CIVIL SERVICES (EXCESSES). (Hansard, 17 March 1882)

§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF
desired to ask a question about these excesses, because it appeared to Mm they were constantly called upon to pay sums of money for purposes for which the Government had not made proper Estimates. In respect to the Consular Services he found an excess of £4,641.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
rose to Order, and asked whether these excesses ought not to be put separately from the Chair, because it was possible each one of them might be open to question?

The CHAIRMAN
It is usual to propose them in a lump sum.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
presumed that if hon. Members had any observations to offer with regard to the different Votes they would be taken in order. He would like to make a few remarks with reference to the first excess.

The CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Member move any reductions of the Votes the reductions will have to be taken in order.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he wished to say something with regard to the first item; but it would depend upon the answer he received whether he moved a reduction or not. There was an excess of £654 on the Board of Trade Vote, and they were told in the explanation on page 3 that this excess arose from the charge to the Vote of fees paid for inquiries into wrecks, which were formerly paid out of the Wreck Charges. He endeavoured last year to elicit from the President of the Board of Trade a reason why a new arrangement was made with regard to the expenses connected with the office of Receiver of Wreck; and he ventured then to express the opinion that the new arrangement would unquestionably result in an increase of charge, and in a permanent charge in the Estimates. These excesses bore out completely the anticipation which he then formed. The right hon. Gentleman assured the Committee that there was not the least danger in ex- 1244 cesses such as he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had mentioned; but he would be glad to know how it was these excesses now appeared. He was never able to understand why there should be a charge in the Estimate at all on account of the Receiver of Wreck. The fees paid in previous years were sufficient to meet all the expenses connected with the business; but the alteration which was made in the Estimates last year appeared to him to saddle the country with a charge which was likely to grow as time advanced. His anticipation was perfectly correct, for they were now called upon to provide money which, if the old arrangement had been carried out, they would not have been called upon to vote.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, there was one disadvantage under which they laboured in discussing the excesses tonight, and that was that they had not received the Report of the Committee on Public Accounts on the subject. There was really little need to discuss the items. In some cases there must be excesses, and the present excesses formed a very small proportion of savings on the whole Votes of the previous year. But, undoubtedly, it was a serious inroad upon the practice of the House that the excesses should be voted until they had been examined by the Committee on Public Accounts. By this time that Committee ought to have been appointed, and it ought to have been upon their recommendation that the excesses were voted. He did not know whether the noble Lord would like to withdraw the Excess Vote until he had had an opportunity of proposing the appointment of the Select Committee on Public Accounts; but, undoubtedly, some means ought to be adopted by which our monetary system should be as clear as possible.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, he was sorry that on a previous occasion, when the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) questioned him with regard to this matter, he had not succeeded in conveying to him what really was the state of the case. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct in saying that he (Mr. Chamberlain) did say that the change in keeping the Accounts did not involve any extra charge. The charge for Wreck Commissioners' Inquiries was set against sums received 1245 from wreck; and neither of the items appeared in the Accounts—the one was set against the other, and no charge came upon the Estimates. That was thought to be an improper way of keeping accounts, and, in order to afford greater information to the House, the fees had been carried to the credit; while, at the same time, the charges for the Wreck Commissioner had been brought into the Estimates; but no additional cost was incurred.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, it was a matter of great advantage they should have an account of every receipt, whatever the nature might be. It gave the Committee a greater control over the expenditure if they were asked to vote the full Estimate. He quite agreed with the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) as to the necessity of a serious investigation of these excesses by the Committee on Public Accounts. The right hon. Gentleman knew very well from his experience the cause of the excesses; on the face of it, excesses were an evidence of bad management. The matter required some investigation, and he should be very glad indeed if the Committee on Public Accounts could have reported to this Committee that the excesses were all in order; and he was sure that if the Committee on Public Accounts had so reported, this Committee would have voted the excesses with much greater confidence. At the same time, it was a serious question whether the noble Lord could withdraw this Vote, which, no doubt, was required to be placed in the Appropriation Act, to make up the Accounts for 1880–1. If the Vote could be postponed without any disadvantage to the Public Service it would be most advisable. He, for one, however, would not venture to press for a postponement, if there was any probability of any serious inconvenience arising.

§ SIR HENRY HOLLAND
supposed that the excesses must be voted, and that, when the Committee on Public Accounts was allowed to be appointed, the excesses would be carefully examined, and the blame, if any there was, must be retrospective. But he could not help expressing his sense of the great inconvenience caused by the non-appointment of this and other Sessional Committees.

§ MR. ONSLOW
said, it was usual for these excesses to pass through the hands 1246 of the Committee on Public Accounts, because they were voted by the Committee. He was aware the Motion for the appointment of the Committee was blocked.; but how long was it to be blocked? They might go on until Easter, and even until Whitsuntide; and still the Committee would, in all probability, not be appointed. If the Committee on Public Accounts was useless, why appoint it at all? Why not pass the Votes year after year without the sanction of that Committee? The Government ought to take steps to secure the appointment of the Committee as soon as possible, by placing its nomination as a first Order of the Day. It had always been considered a very necessary thing that the Committee on Public Accounts should inquire into the Accounts, and that it should be appointed as early in the Session as possible; but to-night they were asked to vote money for excesses before that Committee had even been appointed. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) ought to give them some assurance that the Government would find a day between now and Easter on which the Committee could be appointed.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, the Motion for the appointment of the Committee was not an Order of the Day; and if the Government were to propose the postponement of the Orders of the Day, to admit of the appointment of the Committee, it was more than likely the proposition could not be made until after half-past 12. He could assure hon. Members that a very small portion of the time of the Committee on Public Accounts was taken in examining the Votes on which there were excesses. It was, practically, a Committee to audit and superintend the whole expenditure of the country.

§ MR. SCLATER- BOOTH
said, he wished to remind the Committee that these excesses no more belonged to the finance of the current year than they belonged to the finance of the next year; they really belonged to the finance of 1880–1, which was closed 12 months ago. He thought it was convenient that the money should be voted now; but if the excesses had been of a very important character, undoubtedly it would be better that the Vote should be postponed until the appointment of the Committee on Public Accounts.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
begged to remind the Committee that the Government had taken a very extraordinary course to manifest their anxiety with regard to the appointment of the Public Accounts Committee. Last Tuesday they had their Notice for the appointment of the Committee on the Paper; but they allowed the House to be counted out. If they had kept the House together, it would have been the easiest thing in the world to have secured the appointment of the Committee that evening. Before he sat down, he wished to ask whether the item of £654 was to be understood to be completely covered by the fees paid into the Exchequer?

§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF
said, lie would suggest to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) that it would be desirable to take the discussion on the appointment of the Committee on Public Accounts on Monday night, instead of resuming the discussion on the Rules of Procedure. As to the Consular Services, he wished to point out to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury that the Estimates showed an increase of £7,000, whereas there was really a decrease. If, in addition to that, there were these excesses, he could not think that the Estimate for next year had been very carefully considered; and, therefore, he would press upon the noble Lord the necessity of submitting the Excess Vote to the Public Accounts Committee.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, it would be an extraordinary system of finance by which they referred the Estimates for the coming year to the Committee on Public Accounts. All that Committee had to do was to see that the expenditure was made in accordance with the purposes for which it was voted by Parliament. It would not be within the competence of the Committee to make any comparison between the expenditure of the past and coming years.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
said, it was very much to be regretted that the Government did not keep a House last Tuesday for the appointment of the Committee on Public Accounts.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, he was not quite sure that if a House had been kept last Tuesday the Motion would have come on before half-past 12.

§ MR. ONSLOW
said, they ought to know what arrangements the Government proposed to make for the appointment of the Committee. There was certainly a block in the way; but surely it was the province and duty of the Government to appoint a day for the full discussion of the Motion.

THE CHAIRMAN
It is quite out of Order to discuss the question as to whether this Committee shall be appointed on any particular day. That appertains to the House, which has already fixed the question for a particular day.

§ MR. ONSLOW
said, the question had cropped up in a very peculiar way. Hon. Members had pointed out that this was a Vote which ought to have come before the Public Accounts Committee before the Committee of Supply was asked to pass it. He thought he was in Order in asking the noble Lord.——

THE CHAIRMAN
I have already informed the hon. Member that it is out of Order to discuss this matter.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
asked if it would be in Order for a Member of the Committee to move that the Chairman should leave the Chair, and ask leave to sit again; so that the Committee on Public Accounts could be appointed, and could examine into these excesses?

§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF
would be very glad if the Chairman would be good enough to give an answer to the hon. Member, because this was a very important question, with which the Government appeared to be trifling.

§ MR. ONSLOW
said, that, to put matters on a proper footing, he would move that the Chairman should report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. Upon that Motion he was entitled to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India what steps the Government intended to take in order to secure the appointment of the Committee? The House had been counted out on three evenings that the Motion had been on the Paper, and the Government had taken no steps to keep a House.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is perfectly within his right, if he desires it, to move that I report Progress; but it is irregular to discuss a question which has been ruled out of Order on the Motion that I do report Progress.

§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF
asked whether it would be in Order for his hon. Friend to give his reasons for moving to report Progress?

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is perfectly in Order in moving that I report Progress; but the hon. Member would not be in Order in drawing attention to a Motion which has already been ruled out of Order.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
I am surprised that any hon. Member should question the authority of the Chair, and it seems to me that such a course cannot conduce to the good order of our debates. The Chairman, as I understand, says the hon. Member is perfectly in Order in moving to report Progress if he thinks fit to do so; but that under cover of a Motion to report Progress he is not entitled to discuss a Motion which stands on the Notice Paper for a future day. I do not intend to be guilty of the irregularity of discussing the question that has been referred to, and I will only say that the Government are extremely anxious to appoint this Committee. It is all very well to say that it should be put down as the first Business of the day; but hon. Members must know—["Order'"]

§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF
I rise to Order. The noble Lord is referring to the subject that you, Sir, have ruled it is not in Order to refer to.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
I perfectly admit the justice of the interruption, and I will not say a word more, except that the Government are most anxious to appoint the Committee as soon as possible.

§ MR. ONSLOW
said, he was sorry to recall it to the Chairman's mind that he had moved to report Progress, and that the Motion had not been put from the Chair. He was giving his reasons for making that Motion when he was called to Order; but since that the noble Marquess had answered those reasons, and stated that the Government were anxious to appoint the Committee without delay, he should withdraw his Motion.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the important item of £5,671 on account of the Constabulary in Ireland. What he wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman was, whether he could tell the Committee what was the total charge levied on the counties in Ireland on account of Police, and what would be the total charge in the Estimates besides that during the financial year for which these sums were voted? He should also like the right hon. Gentleman to tell them whether the total establishment of Constabulary had been exceeded; and, if it had not, whether it had been exceeded in any and, if so, what counties?

§ MR. SEXTON
said, he should like to put two or three questions to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to this Vote for Constabulary. He should like to ask what was the present position of Sub-Inspectors Stritch and Allan. Some time ago, Sub-Inspector Stritch was found guilty of murder by a Coroner's Jury, and the subject having been, brought under the notice of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman said he would inquire into it. He (Mr. Sexton) wished now to have an answer from the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Would the sub-inspector be put on his trial for the crime of murder or for a lesser crime? He also wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had come to any decision as to the conduct of Sub-Inspector Allan, who, it would be remembered, unnecessarily interfered with the Chairman of the Town Commissioners on the occasion of the Chief Secretary's addressing the crowd at Tullamore? He (Mr. Sexton), when he had referred to this incident, a short time ago, had drawn attention also to the fact that Sub-Inspector Allan was the person who had directed an assault upon two young men, one of whom had been ruined in consequence, and was confined to his bed. Were measures to be taken to bring Sub-Inspector Allan to justice? Within the past two or three days other instances of misconduct on the part of the police had been brought under his notice. In one case a constable named Kennedy had, a few days ago, torn down 40 placards posted on the walls calling on certain electors to vote for a particular person as Poor Law Guardian.

THE CHAIRMAN
I would ask the hon. Member whether the incidents to which he refers occurred during the period for which these Votes are taken?

§ MR. SEXTON
I presume so. I have, however, no knowledge on the point.

THE CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. Member remarked that these things occurred within the past few days. In that case they did not take place within the period to which the Votes apply, and cannot now be discussed.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, in that case, he would abandon the inquiry for the present. There was an incident which occurred last October to which he would refer—namely, the case of Father O'Dwyer. He would ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he would be graciously pleased to attend to this matter, which was a serious case of outrage by the police at Limerick? A sub-inspector named Rogers——

THE CHAIRMAN
Will the hon. Member give the date?

§ MR. SEXTON
October, last year.

THE CHAIRMAN
This Vote is only for the period ending 31st March, 1881; therefore, the hon. Member cannot discuss this case under it.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he had addressed some specific questions to the right hon. Gentleman, and supposed he was able to answer them. Could the right hon. Gentleman inform the Committee what was the total charge on account of the Constabulary for the financial year ended 31st March, 1881? How much of the charge was to fall on the Estimates, and how much was to be charged by presentment on the different counties of Ireland?

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
The total sum expended during the year is £1,169,042. I cannot at this moment say what was the sum charged on the counties for extra police; but, certainly, up to the 31st March, 1881, it would not be a largo sum. I am not quite sure whether there was any sum charged; but the matter is one which concerns the expenditure more than a year ago, and I cannot, therefore, tell him the amount. If he will give Notice of a Question, I will make inquiries, and give him the information he desires.

§ MR. R. POWER
wished to know whether the Attorney General for Ireland intended to answer the questions put to him by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. 1252 Sexton) as to whether Sub-Inspector Stritch would be put on his trial, and whether Sub-Inspector Allan's conduct was to be inquired into?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
said, he had nothing whatever to do with Sub-Inspector Allan, and did not intend to make any inquiry into his conduct. As to the question put by the hon. Member for Sligo with reference to Sub-Inspector Stritch, the query was a very proper one; and, in reply, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had to say that he had made the necessary inquiries into the case of the sub-inspector, and the other constable named by the Coroner's Jury. He had directed a prosecution against those persons. They were awaiting their trial, which had been postponed until next Assizes to enable the investigations to be completed.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, that as to the Chairman's ruling he wished to raise a point of Order. The Vote under consideration, no doubt, referred to the period up to March 31st, 1881; but he would submit that as the members of the Police Force whose conduct he called in question were in the force before that date, and continued in it at the present time, he was entitled to mention the incidents of which he had spoken.

THE CHAIRMAN
It is quite clear that it would only be regular to discuss any action of the Police Force that occurred during the period which is covered by this Vote.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, this question as to the amount chargeable against the Estimates and that levied on the counties was a very important one. He should be prepared to contend that the Government was causing levies to be made on the counties in Ireland which they ought not to do, and had no right to do. He wished, if he could, to obtain the materials for discussion in this matter, and to leave the Committee to judge of the propriety of the proceeding on the part of the Government. Instead of giving Notice of a Question, he would now ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he would consent to lay on the Table a Return showing the entire force of Constabulary during the past 12 months and up to the present date, the distribution of that force as between the different counties, the average force in each county, and the extra, 1253 police drafted into each county for which charges had been levied on the counties by Grand Jury presentments?

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
Substantially, the information the hon. Gentleman requires ought to be given; and if he will write down the exact items, I think I shall be able to agree with him as to a Return which will give the required information.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he wished to make one suggestion, which he thought he should be in Order in doing. All these matters were brought under one statement of excesses; and he would put it to the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) whether it would not be better to have them put in separate accounts? When it was considered that there were 11 different items, relating to England, Scotland, the United Kingdom, Melbourne, Zanzibar, and other places, fishing, coining, &c, it would be seen that it would be more convenient to have them put in separate accounts.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, this Vote had for some years been brought before Parliament in its present shape. He himself had made a suggestion similar to that which had come from the hon. and learned Member some years ago, and he would ascertain whether it would not be possible to adopt it.

CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
	£	s.	d.
Board of Trade	654	5	2
The Mint, including Coinage	334	13	7
Fishery Board, Scotland	226	15	3
CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
	£	s.	d.
Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice	293	9	1
County Courts	7,250	14	6
Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain	28	15	3
Constabulary of Ireland	5,671	0	9
CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART
	£	s.	d.
Science and Art Department of the United Kingdom	240	9	2