§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ MR. STANSFELD moved the Supplementary Estimate of £174,687 for the Civil Service, in addition to the sums already provided in the Estimates presented in the Session of 1869.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £174,687, be granted to Her Majesty, for the following Civil Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870: viz.
[Then the several services are set forth.]
§ MR. SCLATER - BOOTHexpressed an opinion that in the case of Supplementary Estimates it would be far better to have the various items put separately from the Chair, instead of lumping them altogether in one sum. He should not, however, make any objection on that score, his object in rising being to ask his right hon. Friend to give some explanation concerning the sum of £5,000 asked for in respect of Harwich Harbour? His impression was, that all the sums voted for that harbour had long ago been spent. The Commissioners did, indeed, apply for a further grant, but it was refused, on the ground that there was no probability that the sum asked for would be sufficient to complete the works. He wished, therefore, to inquire whether this £5,000 would be the final Vote; and whether it was intended to, prosecute the works to completion, so that the harbour might be rendered really, useful?
§ SIR. STANSFELDreplied that the expenditure on Harwich Harbour had not been altogether satisfactory. The Treasury had come to the best decision they could under the circumstances. The Commissioners had represented to the Treasury that it was desirable they should be enabled to conclude their arrangements with the present contractors, and in consequence it was now proposed to take this Tote of £5,000.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, it seemed impossible ever to have any Estimates without a series of supplements and appendixes to them afterwards. A fair sum was given for the Estimates last year, and yet more was asked for now to supplement them. He should like an explanation of some of the items of the Vote, and especially of the item for law 1571 charges, that of £500 for quarantine expenses, and that of £25,000 for tonnage bounties for African slave-traders. Then there was another large sum asked in respect of the entertainment of distinguished persons on board Her Majesty's ships. For example, there was an item of £393 14s. 1d. for the conveyance of the Prince of Wales, Prince Christian, and other distinguished persons between Dover and Calais. In his judgment it did not tend to the credit of Parliament to have inserted in the Estimates items like these, which gave, occasion for scandal. He should also like to hear some explanation of the item of £8,342 for defraying expenses incurred in connection with the Paris Exhibition of 1867. He thought that quite enough money had been already voted for the Paris Exhibition, especially, considering that that Exhibition was opened three years ago.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought it was most inconvenient to bring forward these Supplementary Estimates in one lump sum. He wished in particular to direct the attention of the Committee to the items in Class V. which had reference to Consular Services. He objected to the increase of expenditure shown by some of the items in these Estimates. For instance, last year £2,706 was voted on account of Legation guards, and this Estimate included an additional item of £3,300, making a total expenditure of £6,000 for the protection of representatives in China and Japan. When it was necessary to spend such large sums of money for the protection of our representatives in any country, it was questionable whether it was desirable to have them there at all; and in the case of China it appeared to have been the opinion of the English merchants in the China trade that we should have done better in the matter of the Convention if we had been without a representative at Pekin. The next item was £2,500 for outfits and travelling, and as this was additional to an item of equal amount already voted, the Committee ought to have some information. For incidental expenses a lump sum of £5,000 was voted last year, and the Committee was now asked for an additional £5,500, making a total of £10,500 for a class of expenses the accounts of which he had reason to believe, from evidence given before the 1572 Public Accounts Committee, were inefficiently audited. There were a number of items such as he should be glad to see disappear from the Estimates. For instance, there was "Compensation to two Arabs for hoisting the British flag on the Kooria Mooria Islands, £52,"—islands which would probably be of no advantage to us. Then there was £394 for engraving five seals for the British Possessions in North America—a charge which clearly ought to have been borne by British North America. Again, there was £296 for fees on the admission of Prince Arthur to the Order of the Thistle; then came £552 for fees on the installation of Prince Leopold as Knight of the Garter; and, lastly, there was the large sum of £2,146 for expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Public Works, Ireland, in connection with the installation of the Prince of Wales at St. Patrick's Cathedral. He should be glad to hear, that this was the last time that items of this description would appear in the Estimates.
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, it was a misapprehension to suppose that these Supplementary Estimates involved any real increase in the expenditure of the current year. If there were any new items of expenditure that were not provided for in the original Estimates, instead of the Treasury sanctioning that expenditure, it was the duty of the Treasury to apply to Parliament to vote it; but these Estimates had no bearing upon the total expenditure of the year—that depended upon the saving upon some Votes and the excess upon others. He had no reason at all to suppose that these Supplementary Estimates implied any excess in the expenditure of the year; on the contrary, he believed the expenditure of the year would be below the Estimates. The £500 for quarantine expenses was for fitting up the Edgar, which had been stationed on the Motherbank. The addition of £3,000 to the law charges was largely caused by the Edmunds' case, and about £1,200 was for arbitrations that could not be foreseen and provided for. The tonnage bounties were payable under an Act of Parliament, but the Government were not satisfied with the expenditure under that Act, and the question of the bounties had been referred to a Departmental Committee. 1573 With respect to the Consular Services, it was not desirable to enter into detailed explanations, because the whole matter had been referred to a Select Committee. These Estimates completed the information which it was necessary for the Committee to have, and he trusted that its inquiries would result in a reduction of expenditure.
MR. BENTINCKasked for an explanation of the late appearance of an item relating to the Paris Exhibition which surely could have been provided for last year?
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, the delay was apparent rather than real, because this item and the other miscellaneous charges were really repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund for advances made during the year ended the 31st of December. 1869.
§ MR. KINNAIRDsaid, no explanation had been given about the items for fees for the installation of Knights of the Thistle and of the Garter. Either these decorations were given for merit and distinction, or they were not; if they were not, then they ought not to appear in the Estimates; if they were, the expenses ought not to be charged upon the individual receiving the honour. It seemed to him perfectly monstrous that when a man was decorated with the Garter he was fined £1,500. [Mr. SCLATER - BOOTH: £500.] The hon. Member had never been made a Knight of the Garter. It was not right, he thought, that such a penalty should be imposed if these decorations were intended to be an honour and a reward. Take the case of a Governor General of India. After he had endured great hardships in the public service, if he received a decoration he was called on to pay from.£500 to £700. He did not think that the Prime Minister, with his economical mind, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his even more economical mind, could tolerate the continuance of those excessive charges, which were a puzzle to ordinary men. If anyone had the Thistle given to him he had also to pay nearly £500. Were these things to be continued?
MR. GLADSTONEcongratulated his hon. Friend upon the great and almost preternatural vigour which he developed after midnight when other people found their energies flag, and were glad to creep home to bed. Somehow his hon. 1574 Friend seemed to have the secret of perpetual youth, which he recruited from some celestial source, and which enabled him at a late hour to keep vigilant watch upon expenditure. He could inform his hon. Friend that though the expenses of the Garter were very considerable, he had evidently made use of the multiplication table when it ought to have been dispensed with altogether. He was altogether far above the mark in his estimate of the expenses. He did not mean to say that the system of charges in connection with the bestowal of honours was satisfactory, but it was a system difficult to deal with. What was aimed at was that there should be no charge for public honours which were conferred expressly for public services. For example, in the case of honours like those of the Bath, which were usually given for distinguished services, no charge was made to the individual, and such charges as could not be avoided in conferring these honours were ordinarily paid by the public; but the Garter was usually conferred for eminence of position and high character rather than for distinguished public services. The charges made in these cases were mixed up with payments to individuals and bodies claiming by prescription, who were hard to got rid of. More urgent matters had occupied the attention of the Government; but he was far from saying that the subject ought not to be looked into, and if his hon. Friend would continue to keep a sharp eye upon the Government after midnight and at other times, perhaps some reform might be introduced.
§ MR. SCLATER - BOOTHsaid, that the accounts of the Paris Exhibition were very unsatisfactory, and it was very late to have an item of expenditure on that head two years and a-half after the Exhibition had closed.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, it appeared to him most inconsistent on the part of the Government to bring on at nearly half past twelve o'clock at night a Vote of this wholesale character, involving the large sum of £174,000—a Vote, too, consisting of a vast number of items, amongst which was one for the installation of the Royal Princes, and another for the conveyance of the Prince of Wales and Prince Christian and others from Dover to Calais. The policy of the present Government was one of rigid 1575 economy. We praised them for it; but then their economy must be consistent and impartial; and if they suddenly dismissed from dockyards workmen at an inclement time of the year, and passed such items as these without inquiry, it would be said that they were adopting one measure for the poor and another for the rich. The Prime Minister seemed to think that energy after midnight was unusual, and that Members then were only in a condition to creep home to bed. That was exactly his feeling, and he therefore moved that the Chairman do report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Brighton would not persevere with his Motion, as the hour was not very advanced. The Government had no objection to any amount of discussion, and were prepared to offer any explanation required.
MR. NEVILLE - GRENVILLEsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. He wished, however, to know when they were to hear the last of the Paris Exhibition? He noticed that, no matter who was at the Treasury, no satisfactory explanation was given as to how these Paris Exhibition Votes had been spent. The Exhibition of 1851 cost nothing, and realized a valuable estate; the State had not been called on for anything for the Exhibition of 1862; but the Paris Exhibition had cost £116,000, and we were now called on for £8,342 more.
§ MR. MUNTZalso urged the hon. Member for Brighton to withdraw his Amendment, and allow the Committee to discuss the Votes seriatim. It appeared to him, however, looking at those Votes, difficult to reconcile the ideas of economy which the Government had expressed with many of the items comprised in this large Vote.
§ MR. WHALLEYsupported the Motion for reporting Progress.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought that, after the discussion which had occurred, it was desirable the Estimate should be allowed to pass. There would be an opportunity of re-opening these questions when the Estimates for 1576 the present Session came before the Committee.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKconcurred in that view for the sake of expediting business.
§ MR. RYLANDSappealed to the Government to take the various Votes in the Estimate separately.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government were unwilling to press the Estimate at that hour against the wish of the Committee. It was extremely difficult, however, in the present state of the Public Business, to find a more suitable hour for its discussion.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would not press his Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, he should move the Vote, with a reduction of £24,663 being the amount asked for miscellaneous expenses, for a total of £150,024.
§ MR. MUNTZasked for some explanation as to the items of £3,560 for the veterinary department and that of £8,342 in connection with the Paris Exhibition.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the former item resulted from the additional labour which had been thrown by the Act of last year on the veterinary department, than whose officers he thought it would be difficult to find men who had worked harder. The Act contemplated the continuance by the Government of efforts to prevent the spread of cattle diseases in this country. With regard to the Vote for the Paris Exhibition, his belief was, that inasmuch as it had pleased Parliament to undertake a share in that great international exhibition, the work had been carried out with great economy, although it might be doubtful whether it was a wise policy to have anything to do with that Exhibition. The original Estimate handed in by the Department was very considerably above the sum that had been expended. The furniture had been taken at the valuation price by an independent valuer. As a man of business, if he had ventured into such a speculation, he should be very glad to have got out of it for the same sum.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, a part of the increase was for gratuities to officers, which had not been voted by Parliament, and as a man of business he did not think that right.
§ MR. ANDERSONsaid, there was a sum of £6,000 for freight in specie, and he should like to know whether it was paid to private ships. There was also a sum of £1,156 for expenses incurred on account of the household of the late King of the Belgians.
§ MR. BOWRINGsaid, he was one of the Commissioners for the Paris Exhibition; but he begged to say that the Commissioners had no authority over the expenditure. That was in the Department of Science and Art, and there was great credit due to that Department that the excess was so small.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, the subject had been fully investigated before the Committee on Public Accounts last year. Owing to the change in the system of audit, the accounts were thrown out, and great delay ensued. This matter was explained in the Report which was presented to the House. The charge in reference to the late King of the Belgians arose in consequence of the arrangement that was made in his lifetime, that if he surrendered his annuity certain of his dependants should receive pensions on being discharged out of his service.
§ MR. MUNTZalso questioned the item for the freight of specie, and said the money might be raised where it was wanted on Navy Bills, or by orders of the Government.
§ MR. AYRTONreplied, that every case was carefully considered, and the most economical arrangements were made for placing the money.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Original Question, by leave, withdrawn.
(1.) Resolved, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £150,024, be granted to Her Majesty, for the following Civil Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870: viz.
[Then the several services are sot forth.]
§ MR. STANSFELD moved a Vote of £24,663, for Miscellaneous Expenses during the past year.
§
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £24,663, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay certain Miscellaneous Expenses, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the, 31st day of March 1870.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he had no objection to discuss the item, but he should 1578 take the sense of the Committee on the charge of £393 14s. 1d. for conveying the Prince of Wales, Prince Christian, and other distinguished persons, to Calais. There was also the miserable sum of £19 for medals for services rendered by foreigners to distressed English crews. Such a charge was a disgrace to the country.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Item of £393 14s. 1d. for conveyance of the Prince of Wales, Prince Christian, and other distinguished persons between Dover and Calais, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Faweett.)
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he hoped the Committee would not refuse to affirm this item, for the reason that it was part of what he might call the traditional understanding that existed between the Royal Family and the public, that charges of this kind should be allowed. The origin lay in an older arrangement, whereby the Queen's ships were at the disposal of the personal service of the Sovereign and the members of the Royal Family. But it was now considered more economical to avail themselves of the packet service than use Her Majesty's ships. It was not a new charge, but an old charge in a diminished form, arising from their pecuniary arrangements with the Royal Family. It was a question whether, if they were going to make new arrangements, it would not be wise to get rid of all those small charges; but they would fall short of their duty, and of the liberal fulfilment of their arrangements with the Royal Family, if they hesitated to defray a charge arising under circumstances of this kind.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he thought the amount for conveying the Princes was extravagant.
§ MR. CHILDERSapprehended it was a charge for a whole year, and if the service we performed by Her Majesty's ships it would cost much more.
§ MR. FAWCETTurged the postponement of the question for further information as to the number of voyages that were included.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the voyages exceeded ten in number.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. R. SHAW moved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £2,968 11s. 8d., 1579 being the amount of three items—the principal one being the installation of the Prince of Wales, in St. Patrick's at Dublin, as a Knight of St. Patrick.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £21,693 8s. 11d., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay certain Miscellaneous Expenses, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870."—(Mr. Richard Shaw.)
MR. GLADSTONEexplained that three-fourths of the item objected to went to defray the cost of fitting up St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, for what was a grand public spectacle, and his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales could not be reasonably expected to pay for that. They might almost as well think of charging the Sovereign with the expenses of the coronation ceremony.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
§ MR. R. SHAWsaid, his object had been answered by the explanation of the Prime Minister.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ £152,215, for Revenue and Post Office Packet Services.
§ In reply to Mr. Alderman LUSK,
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, that the large item of £120,000 for the Peninsular and Oriental Company could not be foreseen with certainty when the Estimate were laid on the table of the House, for it was a contribution dependent on the rate of profit made by that company, which could only subsequently be ascertained.
(3.) Resolved, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £152,215 be granted to Her Majesty for the following Revenue and Post Office Packet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870: viz.
£ Inland Revenue 22,000 Post Office Packet Service 130,215 £152,215
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow.
§ House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.