REDUCTION OF SALARIES' COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 10 December 1830)

Mr. Phillpotts
said, he wished to make a few observations with reference to the select committee that was appointed last night. He observed that the noble Lord himself was on that committee, although he had understood that no person connected with the Administration was to be placed on it. Two members of the late Government were also appointed members of the committee. These Gentlemen were certainly placed in a very extraordinary situation; because, if they declared that the salaries were too large, they would thereby convict themselves of having, during the many years they held office, received enormous salaries—salaries greatly disproportioned to the duties performed by them. They would, therefore, be in some measure compelled to state that the salaries were not too great. He also observed that the names of several of those who last night expressed strongly their opinion that the salaries were not too large, were introduced on this committee; but not one of those individuals who entertained a very different opinion had been 983 placed on it. He had one other observation to make on this subject. He saw, on the Order-book, a notice given by an hon. Alderman (Wood) for a specific motion for the reduction of those salaries, which he proposed to bring on after the recess. How was it, he asked, that that hon. Alderman was not on this committee? As he meant to make a specific motion, he must have directed his attention to the subject, and therefore he was a proper person to be placed on the committee. He now asked the noble Lord, with the most perfect cordiality whether he had any objection to make this addition to the committee?

§ Lord Althorp
said, he was quite ready to give the hon. Member an answer. His object was to place no person on the Committee who could be supposed to be under the influence of Government. With respect to the placing two of the late Ministers on the Committee, that was done for the purpose of arriving at details of official business, which could not be given by any other persons. And though he had been all his life politically opposed to them as Ministers, still there were no individuals on whose honour, fairness, and integrity, he would place greater reliance. If their salaries had been too high, the blame rested with the House, and not with them; and, therefore, it was proper that the whole subject should be investigated by a Committee, whose labours would be laid before the House, which could then decide on its recommendation. The hon. Member said, he was surprised that no person who spoke in favour of a reduction of salaries was placed on the Committee. It was strange, that he overlooked the hon. member for Porsetshire, who had been all his life anxious for a reduction of expenditure. The hon. Member also observed, that some Gentlemen who spoke last night unfavourably of a reduction of salaries, were named on the Committee. But, he could say, that he selected the Committee with the greatest care before the debate, and therefore what then passed could not have affected the nomination. With respect to the hon. Alderman, he had no objection to his being added to the Committee. He had quite forgotten that the hon. Alderman had given the notice alluded to. His great object was to frame the Committee so as to give perfect satisfaction to the country; and it would have been most absurd if Ministers intended any thing else.

§ Sir G. Warrender
expressed his regret at not having seen the hon. member for Dorsetshire on the Committee that morning. Had he been present, he doubted not that he would have been appointed Chairman, —a situation for which his extensive experience peculiarly qualified him.

§ Sir R. Peel
admitted, that the Committee was very fairly formed. If individuals were not included who last night spoke in favour of reduction, it could only have been the result of chance, arising out of the manner in which the appointment of Committees was ordinarily arranged. The subject to be considered was an exceedingly delicate one. It would be very difficult to say what would be a sufficient remuneration for a Prime Minister, or a leader in the House of Commons, without inquiring into the private circumstances of the individual. With reference to the circumstances in which he was placed, he could not help thinking that the object of this inquiry would be much better served by omitting him (Sir R. Peel) and his right hon. friend. They were placed in a more painful situation than if they even were subject to the influence of the Government; because any honourable man in office would much rather agree to a reduction of his salary, than say that for many years he had been receiving more than the public ought to have paid. In his opinion, therefore, it would be more likely to afford satisfaction to the public, if those who had held office were merely called on to give their evidence. It would be much more agreeable to him to appear before the Committee as a witness, than to sit on it as a Judge; for if he gave his conscientious opinion that the salaries ought not to be lowered, it might be unjustly supposed that he was only vindicating the character and conduct of himself and of those who had been connected with him in office. If it were necessary that he should act on the Committee, he would not shrink from the performance of his duty; but he thought it would be better to omit his name and that of his right hon. friend. He begged leave again to state his willingness to give all the information in his power, to facilitate the inquiry; and to say, at the same time, that he thought the Committee was very fairly framed.