SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 24 May 1860)

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
asked whether that sum of £100,000 would include the department of science and art?

§ MR. LAING
explained that the Vote of £100,000 did not include the Vote for science and art, but was merely a payment on account of public education. It would be applied to meet the charges that were running on for public education—for the salaries of schoolmasters and so forth. The total Vote for public education would be £798,000, while last year it was £800,000. They were running into a fifth quarter, and the sum of £100,000 was wanting to keep up the current payments.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, he understood that the Government merely required a sum on account to take them over the holidays. He should like, then, to know why they asked so large a sum for that purpose as £100,000, when the whole Vote would only amount to £798,000.

§ MR. LAING
said, the Vote for national education was already overdrawn out of the Civil Contingencies, to the extent of £40,000, and heavy payments were to be made in the department before the 10th of June.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, that this latter was hardly an item to be put into a Vote of credit. At any rate a Vote should only be taken for what was absolutely required at present.

§ MR. LAING
explained that the necessity for the Vote arose from the fact that the amount for the service was overdrawn out of the Civil Contingencies. Under the head of Temporary Commissions, there were extensive Commissions connected with military matters. It was necessary to make provision for the running Commission, and that was done out of the Civil Contingencies; and a sum of £10,700 was required to repay the debt to the Civil Contingencies. The Vote for the Slave Bounties was in a similar position.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, he did not consider the explanation of the hon. Gentleman satisfactory, inasmuch as there was a sum of £50,000 to be asked for on credit for the Civil Contingencies. He thought the whole of the Votes in Class 7 of the Civil Service Estimates required peculiar consideration, and should be discussed in their order. As, however, the whole of the accounts were not before the House that was not then possible. There was a Vote, for instance, for the Serpentine? What was the state of that matter? Last year £17,000 had been voted for a certain plan with reference to the Serpentine; but, after that Vote had been passed, and the works commenced, a Committee of the House was appointed, which reported against the plan. Upon that the Government stopped the works; and, not content with that, they had begun to spend money for a different plan. It might now turn out that, when the House came to the discussion of the matter, they might disagree with the Select Committee, and disapprove of that expenditure of the public money without the sanction of the House. If certain items of that class were agreed to, then, of course, the House would lose the power of checking them afterwards.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he must enter his protest against the enormous sums spent on the Military Commissions, and he wished to call particular attention to the case of the Weedon Military Commission. There had been an enormous sum of no less than £9,000—£8,700 rather was the exact amount—charged for professional accountants employed in the investigation of the accounts of the 1684 establishment. The Treasury, he believed, had objected to that large amount, because the Commissioners had had the assistance of the clerks of the Commissariat, and of Mr. Commissary General Adams, an officer in the pay of the State. That £8,700 did not include the military clerks, so that altogether the expenses would come to over £10,000, an expenditure perfectly unjustifiable. He wished to know if the present Vote was to include that sum, and also when there would be an opportunity of discussing that Vote, and also the very singular proceedings that had followed the Report of the Commissioners.

COLONEL DICKSON
said, he should wish to put the question whether one of the Commissioners of the Weedon Inquiry was not a police magistrate of Loudon, and whether he did receive an allowance for his services on that occasion, though as he (Colonel Dickson) believed, his duties as a magistrate only occupied his time about six months in the year. He quite concurred in the remark of the hon. and gallant Colonel (Colonel Dunne) that the expenditure was quite unjustifiable, and the House was bound not to throw away the public money in that way without inquiry. Hon. Members opposite were constantly charging Gentlemen on his side of the House with being opposed to anything like Reform, and yet he was astonished to find that those hon. Members on the Liberal side, who were invariably preaching economy in the public finances, went out into the lobby and voted away large sums of money in the lump, and without a murmur. What was the use of talking about economy unless the question was brought to some issue?

§ MR. HUNT
said, he wished to know whether the Berwick Bribery Commission had yet commenced its sittings?

§ MR. TURNER
said, an attack had been made on the Weedon Commission which he thought was altogether unjustifiable. He should, when the proper occasion arrived, be able to justify the conduct of the Commissioners; at present he would leave it to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to answer the question which had been put to him on this subject. He would only now say that, after the immense la-hour these Commissioners had undergone, he felt it his duty to protest most strongly against the insinuation that they had been guilty of any unjustifiable act.

COLONEL DUNNE
explained that he had used the expression solely with regard to 1685 the expenditure of the Commissioners on Accountants, and he thought he should be able to prove it was so when the subject came fairly before the House.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he thought the sums due to the Civil Contingencies ought to be voted separately, otherwise it might be spent along with the rest, and the public would never know anything about it. Votes taken in that manner might be made the means of cloaking over other matters not thought desirable to be brought to light, which was very objectionable. He wished to know when the details of the sums they were then asked to vote would appear under Civil Contingencies.

§ MR. LAING
said, he would beg to say, in reply to the hon. Member for Pomfret (Mr. Childers), that the sums under the Civil Contingencies List would be explained when the full Estimates were submitted to Parliament. As to the unfortunate Weedon Commission, he was willing to admit that there had been a large expenditure with an inadequate result. The present Vote, however, did not touch any part of that sum. It might perhaps include some portion of the expenses, such as the salary of the secretary, and other minor sums, but not the large claim of nearly £9,000 sent in by the accountants, respecting which the Treasury had felt it to be their duty to take legal opinions on the fact whether they were liable to the whole amount. They had not yet got a decided opinion from their solicitor on that point, and while matters were thus pending he could hardly give a distinct answer as to whether those expenses would or would not be included in the Estimates. Of course if they were they would come under class 7, and there would be an opportunity of discussing them. Hon. Members would not be committed by the present Vote. In reply to the hon. Member for Stamford (Sir S. Northcote), he begged to say that, in order to reduce these two Votes to £400,000 he had gone to the lowest point at which it was possible to conduct the public service up to the 12th of June, without fear of overdrawing. That was the only fund that they had to meet claims that might be made during the next two or three weeks. He should think that the result of the Committee now sitting would be to alter the constitution of Class 7 very considerably. As regarded Class 7, he was ready to give a pledge to the Committee that it should be printed at the earliest opportunity.

§ MR. BENTINCK
asked, if he was to 1686 understand the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Laing) as giving a pledge that it was not the intention of the Government to draw again on the amount voted for Civil Contingencies for the purpose of preventing the House from duly considering the Civil Service Estimates.

§ MR. LAING
said that, after a very short period, the Government would be entirely in the hands of the House, because they would have no money in hand to enable them to delay taking the Votes in the usual course, but he could not pledge himself not to ask for a further Vote should there be occasion for it.

§ MR. W. HUNT
asked, what were the Election Commissions the expenses of which they were called upon to vote?

§ MR. LAING
said, that there were the Commissions for Gloucester and Wakefield.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he considered the system very objectionable of borrowing certain amounts for the Civil Service from Civil Contingencies. He had never been able to understand the application of the money. The details did not appear in the public accounts, and in point of fact the House knew nothing about them.

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
said, that the Vote was a practical illustration of the objectionable course of asking for Votes of credit, or on account. He confessed he did not know what he was asked to vote £12,000 for. He did not know what any of the Commissions had cost, and when therefore he was asked blindly to vote such a sum of money, he, for one, should enter his protest against it.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, he, too, thought it extremely inconvenient to be called upon to vote away money without knowing what it was called for, where it was to go, or how it was to be paid away. There was much mystification in the accounts.

COLONEL DICKSON
said, it was quite clear that the Government had sufficient money to carry them on beyond June, and if the present Vote were granted, they would not be furnished with details before the end of July.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, the first duty of the House was to take cognizance of every shilling they voted, and if they gave one shilling on account they virtually abandoned all control over the details. That point, however, it was useless then to dwell upon. He desired now to have it distinctly under stood whether, on the arrival of the 10th or 12th of June, there was any chance of 1687 Government declaring that the time had not yet come when the House should have access to the Estimates, and should go into a consideration of the details.

§ SIR FREDERIC SMITH
said, he hoped that some explanation would be given as to the application of the £12,000.

§ MR. LAING
said, the necessity for the Votes arose from the fact that there had been large drafts on the Civil Contingencies for several Commissions, which came on at too late a period to be included in Class 7 of the last year. Of course, those conversant with the accounts must know that Civil Contingencies were the only fund that Government had to meet any miscalculations or mistakes which might have been made in the 197 Votes which were asked for, or any new expenses which might arise during the recess, or during the last few weeks of the sitting of Parliament. A variety of Commissions had originated during the interval, and the amounts had to be drawn from Civil Contingencies. He could assure the Committee that the full details would be brought forward when the complete amount came to be voted. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), he begged to say that the Government had no mysterious funds hoarded up in order to meet emergencies. There were ample funds in the Exchequer, but there was no power of applying them without a specific Vote, and he thought no Secretary of the Treasury, or Member of the Government, was likely to take the responsibility of applying them without the authority of the House. Therefore, by the 10th or 12th of June, or at all events within two or three days more or less of that time, the Government would find themselves in the position of being obliged to come to the House and declare that their authority was exhausted, and that they must either have a further Vote, or else proceed in voting the Estimates in the usual way.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
said, that the House had already voted £40,000 for Civil Contingencies, they were now asked for £12,000, and they would be asked by-and-by for £50,000 more. Thus the Civil Contingencies which they were asked to vote in this way had risen within a few years from £70,000 to about £100,000. The only conclusion he could draw from the Vote before them was, that it was for the payment of sums which had been withdrawn from the Estimates, and which it was now intended to pay out of this money.

§ MR. LAING
said, if they had only the ordinary demands upon the Civil Contingencies, no doubt the sum of £100,000 would be more than what would be necessary for that department of the public service. But they were now arrived at a period far beyond that at which the Votes wore usually obtained. A great many balances were now exhausted; but it was thought to be convenient to the House to reduce the sum required for the present to the lowest amount possible.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he thought that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury had dealt frankly and fairly with the Committee. Having listened attentively to all the hon. Gentleman had said, he (Mr. Walpole) was satisfied that the sums asked for were really wanted. The Civil Contingencies Fund was that from which all those small sums must be paid that were not otherwise provided for. The discussion had, however, strongly confirmed the statement of his hon. Friend (Sir S. Northcote) of the great disadvantage of taking Votes on account where the Estimates had not been laid before the House. What had taken place would, he hoped, be considered a warning, not only to the present, but also to all Governments, that the House had acceded to the proposal on the ground of exigency, and that it was not to be repeated without a stronger necessity than had been shown to exist in the present year.

§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT
said, he concurred with his right hon. Friend as to the frankness with which the hon. Secretary for the Treasury had dealt with those Votes. He could only say that if that explanation had been given at an earlier period of the evening he should not have gone out into the lobby against the hon. Secretary's proposition.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said that the present Vote had become necessary, in consequence of an agreement entered into with the Maltese Government for the construction of certain works in the Harbour of Malta, which would prove most advantageous to the Navy as well as to the Island itself. The reason why this Estimate had not been laid on the Table of the House at an earlier period was, because the Maltese Government had not come to a decision in 1689 regard to it until a short time ago. An outline of the plan of the proposed works had been placed in the hands of Members, in order to enable them to form an accurate opinion of their details. Ever since the Island had belonged to the Crown of England, the limits of Merchant Harbour, and that for the men-of-war, had never been clearly defined. The result was, that the merchant vessels had encroached upon the best part of the harbour; so that the men-of-war sometimes had great difficulty in finding a berth. The great addition in the number of ships frequenting the harbour, and the increase in the size of vessels of war, made it imperative to improve the Harbour of Malta, which was in a most unsatisfactory state; although Malta was our head-quarters for repairs, &c. in the Mediterranean. An engineer on the part of the Admiralty had surveyed the harbour in the company of the engineer selected by the Maltese Government, and they had come to the conclusion that the only plan was to deepen the head of the harbour, which was now a swamp, and to give it up to the merchant vessels, while French Creek, which was safe for vessels of war, would be given up for the navy. It was necessary to bring this vote before the Committee tonight, because the work was to be done at the joint expense of the two Governments; and the parties who owned the land around French Creek wore only under contract to wait until the middle of June, when the agreement, unless previously confirmed, became null and void. The total estimated expense of the work was £111,000, but he only proposed to ask to-night for £2,500, in addition to the £2,500 which would be found in the Estimates already before the House.

§ SIR FREDERIC SMITH
said, he quite concurred with the noble Lord in the importance of the plan proposed. It was well known that Malta was the key of our position in the Mediterranean. He should have been pleased if the noble Lord had doubled his demand at present, in order that the works might be carried on as rapidly and efficiently as possible. He wished to know whether the quarantine harbour was to be made available.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
I fully concur in the value and importance of the proposed works; and regret that the subject did not receive due consideration many years ago, when, I am persuaded, the Government could have procured the land on more advantageous terms. I am rejoiced 1690 at the manner in which the noble Lord has so honourably vindicated his reputation and character from the charges which have been insinuated against him. Having enjoyed for several years the acquaintance of the noble Lord, I can testify that his character is above reproach; and he can well afford to treat such rumours and imputations with indignation and contempt.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he wanted to know what proportion of the entire amount of £111,000 was to be defrayed by the Colonial Government?

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, he saw a sum of £60,000 put down for the purchase of property around the French Creek. That sum, however, was not to be taken immediately, but to be paid in future years. He wished to know how that amount was arrived at, and what security they would have for obtaining the property in question at the sum mentioned?

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, the contracts had been drawn up with great care. The arrangement was that, as soon as French Creek was deepened, then the property in question was to be paid for and to revert to the Government. As regarded the quarantine harbour, that was not to be made available; inasmuch as it was exposed, and could not be occupied with safety by large ships.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, he had heard with great pleasure the explanation given by his noble Friend opposite in reply to the charge that had been made against him. The honour of each Member was dear to the House, and they must have all heard the noble Lord's statement with the most unalloyed satisfaction. He (Mr. Bentinck) had certainly listened to it with a double interest, arising from personal friendship towards his noble Friend, whom he had known for many years. He could only say, and he was confident the whole House would confirm it, that no man could have listened to the explanation of his noble Friend without feeling that it removed all doubt—if, indeed, any such doubt existed —as to his noble and gallant Friend having been implicated in any transaction in a way inconsistent with his high character.

§ MR. PEASE
asked if the merchants of Malta were satisfied with the arrangements which had been made.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, it appeared from the plan of the proposed alterations that it would be necessary to remove an enormous amount of mud. He wished to know what was to become of it—whether it was to be 1691 removed to some other part of the island to create a pestilence, or was it to be carried out to sea.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, the merchants of Malta were perfectly satisfied with the arrangements made, which had, in fact, originated from their own Government. An estimate had been framed which was based on the probable cost of conveying the mud clear outside the harbour.

MR. HENLEY
said, he regretted the short notice that had been given of so important a subject coming before the Committee. The sum, though small, pledged Parliament to an expenditure estimated at upwards of £100,000. Experience showed that the limit at first proposed did not always turn out correct. The noble Lord stated that the thing was narrowed down to this—that if the bargain was not concluded by a certain day in June, it would go off. Now, however desirable it was that the proposed works should be carried out, it was impossible for those who had not a personal knowledge of the harbour to give an opinion upon the subject, from the short period the papers in connection with it had been supplied to hon. Members.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he wished to know whether the contract with the Maltese Government was, that they were to pay half the expense of this work, no matter what might be the amount, or whether the arrangement as to their contribution of a moiety only extended to the estimate before the House.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
replied, that unless the Admiralty had it under hand and seal of the Maltese Government that they would pay one half the whole expenditure—no matter what that might be—the contract would fall to the ground, and the work would not be undertaken. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) that it would have been desirable to give the House an earlier intimation of this scheme. At the same time he must observe it was no new thing. The late Government had considered it, and the preparations had been making for several months, but it was only a short time previous that the scheme had arrived at a sufficiently matured state to justify its being placed on the Estimates.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
asked whether the noble Lord would lay on the table the agreement which had been made with the Maltese Government, and the contract for the purchase of the land that was to cost £60,000.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that as soon as the contract was concluded, he would lay it on the table.

§ LORD LOVAINE
observed, that this plan had been before the late Government. The Admiralty under that Government were fully convinced of the necessity of some such work as that now proposed, but they had not arrived at any accurate calculation as to the expense, for they had not ascertained what would be the cost of the ground. There was, however, no doubt that, if they had remained in office, they would have brought forward some such scheme.

§ MR. JOSEPH LOCKE
complained that Members should be called upon to vote sums of money upon Estimates which had not received sufficient consideration. The first thing which ought to have been done was to furnish the Committee with the various items of the Estimate, and then to have given hon. Members a chance of seeing whether the sum was proper or not. This was the case of a new work, and there was nothing before them to show whether it was a fit thing to do or not. They ought at least to have had the name of the officer who made the Estimate as a guarantee of its soundness.

§ MR. WHITBREAD
said, he could assure the hon. Member that the Civil Engineer employed by the Admiralty to prepare the Estimate was a gentleman of much experience, and that the calculations had been made with the greatest care.

MR. HENLEY
said, he thought that as the Government had employed an engineer to measure and calculate the work, it would only have been reasonable to have given a little further time to the House to examine the details, before coming to a decided opinion on the matter. He was afraid the fact that the Admiralty were bargaining against an excess in the Estimate warranted the suspicion that they expected an excess.

§ SIR FREDERIC SMITH
said, that no doubt the engineer had taken the exact measurement, and made a correct calculation, leaving a margin for contingencies or extras.

§ SIR JOSEPH PAXTON
said, that very scanty informatiom was given to the Committee. There was no account of the acreage of the work or the amount of accommodation to the navy. He wished to know whether there were to be any docks for the merchant service, and whether the expense was included?

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, they expected to get accommodation for six line-of-battle ships and two frigates, but if they grew much larger there would be room for only five line-of-battle ships. As to any new merchant yards, in lieu of those which the Government purchased, the Government would have nothing to do with any buildings on shore. Their business was to deepen the harbour. The purchase of the French Creek, and all the buildings which surrounded it, was included in the Estimate of £60,000.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
inquired whether it was certain that the depth in the new harbour would be sufficient for the larger ships?

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that this had been ascertained.

§ SIR FREDERIC SMITH
observed, that there were no soundings given on the map.

§ MR. WHITBREAD
said, that the small map presented to the House had been prepared since the previous evening. The large map from which it had been prepared had on it a great amount of detailed information that had not been copied on the smaller one. As to the objection of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), he should observe that the Government would have given more ample notice, but there had been many references from the Admiralty to Malta, and they found by experience that when it became known the Government intended to purchase, the property trebled in value. If the estimate were postponed to a future day, the agreement to sell the property would become void.