§ MR. PEEL moved the Vote he had given notice of for £1,748,000 on account towards defraying certain Civil Service Estimates for 1865–6. He said he had presented a Return to the House which showed the different services to which the Vote was to be applied, and the amount that would be appropriated to each service. No service was included for which provision had not been made from year to year for a long time past. It was, therefore, presumed that Parliament would again make provision for them. The object of the Vote was to enable the Government to meet the necessary charges during the first quarter of the current financial year, until Parliament should have passed the Civil Service Estimates in the regular course. The necessity of the Vote was owing to the circumstance that the balances in the Exchequer, to the credit of the different services were merely the balances of last year's Votes, and were not sufficient without this Vote on Account. In former years it was different, because the balances of former Votes were allowed to accumulate in the Treasury; but under the recent arrange- 734 ment the Treasury gave up the balances in the Exchequer except the last year's balances, and those were not sufficient for what was now required.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,748,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account of certain Civil Service Estimates for 1865–6.
§ LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he had no wish to oppose grants which might be necessary for the public service, but could not help drawing attention to an irregularity which might be drawn into a very evil precedent. He understood that the sums now asked for were intended for services for which the Estimates had not been laid on the table, or at least were not in the hands of Members. He did not say that the hon. Gentleman meant to take any advantage, or was not dealing towards them with perfect honour, but the House ought to be careful how it sanctioned a practice that might lead to dangerous consequences by voting public money for services of the details of which it had not yet been informed. He quite admitted that it might very often be necessary to vote sums on account before the time had arrived when the Estimates could be discussed in detail; but it ought never to be necessary to vote sums on account before the Estimates were in the hands of Members.
§ MR. TORRENSsaid, he hoped the Secretary of the Treasury would specify the services for which he asked that Vote. He wished to know in particular whether the salaries connected with the Mixed Commission at the Cape of Good Hope—which he believed to be a sinecure—were included in the Vote. If so, he should like to divide the House against those salaries, as he thought that that expenditure might be saved to the country.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he entirely concurred with the noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) as to the irregularities of that proceeding. Last year was the first case he recollected of these Votes on Account being taken before the Estimates were in the hands of Members; but this year the practice was carried to an unprecedented length. That was the first time they had been asked to vote instalments without knowing what were the total sums of which they formed a part. The Estimates seemed to be kept back in order to prevent hon. Members from informing themselves previously about what they were called upon to vote.
§ MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he believed that the course now pursued had been adopted for the last two or three years, and it appeared to him most expedient and likely to prove economical. It was designed to obviate the necessity of waiting for the Estimates before they could have a full discussion on every Vote. There were many details which might remain undecided, and which it was desirable that the Government should have time to consider.
MR. PEELsaid, that the Return presented on the 14th of March showed exactly in what manner the Vote now asked for was to be appropriated among the services; that Vote would not give authority to expend more for any particular service than the sum placed opposite to it in the Return. As to the Slave Trade Commission, the amount that would be allotted to it was only £3,000, whereas the total sum that would be required for that particular service was £10,000. If, therefore, the hon. Member (Mr. Torrens) desired to propose a reduction on that head he would have an ample margin left him for doing so. It was not always possible to produce the Estimates as early as could be wished, because if a single Vote, or even a single item, remained undecided it prevented the presentation of the whole class to which it belonged. For example, Class 5 had been ready for some time past, with the exception of one Vote, but that one Vote was received only yesterday, and it was necessary to keep back that entire class of the Estimates in consequence. He might observe that all the services for which provision was made by a Vote on account were established services, well known to the House for which it was accustomed to make provision year by year, and as to which there could be no doubt Parliament would grant the sums asked for.
§ MR. BENTINCKsaid, he could not agree in the doctrine laid down by the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peel). The House ought to be placed in possession at an early period of the Civil Service Estimates, as these were the only Estimates in which there was a chance of effecting any reasonable reduction, and he wanted to know why they were not placed in possession of all the details of the accounts before they were asked for a Vote. Any item that had not been agreed on when the Estimates generally were ready could be 736 included in the Supplementary Estimates. Several of the items referred to in the Return would certainly lead to discussion. The present system not only led to inconvenience, but committed the House to the principle of the items for which Votes on account were granted. The doctrine laid down by the Secretary of the Treasury would preclude them from pronouncing an opinion on any items which they had voted in previous years.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, no inconvenience existed by the present arrangement, as any hon. Member could, if prepared, propose to strike out or reduce any items in this Vote of the accounts just as he could if the Estimates were before him. As to the remedy proposed by the hon. Gentleman, it would interfere with the classification of the Votes and be productive of great inconvenience. It was impossible to prepare the miscellaneous estimates for the commencement of the Session, as they did the Military and Naval Estimates, owing to their multifarious character. There was no desire on the part of the Government to withold those Estimates a moment longer than was absolutely necessary.
§ MR. COXsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield had given notice for the omission of the Vote for the Belfast Theological Institution. If they passed now a Vote on account would they not be met hereafter by the answer that they had already voted a sum on account?
§ LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wished to point out that if this system were to be pursued they would lose their established right of controlling the expenditure of the country. It was the practice of the House to go through these Votes one by one. For the Civil Service Commission they were asked at once to vote on account three-fifths of their salaries. £10,000 out of £13,000 was asked for the National Gallery, and a similar item for Dr. Stevens's Hospital. It appeared to him that they were asked to vote a lump sum which included a number of separate items involving various important principles upon which great difference of opinion existed in that House. This plan was a most objectionable one, but if they were to reject this Motion he supposed they would bring the public service to a standstill, but there should be an unmistakable expression of opinion on the part of the House against the practice.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he thought 737 the system of taking Votes on account, especially in the case pointed out by his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, was exceedingly objectionable; but, like the noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil), he did not see what they could do now.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the system no doubt was to some extent inconvenient, but it could not be avoided. There was no alternative, except that of leaving the services unpaid during the period till the House settled the details, or of giving a Vote on account. There remained a sufficient sum when the Estimates were examined in detail to enable the House to express its opinion and object to a particular Vote if it thought that the service to which it referred should cease; and therefore the House was just as free when it came later in the Session to discuss the Estimates in detail to object as if there had been no Vote on account. The first and most important Estimates were those of the Army and Navy. They were not disposed of and probably would not be till after Easter; and what was to become of those miscellaneous services if nothing was voted on account in the meantime? The introduction of these Votes on account was a necessary consequence of a recommendation made by a Select Committee of the House.
§ MR. BENTINCKsaid, he thought they were in a more complicated position than ever. The noble Lord said they would be perfectly free at a future time to discuss any detail of these Estimates; whereas he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that if they assented to-night to the Vote before the House they were committed to the principle of the Vote.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Member was perfectly at liberty to take objection now to any Vote in the instalment asked for; and at a future time it would be competent to object to the balance, but not to the whole amount of the Vote. If the Vote on account was adopted the House might discuss the principle of any Vote in future, but would scarcely be open to come to any practical Resolution on the subject. Whether this system of voting on account were good or bad, it was not the invention of the Government, or of any former Government, but the system recommended by an authoritative Committee on Public Accounts nominated by that House.
MR. WHITEsaid, he thought that any 738 contested Votes should be omitted from the Vote on account. For instance, the hon. Member for Sheffield had a notice of objection on the paper with respect to the payment of the Belfast Professors.
MR. PEELsaid, the hon. Member for Sheffield had authorized him to state that he reserved his objection until the Vote was moved in the usual course.
§ MR. BENTINCKsaid, it appeared to him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted the truth of his objection—namely, that if they sanctioned the Vote that night they were precluded from negativing at a future period the whole amount included in that Vote. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman sanctioned the practice of asking thirty or forty Members, at nearly one o'clock in the morning, to pledge the Whole House to the principle and details contained in this Vote on account?
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, that in Class 4 there were Votes for Science and Art, for the British Museum and National Gallery. The hon. Member for Galway had a notice on the paper for Friday to call attention to the British Museum, the National Gallery, and the Museum at South Kensington. It was possible that he might influence the views of hon. Members with respect to the Votes for those institutions. He should like to know whether these Votes on account for those establishments would effect such questions as to whether the British Museum should be broken up, or as to the removal of the Cartoons from Hampton to Kensington Museum?
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the reply of the Secretary to the Treasury with respect to the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield was an answer to the question of the noble Lord. A Select Committee of the House had recommended that the balances on Votes should be paid over to the Exchequer at the end of each financial year, and that in order to pay the expenditure of departments at the beginning of the financial year, before the miscellaneous Votes could be discussed, Votes on account should be taken. The course proposed by the Government was, therefore, in exact conformity with the recommendation of that Committee. At the same time, it would be perfectly open to the House to discuss at a later period the principle of every one of the services for which a Vote on account was proposed to be taken on the present occasion. He had never heard any hon. Member whe- 739 objected to a Vote contend that his objection should have a retrospective effect, and that the service which had been performed before, and was being performed at the time the Vote was objected to, should not be paid for. With regard, for instance, to the British Museum and the National Gallery, more expense was necessarily going on. It was inevitable; and it must be defrayed up to the final Vote. That being so, no harm could be done by agreeing to the Vote on account which was now before the House.
§ MR. TORRENSsaid, that no explanation having been given as to them, he moved that the Votes of £1,200 for the Commissioner of the Mixed Commission Courts, and £800 for the Arbitrator, be suspended until the Estimates be placed in the hands of the Members.
§
Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Item of £3,000, on account of Commissioners for Suppression of the Slave Trade, be reduced by the sum of £2,000."—(Mr. Torrens.)
§ MR. LAYARDsaid, that without this Mixed Commission Court the slave trade would be revived in its original form, and we were bound to prevent this by existing treaties with Spain, Portugal, and the United States. While it was perfectly true that the duty of the Commissioner and the Arbitrator appeared very light, it was necessary that the Court of the Mixed Commission should be maintained as well as that of the Court of Admiralty. Other countries had similar courts, and they were necessary for the prevention of the slave trade. The Court of Admiralty could only confiscate the vessel, while the Court of the Mixed Commission could, in addition, punish the crew engaged in the slave trade.
§ MR. TORRENSsaid, the Mixed Commission did nothing but draw their salaries. The entire work was done by the Court of Admiralty.
§ LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wished to ask would that Amendment, if carried, preclude all discussion on prior items?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, after this Motion was put from the Chair, no discussion could be raised as to any previous item.
§ LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, it was quite necessary to prevent this matter going further. The House had been told that these Votes on account were a mere form, but they now seemed very important in point of principle.
§ MR. COXsaid, he quite agreed that 740 this Vote on account was adopted in pursuance of the recommendation of the Committee. He thought it would be better to propose the Vote in a lump sum than in such a way as would preclude future discussion. He submitted that after what had been stated by the Chairman each item of the Vote ought to be put separately, so as to give the Committee an opportunity of objecting to any particular item.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the course which had been adopted had been deliberately recommended to the House in a Report of a Select Committee, which received the general approval of the House. That Report distinctly stated that—
Votes on account are only to be applied to the payment of services which have received the sanction of the House in former years.The hon. Member for Finsbury had asked, "Why not have a lump sum?" The Committee on that point said—We are of opinion that this difficulty (the lateness of the Civil Estimates) may be overcome by taking one aggregate Vote upon account for such Civil Services as have been sanctioned by Parliament in the preceding Session, and in order to facilitate this practice it is recommended that all salaries for the last quarter shall be payable on the 31st of March in each year, and the amount thus made applicable to each separate Vote for Civil Services should be stated in the schedule and detached from the amount voted.The course taken to-night was precisely in accordance with that recommendation of the Committee.
THE CHAIRMANIt has never been the practice of the House to put the separate items to the Vote seriatim. It had always been the practice to propose the Vote, and then any Member may raise a discussion and make a Motion upon any individual item in that Vote.
§ MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he wished to ask whether it was the design of the Government in asking for this Vote on account to apply it exclusively to the payment of that which had fallen due this year to current expenditure as distinguished from extraordinary and incidental expenditure? With reference to the Science and Art Department, great doubts existed as to whether the sums applied by Government in that direction should he continued. He merely mentioned this as an illustration of the difference of opinion which existed.
THE CHAIRMANThe Motion before the Committee is, that the items for com mission and arbitration for the suppression of the slave trade be reduced by £2,000, and the hon. Member must confine his observations to that subject.
§ LORD ROBERT CECILI object to the Vote being proceeded with. Because an hon. Member chooses to object to an item we are told that every other hon. Member is precluded from making any remarks with regard to previous items. I protest against that decision, as one limiting the just rights of the House of Commons.
THE CHAIRMANbegged leave to read to the noble Lord the Resolution of the House of Commons upon which he had acted. That Resolution, agreed to on the 19th of February, 1858, stated that when a Motion was made in Committee of Supply to omit or reduce any item of a Vote, the question should be proposed from the Chair for omitting or reducing such item accordingly and the Member should speak to such question only until it had been decided.
§ MR. AYRTON moved to report Progress.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that another Resolution had been passed by the House at the same time with the Resolution he had just read—
Resolved, that after a question has been proposed from the Chair for omitting or reducing any item, no Motion shall be made or debate allowed on any preceding item.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that according to the strict rule of the House, the Chairman was no doubt right in deciding that no question could be discussed excepting that which had been put from the Chair. But his hon. Friend (Mr. F. S. Powell) had merely alluded to the Vote for the Science and Art Department, not with a view of entering into the merits of that question, but as an illustration to show how inconvenient was this mode of taking Votes on account. If the mouths of Members were to be tied in this way, nothing in the shape of an illustration would be possible in such a case for the future. He thought the Chairman must have misunderstood the argument which his hon. Friend was using.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had hesitated for some time to stop the hon. Member, until it appeared to him that the hon. Member was discussing the item on its merits, and was not alluding to it as an illustration. Thereupon, in accordance with the rule of 742 the House, he thought it his duty to stop that discussion.
§ MR. TORRENSsaid, he wished to ask, whether he was at liberty to withdraw the Motion, in order to give hon. Members an opportunity of objecting to other items?
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wished to ask, whether it could be withdrawn until the Motion for reporting Progress had been put from the Chair?
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he thought it would be irregular to withdraw the Motion until that for reporting Progress—which he bad made and would now repeat—had been disposed of. The Resolution which had been read by the Chairman had no reference to the case before the House. This was not a single Vote in the sense of that Resolution. It was an Estimate showing the several services for which Votes on account were required for the year 1865–6. The Resolution read by the Chairman referred to the ordinary Votes, each of which was made up of several items. The ruling of the Chairman might lead to embarrassing consequences, and the subject was not one to be disposed of hastily at one o'clock in the morning.
§ MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, that he was distinctly alluding to the Science and Art Vote as an illustration only.
§ MR. TORRENSsaid, that his Motion had been withdrawn, and he had been ready to withdraw it if the House consented, provided he had the opportunity of bringing it forward again.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had put the question for the withdrawal of the Motion, and there being no dissentient voice, he bad declared it withdrawn accordingly. The question now before the House was, that he report Progress.
§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed determined to have a grievance. The Motion having been withdrawn, there was no reason for continuing the discussion.
§ LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that a series of decisions had just been given, most irregular in character, and entirely preventing the Committee from proceeding with any satisfactory discussion. It was, therefore, his intention, and that of his 743 hon. Friends, to use the power possessed by a minority in such a case.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that if there was one principle more than any other which it was necessary the House should respect in conducting its debates, it was acquiescence in the decision of the Speaker or of the hon. Member who sat as Chairman of Committees. If decisions made and founded on recorded Resolutions of the House were to be controverted and discussed by every hon. Member who thought he knew better than the Speaker and the Chairman, and who was wiser than the Committees by whom these Resolutions were framed, the proceedings of the House would fall into perfect confusion, and they would present a spectacle not at all creditable to this Assembly. As to the objection taken by the hon. Member, the decision of the Chairman appeared to him perfectly consistent with the invariable practice and with the Resolution which had been read. The Vote proposed was a single Vote. Every single Vote referred to a great number of details which were stated in the Estimates, and therefore this Vote was exactly in the category to which the Resolution pointed. However, he really thought that the House was not in a temper to make it desirable to continue the discussion. It was quite evident that they were not disposed to come to a final decision that evening, and therefore instead of wasting their time in constant wrangling, he would suggest that the Motion for reporting Progress be agreed to, and he hoped they would meet in a calmer temper another evening.
§ To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
§ Committee also report Progress; to sit again on Wednesday.