HL Deb 08 August 1854 vol 135 cc1395-403
EARL GRANVILLE

moved to resolve— That inasmuch as the Provisions of the Public Revenue and Consolidated Fund Charges (No. 2) Bill are precisely similar to those of the Public Revenue and Consolidated Fund Charges Bill as the same were amended in Committee in this House, the Report of which Amendments was, on the 29th day of July, ordered to be received that Day Three Months, the peculiar Circumstances under which the said (No. 2) Bill has been sent up to this House from the House of Commons make it reasonable that the same be allowed to be read a Second Time this Day, if the House shall think fit so to order. Order of the Day for the Second Reading, and for Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38 to be considered, in order to their being dispensed with on the said Bill, read. On Question, agreed to.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

said, that the loose manner in which Bills emanating from various departments of the Government were often drawn, led him to ask with whom the official responsibility rested? This might be excusable in private Members, but it certainly was not in the Government, who had the means of procuring the requisite legal assistance. A striking instance of the carelessness of which he complained was afforded by the former Bill on this subject, which, as originally drawn, actually rendered the salaries of the Judges subject to an annual Vote. This appeared to be so monstrous that while the Bill was still in the House of Commons he communicated with his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack upon the subject, and the objectionable provision was in consequence struck out. The Bill, however, even as it came up to their Lordships, was still calculated to do injustice in many quarters, and especially in that part of the country with which he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) was more immediately connected. It was, however, materially improved by the Select Committee to which it was sent.

EARL GRANVILLE

thought the noble Marquess had overstated the nature of the inaccuracies in the Bill, which, generally speaking, were merely of a verbal character. The only Amendments which involved a question of policy was, as to whether the Commissioners of Lunacy and the police magistrates should be included in the schedule.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

said, that when the Bill was introduced, the Master of the Rolls and Masters of Chancery in Ireland were actually made subject to an annual Vote; and that could not be considered as a mere verbal inaccuracy or mistake.

LORD MONTEAGLE

said, there were eight instances in one of the schedules of the Bill in which provision was authorised to be made for certain charges, "&c.," and the word "ditto" was frequently repeated, without there being any possibility of interpreting the meaning to be attached to the word. Was this at all desirable, or to be tolerated in a Bill dealing with the appropriation of the public money? In the original Bill the official conduct of the officers of the Irish courts of law was rendered liable to be canvassed annually in a Committee of Supply, and the Government had not given way upon the matter until they found themselves in a minority, when they agreed to adopt the Bill as it now stood. He rejoiced to find that the Committee throughout had taken a different view of the case. But this was far from being all, for it was the intention of the framers of the Bill to include in it the police magistrates of London, and that intention was not carried out only in consequence of an adverse vote. In fact, the Bill had been prepared with such want of consideration and justice, that no reserve whatever was made for the life interest of persons holding office during good behaviour, and it was only by a vote of Parliament that a saving clause was inserted. There were considerable objections to the Bill as it stood; but at that late period of the Session he was not desirous of proposing any Amendment, or of throwing any difficulties in the way of Government; but several alterations might be made which would be of a beneficial character. In some cases the Statutes had been inaccurately referred to. He would merely mention one instance, where a Statute was referred to under the head of "Scotch Clergy," when, instead of referring to the Scotch clergy, it related to the custody of offenders. In fact, he could call attention to several Statutes, showing, if he might use so unparliamentary a term, the "slipslop" manner in which the whole of the Bill had been drawn. A high authority in another place said— The Committee of the House of Lords had made a very injudicious charge on very insufficient grounds. They reported that they had not before them sufficient information to enable them to determine whether these pensions, superannuations, and similar charges ought to remain on the Consolidated Fund, or to be voted on the annual Estimates; and then, instead of sending to the Treasury for further information, they struck these items out of the schedule. The House must come back to the subject, and make cleaner work at a future time. Now, in answer to this statement, he must be allowed to say, that he had applied to the public officers of the Treasury to know whom he was to ask for any documentary evidence which it might he necessary to consult, and he had made an application at the Treasury for the very information which was wanting, and which their Lordships were complained of for not asking for. The answer which was given to his application was, that they had no authority to furnish the information he required, but they would apply for authority to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The next day the Chancellor of the Exchequer was applied to, and he declined to furnish the information. He (Lord Monteagle) certainly felt himself called on to complain, that after the information had been asked for and refused by the head of the Treasury Board himself, the absence of that information, and the supposed neglect of the Committee, should be made a ground of complaint against them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in another place— In the case of charges involving any great political question, or appearing to involve a question of good faith and of public contract, in which vested interests, which might fairly be so called, were concerned, he had left on the Consolidated Fund whatever he had found upon it. As bearing upon this point, he (Lord Monteagle) might mention the case of Mr. Augustus Stapleton. Mr. Stapleton was private secretary to the late Mr. Canning; and on the death of Mr. Canning, George IV. applied by letter to Lord Ripon, the head of the succeeding Government, to make some provision for Mr. Stapleton, on the ground of the affection which His Majesty had entertained towards Mr. Canning. Mr. Stapleton was in consequence appointed to the office of Commissioner of Customs, at a salary of 1,400l. a year, and he held, in addition, two small offices in the West Indies, which increased his emoluments to 1,900l. a year. When Earl Grey's Government came into office a large reduction was made in the expenditure of the Revenue Board; and upon an application being made to Mr. Stapleton, he agreed to resign the three offices which he then held, in consideration of a retiring allowance of 900l. a year. This sum was granted by the Government of the late Earl Grey, and, in consequence of the arrangement, a sum of 21,000l. had been saved to the country, and Mr. Stapleton, under peculiar circumstances, had been in the receipt of 900l. a year. The peculiar circumstances were, that Mr. Stapleton had himself sought to be relieved from the position of being a mere incumbrance upon the public, and had applied to successive Governments to give him employment in consideration of his retiring allowance. Now, he was quite satisfied that there was not one of their Lordships who would hesitate to express an opinion that the engagement with Mr. Stapleton was one which ought not to be broken. It was certainly a case which came within the speech of Mr. Gladstone, and was a case of good faith and contract, by which the public had effected a saving of 21,000l. in the interval between entering into the contract and the time at which it was proposed to throw Mr. Stapleton's allowance upon the Committee of Supply. It might be said that reliance should be placed upon the justice of the House of Commons; but he was not disposed to trust more to the House of Commons than to any other fallible persons; and not only must a reliance be placed upon the justice of the House of Commons, but they would have to depend upon the discretion or indiscretion of the Government of the day. In the course of this very Session, the salary paid to the Bishop of New Zealand had been withdrawn by the Government, though he had not the least doubt that the House of Commons would most willingly have agreed to its continuance. He did not think their Lordships had acted upon an unwise principle when they said that they would have evidence upon the whole matter before they came to a vote upon it; but, on the contrary, he thought they were quite right in the course they had taken, and that they had done good service to the public in the changes which they had introduced into the Bill. He would here take the liberty of referring to a report which was being circulated, to the effect that there was an intention to transfer to a Select Committee of the House of Commons the financial business of the country. If it were really true that such an intention existed, he thought it would be a greater change in the constitution and free institutions of England than had ever yet been propounded. At present the House of Commons, in its collective capacity as the Commons of England, had the power of considering its Estimates and of voting its money, and the moment it brought itself to transfer to a Select Committee functions of that description, its constitutional rights—its power over the public purse—would be lost, its proceedings would be conducted without deliberation and responsibility, and the financial business of the country would be conducted upon a similar plan to the bureau scheme of foreign countries, instead of by an open system of examination and deliberation.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, that as there were several Members of the Select Committee present he would leave them to say whether he had given an accurate description of the Bill, or whether it was such a monstrosity as had been described to them. With regard to one example which the noble Lord had given for the purpose or showing that it was an imperfect measure, it regarded a matter of Scotch law. Now, he (Earl Granville) must say that, although he might be willing to take the noble Lord as an authority on a question of Irish law, he was certainly disinclined to accept it upon matters affecting the Scotch law. His noble Friend said that the most unfounded accusation had been brought against the Select Committee of their Lordships' House, because, so far from their having been able to obtain information to enable them to judge of the justice or injustice of particular items, his noble Friend himself applied to the Treasury for information, and was refused it. His noble Friend, with his usual courtesy, had given him (Earl Granville) notice of his intention to bring forward this subject; and he had, therefore, been enabled to ascertain the facts of the case. It appeared that his noble Friend had had some communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that the latter, in answer to a question put to him, stated to his noble Friend that the persons most competent to give information on the subject of this Bill were two gentlemen of the names of Anderson and Shelley, engaged in the Treasury. He found that his noble Friend then wrote to Mr. Shelley, and requested both him and Mr. Anderson to call on him and bring the papers relating to the Bill. [Lord MONTEAGLE explained that he did not ask them to bring papers with them.] At all events, his noble Friend asked them for information respecting the Bill, and his noble Friend began his letter by saying that he had been authorised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do so. The answer of Mr. Shelley was, that he and Mr. Anderson would be most happy to call on the noble Lord, but requested that he would be good enough to specify what papers he desired. His noble Friend then replied, that it was a matter of no consequence, that he had only written the note to save time, that the Committee would meet the same afternoon, and would determine what papers it would call for. However, next day his noble Friend called on these gentlemen, and asked somewhat vaguely for information, and, thinking that he had the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for doing so, they afforded him certain information. It was true that when his noble Friend asked them to give him the Estimates, which had not then been laid before the House of Commons, they told him that to furnish them was beyond their discretion, and that they must refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject; and when the matter was mentioned to that right hon. Gentleman, he directed them not to give the Estimates to any one single Member of Parliament. In a conversation he (Earl Granville) had had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the latter assured him that when the noble Lord asked him as to the proper source of information, he had no notion that the noble Lord intended to go and ask for this particular information, he being hostile to the Bill and to the Government proposals; at the same time it never entered the head of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to withhold any information from a Committee of their Lordships' House. Whilst the Government were, of course, bound to give information to both Houses of Parliament, and to any Select Committee, he did not think they were bound to allow their subordinates to give official information privately to any Member who might wish to select weak points for attack, and entirely pass over the strong points of the ease, and thus to place himself in a position infinitely superior to that of the person who had to defend the Bill, and who was left uninformed as to the exact course which such an adverse Member meant to take. Now, they must all admire the zeal which his noble Friend displayed in any cause which he undertook, and knew that no one was more accurately acquainted than his noble Friend with the particulars contained in Parliamentary documents; but they knew at the same time nobody was so skilful in extracting information for the purpose he had in hand both from friend and foe. He meant no offence to his noble Friend by making this remark; but he could not help mentioning the circumstance that when he (Earl Granville) was at the Board of Trade, and when on one occasion his noble Friend meant to attack that department, with regard to some particular question, he found his noble Friend closeted with the secretary of the Board one hour before the debate was to come on. It was obvious that by seeking information in this manner the noble Lord placed the Minister who had to oppose him in a very unfair and unequal position. He had also heard it commonly stated that a certain witness, who was likely to be subjected to cross-examination in a Select Committee by his noble Friend, boasted of his presence of mind in having declined an invitation to breakfast he had received from his noble Friend for the morning of the day on which he was to give evidence; and the party invited said that he would be most happy to breakfast with his noble Friend on any day subsequent to his examination. His noble Friend had that night made reference to a rumour which he said had reached him regarding the intentions of the Government and of the other House. He (Earl Granville) had heard of other idle rumours, with which, however, he would not trouble their Lordships. One, concerning the relations of the Government and the Bank of England, was a case in point, and had been most completely refuted when the proper time came for it. He did not happen to have heard this rumour to which his noble Friend now alluded; but he would only say, when mere rumours, without any substance in them, were brought forward for the purpose of an attack, that he must in future decline either to defend or to deny them until some more tangible and definite ground was laid before the House.

LORD MONTEAGLE

replied. He said that it was true he went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for information relating to the subject of the Committee's inquiry; but he was not aware that he had taken a course in any way unusual. During the time he had held office there had always been an officer at the Treasury to meet inquiries made there, and to whom every Member of Parliament made application as to whether such and such a paper could be granted or not; and it was a ground of constant complaint on the part of the Government that Motions were made for papers without previous inquiries being made as to whether they could be produced.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, he could not allow the discussion to close without entering his protest against the fairness of the account of the transactions in the Select Committee given by both the noble Lord who spoke last and the noble Mar- guess (the Marquess of Clanricarde). The question having been referred to a Select Committee, the Government were defeated in the Committee, and various alterations and amendments were made in the Bill. But these various amendments were made solely upon grounds of policy, and not, as noble Lords had said, because blunders had been discovered in the drawing and printing of the Bill, or because the Government had sought in any case to violate the principle of the measure.

LORD CAMPBELL

said, that as it had been intimated that something very sweeping was to be done hereafter, he must express a hope that the Government would proceed with the greatest caution and deliberation, for he was inclined to think that, so far as they had gone, there had been, per incuriam, some departure from the principle of this Bill, as originally laid down. With all the respect that he entertained for the privileges of the other House, he thought there were functions which it could not constitutionally exercise, and the assumption of which by that House must lead to very mischievous consequences. The House of Commons was a legislative and inquisitorial, but not an executive body, and it could not undertake executive functions with advantage to the country. He understood that the foremost man in that House, whom they all regarded with respect and admiration, had expressed great alarm at any increase of its functions. He did not think that the House of Commons was at all fitted to determine every year what the salary of every functionary should be, nor was it expedient, after both Houses had with due deliberation fixed the salary of a particular office, that that salary should be transferred from the Consolidated Fund to the annual Votes, and that the House of Commons should every year be called on to decide what should be the amount of that salary, and whether the officer had that year done his duty properly. The House of Commons had not time to perform the duties imposed upon it by the constitution, and it would be far better that the salaries should be paid by the Treasury than by the House of Commons.

On Question, agreed to.

Bill read 2a accordingly.

Committee negatived.

Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38 considered (according to Order), and dispensed with on the said Bill.

Bill read 3a, and passed.