§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ (1.) £37,170, to complete the sum for the House of Lords Offices.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKcomplained that the accommodation given to Members of the House of Commons when they were summoned to the House of Lords was of the very scantiest description. They were penned up like so many sheep, and were subjected to much discomfort. He thought that such a state of things was disrespectful to the House of Commons. He would also remind the Committee that, this being the first Vote, if hon. Members were anxious to effect a reduction in the expenditure, they must examine with care the details of the Estimates, and that now was the time to try and reduce them by pointing out the particular items which were extravagant.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (2.) £40,899, to complete the sum for the House of Commons Offices.
§ MR. BOWRING, after expressing his appreciation of the extreme ability with which the hon. Gentleman who now presided over their Committees, discharged his duties, and his regret that he was about to retire from the office which he so worthily filled, said, that when the Vote was before them last Session, he had taken occasion to remark that the salary of the Chairman of Committees was most inadequate to the services performed, especially when compared with the salary paid to the corresponding officer in the House of Lords. The Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords received a salary of £2,500 a-year, and he had moreover a complete staff of assistants under him, including a Counsel at a salary of £1,500 per annum, an Examiner of Standing Orders at a salary of £800 per annum, and a Clerk at £110 per annum, making a total of £4,910 per annum; while the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, who had no staff directly under him—although he knew that he had a claim upon a portion of the time of that excellent public servant 834 Mr. Rickards, Counsel to the Speaker—only received a salary of £1,500 per annum. The duties of the Chairman of Ways and Means were of a very arduous nature, frequently occupying eight or nine hours a-day in Committee of Supply or in Committee on Public Bills, in addition to his duties upstairs on Private Bills and on the Court of Referees. He had, moreover, of late years had conferred on him the dignity of Deputy Speaker; and, therefore, he (Mr. Bowring) trusted that Her Majesty's Government would take into consideration the advisability of increasing the amount of the salary that the holder of that office received, by means of equalizing it with that assigned to the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords on the first occurrence of a vacancy in the latter office, so that the two Chairmen should each receive £2,000 a-year. He also wished to enter his protest against the present system, under which the officers of the House, unlike those of the House of Lords, were prohibited from entering the House to deliver to Members letters and messages from their constituents, so that they frequently did not reach their hands until after the lapse of several hours. With respect to the item of £500 a-year to the Clerks who took the divisions, he wished to bear testimony to the admirable manner in which the duty had been performed in the present Session, there having been hardly any discrepancies between the Returns made by the Tellers and those of the Clerks.
§ MR. MUNTZsaid, the House of Commons had very properly to check the Votes prepared by the Government, but he was not aware that it was their duty to find fault with the Government for their Votes being too low. At any rate, he would remind the hon. Member that from information which had been received, it was not improbable that a new Chairman of Ways and Means would shortly be appointed; and he would suggest that, before the amount of the salary attached to that office was increased, it would be as well to ascertain whether the Gentleman who was to be appointed to discharge the duties which had hitherto been so admirably performed was worth more than the present holder of it. If the salary of the Chairman in the other House was too high it should be reduced, and the 835 salary of the Chairman of Committees in this House had hitherto proved sufficient.
§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEhad long thought the duties of the office which the Chairman had held with so much credit were too arduous for a single person. Might not the work be divided, the conduct of Private Business being separated from the Chairmanship of Committees of the whole House? Such a step would ensure full attention to the Private Business, and the second Chairman might occasionally preside over Private Bill Committees, which he would do more efficiently than amateur Gentlemen who often undertook that duty. He did not expect the Government to give an off-hand answer on this point; but in default of any different system of conducting Private Business, a division of the work was worthy of consideration.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKheld that if an office was paid at all it should be paid respectably, and he regarded the Chairman's salary as inadequate to the work which he performed. Men of business would regard a salary of £1,500 for duties which involved the working both night and day as a scurvy remuneration. Either salaries in other Departments were too high, or this was too low. He regretted the Chairman was about to vacate the office, for, having filled it as long as he himself had been a Member of the House, he had a feeling of "first love" towards him.
§ MR. RYLANDSbelieved that the salaries in other Departments were too high. Hon. Members behind the Treasury Bench were discharging their natural function in pressing the Government to increase the expenditure. He concurred in all that had been said as to the services performed by the present Chairman; but the office was one the dignity and honour of which did not depend on £300 or £400 more or less. If a salary of £2,000 would secure higher services that would be a reason for raising it to that sum; but he hoped the Government would not alter an arrangement which had for many years secured a succession of Chairmen of distinction and ability.
§ SIR HARRY VERNEYremarked that the Private Business had of late so increased as to press unduly on the Chairman. It would be a great loss to the 836 House if the Chairman retired, and, nothing but the heaviness of his duties having probably disposed him to do so, he would suggest that his services might be retained if a second Chairman were appointed to conduct the Private Business. Private Bills sometimes raised questions affecting millions of money, and he was sure their promoters would scout the notion of cutting down the expense, if by more adequate provision the work could be more satisfactorily discharged.
§ MR. COLLINS, in common with other hon. Members, regretted the prospect of losing the Chairman's services. It must be remembered, however, that during the last 10 or 15 years the Private Business had sensibly diminished. The Provisional Order system disposed by Public Bills of many undertakings, which were formerly the subjects of private measures, the completion of our railway system had lessened the number of Railway Bills, and the appointment of Standing Referees had relieved Members of a disagreeable function. Salaries, moreover, were not to be measured by what gentlemen would earn in commercial positions. The Prime Minister was not paid £5,000 as an estimate of the value of his services, but rather as an honorarium. Salaries were given because Gentlemen entrusted with the business of the country had to bear certain additional expenses, and it would be recollected that Lord Russell had stated he was never so poor as when he was Prime Minister, in receipt of the stipend attached to the office. Our institutions were not yet so Americanized that the payment of public functionaries had been degraded into an £ s. d. affair, for it was still deemed an honour to serve the Crown or the country. If there were a difficulty in obtaining men of ability to sit in Parliament, the payment of Members would have to be resorted to; but as long as there was an ample supply of gentlemen ready to act as Members, Ministers, or Chairmen of Committees, he protested against their being made mere stipendiaries.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHconcurred in much that his hon. Friend had just said, and thought there was no function which the House was less capable of exercising than the assessing of salaries. The House might complain, indeed, of salaries being too high, but it could scarcely raise the 837 question whether they were too low. He hoped that any Gentleman occupying the position which the Chairman had so worthily filled, if he thought the salary too low, would frankly say so, and the same remark applied to the Speaker. Members of the House could hardly say what the salary ought to be. If the salaries of Ministers of the Crown and others were to be discussed in the House, opinions would be so various that a decision would with difficulty be arrived at, and it was better to leave the question to those who framed the Estimates.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (3.) £46,269, to complete the sum for the Treasury Department.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHcalled attention to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Formerly there was employed a counsel to the Home Office, but three years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that it would be convenient that, instead of that officer being specially attached to the Home Office, there should be a Parliamentary Counsel at the service of the whole Government, through whose hands all the Bills promoted by every Department of the Government should pass. Partly in consequence of that change, the salary was raised from £2,000 to £2,500; but it had now reached £3,000 a-year, and there was an assistant counsel and an assistant, making the cost over £5,000 a-year. He had no objection to the amount, for the work of drafting bills increased yearly, but he found that the Home Office had returned to the old practice of having a counsel of its own. Some explanation should be given, and he should like to know whether the gentleman receiving £1,000 a-year as counsel to the Home Office resided in his own chambers in Lincoln's Inn?
MR. BRUCEsaid, three years ago it was found necessary to obtain proper supervision of the drafting of Bills, and Mr. Thring was therefore taken from the Home Office, where his loss was greatly felt. For many years counsel had been specially attached to the Home Office, and he (Mr. Bruce) found it impossible to carry on the business of the Department without such assistance. Several other Departments, such as the Colonial Office, and the Local Government Board, had counsel attached to them; and those who were acquainted 838 with the multifarious business of the Home Office must know that no Department of the Government more required the aid of counsel. The gentleman referred to formerly had chambers at the Home Office; but as there was at present no room in that Department, he had temporary chambers in Great George Street, Westminster. But he had no private business.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHunderstood that the counsel to the Home Office was employed in drafting Home Office Bills.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the Bills were ultimately drawn by the Government Counsel, Mr. Thring, to whom instructions were sent from the Home Office with regard to the Bills of that Department. But the counsel to the Home Office had other duties to discharge in connection with the examination of Bills.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKthought that too many Bills were drawn by Government. If less Bills were drawn by them, a saving of £1,400 a-year might be effected.
§ MR. BAXTERadmitted that too many Bills were drawn by Her Majesty's Government, but whose fault was that? How often in the course of every week in that House were Her Majesty's Government asked whether it was not their intention to introduce a Bill in the course of the present Session for doing something or another? The programme of the Government, as every hon. Member knew, would occupy the House of Commons till the month of August, and yet 50, 60, or 100 Gentlemen got up in their places to urge the Government to bring forward Bills. The Government, in a weak moment like other people, consented to bring in Bills, some of which were not likely to pass into law. He would also point out that now-a-days the Government were expected to take charge of every Bill that was brought into the House affecting the public interest, and he confessed that he saw no chance of lessening the expense of that particular item. If it was the desire of the House and the country that the Government should undertake all the legislation, there was nothing for them but to consent to pay the bill. The gentleman whose duty it was to prepare Bills for the Government was by no means overpaid. There was not a harder worked servant of the Crown. In consequence of the greater proportion of the 839 legislation of the House being now thrown into the hands of the Government, the expense of drafting Bills had enormously increased, and was still increasing. This year the Estimate had been raised from £1,000 to £1,400 because of the drafting of hybrid Bills.
§ MR. MAGNIACasked, whether the Vote included any salaries to Crown Agents for the Colonies?
§ MR. BAXTERsaid, that no part of the salaries of the Crown Agents for the colonies was paid by this country.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he was not satisfied that the Government "at a weak moment" should have yielded to the pressure of hon. Members. They ought not to have these weak moments.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (4.) £68,024, to complete the sum for the Home Office.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKasked, why it was that this Vote for the Home Office was increasing every year? A great deal of the additional expense, he was aware, arose from the appointment of new Inspectors and men of that class. But those who received the benefits from such appointments ought to pay for it.
§ MR. BAXTERsaid, the Vote, large as it was, had increased only by £649, notwithstanding that the inspection of gunpowder works, formerly paid out of the Civil Contingencies, was this year for the first time placed on these Estimates, and also notwithstanding that the Inspectors of Factories had been largely increased.
§ MR. WHITWELLinquired, whether there was any probability of the Home Office dealing soon with the question of the explosion of explosive materials, seeing what a number of accidents had recently occurred? He also wished to know whether the three gentlemen mentioned as receiving pay for quasi-military appointments received pay from the Home Office?
MR. BRUCEreplied, that there was at this moment a Committee of the War Office sitting for the express purpose of inquiry into this question of explosive materials. The War Office had appointed two or three gentlemen to inspect manufactories where explosive materials were produced, and see how the business was carried on, and these gentlemen were now engaged in collecting materials for their reports. As to the second Question, a certain number 840 of military men had been appointed to the Factory Department before he took office. The fact that they had been in the Army ought not to disqualify them, but, on the contrary, might well render them fitter for the employment.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, that the class of Inspectors who were appointed clearly for the benefit of persons carrying on any particular business—the Inspectors and Commissioners of Fisheries, for example, now costing about £5,000—ought not to be a burden on the public. Everyone knew that the whole object of appointing those gentlemen was to increase the revenue of the fishery proprietors, and accordingly the rental of salmon fisheries had of late years increased enormously. Again, the expense for seeing that persons employed in coal mines were not injured by carelessness, which now amounted to about £12,000, ought to be borne by the owners of the mines. The same remark would apply to gunpowder works.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he agreed with some of the observations which had been just made. The time had now come, or would shortly come, when the expense for salmon fishery inspection ought to be removed from the Votes and thrown on the proprietors. When the Legislature interfered with private property, and introduced a new system not with a view to augment the revenues of the owners, but to increase the supply of food for the people, it was only fair that the cost of seeing the system carried out thoroughly should be borne by the public. But it was only a question of time when that should cease, and he should like to know whether the Home Office had it in contemplation within a reasonably short period to remove this charge from the Votes?
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKalso contended that the inspection of salmon fisheries, coal mines, and such other matters ought to be paid for by the owners and not by the public.
MR. BRUCEsaid, these charges had been imposed upon the Government by Acts of Parliament, and there was now before the House a similar Bill, as to the inspection of mines, which would largely increase the amount under this head. In all these cases, it was for the House to determine whether the cost of inspection should be defrayed out of the 841 public expenditure. As to the inspection of fisheries, there was no doubt much to be said in favour of throwing the charge upon private proprietors. Fish was rather the luxury of the rich than the food of the poor, and the inspection certainly tended to improve the property of private persons. The amount in question was small, being only £5,000, but the principle was an important one. There was a Salmon Fisheries Bill now before the House, and the House might consider whether it would not be right, in again legislating on this subject, to throw the charge of these inspections upon private individuals.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £53,485, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, that there were some remarkable items in connection with this Vote to which he wished to call attention. He had called attention to a circumstance last year, respecting which he had private information, but which the noble Lord who represented the Foreign Department in that House (Lord Enfield) admitted that he was ignorant about. It seemed to him a most objectionable circumstance that the Parliamentary Under Secretary, who represented the Foreign Department in the House of Commons, should be ignorant on such important matters. The noble Lord came down to justify certain Estimates, and yet, practically, he had no control over the financial arrangements of the Foreign Office. The Parliamentary Under Secretary, he maintained, ought to be able to give the House definite and reliable information on such matters; but it appeared that this duty was managed by the Permanent Under Secretary of the Department. Now he (Mr. Rylands) desired information with respect to the following item:—"Oriental Interpreter, £400," the note to which was—"This remuneration has been hitherto defrayed out of the Vote for Secret Service." Surely there could be nothing in the position of an Oriental Interpreter which justified this secresy? If his services 842 were confidential, or were in any respect of an intriguing character, one could understand his being kept out of sight; but without explanation, one was at a loss to understand why it was necessary to pay him out of the Secret Service money. The secresy led him to suppose that this payment was something in the nature of a job. Who was this Intepreter? What were his duties? And was this a salary enjoyed by some member of the Foreign Office, in addition to a salary for services of another description? He rather suspected it would be found that this official also received a salary of some other kind. Last year he stated he had reason to believe that out of Secret Service money some pensions were paid to widows of persons who had been engaged in the Foreign Office or in the Diplomatic or Consular Service. He did not see any such entries in the Votes, and therefore he hoped to hear from the noble Lord either that the statement was incorrect, or that these payments had been dropped. He now came to the subject of his Motion, the salary of £500 to the Permanent Under Secretary of State "for the management of the Secret Service Fund of the Foreign Department." He thought he was justified in asking the Committee to disallow this charge. The Permanent Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs received a remuneration of £2,000 a-year, and this sum of £500 a-year was not professedly given to the Under Secretary on account of services at the Foreign Office, but was expressly an allowance for the administration of duties in connection with the Secret Service Fund. He wished to remind the House of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to the Question which was addressed to him by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel), for on that occasion, the Prime Minister stated that the sum of £500 was paid to the Permanent Under Secretary, because of the labour which he had to undergo in connection with the distribution of the Secret Service money; but the right hon. Gentleman was clearly under a misapprehension as to the nature of the duties which that distribution involved. He would quote, in reply to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the evidence of Mr. Hammond himself and of the late Lord Clarendon, 843 both of whom were examined before the Diplomatic Service Committee. Mr. Hammond then informed the Committee that if any unusual amount of money was expended, information was asked for by the Foreign Office; but if only an ordinary sum, no such information was demanded. Mr. Hammond further went on to say that he, as Permanent Under Secretary, drew the cheques, and that he did not profess, under ordinary circumstances, to take an account of any payment unless it was unusual in amount. The evidence of Mr. Hammond was entirely confirmed by Lord Clarendon. That noble Lord told the Committee that the Political Under Secretary was not consulted with respect to the expenditure of the Secret Service Fund, or, indeed, anybody else; that he dealt with it on his own responsibility; that he did not communicate what he did with it to anyone; and that the best way of keeping the disposal of the money secret was not to talk about it. "Of course," Lord Clarendon went on to say—
Mr. Hammond draws the cheques which I give him authority for; and I trust the public have sufficient confidence in my honour to think that I do not misappropriate any of the money.Now, he did not mean for a moment to contend that there had been any misappropriation of the money in the usual sense of the word, although much of it might have been expended for purposes which he could not regard as advisable; but what he must contend was, that the reason which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman as a justification of giving the £500 a-year of which he was speaking to Mr. Hammond, was entirely disposed of by the evidence to which he had just referred. The salary of £500 a-year was given by Mr. Canning in 1824 in lieu of commissions, and the change was made at a time when almost every Department swarmed with men who received those commissions out of the public purse. For a number of years prior to 1824, too, the amount of Secret Service money which had been expended was enormous; and then there was greater justification for the expenditure than now, because there was greater necessity of procuring information under circumstances of great difficulty. In the early part of the century the Secret Service money amounted to nearly £200,000 a-year; but the times had greatly changed, and now the sum 844 was not only greatly diminished, but would, he hoped, be reduced still further. He wished, however, to know in whose hands the large amount of the balance of the sum estimated for, which remained unexpended, amounting to £20,000 was placed, for it did not appear in the accounts over which the Secretary to the Treasury had control. In conclusion, he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £500, the additional salary paid to the Permanent Under Secretary.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Item of £500, being an Allowance to the Permanent Under Secretary of State for the Management of the Secret Service Fund of the Foreign Department, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Rylands.)
§ VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, that before replying to the objections made to the payment of £500 a-year to the Permanent Under Secretary of the Foreign Office, he would explain the reason why it was impossible for him last year to give any more definite reply than he had given to the hon. Member for Warrington, and he would ground that reason on the evidence given by Mr. Hammond, when examined before the Diplomatic and Consular Services Committee two years ago. Upon the hon. Member for Warrington asking Mr. Hammond whether he did not think that the Parliamentary Under Secretary should have the use and control of the money voted by Parliament, the reply of Mr. Hammond was, that it was decided by the Secretary of State 45 years ago that the Permanent Under Secretary should be charged with the disbursement of the money for Secret Service, on the ground that it was better that all things connected with the Secret Service should remain in the hands of a person permanently attached to the office, rather than in the hands of a functionary liable to be changed. He was, therefore, unable now, as he had been last year, to give to the hon. Member for Warrington the information asked for, because under the rule he had just mentioned the Parliamentary Under Secretary, not being responsible for the expenditure, knew nothing about it, and could give no explanation on the subject. The Prime Minister and Lord Clarendon had declared their opinion that Mr. Hammond was fairly entitled, on account of 845 his services, to this sum of £500 a-year, and it was in accordance with a pledge given last year, that this additional salary was placed on the Estimates and not on the Secret Service Fund. The hon. Member for Warrington conceived that the services of the Permanent Under Secretary in connection with the Secret Service Fund were almost nugatory, with the exception of drawing cheques; but when Mr. Hammond said that the expenditure was checked by him and required a certain supervision, that meant something more than merely drawing cheques. It meant that Mr. Hammond had the trouble of going into the details of the expenditure, and offering an opinion to the Secretary of State. He would remind the hon. Member for Warrington of the manly way in which Lord Clarendon spoke of the objections taken to the distribution of the Secret Service money. That noble Lord observed that the interests of the national service were placed in his hands; that any failure on his part might involve the country in a great trouble; he hardly knew why he should be trusted in large matters and not in small; that all the mysterious rumours about corruption in respect to the application of the Secret Service Fund were unfounded, and he was glad to have the opportunity of saying that he had always applied the money in the way it ought to be applied. If the hon. Member objected to the Secret Service Fund, he should oppose the Vote for that purpose; but should not refuse to give this very small sum of money to the Permanent Under Secretary. With regard to the Oriental interpreter, whose name had for the moment escaped his memory, the expenditure for the salary of this official out of the Secret Service Fund went back for 50 years; but, in accordance with the Resolution of the House of Commons on the 12th of August last, it was now placed on the Estimates. Were he to mention the name of the gentleman who was Oriental interpreter, the hon. Member for Warrington would admit that the salary was given for bonâ fide services; and not only that, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he held no other appointment in the Foreign Office, that he was of great learning and ability, and of great service. With regard to the pensions to widows, he believed that all 846 the pensions were paid out of the Civil List; but he could not say whether there was any particular expenditure under this head from the Secret Service Fund. He trusted that, after this explanation, and considering that Mr. Hammond had been a most hard-working, honest public servant in the service of the Foreign Office for 48 years, the Committee would not grudge to place this salary of £500 on the Estimates.
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he did not regard the Motion of the hon. Member for Warrington as any attack on Mr. Hammond or any person connected with the distribution of the Secret Service Fund, which he thought it was necessary to maintain. He was one who believed that they could not conduct the Foreign Service without a secret fund, and the £4,000 which was stated to have been paid for a copy of the Treaty of Tilsit was money well expended. But that was not the point now raised. The question was, who did the work? It appeared from the evidence given before the Committee, that the work was really done by the Secretary of State himself, and that all that the Permanent Under Secretary did was to draw the cheques, of course checking the amount in the same way as a clerk in a bank checked the amount he paid. As to any responsibility on the part of the Permanent Under Secretary in the payment or management of the Secret Service money, the evidence showed there was none. His object in rising was to object to the manner in which this sum was entered in the public accounts. He did not object to Mr. Hammond having £2,500 a-year, and he thought it would be a hardship to say to an old and tried public servant, at this time of day, that the amount he had received for so many years should be reduced. But the form of paying him that sum was fictitious, and introduced a vicious precedent. An hon. Friend near him had just told him that the sum, on the occurrence of a vacancy, was to be reduced to £300 a-year; but that did not do away with the falseness of the principle. They should enter in the Estimates that a sum of £2,500 was wanted for Mr. Hammond, as an old and deserving public servant, making it, however, to be understood that the exceptional £500 was personal to Mr. Hammond.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKbelieved Mr. Hammond, who had, he might say, momentous interests in his hands, deserved £2,500 a-year, and would be no party to an attempt to deprive him of it. Moreover, he was inclined to think that, while the Government employed too many persons, the pay was in some instances excessively small for the services rendered, and was not equal to that given by the Corporation of the City of London. If they wanted good men, they must give a good price for them.
§ MR. RYLANDSwished to say that there was no understanding entered into by him, that he would not oppose the voting of this £500 a-year if it were placed upon the Estimates. If the Government would place the sum upon the Estimates in some other form than the present, he would not say that he would vote for it, but at all events he would consider it. He was surprised at the way in which the hon. Member for Finsbury backed up extravagance.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, in deference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Warrington, this charge, which was formerly paid out of the Secret Service Vote, had been placed on the Estimates, and now hon. Members, who did not object to Mr. Hammond having the money, said—"Do not take it in the form of a Vote for managing the Secret Service money, which he does, and the secrets of which he is a depository, but put it in the way of an increase of salary, and raise the salary of the Under Secretary of State of the Foreign Office to £2,500 a-year." It was not disputed that Mr. Hammond ought to have the £2,500; it was only the manner of paying him the money which was objected to. But the effect of giving him a salary of £2,500 a-year as Under Secretary of State would be to make a distinction in favour of one Under Secretary of State, and to lead four others, who were in an equal position, to seek an equal advance, so that the result of carrying the Amendment would be to impose upon the country an extra burden of £2,000 a-year.
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTprotested against such a representation. Mr. Hammond got the £2,500 a-year now, and yet it was not proposed to give that salary to the other four Under Secretaries. What then, became of the argument 848 of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The reason he could not support the Vote was, that it set up the bad precedent of paying a man under a fictitious pretence.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, the difference which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would avoid already existed, because the Permanent Secretary of the Treasury, whose position was the same as that of an Under Secretary of State, had £2,000 for five years, and then a maximum of £2,500; and yet the other Under Secretaries had not applied for any increase of salary.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Secretary of the Treasury was not an Under Secretary of State; he was at the head of the Civil Service.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 41: Majority 22.
§ MR. WHITWELLremarked that a change had been recently effected by transferring the superintendance of certain commercial affairs from the Board of Trade to the Foreign Office, and expressed a hope that under the new arrangement the interest of the commercial community would be duly protected.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, two items in this Vote required explanation. The superintendent of the Treaty department received £800 a-year, and also, it would seem, an extra allowance of £200. Then the assistant in the Treaty department got £500, and a clerk in the same department £360 a-year; so that altogether we paid £1,860 a-year for the superintendence of treaties. Nevertheless, we had not been very successful of late in the manufacture of our treaties as evidenced by the Treaty of Washington. It was sometimes said that persons in bad health got better as soon as they dismissed their doctors, and perhaps our treaties would be better drawn if this office of superintendent were abolished. Again, it appeared that the librarian and keeper of the papers received £800; the sub-librarian, £545; and seven clerks, £1,803. He hoped the noble Lord would explain why it was necessary to pay so large a sum to the librarian and his assistants.
§ MR. BOWRINGsaid, he had been for very many years acquainted with Mr. Bergne, the superintendent of the 849 Treaty department, who had been in the service for 40 or 50 years, if not longer, and having often worked with him in official matters, he could say from his own knowledge that he was one of the most valuable servants of the Crown in this country.
§ MR. MELLORremarked that hitherto the librarian had acted as Foreign Office agent; but as the latter office had been abolished, he intended to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £545.
§ VISCOUNT ENFIELDobserved that when Sir Louis Mallet retired from the Board of Trade certain commercial business was transferred from that Department to the Foreign Office, and that caused some changes to be made by the Secretary of State. Formerly one department embraced consular and commercial affairs, but now they had been separated, and at the head of the commercial department had been placed Mr. Kennedy, who had been 25 years in the Foreign Office. He was a gentleman who had very much distinguished himself, and within the last two years he had been engaged upon special service in the Levant in connection with the Consular Service. It would be presumptuous in him (Viscount Enfield) to give any assurance that the new commercial department would require no further addition to their present staff, because the arrangement had only been in existence two months; but there was every reason to hope that the commercial world would be satisfied with the way their affairs would be looked after by the Foreign Office. He could inform the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) that the superintendent of the Treaty department, Mr. Bergne, had been in the public service 55 years, and might, if he had so pleased, have retired from it on his full maximum salary some years ago, and therefore he was really doing the work of the country for nothing. Moreover, Mr. Bergne, who was 72 years old, had other duties to perform besides those connected with the Treaty department, and there were only two other gentlemen to assist him in the work. As regarded the librarian, his work was very heavy, but it was very efficiently done, and if hon. Members would do him the honour to call at the Foreign Office, he would have much pleasure in giving them the opportunity of judging for themselves. Two or three gentlemen had come from 850 abroad to see the system upon which our Foreign Office library records and registers were kept, and returned very much struck with the conciseness of it catalogue, and the great precision with which every volume and every paper was tabulated.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
§ Committee to sit again upon Monday next.