HC Deb 17 April 1874 vol 218 cc761-77

(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £36,984, 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 1875, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords.

MR. DILLWYN

said, there were many items in this Vote which he thought might he reduced, and that he proposed to move its reduction in order to test the opinion of the new House as to whether it was their duty to reduce the expenditure or not. What he complained of in this case was that the officers of the other House were paid much more than those of the House of Commons, although their duties certainly were not more onerous—either they were overpaid, or the officers of the House of Commons underpaid. He did not blame the Government for adopting the Estimate of their predecessors, but he hoped they would consider the propriety of a reduction. The Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords received £2,500, while the Chairman of Committees of this House, whose duties, he believed, were much more arduous, received £1,500. Seeing no reason for that difference, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £35,984, 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 1875, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, he must complain of his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury substituting without Notice one class of Estimates for another. Had Class No. I. been brought forward instead of No. II. they might have had notice of the intention of the hon. Member who made this Motion; but that was not done. He was sure the Secretary to the Treasury would endeavour in future to give due notice of the Business to be brought on. As to the Amendment, the question was rather whether the salary of the Chairman in this House was sufficient than whether the other salary was excessive.

MR. MONK

said, that while anxious for reduction where a case could be made out, he could not support the Amendment. Lord Redesdale had held the office many years; he had been admittedly able and indefatigable, and he was not overpaid. The difference between the two salaries was fair matter of remark, but perhaps that of the Chairman in this House was not sufficient.

MR. DILLWYN

said, the Committee could not increase a Vote, and their Chairman's salary, though, perhaps, lower than might have been expected, was one of those settled by a Select Committee. The House of Lords had not considered their salaries in the same way, and he wished they would refer this and other points to a Joint Committee.

MR. GREGORY

said, that having been a practising Parliamentary solicitor for many years, he could fully appreciate the labours of the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords. He had most arduous duties to perform. Private Bills were every day more complicated and difficult to be understood, and the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords had to make himself acquainted with the history of the transactions and of the undertakings to which they related. There never was a more zealous or better Chairman than Lord Redesdale, and his remuneration was not more than was adequate for the labour he had to perform. He concurred in the remark that the salary of the Chairman of Committees of this House was much too low.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he would endeavour in future to give the House the fullest notice of the business to be brought on. Circumstances occurred at the last moment which made it inconvenient to the Committee to consider Class I., and hon. Members on both sides had been aware of the intention to proceed with Class II. That was comparatively a new Vote, as far as the House of Lords was concerned, for until four years ago that House retained the power which they had possessed from time immemorial of fixing the salaries for their own establishment. Their surrender of it and of the fees out of which the establishment had been paid was an act of grace, and it would be assuming a false position towards them for this House to turn round and reduce the salaries. There was no more efficient public officer than Lord Redesdale, whose services in defence of public and private rights were invaluable, and his salary was not excessive, whatever that of the Chairman in this House might be. The fees surrendered by the Lords were adequate to the cost of the establishment, and he hoped his hon. Friend would not divide on the question, as to do so would appear to place the House of Commons in a false position in relation to the other House.

MR. BUTT

said, he deemed it beyond the province of the House, in the absence of any complaint, to express an opinion on the services of the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords. His remuneration was very moderate, and it was almost absurd to put forward a reduction of £1,000 on the ground of economizing the expenditure.

MR. DODSON

expressed a hope that his hon. Friend the member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) would content himself with having called attention to the subject of his Motion, and would not divide the Committee. He trusted he would not be suspected of an undue sympathy with the office of Chairman of Ways and Means, when he said that it was somewhat anomalous that the holder of that office, whoso duties were more onerous than those of the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, should be paid so much lower a salary than that paid to the noble Lord who filled the latter office. As had been very justly observed, the noble Lord who occupied that position had discharged the duties of his office for many years with very great distinction, and the salary ought not to be disturbed so long, at any rate, as the noble Lord filled the office in question. "When, however, a change was made, it would be fair matter for consideration whether the salaries of the two Chairmen ought not to be reviewed. It appeared to him that, when that time came, without adding to the taxation of the country, the salaries of the two officers might be put together and equally divided between the Chairmen of Committees respectively.

MR. DILLWYN

assured the Committee that in taking the course he had adopted he had done so on principle, and in persisting in it, he did so without meaning anything personal towards the noble Lord, for whom he had the highest respect. As to the great work with regard to Private Bills which Lord Redesdale had to do, there was some years ago a reason to be found in it why he should be paid a much higher salary than the Chairman of the House of Commons' Committees, because all Money Bills and Private Bills originated in the Lower House, and the noble Lord had the power of vetoing them, and thus had greater duties to perform and greater responsibility; but now many of those Bills originated in the House of Lords, and the Chairman of Committees of the House of Commons had equal power and concurrent jurisdiction with the noble Lord. He could not adopt the view that because certain estimates were placed before them the Committee were bound to accept them, and had no right to vote against them. He considered that he should not be fulfilling his duty if he did not divide the Committee.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 125: Majority 103.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

explained that he had given his vote not for the purpose of reducing the salary of the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, but in the hope that the House of Commons would take a more just view of the position of its Chairman of Committees and of its other officers, as in his opinion they were very much underpaid.

(3.) £41,559, to complete the sum for the House of Commons Offices.

MR. MONK

said, that no doubt those were the Estimates of the last Government, and were framed under the impression that the House would meet on the 5th of February. As a matter of fact, however, it did not meet till six weeks later, and no Committees had sat before Easter. Notwithstanding that fact, he saw an increase in the Vote for Witnesses and Shorthand Writers, &c., employed on Committees, and he wished to know, therefore, whether the hon. Gentleman would consent to a reduction in the Vote to the extent of £550, the amount of the increase.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he could not do so. The Estimates had been printed before he came into office, and he could not revise them. The slight addition to the Vote had been made by the right hon. Gentleman who had preceded him, because it was found last-year that the sum taken was not sufficient. If anything was over at the end of the Session it would be paid into the Exchequer, and no outlay would be incurred which was not deemed necessary by the Chairman of Committees.

Vote agreed to.

(4.) £47,558, to complete the sum for the Treasury.

MR. WHITWELL

inquired why there were now three Lords of the Treasury appointed in the place of the two who sufficed under the late Government?

MR. W. H. SMITH

replied that it was the usual custom that there should be three Lords of the Treasury, and in adopting that number the Government had been only following that custom.

MR. BUTT

called the attention of the Committee to what he called a change in the constitution of the Lords of the Treasury. Formerly it was customary to appoint an Irish Member one of the Lords of the Treasury, which was to a certain extent a convenient arrangement; but that course was now departed from, and he understood that it was intended systematically to depart from it.

MR. DISRAELI

Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick is under a complete misapprehension upon this subject. There is no rule that there should be a Scotch or an Irish Lord of the Treasury, neither is there a rule that there should be an English Lord of the Treasury—indeed, there is no reason why the three Lords should not all be Irishmen. In the first Treasury, in fact, of which I was a Member the majority were Irishmen. It depends upon their fitness, not upon their nationality whether hon. Members are appointed to fill those offices, and I should be glad to have the assistance of any Irish Gentlemen thus qualified who wish to support Her Majesty's Government, but who at present do not. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that he is labouring under a false impression, and that there is not any fixed rule by which we deprive ourselves of the services of our Irish Colleagues in this House. The hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) has also made an observation upon the change that he states has been made in the constitution of the Treasury. There are three Lords in the present patent, but that is the number which the Committee of this House which sat on Public Offices decided was the expedient one. When the Ministry of 1868 retired there were then three Lords of the Treasury; but I believe that when the late Government came into office there was a re-construction of the Treasury, and that one of the three Lords had, under another title, a larger salary. "When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, revised the service of the Treasury, he reported to me that the re-constructed office, with the larger salary, was, in his opinion, quite unnecessary, and he recommended that we should recur to the more economical system. We have, consequently, now three Lords, as originally.

MR. DODSON

I should like to say one word with reference to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. It is perfectly correct that recently under the late Government there were three Lords of the Treasury, one of whom did receive a larger salary than the others; but it should be borne in mind that at that time there was no Chancellor of the Exchequer, apart from the Prime Minister, he having undertaken that office in conjunction with his own; a third Lord was thereupon appointed to assist the Financial Secretary. I wish to point out that so far, therefore, from there having been any additional expenditure, there was some saving.

MR. DISRAELI

I would only remark that I believe the arrangement was made before the late Prime Minister became Chancellor of the Exchequer. Indeed, it took place when the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich was first formed. I do not wish to dwell upon the point, I only desire to show that the course which the present Government have taken is a regular one, and that in appointing three Lords of the Treasury we have only followed the rule laid down by the Committee which sat on Public Offices.

MR. BUTT

said, he did not attach much importance to the point except as an indication of the progress of centralization, which he conceived to be most injurious if earned out in its entirety. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that there was no fixed rule that one of the Lords of the Treasury should be an Irishman. No doubt that was the case; but, at the same time, it had been the practice for a long period of time that an Irishman should be appointed to one of those offices, and he distinctly understood that that practice was to be departed from in future. He only hoped that the English Lord of the Treasury, whoever he might be, would deal with Irish affairs as well as though he were an Irish Lord. It was not for him (Mr. Butt) to speak of the capabilities of his own Friends, the question was one for the discretion of the Government, and, of course, it was for the right hon. Gentleman to decide whether, in his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman's Irish supporters were fit or unfit for such an office. It had been said that the only duty of the Irish Lord of the Treasury was to keep a House and to cheer the Ministry, and the right hon. Gentleman might think—although for his part he could not acquiesce in such an opinion—that his Irish supporters were not qualified for the office. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman said so, he (Mr. Butt) would not dispute his word. It was the right hon. Gentleman's own description, and not his (Mr. Butt's). He would only add that if the right hon. Gentleman wished for the support of the Irish Members who now sat on the Opposition side of the House, he would only obtain it when he came to be of their opinion as to the mode of governing Ireland as it ought to be governed.

MR. DILLWYN

wished to know something about the office of Auditor of the Civil List, whose duties could not be very onerous?

MR. W. H. SMITH

replied that the office was hold by the Assistant Secretary to the Treasury.

MR. DODSON

said, he had no wish to continue the discussion on the Treasury, but he wished to state that when he acceded to the office of Secretary to the Treasury last autumn there were at that time only two Lords of the Treasury, and had been but two for a considerable time. When the Prime Minister became Chancellor of the Exchequer a third Lord was appointed to assist him.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, that at a still earlier period there was a third Lord, with a salary of £2,000; indeed, there were four Lords, for a noble Lord acted as a fourth without any salary. The constitution of the Treasury now was the same as it was before the late Government was formed.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) £71,212, to complete the sum for the Home Office.

(6.) £51,713, to complete the sum for the Foreign Office.

(7.) £26,890, to complete the sum for the Colonial Office.

(8.) £26,276, to complete the sum for the Privy Council Office.

(9.) £91,916, to complete the sum for the Board of Trade.

MR. NORWOOD

said, he took exception to the provision of the sum of £5,000 for the costs of inquiries as to ships that were alleged to be unseaworthy, fearing that it indicated an indisposition to enforce the provision which enabled the Board to require the deposit of securities for costs from informants against the condition of vessels should charges be made with insufficient reason. Last year the Board of Trade took action against certain vessels upon false information and incurred expenses in consequence. There was also an entirely new item of £400 for inquiries into shipwrecks.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

explained that the item of £5,000 was a rough estimate of expenses connected with proceedings taken under the Act passed last year, the provisions of which would be steadily enforced. If the whole amount were not spent, of course the balance would be returned to the Treasury. The item of £400 appeared for the first time, because until this year the expense of inquiries had been borne by the Treasury. He hoped the sum would not be required, though it might be if there were three or four cases like one which had occurred already.

MR. WHITWELL

asked in what department of the Board of Trade there was an increase of £2,000 for salaries. He also wished to know whether the £500 charged for maintaining the rights of the Crown to the foreshores represented expenses incurred over and above the ordinary expenses?

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

remarked that the Board of Trade, in ordering the detention of vessels, carried out the Act indiscreetly. Honest shipowners wished it enforced in a rigorous, but at the same time discreet, manner. He objected that Government surveyors were frequently sent to ports where the local surveyors might easily have performed the duties.

MR. THOMPSON

wished for an explanation as to the increase of salaries in the Department?

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, that the office had been re-organized by the late Government, and there were annual increments, in accordance with a Treasury Minute, which applied to all the salaries of the Department.

MR. BUTT

said, he had been under the impression that the Civil Service Estimates taken that evening would be confined to a particular class; otherwise he should have been prepared to show that there was a very strong feeling in Ireland, even among those who were outside the Home Rule party, in favour of having a branch of the Board of Trade established in Dublin to attend to local matters, which could be better disposed of there than by the Central Board in London.

Vote agreed to.

(10.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £2,222, 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 1375, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal.

MR. DILLWYN

said, that having just asked the House to reduce the salary of a Nobleman who had important duties to perform, he should now ask the House to refuse the salary of a Nobleman who had no duties whatever he had always taken exception to the Vote, although he was prepared to admit the sense of the House was invariably against him. It was said to be necessary that the Prime Minister should have some one to assist him who had no departmental duties to perform, but he would rather vote the money to a Minister without portfolio than keep up a sinecure like that of the Lord Privy Seal. The Lord Privy Seal, as he said before, had nothing to do, and he had a large establishment to help him in doing it. For those reasons, he (Mr. Dillwyn) objected to the Vote in toto, and should move its rejection.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, it appeared that the hon. Member did not object to the Prime Minister having assistance, but he only objected to the title of Lord Privy Seal. [Mr. DILLWYN: And the establishment.] The salary was £2,000 a-year, and the establishment was £600 a-year. Successive Governments had rccognized the advantage of maintaining an office held by a Member of the Cabinet who was not so fully engaged by departmental duties as some of his Colleagues, and who might assist the Cabinet upon questions requiring special consideration, and the late Prime Minister himself had borne testimony to the value and necessity of having a Member of the Cabinet who was almost without portfolio, but who, by his experience and knowledge of Parliamentary life and public business, might give important assistance to the great work of governing the country. He therefore trusted the present Parliament, like its predecessor, would see the wisdom of following the same course.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 135; Noes G4: Majority 71.

(11.) £16,458, to complete the sum for the Charity Commission.

MR. NEVILLE GRENVILLE

hoped that for the future the expenses of the Commission might be defrayed out of fees charged upon the charities with which the Commissioners dealt, with so much advantage to the public, so that it might be made, as it onght to be, self-supporting.

MR. MONK

said, he was of the same opinion, and hoped the Government would give the hon. Member an answer before the Vote was passed.

MR. W. H. SMITH

thought the Committee would hardly expect him to give an undertaking on so important a question. Several years ago the late Government undertook to do something in the matter, but they fouud it encompassed with difficulties with which they were unable to grapple. All he could say was, that the question should be considered.

MR. M'LAREN

remarked that a very small percentage on the schemes adjudicated by the Commissioners would defray the expenses. Many of the charities were of questionable utility or were mismanaged, and the Commissioners having diverted many, no doubt wisely, to other objects, might defray their expenses in the way he had suggested.

Vote agreed to.

(12.) £16,408, to complete the sum for the Civil Service Commission.

(13.) £15,395, to complete the sum for the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission.

MR. WHITWELL

asked whether this body had yet become self-supporting?

MR. M'LAREN

mentioned that a Motion had been passed several years ago at the instance of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney), to the effect that there should no longer be a charge on the public in respect of the subject of this Vote and he considered that Resolution ought to be attended to.

MR. GOLDSMID

, remarking that the Tote, like nearly all the rest, included charges for "copying and writers," inquired whether it was intended to do anything with a view to ameliorating the position of the writers in the various public Departments? They were a body of men who deserved consideration, and if their duties were uniform and monotonous, still they required care, intelligence, and accuracy, and a considerable amount of information.

MR. HANKEY

agreed with those who objected to any charge whatever being made on account of the matter to which the Vote referred.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

pointed out that the Commissioners who had to deal with the matter they were discussing were in a sense public officers, seeing that they acted as a kind of intermediary between the State and the Corporations which were the holders of public property. Their net cost to the State was only £4,000, and he thought this fairly represented the value of their services. With regard to the Resolution passed in 1868 to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had referred, it seemed to him that its requirements had been satisfactorily met.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he wished to remind the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid), who had referred to the case of the writers, that a Commission had been appointed to consider that subject and the organization of the public offices generally, and he added that until that Commission had reported he would not be in a position to make any proposals on the subject.

Vote agreed to.

(14.) £7,150, to complete the sum for the Inclosure and Drainage Acts; Imprest Expenses.

(15.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £33,319, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which, trill come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Departments of the Comptroller and Auditor General of the Exchequer.

MR. DILLWYN

remarked that he thought the Audit Office ought to be entirely independent of the Treasury, and under the control of this House. The audit could not be satisfactory if the Treasury had any power in the office; the Treasury being the accounting department whose accounts had to be audited.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, he also was of opinion that unless the Audit Office was made thoroughly independent of the Treasury and vested with ample powers for the performance of its duties, every shilling that was voted for the office was thrown away. The tendency of modern legislation was to put everything under the Treasury, and the Treasury was an encroaching office, which ought to be strictly watched. No Act of Parliament was passed even on local matters which was not stereotyped with the words—"With the consent of the Lords of the Treasury." When people saw those words used in connection with any matter they naturally supposed the Lords of the Treasury had considered it; but the fact was, "with the consent of the Lords of the Treasury" meant with the consent of a clerk who was paid something between £100 and £150 a-year. Until the Audit Office was made independent of the Treasury, it would be perfectly useless. He would take every opportunity of bringing this matter before the House.

MR. M'LAREN

agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) that a reform was needed in this matter, but he dissented from his opinion as to the services of the clerk who was paid £150 a-year. He believed the officers of the Treasury were the real watchmen of the public purse, for it appeared in a recent Report of the Audit Office that the Treasury had allowed millions of money to be spent without any audit at all, and then sent three years' accounts to the Audit Office at once to be audited.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, if the hon. Baronet would look at the various Reports of the Committee on Public Accounts, he would find they gave ample testimony of the great efficiency and zeal of the Auditor General, and his officers. Nothing more satisfactory could be conceived than the mode in which he analyzed and exercised authority over the public accounts in respect of sums voted by the House.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

denied that he had said anything derogatory of the Auditor General or his clerks. He believed the Auditor General discharged his duty admirably, and that all the other officers did the same. But the Audit Office had not power enough. If it had, those scandals which had occurred would have been prevented. He had read the Papers to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and he had come to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the zeal of the Auditor General and his officers, the Audit Office was perfectly insufficient and was a blot on the administration of the country. The right hon. Gentleman took the course which was usual with all officials—["Divide!"]—of praising things as they were—["Divide!"]—and endeavouring to prevent their improvement. Since the Committee would not listen to him, he should move that the Chairman report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir George Bowyer.)

MR. W. O. GORE

hoped the hon. Baronet would not press his Motion. Hon. Members were justified in interrupting observations which he had made at least half a dozen times. Peculation was going on in France, and the French Audit Office was totally inadequate to detect that peculation. He hoped that whatever was done, our Audit Office would not be made like that of France.

MR. DILLWYN

said, the hon. Baronet did right in moving that Progress be reported. No offensive Amendment had been proposed, and the hon. Baronet ought not to have been interrupted when he was speaking on so important a question as the auditing of the Public Accounts.

MR. GOLDSMID

said, that too much heat had been imported into the discussion. He was of opinion that the hon. Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) was right in asking whether the Secretary to the Treasury would not consider this matter with a view to making the Audit Office more independent of the Treasury, and thereby more able to discharge its duties. The experience of the past year had certainly shown that this was a subject of great importance.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, there was every disposition to make the Audit Office as efficient an instrument as possible for the purpose for which it was designed. It was entirely independent of the Treasury, and any differences between the two were settled by the Committee on Public Accounts. Its staff was recruited under Orders in Council by the Civil Service Commissioners, but occasionally it was required to absorb redundant clerks, just as other offices were required to do, on the score of economy.

MR. M'LAREN

said, it was not so much a question of independence, as of power to remedy wrongs such as were set forth in the Report issued that morning.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, that six months ago the Audit Office was unable to get the clerks necessary for its work, owing to the obstruction and tyranny of the Lords of the Treasury. It had lost the power to do that which was necessary which was possessed by any auditor of a company.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

MR. BUTT

said, he should move to report Progress, in order that he might bring on the first of two Irish Municipal Bills which he had introduced. He claimed the privilege of interrupting Supply at that time (20 minutes to 12 o'clock) because he had put the Bills off three times to meet the convenience of the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Butt.)

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

thought the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) hardly fair, because the Bills had been put down for a second reading before they were printed, and for days when they could not come on.

MR. BUTT

said, he differed entirely from the right hon. Baronet, who had asked for postponement because he was not prepared to meet the Bills, but his want of acquaintance with Ireland was no reason why the progress of the Bills should be impeded. If they were to be obstructed, he would obstruct Supply.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

hoped the Committee would go on with Supply, and thought the hon. and learned Gentleman should have made his Motion during the presence of the Prime Minister, who had just left the House on account of the state of his health. He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that there would be ample time for the discussion of the measure referred to.

MR. BUTT

said, he was not asking for much, only for 20 minutes, because Supply ought not to go on after midnight, and the first Bill had already passed a second reading twice, and had been defeated by obstruction and the half-past 12 o'clock rule. But, under the circumstances, in the absence of the Prime Minister, if an undertaking were given that some facility would be afforded him for bringing on the Bills he would not persist in his Motion.

MR. VANCE

thought the complaint of the hon. and learned Gentleman was without foundation, because he could not have brought the Bills on at an earlier period.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

suggested that, as the Government would not probably proceed with Supply after 12 o'clock, the hon. and learned Gentleman should withdraw his Motion, and he could bring on his Bills after that hour.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

(16.) £1,998, to complete the sum for Registrars of Friendly Societies.

(17.) £309,699, to complete the sum for the Local Government Board.

MR. THOMPSON

objected to the sum charged for the travelling expenses of the inspectors of the Board.

MR. W. H. SMITH

replied, that these were paid by Act of Parliament and therefore could not be altered.

Vote agreed to.

(18.) £12,435, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, England.

(19.) £44,050, to complete the sum for the Mint, including Coinage.

(20.) £14,238, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.

(21.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £18,701, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charges which will coma in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, connected with the Patent Law Amendment Act.

MR. DILLWYN

asked for some explanation with respect to this Vote. A very large sum was paid under this head to Law Officers in Scotland and Ireland who did absolutely nothing for the money. Not only that, but if the Patent Law Amendment Act was carried out at all it should be carried out in its entirety, and that Act required that Special Commissioners should be appointed for the purpose of carrying it into effect. If that was done, the Patent Law would give much greater satisfaction than it did at present he should move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £3,450, the amount paid to the Law Officers of Ireland and Scotland.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £15,251, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, connected with the Patent Law Amendment Act."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)

MR. WHITWELL

said, he wished to remark that no less than £130,000 had been received in the Patent Office during the past year, and after all expenses were paid a balance of £81,000 was left. Notwithstanding that large surplus, it was an acknowledged fact that the Museum of Patents was in a not very reputable condition. He suggested that either so much money should not be drawn from the pockets of patentees or that the surplus should be voted to some useful purpose in connection with the subject.

MR. EARP

asked on what principle the payments were regulated. He found that 13 clerks were kept in this Department at £150 a-year, while one clerk, a copying clerk, was returned at £52 a-year. If that clerk happened to be a man with a very large wife and a small family he would ask how he could be expected to conduct himself as a man should in the employment of the Government?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he was unable to withdraw the items to which the hon. Member for Swansea objected, as they related to sums of money which helped to make up the salaries of the officers.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;

Committee to sit again upon Monday next.