CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS. (Hansard, 1 March 1888)

§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)
said, he would like to know when the Assistant Commissioners — who had been appointed to take evidence for the Tolls Commission—would make their Report. Many months had elapsed since the Commission was appointed, and from the want of this report the work was much retarded.

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)
said, he had no control over the work of the Commissioners. If the hon. Gentleman desired it, however, he would make inquiries.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)
said, he rose to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £5,658 for Orders of Knighthood, Medals, etc. If the Committee would look at the Estimate they would see that they were now asking for nearly double the amount of the original Estimate. He had no idea who received these distinctions and why they were received. He had been under the impression that no one received an Order of Knighthood who had not done something to merit it. He could not understand why anyone should be knighted because Her Majesty had reigned 50 years. The expenditure seemed to be excessive in any case. Surely the original Estimate was sufficient for the purpose without doubling it, and he would like the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) to state on what basis the original Estimate was made; and whether application was made first to the Treasury, or whether the medals were scat- 1876 tered about profusely, and application to the Treasury made afterwards. He should have thought that a person receiving the insignia of knighthood would have paid for the insignia himself, because a piece of metal and a piece of ribbon could not cost very much, probably not more than 30s.; indeed, that would be rather an excessive price. He had not had one of the medals conferred upon him; but he had seen them, and they appeared to be about the size of a 5s. piece, and their intrinsic value would be about 3s.; besides which a large number of these medals were of bronze. The medals were scattered in the most profuse manner possible; some on hon. Gentlemen opposite, some, he understood, on Ladies of the Bedchamber, and other such ladies; and he was informed that cooks and kitchenmaids had also received them. Surely it was ridiculous for the country to be asked to vote money for these things at all, but still more ridiculous that they should afterwards be called upon to double the amount. For these reasons he should ask the Committee to support him in the Division he intended to take on his Motion to reduce the Vote.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)
said, the hon. Member was entirely mistaken with regard to the medals which he believed had been distributed so profusely. The medals were not included in this Vote at all, or in any other Vote.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
If the hon. Gentleman looked at the Vote he would see "Orders of Knighthood, Medals, etc."

§ MR. JACKSON
said, that the title of the original Sub-head of the Vote had been preserved. The hon. Member asked whether the sanction of the Treasury had been obtained, to which he replied that the sanction of the Treasury was first obtained to the expenditure and the enlargement of the Orders given. The occasion on which these Orders were conferred was, no doubt, a very great one; hon. Members should bear in mind that this and the Vote asked for in respect to Westminster Abbey 1877 were the only sums voted by Parliament in connection with the celebration of the Jubilee. He did not think the Committee wished to discuss the details of the Vote, and after the explanation he had given he trusted the hon. Gentleman would allow it to pass.

§ MR. PICTON (Leicester)
said, it was almost amusing to observe the way in which these Estimates were presented. They had here a demand of £5,658 for Orders of Knighthood and medals, but not the slightest information was conveyed to the Committee as to the composition of the Vote. He asked where were the details of those Orders; who had received them; what had been done to deserve them; could the recipients not afford to buy the insignia themselves, and what was the cost of the particular insignia given to each individual? He contended that when Parliament was asked to sanction these payments there should be full information as to details. His experience went to show that what was meant by consulting Parliament about the expenditure of public money, was that the public money was spent first and the sanction of Parliament asked afterwards. As had been observed by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), the estimate of these insignia had been absolutely doubled, and he (Mr. Picton) said that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in that House were very much mistaken in supposing that Votes of this kind were regarded as trivial by the people of the country. On the contrary, they were closely watched; they created more irritation than they were worth, as everyone would know who had had experience and was able to judge of public opinion. But while these payments were made there were some important National Institutions which were starved. The expenditure on the British Museum was £5,000 below the Estimate, and he said it would be far more worthy of the dignity of that House to bestow £5,000 on the British Museum than upon such matters as were asked for in this Vote. He protested most earnestly that these Votes were being regarded with increasing dissatisfaction by a large section of the people, and he should, of course, feel it his duty to support the Motion of his hon. Friend.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury 1878 has not replied to my questions—what were these insignia and what was their cost?

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY) (Wigton)
said, he should not go into the general question that had been raised, because, as had been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), the occasion did not arise for doing so on a Supplementary Vote, but there were some details which he was able to give. The largest expenditure was connected with the Military Order of the Bath, and amounted to upwards of £4,000; that on the Civil Order amounted to £1,900, and the remaining principal part of the expenditure was almost entirely upon honours conferred upon distinguished visitors from the Colonies who visited this country on the great occasion of last year's celebration. He reminded the Committee that the insignia were returnable upon the demise of the holder. Alterations in the Statute relating to the different Orders were being made, to which the Queen had given her assent.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, he wished to know what was the cost to the Treasury of the insignia of the Military Orders on which £4,000 had been spent. He had seen these insignia, but he had not seen the blaze of jewellery which one would infer belonged to them. He wanted to know the absolute cost to the Treasury of each of these Orders.

§ Mr. R. T. REID (Dumfries, &c.)
asked if the insignia had ever been returned?

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL
said, in almost every case, with the exception of certain foreign holders, they had been returned. The explanation he had given he trusted would satisfy the hon. Member.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, he must again ask the hon. Gentleman for the particulars.

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL
said, the Collar of the Military Grand Cross of the Bath cost £356, and was returnable. The Badge £38 10s.; the ribbons, stars, and other things came to about £20, and these latter were not returnable.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, he now asked, whether persons were allowed to send in contracts for these things?

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)
said, that when Gentlemen 1879 were appointed to Offices under the Crown as Cabinet Ministers they had to provide their uniforms at their own expense, and was it a fact that a man who was made a K.C.B. or a G.C.B. had to be supplied at the expense of the country with the insignia of the Order?

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL
said, he had stated that these were returnable on the death of the holders, and were not the property of the Knights.