THIRD READING. (Hansard, 22 May 1883)

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, he wished to point out that the Bill provided for a larger expenditure than had ever been known for the Civil Service within recent years. On the second reading notice had been taken of that fact; but no information had been given by any Member of the Government, nor had any indication been afforded of the intention of the Government seriously to consider the very great growth of the public national expenditure as regarded the Civil Service Estimates. He did not know whether the House and country were to understand that the Government admitted that it was not in their power to reduce the expenditure, and that there was no defence to be made for the continuous and steady growth that had taken place within the last three years. If that was the case, he had nothing more to say. He had himself ventured to draw attention to the circumstances under which that increase had occurred. Such an increase was not consistent with the professions with which the Government took Office—professions of economy and retrenchment. The allegations which had been advanced to this effect, and which had met with no response from the Government, were of a grave character, and deserved the serious consideration of the Government and of the country. But no such consideration had been given by the Government. At any rate, he thought it was his duty to enter a 727 protest against that continued increase of expenditure, and against what he considered the unusual course of refraining in that House from giving any explanation of the cause of the expenditure, or any assurance that the Government would endeavour to prevent its growth. These Estimates, which found their expression in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, wore not the Estimates of Parliament and the country, but the Estimates of the Government—the Estimates presented to the British Parliament by the Government on their responsibility, and therefore they had a right to hold the Government, wholly and individually, responsible for them; and it was only on that footing that he made an appeal once more to the Government to state whether it was their intention to exercise the control which ought to be exercised over the public finances; and whether it was their intention to resist the demands which had been made upon them from various sources for increased expenditure; or whether they proposed to court popularity by allowing the lavish expenditure of public money which appeared now to be made?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
said, that the Bill had come on at a very unexpected hour; and it was unfortunate that neither his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) nor his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) were in their places to answer the right hon. Gentleman. He (the Marquess of Hartington) was under the impression that, both on the Financial Statement and on the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), the views of the Government, as regarded expenditure, had been very fully stated; and he thought that, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was hardly justified in saying that the House had been left in the dark as regarded the opinion of the Government on the matter. The observations of the right hon. Gentleman Were of so general a character, that he thought he was scarcely able at that time to make any fitting reply to them. As to the increase of expenditure in the country, there was no doubt that, in many Departments of the State, which corresponded with the growth of the nation, a reduction in the expenditure was not possible; and, as regarded an- 728 other class of expenditure, no doubt the Government had admitted that it was possible and desirable that economy should be effected, and had taken into consideration the possibility of the House and the Government being assisted in that object. But he must point out that the Government required the support not only from those on his side of the House, but from those on both sides; and he was sorry the Government had not always received the assistance of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, as was shown by the fact that a recent proposal in favour of economy was almost unanimously rejected on the other side of the House. After what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith), he had hopes that such a proceeding would not occur again, he did not enter into the merits of the question; but this Bill did go in the direction of economy, and there were proposals which had emanated from the other side of the House which would tend very greatly to increase the Public Expenditure. It would be impossible for him, entirely unprepared as he was, to enter with any advantage into the important subject raised; and he only regretted that this Bill had not come forward at a time when those in charge of it could have answered any observation made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
contended that the Government, and the Government alone, must be held responsible for the Expenditure of the country, and that the House of Commons should make it a principle that the Government of the day, from whichever side it came, should themselves be responsible for the Expenditure. The Expenditure of the late Government might have been reckless, as had been alleged by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House; but it was far exceeded by their Successors; and he must protest against the Government taking such an opportunity of throwing upon the Opposition some of the responsibility that rested, and must rest, entirely upon themselves.

§ MR. WARTON
also repudiated the attempt to fix this responsibility upon Conservative Members.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that, seeing neither of the Members of Her Majesty's Government present who were most concerned in the Bill, in order to give them 729 an opportunity of replying to the rein arks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) he would move the Adjournment of the Debate.