| CLASS I. | |
| Royal Palaces and Marlborough House | £ |
| 6,000 | |
| Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens | 15,000 |
| Houses of Parliament Buildings | 6,000 |
| Admiralty, Extension of Buildings | 5,000 |
| Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain | 9,000 |
| Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain | 5,000 |
| Diplomatic and Consular Buildings | 6,000 |
| Revenue Department Buildings | 56,000 |
| Public Buildings, Great Britain | 30,000 |
| Surveys of the United Kingdom | 40,000 |
| Harbours, &c, under Board of Trade, and Lighthouses Abroad | 4,000 |
| Peterhead Harbour | 3,000 |
| Caledonian Canal | — |
| Rates on Government Property | 90,000 |
| Public Works and Buildings, Ireland | 40,000 |
| Railways, Ireland | 30,000 |
| CLASS II. | |
| United Kingdom and England:— | |
| House of Lords, Offices | 7,000 |
| House of Commons, Offices | 5,000 |
| Treasury and Subordinate Departments | 15,000 |
| Home Office and Subordinate Departments | 15,000 |
| Foreign Office | 6,000 |
| Colonial Office | 7,000 |
| Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments | 2,500 |
| Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments | 25,000 |
| Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade | 3 |
| Board of Agriculture | 8,000 |
| Charity Commission | 7,000 |
| Civil Service Commission | 7,000 |
| Exchequer and Audit Department | 10,000 |
| Friendly Societies, Registry | 1,500 |
| Local Government Board | 27,000 |
| Lunacy Commission | 2,000 |
| Mercantile Marine Fund, Grant in Aid | — |
| Mint (including Coinage) | 10 |
| National Debt Office | 2,500 |
| Public Record Office | 4,000 |
| Public Works Loan Commission | 1,500 |
| Registrar General's Office | 10,000 |
| Stationery Office and Printing | 65,000 |
| Woods, Forests, &c. Office of | 6,000 |
| Works and Public Buildings, Office of | 8,000 |
| Secret Service | 6,500 |
| Scotland:— | |
| Secretary for Scotland | 2,000 |
| Fishery Board | 4,000 |
| Lunacy Commission | 1,000 |
| Registrar General's Office | 1,500 |
| Board of Supervision | 1,500 |
| Ireland:— | |
| Lord Lieutenant's Household | 1,000 |
| Chief Secretary and Subordinate Departments | 7,000 |
| Charitable Donations and Bequests Office | 400 |
| Local Government Board | 15,000 |
| Public Record Office | 1,000 |
| Public Works Office | 7,000 |
| Registrar General's Office | 4,000 |
| Valuation and Boundary Survey | 4,000 |
| CLASS III. | |
| United Kingdom and England:— | |
| Law Charges | 8,000 |
| Miscellaneous Legal Expenses | 6,000 |
| Supreme Court of Judicature | 55,000 |
| Land Registry | 1,200 |
| County Courts | 6,000 |
| Police Courts (London and Sheerness) | 1,000 |
| Police, England and Wales | 10,000 |
| Prisons, England and the Colonies | 100,000 |
| Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain | 70,000 |
| Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum | 6,000 |
§ (8.5.) MR. H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)I wish to raise a preliminary question on this Vote, and, according to the precedent established some few years ago, this is the proper time to do so. The question I wish to raise is as to the mode in which the Government have presented this year's Estimates for the Civil Service. Two years ago the Government, for some reason or another, adopted a new way of presenting the Estimates. It was brought before the Speaker in the Chair by my hon. Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), and the Speaker then told him that the proper and ordinary time for raising that question would be on the Vote on Account in Committee of Supply, and immediately the House went into Committee of Supply, and the Vote on Account was proposed, the question was at once raised, then debated, and ultimately decided by the House. I, therefore, now call the attention of the House to the novel mode in which the Civil Service Estimates are presented for this year. The House will observe that the total Civil Service Estimates for the year 1892–93 are stated at £17,310,000, whilst last year they were £17,535,000. Any ordinary person would suppose, and the Press has already supposed, that there was a very considerable reduction in the Civil Service Estimates, amounting to something like £224,000. But that is not the case; there is a very large increase in the Civil Service Estimates this year—an increase not only absorbing that large decrease of £224,000, but, as far as I can make out, an increase of upwards of £532,000. The House will agree with me that the mode of presenting the Estimates in which it is 1116 impossible at once to see what is the true financial position is not a new mode to be introduced, except with the sanction and full knowledge of the House of Commons. I can tell the House how this change has been effected and explain the discrepancy. Hitherto the House has voted for each Department a certain sum representing the entire cost of that Department. There have been Appropriations in Aid—i.e., receipts with respect to the Departments which have been voted on the face of the Estimates, and these receipts have been paid into the Treasury and have formed part of the Miscellaneous Revenue. Last year's amount voted for County Courts was £417,000. The County Courts produced last year, and are estimated to produce this year, £380,000. In this Vote, by the new mode of presenting the accounts, the Treasury have deducted that £380,000. They ask the House to vote for County Courts £37,000, and they claim a reduction on the County Court Vote of £394,000, there being not one shilling of reduction—in fact rather an increase. The answer to this will be, this is a matter of keeping the Accounts. But our mode of keeping our Accounts has been to show the whole expenditure, not only for the purpose of checking the expenditure, but also to check the expenditure of one year with the expenditure of another year. And a system has now been introduced which completely upsets all that mode of calculation, which is a mystification of our Accounts, and which tends to deprive the House of Commons of the effective control which it is entitled to have over the Civil Service Estimates of the year. It is an extraordinary thing that the Government should, two years ago, have introduced a novel mode of presenting the Accounts. Then the House of Commons practically resolved that no such change should be made in presenting the Estimates to the House, except with the authority of the House and with the concurrence of the House. On that occasion the House referred the Estimates to the consideration of the Public Accounts Committee. This was the Resolution of the House— 1117
That the statement laid before the House showing the arrangement of Votes on the Estimates as compared with the Estimates of the preceding year be referred to the Committee on Public Accounts.They went to the Committee on Public Accounts; that Committee very carefully examined the whole question, and dealt with this change in a manner which commended itself to the House. They said—In both Estimates and Accounts it is very desirable, from the point of view of Parliament, that there should be great facility for comparing one year's outlay with that of another.That is my case against the mode of presenting the present Estimates this year. The Treasury has destroyed the mode which existed for comparing the expenditure of this year with preceding years. It has done that without the sanction of the House, and the point on which I wish to lay the greatest stress is that a grave step of this character, involving the relations between the Treasury and the House of Commons, ought not to be taken without the distinct authority and sanction of the House itself. The House has constituted a Committee on Public Accounts, but their Resolutions have to be recognised by Parliament. It is said the Public Accounts Committee have sanctioned this change, but they have not. Neither they nor the Treasury were authorised to do such a thing without the sanction of Parliament. I do not wish to argue the point further now. There may be convincing reasons in favour of this change; but such a change has no right to be initiated in the Estimates without the previous sanction of the House of Commons. I move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
§ (8.15.) THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,) ChathamThe right hon. Gentleman appears to convey that in what has been done there was some fraud, but that is not the case. The mode in which I have submitted the Estimates to the House is in accordance with the practice of my predecessor. To the House of Commons there is given an account 1118 of every single penny that is paid, and every single shilling that is voted in the Estimates by Parliament. This practice, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, is not a new one—it has been going on for years. The practice began to grow up of taking the receipts made by a public Department as what are called Appropriations in Aid. The Department is treated as carrying on a certain business which it costs a certain amount of money to sustain; but which, on the other hand, makes a certain amount of money, and the Vote of Parliament is taken, not upon every single shilling of expenditure incurred by the Department, but upon the balance. For instance, there is the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade. According to the theory which the right hon. Gentleman thinks ought to prevail, Parliament ought to vote all salaries and expenses of all officers employed in that Department, and then take all the receipts made in the Department as extra receipts to be paid into the Exchequer. But, instead of that, from the time the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade was first established, Parliament has adopted the plan of voting some nominal sum to the Department, because, on the whole, it generally makes receipts which more than cover the outlay. There is the Ordnance Factory Vote, which is treated in precisely the same way. Taking the Bankruptcy Department Vote for the present year, I find the actual cost of the Department is no less than £121,249; but, inasmuch as the Appropriations in Aid amount to £121,235, the actual amount asked for is only £14. "Oh!" said the right hon. Gentleman opposite, "that is done on a sort of pretence. That is a great fraud upon the public, for you are only asking £14, when you are really spending a large sum of money." But, last year, only £10 was asked for. This plan, then, as I have shown, has been going on for a great number of years; it is no new principle, only it has been carried further from year to year. Fresh sums have been changed from the name of extra receipts to the position of Appropriations in Aid, and among them is the particular item to which the right hon. Gentleman has called attention, 1119 the County Courts Vote. That is now treated in the same way as the Vote for the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade, and as the Ordnance Factory Vote; and, inasmuch as, on the whole, the maintenance of County Courts is a profitable thing to the Government, a nominal sum is taken for the purpose of bringing the establishment of County Courts under Government control. It is said that this has been done without the authority of Parliament. But it has been done with the knowledge of the Public Accounts Committee. That Committee has never complained of it, and Parliament has never complained of it. I have no doubt when the right hon. Gentleman was himself Financial Secretary to the Treasury precisely the same system went on. Not only is that so, but actually the Legislature itself on the Statute Book has sanctioned it. Section 2 of the Public Accounts and Charges Act, 1891, provided—
All monies directed by or in pursuance of any Act, whether passed before or after this Act or by the Treasury, to be applied as Appropriations in Aid of money provided by Parliament for any purpose, shall be deemed to be money provided by Parliament for that purpose, and shall, without being paid into the Exchequer, be applied, audited and dealt with accordingly, and, so far as it is in fact not so applied, shall be paid into the Exchequer.There is the Parliamentary sanction, and, in view of all I have stated, it is really monstrous to ask the Committee of Supply, when it has arrived at the Vote on Account, which must be taken in the course of the present week, to interrupt its proceedings by moving to report Progress.
(8.25.) SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe)I should perhaps not have taken part in this Debate, or any interest in the question which has been raised, if it had not been that reference has been made to the Public Accounts Committee, and also that, in the Memorandum now in the hands of Members, prepared by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, he very modestly does not take to himself credit for the changes which he has introduced, but imputes the paternity of them to the Public Accounts Committee. The right 1120 hon. Gentleman has said that these changes have received the sanction of the Public Accounts Committee, and the only argument he brought forward was that changes of the character of transferring receipts from the category of Extra Receipts to the category of Appropriations in Aid have from to time been made without any fault being found by the Public Accounts Committee. But that is a very different thing from the statement made in this Memorandum, which is to the effect that the whole policy of taking receipts in aid of Votes has the support of the Public Accounts Committee. That statement is made in close connection with the further statement that very considerable changes in amount, in the comparison of these Estimates with the Estimates for the previous year, are due to the fact that large sums have been transferred from the category of Extra Receipts to the category of Appropriations in Aid. I would say, on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, that as far as I have had any knowledge of it during the last six years, and so long as I have been Chairman, that Committee have made no recommendation whatever upon which the right hon. Gentleman can have any right to make so great a change in the character of the Accounts. I hear the present Secretary to the Treasury and the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury say there is no change. I think they are very well aware that there is a very great change which will make it impossible, taking this year's Estimates and the Accounts which follow upon the Estimates of this year, to carry out a comparison between the Accounts and Estimates of this year and the Accounts and Estimates of preceding years. In every case in which it is attempted to make a comparison between the Estimates of this year and the Estimates of previous years, or to compare the Accounts which should follow the Estimates, this change will have to be taken into account, and it will be necessary to discover what sums which were formerly treated as Extra Receipts have been brought into the account as Appropriations in Aid. I do not wish for a moment to express any opinion as to whether this step, involv- 1121 ing as it does a wide interruption of continuity in the Votes, is a good change or a bad change. I wish to say nothing whatever on that subject. It may be a subject which will have to be considered by the Public Accounts Committee. In 1890 the Government caused letters to be written to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, informing him that a number of changes had been introduced in to the Estimates, changes in the number and amount of the Votes, changes which greatly affected the continuity of the Estimates and the continuity of the Accounts. The Public Accounts Committee considered that matter, and came to the conclusion that they could take no action whatever upon these letters, but they must report the matter to the House. The House referred the question of the new form of the Estimates to the Public Accounts Committee for their consideration, and upon that the Committee reported, making a number of modifications and changes in that new form which were adopted by the Treasury, and have become the form in which the Army, Navy, and Civil Service Estimates are presented to Parliament. The proposal that money coming from various sources should be deducted from the Estimates has never come before the Public Accounts Committee in its widest form during the six years I have been a Member of that Committee. I have looked back and find that the history of the matter throws some light on the question. About twelve years ago there arose a disposition to make a considerable change of this character in the Estimates for the Army and Navy, and a very elaborate scheme was prepared by the Treasury for the purpose. The scheme was submitted to the Public Accounts Committee, and various great authorities—including Mr. Raikes, Sir T. E. May, and others—were consulted. The Report of a Departmental Committee and the opinions of these authorities were laid before the Public Accounts Committee, together with a complete scheme by the Treasury for dealing with the Army and Navy Accounts on a principle which the right hon. Gentleman has apparently this year applied to the Civil Service Estimates. Is the Secretary to the Trea- 1122 sury aware that the Minute of 1881 distinctly made allusion to the fact that the Public Accounts Committee had not sanctioned the scheme for the Civil Service Estimates, but only for the Army and Navy Estimates? The matter was very fully considered by the Public Accounts Committee, Lord Knutsford being in the chair. Discussions went on between the Treasury, the Auditor General, and the Public Accounts Committee in 1881–2–3, and in those years there are Reports of the Committee and Treasury Minutes dealing with the question how far, to what extent, and under what safeguards changes of this kind should be made in the Army and Navy Accounts. No such course was taken with regard to the Civil Service Accounts, and it was deliberately determined by the Treasury and the Public Accounts Committee that it was undesirable until further experience had been gained, to introduce the changes into the Civil Service Accounts. The Public Accounts Committee ultimately took a more advanced view of this point than the Treasury, and favoured a gradual change in the Civil Service Estimates. But the Treasury held back. Since 1883, however, certain tentative changes on certain special Votes were introduced in the Civil Service Estimates, and that without any special sanction.
§ MR. JACKSONOr objection.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHOr objection by the Public Accounts Committee, but that is very different to any great change of this kind, which is exactly the same kind of change, and almost of the same magnitude, as that made in the Army and Navy Estimates. Under those circumstances, Mr. Courtney, I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can lead the House to suppose that the Public Accounts Committee are responsible for the change he has introduced. On the contrary, as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Fowler) has pointed out, the Public Accounts Committee in 1890, and also in 1888, took the view that above all things there should be continuity in the Accounts, and that when there is a change which affects continuity, the House, and probably the Public Accounts Com- 1123 mittee, ought to be consulted before the change is made. I hope the Committee will feel that I have been careful to say nothing as to the merits of this change, whether it is good or bad; but all I have done is to put the Committee in possession of the actual facts, and to remove any misapprehension which might arise from the right hon. Gentleman's statement and his memorandum.
§ (9.10.) MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.)I think out of the right hon. Gentleman's own mouth we may condemn him. He shows very clearly—and draws the attention of the House to the fact—that he has adopted as a system what had been with full consent adopted with regard to the Army and Navy Votes, but had only been adopted with regard to a very few Votes in the Civil Service. But here he adopts the application of Extra Receipts as Appropriations in Aid to be applied wherever possible all through the Civil Service Estimates. It becomes very clear what the nature of the change is. Practically, you are putting three-quarters of a million into the Civil Service Estimates, and leaving the ordinary person to imagine that the Estimates are reduced by that amount. But so far from being decreased, the Estimates have been considerably increased; and we object, not only to the change being made, but also to the mode in which it has been effected. I will offer no opinion of this change on a system of keeping accounts; but from the point of view of one who takes an interest in the discussions on Supply, the change is a very wide one, and renders it very much more difficult for hon. Members taking up Votes as they come forward in the House to discuss them and compare them with the Votes of previous Sessions. Take, for example, the Vote for Scotch law charges. On that Vote there seems to have been a saving of £30,000—the difference between £92,000 and £120,000; but when we come to look into the matter, we find that the whole of this decrease is due to the fact that these cash receipts are now put into the Estimates as Appropriations in Aid. The case with respect to the law charges in England is the same, the charges for this year being £386,000 and for last year £325,000. Anyone who attempts to compare 1124 these Votes is placed at a great disadvantage under this new system of laying the Estimates before us, and we all wish that accounts should be presented in such a way that hon. Members can see quickly the growth of the expenditure and the manner in which the money has been spent. But there are also great political objections to the change. The subject of making such a change had been under the discussion of the Treasury and the Public Accounts Committee for some years; and the Public Accounts Committee, in 1881, in their third Report, mention a general expression of opinion that this system should be introduced. The first proposal made was that the system should be extended all through the Estimates, but eventually it was decided to exclude the Civil Service and Revenue Departments. The House had ample opportunity of thoroughly considering the matter, with the advice of eminent authorities; and the result of its deliberations was the Treasury Minute of 1st February, 1882, in which assent is given to the proposals of the Public Accounts Committee, and this system of Extra Receipts is applied to the Navy and Army Estimates alone. Undoubtedly the question of adopting this system generally with regard to the Civil Service Estimates was not in view. But we find that, two years ago, the right hon. Gentleman, who is now Chief Secretary, and who then held the post of Secretary to the Treasury, introduced a large change in the manner in which the Civil Service Estimates were presented. The Committee upstairs had recommended that Votes should not be grouped without the consent of the Public Accounts Committee, and so again, on the present occasion, his successor has introduced this very great alteration in the manner in which Votes are presented to the House without having given any notice to the House itself, or having submitted the scheme to the Public Accounts Committee and received its sanction.
§ (9.25.) SIR JOHN GORSTI desire to congratulate hon. Gentlemen opposite on the success of their little surprise. Just before this Vote was entered upon, a rumour reached me that some extraordinary attack, of the nature of which no information was 1125 given, was going to be made on the Government. The attack was developed by the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) and assumed the shape of an allegation that the Government in general and the unfortunate Secretary to the Treasury in particular had accomplished a kind of revolution in the mode in which the Civil Service Estimates had been laid before Parliament by reason of the appropriation in aid of the sums received by the various Departments. I was completely taken by surprise, whereas the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fowler) had his speech cut and dried; the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee was ready with a number of examples taken from recent times to overwhelm me with confusion, and after them the hon. Member for Edinburgh went into the more remote past to show that my conduct was unexampled and most objectionable. In the speech which I previously made to the Committee I had nothing to fall back upon but recollections of the past, which, after a lapse of years, are apt to become a little vague and confused. I have been a Member of the Public Accounts Committee; I sat there under the Presidency of Lord Knutsford, and in 1886 I was the Chairman of that Committee. But since that time my attention has been called to the affairs of the remote dependency of India, and I could only recollect vaguely that the Public Accounts Committee had considered this matter, and expressed its approval of the course which was adopted by the Treasury, and I was unable to refer textually to the passages which would have amply justified what I said. I am now able to offer a complete explanation to the Committee. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, in his admirable speech, stopped short in 1883, and contented himself with saying that the Committee had dealt further with the matter. I will now tell the Committee how it dealt further with the matter. I was a Member of the Public Accounts Committee at that time, and in its second Report was a passage which will be heard by hon. Members with astonishment and surprise. It is as follows:—
Your Committee desire to call attention to the correspondence which has passed between 1126 the Treasury and the Comptroller and Auditor General upon the question of extending to the Civil Service Votes the system lately adopted in respect of the application of extra receipts in the case of the Naval and Military Services. Your Committee approve of the step taken by the Comptroller and Auditor General in adopting this system to the Vote for the Exchequer and Audit Department; and they concur generally in his view that one uniform system should as far as possible be observed throughout the Services. They will be glad, therefore, to see a gradual extension of the system as occasion offers to those Civil Service Votes which most readily admit of it. At the same time, they do not deny the force of the observations in the Treasury Letter of the 19th December, 1882, nor do they desire in any way unduly to hasten the action of the Treasury.Let the Committee pause for a moment and observe what was the situation at that time. The Public Accounts Committee was urging the extension of this system to the Civil Service Votes, but the Treasury did not wish to go too fast. The Committee recommended one uniform principle, but did not desire unduly to hasten the action of the Treasury. A Treasury Minute of 20th November of the same year sets forth the actual position, and said that the Comptroller and Auditor General would doubtless report how far the main condition on which the Committee assented to the change had been carried out, which condition was that the Departments should not dispose of larger sums than Parliament intended to place at their disposal. The Treasury Minute proceeds thus—It may be found that some further limitation or some modification of the regulations is desirable.… At the same time they note and agree in the view of the Committee that one uniform principle of dealing with extra receipts should as far as possible be observed throughout the Services.After I have read these passages will anyone in this Committee assert that this change, which the Government are accused of making without any authority whatever in the present year, has not been part of a gradual change made by the Treasury in dealing with the Civil Service Estimates in accordance with the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee in 1883? They then desired to see a gradual extension of the system, and if the Public Accounts Committee of 1883; could in its collective capacity have considered the Estimates of 1892–93, 1127 ten years after, they would have been happy to see the progress which that gradual extension of the system had made in the Civil Service Estimates. Really anybody who heard the early part of this Debate would suppose that something had been done this year which never had been done before.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERHear, hear!
§ SIR JOHN GORSTAnd that is still the idea of the right hon. Gentleman. I stated when I troubled the Committee before, and I state again, that there has been nothing done this year inconsistent with the gradual progress made in extending this principle approved and recommended by the Public Accounts Committee to the Civil Service Estimates. In the case of every new Vote like the Bankruptcy Vote, or the Ordnance Factories Vote, the principle has been at once applied, and the Treasury has been for many years past gradually extending the principle as far as possible to all the Civil Service Votes—
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERGive us an illustration.
§ SIR J. GORSTAnd unless checked by any adverse opinion of Parliament, the Treasury will no doubt go on extending the principle as it has done during the past ten years. I hope, whether this principle be right or wrong, that I have at last disabused the Committee of the idea that it is peculiar to the present Estimates. On the contrary it has been done in accordance with the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee of 1883, so carefully kept from the knowledge of the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the present Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth) and by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) who followed him.
SIR. U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHMr. Courtney, I rise to order. I did not carefully keep anything from the Committee. I did mention that the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury in 1883 wished that there should be a gradual extension of the system as applied to the Naval and Military Estimates to some of the Civil Service Estimates, and I read the words "to those Civil Service Votes which most readily admit of it." 1128 Therefore I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the imputation that I carefully kept the view of the Public Accounts Committee from the Committee.
§ SIR JOHN GORST; The right hon. Gentleman fails to understand the Report of the Public Accounts Committee of 1883.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHThe right hon. Gentleman said that I carefully withheld that Report from the Committee. I have just now stated that I myself mentioned the year 1883, and I noticed that the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Jackson) cheered what I said when I stated that I had mentioned that the Public Accounts Committee at that time took the view that this change should be extended to those Civil Service Estimates which most readily admit of it.
§ SIR JOHN GORSTI do not wish in any way to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. What happened was this. The following statement is made in the Memorandum laid before this House: "It may be added that the policy of applying receipts in aid of Votes has not only the support of the Public Accounts Committee, but has now been recognised by Parliament." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler) challenged that statement.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERHear, hear!
§ SIR JOHN GORSTAnd he challenges it now. He said the policy of applying receipts in aid of Votes has not the support of the Public Accounts Committee.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTHear, hear!
§ SIR JOHN GORSTAnd that is what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) cheers.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHI refer to the statement that I carefully withheld something from the Committee. I have a right to claim that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw it.
§ SIR JOHN GORSTI am explaining, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me. That statement which is laid before the House was challenged and contested by the right hon. Gentle- 1129 man the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler). I was challenged to produce my authority for that statement. I was only able, when I replied at that time, to found myself upon my general recollections. I said, "I am sure it is so, but I can only say from recollection." What follows the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton? First of all, the right hon. Gentleman the present Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts (Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth), who has evidently made a study during the last day or two of the previous Reports of the Committee, is ready with a speech, and he quotes Report of the Committee after Report, and he says, "Nothing of the kind," and supports the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. He, unfortunately, began after 1883. Then he was followed by an hon. colleague of his (Mr. Buchanan), a present member of the Committee on Public Accounts, who begins at a very much earlier period, but, unfortunately, leaves off just before 1883; and this Report of the Committee of 1883, which amply justifies the statement made in the Memorandum laid before Parliament, is not referred to either by the right hon. Gentleman the present Chairman of Public Accounts or by the hon. Member his colleague. I should say it is referred to. It is mentioned, but they did not read the Report, and they did not tell the Committee that it amply justified the statement made in the Memorandum. Of course, I used the expression "carefully abstained from telling the Committee" as a figure of rhetoric. I did not intend in any way to attribute any wilful duplicity to the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee or to his colleague, but I say it is unlucky that the one should have begun after this critical date of 1883; and the other should have stopped short just before it. In justice to me, in justice to the Government, that paragraph should have been read which was not read until I read it. That is the position. Instead of the Government having, by the form of the present Estimates, done anything new, which has not had the sanction of Parliament and the Public Accounts Committee, they have been 1130 pursuing that course which was recommended to them by the Public Accounts Committee in 1883, the gradual introduction of this system into the Civil Service Accounts; they have been pursuing a system which has had the sanction of Parliament in an Act passed last Session, and there is no reason why the proceedings of the Committee of Supply should be interrupted by this attempt to fasten on the Government an innovation of which they are entirely innocent.
§ (9.40.) SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)I think, Sir, if there were anything wanting to complete the catalogue of the indiscretions of Her Majesty's Government, it would be the scene which, during five-and-twenty years in Parliament, I have never before witnessed, of a bitter, personal, insulting attack by the Secretary to the Treasury on the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. If there is anything that the House of Commons has desired, it has been to maintain the authority of the Public Accounts Committee, which is composed of gentlemen who render great service to this House and to the country, who are supposed to be the guardians and the critics of the transactions of the Treasury; and that a person holding the office of Secretary to the Treasury should get up and—I will use the word, for there is no other word after he has refused to withdraw—insult the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in the presence of the House of Commons, is, in my opinion, one of the most foolish, as well as one of the most disgraceful things I have ever known. Anybody who has heard the statement of the Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts must have recognised that it was a most moderate and a most accurate statement. He stated the position—and he did not introduce into it any controversial matter—with reference to this specific recommendation. When you talk of the Committee on Public Accounts dealing with the Estimates of this year you do not mean the Committee on Public Accounts of ten years ago. You mean the Public Accounts Committee of this year, and last year, and who are likely to have to deal with the Estimates of 1131 next year, and anything more trifling and evasive than the arguments of the Secretary to the Treasury going back to a stale Report of a period even antecedent, I believe, to his own autobiographical reminiscences which took up so large a part of his speech, is absurd. Like myself, he has the misfortune not to be young. Certainly that is not what anybody would understand by this Report and Statement, which I can only call a most evasive and delusive statement, signed by the Secretary to the Treasury. When he says that this great change in the form of the Estimates is approved by the Committee on Public Accounts, no man would have believed that that meant the Committee on Public Accounts of ten yeaas ago, and that the present Committee on Public Accounts had never had cognisance of this matter at all. Further, as far as I can understand, the statement put forward to-night by the Secretary to the Treasury is absolutely inconsistent with the facts of the case. First of all, I will lay down this proposition, which cannot be denied, that any serious change in the form of the Estimates must be submitted first of all to the House itself, and will then be referred by the House to the Commitee on Public Accounts, not of ten years ago, but of to-day. That was the course that was followed under what I will call the moderate; and the prudent guidance of the late First Lord of the Treasury who was observant of the traditions of this House; and when in the year 1890, the Government I dare say per incuriam had proposed Estimates in a shape materially different from a former period, the moment it was brought under the cognisance of Mr. Smith, with that knowledge of the practice of the House, and with that respect for its traditions which characterised his leadership of this House, he at once moved, that very night, a Resolution that the change in the form of the Estimates should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee. He did not get up—he was incapable of it—and insult the Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts. He did not tell him that he had wilfully withheld from the Committee something which he had not withheld 1132 at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for the business of this House at this moment, and for the business of the Treasury. I ask him—will he make the Motion Mr. Smith made, which was on the 26th February, 1890, that the form of the changes proposed in the Estimates shall be referred to the Committee on Public Accounts, because if will not do that, it is in vain to ask Gentlemen to perform the duties which the Committee on Public Accounts perform. Objection was taken that there was a considerable change in the ordinary form of the Estimate. Now, Mr. Smith recognised the fact that no material change is to be made in the Estimates, unless it has been previously approved of by the House of Commons, and that when a change in the Estimates is proposed by the Treasury that then it should be sent by the House to the Committee on Public Accounts before it is adopted. What happened in that year was that the Government at that time had some respect for the Committee on Public Accounts. That was before the accession of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. Whenever they were going to introduce a change in the Estimates they wrote to the Committee on Public Accounts, and asked them whether they would approve of it. The Committee on Public Accounts very properly said, "That is not our business unless it is referred to us by the House." Thereupon the matter was referred to the House, and thereupon, as I have said, a Resolution was moved that the Statement—not the Estimates—laid before the House, seeing the arrangement of the Votes in the Estimates for 1890–91, as compared with that in the Estimates for 1889–90, should be referred to the Committee on Public Accounts. That is the principle which I venture to say has always been observed—that no material change shall be made in the form of the Estimates unless it has been sanctioned by the House of Commons and considered by the Committee on Public Accounts. The Secretary to the Treasury states that this is a process that has been going on constantly.
§ SIR JOHN GORSTHear, hear!
§ SIR W. HARCOURTYes; we hear the Secretary to the Treasury, but the 1133 instances that have been given by him are worth nothing. The present Secretary to the Treasury has not got up his case, if he has got any to bear upon this point, because the instances he has given are absolutely worthless. With reference to the Ordinance, I take it that that one was the immediate result of the recommendations of the Committee of 1883, which were submitted, and had relation to the Army and Navy. The Secretary for Ireland shakes his head, and says that the Ordinance had no relation to the Army.
§ MR. JACKSONI beg your pardon. I did not say that the Ordinance had no relation to the Army.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTWell, you shook your head. A policy was adopted in accordance with the Ordinance. There cannot be the smallest doubt that both the Treasury and the Committee on Public Accounts and the House deliberately abstained from dealing on the same footing with the Civil Service Estimates.
§ MR. JACKSONThat was in 1881.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTIn 1881, then. I can go back a few years more if you like. Well, I say you are bound to follow the traditions of the House of Commons. I know my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian thinks the system radically bad. He says it is going back to the system which was reformed by himself in 1854. I am not going to argue that question now. The question before us now is the control of the House of Commons over the Estimates generally, and their principles. What I insist upon is the control of the House of Commons over the form of the Estimates. I say no Government has a right to make a serious and material change in the form of the Estimates without obtaining the sanction of the House of Commons and upon reference to the Committee on Public Accounts. Of course I mean the Committee on Public Accounts that revises the Estimates of the day, and not some stale Reports of ten or twelve years ago. The Committee of 1883 decided, according to the circumstances of the time, whether it was fitting that the change should be made. It is the Committee of the day that has to determine what may be the circumstances of the time, and whether it is 1134 fitting that the change should be made. Therefore I shall not go back upon these stale Reports. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury talks about surprises. It is the House of Commons that has been surprised. He had no right to be surprised. He ought to have known the whole history of the case. He ought to have known what happened in 1890. He ought to have known that the First Lord of the Treasury of that day referred the change in the Estimates to the Committee on the Public Accounts. Upon the very first day of the Session the Government, if they intended to make the change, ought to have moved the Resolution of Mr. Smith, moved in 1890. Then, I daresay, a fortnight ago you would have had a consultation of the Committee. I know the ingenuity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has managed to muddle the Public Accounts to an extent they had never been muddled before. There is not a Department of the Public Accounts which he had not fiddled with and changed in some way or another. I know from members of the Committee on Public Accounts that, in consequence of his financial ingenuity, it is hardly possible to make out the Appropriation Accounts at all.
§ MR. GOSCHENIs that their Report, or is it their private opinion?
§ SIR W. HARCOURTIf you will not take it as the opinion of the Committee, I will offer it to you as my opinion. I venture to say that he will find it stated in many of those serious newspapers to which he alluded the other day. How impossible it will be to understand the Public Accounts if the whole of the totals of the Civil Service Estimates are altered as compared with last year, and with the years to come. They have never been altered upon a scale like the present. The quotation as to the Bankruptcy Procedure is nothing to the purpose, because it never stood upon any other footing. Therefore, the question of continuity does not arise. It is not like the question of the County Courts. You have changed the nominal expenditure. It might come to be a question how this Government has reduced the Civil Service Estimates. The public do not read the statements of the Treasury. They get 1135 the totals of the Civil Service. You can well understand, for these purposes, the ingenuity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in manipulating the Civil Service Estimates. I say that one of the first principles of the control of Parliament in this House is that you should be able to compare the expenditure of one year with another,. You should compare similar things with similar things, and you should follow a sound system of book-keeping, not confusing everything. If in looking back from one period to another you are to have these constant changes made without due consideration, without taking the opinion of parties who are responsible for the control of the expenditure of this House, if you are to rush into things in this country by a statement thrown upon the Table one day with a Vote on Account taken two or three days afterwards, then I say that the whole system of control over public expenditure is practically set at defiance. The present proceeding is absolutely unexampled. It is idle to say this is a comparatively small item upon which a change has been made. Whether such an item exists or not, or two or three items, this is a change upon a great scale of the whole system of Civil Service Estimates. I say that that ought to have been brought under the consideration of the House as has been done before on former occasions—that a Resolution ought to have been moved as it was moved by the late Leader of the House, that this change should be considered by the Committee on Public Accounts. Instead of getting up and flouting the Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts, the Secretary of the Treasury ought to have treated him in a very different way. The Government should have invited the assistance of the Committee on Public Accounts, and of its Chairman for the performance of a duty which cencerns very deeply the interests of the country. Now, Sir, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say that he will make the Motion that Mr. Smith made, that this change in the Estimates be referred to the Committee on Public Accounts for their consideration and report by this House, then I will advise my right hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion. But if the Chancellor of the Exchequer 1136 persists in doing that which has never been done before, in forcing a great change on the Estimates without consideration and deliberation, I hope my right hon. Friend will enter a protest by taking a Division.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,) St. George's, Hanover SquareI thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite would not find it possible to conclude a speech in any way, however remotely connected with finance, without making some personal attack upon myself. I know that these financial subjects rouse what I may be allowed to call without offence the ferocious financial watchfulness of the right hon. Gentleman. He takes such a deep interest in these questions that they seem generally to rouse him from that equable temperament with which he is wont to contemplate other political questions. I have been marvelling with myself what might be the cause of that general flutter of excitement amongst hon. Gentlemen opposite which would seem to be foreign to such a very technical matter. There seemed to be a deeper interest almost than was apparent on the surface. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has, however, revealed the real cause of their anxiety; and that is, that this change of system, as it is called, will make it appear that the Estimates of this year were lower than the Estimates of the previous year; and the right hon. Gentleman sacrifices the doctrines of financial regularity to his passion for comparative statistics. The right hon. Gentleman is so intent upon being able to compare one year with another.
§ MR. GOSCHENI am not talking about the Estimates now, but about the best form of accounts; and what I say now is: I myself, as a statistician, felt that the change in the form of the accounts would discompose to a certain extent the studies of future statisticians. I will make this admission to the right hon. Gentleman, that I myself have felt some compunction as to this change. So far from having advocated it, as he has suggested—I think he said it was due to my ingenuity—I have accepted it only because all my advisers 1137 at the Treasury—who were also the advisers of the right hon. Gentleman during his tenure of Office—were firmly convinced, every one of them, that this change embodied the doctrine of the Public Accounts Committee. It may be wrong, and the most modern development of the policy of the Public Accounts Committee may be in a contrary direction, though I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of that Committee was most guarded, as he is bound to be, on the subject. He did not disclaim the doctrine that this change is a proper course of proceeding, and it would have been difficult for him to have done so, because year after year, without protest, he, as Chairman of the Committee, has sanctioned similar transfers—or rather appropriations—the application of receipts as appropriations in aid. I am going to ask why no protest was made. That is the point I will argue—that these changes have been made every year, and I have felt the inconvenience of these changes personally, because they involve a complicated statement in the Budget which I would rather not have to make, and they likewise prevent me from being able to make a comparison from one year to another. But I have always been told that the proper system of accounts and the principle sanctioned by the Committee was this, that we should give all the receipts as appropriations, and that we should give the net result instead of the gross result. These are the doctrines which have been preached to me by those who are better qualified to speak on the best form of account than either the right hon. Gentleman or myself. These men have served under various Governments, and have known what has passed in various Committees on finance. The right hon. Gentleman seems to me to scoff at continuity. He spoke of the "stale doctrine" of the Committee of Public Accounts in 1883. I do not think that is so long ago as to render obsolete the verdict of gentlemen, Members of this House, as competent to pronounce on this question as any one in the present day. I do not think this doctrine has become old after the lapse of nine years; but, at any rate, it was not rejected by the 1138 right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee. Therefore, rightly or wrongly, we have been under the impression at the Treasury that we were carrying out the views of a body which is comparatively continuous I hope. I think it would be most unfortunate if this House were to reject, after the lapse of a period of nine years, the view of a powerful Committee simply because it has received no specific endorsement at a later day. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, of course, looks upon nine years as a long time ago; and it is a view which he has frequently introduced in the course of these Debates. But it is not so long ago. If it was a sound doctrine then it is a sound doctrine now. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby seems very hard upon my right hon. Friend. He says he has insulted the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Nothing would be further from the wish of the right hon. Gentleman than that he should for one moment be suspected of wishing to convey any such insult. But my right hon. Friend says that what he endeavoured to prove was, that he himself had been somewhat hardly treated. The right hon. Gentleman said there was no time to give notice, but there has been time for the right hon. Gentleman to get up his case; and if my right hon. Friend had had the slightest notice sent to him that there was a serious question that would be raised, he would have been at once ready with all his authorities which he has now been able to produce, and which entirely justify him in the statement he made. It was unfortunate—though of course there was no design in the matter—but it was most unfortunate that the very year in which the doctrine referred to was laid down by the Committee of Public Accounts was not alluded to by the Chairman of the Committee in his statement.
§ MR. GOSCHENI listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and if there was an allusion to it in his statement it did not make a correct impression upon the House, because he 1139 was less precise upon that point than upon many other points. I shall read to the Committee the words of the Committee in their Report which have induced the officers of the Treasury to believe that they were carrying out the policy of the Committee of the right hon. Gentleman—
They would be glad to see a gradual extension of the system as occasion offers"——not "according to the circumstances of the day," as it was put by the right hon. Gentleman—to those Civil Service Votes which most readily admit of it.Of course we may have been mistaken, and the Committee may have been mistaken. I am not myself so entirely convinced of the wisdom of the system as the Committee of Accounts seem to be; but we have loyally endeavoured to carry out what we believed to be the views of the Committee. I never for one moment attempted to apply this system for any other purpose. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby says: "Have you ever applied this system before?"
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI said you never applied this system before with large amounts.
§ MR. GOSCHENI do not know what amount the right hon. Gentleman may think large, or what amount he may think small. Would he consider £100,000 a large item or a small item? Would he consider £150,000 a large item or a small item?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERIt is a matter of more than a £1,000,000 now.
§ MR. GOSCHENThen we are reduced to this, that it is merely a question of amount? Is that the point, that it is a mere question of amount? In the year 1889, in the Packet Vote, a sum of £169,000 was transferred in that manner for the first time. I now ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, did that transfer come before him?
§ MR. GOSCHENWell, if not, why not? I will say why not—I give my own theory. Because it was in accordance with the accepted policy of the 1140 Committee. They considered it as one of the occasions that offered, and that, therefore, the Treasury had moved forward in the direction that had been recommended. Now, I put it to the House, and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite, if we have this case, if we see that no protest was made against this case, are we not justified in going on, as the occasion offered, in the development of the policy which, in the face of the House, we were carrying out on accounts which have been referred to the Public Accounts Committee, but with regard to which they did not think it their duty to make one single word of protest? And I believe they made no protest because they believed we were acting in harmony with this policy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby says, that the late Mr. Smith promised that any changes in the mode of presenting these Votes should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee. Well, that was upon the point of lessening the number of Votes that were to be presented to this House by amalgamating the Votes—which is an entirely new matter. But, in this case, we have this process going on from year to year, and not one word of protest has been raised against the system from the Public Accounts Committee; and, therefore, we were entitled to think that we were adopting a principle which was not only the principle of the Treasury as a permanent Department, but which we believed to be the continuous policy of the Public Accounts Committee down to the year 1883; but even since that time, since this Motion was made by the late Mr. Smith to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has called attention—since that time another large item has been transferred—namely, an item of £53,000 in 1891, with regard to the Dublin Metropolitan Police. Last year a similar step has been taken in this direction. Take £53,000; that is a considerable amount. £165,000 in 1889 is a considerable amount.
§ MR. GOSCHENI am glad of the interruption, but I sincerely regret that 1141 the right hon. Gentleman should have permitted himself to take up a controversial position such as he is unaccustomed to assume.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHI desire to state that I hope I have no controversy with the Public Accounts Committee.
§ MR. GOSCHENIt is not the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I was thinking of, I was thinking of his interruption. His interruption was a little controversial (No.) I will show you how it was a little controversial. I said I was sorry to be put into a position of controversy with the right hon Gentleman when he interrupted me. I am sure he was carried away for the moment. But admitting that the accounts for 1891 have not been referred yet to the Public Accounts Committee, yet the accounts for 1889 have been referred to the Public Accounts Committee. I will give up, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes it, the item for the Dublin Metropolitan Police because it has not yet passed through that ordeal; but what I do not give up are the previous cases where large sums have been transferred. Quite apart from any feeling of Party I think the desire would be that we should pay every possible deference to the Public Accounts Committee, and should avoid all controversy with them that we possibly can. I regret if the scale for this occasion is considered larger than that sanctioned by the Public Accounts Committee, but I have yet to learn that the practice is in conflict with the opinions of the Committee. We were entitled to believe it was the traditional policy of the Committee, and that they wished to make further progress in that direction, and we have conscientiously acted upon it.
§ (10.19.) MR. WHITBREAD (Bedford)I appeal to independent Members of this House to consider carefully the course of proceedings that are now going on in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury tried to minimise what is done; he tried to pass very lightly over it. My right hon. Friend who opened the debate spoke with great tenderness, but I am not bound, and Members generally are not bound, by the con- 1142 siderations which may have governed him. The practice referred to is to be condemned root and branch. There is nothing in accounting that lends itself so much to vice. My opinion is that the public are entitled to know what is their income and what is their expenditure. This practice conceals both. I know of no way in which you can check the growth of expenditure but by watching carefully and having constantly under your eye the expenditure of each year. This practice conceals it. I know something about accounts, and I believe that, like myself, the traders of this country will condemn this practice as unsound, as rotten, and as misleading. The Government say that this plan was adopted by them in unison with a recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee. Great doubt has been thrown upon that statement. They say it is a gradual change that was recommended by the Committee on Public Accounts some nine years ago. But this gradual change involves, I notice, £930,000 in this one year. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as we are led to suppose, accepts the change with reluctance, why cannot he do what was done by his predecessor in office, and refer the matter to the Public Accounts Committee? I ask the House not to relinquish its control over the public money, and to insist upon knowing what the opinion is of the Committee on Public Accounts on this matter. When we know that we shall be in a better position than we are at present to determine the course we should adopt. Now, Sir, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has some doubt regarding this practice, and as we are told the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian is opposed to it, who, then, is in its favour? Independent Members of this House did not call for it, nor the Public Accounts Committee. Did the officials or advisers of the Treasury ask for it?
§ MR. GOSCHENI should like to correct the hon. Gentleman. The officials at the Treasury were of opinion that this change was the policy of the Public Accounts Committee. They did not recommend it upon their own responsibility.
§ MR. WHITBREADThen who is in favour of this change? Who asked for it? Not the right hon. Member for Midlothian, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not the officials of the Treasury, not the Committee on Public Accounts. That being so, I shall be glad if the Government will bring this matter to an amicable close by agreeing to refer it to the Public Accounts Committee for their opinion.
§ MR. JACKSONI am much surprised at the form of this discussion. If we had been given the shortest notice of it, if a note had been passed across the Table saying it was going to be raised, we could have answered much more readily and shortly the various points that have been advanced. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down tells us that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian does not approve of this change, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby does not approve of it, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton shares their views. But, pray, who started it in 1881? It was in 1881, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian was at the head of the Government, that this system was instituted. It was following 1881 that there was a correspondence, which the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee will recollect lasted for two years. There were negotiations between the Treasury, the Comptroller and Auditor General, and the Public Accounts Committee, which resulted in the arrangement of 1883. The Report of the Public Accounts Committee in 1883 bore on its face this fact—that the change was the result of a correspondence which had been going on for a long time as to whether the alteration that had been made in 1881 in regard to the Army and the Navy Accounts should be applied to the Civil Service Accounts. The Public Accounts Committee of that day made that point perfectly clear in their Report after a correspondence with the Treasury extending over a period of two years. During that time the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian was at the head of the Government, and yet the hon. Member for Bedford 1144 gets up and says the right hon. Member does not approve of the change. Well, Sir, as I have said, this went on—the Public Accounts Committee pronounced its opinion; the Treasury concurred after considering their Report, and from that time down to the present day, year after year, we have been making those alterations as the necessity and the opportunity occurred. My right hon. Friend has quoted two instances which I should have thought would have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. There was the instance of 1889, where £160,000 was taken in one sum. He did not say that was the only case where Appropriations in Aid have been taken. He gave another instance in 1891. I have since then referred to the Votes for 1885–6, when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible for the Estimates, and I find that they took in that year a Grant in Aid of the Diplomatic and Consular Service amounting to no less a sum than £88,000. These cases could be multiplied to a very great extent as regards their number, and it has been the belief of the Treasury that the need for this change was the deliberately expressed opinion of the Committee on Public Accounts. I have put forward the view of the Treasury, and I have shown that there is hardly a year to which this principle has not extended. It is no new system. It is merely a carrying out of a system that has the approval of the House and of the Public Accounts Committee. The whole question, therefore, has been raised to-night either under a misapprehension or with the deliberate intention of making capital out of it.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (&c.) Stirling,The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has expressed surprise at this question being raised. I do not think, Sir, the Government have, any reason to complain, because they themselves have surprised the Committee by suddenly bringing forward the Estimates in a completely altered form. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken founded himself largely on certain words in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee in 1883. But, Sir, my 1145 right hon. Friend (Sir W. Harcourt) has pointed out that that Report is ten years old, and that the words of the Report by no means indicate any such process as that which the Government has adopted. The Committee said that this new way of treating Extra Receipts should only be applied gradually to the Civil Service Estimates. What strikes us is this: that it was not so applied in 1884, 1885, or 1886. No doubt in subsequent years cases can be produced, but it is only in the year 1892 that the principle is applied wholesale to all the Votes in the Civil Service Estimates. I confess that when I first looked at these Estimates I was puzzled, and it struck me as at least a very remarkable coincidence that this wholesale application of the rule was made in a year which, if the rule had not been so applied, would have shown an enormous increase in the Estimates. I am not going to dwell on the merits of this change, or to discuss whether it is sound or unsound. That is not strictly the question which is before the Committee. The question before the Committee is this—should a great and wholesale alteration in the way of dealing with this important matter of the Civil Service Estimates be put before Parliament, and a Vote on Account of these Estimates be asked therein, without this change in the form of the Estimates being first put before the Public Accounts Committee for their sanction and advice? The precedents of 1890 have been mentioned, but there is another case which has not been referred to, and which shows the excessive carefulness that the House of Commons, under the leadership of the late Mr. Smith, always exercised over alterations in the form of the Estimates, because alteration of a large kind such as this vitiates comparisons between previous and subsequent years. In 1888 the Admiralty introduced great changes in the Votes.
§ MR. FORWOODAn amalgamation of the Votes?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANYes; amalgamation, but other important changes also in the particulars of the Votes. I think the changes were in a good direction, for a good 1146 purpose, and were good in themselves; but they undoubtedly confused the Estimates and destroyed almost altogether the possibility of comparison with previous years. What did the Committee of Public Accounts say when that question was brought under their notice? They said this—
Your Committee cannot therefore but regret that the Admiralty did not propose, and that the Treasury did not insist upon, the postponement of the adoption of the new form of the Estimates until the House of Commons, or your Committee, had been given an opportunity of expressing their opinion.We only appeal to the Government to take the same reasonable course which was taken two years ago on their own initiative—that is, to refer directly to the Public Accounts Committee in order to ascertain what advice that Committee would give the House in the matter. We necessarily bring forward this matter on the Vote on Account, which is the first opportunity. It does not interfere with the Vote on Account. This is our first means of calling the attention of the House to this important charge which has been made, and I cannot but hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House will adopt the salutary, reasonable, and sound course which was adopted by Mr. Smith two years ago, and which if they follow will not prevent them for one hour or moment from attaining their object—namely, the obtaining of a Vote on Account. There is no obstruction whatever in reference to this question, and I would still urge the Government to accept that proposal.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 175.—(Div. List, No. 36.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ (10.55.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)I wish to give notice that, as the Government have evidently come to the conclusion not to consult the Committee on Public Accounts on this matter, I will, on the earliest opportunity, move the Resolution which was moved by the late Mr. Smith on the 27th February, 1890— 1147
That the statement laid before the House showing the arrangement of Votes in the Estimates for 1890–91 as compared with that of the Estimates for 1889–90 be referred to the Committee on Public Accounts.The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Sydney Gedge) laughs at the Motion. Is he so much amused at the contrast between the present Leader of the House and the late Leader of the House? I would desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that the Motion was carried concurrently with a Vote on Account, which was taken to the Committee on Public Accounts, who, in consequence of that Resolution, proceeded to consider the altered form of the Estimates for the year.
§ (10.56.) MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport)I was very much amused, not at the contrast between the former and present Leaders of the House, but at the confusion between the Accounts of 1890–91, and those of 1892–93, in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the trouble to insure accuracy. That was what made me laugh.
§ (10.57.) MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)We have had a very interesting and somewhat exciting financial Debate, and although we have not been so fortunate as to find ourselves in the majority, yet I am happy to think that, thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, the wiles of the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been thoroughly exposed. There is another subject equally interesting, and, perhaps, even more personal to many of us in this House, upon which I wish to say a few words. I fully admit, as a general rule, it is necessary, in view of our present financial system, to take at the commencement of the Session a Vote on Account; and, therefore, in ordinary circumstances, I should not stand in the way of that Vote being taken; but, the circumstances at the present moment are somewhat exceptional. Parliament comes to an end next year by the efflux of time. Now, I have heard rumours that it is 1148 intended to carry on Parliament up till next year. I can perfectly understand the desire on the part of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—I can understand they are anxious to remain Members of Parliament for another year, and they may not be quite so anxious to meet their constituents as they would have us to believe; but I dismiss these rumours, because the present Ministry prides itself upon being a Constitutional Ministry. We have no written Constitution; the Constitution is one of usage, and usage shows that under no circumstances does a Parliament continue to exist for seven years. The question, then, which I would submit to the First Lord of the Treasury before we give him this large sum of money is not so much whether the Election will take place this year or next year, but at what period of the year it is likely to take place? The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sydney Gedge) laughs again. I have never yet precisely understood why this should be kept a secret from the country. If the country is to be regarded as an enemy, I can understand the Prime Minister keeping this a dark secret, and springing the Election like a cracker on the country, thereby taking the country by surprise. But surely they do not regard the nation as their enemy; then why should they not inform the nation when it will take place? I have no wish to treat this as a mere Party question, although, if I did, I am told by Gentlemen on this side of the House that we should be gainers by delay; that the muddling conduct of Her Majesty's Government is doing them a great deal of harm, and will, in all probability, if continued for a considerable time, give us a larger majority. I will not refer to the results of bye-elections, but will take it that one side or the other will win at the next General Election. But the Election is at present in the air, and is a disturbing element. It interferes with business, and prevents gentlemen from attending sufficiently to their own avocations, because they are engrossed by the coming struggle. Indeed, in the House itself the attendance is most sparse on both sides, and that is owing to the feeling of uncertainty which pre- 1149 as to the date of the General Election.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI do not see how we can pass this large Vote until we have some information from the Government as to how long this Parliament is likely to last.
THE CHAIRMANThat is a matter which might have been discussed on the Motion to go into Committee of Supply; but I really do not see how it is relevant now.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREMay I move that the Vote be only for one month instead of two, because I shall distrust Her Majesty's Government until they declare their views on the subject of the date of the General Election? May I, therefore, move that this Vote be reduced by one-half?
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI will take the first item.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREAm I obliged now to state what my Motion will be at the end? I shall move at the end a Motion which will put me entirely in Order.
THE CHAIRMANAfter the language of the hon. Gentleman I shall be bound now to ask him what he is going to move?
§ MR. LABOUCHEREThen I shall move to report Progress, because I think this Vote ought not to be taken until we have the explanation for which I ask. The Government itself is unable to retain the mastery that it ought to possess over this House owing to its large majority. The Tory organs admit this. What, for instance, does the Times—the organ of the Government—("No, no!")—well, I will say, the sympathetic friend of the Government—say? It says—
It is impossible to deny the existence of a certain amount of disorganisation and discontent amongst the Ministerial majority.1150 In the last year of the life of a Parliament discipline is relaxed; and hon. Members, some of whom do not intend to seek re-election, do not attend as regularly as they have done. The fact remains that the Government have lost their hold on the House, and we have only to look at the occurrences of last Tuesday and last Friday for proofs of the fact. According to the Times this torpor is due to the fact that the First Lord of the Treasury is the Leader of the House.
§ Sir CHARLES DALYRMPLE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ Debate resumed.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREThe Times says it is hardly honest to make the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's merits are not precisely those of the late Mr. Smith as a pretext for murmuring and sulking. I do not agree with this for a moment; on the other hand, I consider the First Lord of the Treasury an attractive personality. (Interruption.) I can assure hon. Gentlemen that we shall not stand this kind of thing, and if they do not conduct themselves as gentlemen we shall go on moving to report Progress till 12 o'clock. They have tried this before, and we shall not be put down by clamour. The fault does not lie with the First Lord of the Treasury; it lies with the situation, and the most experienced gentleman will be unable to lead a body of supporters like that (indicating the Ministerial side of the House). The difficulty has arisen during the current business. I do not consider the programme of the Government is one tending to arouse enthusiasm on either side of the House. Time is an element in this case, because we wish to know how long the Session is expected to last. We have a Small Holdings Bill and a number of minor Bills, and then two important and most controversial Bills, and there is every appearance that the Session will be carried on to the end of July or August. Then one of two things will happen—either we shall have an Election then, or it will be postponed till November.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI think we have a right to know before this money is voted when the election will take place, and I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether we may take the assurance that the ordinary practice will be pursued, and that, if the Election takes place in November, the registration of this year will be advanced, so that we may have the Election upon the new registration, and not upon the registration of last year? I am not treating this matter in a Party spirit, for even the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has complained of the reticence of the First Lord of the Treasury. (Interruption.) I must ask for the protection of the Chair against this clamour.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI think I am arguing a very serious matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer declared at a meeting the other night that it was a secret to him when the General Election would take place. I assert that before we vote this large sum of money in the last year of a Parliament, the country has a right to know when it will be consulted on one of the greatest issues that has ever come before it. I move, Sir, that you do leave the Chair.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
§ (11.19.) THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.A formal Resolution has been put before the House, and the question is whether, on the day before the last on which we can conclude our financial business, we are to stop all discussion upon the public Estimates? That is the formal Motion before the House, and upon it the hon. Gentleman has raised—and I presume in doing so he was in Order—the question of my personal merits and of the Dissolution 1152 of Parliament. Though I do not see the relevancy of those two questions I will endeavour to answer them. With regard to the first question I have very little to say. This is not the first office of responsibility under the Crown that I have filled, and I have been abused into a reputation far above my merits in connection with one office which I have held, and it seems to me that hon. Members are in a fair way to abuse me into a reputation far above my merits in connection with the office which I now hold. I can assure them that I am the last person in the world to object to a process from which I have profited so much. With regard to the second question, the Dissolution, he is in a position to say quite as much to the public as I am. He knows as well as I do the practice of the Constitution. He knows as well as I do the law by which the Dissolution of Parliament is in the last instance governed. Those are the conditions which, in this Parliament as much as in other Parliaments, will probably regulate the Dissolution. I know nothing, and can tell the hon. Member nothing, more than he knows himself. The Government has laid before the House of Commons a programme of legislation for this Session, which they believe to be useful and beneficial, and of a kind to commend itself to the people of this country. I see no reason whatever why that programme should not be carried out, nor has the hon. Gentleman brought any considerations before us which should induce us to curtail the beneficent efforts to ameliorate the condition of large classes of our fellow-subjects.
§ MR. J. O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.)Does the right hon. Gentleman—
§ MR. J. O'CONNORcontinued standing.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is not entitled to intervene unless the right hon. Gentleman chooses to give way.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORHe has given way.
§ MR. O'KELLY (Roscommon, N.)I wish to call attention—
THE CHAIRMANHon. Members must obey the direction of the Chair. They have twice risen, and I tell them they are not entitled to intervene.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORremained standing amid cries of "Name."
THE CHAIRMANI must warn the hon. Member that, unless he yields to my direction and resumes and keeps his seat, I shall be compelled to name him to the House.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORresumed his seat and—
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURproceeded: I can assure both the hon. Gentlemen that I do not intend to detain the Committee for more than a moment longer, and they will have ample opportunity to make any observations they desire. I was simply saying when I was interrupted that I can see no reason why we should not carry through our programme of legislation—a programme which I believe has the support of the House and of the country; and, therefore, I need not say that there is no ground why on a Vote of Credit for two months we should adjourn the Debate. And I would suggest respectfully to the hon. Member that he should withdraw his Motion, and allow this Vote to be carried without further discussion, and permit us to go to a matter which is of very much interest to hon. Gentlemen from Ireland—namely, the Report of the Vote respecting the School Teachers' Pension Fund for Ireland.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORWhat about the Local Government Bill?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe curiosity of the hon. Member for Northampton has now been amply satisfied, and I think we may now be permitted to proceed to some more practical form of discussion, instead of wasting the time of the House by these vain prophecies as to the particular moment when this Parliament shall come to an end.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ (11.26.) MR. MORTONI propose to move the reduction of this Vote by a sum of £100, in consequence of the fact that the bar in the outer Lobby has 1154 not been removed. I called attention to this matter last year, and later on we were told that the bar would be removed during the Recess. The bar is still there, and I think it would be to the credit of the House that it should be removed.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item for the House of Commons be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Morton.)
§ (11.30.) THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,) Dublin UniversityIt is quite true, as the hon. Member says, that this question has been discussed before, and a scheme was suggested last year which would, as we believed, have got rid of many if not all of the objections that have been raised. But we were met with difficulties in the way of removing some of the offices that it would have been necessary to interfere with. Some correspondence passed during the Recess between the Member for Croydon (Mr. S. Herbert) on this side of the House and the Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. Cyril Flower), and they came to the conclusion that the most satisfactory way to deal with this matter was to appoint a Committee this Session which should carefully consider the whole subject. I believe the appointment of that Committee has only been postponed because of the illness, which we all regret, of the Member for Croydon. However, as little delay as possible shall occur, and I believe that Committee will not take long to investigate the matter and come to a conclusion, so that during the next Recess changes may be made that will be satisfactory to all parties.
§ (11.32.) MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to relegate to the same. Committee the question of the accommodation in the Dining Room?
§ MR. PLUNKETI am afraid that is quite a separate consideration, but I will pay serious attention to any proposals which reach me.
§ (11.34.) MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)I desire to know 1155 what is being done in the matter of the Library? I have been unable to find any copies of the Law Reports, and I was told that I might use the House of Lords' Library. I do not wish to use that Library; but I tried to-day to find the book I wanted, and after an hour's search was unsuccessful.
§ MR. MORTONAfter the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion to reduce the Vote.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ (11.38.) DR. CLARK (Caithness)I wish to call attention to the allowance of £1,000 for servants' wages in the Refreshment Rooms. The Refreshment Room is managed by a Committee under the Serjeant-at-Arms, and they get £1,000 to expend, and give no account of it at all. When last year charges were made about sweating the unfortunate waiters, the Member for Croydon told the House that they had no business whatever to deal with the spending of this money. All we had to do was to vote the £1,000, and they would spend it as they pleased. All we now know is that the whole thing is arranged by the Committee, and that there are so many dinners and so many luncheons. Some time ago we had a contractor who contracted for the Refreshment Rooms; but a change was considered desirable, and now this matter is arranged by a Committee. Whether they make a profit or loss I do not know. The only information we get is that there are so many dinners in so many months. This £1,000 is for the benefit of the Members, so that we have all some interest in it. It is either used to make a reduction on the food, or else for some other special purpose. I have tried for two or three years to get the information how it is spent, but I have failed. Last year I was told we had nothing to do with whether the manager adopted the sweating principle or not. That being so, I think it is time to stop this Vote, and let us pay the full market value for our cups of tea and dinners. I do 1156 not think the prices we pay are much lowered by the Vote, but whether or not, the present condition of things ought not to continue. Unless I hear some more intelligible reason for the Vote of £1,000, and unless the House has some control over the money, I shall ask the Committee not to accede to the Vote.
§ (11.42.) MR. PICTON (Leicester)My hon. Friend forgets the irregularity in demand in the Refreshment Rooms, which entails a certain loss, even though the usual market prices are charged, for I do not think things are cheaper inside than outside the House.
§ (11.43.) MR. MORTON (Peterborough)I do not object to the Vote of £1,000 so long as it is properly spent; but, as there is no account of receipts or expenditure, we do not know how the money is spent. I have also to complain that there is no representative of the Temperance Party on the Kitchen Committee, so that that part of the Refreshment Room may be properly looked after. I hope some Member of the Kitchen Committee will be able to tell us where to find in the accounts how this £1,000 is spent, or else give us some assurance that in future the accounts will be published and distributed in order that Members may know all about it. Unless we get some assurance of that kind, I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness.
§ (11.45.) MR. CREMERAs one of the Members of the Committee, I waited in the hope that some other Member would have risen; but as no one has attempted to enlighten hon. Members on the subject, perhaps I may be allowed to give explanations upon two or three of the details referred to. If the hon. Member for Caithness and the hon. Member for Peterborough want to know how the money is expended, if they will devote a few minutes' consideration to the subject in the office of the manager, all the facts will be placed at their disposal, 1157 and they will see how the money is expended. I think it is a mistake that no Return is presented to Members of the House, and I hope that the Committee will attempt to comply with the very reasonable request for this Return. Then complaints have been made as to the charges—that they are not less than they were, notwithstanding the subsidy—I think if anyone will compare the tariff of the Dining Room with the tariff six or seven years ago, he will not express the opinions which have been uttered by the hon. Member for Caithness and the hon. Member for Leicester. The tariff has been reduced from 40 to 60 per cent. If the hon. Members are prepared to have the charges raised to the price at which they stood six or seven years ago, I hope they will go into the Lobby and vote to deprive the Refreshment Committee of this subsidy. The refreshments must be paid for by the vote of this House or by the Members themselves in the Dining Room and in the Tea Room. The question of the sweating of the waiters has been discussed more than once by the Members of the Committee. Hon. Members know the interest I have always evinced in the adequate and just payment of members of the working classes, and I have tried to ascertain from time to time whether there was real foundation for the statement which has been made. I am not going to say there has been no foundation for such a charge, but I think that, on the whole, the staff may fairly claim to be pretty well paid—I will not say adequately—but pretty well paid for their services. I promise hon. Members that if they bring to the notice of the Committee any serious charge, which they are capable of proving, every Member of the Committee I think, without exception, would feel himself not only bound to pay serious regard to the charge, but also to immediately apply a remedy. There is one difficulty, however, in the work of the Committee: those who complain scarcely ever attend to express their grievances. [An hon. MEMBER: "Name."] It is not fair to ask me for names. I make the assertion, and it is very well understood to be true. The 1158 Members of the Committee are most assiduous in their labours. All the accounts are open for their inspection. A report is made week after week. I hope that in the charges recklessly made as to the Committee there is no insinuation that the money voted by the House is dishonestly used. I do not say the department is perfectly managed. But if difficulties still exist it is owing to the fact that Members who have been appointed to discharge their duties upon that Committee have neglected them, and have left them to a handful of men who do feel it necessary to be present on every occasion of a meeting.
§ (11.50.) MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not wish to intervene in this discussion, but I would beg the House to finish the discussion upon this Vote to-night. I make the appeal in the interests of the Government and of the House itself, because unless we are fortunate enough to obtain this Vote to-night I am afraid it may be necessary to take the time of the House to-morrow in a manner which I should be sorry to do.
§ (11.51.) MR. PICTON (Leicester)Some of us have to bring forward grievances of a very pressing character, and unless we do so now we shall have no other chance whatever. Therefore, much as I regret it, I cannot allow the Vote at present to be passed.
§ (11.52.) SIR W. HARCOURTI do not think this discussion should be prolonged, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there are not still many days on which the Vote on Account may be dealt with?
§ (11.53.) MR. A. J. BALFOURIt is quite true that the Vote on Account does not stand precisely in the same situation as some of the other Votes. At the same time, it is urgent that the Vote should be passed.
§ (11.54.) MR. MORTONI trust the right hon. Gentleman and his friends on the Front Bench will not forget that they have occupied nearly the whole of this evening in discussing matters not of grave consequence, and that, in fact, have nothing to do with the Vote on Account. I do not think the proposal they make now is fair, either to 1159 the House or to the country. Therefore, I trust no attempt will be made to force this Vote to-night.
§ (11.55.) MR. CONYBEAREMay I point out that if the right hon. Gentleman had told us when we were to look for a Dissolution this difficulty would not have arisen, because at present we are left in a state of uncertainty.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURYou will have every opportunity.
§ MR. CONYBEAREYes; we shall be in the dog-days or in November. I hope an attempt to push this Vote through will not be made.
§ (11.56.) MR. J. O'CONNORI believe the question before the House at the present moment relates to the affairs of the Kitchen Committee. Why have Members not attended the meetings of the Committee? Simply because the Kitchen Committee are incorrigible; they are not open to reform.
§ (11.57.) Mr. HOWORTHrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ Debate resumed.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORI have only a few words to say. When I proposed to the Kitchen Committee certain reforms they did not in their wisdom feel it to be necessary to carry these reforms out, and they came to the House for a sum of £1,000, which I believe is wrongly applied. The management of the Committee is wrong. It has been said there is no member of the Temperance Party on the Committee for carrying out their views. The fact is, that all the profit that is made by the Kitchen Committee is made out of the men who drink a small bottle of wine by the orders of their doctor. They pay the whole cost of the cheap dinners for those who drink cold water. Now, Sir, there is another question—
§ It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
1160§ Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.