QUESTION. (Hansard, 24 July 1874)

§ MR. EDWARD JENKINS

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, referring to the Report of the Auditor General upon the Account of the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland, Whether the reason therein given for not presenting the Report up to December 31st, 1872, until June 1st, 1874, is satisfactory to the Government; why, in accordance with sec. 37 of the Irish Church Act, the Accounts of the Commissioners up to December 31st, 1873, have not yet been laid before Parliament, with the Report of the Auditor General; whether, in view of the fact that it appears that the Solicitor to the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners, is stated to have "received moneys on behalf of the Commissioners, the orders being payable to him, and lodged them in his own bank in his own name," retaining them there instead of paying them into the Bank of Ireland to the proper account; that it also appears that although on the 18th September 1873, the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury "informed the Irish Church Commissioners that they considered that the arrears recovered by the Solicitor should be paid direct to their account in gross instead of to himself personally," yet, on the 24th November, 1873, Mr. Treherne 620 wrote to the Treasury reporting that "notwithstanding the instructions contained in Mr. Stronge's letter, the Solicitor still continues to receive these arrears of rent, and retains them for varying periods," as by a Schedule therewith enclosed, printed in the Re-port; and, further, that it appears that on May 21st, 1874, Mr. Treherne again called the attention of the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners to the fact that the Commissioners had not followed the course directed with regard to the said payments into the Bank, the Government will state if the Solicitor is still to be continued in office, and what steps they propose to take to punish and restrain such irregularities; whether, in view of the fact that a discrepancy of opinion relating to considerable sums of money as to limitations of the audit of accounts by the Controller and Auditor General, appears by letter on p. 13, to have arisen with the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland, involving an objection to produce vouchers, and also involving the right of inspection of commutation claims, the Government intends to take any steps to enforce the Law if existing, or to correct it if defective; and, whether the Returns promised by the First Lord of the Treasury of the payments made under the process of commuting and compounding in the Irish Church, and of the names, livings, and residences of the Clergymen who have commuted and compounded, are in course of preparation, and when they will be laid upon the Table? The hon. Member said he had put the Question in the shape it appeared, in order to save the time of the House.

§ MR. DISRAELI

Sir, I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman is sincere in his desire to save the time of the House by asking this series of Questions; but he must know that they necessarily require rather long Answers. With reference to the first point referred to by the hon. Gentleman, I believe there is no doubt that the terms of the Irish Church Act with regard to the presentation of the account of the Church Temporalities Commissioners and the Report of the Controller and Auditor General have not been strictly complied with. It must, however, be borne in mind that the account is a complicated one, and that it has given rise to considerable correspondence between the Commissioners 621 and the Controller and Auditor General, which led to delay in the presentation of the Report. With reference to the second part of the Question, the accounts for the year 1873 were ready on July 15th, 1874, and the delay in rendering them, I am informed, arose from the magnitude and details of the transactions. I feel assured the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners will use every effort to comply with the directions of the Act of Parliament, and that the accounts will in future be completed within the time specified. In reply to the third part of the Question, I may say that Mr. Ball has been acting as solicitor under the authority of the Commissioners, who express their confidence in him. It is true, however, that the Treasury differ from the Commissioners as to the regulations under which the moneys collected by Mr. Ball are brought to account. The subject is still in discussion, and I trust that means will be found for bringing about an agreement between the Treasury and the Commissioners. If it should not be the case, the accounts will be laid before Parliament, and it is always in the power of the House of Commons to refer disputed points of account to their own Committee on Public Accounts. It is a delicate question up to what point the orders of the Commissioners are a final authority, behind which it is not necessary that the Audit Office should go. The Government are in favour of giving all information to the Controller and Auditor General, in order to enable him to discharge his duty fully and freely; but questions of this kind will from time to time arise which should be decided on principles of common sense. If a solution should not be found, it will be in the power of the House to examine the dispute by means of its own Committee. As to the last part of the question of the hon. Member—namely— Whether the Returns promised by the First Lord of the Treasury of the payments made under the process of commuting and compounding in the Irish Church, and of the names, livings, and residences of the Clergymen who have commuted and compounded, are in course of preparation and when they will be laid upon the Table? I can only reply that I did not promise the Returns. What I said was, that I saw no objection myself to the production of them; but that till I made in- 622 quiry,it would be impossible for me to say whether they could be produced. I have now made that inquiry, and find I have no power in the matter. The Returns would have to be compiled, not by the Commissioners, but by the Irish Church Representative Body. It would be a very long and expensive affair. They are an independent body, and it would not be within the power of the Crown to control them.