§ SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he wished to express his regret that in the new works contemplated in the dockyards the Government had not adopted the course which had been recommended to them by the Committee of which he had been a Member, as the most economical for completing them in the shortest possible time. Looking to the wants of our navy under the new system of the last few years, there was no country in a worse condition as regarded dockyard accommodation than ourselves, and he was quite sure that if the works had been left to competent contractors they might be executed in four years. As the right hon. Gentleman 1037 the Member for Tyrone had pointed out, we were now spending enormous sums in fortifications simply to protect these dockyards, and notwithstanding the objections of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to spend anything which was not raised out of the year's revenue, he could not understand why, if the money to make those fortifications was raised by terminable annuities, the money to make the public works which they were meant to protect should not be raised in the same way. He was quite sure that if his right hon. Friend could be made to understand that a saving of 20 or 25 per cent would be secured by the execution of these works within a period of four years, his acute mind would speedily adopt the course which he recommended.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he could not hold out the smallest assurance that the Government would adopt the principle of carrying out these works by great loans. He could conceive nothing-more extravagant than, when great works were proposed, to resort to a system which was only entertained in time of war. The greatest consideration had been given to the matter, and he believed that a period of five years would enable them to construct the works with the greatest ease. To shorten the period and to ask for larger annual Votes, in his opinion, would not lead to greater economy. With regard to the contracts, every security would be taken for their proper performance.
SIR JAMES ELPHTNSTONEsaid, in reference to the debate which took place on a former evening, that he did not think it was right that the Secretary of the Admiralty should come down to instruct the House upon matters of finance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took exception to a proposition which he had ventured to make, and applied to it the term "ignominious" But he remembered that in 1860 the right hon. Member (Mr. Hors-man), in a very able speech, brought the subject of the defences of the country under the notice of the House, and it was notorious that the views of that right hon. Gentleman obtained the assent of Lord Herbert and of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. Whether those opinions met with the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer he did not know, but certain it was that the proposition of terminable annuities was pushed on by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. It was, 1038 therefore, an extraordinary thing now to be told that a policy which had been laid down by the head of the Government in 1863 as the proper policy was an "ignominious" policy. He agreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) that if docks were necessary for the navy, they should be constructed at once.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he replied to the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir James Elphinstone) under protest, because he thought the reviving of debates was an inconvenient practice. The hon. Baronet complained of an epithet; which epithet, however, he had misunderstood in its application to the matter under discussion. The view of the hon. Baronet was that because in a certain case, for certain purposes, in a certain state of the public mind, at a certain stage of the public expenditure, and for certain objects which were supposed to be of urgency, it had been proposed to resort to the plan of terminable annuities, therefore the policy of executing public works upon that principle had been admitted. He protested against that doctrine, as it would lead necessarily to "ignominious" expedients, and he used that term without at all intending to apply it to the hon. and gallant Baronet, who, he was certain, would not propose anything which he thought could be liable to such an imputation. The plan of terminable annuities was resorted to in the instance referred to as an exceptional proceeding, and he had compared it with another case of a similar character—the emancipation of the slaves—in order to show that there were cases in which Parliament might go out of the ordinary course to create an exception according to the circumstances of the time. But that was no reason why all general rules should be broken down. If the rule were to be broken in one case, where were they to stop? The hon. Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote), whose absence he regretted on that occasion, made a vigorous speech, showing the danger attaching to such exceptional proceedings, even in extreme cases. Of course, it was a question of degree, but he contended that there was nothing in the present case to justify a departure from the ordinary rule. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto), he agreed that public works should be executed in the manner most convenient and advantageous to the country, and the question of applying the charge 1039 was a different question, to be settled upon its own merits. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had never suggested that any charge should be reduced in order to reduce the expenditure of the year, and the question of expenditure by loans should be most jealously watched. The proposal to raise debentures for seven or eight years, instead of taking votes for the works in four years, took away much of the sting of the proposition to raise money by terminable annuities, and he did not object to it, except that it might be made the means of justifying other and looser politicians for departing more widely from the true principles of meeting the public expenditure from year to year.
MR. CORRYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had called the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth an ignominious expedient, had placed his justification for having given his sanction to identically the same course in 1860 on the ground of the exceptional financial circumstances of the time, but he did not recollect any such argument having been used in the course of the debates upon the Votes for fortifications. He had referred to the debate, and he found that the late Lord Herbert and Sir George Lewis took part in it, and neither of them regarded the question at issue as one of an exceptional character. The noble Lord at the head of the Government (Viscount Palmerston) was most precise in the language which he used on the subject, and justified the proposal made in the following words:—
In private life Parliament, by recent legislation, has empowered and encouraged individuals to raise money by loans, either from the Exchequer Bill Commissioners, or from private companies, for the purpose of effecting permanent improvements upon their landed property, spreading the repayment over a considerable period of time. Now, what is sound policy recognized by Parliament in the case of private individuals cannot be unwise or inexpedient as regards the greater and more important interests of the nation. By raising money by terminable annuities we should prevent that loan from becoming a permanent addition to the debt of this country."—[3 Hansard, clx. 21.]That was in 1860, and upon a subsequent occasion, in 1862, when a Bill for raising a further portion of the loan was under discussion, the noble Lord said, in reply to some observations which were made by his hon. Friend the Member for Stamford— 1040He (Sir Stafford Northcote) objected to the plan because it throws upon posterity a burden which we ought to take upon ourselves. He reminds me of an answer given in the time of Mr. Pitt to somebody who was eulogizing the plan of a 'Sinking Fund,' on the ground that it would be relieving posterity from the burdens of the day. 'Why should we do so much for posterity? What has posterity ever done for us?' … The reason why I thought that the proper course was by loan was that these fortifications are permanent works made upon the freehold—they resemble permanent improvements made upon a man's estate, for which the owner is justified in charging those who come after him. He thought on the same principle that as those fortifications are permanent works it was fair to throw, on a certain period in advance, a burden which was too great to ask the House or the country to submit to in the current year."—[See Hansard, clxvii. 945.]It was clear, therefore, that when the Government proposed to contract a terminable loan for the construction of the fortifications in 1860 they did so entirely on the ground of principle, and without reference to any exceptional circumstances whatever. He himself, however, quite agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was a practice which should be resorted to only in rare instances and when great national interests were at stake. He did not think that the parallel the right hon. Gentleman had drawn between the dockyards and the Houses of Parliament was at all in point. It was one thing to charge posterity to some extent with the cost of works for the permanent defence of the country, and another to make it pay for our taste in mediaeval decorations; and he was certain that every one having the slightest knowledge of the subject would agree with him that the extension of the dockyards was, at least, as important to the national defence as the fortifications which had been undertaken for their protection.
§ MR. BENTINCKsaid, he did not think the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were of any force as opposed to the proposal of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Morton Peto) or to that of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone). No comparison could fairly be drawn between the two cases of the building of the Houses of Parliament and the construction of docks, which were intended for the security of the country. The real question was whether the proposed works were to be completed in four years at a smaller or fifteen years at a greater cost. The Government would, he thought, be incurring 1041 a grave responsibility by postponing for fifteen years the completion of works which they deemed to be essential for the national defence, especially when the delay was to be attended with an increased expenditure.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Government did not propose to spread the construction of those works which they looked upon as of essential importance over a period of fifteen years. On the contrary, all the essential portions of the scheme would be proceeded with as rapidly as was consistent with efficiency. The important works at Portsmouth, for instance, would, he hoped, be completed in five years, those in Chatham in four, at Cork in six, and at Malta in three years. The less urgent works would be constructed at a slower rate.
§ Resolutions agreed to.