SUPPLY—REPORT. (Hansard, 6 May 1861)

§ MR. HENNESSY
rose to call attention to the extraordinary circumstances under which the Resolution authorizing a Vote of £500,000 on account of the Civil Service Estimates was passed in Committee of Supply on Friday, and to move to postpone the consideration of the Resolution for a fortnight. In the first place the printed Estimate of the Votes on Account was not distributed to Members till the morning after the Vote was taken. In the second place, the Home Secretary had stated early on Friday evening that no business would be done on that evening in Committee of Supply. The Government, therefore, took the House by surprise. There was, however, a far graver objection to the Vote than any such informality or breach of faith. A Vote on account of the Civil Services was a Vote to enable the Government to avoid the discussion of the Miscellaneous Estimates until such a period as they found convenient. A Cabinet Minister, the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Cardwell), had very frankly admitted on Friday night the object of the Treasury in getting this money on account, for he said, "We want to get this Vote to enable 1629 us to keep back the Civil Service Estimates till the close of the Session." That was a candid admission; and the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in thinking that this very serious result would follow the course the Government then recommended. Of course it would be extremely convenient and satisfactory to the Ministers to secure a result which would practically preclude any real criticism of one of the great branches of expenditure, but that was hardly a reason which should induce the House to sanction the practice of Votes on Account. Last year the Civil Service Estimates had not been discussed until the close of the Session, because Mr. Laing on the 14th of June had taken a similar Vote to this, and, in doing so, he assured the HOUSE "that it was by no means the wish or the intention of the Government to have recourse to the practice of taking Votes on Account." Well, the exceptional case (as Mr. Laing called it) of last year was now appealed to by the Ministers as a precedent, and the Vote on Account is taken as a matter of course, and taken six weeks earlier than in the past Session. When the Estimates were brought in last year it was so late that few Members beyond the necessary number retained in town by the Government were present, and the consequence had been that Ministers had on almost every occasion an overwhelming majority. During the recess sixty supporters of the noble Lord at the head of the Government had been struck with the amount of the expenditure, and the hon. Member for the City of London, he believed, had got up an address on the subject. [Mr. CRAWFORD: I did not get it up.] The hon. Member had, at all events, got the credit of having done so, and of having, in conjunction with other financial Reformers, impressed on the Government the necessity that existed for effecting a reduction of expenditure. He (Mr. Hennessy) gave these Gentlemen a fair occasion on Friday night of vindicating their economic principles. He divided the House against the Vote on Account, he was supported by Conservative Members almost exclusively, and was beaten by a Liberal majority. He found that when the question of the propriety of taking Votes on Account arose, every one, then present, of those sixty ardent financial Reformers to whom he alluded, voted against his Motion. But, be that as it might, he should, with the view of giving the House an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion on 1630 the issue which he wished to raise, move that the Resolution be read a second time that day fortnight.

§ MR. SPEAKER
asked, whether the hon. Member objected to any particular Vote?

§ MR. HENNESSY
replied in the negative. He only objected to the taking of any Vote on Account of it being desirable to consider the question more fully at some future time.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he hoped that the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion. In asking the House for a Vote on Account the Government had not given the reason which the hon. Member had imputed to them; they did not ask for a Vote on Account to enable them to postpone the Estimates until late in the Session, but they asked for the Vote because they were absolutely without the means of carrying on the public service unless they got a Vote on Account. The money was required to meet the immediate demands of the service, in consequence of the new arrangement with regard to the Miscellaneous Estimates, by which the balances of former years could not be applied to the service of a subsequent year. So far from wishing to postpone the Estimates, the Government would be glad to bring them on as soon as possible. The truth was, that hon. Gentlemen wanted everything brought on at one time. There were the Naval and Military Estimates, the Budget, and the financial measures, which were of very great importance, and yet hon. Gentlemen wanted the Miscellaneous Estimates to be at once discussed. It was not consistent with the interests of the public service to postpone all other business in favour of these Miscellaneous Estimates; and he hoped, therefore, that the House would give the Vote upon the ground on which it was asked.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
asked how long the Votes required would sustain the service to which they were to be applied?

§ MR. PEACOCKE
said, he wished to ask when the Miscellaneous Estimates would be brought forward. These were a class of Estimates which it was necessary to inspect, and in which a judicious reduction might be made. But it was most desirable they should be brought on at an 1631 early period of the year, when they might be more advantageously dealt with than towards its close, when the House was made up chiefly of supporters of the Government.

§ MR. CONINGHAM
observed there was very little result from their criticising the Estimates. Indeed, the unfortunate German traveller for the National Gallery was almost the only instance of success in so doing. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite unite with those on his side of the House to reduce the income tax to its normal condition. Then they might call themselves financial reformers.

MR. PEEL
said, the amount of the Estimates asked for on account was only £500,000, and that, so far as he could calculate, the sum provided by the House would be sufficient to carry on the public service until the end of next month. He could not state when the Miscellaneous Estimates would be brought forward, that being a matter over which he had no control.