HC Deb 14 August 1860 vol 160 cc1258-67

House in Committee.

Mr. MASSEY

in the Chair.

(1) £1,000,000 to pay off Exchequer Bonds.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) Question again proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £3,035, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Maintenance and Repairs of Embassy Houses, &c, Abroad, to the 31st day of March, 1861.

Whereupon Question again proposed, That the item of £650, for Casual and Ordinary Repairs and Painting, Repairs of Furniture, Fittings, and Contingencies of the British Embassy House at Therapia, be omitted from the proposed Vote.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that on the last occasion when the Vote Avas before the Committee, he had moved the omission of the item of £650 for the casual and ordinary repairs, painting, furniture, &c. of the British Embassy House at Therapia, He wished, therefore, to repeat his objec- tion to the item, which, though a small one, he thought the Committee ought to set its face against as a totally unnecessary and wasteful expenditure. The Embassy House at Therapia was only distant eight or nine miles from the Embassy House at Pera; and one or other of them ought to be done away with. He should feel it his duty to take the sense of the Committee on this Vote.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

remarked, that it was customary for every Ambassador to have a sort of counting-house.

MR. COWPER

said, he understood that the whole diplomatic body left Constantinople in the summer to go to Therapia, and. it was necessary that their Ambassador should be provided with a house there. With regard to the house at Pera, that was a gift of the Sultan to the British nation; and it might be thought a very great offence, if what he had been kind enough to give was immediately turned into money.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(3.) £8,450, New Consular Offices, &c, Constantinople, agreed to.

(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £160,000, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Expense of constructing certain Harbours of Refuge, to the 31st day of March, 1861.

MR. CONINGHAM

objected to the expenditure of £63,000 on the Harbour of Alderney, as it would be of no use whatever as a harbour of refuge, and moved the reduction of the Vote by that amount.

MR. CORRY

drew attention to the condition of the Harbour of Alderney, and contended that £2,000,000 would not be sufficient to make it a safe harbour. He considered that the works there were a mere job.

MR. CHILLERS

also objected to the expenditure of this money on the Harbour of Alderney.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, he wish-ed to explain what was being done with regard to that harbour. A plan was attached to the Report of the Select Committee on miscellaneous expenditure this year, which showed upon it a point marked D. All the Government were doing was carrying out the breakwater to point D, for the purpose of making the harbour available so far. The foundation having, been laid out to that point, it would be inconvenient, and even dangerous, not to finish that work. On the eastern side they were carrying out a small breakwater at a very small expense. The breakwater, carried out to point D, would afford a fair harbour for small vessels. It would, how over, be a very fair question for the Government of the day to consider whether, when they had completed this work, it would be advisable to proceed further. He thought no objection would probably be offered to a Committee to inquire as to the advisability of any further expenditure.

Motion made, and Question put, That the item of £05,000 for Works at Alderney be omitted from the proposed Vote.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 41: Majority 28.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(5.) £30,000, Holvhead Harbour.

MR. BELLEW

asked, Whether it was not possible to give better accommodation for passengers at Holyhead?

COLONEL DUNNE

also called attention to the want of proper accommodation for passengers, and the importance of improving the pier.

MR. LAING

said, that it was the intention of the Lords of the Admiralty, during the recess, to go down to Holyhead, to see what arrangements could be made for the comfort and accommodation of passengers arriving at, and going from, Holyhead.

MR. CORRY

said, he hoped the Admiralty would not view the matter with merely a nautical eye, but would have some regard for the accommodation of the Irish people.

Vote agreed to.

(6.) £401 Port Patrick Harbour.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

objected to the Vote, as he believed it would never be possible to make a proper harbour at Port Patrick.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes.

(7.) £7,226, Kingstown Harbour.

(8.) £87,485, Houses of Parliament.

(9.) £38,095, Treasury.

(10.) £23,687, Home Department.

(11.) £46,145, Foreign Department.

(12.) £29,208, Colonial Department.

(13.) £18,730, Privy Council Office.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £10,129, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to pay the Salaries and Expenses in the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, including the Office of the Registrar of Merchant Seamen, to the 31st day of March, 1861.

MR. EDWIN JAMES

pointed out the great expense on account of clerks and secretaries. There was a Vote of £13,000 for secretaries, and in addition £5,000 for clerks. He wished an explanation of the latter item.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he presumed the hon. and learned Gentleman's question referred to temporary clerks, which were often found necessary in the public offices.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, he thought the matter of temporary clerks was one that called for the serious consideration of the Government. It came out before the Committee on the Army Expenditure, that at the "War Office there were no fewer than 160 temporary clerks. He hoped the subject would, without delay, receive the consideration of Government.

MR. LAING

said, there could be no objection to reduce the Vote by £800, which was the sum proposed for extra clerks.

Motion made, and Question, That the item of £5,000, for the Contingent Expenses of the Board of Trade, he reduced by the amount of £800.

Put, and agreed to.

(14). Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding £39,329, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to pay the Salaries and Expenses in the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, including the Office of the Registrar of Merchant Seamen, to the 31st day of March, 1861.

(15.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That, a sum, not exceeding £2,020, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to pay the Salary of the Lord Privy Seal, and the Expenses of his Establishment, to the 31st day of March, 1861.

MR. AYRTON

objected to the Vote. They were now asked to Vote a sum for the salary of the Lord Privy Seal, and there was in addition a sum for clerks, which he considered to be a very large establishment for a very small office. They all remembered the consternation which was created on a former occasion when a Motion was given notice of to abolish the office, in accordance with the recommendation of a Committee of the House. He did not understand why there was so much acquiescence in the existence of the office, considering the great opposition manifested to it formerly. He believed that the Nobleman who now discharged the duties of the office was also Postmaster General, and he must say that he thought; such a state of things was not defensible. He should therefore move to reduce the Vote by £2,000, being the salary of the Lord Privy Seal.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, the Duke of Argyll, the Lord Privy Seal, was acting as Postmaster General in the absence of the Earl of Elgin, but he did not draw both salaries, and he might state that it was the intention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government very shortly to recommend to Her Majesty to fill up the office of Postmaster General. On the recommendation of a Committee appointed by the Treasury the office of the Signet was abolished, and some reductions took place in the office of the Privy Seal. The Lord Privy Seal was an officer of high. distinction in the State. Constitutionally speaking, the office was one of high rank and position, but he was ready to admit that its duties were of a formal nature. The office was always held by a Peer, and he could not help saying that the holding of such a high office by a person of rank and connected with the Cabinet was of great service to the country, as lie was usually able to discharge duties which other Members of the Cabinet, actively engaged in the duties of their offices, could not attend to. Persons in office found great difficulty in getting through their business, and at the same time attending to their duties in Parliament, and it was no small advantage to have persons belonging to the Cabinet, who had no very active duties to perform in connection with the particular office they held, to assist in carrying the Government through the vast amount of business that had to be discharged. That was the great advantage of having such an office as that of the Privy Seal. He did not pretend to say the duties were such as to occupy any portion of the time of the Peer who held it. He did not defend it on that ground, but simply on the principle that, looking at the constitution of our Government, which consisted of a small number of persons, who had to transact a great deal of business, it was an office the retention of which was important to the transaction of the public business of the country. He thought that the proposal to abolish such an office ought not to be made in Supply, but after notice was given, and by a deliberate Motion.

LORD FERMOY

said, it was just the time to abolish the office, seeing that the office had been actually vacant for the last three months, and that consequently no injury could arise from the abolition. As to the office being held by a Peer, he thought that, as the office was actually vacant, the House would hardly be inclined to keep up a sinecure merely because it was held by a Peer, especially after the manner in which the other House had treated them on a recent occasion. If the Government wanted additional strength it was much more necessary they should have it in the House of Commons. He should, therefore, vote for the Amendment.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, he believed that if they were to abolish the office to-morrow they would be glad to get a Member of the Cabinet holding no office to assist the Government in the discharge of their duties. He believed hon. Gentlemen were not aware of the immense amount of business—and that still growing—which fell upon the Members of the Government who held high official situations. They had hardly time to perform the functions which they ought to discharge in their own offices, and if they were deprived of the assistance of colleagues who were not so occupied, they would be obliged to neglect their duties, and throw the discharge of them upon subordinates. Besides, such a question as this should not be disposed of without notice.

MR. EDWIN JAMES

supported the Amendment. There was no reason why, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no time to eat, drink, or sleep, that £2,000 should he given to a Lord Privy Seal, who had nothing to do but to eat, drink, and sleep.

MR. WHITE

said, he was sorry that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Baring) had so mean an opinion of the peerage of the country as to think they would require a salary for serving the nation. He believed there were many men eminent for their talents who would be glad to devote their services to the country without remuneration. That was the case with the Marquess of Lansdowne, who had frequently given his services to his country without salary. He was sure the honour of the office of Privy Seal would be as much coveted if devoid of the £2,000 a year. There were many eminent men in the House of Commons who would feel highly flattered, and would devote every day and hour of their time to the service of their country in such a position without receiving salary.

MR. MELLOR

said, if a regular Motion had been made, and a Bill brought in to abolish the office lie might support it, but he thought the matter could not be disposed of in the mode proposed.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

remarked that Pitt once observed that the duty of the Lord Privy Seal was, when the First Lord of the Treasury was a Peer, to sit near him and keep off bores. He objected to the abolition of the office of Privy Seal, but the question of salary was another thing.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

observed, that if the dictum of Pitt were true he must object to the holder of the office of Privy Seal sitting always in the House of Lords. He was sure that if the noble Lord at the head of the Treasury had been present he would have said that the services of the Privy Seal, as represented by Mr. Pitt, were quite as much wanted in the House of Commons as in the House of Lords. He must say, however, that he was not in favour of unpaid services. Paid service was always the best service, and it increased, moreover, the sense of responsibility. Whatever might be the rank of any person in office, he was an advocate for his being sufficiently paid. He agreed with the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department in thinking that this was too grave a question to be decided by a Vote in Committee of Supply, and that it ought not to be discussed even without due notice being given. He looked upon the office of Privy Seal as one of great and real importance. What had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth was most true. If the business of the country was to be conducted in both Houses of Parliament, it was necessary that there should be some Peer of station and ability ready to undertake the conduct of business sent up from the Commons, in the Upper House; and here he would say, with reference to his noble Friend who now held the office of Privy Seal, that the Bills sent up from the House of Commons to the House of Lords were conducted by him with singular ability and success. Take the case of the Bill for the amalgamation of the local army in India with the Queen's army. That Bill was discussed in the other House ably and fully, but he must say that he had seen no speech in either House that set forth the grounds for that great measure with more clearness and distinctness than that which was delivered on a late occasion by his noble Friend who h"ld the office of Privy Seal. Having said thus much, he must express his opinion that' this discussion had mainly arisen from the circumstance that the office of Postmaster General and Privy Seal had been united in the same person. This had raised a doubt, though he did not think it a well-founded one, of the propriety of maintaining the two offices. It was unfortunate, however, that the doubt should have been created, and he therefore hoped that the office of Postmaster General would speedily be filled up. He was satisfied that his noble Friend who now acted as Privy Seal was admirably fitted, both by his ability and discretion, to assist the Government in the transaction of public business, and he was sure that what had passed that day would only stimulate his noble Friend, if that were necessary, to still greater zeal in the discharge of the duties to which he was called.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, the person holding the office of Privy Seal could not, by law, be a Member of that House.

Motion made, and Question put, That the item of £2,000, for the Salary of the Lord Privy Seal, he omitted from the proposed Vote.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 59: Majority 44.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(16.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £5,276, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expense of conducting the business of the Civil Service Commission, to the 31st day of March, 1861.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, he wished to explain what he had stated on a former occasion, in reference to the Civil Service examinations, and which had been misrepresented by the press. What he had stated was, not that he objected to the principle of competitive examinations, but only to the practice as carried on at present. He could adduce some instances in which the existing practice had operated with great hardship. In one case a young man recommended for promotion in a post-office was refused his appointment, because on examination he admitted that one of his sisters had died of consumption. In examinations for cadetships a youth who gained 500 marks was passed, whereas one who gained 750 was sent back. The questions used in the examinations, moreover, were too difficult and recondite, and involved knowledge of a useless kind. Some required a written sketch of the history of India during the present century; the American Constitution; a description of geological operations, and ammonites and other fossils connected with their respective eras; classes in natural history, including the anatomy and respiratory organs of the spider; a description of the Leviathan steamer and the Crystal Palace; an essay on the liberty of the press, and the great comet of 1858. Now, were these things the sort of acquirements which was wanted in candidates for the public service? In conclusion he moved to reduce the Vote by £600 for the travelling expenses of the examiners.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, his hon. Friend had gone back to his old practice of selecting a few questions out of a vast number that were put to applicants, and it was clear that he had not got in his mind the true standard of knowledge required. Many of the questions to which he objected as ridiculous, were not the questions on which the success of the candidates vitally and essentially depended, though they might test the comparative merits of different candidates. His hon. Friend, for example, thought it ridiculous to ask a youth to describe in a letter something that he had seen. Now, nothing was so much the test of what might be called a handy man as asking him to do a task like that. The excellence of the system pursued was proved beyond a doubt by the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into it, and which was now printed. That Committee gave, as the result of their inquiries, that the complaints brought against the mode of examination were generally unfounded. His hon. Friend thought it a hardship that persons who had been for years in the public service were rejected on examination for other appointments; but surely it was no reason that incompetent persons should be appointed to places in the public service merely because they had been for a number of years serving the public in some other way. The effect of the present system had been to exclude incompetent men, and to introduce into the service men of higher attainments than was possible under the old mode of appointment. As yet the plan had only been partial in its operation; but the Committee to whose Report he had just referred recommended that it should be still further extended. The partial trial had been successful so far as it went, and he hoped the Committee would not be a party to any proposal that would weaken it.

MR. CLAY

observed that candidates were never plucked for being unable to answer the extreme questions to which the hon. Member had referred. They were almost always rejected for deficiency in arithmetic, or spelling, or some of the more ordinary parts of education.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

said, he concurred in what had been said of the success of the plan, but he thought there was some room for objections being taken. He expressed his surprise that the Report of the Committee had only now been published.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the item of £600, for the Contingent Expenses of the Civil Service Commission, be omitted from the proposed Vote,

Put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(17,) £17,500. Paymaster General.

SIE HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, that the "Vote was founded on a fiction, as the office of Paymaster General did not exist. He was in fact the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, but exercised none of the duties of the office.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that a Committee had recommended an entire alteration of the duties. The salary of the Paymaster General had been used to endow what was really a working office—the Vice President of the Board of Trade, and the duties of the Paymaster General were performed by a deputy. If the alteration suggested had been adopted, the real Paymaster General must have received a larger salary than that now voted; so that there would have been no saving to the public funds.

Vote agreed to, as was the following Vote.

(18) £6,630, Comptroller of the Exchequer.

House resumed; Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again this day, at Six of the clock.