§
(21.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £7,020, 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 1884, for the repayment to the Civil Contingencies Fund of certain Miscellaneous Advances.
§ MR. WARTONbegged to move to report Progress. ["Oh, oh!"] It was all very well for hon. Members to groan; but, however objectionable his course might be, it was, to his mind, far worse to neglect the Business of the country. The Government had chosen to bring forward their Reform Bill and their Grand Committee scheme to the neglect of the vital interests and Business of the country. There were some very serious items in the Vote before the Committee on which many hon. Members, no doubt, would wish to make observations. It was scandalous that the Government, knowing the necessities of the case, should have avoided dealing with these questions for so long, and should have now come forward in an attempt to scurry through the real Business of the House. He should persist in his Motion were there 20,000 persons groaning around him. The Post Office Vote would come next. Last year that Vote was scurried through, just as the Government seemed determined upon scamping the 1503 Estimates now. The Postmaster General was not in his place when it was taken.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)If there was anything understood a little time ago, it was that all these Votes except four—to which a fifth was subsequently added at the request of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell)—should be disposed of to-night. As it is not by reporting Progress now that we shall shorten the Saturday Sitting that hon. Gentlemen seem so anxious for, I must oppose the Motion.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, it was obviously the duty of the Government to give time for the consideration of the Votes. Long before any arrangement, so-called, was come to in regard to the postponement of any Votes, the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinek) had left the House, being not at all well that evening. [Laughter.] The Committee seemed to receive that announcement with pleasure; he (Mr. Warton) stated it with pain. There ought to be some sympathy with such a distinguished Member of the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had believed that with so many Irish Votes on the Paper there was no possibility of the Post Office Vote coming on; and he had, therefore, left the House. Under the circumstances, seeing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was so anxious to discuss the Post Office Vote, it would only be fair to postpone it.
§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) would withdraw his Motion. After the Vote now before the Committee, probably the Government would consent to postpone the remainder of the Votes.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he should be happy to withdraw his Motion if the Government would give an undertaking not to proceed with the next Vote that night. The Post Office was a most important branch of the Public Service, and——
THE CHAIRMANI must remind the hon. and learned Member that 1504 we are not discussing the Post Office Vote.
§ MR. WARTONI will withdraw the Motion, which can be moved again on the Post Office Vote.
§ Motion, by leave, "withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he wished to move to reduce the Vote by £1,468 9s. 4d., two items made up in the following way:—" Fees paid on the installation of H.R.H. Prince Albert Victor Christian Edward as Knight of the Garter, £548 9s. 4d.;" and "Special Packets for the conveyance of Distinguished Persons, £920." As to the first of these items, it was well known that the "Garter" was not an Order given for merit, but one given to Peers whom it was wanted to bribe, and as a species of millinery to Royalty. He had no objection whatever to Royalty having the Garter—he did not care whether every Member of the House had or had not the Garter; but it was usual when the Order was given to pay certain fees, and it was with regard to these fees that he wished to make his protest. A part of them, he was told, were paid to the Dean of Windsor, or some person of that sort. Well, there was no objection to that; but what he did object to was that because a young gentleman was rewarded with the Garter, for the sole reason that he had done the world the benefit of coming into it, the House should be called upon to pay a sum of £548 9s. 4d. The Committee, he thought, would be with him when he asked it to divide against the item. Then there was this sum of £920 for "Special Packets for the conveyance of Distinguished Persons." These special packets were vessels which plied between Dover and Calais. He had asked the Secretary to the Treasury to be good enough to lay on the Table of the House some details respecting the item, and the hon. Gentleman had done so. According to the Return, it appeared that the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, for going to the Continent on their own business, had cost us £166; that the Duke and Duchess of Connaught had cost us £120; the Duke and Duchess of Teck, £40; the Duke of Cambridge, £40; the Prince of Wales, £200; the Crown Princess of Germany, £80; and the Duke and Duchess of Mecklen burgh, £120. Enor 1505 mous sums were spent in Royal Yachts; but, nevertheless, whenever any of Her Majesty's relatives liked to go abroad, or whenever any Royal personage connected with this country who had married into a wealthy family abroad came to England to see her relatives, a special packet was to be employed, at a cost of £40 each way, to bring her here and take her back. He had the greatest respect for these august personages—[Laughter.]—well, as much as he ought to have; but he could not see why, when they wanted to cross the Channel, they could not do it in the ordinary packets which plied between Dover and Calais. The House had often had an opportunity of protesting against this outrageous waste. Large sums were annually voted to Royal personages, and those sums should be made to cover the expense of their journeyings to and from the Continent. If they liked to take "special packets," by all means let them; but let them pay for them. When they went from London to Dover they sometimes took special trains; but they had not the effrontery to call on Parliament to pay for those trains. Why, then, in the name of goodness, should Parliament be called upon to pay for special packets? He saw a blush mantling the cheek of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), and he was not surprised at it. He should like to know how the hon. Member could defend this expenditure?
§
Motion made, and Question proposed
That a sum, not exceeding £5,561 10s. 8d. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will com" in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1684, for the repayment to the Civil Contingencies Fund of certain Miscellaneous Advances."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he wished to add to the reduction a further sum.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member cannot move a further reduction until the present Amendment has been disposed of.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, this was not the first time his hon. Friend had challenged a Vote of this character, nor the first time he (Mr. Courtney) had replied. Seeing the hour of the morning at which they had arrived (2.40), the hon. Member would excuse him if he were now brief in his reply. As a matter of fact, 1506 he had nothing more to say than he had said on the last occasion. Her Majesty, and the children of Her Majesty, were entitled to the use of one of the ships of the Navy——
§ MR. LABOUCHEREHow entitled?
§ MR. COURTNEYHer Majesty is entitled to order a vessel of the Navy to take her across the Channel.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREAnd the Duke and Duchess of Mecklenburgh?
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, Her Majesty was entitled to the use of such a vessel for herself and her friends. A more commonplace and a much less expensive arrangement, however, was made. Special packets were employed instead of war vessels. With respect to the fees paid on the installation of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales as a Knight of the Garter, it was a matter of usage and long custom that when a Royal personage received this most noble and distinguished Order the fees incident to admission to the Brotherhood should be paid by the Government, and should not be borne by the Royal personage in question. The fees were paid in several quarters. The largest amount was £ 138, which was spent in providing banner, sword, crest, armorial appointments, and other things. The fees given to the Dean of Windsor amounted to £41, the Dean being the Registrar of the Order. A fee of £90 went to the Garter King, £20 was paid to Black Rod, certain small sums were given to singing boy" and others.
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSIf one of the ships of war was ordered for the transport of the Duchess of Mecklen burgh it would never be done twice.
§ MR. MONKUnder what Statute are the ships of the Navy allowed to be used for the transport of Royal personages?
§ MR. COURTNEYI am surprised the hon. Member should suppose these things were originated by Statute. They are far too ancient and prescriptive.
MR. ILLING WORTHwished to point out that gentlemen were asked to undertake very important duties on behalf of the country, such as those of the Technical Commission, and the Exchequer was so miserably poor that it could not afford to pay their travelling expenses, to say nothing of remunerating them for investigations in foreign countries, such as those in connection with the 1507 textile industries. The Exchequer, however, was not too poor to pay in this extraordinary way for the carriage of Royal persons. The Secretary to the Treasury said it would be inconvenient to have a war vessel placed at the disposal of Her Majesty and her friends who came to visit her; but he had said nothing about the numerous Royal Yachts, which surely would be available for this service. He (Mr. Illingworth) was charitable enough to suppose that the hon. Member would say that none of those vessels were safe, and that, therefore, it would be a very hazardous undertaking to put on board them any of these Royal personages on a visit to Her Majesty. He must, however, protest against the miserable parsimony of the policy which, while spending money in the way specified in the Vote before the Committee, refused to remunerate gentlemen who were doing the most valuable service to the country.
§ MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, that, in view of this expenditure, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would not communicate with the authorities of the Admiralty to see if it would not be possible to substitute the Royal Yachts for these special packets in the future?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)Yes, I will make that inquiry. My impression is that the arrangement would be more costly.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORdoubted whether anything would be gained by communicating with the Admiralty. The same arrangement would go on up to that time next year, and they would have a repetition of the exhibition they had had that night. They heard the ex-Radical who now sat on the Treasury Bench, with his tongue in his cheek, giving amusing details as to how money of this kind was spent. They should strengthen the hands of the Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and allow Albert Victor Christian Edward, and the other personages who had been named, to get their expenses from some other source. If it were true that Her Majesty could avail herself of the services of ships of war whenever she wanted to go to Calais, or anywhere else, an indefinite amount of expenditure might in that way be justified. The defence of the hon. Gen- 1508 tleman the Secretary to the Treasury appeared altogether unreasonable and empty. The most practical course for the Committee to adopt would be to disallow these charges, for if they did they might depend on it that such items would never be submitted to them again.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)These charges have been allowed for a long time, and the money in the present case has actually been spent; therefore, I trust the Committee will not disallow the items.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORIf we do, you have plenty of money in the Exchequer.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER (Mr. CHILDERS)The money for this purpose has already been spent. The same thing has occurred in regard to the other charges.
MR. T. D. SULLIYANwanted to know what control the Committee had over some of these Votes? He had heard the plea now brought forward urged time after time when the Votes were put before the Committee for their approval. Some disapproval of a Vote and some challenge of it took place, and they were told—"It is no use challenging the Vote, the money has been spent, and the item must be passed." Was not the work of the Committee, under the circumstances, a delusion? Was it not wasting the time of the Committee to ask them, as a matter of form, to vote sums of money of this kind, telling them, when they ventured to discuss the items, that the money had been spent, and that objection was too late? If discussion now was too late, why had not the Committee had the chance of discussing the expenditure in time? It was idling away time, and a sham, to ask the Committee to consider these Votes.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHwished to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they would never overtake this Vote. Last year, and the year before, the stereotyped explanation that the Committee had just heard was given. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not allow a repetition of these extravagances. There were other Members of the Royal Family on whom the Garter would be conferred in the future, and the House 1509 had better be prepared for the contingency. The next item on the list was "Sir Edward Sullivan, Baronet, Equipage Money on appointment as Lord Chancellor of Ireland, £923 1s. 6d." He did not see why this sum should be paid—would the Government give any explanation of it?
§ MR. W. H. JAMESrose to acknowledge the statement which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made. He was glad that the Admiralty would be communicated with; but, at same time, he knew perfectly well that unless hon. Members signified their dissent by going into the Lobby against the Vote, nothing would be done.
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSIf we disallow the Vote the cash might be made up on the Treasury Bench.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to make a suggestion, which would probably be acceptable to the Government, and it was that whenever the Royal Family wanted a packet of this kind the cost should be put under the head of "Miscellaneous Irish Law Charges." He had noticed that night the alacrity with which the Radical Party strained at the gnat of expenses of Royal personages and swallowed the camel of Irish Law Charges. He congratulated the Committee upon the sudden zeal they now found in the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers), the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth). They found these hon. Members objecting to these miserable twopenny-halfpenny Votes, when the real objection ought to be to the Queen and the Royal Family. If they desired to have a Queen and a Royal Family in the country—["Question!"] Yes; that hit the Radical Party rather sorely, did it not? They would like to bring Her Majesty down to an extremely small sum; but that was not outspoken enough to be rebellion. They took exception to this miserable sum of £548 9s. 4d. for Royal installation fees, because it enabled them to blow off Re-publican steam, and prevented them from going any further. He always remarked in the character of the Radical Members that they had just sufficient spirit to make these protests without enough logic to go the whole way. There were several other items in this Vote which had nothing whatever to do with 1510 Royalty—and here he might remark that, as he was an extremely loyal person, he did not want to say anything against the granting of £548 9s. 4d. for the installation as a Knight of the Garter of Prince Albert Victor Christian Edward, but, on the contrary, regretted that the amount was not £5,548,000 9s. 4d., so that the attention of the country might have been more forcibly drawn to it. He wanted to know the meaning of the item of £923 1s. 6d. for "Equipage Money to Sir Edward Sullivan;" and also what was meant by "The Hon. T. H. W. Pelham, Remuneration, &c, for Municipal Charter Inquiry (Croydon), £81 15s. 6d.?" Did the Government make a present of this sum to Croydon; and, if so, why? Trouble enough was, as a rule, experienced in extracting money from the Government for archaeological inquiries. Why was Croydon so fortunate?
§ MR. COURTNEYThe item is for the new Charter.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, there was a sum also for "Charter inquiries" in connection with Henley-on-Thames, Eastbourne, Wallasey, and Bangor; but a more important question than that was the meaning of this charge of £923 1s. 6d. for equipage money to Sir Edward Sullivan on the occasion of his appointment as Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that this Vote was only a Civil Service Contingency Fund Vote, therefore the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was of no weight at all. The money had been drawn, no doubt, from the Civil Contingency Fund, and this Vote was simply to repay the sum so drawn out. If the Committee refused to pay for the conveyances of Royal personages, no harm would come of it, because the money had been paid. They could take measures now, however, to prevent the Government repeating these payments.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that, as had been pointed out, these charges for Royal personages were not the only items of travelling expenses. There was the item in regard to Sir Edward Sullivan. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland, on his appointment, came into the receipt of a most handsome salary, and it was not too much, therefore, to expect that he should pay for his equipage himself. He could understand money being 1511 voted for the expenses of Royal personages going to and from France; but why a sum should be presented to Sir Edward Sullivan for his equipage was more than he could understand. Then they had an item of £32 13s. 11d. for the expenses of a Dublin police officer to the Continent—probably "along the blue and winding Rhine" and up "the joyous Alps." What explanation had the Government to offer of this item?
§ MR. KENNYsaid, that before the Secretary to the Treasury answered the points just raised, he wished to remark that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland received a salary of £8,000 a year for doing very little; whereas the English Lord Chancellor got only £4,000 a year, £6,000 being his salary as Speaker of the House of Lords. He (Mr. Kenny) held that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was extravagantly overpaid, his enormous salary being a relic of the old corruption of that country. Why should not Sir Edward Sullivan pay his equipage money? There was another item—" Gold watch and chain presented to Mr. A. Inglott for services rendered in bringing to justice the murderers of British subjects in the massacre of 11th June, 1882, at Alexandria." He was surprised that the Representatives of the Opposition should allow the gift of a watch and chain to the informer against Suleiman Sami to pass without protest. He had at least expected that those who had made such pathetic and eloquent speeches in defence, or in vindication, of that very much ill-used person, Suleiman Sami, would have had something to say about this item. He had not expected that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), or the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlin-son), would have allowed the opportunity to pass without discussing the matter. He should like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he (Mr. Kenny) was not right in assuming that this gold watch and chain was a present to an informer who had caused the execution of a man innocent of crime?
§ MR. FRANCIS BUXTONsaid, he should like to have an explanation of the item, "Bank of British North America, Repayment of Fees paid for an extension of their Charter, £103 1s. 6d." Why should not this Bank pay the fees in connection with its own Charter, instead 1512 of the Treasury being called upon to pay them? He saw further on, "Bank of England for preparing Exchequer Bills and Bonds, 1st January, 1879, to 31st December, 1882, £227 12s." Was this payment made from year to year?
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he rose to a point of Order. He thought they were discussing the reduction of the Vote by £ 1,4 68 9s. 4d. If that Vote was rejected he should certainly take a Division against the item of £18 12s. 8d. for the "Hotel bill of the Messieurs de Lesseps during their visit to London in July, 1883, in connection with the Suez Canal negotiations." He was surprised the Government did not charge 1s. 6d. for the "boots." Then there was an item of 16s. for "Forage supplied for horses of the late Prince Imperial during the Zulu War," which ought to be objected to. In the meantime, however, he wished to know whether it was in Order to discuss questions over and above those in regard to which the reduction was moved?
THE CHAIRMANThe Motion is to reduce the Vote by £1,468 9s. 4d., which would include many of these items.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the Committee were, of course, aware that there was a Fund placed at the disposal of the Treasury for the purpose of meeting emergencies which could not be foreseen, and that all these payments had been made out of that Fund.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked what was the amount of that Fund?
§ MR. COURTNEYthought it was £120,000. Sometimes it was drawn upon heavily. The payment for the equipage of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was in addition to that official's salary. The item was customary; and, moreover, two or three great Officers of the State were entitled to equipage money on entering upon their Offices. As to the items mentioned in connection with Charters, they were for preliminary inquiries; and the item for the expenses of an officer of the Dublin Police Force on the Continent was one the necessity for which he very much regretted. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, after his arduous labours of last Session, had taken a brief holiday on the Continent, and he had been accompanied, for protection, by this police officer. The item was necessary, but it 1513 was very much to be regretted. The item in regard to the Bank of British North America was the result of an extension given to the Charter, in order to keep the Bank in its position until they had had time to carry out the agreement, which had been arrived at in consequence of negotiations with all the Banks for one uniform system. The Charter of the Bank was approaching its end; and as the Bank could not continue its business without a Charter it had been necessary to grant an extension. It was felt to be hard on the Bank to require it to pay the fees necessary for a merely temporary prolongation of the Charter, therefore they had been born by the Treasury. He could not give a clear and intelligible explanation of the item of £227 12s. 0d. for the Bank of England preparing Exchequer Bills and Bonds, 1st January, 1879, to 31st December, 1882. On the face of the account, however, it would appear that the expenditure had been incurred by the Bank as agent of the Government in preparing Exchequer Bills and Bonds. Why the Bank had not sent in an account from 1882 he could not say; but probably they would receive it later on, and would have to pay it.
§ MR. BUCHANANcalled attention to the item, "Expenses connected with the trial of several persons at Sierra Leone on a charge for murder at Onitsha, River Niger, £2,273 10s. 4d." It had been stated on a previous occasion by the Government that an Order in Council was being prepared, under which British Consuls would be able to deal with these cases occurring beyond the frontiers of the Colonies more easily and cheaply than at present. Had that Order been completed?
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYThis is a Foreign Office affair entirely. We have communicated with the Foreign Office, but I imagine that nothing yet has been done.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 45: Majority 19.—(Div. List, No. 38.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he would now take objection to the item of £18 12s. 8d., the hotel bill of the Messieurs de Lesseps during their visit to London in July, 1883. He could not 1514 understand why a charge of that kind should be put on the English people.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)I think the hon. Member will see that the item should not be resisted. M. de Lesseps came over to England last year at the invitation of Her Majesty's Government. He did not ask us to pay his hotel bill; but, as we ourselves had invited him to come over, we thought we owed him the courtesy of not allowing him to be put to any expense.
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSThat explanation is quite sufficient.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwanted to know how it was that the sum of 16s. was charged for forage for the Prince Imperial's horses?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER (Mr. CHILDERS)I have not the least idea. I am not the Secretary of State for War, and I can, therefore, give no explanation in the matter. I can only presume that it has been found that this sum has been wrongly charged to some other officer.
§ MR. WARTONIs not 16s. equivalent to a Napoleon?
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £102,000, 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 1884, for the Expenses of the Post Office Service.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that if the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion the Vote would be postponed.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.