HC Deb 27 February 1888 vol 322 cc1524-34

(4.) £1, Supplementary, Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

said, he believed that £1 was the smallest sum which it was competent for Parliament to Vote, and he had purposely made the charge £1 so that the Committee might see at once that the voting of the money was a mere matter of form. The Committee would understand that although the fees were sufficient to cover the whole cost of the service, there had been in the original Estimate a Vote for £68,920 for salaries. There had been an increase of fees, and, in some cases, an increase of salaries to the extent of £7,044; but, unless a Vote of the House was taken, those salaries could not be dealt with in the Appropriation Account, because they would never have received the sanction of Parliament. The Treasury had power to issue from time to time to the Board of Trade in aid of Votes of Parliament, out of the receipts arising from fees, stamps, and dividends, any sums which, might be necessary to meet the charge estimated by the Board of Trade in respect of salaries and expenditure. They had done this, but there would not be Parliamentary sanction of the salaries unless they took a Vote in this form. That was why the Vote was taken.

MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)

said, he supposed they might take it that the receipts from the working of the Bankruptcy Act wore in excess of the expenditure.

MR. WHITLEY (Liverpool, Everton)

said, the salary of the official receiver at Liverpool was £1,000; whereas, the official receiver at Manchester was paid a salary of £1,200 and had an assistant receiver who was paid £600. The business of Liverpool was considerably in excess of that at Manchester, and, therefore, it was thought that the salary of the Liverpool receiver should be placed on an equal footing with that of the Manchester receiver. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) whether there was anything included in the Vote for the purpose.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.)

said, there was nothing included in the Vote for the particular matter to which his hon. Friend referred. An application on the subject of this gentleman's salary had been sent to the Board of Trade, and, of course, it would be fully considered.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

said the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) that this was a formal matter must be taken with some qualification. A great deal more than £1 was involved in the Vote. When the Bankruptcy Act of 1883 passed through the House, an alteration was made in the Estimates. It was then agreed that a statement should be annually laid before Parliament, showing the amount of fees realized under the Bankruptcy Act, and the amount expended in the administration of the Act. Apparently there was no charge on the Public Treasury in connection with the Service, but the appearances were misleading. As a matter of fact there was just as large a charge against the Public Treasury in connection with this Vote as in connection with any other Vote in the Estimates, because if this money was not spent in extra salaries and in large travelling allowances it would go into the Exchequer. The officials under the Bankruptcy administration were at pre- sent battening upon the fees obtained in bankruptcy proceedings. Of course, as the charge did not come apparently as a direct charge on the Treasury, the House was not very much inclined to look with scrutiny into the matter; but he contended that it was the duty of the Treasury to keep down this Vote as much as possible. This involved an extra charge of £7,000, and was justified on the ground that the fees were enough to meet the outgoings. They were, unfortunately, more than enough, and that involved an injustice to the suitors and to the estates under the Bankruptcy administration. Seeing how much money was realized by these fees, it would be very much fairer, and more in accordance with the spirit which was manifested and expressed at the time the Act of 1883 was passed, if Bankruptcy fees were very considerably lowered, at any rate, in a great number of cases. He would like to know whether the Treasury had conferred with the Board of Trade as to the possibility of lowering some, at least, of the charges under Bankruptcy administration.

MR. JACKSON

said, the Treasury and the Board of Trade were constantly in communication with regard to this expenditure. Perhaps he ought to explain that, although the total sum was £7,044, it really was not an increase of £7,044, because there were the Subheads E and F, which, he believed, came under the Vote for the first time this year. Hitherto they had been paid out of the fees of the estate, and an arrangement had been made, which was thought to be more economical, whereby they should come on the Votes. He would bear in mind what the hon. Member had said regarding the fees. He believed that since 1883 the fees had amounted to £485,000, while the expenditure had been £460,000. There was, therefore, a balance of £25,000. The fees more than covered the cost, but the margin was rather small.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

said, he wished to point out that under the heading "Law Charges" there was a sum of £784 required in addition to the original Estimate, and, on turning over the page, he found that this was due to exceedingly heavy litigation. He desired to know whether this sum was made up in part of costs in connection with the prosecutions of supposed fraudulent bankrupts?

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he believed it was not so made up; on the contrary, it arose from an increase of litigation which was consequent upon the administration of estates by officials of the Bankruptcy Department and questions arising out of it upon which the decisions of the Court and of the House of Lords had had to be taken.

MR. PICKERSGILL

said, that some cases of criminal prosecution directed by the Board of Trade appeared to him to be most improper and even oppressive—cases in which juries could not reasonably be expected to convict. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he should look into the matter, and put a check, if necessary, upon the eagerness of over-zealous officials.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) £481, Supplementary, Colonial Office.

(6.) £2,277, Supplementary, Charity Commission.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

said, that the reason why a Supplementary Estimate was to be taken at all was that the Endowed Schools Commission's year ended on the 31st of December, and the Act under which the Commission was appointed was included each year in the Expiring Laws Bill. The ordinary financial year ended on the 31st of March, and, therefore, three months had to be provided for in a Supplementary Estimate. It had been suggested, and he thought it was desirable, that both years should end on the 31st of March.

MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

agreed that it would be desirable to make the change suggested by the Secretary to the Treasury and thus avoid the need of any Supplementary Estimate in this matter. He was sorry the hon. Member who was connected with the Charity Commission, and who was the ordinary means of communication between the Commission and the House, was unable to be in his place in consequence of an accident, but, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Sir William Hart Dyke) would be able to answer the question he (Mr. J. E. Ellis) wished to put. It would be remembered that the Endowed Schools Commission which sat in 1886 and 1887 were of opinion that the introduction of the representative principle in the Governing Bodies of the schools was a matter of great importance. In Section 12 of their Report they declared it to be essential that the sympathies of the localities should be enlisted by giving the people a large share in the management of the schools by representation, either direct or indirect, through elected bodies. The point he wished to call attention to was this—whether the Endowed School Commission was now really carrying into effect that recommendation. If the Committee would turn to the Report of the Endowed Schools Commission, it would be seen that there was an Amendment moved to the effect that the words "a large share" should be left out, to substitute a share in the management by "a majority" of representatives, and that this was only lost by the casting vote of the Chairman. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would agree that there was a strong expression of opinion on the part of the Committee that the representative principle should find a larger place on these bodies. The matter was not a Party one at all. It cut both ways, and he had no doubt that under the principle of election hon. Gentlemen on the opposite—the Conservative—side of the House, would find places on the governing bodies of the schools just as they did now. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would be able to give the Committee an assurance that the Endowed Schools Commissioners were carrying out the representative principle in the schemes they were framing.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, that as a Member of the Endowed Schools Commission he could say that it was the opinion of that Committee, after taking a considerable amount of evidence, that the Endowed Schools Commissioners in framing their schemes did have regard to the principle of representation. The Commissioners themselves gave evidence in support of the principle of representation. How soon it might be desirable to extend the principle was another question, but he did not think the granting or refusing of the money now asked for could be determined by the opinion of the Committee on that point. No doubt it was desirable that the Governing Bodies of these endowed schools should be in full sympathy with the sentiment of the localities and should have the confidence of the public. It was the policy of the Charity Commissioners, he believed, to act in accordance with that view, and they had accepted the decision of the Select Committee as being in accordance with their own well established system. That, however, was not the only element to be considered in the constitution of those bodies, as there were others which should be kept clearly in view. The question of how far the principle of representation should be extended would not be affected by this Vote.

THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE) (Kent, Dartford)

said, he apologized for taking part in the debate, and only rose because the hon. Member who usually answered for the Endowed Schools Commissioners, was not able to be in his place. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) had conceded the point urged by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. J.E. Ellis); that was to say, that the representative principle should have effect in these schemes so far as the localities were concerned. He would point out, however, that they might go too far with the representative element, and he did not think the hon. Member opposite desired that they should do that. A Motion had been brought forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for Lichfield Division of Staffordshire to deal with this question of representation, and he did not suppose that the Committee would go so far as that Motion. Though he (Sir William Hart Dyke) was not a Member of the Endowed Schools Commission, he was constantly in communication with the Commissioners, and he could assure the hon. Member, without any further communication with them, that they were perfectly well aware of the language used in the Report to which reference had been made. It would be found that reference was made to the proceedings of the Select Committee in the Report of the Commissioners themselves, so that that was evidence, at all events, that the Commissioners considered the recommendation of the Committee as worthy of their attention. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that so far as the Charity Commissioners were concerned they had taken note of the matter, and that in every scheme they were framing now, or would frame in future, they would take care that the representative principle should have a place.

Vote agreed to.

(7.) £7,100, Supplementary, Mint, including Coinage.

MR. MONTAGU (Tower Hamlets, Whitechapel)

said, he should like to ascertain some particulars with regard to this loss of £7,100 on foreign bronze coin, as it appeared to be equal to 33 per cent on the £22,578 withdrawn from circulation. Would the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) or the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) explain what portion of the loss arose from the sale of coins, and what portion was on account of expenses connected with it. There was a public announcement made, he thought, in July last, to the effect that the French Government intended to withdraw their copper coins. Now, the bulk of the coins which were withdrawn in this country were French, and that would have been a very favourable opportunity for getting rid of the French copper coin in this country without loss beyond the cost of carriage from London to Paris, which would have been about £1 per ton or less than £100 in all. He wished to know whether that intimation was conveyed to the Government and how they could account for the heavy loss?

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

said, that the intimation was conveyed to the Government, and they endeavoured first to ascertain whether the French Government would be willing to accept this coin. It must be borne in mind, however, that this foreign copper coin in circulation was not entirely French. There was some Italian coin and some belonging to other countries. He regretted to say that the negotiations with the French Government were not successful. They did not want the coin, and the arrangement to which the hon. Member referred—namely, the withdrawal of copper coin in France, had not been carried out. The Government further thought it possible that the French Government might say that they had got a large quantity of English copper coin, and might ask Her Majesty's Government to take it in exchange. Her Majesty's Government were perfectly ready to do this, but they had not the opportunity. The decision to call in this copper coin was taken very much with the sanction of every hon. Member of the House at the time. The circulation of this coin was considered to be such a great source of inconvenience and difficulty to a large number of poor people that it was determined to call it in. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he believed, insisted upon the matter being brought to a Vote of the House so as to emphasize what the loss on the transaction had been. The loss might really have been dealt with in the Mint account—the matter might have been handed over to the Mint and dealt with as Mint questions usually are dealt with. They were face to face with two alternatives—one was to melt the coin down as bullion and make it into copper coin, and the other was to sell it to the best bidder. He could not, with his commercial mind, admit the force of the sentimental objection to selling it to the best bidder. They hunted about and tried to find a buyer, and after some negotiation sold it at the best price they could get. He might point out that if they had melted it up the loss would have been £20,000, with the price at which copper was at that time. It seemed to him that it was much more economical to dispose of it as they did, though the arrangement was besot with some little difficulty, and it was only reasonable that they should try and save £15,000 out of the fire. There were certain expenses connected with the collection by the General Post Office—sending the coin to London and Paris, shipping charges and insurance, packing and sorting, and such like matters. In addition to all this there were about six or seven tons of coin which had been defaced and could not be passed. He believed that some of the enterprizing traders in London—he was not quite sure whether it was an eminent firm which deals in soap—were responsible for having stamped the coins with the names of their firms. Those coins could not be passed into currency. This coin having passed into the Mint at the rate of £400 a-ton, and having to be sold as bullion at the rate of about £45 per ton—for that was then the price, although it had gone up considerably since—this in itself resulted in considerable loss. He believed that under the circumstances the best arrangement had been made so far as the financial question was concerned. Hon. Gentlemen knew pretty much the circumstances at the time, and he hoped, therefore, that the Committee would approve of what had been done.

MR. MONTAGU

said, he did not think the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had answered his question as to what portion of the loss resulted from the sale of the French coin. He did not think there was any question about the policy of not melting the coin up, nor did he believe that there was any regulation to withdraw coin that had been defaced by being stamped with the advertisement of the soap merchant referred to; but he should like to know whether the Government had invited competition for the purchase of the good French coin. He had pointed out to the Secretary to the Treasury how a small portion of the coin could be sold at 4 per cent loss, and he failed to understand what the large increase in the loss incurred, as set forth in the Supplementary Estimate, was owing to. What he wished to ask was simply what proportion of the loss arose through the sale of French coin?

MR. JACKSON

said, he was afraid he could not state accurately what the proportion of the loss was; but he believed, taking it all round, that the coin was sold at a discount of 17½ per cent. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Montagu) would remember that he (Mr. Jackson) had consulted him as one from whom he had thought he would be likely to get valuable information. He had hoped that they would have got a better bargain than that they ultimately had to make. It was a question of getting rid of the French coin at once or spreading its sale over a long period of time. They had sent through the markets and had made the best inquiries they could. They had succeeded in getting some competition for the money. Ha could not say he was proud of the bargain which had been made, as he had hoped to make a better sale; still he believed that, considering all the circumstances, the best had been done.

MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)

said, he did not object to the course the Government had taken. The question had been a difficult one, and he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had acted for the best. What he could not understand was why, if this French coin was made of the same metal as that which was used in the manufacture of our own pence, it was not sent into the Mint, re-minted, and re-issued as English pence?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

said, that if that had been done the loss would have been £20,000. They might have manufactured the bronze into pence, but how would they have put the pence into circulation? They had put now as many pence into circulation as they could through the ordinary transactions of trade. Besides, if they had used the French money for the manufacture of English pence, they would have been buying the bronze bullion at a price infinitely above the market price at the time. It appeared to him that the wisest course had been taken in sending the money back to France. If they had themselves attempted to put the money into circulation in France they might have done so at the rate of about £100 a month, or in some similar way, but when they had £25,000 worth of centimes it was obvious that it would have taken years to dispose of the coin in this retail manner. Under the circumstances, he thought his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had taken the best course he could in getting offers from several French firms for the purchase of the coin. It would have been a very dangerous course, and one prejudicial to the public interest, to have smelted down the coin.

MR. CHILDERS

said, the right hon. Gentleman's answer was perfectly satisfactory. He had been under the impression that copper coin was still being issued; but if this was not the case, the plan adopted was clearly the best.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, he hoped that great care had been taken to prevent these French coins getting into circulation again amongst the poor. Was it understood that the coins had been sold out of the country?

MR. GOSCHEN

It was delivered in France.

Vote agreed to.