MR. HENLEYsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the sum of £7,703 4s. 9d, stated in Parliamentary Paper No. 328, of Session 1865, to have been paid under the authority of the Act 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 14, out of the fund for the Banks of Savings, ought not to have been paid out 443 of the fund upon which the Establishment of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt is chargeable; whether the sums of £255 14s. 2d. and £297 10s., being the amounts charged in columns 1 and 2 of the same Parliamentary Paper, ought not, under the Act 26 &c 27 Vict. c. 87, to have been charged upon the fund upon which the Establishment of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt is chargeable; and, whether the several sums charged in columns 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, ought not to have been charged to the same fund?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would answer as clearly as he could the three questions of the right hon. Gentleman. The first related to the payment of £7,703 4s. 9d. It was, according to the view of the Treasury, perfectly regular, and charged to the proper fund. It was, however, competent for the right hon. Gentleman to raise the, question if he thought fit. With regard to the second question under the Act 9 Geo. IV., the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt were authorized to appoint a barrister and to pay his allowances, together with those of his clerks and the expenses of the office, out of the fund upon which the Establishment of the Commission was chargeable. Under another Act, however, 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 14, the incidental expenses were authorized to be paid out of any fund standing in the names of the Commissioners. For the last twenty-two years all those incidental expenses had been paid out of the fund standing in the names of the Commissioners in the accounts of the Savings Banks. As the barrister was originally appointed there could be no doubt that his salary came under the head of incidental expenses, because he was paid by piece according to the work done. Subsequently, however, when these payments were commuted for an annual allowance, it was still held that these were clearly incidental expenses according to the sense and meaning of Parliament. They were still so treated, and were charged on the money Standing in the name of the Commissioners. The third question relating to the minor expenses he would take next, because it fell precisely under the same conditions as the first. The question here was whether, irrespective of the manner in which these sums were charged before the passing of the Act 26 & 27 Vict. c. 87, they ought not to have been charged on the Consoli- 444 dated Fund — namely, the fund out of which the salary and expenses of the National Debt Commissioners was charged. The answer was, that although the 26 & c 27 Vict. c. 87, did generally repeal the 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 14, yet that Clause 68 was a saving clause for certain portions of that Act, and said that the Act should not repeal any of the powers and authorities of the Commissioners of the National Debt with regard to the control, management, investment, conversion, and regulation of the funds remitted by the Trustees of the Savings Banks and Friendly Societies. That section had been construed as keeping alive the Act 3 & 4 Will. IV., with respect to the payment in question.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the Act 26 &c 27 Vict, repealed in terms Section 21 of the Act of Will. IV., which authorized these payments, and re-enacted the provisions of the 9 Geo. IV. If the right hon. Gentleman had not given his attention to the subject, and would do so, he would find that the general saving clause to which he had referred did not cover those payments.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would look into the matter.