The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-25 00:00:00

SUPPLY.

On tho motion that the house go into committee of
supply,
Mr. LAING said the object of going into committee was
to obtain certain votes on account in respect of the civil ser-
vice, as the system of keeping the accounts for that depart-
ment of the public service was essentially different to the
accounts of the army and navy. The hon. gentleman having
explained the manner in which the aecounts were kept,
stated that the reason why the Government asked for these
votes on account was because no money had yet been ob-
tained on account of the civil service estimates, and conse-
quently the balances in reference to many items had be-
come exhausted, and in many others they were approaching
exhaustion. The Government preferred asking for these
votes on account of overdrawing particular accounts, and in
effect encroaching upon the provisions of the Appropriation
Act. There were several precedents for the course now
proposed, and during the past four or five years certain cir-
cumstances had arisen which made it necessary that sums
should be taken on account. In the estimates presented to
the house no vote for any new service would be introduced,
and the Government had kept the vote within the strictest
limit. All the Government now proposed to do was to ask
for a vote of £lOO,OOO, and that sum would be distributed
over nine separate heads of expenditure. He would state
what those votes were, and the house would see that no-
thing was involved in them which would give rise to any
discussion. The votes on account were for printing and
stationery, £30,000 ; county courts, £35,000 ; Irish consta-
bulary, £82,000; public education, £100,000; consuls
abroard, £54,000 ; prisons and convicts, establishments at
home £20,000; sundry temporary commissions, £12,000 ;
the suppression of the slave trade, £17,000 ; and civil con-
tingencies, £50,000. All further explanations required
would be given when the house was in committee.
Mr. A. SMITH said he greatly objected to this
system of taking money on account. Complaints had been
made in former sessions that the estimates were de-
layed, yet it mattered not what Government was in office,
the estimates were never laid upon the table until late in
the session—perhaps this year about the middle of July,
when it would be utterly impossible to examine them care-
fully. Her Majesty's Government should recollect that
these estimates were not to be considered as a reason for
voting the money required as a matter of course. He
should feel it to be his duty to oppose the motion for going
into committee, and he should take the sense of the house
on the amendment.
Mr. WILLIAMS protested against the system of taking
votes on account. The house ought not to be asked for
money without being at the same time told how it was to
be spent.
Mr, WALPOLE hoped that the house would feel it to
be its duty to give a strong expression of its opinion on the
proposition now made. Whether that opinion should be
given on the question of leaving the chair or in committee
was a matter for consideration, his impression being that it
was better to wait for the committee. He was somewhat
astonished, however, by the reason which had been given
by the Government, and thought that the p ecedents of the
Secretary for the Treasury were not at all in point. The
only cases in which votes had been given in the manner
now asked were when a dissolution was expected, or when
the house had determined upon examining into the esti-
mates, and would only give a vote on account until that
examination was completed. The house was now asked to
give a sum of £lOO,OOO on account, and he ebserved that
when the Secretary of the Treasury was asking for that
sum he made out no case of pressing exigency, but hinted
at the probability of not getting into a discussion of the
estimates until August. He thought it better not to oppose
the Speaker's leaving the chair, but in committee the vote
now asked for should be criticised with great minueeness.
If they consented to take votes in this matter, they would
be depriving the House of Commons of the right to bring
forward questions of grievance on going into committee of
supply.
Lord H. VANE was glad to hear the right hon. gentle-
man opposite declaring that he would not oppose the
Speaker leaving the chair. He (Lord H. Vane) was quite of
opinion that the estimates should be taken at an early pe-
riod of the session, but at the same time the demand of the
Secretary of the Treasury was so limited that no evil could
arise from its concession. On the understanding that these
estimates would be brought forward at an early period, he
should not feel justified in opposing the proposition of the
Secretary of the Treasury.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said that the sum absolutely de-
manded by the Secretary of the Treasury (£1,000,000) was
small, but the first thing the house had to consider was the
question of principle. If they were merely asked for this
vote with the understanding that the estimates would be
taken immediately after the holidays, then the proposal was
a moderate one; but if the object was to enable the Govern-
ment to postpone the estimates until a late period of the
session, then it became not a q iestion of £100,003, nor of
£1,400,000, but a question of principle and precedent.
Therefore, although he should with great reluctance throw
any difficulty in the way of the committee, he thought he
should be informed of the principle upon which the present
demand was made. As to the precedents, they were only
three, two the dissolutions of 1857 and of last year, and
1818, when a committee was appointed to revise the miscel•
laneous expenditure, and the votes were taken on account,
in order to keep the estimates in the hands of the house.
The hon. baronet here quoted the report of the committee
on public moneys, and contended that if the house acceded
to the present motion it would place itself in one of two dif-
ficulties—either they must discuss the principle of the vote
then, in which case no time was gained, or else they would
be withdrawing from discussion votes which it might be
desirable to discuss. It was said the sum demanded was a
moderate one, but some of it was for votes in class 7, in
which a reduction had been promised to the extent of
£200,000. He should object to give any money on account
in class 7, and altogether he should object to these votes on
account unless it was distinctly understood that they were
to have the discussion on the estimates immediately after
Whitsuntide.

Lord FERMOY objected to the proposal of the Secre-
tary to the Treasury on principle, and if his hon. friend
pressed his amendment to a division he (Lord Fermoy)
must support him. He thought it was time the house made
a stand, especially as the inference to be drawn from the
Secretary of the Treasury's speech was that the estimates
might not be brought forward until August. Another ob-
jection he had was that a vote on account was a vote of
confidence in the Government. (Hear.) They were at
present in a very peculiar crisis. Important steps would
have to be taken respecting a matter then pending between
that house anti the House of Lords ; and his continued
confidence in the, Government would greatly depend upon
the conduct they might pursue in that matter. He thought
the present a good opportunity to test it by postponing the
vote now proposed until after Whitsuntide.
Mr. DISRAELI—I have no wish to mix the question
now before us with any other. (Hear, hear.) I will con-
fine myself, therefore, to the proposition which the Go-
vernment have submitted to us. On occasions like the pre-
sent, I confess, notwithstanding the • constitutional sus-
picion with which the house ought to view all proposi-
tions of this kind, I am myself always inclined to facili-
tate the course of public business, and to give any gentle-
men who sit on the Treasury bench that fair assistance in
conducting the affairs of the country which in these diffi-
cult times they have a right to expect from Parliament. It
_ _

is impossible, however, to assent to this proposition without
some consideration. I think it of the greatest importance
that the house should clearly understand the proposition
that is made, because I cannot at all agree with the noble
lord the member for Hastings (Lord H. Vane) in the view
he took. The noble lord seemed to entertain objections of
a very serious character to any course of this kind, provided
the demand had been a large one ; but it was, comparatively
speaking, so small, he did not see how the house could pro-
perly refuse the application. To my mind the small amount
of the proposition would rather add to my objection to it, in
case I felt it my duty on the whole to offer no opposition to
the plan of the Government. Because, what is the view of
the public business given to us by the Secretary of the Trea-
sury ? He certainly, as has been observed by the noble lord
who spoke last, and as was generally felt by both sides of the
house, conveyed the impression that there v, as no immediate
prospect of the house forming itself into a committee of sup-
ply to consider the Civil Service Estimates. (Hear.) Accord-
ing to the noble lord the member for Hastings, this proposi-
tion, being a small one, is also a safe one, but though the
proposition may be small in amount, the precedent which it
establishes is one of considerable moment. (Hear, hear.)
And what will be the position of the house if, a fortnight
hence, when this supply is exhausted, a similar proposition
equally small, is made ? (Hear, hear.) The house may be
occupied at that time with business, supposed to be business
of great interest and importance, and an appeal may then be
equally successful if it is urged, as to-night, that surely the
house has sufficient confidence in the Government to supply
them with funds to carry on the urgent business of the coun-
try for another week or fortnight ? (Hear.) AlthOugh the
application may be small, the precedent may be very large ;
and therefore it is only as a precedent involving a principle
that the house has really to decide upon the question before
it. (Hear.) I entirely assent to the speech which has
been made by my right hon. friend the member for the Uni-
versity of Cambridge. I agree with him in all his arguments,
and the only part in which I do not agree with him is the
conclusion at which he arrives. It appeared to me that
every argument urged by my right hon. friend would have
induced him to arrive at a conclusion perfectly adverse to
that which he reached ; and, so far from thinking that this
is not the opportunity upon which the house should come to
a decision, whatever that decision may be, it is upon the
question that M . Speaker leave the chair that a principle
being involved, and we being called upon to establish a pre-
cedent, I thick the house ought to treat the matter
frankly and fully, and arrive at their decision upon it.
(Hear.) Upon the subject of precedent I need hardly touch,
because I think the admission of the Secretary to the Trea-
sury is conclusive. All the precedents which 'he adduced
proved that it was a course which the house adopted only
under extraordinary circumstances, such as dissolutions of