§ MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will reconsider the expediency of pressing the Vote of £4,000 for Governor Eyre's legal expenses which has been laid before the House at so late a period of the Session that most Members have left London?
MR. GLADSTONESir, I am obliged to my hon. Friend for putting this Question upon the Paper for to-day; and I have no hesitation in saying in answer to it that I think, considering the interest that appears to be felt on the subject and the period of the Session at which we have arrived, there is a sufficient justification for our postponing the consideration of the Estimate until the next Session. But I cannot give that answer without entering into a short explanation, for the answer itself would seem to be a very strange one, and it would naturally occur to my hon. Friend and others to ask, why has this Estimate been laid upon the Table at a period of the Session so far advanced? That question I shall assume to have been put, and I will endeavour to answer it. This is a subject of a very peculiar character. We proceeded, in laying this 1437 Estimate upon the Table, not upon any judgment formed by ourselves as to the merits of the proposal, but upon a judgment formed by the Members of the preceding Government, and recorded in the Treasury at the time when we acceded to office. Now, it is true that an incoming Government, as a general rule, is not bound by the decisions of a preceding Government, or by its intentions as to submitting to Parliament a proposal for a Vote of money; but this is a case of a very peculiar character, because the decision of the preceding Government was to this effect — that the Treasury should enter into communication with the solicitor of Mr. Eyre for the purpose of determining the particulars of the amount on which this Estimate was to be founded, and then after that had been done, that provision was to be made in the Estimates of the succeeding year. My hon. Friend will see that under these circumstances this was a case, not only of a decision by the Government of the day, but likewise of a pledge conveyed to an individual in consequence of that decision on the part of that Government. I do not wish to enter at all into the merits of the case, or to convey the smallest blame to any one at this moment; but this is a case of a very peculiar and exceptional character—I mean the case where a decision of an outgoing Government with regard to a Vote of money which it has not had time to execute, assumes by communication with the party interested the character of a promise on the part of that Government. As a general rule, I do not hesitate to say that the question raised for an incoming Government, unless it sees its way clearly to the adoption of the policy involved in the proposal, is a very nice and delicate question—one of those subjects of political casuistry, perhaps I may call it, which will arise from time to time. I shall only now say that the opinion of the Government was, that it was their duty to lay an estimate upon the Table of the House, and not to take upon themselves entirely to nullify and cancel at once, without reference to the judgment of the House, the effect of the engagement that had been entered into. Next, my hon. Friend will naturally say—Why was this done at so late a period of the Session? The reason is a very simple one. Strange to say, the Correspondence which was ordered by the 1438 right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer to be entered into between the Treasury and the solicitor of Mr. Eyre, in order to fix the items of this bill, continued until an advanced month of the present year, much too late for this Vote to be presented in the ordinary Estimates. It was then brought before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he thought that as this engagement had been entered into, and as the time which had elapsed had been so very long, the fairest course he could take to the parties would be to lay it upon the Table at once. But, at the same time, the claim of the House to have a full consideration of the subject is quite paramount. I think my right hon. Friend did no more than his duty in laying the Estimate on the Table at the period he did; but as it has not been in our power to bring it forward before the general dispersion of Members took place, I think it is a just demand on the part of my hon. Friend that the matter should be postponed until next Session.
§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he wished to know whether the Government had taken into account the time which had elapsed since the persecution of Governor Eyre, and whether he did not think that great hardship and injustice was being done to that gentleman by postponing the payment of money which he had fully expected to receive for another year?
MR. GLADSTONEThere are a great many cases which are cases of hardship, and at the same time are not cases of injustice. I go so far as to admit that it is hard upon an individual who has a claim upon the public that that claim should not be at once considered and disposed of; but in these matters we have to consider the feeling of the House. We cannot summon Members from all over the world to discuss this Estimate; the claim of the House of Commons to consider a matter of this kind fully is quite paramount, and therefore I have not a moment's hesitation in postponing it.
§ COLONEL ANSONasked the right hon. Gentleman why, if the Army and Navy Estimates could be discussed at this time of the year, this small matter of £4,000 could not also be discussed?
§ COLONEL NORTHasked whether, in point of fact, within the last fortnight, official intimation had not been given to Governor Eyre that this Vote would be brought under the consideration of Parliament during the present year?
MR. GLADSTONEUnquestionably a communication has been made—I am not aware of the precise words — that the Estimate would be submitted, and that is what we have done. But the objection which I have stated has arisen, and the Estimate will accordingly be submitted next year. I make no concealment upon the matter. I say that the House has a title to have this Estimate considered at a different period. I cannot agree with my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Anson) that this case has the smallest relation to the Army and Navy Estimates, which have been in full view of the House during the whole Session.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERasked whether he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the late Government by entering into the correspondence with the solicitor of Mr. Eyre had entered into a distinct arrangement, and were bound to give effect to it? And whether he was of opinion that the present Government, by continuing that correspondence and by framing an Estimate to carry out the intention expressed in the correspondence, had not also made themselves parties to the arrangements, and were bound to proceed with the Vote?
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought it was very inconvenient to discuss this subject on a Question; but he would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman really thought the present Treasury Board were carrying out the undertaking they had entered into by merely placing the Estimate upon the Table and withdrawing it the evening afterwards? If the Vote were to be discussed, he admitted a fuller House was desirable; but if the Government had sent word that an estimate would be submitted, the question arose how far they had fulfilled their pledge. Perhaps, however, there had been laches on the part of Mr. Eyre's solicitor; but if not, Mr. Eyre's claim was increased.
MR. GLADSTONEI am not prepared to say there has been any delay on the part of Mr. Eyre's solicitor, and far be it from me to bring any charge against him. I admit we do not fulfil 1440 our duty by bringing this Estimate forward and then withdrawing it. Our duty remains where it was. Our duty will be to present this Estimate upon the earliest opportunity next year, so that Parliament shall be able properly to discuss it. With regard to the Question put by the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther), I do not think I am called upon at the present moment to answer it. Every fair and candid man will see that it is a very nice matter to determine to what extent, in consequence of a pledge given by a previous Government to an individual, an incoming Government is bound to require from hon. Members that they shall cast aside their own opinion upon the merits, in order that their influence as a Government may be used for the purpose of securing the passing of such an Estimate. When the proper time arrives we shall be prepared to indicate what we think of the matter.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked, whether any formal Notice or other indication of opinion had reached the Government, leading them to suppose there would be more difficulty in obtaining the assent of Parliament to this Vote when proposed than to any other Vote included in the Estimates and causing them now to withdraw it from the consideration of Parliament? The House was proceeding with Supply, and many Votes had to be taken. What, then, was the special reason for supposing this would be objected to? He would also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thought he was leaving the matter wholly unprejudiced by first proposing an Estimate and then withdrawing it, not in consequence of any Motion made or objection taken, but simply in answer to a Question, and, at the same time, making observations respecting differences of opinion between this and the late Government?
MR. GLADSTONEI think my right hon. Friend will do me the justice to admit that, in the first statement I made, I was as careful as a man could be to imply anything at all upon the question, and I made no reference of a distinct character to the nature of the difficulty that arises. But the question of the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) left me no alternative whatever, and I would not have fulfilled my duty with proper respect to him had I not stated the peculiar nature of the difficulty that might 1441 present itself to some minds. With regard to my right hon. Friend's question generally, I would say this:—It seems to point to a statement which he may have seen in the newspapers of this morning to the effect that there had been some combined representation made to the Government on the subject. [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: No!] That is not the case at all. Different Members individually have expressed the difficulty they felt, and in particular I will state to my right hon. Friend, what I am sure he will see the force of, that some Gentlemen who have paired off for the Session, and made the whole of their arrangements upon the supposition that they knew all the imporant business that was coming forward, have represented that if a matter in which some of them take a most lively interest were brought forward after they had retired, they would be precluded from taking any part in the discussion, or giving their vote. I think that constitutes a state of things which broadly distinguishes between a Vote of this nature and Votes in Supply, of which full notice has been given during the present Session.