SUPPLY—considered in Committee. (Hansard, 17 June 1870)

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, he wished to know whether there was any scale by which the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords were regulated?

§ MR. STANSFELD
, in reply, said, that the Estimate for the House of Lords was prepared by a Committee of the House of Lords and sent to the Treasury, and it was generally accepted by them without dispute. It was undoubtedly within the competence of the Committee of Supply to modify and even to reduce it; but a certain amount of respect was always paid to the Estimate, and it had not been their habit to scan it very closely. The salaries were now under the consideration of the House of Lords, and certain reductions would be made, some of which had been already determined upon.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, that, what he wanted to know was whether the promised reductions were the result of some act of the House of Lords, or, whether they were mere verbal suggestions of the authorities of the day?

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, that the reductions were those ordered by the Com- 384 mittee of the House of Lords, and they would be carried out.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE
said, he wished to ask when the salaries commenced of clerks of the House of Lords who were appointed at the beginning of the six months' holidays?

§ MR. STANSFELD
At the time of the appointment.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that the duties imposed upon the gentlemen to whom the hon. Member referred were of a very important character, and he thought they might well be allowed six months to acquire a competent knowledge of them in.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he wished to supplement the statement of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Ayrton) by observing that officers of the Houses of Parliament were required to work during the night as well as during the day, and, therefore, they ought to be regarded as persons living in the Arctic regions, having a day of six months and a night of six months.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, he thought that the Secretary of the Treasury should give some explanation with regard to his statement that this House was not in the habit of disputing the Estimates for the offices of the House of Lords.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, it was his duty to support the statement of the Secretary of the Treasury, because this question was one of a peculiar nature. It was not to be supposed that the Treasury would assume that control over the Estimates for the House of Lords that it was their duty to exercise over all other Estimates. Under the old usage the House of Lords were accustomed to regulate their own expenditure; but that House, in a spirit that did them great credit, had abandoned that privilege, and had consented that the expenditure should come under an annual Vote. Under these circumstances, it would not be becoming for the Treasury to assume that sort of command over that Estimate that they very properly exercised over ordinary Estimates.

§ COLONEL FRENCH
said, he thought that the First Commissioner of Works ought to give some further explanation with regard to the refusal of the Lord Great Chamberlain to allow seats to be placed in the Central Hall. There was no pretension for calling the Houses of Parliament a Royal Palace, because no 385 Royal personage had ever resided there in modern times. Under those circumstances he could not see by what right the Lord Great Chamberlain exercised any authority over any part of the Houses of Parliament.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, he would call attention to the fact that the Civil Service Estimates had increased of late years from £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 to £10,000,000 sterling per annum.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, in reply to the right hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon (Colonel French), he had to state that the building which the present erection had replaced had always been designated as "the Royal Palace of Westminster," and it had always had attached to it all the incidents of a Royal Palace. The office of the Lord Great Chamberlain was a very important one, and it had always been exercised in reference to this building. It was desirable that there should be some distinct officer like the Lord Great Chamberlain, to whom both the House of Lords and the House of Commons could look to regulate the occupation of the various apartments of the Palace which were not specifically devoted to the use of those Houses. It was not long since the House of Lords itself made some application to the Lord Great Chamberlain in relation to a Conference-room. With regard to the proposition of placing seats in the Central Hall, he must repeat the Lord Great Chamberlain had not thought it for the convenience of the two Houses that such a proposition should be assented to.

§ MR. BOWRING
said, in reference to the item of £500 for salaries of the Division Clerks, he wished to draw attention to the fact that several discrepancies had occurred lately between the numbers reported by the Tellers of Divisions and the printed lists drawn up by the Division Clerks. In 49 Divisions there had been nine errors. The other evening, when the Tellers declared that the unusual circumstance of a tie had occurred, it appeared from the printed Division Lists, published the next morning, that the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) was in a majority of 1, and it was impossible now to ascertain which 386 of the two alleged results was the accurate one.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, he thought there could be no difficulty in ascertaining whether the printed Division Lists were accurate, because the names of the Members voting were given. He did not see under these circumstances that any reflection could rest upon the accuracy of the Division Clerks. He wished to allude to the salaries paid to the Referees of that House. When this Vote was before the House last year he made some observations on that subject. There were now two Referees instead of three, so that so far the expense of the Referees was reduced; but he had great doubts whether the system of having paid Referees was a good one, and should be continued. He was told, by those qualified to form an opinion, that the alteration which took place a few years ago, when Referees were appointed, was not a satisfactory one, and he thought the subject was one which ought to be reconsidered by the House.

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, he would submit that this was hardly a matter for discussion in Committee upon the Estimates. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) might take an opportunity of directing the attention of the House to it.

§ COLONEL FRENCH
said, he was of opinion that no blame could be attached to any of the clerks who took the Divisions. It was certain that the name of every Member who passed the clerks was properly marked. In one instance, however, which had been referred to, the Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh) remained in the House, and his name was accidentally omitted. His main object in rising was to protest against the ancient, but at present very unnecessary, disposition of the patronage of the House. Formerly it was necessary to vest patronage in the Judges, in order to secure proper and efficient persons to conduct the minor business of their Courts; and in like manner, up to the present moment, the Clerk of the Parliaments filled up all vacancies which occurred among the clerks in that House. There might have been a reason for this in former times; but, now that the education qualification had been so universally adopted, he saw no reason why the patronage should continue to be vested in that officer, and why the ap- 387 pointments should not be thrown open, as the appointments in other Departments were, to public competition. He wished, however, to state that he had no complaint to make of the individual who at present enjoyed the patronage in question, and who was a favourite of every Member of that House.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, he thought the error in the Division the other day ought to be satisfactorily accounted for, as he knew there had been other errors of a similar kind. In the case of a Bill which he introduced and took a Division upon in the present Session, the name of a Member was put down as having voted, although he was 200 miles from the House at the time. It could hardly be assumed that the gentlemen who counted at the doors fell into mistakes. On the whole, he was of opinion that something ought to be done to make the Returns of Divisions as accurate as possible.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE
said, he did not think the clerks were answerable for these mistakes. Members were themselves to blame for not seeing that their names were correctly marked as they passed the clerks.

§ MR. HUNT
said, he would suggest that the numbers might be accurately ascertained by having a self-acting register similar to the "tell-tales" used at Waterloo Bridge. He seized this opportunity of calling attention to the great waste of time caused by the present mode of taking Divisions. Surely some method could be devised for taking the Divisions much more quickly. Without going into matters of detail, he would suggest that the subject was well worthy of consideration by Her Majesty's Government in the course of the coming Recess.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, that it was very refreshing to hear anticipations about the coming Recess, because they implied that, at all events, there would be a Recess. Although hon. Members were unable to abandon the idea that there would be a Recess, he thought few of them could realize the idea that it was approaching. He admitted that in some cases, particularly with regard to Motions for reporting Progress about midnight in a full House, the principal power of the Mover lay in the fact that each Division he took would occupy about 20 minutes. He quite agreed 388 with what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt); but it was doubtful whether the suggestion he threw out ought to be made by the Government or by the House itself. With regard to the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (Colonel French) respecting the patronage of the officers of that House, he did not think there was any cause to question or censure their conduct up to the present moment. The establishments of the House of Commons and the House of Lords must be regarded as outlying parts of the general body of the administrative service of the country. Therefore, it was not to them that we must look for administrative improvements. All we had a fair right to expect from them was that they should be ready to adopt changes which had been introduced and had received the stamp of public approbation in other Departments of the public service. He did not think they ought to adopt at the earliest possible moment every experimental change. At the proper moment, no doubt, the officers invested with this patronage would be prepared to follow the example of other Departments.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, it was clear that if the Division Clerks were right the four gentlemen employed as Tellers were unable to count. He thought the errors were attributable to the clerks, although no doubt hon. Members themselves often caused them by passing by too rapidly. "Tell-tale" gates, he remarked, would give the numbers, and not the names of the Members voting.

§ MR. GREENE
said, he wished to draw attention to the existing arrangements respecting the exclusion of the public from the Lobby of the House. They rendered it very difficult for the friends of an hon. Member to communicate with him. Some alteration ought to be made, so that if a special message were sent to a Member it might reach him in a reasonable time. He also desired to suggest that it would be highly convenient if the name of the Member who was speaking were posted up in a conspicuous place in the dining-room.

§ MR. STACPOOLE
said, he concurred in every word which had fallen from the hon. Member who had just spoken.

§ COLONEL FRENCH
said, he hoped the alterations to be made after the close of the Session would result in increasing 389 the accommodation in the dining-room. He thought some arrangement might be devised for informing Members when at dinner who was speaking, and the subject before the House.

§ MR. BOWRING
said, that if the change suggested was made, hon. Members who happened to be in the Library ought to have the benefit of it as well as those who were in the dining-room.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, discussion on the point would be taken more appropriately on the Vote for special works in connection with the Houses of Parliament.

§ MR. HUNT
said, he thought that great inconvenience resulted in the case of persons who came to see hon. Members on business, being told in the Central Hall that the hon. Member asked for was not in the House, when the fact might have been, as had happened to himself, that he had been there the whole night. There ought, in his opinion, to be some means of giving accurate information, as to whether hon. Members were in the House or not to those who came bon½ fide to see them on business.

§ MR. P. A. TAYLOR
said, if persons were not allowed near the door of the House, it would be very difficult for them to send a card in to a Member. He had heard it remarked, in reference to the present arrangement, that one of the first acts of the new Reformed Parliament was to turn their constituents further adrift.

MR. SOLATER-BOOTH
said, he did not think the removal of strangers from the Central Hall worked satisfactorily. There was a great advantage in Members being as accessible to their friends as possible. It would be most convenient, therefore, in his opinion, to return to the old practice.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, he concurred in the view taken by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The metropolitan Members might like the existing arrangement; but it was very inconvenient to Members whose constituencies were at a distance.

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, he had had several complaints from his constituents on the subject. He thought that, if the present system was to be continued, some receptacle should be placed in the Central Hall, in which Members who were present in the House could place their cards.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE
said, it would be a great mistake to suppose that the existing arrangement had been carried out at the suggestion of the metropolitan Members. He had always understood that it had been suggested to the Sergeant-at-Arms by some representatives of northern counties. The metropolitan Members would, he believed, be in favour of returning to the old system.

COLONEL PARKER
said, he thought it was extremely desirable that constituents who lived at a distance should be afforded greater facilities for communicating with their Members than they were now afforded.

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, that the Treasury officially had nothing to do with the question. He would, however, take an early opportunity of communicating with Mr. Speaker on the subject, and laying before him what appeared to be the general views of the House with respect to it.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE
said, that he thought the sooner a Fourth Lord of the Treasury without salary were done away with the better. Such an officer, without pay, he looked upon as an anomaly. He should like, he might add, to see the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury increased, favourable though he was to economy. The present amount of the Prime Minister's salary—£5,000—was altogether too little.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, he would suggest that it would be worth while to consider how far the expense of defraying the salaries of Inspectors should be continued as a charge on the public, and whether it would not be desirable that those Inspectors should be paid by the parties whose trades were more or less benefited by their action. The inspection of mines and factories cost some £35,000.

§ MR. LIDDELL
said, it was rather hard that coal-mine owners should be called upon to pay for an inspection which they did not want.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, the inspection of prisons and constabulary was fairly 391 charged upon the Exchequer; but the localities ought to pay for inspection under the Local Government Act, and the owners of fisheries should pay the expenses of Inspectors of Fisheries.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, he desired some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department as to the increase of £1,300 on account of the Home Office itself.

§ MR. FOTHERGILL
said, he wished to know what supervision was exercised over the travelling expenses of Inspectors?

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, the inspection of mines was not for the benefit of the owner, but of the workmen, to protect them from the danger which accompanied that employment. He did not think it was right, therefore, to throw the expense of inspection, upon the owners. But as to inspection in the case of fisheries, the Local Government Act, and burial grounds, a considerable sum might be raised by fees from the persons who profited from the inspection. The cost of inspecting prisons was extremely small—only £1,920—but that of the reformatories was very large in comparison, being £2,700, which he thought might be reduced.

MR. BRUCE
said, he entirely admitted the general principle that wherever advantage was conferred upon property by inspection, the property should bear the costs of inspection. But, in the case of factories and mines, the owners did not call for inspection, and would willingly pay twice the cost of inspection to be relieved from it. All he could promise was, that the expenses of the Department in this matter should not be unduly swollen. As to the travelling expenses of Inspectors, if inquiry were made of those gentlemen, his hon. Friend (Mr. Fothergill) would find that there was certainly no want of vigilance on the part of the Treasury. An advantage was certainly conferred by inspection on the owners of salmon fisheries, and if his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Laren) would assist him with a plan for making a fair apportionment of the cost among them, he should be much obliged to him. It must not be forgotten, however, that the public also derived an advantage from this inspection in the increased number of fish that were now taken by ordinary fishermen outside the limits claimed by private persons. As to the 392 Local Government Act, he was under an engagement with the House to charge the expenses of inspection under that Act on the localities which profited by the inspection. The whole subject, however, had been referred to a Commission, and he could not deal with the subject apart from the general question, upon which he expected from the Commission a very early Report. The increase of £1,300 in the expenses of the Home Office referred to by his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sykes), was mainly caused by the salary of £1,000 paid to the Counsel for the Home Office. That was, in fact, a considerable economy. Mr. Thring, who had received a salary of £2,000 a year, had been nominally Counsel to the Home Office, and the Home Office had had the first claim to his services, though he was also employed in supervising the provisions of Bills for other Departments of the Government. By a new and economical arrangement Mr. Thring had now been transferred to a separate department, and supervised all the legislation of the Government; and, as it was impossible that the permanent "Under Secretary at the Home Office could do all the legal work that had to be transacted there, it had been found necessary to restore the office of Counsel. With respect to the reformatories, his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) must be aware of the immense increase of late years in the number of reformatories and industrial schools. Considering the amount of correspondence and the work done, he believed the Department was conducted as economically as possible.

MR. BRUCE
said, that one gentleman who appeared in the Votes under the title of Inspector of Mines, was not, in point of fact, an Inspector of Mines at all. Originally he had been an Inspector of Mines; but for a long time he had been constantly employed by the Government in other departments, though he still received his remuneration under the title of Inspector of Mines.

SIR JOHN HANMER
said, representing as he did a mineral district, he thought that instead of the system of mine inspection being restricted, it ought to be increased.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, that as at present conducted the inspection of mines was a sham. It should be largely in- 393 creased or be done away with altogether. He should rather trust to good management, and with that view he would throw more responsibility on the owners.

§ MR. MUNTZ
said, he was of opinion that the House ought to know the provisions of the Mines Regulation Bill before it was called on to vote salaries for Inspectors. The present system of factory inspection was expensive to owners as well as to the public. The owners had to pay money to surgeons; if they did not submit to this black mail it would be worse for them.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, that by their own peculiar crotchets Members of that House would greatly increase the public expenditure. His hon. Friend who had just spoken (Mr. Muntz) proposed some time ago to have an army of Inspectors appointed, in order to prevent people from being poisoned. He (Mr. Rylands) deprecated any increase in the number of Inspectors. It was a great fallacy to suppose that the Government could prevent casualties arising from carelessness and other ordinary causes.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, he thought the better principle would be to impose on owners of mines and factories the payment of the expenses necessary for the prevention of accidents. The owners of emigrant ships were obliged to pay for the inspection of those ships. He believed that the best mode of preventing accidents in mines and factories would be by the appointment of competent managers of works.

§ MR. FOTHERGILL
said, he was anxious that the Home Secretary should delay the Vote for Mine Inspectors until the Mines Regulation Bill had been brought forward. The whole system of Government inspection and interference was a mistake. In his opinion it had not saved a single life. If, however, there was to be inspection, he objected to the employment of gentleman Inspectors, who could do no good.

MR. BRUCE
said, that if there were any probability that the amount of this Vote would be reduced by the passing of the Mines Regulation Bill that would be some reason for postponing the Vote until after the event, but such was not the case. While opposed to any large increase in this Vote, he could not agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Fothergill) that the inspection of mines had not had a beneficial effect, because coal- 394 masters themselves admitted that the system of inspection had had the effect of removing some of the worst evils. He had before shown that had it not been for the adoption of that system the annual loss of life in mines would be 1,500 instead of 1,000.

§ MR. HERMON
said, that the sums paid to the inspecting surgeons represented not black mail, but a payment for necessary services performed.

§ MR. NORWOOD
said, he thought that as inspection was carried on for the sake of the public, it should pay the cost. The whole system of inspection was unsatisfactory.

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, he thought it would be a most preposterous idea to charge the cost of inspection against the factory owner, because it was not in any way for his benefit that it took place.

§ MR. MILLER
said, he was of opinion that the employers of labour were responsible for carrying on their business with safety to the persons employed, and that, therefore, they were benefited by inspection.

§ COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN
said, he considered that the inspection of factories was carried on in a most useful manner; but it would be unjust to make the manufacturers pay the cost.

§ MR. MONK
said, he wished to hear some explanation of the "extra allowances" to officers in this Department.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, he must point out the inconvenience arising from the present arrangements of the Foreign Office. The Parliamentary Under Secretary, who in this case happened to be a Member of that House, should be conversant with all matters going on in the Office, so as to be able to answer any question which might be put to him; but it appeared that many matters of importance were disposed of by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in concert with the permanent Under Secretary, of which the Parliamentary 395 Under Secretary was not cognizant. The political representative of the Office in that House ought to be responsible for the expenditure; but the effect of the present arrangement was that the Permanent Under Secretary of State had more control than the hon. Gentleman who occupied a seat—and the tendency of permanent officers was generally in the direction of increased expenditure. In addition the present Permanent Under Secretary had been made a Member of the Privy Council, a quite unprecedented circumstance. Giving the Foreign Office full credit for the reduction of the expenditure for foreign service messengers from £23,700 to £18,000, he must complain that no details were given to show tow the reductions had been effected, and what were the numbers, the salaries, and the expenses of the messengers—particulars which were given by the Home Office; and haying a very confident opinion that the number and expenses of the Foreign Office messengers might be still further reduced without at all impairing the efficiency of the service, he would beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £2,000.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, he concurred in the opinion that the cost of these messengers abroad was excessive; but, gratified with the reduction shown in this year's Estimates, he would be content with an assurance that further economy should be effected if it were possible.

§ COLONEL FRENCH
said, he did not think the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) had made out his case for a reduction of the Vote.

§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID
said, he thought the existing arrangements respecting the Permanent and Parliamentary Under Secretaries had not been productive of inconvenience.

MR. BOWSING
said, he wished for explanations in reference to the item for telegraphic expenses. He thought it might be reduced now that the telegraphs had been transferred to the Government.

§ MR. MELLOR
said, he must call attention to the large pensions granted to persons who had rendered service to the Foreign Office. One gentleman had received £75,600, which was equivalent to £917 for every year from the date of his birth.

MR. OTWAY
said, he could assure the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) that there had been a reduction in almost every item of the Foreign Office expenditure. The number of messengers had been reduced from 17 to 15, and it was intended eventually to reduce it to 12. The hon. Member had spoken of £18,000 being a very large sum for the salaries and expenses of messengers; but he did not appear to have remarked the fact that that very item had, in one year, been reduced by £4,000. Every messenger received a salary of £400 a year; and, when travelling, was allowed £1 a day for expenses, his railway fare, of course, being paid for him besides. When a messenger was about to go abroad, he was required to have his luggage weighed at the Foreign Office, so that he might not take a larger quantity at the public expense than was really necessary for the journey. The bills they sent in were most strictly checked. He hoped, therefore, his hon. Friend would see that the course which had been adopted obviated the necessity for the present Motion. Every possible step had been taken to bring the expenditure within proper limits. Even if the number of messengers were further reduced at once, those gentlemen were entitled to pensions and subsequent allowances, so that the saving effected would be very small indeed. As to the constitution of the Foreign Office, he might remark that Mr. Hammond, the Permanent Under Secretary, had a greater knowledge of the business of the Department than he himself could pretend to possess. It was, of course, absurd to suppose that a gentleman with so much knowledge had no power. He was very much disposed to agree with his hon. Friend with respect to a division of labour. The person representing the Department in that House was he who was most interested in the financial matters connected with it; and he was not at all prepared to say that it would not be an advantage to the public service, that all financial questions should first receive the revision of the Parliamentary Under 397 Secretary before receiving the concurrence of the Secretary of State. As to the expenses of telegrams, it was impossible to say beforehand what they would be. He had some hope, he might add, that further reductions would be made, in addition to those which had already been carried into effect. There were only two clerks in the Department who received extra sums beyond their salaries. He hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands) would not deem it necessary to press his Motion to a Division.

MR. B. SHAW
said, he thought the country was much indebted to the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) for the reductions which had been made, and should he press his Amendment he should give it his support. He objected not so much to the amount of salary of these persons, as to the numerous and unnecessary journeys which they made.

MR. OTWAY
said, that a portion of the pay of the military attachés was defrayed by the War Department, and the larger part by the Foreign Office; but, although these gentlemen corresponded with the Foreign Office, they were to be considered essentially officers of the War Department, who selected them for the appointment, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

§ MR. FOTHERGILL
said, the salaries of the foreign service messengers appeared to be upwards of £750 a year. He had mot some of these messengers when travelling abroad, and he remembered particularly travelling from Naples to Marseilles with one, who was a most terrific swell. During the whole night he regaled them with accounts of his shooting, and he never received a shooting invitation from anybody less than a Duke.

§ MR. D. DALRYMPLE
said, he had also had experience of the foreign service messengers, and he must speak of them as very gentlemanly men. Considering what class of men they were, he thought them very badly paid.

§ MR. MONK
pointed out the charge of £8,000 for incidental expenses, which he thought a large one, in a total expenditure of £47,000.

§ MR. WHITWELL
said, he thought the allowance of 10 messengers to 18 officials in the Privy Council Office excessive. In no other Department was there so large a staff in proportion. He wished also to know the reason for the increase in the veterinary department.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, this increase was caused by the passing of the Bill of last year for preventing the importation of disease among cattle, and also for preventing the spread of disease at home. This duty entailed much labour, and required a proportionate staff. As to the messengers, it must be remembered that the Privy Council were constantly called upon to send messengers to other Departments, as well as to Her Majesty.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSK
said, a large sum was spent for vaccination purposes, and he thought it was well spent; but there were people who were much opposed to it, and he asked whether it was necessary that other steps should be taken to extend vaccination?

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he had reason to believe that the opposition to vaccination was nothing like so prevalent as it was. There was still some opposition, which arose partly from the propaganda of a particular school of medicine, and partly from a mistaken view, with which it was impossible not to sympathize, on the part of parents, that vaccination was a bad thing for their children. This feeling, however, was becoming less day by day.

MR. E. SHAW
said, he thought that those who benefited from public inspection in the veterinary department—namely, the owners of cattle—should pay the costs of inspection, and that the charge should not be thrown upon the public.

§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY
said, he thought the increase in the veterinary department was more than his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) had given an explanation of. It was a new sub-department of the Privy Council, instituted to carry out a single Act of Parliament, and it had a secretary, a chief clerk, a legal adviser, three inspectors, one first-class clerk, nine second-class clerks, and 22 other clerks, 399 besides an office and store keeper, and others. The cost of the establishment was £8,000, being an increase since last year of £3,000. He could hardly conceive how this large expenditure was to be justified.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, if the right hon. Gentleman was back to his former position in the Privy Council Office, he would soon see that there was no difficulty in the explanation. If the Department had only to stop the importation of foreign disease, the work would be comparatively easy; but the Act required a vast number of Returns to be made from all parts of the country, showing the state of pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease from week to week; these had to be tabulated, and it could easily be imagined that the making of these Returns gave rise to a large amount of correspondence. Before the department had been re-organized, it was not at all unusual for the clerks to be kept at work until seven o'clock in the morning. This, of course, could not be expected to go on, and, therefore, the staff had been increased.

§ MR. DENT
said, he thought the department took rather too much trouble, and required more Returns than were absolutely necessary for the purpose.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, he would suggest, in the matter of vaccination, that the distribution of a very few statistics on a small piece of paper, shewing the average number of cases of small-pox when vaccination was not enforced, and the number of cases since it had been made compulsory, would do much to dissipate the prejudice which was growing among the lower classes against vaccination.

§ MR. C. S. READ
said, he could confirm the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dent), as to the unnecessary multiplication of Returns required by the veterinary department, especially with regard to the foot-and-mouth disease; and it appeared that no use was made of them, for when he moved the other day for some tabulated Returns on that subject, it was found impossible to give them.

§ MR. MONK
said, he would beg to repeat his request for an explanation of the large amount for incidental expenses; and he must also ask the reason of the increase of the Health Officer's salary from £1,500 to £2,000 a year.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
, in reply, said, that a large sum was expended in the journeys of Inspectors, who were occasionally sent to the most distant parts of the country. A more intelligent and useful official than Mr. Simon, the secretary of the medical department, did not exist. The cause of the veterinary Returns from the country being so numerous was that, at first, it was impossible to judge what information would be useful; and the reason that the Returns relating to the foot-and-mouth disease were incomplete was, that some of the local authorities had refused to give the required information.

§ MR. STAPLETON
said, he thought that the Vice President should make some statement to allay the feeling, that the vaccine supplied by the public vaccinator could be used, only at great risk. He hoped he would explain that it was the best vaccine that could be obtained.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, that the moment a Department was constituted it commenced to pay salaries, which were constantly increasing. Higher salaries were paid by the Government than were paid by private firms for a similar class of duties. In connection with the Privy Council there was a "legal adviser;" and though no salary was put down for that officer, he had very little doubt that a salary would be provided for him in the Estimates for next year. He should like to know what the law expenses of the several Departments of the State amounted to. He was sure the sum was an immense one.

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, that "incidental expenses" was an item which appeared in the Votes of every Department. He thought, however, that it was desirable to give some fuller explanation of the item, and he would give directions in accordance with that opinion when the Estimates for next year were being prepared. The item, which amounted to £7,528, covered a variety of minor expenses, and, among others, the cost of employing writers or copyists. In the veterinary department the incidental expenses were apparently reduced from £1,950, in 1869–70, to £715 in the present Estimates; but that arose from the fact that the cost of employment of temporary clerks had this year been taken from under that head and put under the general head of salaries. 401 When the Estimates of the expenses of the Privy Council Department were first brought under his notice he was struck with the fact that out of 35 persons who composed the whole of the Privy Council staff, no fewer than 10 were messengers; but on inquiry of the present Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, who was formerly connected with the Privy Council, and whose regard to economy was well known, that gentlemen informed him those messengers were employed in conveying messages to sub-departments outside, and to the Sovereign, and that he did not think the number could be diminished. As Secretary to the Treasury, he had sanctioned the increase of the salary of the medical officer, Dr. Simon, from£1,500 to £2,000 a year; because he had ascertained that the gentleman in question had been obliged to give up private practice, in order to give his undivided attention to the duties of his office. The Vice President would not neglect to consider whether any reduction could be made; but he could assure the Committee that they had together gone fully into the matter, with the view of ascertaining how the work could be economically, and at the same time efficiently, performed. With regard to the veterinary department, the duty having been imposed upon the department by Act of Parliament, according to precedent they might have created a permanent establishment; but, instead of doing that, the Privy Council and the Treasury constituted a Committee, upon which his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) was good enough to serve, to inquire closely into the nature and amount of the work to be done, and then they took the precaution of saying that the establishment should not be a permanent one, and that they should be at liberty to reduce it at any time.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
said, the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) seemed to think that the officials of the Government were much overpaid; but this opinion was not at all borne out by the facts; and if the hon. Member had a son whom he wished to start in life, he would hardly be likely to seek a career for him in the public service, especially the diplomatic. Judged by the standard of the medical profession, the medical officer of the Privy Council was not extravagantly remunerated. Doubtless, the honour of taking part in 402 the government of the country was a consideration which was set off against the larger income sacrificed by abandoning private practice. Would anyone tell him that the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Under Secretary of State (Mr. Otway), was remunerated for devoting his great abilities to the service of the nation by the paltry stipend of £1,500 a year? A man of talent could make more in any other capacity. In the same sense the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was not paid for his services by a salary of £2,000 a year, and he must be regarded as serving his country from a sense of public duty, and for the honour which that service brought.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that the duties imposed upon the Department were really of a very onerous and responsible character. It had not only to inquire into the nature of disease and to take measures for stopping it, but it had actually to stop it, and it had to undertake the responsibility of issuing Orders which might interfere very largely with trade. For the assistance required under such circumstances £1,000 a year was not a large sum to pay. To take a particular instance, during the prevalence of the foot-and-mouth disease the department had to consider from day to day how far it would interfere with the supply of food to the metropolis, and whether it should order such an amount of slaughter of animals imported as would, and at one time did, raise the price of food in London. The gentleman who was paid £1,000 a year, Dr. Williams, received that salary during the continuance of the cattle plague; and, when it pleased Parliament to impose these new duties on the department it was thought right that Dr. Williams should be replaced in his old position. The Inspectors not only looked after the importation of foreign disease, but also after what was going on throughout the country; and he should not be at all surprised if it was not found impossible to do the work with only two Inspectors. He believed that far more than the cost had been already saved by the impression produced upon pleuro-pneumonia; but if it were to break out again the Department must certainly require a sufficient staff to send officers about the country, to give advice and adopt such measures as might be neces- 403 sary. It had pleased Parliament to impose upon the Department the duty of considering how far it could check cruelty in the carriage of animals and increase the supply of food by preventing the loss consequent on their unnecessary suffering. These things could not be done without expense, and the Orders which had been issued with reference to the carriage of animals would be a dead letter, unless persons were appointed to see that they were carried out. Something would have to be paid to a legal adviser; for, of course, it was necessary to have the assistance of one in the drawing up of important Orders, which had the force of Acts of Parliament.

§ MR. C. S. READ
said, he could understand how necessary it was that a man like Dr. Simon, who devoted his time and his talents to the service of his country, should be well paid; but Dr. Williams was a Doctor of Medicine who had not given up a practice, who had been secretary to a company now defunct, and who had no knowledge of veterinary science; and the remuneration paid to him did appear to be extravagant. They were told, that the maximum salary was £800, and that there was a personal allowance of £200; and that was surely nothing more nor less than a permanent advance of £200. The salary of the chief clerk, too, had been suddenly raised from £200 to £600. As to the Inspectors, Professor Simonds and Professor Brown, they were able and eminent men, and their services were undoubtedly very valuable to the country.

§ MR. D. DALRYMPLE
said, that the question as to the payment of a secretary did not depend upon his being a man in large practice, but upon whether he had done his work efficiently; he (Mr. D. Dalrymple) believed he had.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, that £9,595 were spent in the veterinary department, and that did not include local Inspectors at all the ports. All this expense arose from the importation of foreign cattle; and, in his opinion, the importers should bear the expense. He, therefore, recommended that three lines should be inserted in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, imposing a tax of 1s. a head on every beast imported. This would pay the expense of inspection without raising the price of meat, and the tax could not be regarded as 404 contrary to free trade principles, because the cost of inspection was a necessary charge upon importation.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE
said, he was glad that suggestion had come from the other side of the House; if it had come from his side it would have been met by a cry of "Protection!" He did, not, however, agree with the proposal.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, he hoped the incidental expenses would be fully explained in next year's Estimates.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, he thought the proposal of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) a very good one.

§ MR. CANDLISH
said, he believed the expenditure of £2,784 for quarantine to be entirely thrown away. It was either too much or too little. If the regulation was of any value it ought to be applied to a larger number of ports than at present.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
said, that representing a constituency (Penryn and Falmouth) which took a great interest in the question, he felt bound to protest against any charge on the importation of foreign cattle into this country, which, as it would be a violation of free trade, would, he was sure, not receive the sanction of the Government.

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, he was in a position to support the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) in his opinion that the salaries of clerks in the Civil Service were too high as compared with the salaries obtained by clerks of similar capacity in commercial houses.

§ DR. BREWER
said, with regard to vaccination, he thought that the existing dissatisfaction was caused rather by the way in which vaccination was performed than by any disbelief in its effect. He believed that by the expenditure of a larger sum the difficulty might easily be removed. With regard to the fact of larger salaries being paid in public Departments than in private offices, it must be remembered that in private offices changes were made as opportunities of advancement occurred, but in public departments it was of the utmost importance that they should permanently retain the services of efficient officers, many of whom were content to receive less money than they could earn in private practice, simply on account of the honour which attached to them.

§ MR. A. E. GUEST
said, he hoped the Committee would not grudge the money 405 laid out for the quarantine service, for it was well expended.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSK
said, the foot-and-mouth disease was a serious matter to the owners of cattle, and the Government were bound to take all the means in their power to prevent its extension. £2,000 a year was not too much to pay to a chief medical officer of ability, and it was a salary with which many hon. Members would not be content.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, that, besides the advantage to the country, all this discussion would have been avoided if the Government had adopted the suggestion made for the establishment of a foreign cattle market. The Vote was not too large for the services that were performed.

§ MR. MONK
said, he had not found fault with Dr. Simon's salary, but only asked why it was increased, and he was satisfied with the explanation that had been given.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that the chief clerk had been a most efficient public officer during the cattle plague, and when that was got rid of he naturally returned to the Department with which he had been previously connected. The matter of quarantine did not come under his superintendence; but he would take care that inquiries were instituted, in accordance with the suggestions that had been made. But he wished to point out that if there was no quarantine service, the Mercantile Marine would be placed in an unfortunate position. With respect to the Under Secretary, he was one of the most efficient public servants. The permanent head of such an Office was more in the position of a managing partner than of a clerk, and for a salary of less than £800 or £1,000 the country could not expect to get the services of an acceptable man.

§ MR. BOWRING
said, that was what was called the Board of Trade was really no Board. Formerly there was a Presi- 406 dent, Vice President, and a large nominal Committee, but that Committee no longer existed, and the Office of Vice President had been abolished. Now they had a President, who was unable to attend to his duties, and a Secretary whose duty it was to carry out the instructions of his chief. Highly as he valued the services of the Secretary, he yet thought that the public service suffered from the absence of the responsible head of the Department. He (Mr. Bowring) had assisted in the formation of the Library of the Board of Trade, which included a very valuable collection of works on political economy; and a librarian was appointed at a salary of £600. A year or two ago, when the Board of Trade removed from their old offices to Whitehall Gardens, the library was placed in a shed at the back of the Privy Council Office—a position in which it was not safe—and it still remained there, where it was of little use. He hoped to receive an assurance that this state of things would be remedied. Last year it was said that the appointment of a corresponding clerk in the railway department at £400 a year was only temporary, but now it appeared to be permanent. He hoped that the gentleman who held it might be put upon the ordinary staff of the Office without injury to the other gentlemen who were already there. Some explanation ought to be given on this point. He congratulated the Government upon the fact that they had abolished the office of dustman.

§ MR. WHITWELL
said, that the Inspectors of Limejuice were henceforth to be buried among the "miscellaneous items." He strongly objected to this, and therefore moved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,280.

§ MR. NORWOOD
said, he thought the change that had been made in the constitution of the Board of Trade had worked extremely well. The weak point in its organization was the low salary of the President, which, he would suggest should be increased. It was an extremely 407 unfair thing that a man of Cabinet rank should hold that position with a salary of only £2,000 a year. He believed that practical difficulties had arisen from the salary being too small, and that men whom it would have been very desirable to have in the Office had declined it on that account.

§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE
said, he would briefly point out that the incidental expenses in the Vote had been reduced by £900, and the cost attending the inspection of limejuice had been reduced by £200 or £300. There were now no special salaries for this work, which was done by officers who held other appointments. As to the library, that would remain where it was now until it should be removed to the new offices, which were now building. The corresponding clerk appointed by the late Government had been found to be an exceedingly valuable officer, and had therefore been retained temporarily. He might add that, since the Estimates had been prepared, reductions in the Department to the amount of upwards of £2,000 had been effected, and the reductions would have been greater but for the fact that there were no less than eight Bills now before Parliament which threw additional duties upon the Board of Trade.