attention. But he would find, from the statement of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, that the great bulk of the increase in those Estimates is due to a very small number of subjects, and that out of that small number there are one or two which it is extremely difficult for the Government to control. I promise my hon. Friend, however, that when we produce our proposals in regard to them, it will be seen that, if little can be done at any given moment by any given Administration, we have yet sincerely endeavoured to examine into the means, both of checking the present rapid increase, and, where possible, of introducing a diminution in this important branch of our expenditure. I am sorry to say that one of the great offenders in this matter is, as has been already mentioned, the educational Vote. We have given the most careful consideration during the recess to this part of the Estimates. But we found ourselves confronted with this important fact—that a very assiduous and intelligent Commission was appointed two or three years ago to inquire into this whole subject; and that it was hardly possible for the Executive Government to propose, until that Commission had reported, any changes in the educational Vote materially affecting the principles on which it is founded. We have endeavoured, however, at this early date, both to check the rapid expansion of this branch of expenditure, and also—where we could do it without unduly trenching on the province of the Commissioners—to give Parliament an indication of the direction in which further improvement in the way of economy may be made. I am bound likewise to add, that I am satisfied the Commissioners take a very serious view of the great public evils involved in the rapid increase of this Vote, and that it will be a main object of their labours to recommend such changes as will control, if not altogether arrest, that increase. I regret to say my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has rather understated than overstated this evil in describing the gigantic strides with which, from the smallest beginning, the 471 educational estimate has advanced to £2,000,000 per annum. Those practically acquainted with this subject will tell you plainly that, if you continue to act upon the rules now in force, no very long course of years will have elapsed before this £2,000,000 reaches £3,000,000, or, indeed, a much greater amount. The growth of this expenditure not only tends to augment the national burdens, but has a most enervating effect upon the public mind; and therefore on moral considerations, as well as financial, it demands our most earnest attention. With respect to two or three other important sources of increase which have already been pointed out, I venture to say that it will be found that the Government have turned their best attention to them during the recess. With regard to the Motion now before us, I wish to distinguish between it and the course which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Wise) invites us to take. I cordially welcome the hon. Gentleman as an ally in the cause to which he has devoted his energies, and in which he has shown not only so much zeal, but so much ability. I could not recommend the House to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, namely, that the House at the commencement of the Session should refuse to go beyond the limit of £6,500,000 in voting these Estimates, and that the Government should be compelled to frame them accordingly. It would break my heart to think that no other remedy was open to us. I do not think, even on the ground of prudence, it would be a fit mode of dealing with an important question. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing our attention to this subject; I am sure good will come out of this discussion. It is not that the mind of the people of England is obstinately fixed in these matters. It derives its tone in a great degree from the temper of this House. And when it is seen that we are in earnest on the subject of economy the public out of doors will, no doubt, soon be found in harmony with us. Although we are certainly acted upon by the popular sentiment, we can also in turn act powerfully on that sentiment. The House and the country, in truth, act and react on each other. But with respect to this Motion, I frankly own I do not think it is in a state in which it can be advantageously adopted. The hon. Mover included in his view at least three subjects; in fact, there are nearer thirty than three, each of which must obviously 472 go before any Committee that has to enter on this vast field; so that instead of any one Committee being capable of investigating all the subjects it will require at least six Committees to get through all the business referred to them. Any Select Committee which had charge of the department of Woods and Forests and the Land Revenues alone would have sufficient work on its hands. Any Committee appointed to examine into the expediency of making further transfers from the Consolidated Fund to the Votes would find ample labour cut out for it. The hon. Gentleman has alluded to a particular item. It is an affair of £2,000—the salary, I think, of the Commissioners of the General Assembly. It would take a Committee more days than I should certainly like to sit to determine whether a multiplicity of items of that description ought to be transferred to the Votes or not. I am sorry it was not practicable to carry further the transfer already effected. It was with great reluctance that we stopped short where we did. But the inquiry was a very onerous one, and it alone would require the undivided exertions of a Select Committee to conduct it satisfactorily. As to the Civil Service Estimates, I venture to say no single Committee could embrace the business of reviewing that expenditure. It is so vast and so varied, and some of the questions involved in it are so difficult, that it would task the time and attention of several distinct Committees. In truth, the hon. Member has sketched out in his Motion views and objects that call for a much larger machinery than this House could supply and keep in operation from year to year. And here I come to a point on which I am at issue with the framer of the Resolution. A Select Committee of this kind appointed every year would not only not be a good measure, but would be a decidedly bad one. It would begin with taking away from the Executive its proper responsibility, and would end by resolving all responsibility into pure vapour; for it is impossible that a Select Committee could really be charged with the duties or the responsibilities of a public department from year to year. What the House of Commons can do in this matter must be done periodically. By periodically passing from one subject to another this House may be able, through its Committees, to do a great work in reviewing the Miscellaneous Estimates; and periodically, I grant, every one of the hon. Member's subjects is a 473 legitimate subject for such an inquiry. But let us not deceive ourselves about the power and effect of these Committees. A Committee of this nature sat eleven years ago. What was the issue of its labours? Why, a recommendation to abolish the office of a Lord of the Treasury, whose salary was included in the Miscellaneous Estimates. [Murmurs.] I believe I am correct in stating that that was the principal and substantial measure which proceeded from them. Therefore I am not very sanguine as to the operation of such a Committee, unless it be appointed with a very special aim, and devotes all its best energies to the discharge of its duties. I hope that, for these reasons, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to accede to his Motion. I give no opinion on the question whether the time has yet arrived at which it would be desirable to appoint another Committee on the Miscellaneous Estimates. Do not understand me to place any negative on that subject, I would rather reserve my opinion upon it. But I think, if I may say so, that having a new Administration in office, it might be as well if the House allowed us to lay our Miscellaneous Estimates on the table, and if the hon. Gentleman, or any other hon. Member reserved it to himself to consider whether it would be for the public interest that a Committee of this kind should be appointed. Such a Committee as is now proposed I hope the hon. Gentleman does not mean to press, for I certainly do not think it consistent with the duty of the Government to assent to it.
§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, he wished to make an observation upon the two speeches which had just been delivered from the Treasury Bench. If those speeches were logical and to be taken as authoritative there was no remedy for the present evils, of which nobody appeared to complain so loudly as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Because, if no such Motion as his hon. Friend had proposed were adopted, it was quite clear that they were shut up to the plan which was now followed, and which, according to every speaker who had yet addressed the House, was leading us to a condition of things most alarming and deplorable. He always found the Chancellor of the Exchequer complaining on these occasions that the House and the country were not sufficiently economical, and yet every Chancellor of Exchequer refused to accept anything that would give the public departments the power to resist proposals of in- 474 creased expenditure. Years ago it was a common thing for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when asked to sanction such proposals, to say, "What do you think Mr. Hume will say?" Mr. Hume was not there now, and unfortunately his mantle did not appear to have fallen upon any Member of the House. He had heard Chancellors of the Exchequer make this answer to those who besieged the Treasury for additional expense. Why did they thus use the great economist's name? Because they felt the necessity of having some power beyond their own to hold up in terrorem, even if it were only the pretence of a power. Suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer had such a Committee as was now proposed to refer to and to fall back upon—not a Committee like the Library Committee, that nobody knew anything about—and he for one never heard of any thing they ever did—but a Committee honourably chosen every Session, not packed for special objects, as they generally were—the Treasury might then say, when gentlemen came to them from all parts of the country demanding additional expenditure, "We cannot put such an increase into the Estimates. If we do, do you think the fifteen Gentlemen appointed by the House of Commons and before whom all these things must come, will agree to a proposal of this nature?" Thus between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Committee a very efficient check would be put upon many items of expenditure that were now voted without question. A few years ago a Committee sat to inquire into the Civil Service Estimates. One of the older Members of the Committee, not now in the House, told him that there was a young Member of the House connected by special ties with the Whig families, and it was his casting vote that destroyed that otherwise immortal Lord of the Treasury. What was the fate of that young Member afterwards? Why, they never put him on a Committee which had anything to do with the expenditure, from that day to this, and never would unless he repented of that most grievous sin. Another Committee was afterwards appointed. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), who was then Prime Minister, agreed that a fair Committee should be appointed to inquire into the expenses incurred by official salaries, and he fulfilled his pledge. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) was a Member of that Committee, he was another, the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) was 475 also upon it, and it was composed of the usual number of Members. The Committee examined Sir R. Peel, the present Prime Minister, the noble Lord now the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and many hon. Members then in the House. What did they recommend? There were many recommendations that they agreed to unanimously, there were many others upon which a large majority were agreed, and the total of the reductions they recommended amounted to from £70,000 to £80,000 a year. What was the result? The salary of the Judge-Advocate was reduced by £500, and that of the Secretary of the Treasury by an equal sum. The Government reduced the salary of a noble Lord at the Poor Law Board £500, whereupon thinking his services worth more, he resigned. [Mr. DISRAELI: The Secretary for Ireland.] Yes, there was the Secretary for Ireland. No one knew what salary the Secretary for Ireland received. It appeared that there was a great amount of dining and hospitality, a thing very well understood in Ireland, which was said to be necessary for that official, and the Committee were told that a high salary was necessary. However, the salary was reduced by £2,000, and these reductions, which did not amount to one-tenth part of what the Committee re-commended almost unanimously, were all that had been carried into effect by the Government. He (Mr. Bright) had frequently remonstrated with the Treasury Bench on the subject but without effect. Then there were the Scotch Judges. Every one knew that if the work were equally divided between them there would be no per sons with so little to do as the Scotch Judges. In fact, there were so many Judges and so scanty a Bar, that great difficulty was found in supplying the bench with men of sufficient ability. The Committee recommended that a reduction in the number of Scotch and Irish Judges should be made when a vacancy occurred. Very soon afterwards a Chief Justice died in Ireland. He put it to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) who was then Prime Minister, whether it would not be proper for the Government to carry into effect the recommendations of the Committee, and reduce the number of the Irish Judges. The noble Lord made answer that he had consulted—whom did the House think? Why, the profession, every man of whom had entered it, with the honourable ambition of becoming one of these Judges, and who, of course, saw that his chance would be very much diminished if 476 the vacancy were not filled. The noble Lord said he had consulted gentlemen of the profession, and he did not think that there were too many Judges. The noble Lord, therefore, entirely disregarding the opinion of the Committee upon which he himself sat, made the appointment and filled up the vacancy. Unless Ministers took a different course from this, and adopted the recommendations of a Committee, and the changes they thought necessary, how could any reduction be made in our present growing and extravagant expenditure? Take the education Vote, for example. Was there ever anything in any country so monstrous and absurd as the proceeding in regard to this education Vote? The House voted money, they handed it over to some one to distribute it, and he ventured to say there were not five men in the House who knew into whose hands it went for distribution. The head of this department was a great Lord in"another place"—the President of the Council of Education—and this great Lord having nothing to do, of course required some one to help him. Accordingly, a Vice-President was appointed, and he had a salary. The appointment was made to relieve some one who had a salary from the necessity of doing anything for it. So another appointment was made of a Vice-President of the Council of Education. Another piece of patronage was made, and another salary was paid. This education Vote was expended for the most part upon one particular class and sect of the community,—it went towards the education supposed to be given by the Established Church of this country. It was not, for reasons well-known to many hon. Members, distributed in fair proportions among the various classes of the community. He confessed he thought it a monstrous thing to vote a sum which his hon. Friend quoted at something like £1,500,000, and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was getting up to £2,000,000, without any sort of a Report being made that enabled the House to examine the Vote minutely or control it at all. The Government ought to aid the House, as the House ought to aid the country, in checking and controlling such an expenditure. To do this would be the office of such a Committee as was now proposed—not a Committee packed with four Gentlemen from the Treasury Bench on one side of the House and four from the ex-Treasury Bench, all mixed up in the matter, and all hoping to enjoy the distri- 477 bution of this expenditure, but an honest and fair Committee appointed by the House itself, and not influenced by the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken imploringly to the House in favour of economy, and complimented the Hon. Gentleman who made this Motion as an ally. If he were sincere in that—and could it be doubted?—a Committee composed of twelve or fifteen Gentlemen chosen from both sides of the House must be of use, if they could help the House to scrutinize these Votes. It would be much better to leave the money to fructify in the pockets of the people than to allow it to be expended, as at present, for fifty unnecessary objects, some of which were positively pernicious. He trusted that the House would agree to the appointment of a Committee, and he had no doubt that it would be of great service. He warned the House, however, that while £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 were squandered in this and other directions, the time would come when the subject must receive the most serious attention. He would say no more now, as other occasions would present themselves. But if there were any one of a truly Conservative spirit, who wished to see the institutions of the country founded upon an unquestionable and stable basis, so that they would last his time and his children's who came after him, he could not show this Conservative spirit better than in helping any Chancellor of the Exchequer to lessen the vast expenditure and taxation of the country. There might come a time when we might not have two or three good successive harvests, two or three good cotton crops, and seasons of abundance and prosperity. There might be a time of cloud and storm, when these matters might be called in question in a spirit they would all be loth to see. Those who were sitting in that House were the guardians of the public purse of this country, and ought to warn their countrymen against the pernicious folly that had distinguished the public, the Parliament, and the Cabinets of this country for years past. It was their duty to warn them that if they did not change their policy it would lead to disaster and confusion if not to utter ruin.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that as far as he could understand the objections which had been made to the Motion under discussion, the only grave argument brought against the appointment of a Committee was that it would break in up- 478 on the responsibility of the Executive. In his opinion, however, it would have no such effect. It would leave the responsibility of the Executive just where it was, with this difference, that officials would know they were acting under the vigilant supervision of Parliament. He could not conceive a more effectual mode of doing what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was so desirable—influencing public opinion out of the House, than by the appointment of an annual Committee of their own body to examine the expenditure of the preceding year, and bring its salient features under the notice of the House and of the country. It was perfectly clear that as business was at present done the Estimates were mere matter of form. It was not enough for the House merely to pass the Votes—it was their duty to see, further, how the money had been spent. The inquiry now proposed might appear alarmingly comprehensive, but it would rest with the Committee to determime how many points they ought to deal with in the expenditure of any given period. Since the disjunction of the Board of Works and the Woods and Forests Departments the latter had been unrepresented in the House; and, in a constitutional point of view, there did not appear to be any more entirely irresponsible officials than the two gentlemen who acted as Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The expenditure of that department was some £90,000 a year, but all the account of it set before the House was two totals of £47,000 and £48,000 put down as "money spent." Surely, some more detailed and explicit statement was required; and that it would be the business of the Committee, if agreed to, to recommend. If it was true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to admit, that the money for educational purposes was spent, and might be spent, to any extent, without his authority, it was clearly high time that some system of inquiry such as was now proposed should be adopted without delay. If the House chose to spend £2,000,000 in education, let them do it, but let it also be accounted for. Believing that the Motion was of a practical character, and was calculated to effect one of the most important objects which the House, as regarded the public purse, could accomplish, he should support it.
§ Question put:—the House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 93; Majority 28.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Agnew, Sir A. | Lawson, W. |
| Ayrton, A. S. | Lee, W. |
| Bailey, C. | Levinge, Sir R. |
| Ball, E. | Locke, John |
| Baring, A. H. | Long, R. P. |
| Barrow, W. H. | Longfield, R. |
| Baxter, W. E. | Lyall, G. |
| Bazley, T. | Lysley, W. J. |
| Black, A. | Mackie, J. |
| Blackburn, P. | Maguire, J. F. |
| Bowyer, G. | Mellor, J. |
| Bramston, T. W. | Miller, W. |
| Bright, J. | Mitchell, T. A. |
| Briscoe, J. I. | Monson, hon. W. J. |
| Brocklehurst, J. | Napier, Sir C. |
| Buller, Sir A. W. | Paget, C. |
| Butler, C. S. | Palk, L. |
| Caird, J. | Parker, Major W. |
| Cave, S. | Pease, H. |
| Cayley, E. S. | Peto, Sir S. M. |
| Churchill, Lord A. S. | Pilkington, J. |
| Clay, J. | Pollard-Urquhart, W. |
| Cobbett, J. M. | Portman, hon.W. H. B. |
| Collier, R. P. | Powys, P. L. |
| Collins, T. | Pugh, D., Carmarthen |
| Dalglish, R. | Ricardo, J. L. |
| Davey, R. | Ricardo, O. |
| Deedes, W. | Ridley, G. |
| Dickson, Col. | Robartes, T. J. A. |
| Dodson, J. G. | Roupell, W. |
| Douglas, Sir C. | Russell, H. |
| Dunlop, A. M. | Salomons, Mr. Ald. |
| Ewart, W. | Salt, T. |
| Ewart, J. C. | Scully, V. |
| Ewing, H. E. C. | Seymour, W. D. |
| Farquhar, Sir M. | Shelley, Sir J. V. |
| Fermoy, Lord | Smith, J. B. |
| Forster, C. | Smollett, P. B. |
| Gard, R. S. | Stansfeld, J. |
| Garnett, W. J. | Steel, J. |
| Gordon, C. W. | Stirling, W. |
| Gore, J. R. O. | Steuart, A. |
| Gower, hon. F. L. | Tollemache, J. |
| Gregory, W. H. | Tomline, G. |
| Gregson, S. | Torrens, R. |
| Griffith, C. D. | Trelawny, Sir J. S. |
| Hadfield, G. | Turner, J. A. |
| Hennessy, J. P. | Vandeleur, Col. |
| Hodgkinson, G. | Verney, Sir H. |
| Holland, E. | Walcott, Admiral |
| Hopwood, J. T. | Walter, J. |
| Horsfall, T. B. | Watlington, J. W. P. |
| Howes, E. | Way, A. E. |
| Hunt, G. W. | Westhead, J. P. B. |
| James, E. | Williams, W. |
| Kendall, N. | Willoughby, Sir H. |
| Kennard, R. W. | Winnington, Sir T. E. |
| Kershaw, J. | Wyld, J. |
| King, hon. P. J. L. | |
| Kinglake, A. W. | TELLERS. |
| Kinnaird, hon. A. F. | Wise, J. A. |
| Langston, J. H. | Smith, Augustus |
| Langton, W. H. G. | |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Antrobus, E. | Baring, rt. hon. Sir F.T, |
| Atherton, W. | Baring, T. G. |
| Bagwell, J. | Bathurst, A. A. |
| Beaumont, W. B. | Hume, W. W. F. |
| Beecroft, G. S. | Kekewich, S. T. |
| Blake, J. | Kingscote, Col. |
| Blencowe, J. G. | Laing, S. |
| Bonham-Carter, J. | Legh, W. J. |
| Botfield, B. | Lennox, Lord H. G. |
| Bouverie, hon. P. P. | Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C. |
| Bovill, W. | Lygon, hon. F. |
| Bridges, Sir B. W. | Macaulay, K. |
| Bristow, A. R. | Malins, R. |
| Byng, hon. G. | Marjoribanks, D. C. |
| Calthorpe, hon. F. H. W. G. | Marshall, W. |
| Martin, J. | |
| Cardwell, rt. hon. E. | Massey, W. N. |
| Castlerosse, Visct. | Moncreiff, rt. hon. J. |
| Cecil, Lord R. | Morgan, hon. Major |
| Childers, H. C. E. | Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R. |
| Clifford, C. C. | Northcote, Sir S. |
| Colebrooke, Sir T. E. | Paget, Lord C. |
| Cowper, rt. hon. W. F. | Palmerston, Visct. |
| Cubitt, Mr. Ald. | Peacocke, G. M. W. |
| Deasy, R. | Puller, C. W. G. |
| Denman, hon. G. | Rolt, J. |
| Disraeli, Rt. hon. Benj. | Rothschild, Baron L. de |
| Duff, Major L. D. G. | Rothschild, Baron M. de |
| Egerton, hon. A. F. | Russell, A. |
| Elphinstone, Sir J. D. | Selwyn, C. J. |
| Evans, T. W. | Seymer, H. K. |
| Fenwick, H. | Seymour, Sir M. |
| Finlay, A. S. | Seymour, H. D. |
| Fitz Gerald, rt. hon. J.D. | Spooner, R. |
| Fortescue, hon. F. D. | Stanley, Lord |
| French, Col. | Taylor, Col. |
| Gavin, Major | Thynne, Lord H. |
| George, J. | Upton, hon. Gen. |
| Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. | Villiers, rt. hon. C. P. |
| Gifford, Earl of | Warre, J. A. |
| Gladstone, rt. hon. W. | Wemyss, J. H. E. |
| Glyn, G. G. | Whitbread, S. |
| Goldsmid, Sir F. H. | Whitmore, H. |
| Haliburton, T. C. | Wood, rt. hon. Sir C. |
| Hankey, T. | |
| Headlam, rt. hon. T. E. | TELLERS. |
| Henley, Lord | Brand, hon. H. |
| Hood, Sir A. A. | Knatchbull-Hugessen. |
| Hubbard, J. G. |