MOTION FOR RETURNS. (Hansard, 20 June 1865)

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
, in moving for Returns of the expenditure for Secret Service, said, he was induced to make the Motion in consequence of a debate which had taken place a few nights ago in Committee of Supply. His Motion did not interfere with the principle of secresy of appropriation; all it asked was for information as to the proportions of the Secret Service money which each department received. He was surprised to find that the Government intended to object to a Motion of such a mild and inoffensive character. That this might be preliminary to still further inquiries he could not deny; but at present all he asked was the proportions spent by the different Departments. He had heard from a casual source that the great proportion was spent by the Foreign 591 Office. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for a Return of the sums which have been paid out of the Secret Service Money by the Treasury to each of the Secretaries of State on his declaration in each year during the last ten years, together with the amount of the balance of such Secret Service Money remaining in the hands of any of the Departments of the Government at the end of each year.

§ MR. VANCE
, in seconding the Motion, asked whether there was any record existing of the manner in which the money was spent in times gone by—say, seventy or eighty years ago—and, if there were, would there be any objection to its production? The time had come, he thought, when this Vote ought to disappear from the Estimates.

MR. PEEL
said, he objected to the Motion partly because some of the information it asked for was already in possession of the House, and partly because the information itself could be of no interest or value whatever. As to the amount of the balance of the Vote remaining unexpended, the hon. Gentleman would find that in the Finance Accounts, which stated the amount of the Secret Service money which remained unissued in the Exchequer year by year. If the other information asked for by the return were given, it would afford no insight into the application of the money, which he presumed was the only point which the hon. Gentleman would consider of interest or importance. Only one of two courses could be consistently pursued with regard to the Vote—either its distribution must remain secret or it must be done away with altogether. With regard to its application, there was the security of the declaration of the Secretary of State that it was applied in the manner in which the law intended it should be. He did not know how any improvement could be made in the checks now provided for the proper application of the money. The law which regulated the subject was passed in 1782. Its provisions were draughted by Burke himself in his Bill for the better regulation of the Civil List expenditure, 592 and in his speech on economical reform he had explained the principles by which he had been guided. If the House was not satisfied with the personal declaration of the Secretary of State as to the application of the money it ought to refuse the Vote when it was proposed in Committee of Supply; but to the hon. Member's Motion, which would effect no manner of result either way, he must decidedly object.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
asked, who had the disposal of the greater part of the money? [Mr. F. PEEL: The Foreign Minister.] The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was a piece of Ministerial sophistry. It was absurd to compare the present times with the stirring and contentious period of 1782. He would most certainly divide the House.