HC Deb 10 March 1883 vol 277 cc126-33

(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £7,851, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the repayment to the Civil Contingencies Fund of certain Miscellaneous Advances.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

complained that the Vote was presented to the Committee in a very unsatisfactory form. This Fund was established in 1862, in amount £120,000, to be available for the payment of Civil Charges which unexpectedly sprang up, and to meet which the Departments in which the charges arose had no available funds, and thus loans were obtained from the Civil Service Contingencies Fund. Now, the Account to which the present Estimate applied was the one for 1881–2. But that Account was not yet before Parliament. The latest Account was for 1880–1; that was presented and ordered to be printed on 7th February, 1882; and the Account for 1881–2, though ordered to be printed on 15th February, 1883, was not yet in the hands of Members. For this reason alone the Vote ought not to be pressed. But there was this objection to the mode of voting the money asked for. This Fund was a general one for all the Civil Services. It was not intended to be an accounting fund, merely one for lending money to the needy Departments, and it was the duty of the borrowers to apply to Parliament for the funds spent, and, when granted, then to repay to the Fund the amounts borrowed. Here they had the Fund actually reversing this course, and applying to Parliament for moneys lent, thus relieving the Civil Accounts by lessening the expenditure of the several Services to the extent of the borrowed money. He must here point out that in 1859 the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) raised the like objection; and the then Secretary to the Treasury, now the Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing), distinctly promised to rectify the blunder; and though 23 years had passed, they found it still continued; but he supposed by the time the quarter of a century had passed the change would be made—this he hoped to aid in effecting.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, the first item in this Vote was £878 6s. 8d. for fees paid on the installation of the Kings of Saxony and the Netherlands as Knights of the Garter. It seemed to him that some explanation might reasonably be asked for with regard to an item, which must appear questionable and extraordinary to an ordinary Member of the Committee. The Kings of the Netherlands and Saxony might have as many Garters as they pleased at their own expense; but he could not see why an installation might not be arranged through the post and entered in The London Gazette, like many other things quite as important. When they were refused the miserable sum of £50, or £100, or £500, for the poor, starving fishermen of Ireland for the repairs of piers and the sheltering that was indispensable to enable these people to earn their living, it did seem to him like heartless satire to ask the Committee to vote £878 for the installation of certain Foreign Potentates as Knights of the Garter. Who did the money go to? Why, to someone who held a sinecure office in this country. It was not needed—thero was no moral claim to it—and the Representatives of the people ought not to be asked to vote it. He should move to reduce the Vote by this item of £878 6s. 8d.; but while he was on his legs there was another item to which lie wished to call attention—namely, £2,769 for Earl Spencer's Equipage—money spent on the noble Earl's appointment as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The name of "Spencer" reminded him of another man of the same name who was Chief Secretary 300 years ago, and who advocated the settlement of the Irish difficulty by means of famine, and who recommended that all the cattle in the country, and all the corn, should be destroyed, so that the inhabitants, being absolutely without subsistence, might die of starvation. The name "Spencer" recalled that recommendation, and they heard at the present time an echo of that policy. It was now proposed to get rid of the people by means of starvation. The Lord Lieutenant offered to the starving people of Ireland, whom the Chief Secretary had actually seen eating seaweed, the workhouse as preparatory to emigration. The proposal was not the actual one of starvation; but it was something extremely like it. They were asked to vote out of public money, of which the Irish people had to pay their quota, £2,769 for the Lord Lieutenant's Equipage; but why they should be asked to pay that amount to Earl Spencer, over and above the handsome salary he received, was a thing which called for some explanation from the Government. There were other items in the Vote which he thought were open to challenge—for instance, the charge for special packets for the conveyance of distinguished persons.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £6,973, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the repayment to the Civil Contingencies Fund of certain Miscellaneous Advances."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

MR. COURTNEY

said, it was rather a strong use to make of this particular Vote, because it involved a payment for the equipage of Earl Spencer, to bring up again a reference to the author of The Faery Queen. The Select Committee on the Reduction of Salaries considered the item in question, and came to the conclusion that they could not recommend its being discontinued. In pursuance of that decision, the amount was allowed to Earl Spencer. As to the fees paid on the installation of the Kings of Saxony and the Netherlands as Knights of the Garter, the hon. Member appeared to be ignorant of the way in which the money was spent, and yet a Return giving an explanation of the appropriations was furnished last year. As to the policy of making these payments, the question was one of some magnitude, and he could not now enter into it.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, he wished to supply a deficiency in the explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Member had become converted to the policy of payments of this kind, and so suddenly that he (Mr. M'Carthy) did not despair of seeing him one day Usher of the Black Rod, possibly a Knight of the Garter. But the hon. Member ought to have explained to the Committee, in the regular official fashion, that by this Vote they purchased the goodwill for ever of the people of Saxony and the Netherlands.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 45: Majority 21.—(Div. List, No. 29.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. RAMSAY

said, he thought it right to say that he had voted with the Government on the present occasion; but he had done so, not because he was satisfied with the explanation of the Secretary to the Treasury, or with that of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. M'Carthy), and he would bog leave to make an appeal to the Government to relieve them from the necessity of voting with them on occasions like this after the money had been expended. Let them consider how they could best get rid of the necessity of voting money like these three first items. As to the Vote for special packets for the conveyance of distinguished persons, it must be painful to the Secretary to the Treasury to have to refuse small sums for useful purposes, and allow Votes such as this. Their sense of duty was, in a manner of speaking, appealed to, inasmuch as the money they were asked to vote had been already expended. He trusted that he was not making these observations in vain, and that on future occasions they would not be asked to vote such items as these.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler) had moved for the names of the "distinguished persons" who were taken across the Channel in special packets. Had the Secretary to the Treasury supplied that Return? It had been provided for this year, but they had not yet received it; and, under the circumstances, he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to be good enough to read out the names. But whoever the "distinguished persons" were was a matter of perfect indifference to him (Mr. Labouchere), and to hon. Gentlemen around him, who took an interest in matters of this kind. Their view was that there were some excellent steamers running between Dover and Calais, and no persons, no matter how distinguished, were debarred from taking passage in them and paying their fares in the ordinary way. He should move the reduction of the Vote by £740, which was the amount charged for packets.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the Return asked for had been laid upon the Table, but had not yet been printed. It did not appear to be very necessary that it should be printed, seeing that the hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere) himself took no particular interest in the affair.

MR. LABOUCHERE

asked whether the "distinguished persons" were the same as last year?

MR. COURTNEY

said, they were not identically the same; but the individuals were all of the same class. Most of the items were of £40, although there was one of £100. The name of Prince Leopold appeared four times, and there were amongst the rest such names as the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, the Princess of Waldeck, and the King and Queen of Greece.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, here was an excellent opportunity for showing some consideration for the British taxpayer. It was a most remarkable thing that when these opportunities for practising economy arose, when money could be saved in cases like this, where the expenditure was so much waste and extravagance, they heard nothing whatever about that unfortunate individual the British taxpayer. That person was never quoted until some little sum was asked for the relief of Irish distress, or the promotion of Irish industry, or the doing of some good or other to Ireland. Whenever an appeal was made for assistance, however slight and equitable, to Ireland, immediately the bleeding British taxpayer was trotted out before them. Night after night they voted money for all kinds of nonsense, and yet he had listened and waited in vain to hear some plea on behalf of the British taxpayer. A few nights ago, in a few minutes, bang went £55,000 for repairs to a Royal Yacht. Then they had to vote £300 for 50 boxes for holding the papers of hon. Members. He had not yet had the pleasure of seeing any of those boxes; but when he did he had no doubt he should find them gorgeously got up in black and gold, or some other superb fashion. If he did not find them like that, how £300 could be spent on 50 of them he did not know. There was then stationery, upon which a large and liberal sum was spent, and no sufficient explanation was given to the House as to the details of the item. As to Irish lawyers, it would seem as though the Bar of Ireland had been saturated with public money. How was it, when these things occurred, that no tenderness was exhibited by hon. Gentlemen opposite for the British taxpayer? They had adopted a gigantic scheme of outdoor relief for the barristers and silk-gownsmen of Ireland—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order! I must remind the hon. Member that he is discussing Votes which have already been passed.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, he was contented—his argument had simply been by way of illustration. He had simply been anxious to show that, at some point or other, this long dormant tenderness for the British taxpayer ought to arise. As they had allowed so much money to fly from them, they should now begin to consider the desirability of drawing the line somewhere. To his mind, it was time to draw it here. When they asked for a little money for the purpose of humanity and charity, for the relief of starvation, for which that House was, to a large degree, responsible, the plea of economy was urged. He was in favour of economy, and the cutting-off of the expenditure of public money on tomfoolery like this steam-packet item.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, he saw both the Secretary to the Treasury and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in their places; and from one or other of them he should like to know whether there was any reciprocity in this business? He should like to know, also, whether any Foreign Parliament ever had a Vote presented to it for the conveyance of distinguished personages from this country across the Channel or anywhere else; or whether the folly and absurdity of this system was confined to our own Government? It really seemed to him that unless Radical Members spoke with trumpet tongue these absurdities would go on to the crack of doom. If ever there was a Vote upon which they should press the Government sorely it was the present, when, by making such an absurd proposal, the Government seemed to anticipate that their credulity would swallow anything in the world. He hoped one or other of the hon. Gentlemen he had mentioned would answer him as to whether there was any reciprocity in this matter. If they could not tell the Committee that there was, surely that would be sufficient reason why they should abandon these absurdities.

MR. CAINE

wished to know whether, in addition to packet accommodation, the Government supplied railway accommodation for distinguished personages? If they supplied the one they should supply the other; if they did not pay railway fares, he failed to see why they should supply steamboats.

MR. COURTNEY

said, there was a good deal of reciprocity in these matters, though, owing to obvious reasons, it did not take the form of steam packets. In foreign countries carriages were extensively provided for our distinguished personages. The reason why the practice of supplying special packets had grown up was this. Formerly, when distinguished personages were either coming to or leaving this country, the Queen placed at their disposal one of the ships of the Royal Navy to take them across the Channel. That was only done now on great occasions, as it was a much more expensive and troublesome business than providing packets. In sending over a yacht they did not incur the expense of sending over a ship of the Navy, the one being a substitute for the other.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he thought, from the hon. Member's own showing, there was very little reciprocity in the matter; at any rate, they got very much the worst of the bargain. They were to supply all sorts of distinguished foreigners with packets, because occasionally, when a Member of our Royal Family journeyed abroad, a carriage was provided for him. He protested against the system adopted by the occupants of the Front Ministerial Bench. Directly an hon. Member called attention to an extravagant, ridiculous, or unnecessary Vote, up jumped a Member of the Government with some kind of argument or other in favour of it, if only the statement that there was a precedent for it. If Members of a Liberal Administration were to continue these abuses, practised by the Conservatives before them, he would ask what was the use of the country putting a Liberal Government in power? This argument of "precedents" was this. A man was accused of theft, and answered—"I was in the habit of committing murders, but now I only steal a little occasionally." That was not the way to argue. The country very strongly objected to this sort of absurd expenditure. He wished to speak with great respect of Prince Leopold; but he would say that Prince Leopold, if he wished in a private manner to cross the Channel, should be expected to pay his fare like everybody else, out of the £25,000 the country allowed him.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, he did not think the explanation the Committee had received at all adequate to justify the Vote. It was that at one time it was usual to place a man-of-war at the disposal of these distinguished persons for the purpose of crossing the Channel. When there was no regular steam packet communication there might have been some excuse for that, but no such plea could be urged now; and he wished to know why they presented these Royal personages as paupers—["Oh, oh!"]—well, he would call them Royal hereditary paupers—should be permitted to be continually dipping their hands into the pockets of the public. It would be well, if they were to go on voting money like this—at least to apply the principle of the workhouse test to its recipients. He would go a step further, and say this—in the face even of the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Cropper), who was too fastidious for every day life—that it would do Prince Leopold and many other of these distinguished persons a great deal of good if they occasionally mixed amongst the public, if only to the extent of now and then travelling in a packet in which good and honest people were crossing the Channel.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 41: Majority 14.—(Div. List, No. 30.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.