The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-04 00:00:00

SCINDE.

Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE asked the President of the
Board of Control, whether he will lay on the table of
the house the report of Mr. Pringle on Scinde, in which
Mr. Pringle expresses his admiration of Sir Charles
Napier's government of that province, and refutes
the charges brought against him in the report of the
Board of Administration of the Punjaub, published in
the Indian Blue Book.

Sir C. WOOD said there was no report at the India
House answering the description of the hon. member.

BRIBERY BILL.

In reply to Mr. LIDDELL,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated that he proposed to
take the committee on the Bribery Bill on Monday
next.

PUBLIC REVENUE AND CONSOLIDATED
FUND CHARGES BILL.

On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY drew attention to the se•
cond clause, which proposed to alter the time of pub-
lishing the annual public accounts from March to July,
which he thought would prove a great inconvenience to
Parliament, as the Legislature would not be in posses-
sion of the audited accounts until the session was draw-
ing to a close.
slr. WILSON said, under the existing system, the
Totes of the house were made for the year commencing
the sth of April. and ending on the sth of April follow-
ing, but the public audited aocounts were made up from
the Ist of January to 31st of December. The object of the
clause was to make the published accounts harmonise
with the votes of the house.

Mr. V. SCULLY did not object to the general prin-
ciples of the bill, but he complained that there were cer-
tain classes of payments which were now thrown upon
the Consolidated Fund that were intended in future to be
brought into the estimates. One of them was the
charge for judici:d offices in Ireland which he insisted
ought to be exempted from the operation of this bill.
He thought the bill ought to be reconsidered in a select
committee, with a view to an amendment of the sche-
dule.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS pressed on the Secretary of
the Treasury to withdraw the clause of which notice had
been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to pro-
tect the salaries of existing officers. The hon. member
for Warwickshire's motion was contingent on any change
being made in tho schedules, and if Mr. Wilson with-
drew the clause. the hon. member would most probably
not persevere in Ins motion. Ho would appeal to Mr.
Spooner, also, not to endanger the measure by his mo-
tion, but to take some other opportunity of bringing ou
his motion.

Lord J. RUSSELL said ho thought his bon. friend
(Mr. Williams) was mistaken in supposing that the mo-
tion of the hon. member for Warwickshire was at all
contingent on the clause proposed to be introduced by
his hon. friend the Secretary of the Treasury. As he
understood the motion of the hen. member for Warwick-
shire it was this, that if the house sanctioned the prin-
ciple of taking sums from the consolidated fund and
transferring them to the votes, then he should bring on
his motion. If that was so, the clause of which his hon.
friend (Mr. Wilson) had given notice did not apply to
that motion. He agreed with the rest of the speech of
his hon. friend (Mr. Williams), and be thought his hon.
friend was right in saying that the house had always
behaved with great justice and fairness to all persons
who claimed to be holders for life of salaries. He did
not remember a case where it was shown that there were
good grounds for a person expecting a salary for life, in
which the house interfered in an arbitrary manner to
deprive him of it. There may have been such instances,
and it might be necessary to introduce this clause, but it
was not rendered necessary by the proneness of the house
to deal with salaries for life in any but the fairest mail-
ner. The proposition of the hon. member for Warwick-
shire went on a very different principle. The bill went
on the principle of getting accounts of all payments out
of the revenue before the house ; it was an important
financial measure, and though there might be difficulties
in carrying it into operation, it had been much urged
by gentlemen ou that side of the house, and the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer (whose absence from indisposi-
tion he much deplored) had bestowed great care and
labour on the bill. The vote to Maynooth was a totally
different question of state policy, whether the vote for
Maynooth should be brought forward in the yearly esti-
mates or placed on the consolidated fund. That was a
question which had been brought before the house years
ago by Sir Robert Peel, and after warm debates and
great contests in that house and in the country, Parlia-
ment had deliberately sanctioned the grant, and declared
that it should be placed on the consolidated fund, and
not be made the subject of a yearly contest. If that
decision was to be reversed it should be done in the same
way as the matter was dealt with by Sir Robert
Peel ; it should be done by a bill, thus giving the coun-
try time to consider the matter, and the house the op-
portunity of debating the question on the several stages
of the bill, and of approving, if they thought fit, or re-
jecting it if they thought that those who agreed with
Sir Robert Peel had come to a wise and right decision.
He (Lord John Russell) thought that a wise and right
decision, and he had supported Sir R. Peel, notwith-
standing the opposition to his bill which existed in the
country. He believed that was a wise and sound policy
and ought not to be reversed ; and he would say more,
that if that decision was reversed on the motion for the ,
third reading of this bill, and the grant was put upon the I
votes, it would be the duty o the Government to with-
draw the bill. (Hear.) It was for the house to consi-
der, and it was for those who were in favour of financial
reforms to consider, whether on the third reading of the
bill they would adopt a motion
ls) much at variance
with the principles on which Par lament had acted of
late years, and he would only give notice to the hon.
member for Warwickshire that the carrying of his mo-
tion would be fatal to the bill. (Hear.)
Mr. SPOONER said if the proposal was a right
one, no evil could result from discussion. It was his in-
tention to persevere, for the Protestant feeling of the
country was aroused, and would be too strong for the
Government to resist • and it would be compelled to
give up this vote for Maynooth. _As to bringing in a
bill upon the subject, it was absurd, for he would be de-
feated by hon. gentleman speaking against time until
six o'clock on WednesdaYsLet the result, therefore,
be what it might, he would' press his motion to a
division ; and if the bill were a valuable one, he would
leave the responsibility of withdrawing it to the noble
lord.

The bill was then read a third time.
Mr. WILSON then brought up a clause which was
understood to provide fur the production of quarterly
accounts.

On the clause being read a second time,
Mr. HENLEY complained that the clause had not
been printed, and urged that there would be some incon-
venience in the mode of taking the accounts proposed ;
but he spoke in so low a tone that we were unable to
catch the purport of his remarks.

Mr. WILSON said there was no intention of altering
the mode of keeping the statistical accounts ; and the
only object of altering the way of keeping the financial
accounts was to make them connected with the years to
which they app'ied. The amounts would be published
on the sth of January, so that they would be in the
possession of the house at an earlier period, although
the financial year would still end on the sth of April.
With regard to the quarterly accounts, there would
be no difficulty about them, for the accounts would
still apply to the whole year, and not to those quarters
of a year.
The clause was then added to the bill.
Mr. V. SCULLY moved as an amendments in page

under
cdleienrt ecielxit h 5.
set e vestedrac‘te
stir logafhl
PI&
- ----7-e-ee..--essiereeseeeleSeeee
a"
rotlf.ioaan2lnnyes
neprtrt
ecs‘hleali
hn
charging
Ildtt
their
reosinr
ot
salaries
or ejta 0
upon the consolidated fund." Having already explained
his views on this matter, he trusted the Secretary of the
Treasury would adopt them. He suggested that the
present rights of all holders of office should not be inter-
fered, and also that there should be no interference with
the retired holders of office. There were holders of office
who did not hold during life or good behaviour whose
interests would be seriously affected if their salaries were
to come annually under the supervision of the house.
Mr. WILSON said he hoped his hon. and learned
friend would not persist in his amendment, but would
adopt the words which had been carefully drawn up for
the purpose of accomplishing what he believed to be the
feeling of the house—that the existing holders of office
should not be prejudiced by the act. The only difference
between his clause and the hon. and learned member's
was that the hon. and learned member left out the words
" during life or good behaviour."
Mr. V. SCULLY then withdrew his amendment.
Mr. WILSON then moved the following proviso :
" That where the salary of any office holden for life, or
during good behaviour, is fixed by or under any act of
Parliament, and charged on or payable out of the said
consolidated fund, nothing herein contained shall, so
long as the present holder of such office continues to
hold the same, effect the charge on the said consolidated
fund of the salary which at the time of the passing of
this act is payable in respect of such office ;" which was
agreed to.
Mr. V. SCULLY then moved to leave out from sche-
dule B all words, figures, and references to acts of Par-
liament relating to the Courts of Chancery in Ireland.
Mr. WILSON said it had been much argued whether
the masters of these courts were judicial officers or not.
It was the principle of this bill that the salaries of all
judicial officers should be left charged on the consoli-
dated fund. In consequence of the great difference of
opinion whether masters were judicial officers or not,
they had recourse to very high legal authority, aid they
were advised that masters of all the courts might be
considered as judicial officers. He, therefore, proposed
to make an exception in favour of the masters of these
courts as well as of the masters in the Court of Chan-
cery. The officers in the Court of Chancery in Ireland
were paid out of the consolidated fund. Those in Eng-
land were paid by fees. It was the intention of Go-
vernment to pay the officers in England from the public
exoiequer, but the existing officers, those wbo were nave
living, would of course be protected in the same way
that this bill protected the officers in Ireland. At pre-
sent the officers in England were virtually paid from the
consolidated fund, inasmuch as• their salaries were
charged on certain fees, and, if there was a deficiency, it
was to be made up from the consolidated fund. When
they had provided that the existing officers should in no
way be prejudiced by, the operation of this bill they had
gone as far as any existing person could have a right to
ask them, for surely it was within the scope of the Trea-
sury and of that house to consider, not only whether an
office that fell vacant should be filled up at all, but, if
filed up, what salary should be attached to it.. Govern-
ment thought that the whole of these establishments
should annually be brought under the consideration of
that house, in order that public opinion might from time
to time be brought to harmonise with these establish-
ments, and that the executive government of the day
might, from the discussions which would take place,
know how to deal with these appointments as they arose.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that in England these
officers were paid by fees, but their salaries were fixed.
The English Masters in Chancery received 2,5001.
a-year each, and he asked the Secretary of the Trea-
sury to state what was the salary of those officers in
Ireland.

Mr. I. BUTT said he understood from the Secretary
of the Treasury that the result of the ill treatment of the
Irish officers was that they were going to treat the Eng-
lish officers in the same way. They were now for the
first time sanctioning the principle that the ministerial
portion of the courts of justice should be' dependent on
an annual vote of that house.

The house then divided—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority

... 111
... 138
.. -27

Mr. V. SULLY said that division related merely to
the Court of Chancery, and he would now move a simi-
lar amendment with regard to the courts of law, in
which there might be some difference. As so many had
divided in his favour, he would try his luck again. Ho
moved a similar omission with regard to the officers of
the Court of Queen's Bench.

Mr. I. BUTT supported the motion on the ground
that if the salaries of the officers of the court were de-
pendent on an annual vote of the house, they might, to
put an extreme case, deprive the court of its officers if
they were dissatisfied with any of its decisions.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not think fora moment
that the house would ever be inclined to deprive these
officials of their salaries.
Mr. MALINS agreed with Mr. Butt, that the
schedule, as it stood, infringed the principle of adminis.
trative justice. The salaries of those engaged in the
administration of justice should not be dependent upon
the caprice of the House of Commons.
Mr. DRUMMOND observed that the consequence
of this bill would be that they would have an annual
debate upon all these salaries, while if there was one
part of the country which ought to have been excluded
from its operation more than another it was Ireland.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Aglinct it

Mr. V:SOULLY said there were two or three other
amendments that he had given notice of. The taxies
officers in Ireland were included in the schedule ; those
is England were not.

Mr. WILSON said before the hon. member proceeded,
he had an amendment to move, which was, that the
words "ex iepting the masters" be inserted in the sche-
dule after the words " Courts of Queen's Bench, Com-
mon Pleas, and Exchequer."
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. V. SCULLY insisted that the following offices
ought to be struck out of the schedule, namely :—lnsol-
vent Debtors' Court, Ireland ; Police Magistrates or
Commissioners of Police, DuJlin ; Registrars of Judges,
Ireland ; Expenses or Lodging Money of Judges, Ire.
land ; and Assistant Barristers, Ireland.
Mr. GEORGE argued that the taxing masters were
judicial officers, and ought to be excluded.
Mr. WILSON entertained a different opinion. There
were no judicial functions attached-to the office of taxing
master.

Col. DUNNE was at a loss to understand upon what
principle the exclusions had been made.
Some other verbal amendments were then made in the
schedule.

Mr. SPOONER then rose to move the amendment o
which he had given notice with regard to Maynooth. He
said he did not intend to go into the religious part of the
question, but although he abstained from doing so, it
must be distinctly understood that his opinions upon
it remained unchanged. (Hear, hear.) The vote for
Maynooth ought never to have been removed from
the annual estimates ; it was an unconstitutional pro-
ceeding nothing more nor less, indeed, than an
attempt to stifle the public voice, and that was why he
called upon the house to restore the vote to its original
position. (Hear, hear.) There were only two classes
of charges which should be allowed to remain on the
consolidated fund, namely, the charge for diplomatic
agents and the salaries of judicial officers, but it was
argued with reference to this grant, that it was the re-
sult of a compact or a contract made between the minis•
ter who proposed it and the Roman Catholic body. He
found, however, on referring to Sir Robert Peel's speech
in 1845, that there was no stipulation or contract what-
everever
about it ; the real motive which actuated him in
proposing it was a desire to conciliate those who never
had been and never could be conciliated ; for
n o honest
Roman on
could
Roman Catholics, professing
.the views which they did
profess, and acting up to their professions,
be conciliated or reconciled in any way until they ob-
tained that which they had all along being endeavouring
to get, namely, supremacy for their religion instead of
toleration. (Hear.) Nothing would satisfy them until
they had destroyed the Established Church in Ireland,
which seemed to be the first object of their inspira-
tions, and finally succeeded in overthrowing the con-
stitution by establishing the spiritual domination of the
(Hear, hear.) The house must
resist Pope inth
atth idsacountry,r
ing
aggression,
t o
knowt Parliamentha that
they h
mustsou
rl de 8
t make
con-
tented the Roman Catholics
with the unlimited privilege accorded to all sects
worshipping their God according to their consciences ;
they should be made to know that they must rest con-
tented with being put on a level with all those who did
not agree with the doctrines of the Church of England,
and unless that principle were maintained, the house
would soon find that the Protestant spirit which had
been aroused throughout the country, and which
was daily and hourly increasing, would be so ex-
asperated that Parliament would be compelled to
do by force what it bad now the opportunity of accom•
plishing by quiet and peaceable means. (Hear, hear.)
They could not be continually calling upon a Protestant
nation to contribute towards the support of idolatry.
(" Oh, oh.") Hon. members might cry "oh, oh," but
they might depend upon it that was the light in which
the country viewed the question ; and he called upon
the house, now that they were placing almost every
other charge upon the estimates, to take this opportunity
of regaining a control over the Maynooth grant. (Hear,
hear.) It was one of the especial duties of the house to
look after the expenditure of the country, but that duty
would not be fully and efficiently performed if this grant
should be allowed to remain on the consolidated fund,
and therefore be moved the house to add to schedule B,
" the president, vice-president, and students of Maynooth
College, and the expenses of the establishment, enacted
by 8 and 9 Vic. c. 25."
Col. NORTH seconded the motion.

The question having been put,
Mr. NE WDEGATE asked what special claim May
nooth had to exclusion when almosHe wi
every other charge
was placed upon the estimates. shed to have
some explanation, some reason for it, because if there
was any one charge more than another which ought to
be transferred from the consolidated fund it was this
very Mavnooth grant. (Hear, hear.) It was proposed.
by the late Sir R. Peel on the ground that the poverty of
the students at Maynooth required it, but he had ascer-
tained since the act passed that the plea of poverty was
wholly without foundation. (Hear.) In 1842 Sir F.
Head, when travelling in Ireland, went to Maynooth, and
he found that a large portion of the new buildings at
that place were uninhabited. The whole Parliamentary
grant had been expended in mere carcase building, and
lie presumed that the authorities at Maynooth ex-
pected another large grant in order to provide the into..
fittings. What was the object of this misappro-
ptionof the Parliamentary grant'? He believed that
it was
to enable the college to take 725 students, while
Parliament only intended that 520 students should be
received there. All these sacrifices of principle and of
capital were made in order to conciliate Ireland. But