CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS, SPECIAL, AND TEMPORARY OBJECTS. (Hansard, 19 March 1878)

§ MAJOR NOLAN
inquired when the Report of the Commission on Local Government and Taxation of Towns in Ireland would be presented?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, the Commission referred to was appointed on the recommendation of a Select Committee of that House in the year 1876, and it was thought desirable that local inquiries should be made by the Commission in Ireland. The Commission was re-appointed in the year 1877, and, as the hon. and gallant Member knew, it had collected a large amount of valuable evidence as to the condition of Ireland. The Commission would meet for the purpose of considering its Report before Easter, and he hoped it would be presented very soon after Easter. As regarded the Poor Law Unions, Ireland, Commission, it had not yet concluded its labours; but its Report would be laid before the House at the earliest possible moment.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he should be glad to know whether the Report of the Poor Law Unions, Ireland, Commission would be presented before the end of June?

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
asked for some particulars as to the number of gentlemen on each Commission, and the salaries received by them? The item for salaries to the Local Government and Taxation of Towns Commission was considerably over £4,000, and that seemed to be a very large expenditure under such a head.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, it would be seen by the Estimates that the work of the Local Government Commission had extended over two years, and the legal Commissioners were each paid five guineas for every working day.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, it seemed that the Commissioners were also allowed one guinea a-night each for subsistence, so that they would be receiving six guineas a-day each for their services. He wished to know how it was that the Commissioners were paid at such a rate? The Irish Poor Law Union Commissioners appeared to have received three guineas a-day each. When temporary Commissioners were appointed in England or Scotland, their services were given without payment; and he did not know why men could not be found to do gratuitously the work of such Commissions in Ireland. The Vote referred to their leisure time, as being occupied in the work, and he thought well-qualified men could easily be got, as in England and Scotland, to do the work, without making a charge on the public purse.

§ MR. W. H. JAMES
wished to know what was the evidence given before the Local Government and Taxation of Towns Commission which involved an expense of £1,000 for shorthand notes?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, that out of three of the Commissioners two were gentlemen of standing at the Irish Bar, who ought to be fairly remunerated if they had to leave their professional duties to attend to the business of a Commission. Five guineas a-day did not appear to be too much to pay for such a service. One of the Commissioners did duty voluntarily, and simply with a desire to obtain information for the benefit of the public. With regard 1614 to the charge of £1,000 for shorthand notes, the Local Government Commission collected a great deal of evidence which it was thought necessary that a shorthand writer should take down and transcribe.

§ MR. M'LAREN
did not think the explanation of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland was a satisfactory one. Why were the services of gentlemen of the Bar necessary at all in such a case? Would not gentlemen who were not members of the Bar have performed the duty equally well from patriotic motives? Commissioners were found to give their services gratuitously out of Ireland. It would appear as if the Members of the Local Government and Taxation of Towns Commission had found time to perform their duties after the Courts had risen.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
asked for the names of the Commissioners, and then it could be ascertained whether they were absent from the Courts while they were performing their duties on the Commission?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOB IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
replied, that two of the Commissioners who were barristers were—Mr. W. A. Exham, Q.C., and Mr. E. B. Lawless, Q.C. The third Commissioner was an Englishman, formerly in the service of the Local Government Board, and was not a barrister.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he was most anxious to know when the Poor Law Union Commission would present its Report?

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
asked for the name of the gentleman on the Local Government and Taxation of Towns Commission who did his work voluntarily?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
believed it was Mr. Livedale Corbett. He hoped the Poor Law Union Commission would conclude its labours and Report before the end of the Session, but he could not say positively.

§ MR. RAMSAY
said, these Commissions appeared to be appointed in Ire-at very considerable expense to the State, and some of the remarks made during the discussion appeared to involve the principle that barristers should not give their services to the nation gratuitously. He had sat on several Royal Commissions in Scotland, on which there were bar- 1615 risters of high standing, who had acted zealously in the discharge of the duties entrusted to them without the slightest pecuniary consideration for the work they performed. He did not see why Irish barristers should be remunerated for acting as Commissioners simply because they were Irish barristers.

§ MR. WHITWELL
inquired why the expenses of these two Commissions had not been included in the ordinary Estimates for the year, instead of in the Supplemental Estimates?

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, the Poor Law Union Commission had been appointed on the Motion of that House on the 6th March, 1877, and therefore the sum for its expenses could not appear in the Estimates for that year. The other Commission was appointed on the recommendation of a Committee which had reported in favour of further information being obtained. He could not say why the expenses for the Commission were not included in the Estimates for the year, but would make inquiry and answer a Question on the subject if the hon. Gentleman would put one.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
supposed the Vote could not be refused, but he considered the explanation unsatisfactory and the charge extravagant. If the Commission had sat out of Ireland, such fees would not have had to be paid.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
saw no reason why these heavy charges should be paid. The fact of two of these gentlemen being barristers was no reason for paying them over liberally. It was well known that a system of petting the Bar existed in Ireland; and, looking to the probability that these paid Commissioners simply employed their leisure time in doing the work of the Commission, half the remuneration asked for would be sufficient. He would move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £2,319.

§ SIR WILLIAM FRASER
said, the amount seemed rather a large one to 1616 be devoted solely to meet the cost of conferring the Order of St. Michael and St. George on several Colonists, and for completing the insignia of various classes of the Order. He would suggest that an alteration might be made in the device attaching to the Order. As the Order was now conferred exclusively for Colonial service, it should, in his opinion, bear the device—"Imperl Porrecta Majestas," instead of the Ionian motto—"Auspicium melioris ævi," which had a taint of irony in it.

§ MR. MONK
asked why the Estimate was brought forward in the shape of a Supplementary Charge for the year ending 31st March, 1878, whereas part of the proposed Vote had been spent in previous years? Then a sum of £5,163 appeared to be set down for the expenses of the Commission during the year 1878–9, a proceeding which seemed perfectly inexplicable in a Supplementary Estimate. No doubt these expenses had been incurred through the passing of an Act of Parliament; and the preservation of Epping Forest, as an open space for the public, was an object worthy of support; but the Vote ought to have been brought forward in the ordinary Estimates for the year.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
also desired some information as to the Vote, as he felt a difficulty in understanding what all the money was wanted for. What had Parliament done for Epping Forest? What had the Government done for it? He knew the Corporation of the City of London had spent money to preserve the Forest as an open space; but, so far as he knew, the Commissioners had been simply an obstruction. How was it this charge came into the Supplementary Estimates?

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, it appeared that one of the Epping Forest Commissioners was paid three guineas a-day "when employed on the business of the Commission," and two guineas extra when sitting as Chairman. What were the circumstances under which the day's fee was charged? Did a Commissioner give a whole day's work to the public service, or did he simply walk down 1617 to the office, and say—"Well, how are you getting on to-day; is there anything to he done?" and charge a fee for that? The system of charging so much per day seemed to be rather a dangerous one, and he should like to know whether any rules were laid down on the subject?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he was afraid he could not give any minute information upon the point referred to, but the usual rule was that the Commissioner stated himself what days he had been employed, and his statement was taken upon his authority. It was not to be supposed that any fictitious charge was made. There was no doubt that gentlemen employed on these Commissions did give a great deal of time to the work, and their disposition was rather to give more than less. The inquiry of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) arose, he thought, from a printer's error. The Papers stated that an item of £5,000 was to be taken for the financial year 1878–9, and it should have been 1877–8. The total would show that the amount was for the last-mentioned period. The Epping Forest Commission had now made its Report, which, he hoped, would be the foundation of legislation on the subject.

§ MR. MONK
asked whether the sum of £11,300, put down in the Estimates, covered the whole expense of the Commission from its foundation in August, 1871, to the 31st March, 1878? If that were so, it was only a reasonable charge; but if it were for the expenditure of the financial year only, it was an enormous and uncalled-for expense.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, the Vote showed that the bulk of expenditure had been already advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund, and this was an adjustment of the balances.

§ MR. W. H. JAMES
directed attention to the amount of £333 17s. 4d., being the charges for the preservation 1618 of cemeteries abroad—namely, for the Anglo-French cemetery at the Piraeus, moiety of the wages of the custodian, £16 16s.; for the British cemeteries on the Bosphorus, salary of custodian and wages of labourers, £317 1s.4d. Both these charges were for the year 1876–7; and he would like to know in whose care the British cemeteries in the Crimea were placed, and who were responsible for their preservation?

§ COLONEL STANLEY
replied, that the British cemeteries in the Crimea were under the care of a Russian pensioner, who had a cottage to live in, and was paid the sum of £20 a-year. His duty was to maintain the walls and keep the tombs in a proper state.

§ MR. WHITWELL
called attention to the sum charged for expenses in connection with the Dover Harbour Bill, 1874. They were brought up to the year 1878, and amounted to the considerable charge of £1,470 10s. 7d. A great deal of interest was taken in the Dover Harbour question, and an explanation as to the largeness of the sum placed in the Estimates would, no doubt, be acceptable to the Committee and the public.

§ MR. FRESHFIELD,
referring to the same item, asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, whether it was a fact that the Government, having paid that money to the Harbour Board of Dover, and gained the control of the measure by that arrangement, on the understanding that they would carry out the scheme, were not now prosecuting any improvement of Dover Harbour? If that was so, the expenditure seemed to him, under the circumstances, most impolitic and unjustifiable. He would like to know, also, from the First Lord of the Admiralty, in the absence of the President of the Board of Trade, whether the right hon. Gentleman considered that the present state of Dover Harbour could be regarded as satisfactory in reference to the present contingency of war?

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
thought his hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield) could hardly expect him, without any Notice being given of the Question, to give an answer, to which considerable importance would be attached because of the character of the subject. The expenditure had been incurred in the Sessions of 1873 1619 and 1874. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir. Whitwell) would, doubtless, remember that, in 1873, the Dover Harbour Bill was prosecuted in that House by the late Government as far as the second reading. The Bill was taken up by the present Government on their coming into power, and was afterwards sent to a Committee up-stairs; but on consideration, it was found that the circumstances were not such as to enable the Government to proceed further with the measure. The expenditure to which hon. Members had referred, had been incurred at the instance of the late, and also of the present, Government; and they thought it would not be right to allow the cost of conducting the Bill to fall upon the Dover Harbour Trust. Therefore, the charge had been taken out of the public fund.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
wanted especially to know what the money was really for, and what were the conditions upon which the Town Board of Dover entered into the Harbour question? Had any money been paid to the Board for the relinquishment of their assumed rights over Dover? He had objected to this charge on a former occasion, and had pressed for information respecting it. He maintained that the charge was one which would more properly come under the Vote for Harbours, in which case the President of the Board of Trade might be called upon to explain it, and justify it.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, as this expenditure partook of the nature of a legal charge, and not a Harbour charge proper, it came more appropriately under this Vote than it would under that for Harbours. The Bill had been withdrawn only after the fullest consideration. The expenses incurred in the preparation and prosecution of the measure were chiefly for the charges of the surveyor, solicitor, and Parliamentary agent; and, considering the national, as well as the legal, character of the undertaking, it was reasonable that the money should be paid out of the public funds.

§ MR. M'LAREN
asked, whether the Treasury had paid any money, and, if so, to whom, for the expenses incurred by the Sheriff Clerk of Aberdeen in defending an action brought against him in his official capacity?

§ MR. FORSYTH
inquired whether the cemetery in the Crimea was kept up 1620 at the expense of the English or of the Russian Government? If at the expense of the latter, perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman could inform the Committee in what condition the ground was?

§ MR. DODSON
asked why the salaries of the custodians of the cemeteries in the Crimea and on the Bosphorus were charged in this Vote, if the payment was a regular one?

§ COLONEL STANLEY
explained that the charge for keeping the cemeteries in good order had always appeared in this Vote. He, however, acknowledged that it would more conveniently come under the Vote connected with the Foreign Office. With respect to the preservation of the cemeteries, according to the last Report, they were considered to be in a perfectly good state.

§ MR. COURTNEY
asked for some information respecting the International Sugar Conference, which had been held at Paris, Brussels, and the Hague. In this Vote, the item appeared of £326 16s. for the expenses of Messrs. Walpole, Le Feuvre, and Payn, in attending at the Conference. As no duty was now imposed on sugar by this country, he did not think there was any need for sending Representatives to the Conference. The labours of the Conference had not yet terminated; and, as further charges for expenses might be incurred when it re-assembled, he thought the Committee ought to be assured of the necessity of England being represented at its sittings.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER
said, he could not agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Courtney) that this country had no interest in this question. The manner in which the duties were to be charged on the different classes of sugar involved the question whether bounty was, in point of fact, to be given by any foreign Government upon the sugar manufactured in their own country?—and that had been a question of considerable difficulty for many years past. Some years ago, there was, in the International Convention, a discussion, or an arrangement, as to the basis on which the sugar duty should be charged, so as to encourage fairness of treatment. The British Government had been a party to that. Of course, since the duty had been taken off, their position was in some respects different to 1621 what it had been before; but the Government of this country were still interested in maintaining a fair system of charge between themselves and foreign countries, as regarded the mode in which the duty was levied in France, Holland, and elsewhere, their object being to see that fair play was given to our refiners as compared with the refiners of the other countries concerned. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government felt they were doing quite right in appointing Commissioners to go to this International Convention, which was attended by the Representatives of the other Powers interested.

§ MR. COURTNEY
had no doubt the sugar refiners of this country were interested, but he did not think the nation was. At all events, our interest was remote. It was purely a class interest, and he did not consider there was any necessity for the attendance of British Representatives at the Convention.

§ MR. RAMSAY
asked the Secretary to the Treasury for an explanation of the balance—£197 17s. 7d.—of the expenses incurred by the Sheriff Clerk of Aberdeen in defending himself in an action, and wished to know whether that action had arisen from his own default?

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, £600 had been paid in the previous year on account of these expenses incurred by the Sheriff Clerk of Aberdeen, who was made the subject of an action for an alleged illegal process. Having appealed to the House of Lords, and obtained a verdict, the Sheriff Clerk applied to the Treasury for his expenses incurred as a public officer. The Treasury agreed to pay them, as an act of grace and discretion.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, he thought that if the payment to the Sheriff Clerk was a matter of grace and discretion, the Treasury should have left the Sheriff Clerk to pay his own expenses. With reference to the Sugar Convention, the interest of the refiners in the United Kingdom was an extensive interest, and the Government deserved credit for protecting it. If they were to act otherwise, and the trade were ruined, no doubt a just remonstrance would be addressed to them.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
maintained that, if the sugar interest was to be protected in this way, other trades might 1622 claim similar consideration. It was a fallacy to adhere to these old notions, and he contended that we had nothing to do with the sugar trade, except to buy it in the cheapest market wherever we could.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
inquired whether it was intended that the various items which appeared in this Vote of "Civil Contingencies Fund" should be allotted to the Votes in respect of the different Departments to which they properly belonged, or were the items to remain where they were? The different Departments ought, in his judgment, to apply for each item under its proper head, and not in this one Vote of this Fund. Thi3 was in reality a banking fund account for all Civil Departments to draw on for money in excess of the funds voted to the regular order under the respective Votes. It stood to the Civil Department in the same relation as the Treasury Chest Fund stood to Army, Navy, Colonial, and sometimes political services. But both funds should be kept strictly to the business of lending money—the loans being repaid by the Departments borrowing applying to Parliament for additional moneys.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
alluded to two other items of charge—namely, £35, the amount spent by the Crown Agents for the Colonies to enable a Native of Johanna to return to his native country, and £4 8s. 8d. for expenses incurred in transmitting a manumitted female slave from Constantinople to Malta. He called attention to these charges, because he supposed the circumstances in both cases must be of an exceptional character.

§ COLONEL STANLEY,
replying to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Sir George Balfour), explained that the charges were laid, in the first instance, on the Civil Contingencies Fund. The Auditor General had brought them into that Fund, because there was no Vote to which they were properly chargeable. Whether they would be placed afterwards to the credit of the particular Votes concerned, he was not himself in a position to say. They would be brought under review, he believed, a second time; and he was inclined to think they would be placed under their respective Votes.