CLASS II.

HC Deb 06 May 1878 vol 239 cc1452-508

(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £37,292, 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 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, he thought the principle had been established last year, that the Gentleman who had charge of the Civil Service Estimates should give the Committee a general idea of the policy of the Government in framing those Estimates, by making a statement similar to those with which the Army and Navy Estimates were annually introduced.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

observed, that the question had been raised in the House during the present Session by the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid), when his Predecessor in Office stated that, after careful consideration, it had not been thought worth while to continue to follow the course which was adopted last year. He thought the House had accepted that decision; and, therefore, he could not reverse it on the present occasion.

MR. PARNELL

hoped that the suggested reform would be introduced even in a more extended form than was referred to by the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury. As matters at present stood, it was perfectly impossible for any hon. Member, who did not possess special information, to follow these Civil Service Estimates in the various items. He would venture to suggest to the Government that they should adopt the French system of having all the Estimates sifted by a Select Committee upstairs, before they were submitted to Parliament. By that means, a great deal of time would be saved; and, in his opinion, the Civil Service Estimates would be very materially cut down. It was true that the late Government was a Liberal and economical one, and that the present was supposed to be extravagant; but, in the face of a continued increase in the salaries of a department like the officials of the House of Lords, they could not help seeing that there was a necessity for inquiry and reform. The House of Lords was not distinguished for the large number of hours it sat, and it would follow, of course, that the officials of that House, for whom the present Vote provided, could not be very much overburdened with work. The time during which the officials of the House of Lords were engaged was usually about an hour and a-half, while the officials, of the House of Commons worked on an average five hours. The work done was of an infinitesimal character, and he believed large sums were paid to officers for doing almost nothing. He would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member who was responsible for the appropriation of the Vote, whether those expenses could not be in some way reduced. In the present year, the Estimate for the House of Lords' Offices was £44,692, while last year the Vote was for £45,553. That was a decrease of £861, and was so far satisfactory; but if they were to compare the total amount of the Vote for the House of Lords' Offices with the Vote for the House of Commons' Offices, they would see that nearly the same sum was paid for a very much less quantity of work. They would find that the House of Lords' Offices cost only £6,000 less than the House of Commons—the figures being £44,692 to £50,207. When these large sums were paid away, year after year, the country had a right to expect some sort of ratio between the amount paid and the return for the money. It was true that the House of Lords was a very beautiful place, and that two or three times during the Session very eloquent speeches were made; but, except as an ancient relic of antiquity, it was admitted on all hands to have no functions at all. As a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, in the taxation of the country, the Government should begin with the House of Lords, and endeavour to put down, so far as possible, the expenditure of this particular branch.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

would not follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) in the criticisms in which he had indulged, for he thought that it was extremely inconvenient—as well to criticize the Offices of the House of Lords as to make reflection on the House itself. He did not consider it wise for one House to treat the other in such a manner, and he hoped the hon. Member would not persevere in the course he had taken.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

would remind the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that some time ago, when the House of Lords abandoned their Fee Fund, a Committee was appointed to consider the question of the salaries of all the officials of the House of Lords. Upon the Report of that Committee the Vote was fixed, and the Treasury did nothing further than follow the course suggested by that Committee.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

thought the expenses of the House of Lords very great; and, without finding any fault with that body, he was of opinion that those expenses might be considerably reduced. Considering the short period the House of Lords usually sat, the expenses were really disproportionate and enormous. That House was a very dignified one, but it treated the Speaker with but scant respect in compelling him to stand at its Bar amongst a crowd as if he were at the bar of a Police Court or a Court of Justice. Some alteration ought, he thought, to be made in that respect.

MR. WHITWELL

complained of the small accommodation afforded to Members of Parliament at the Bar of the House of Lords. The accommodation itself might not be much in fault; the evil rather arose from the fact, that when the House of Commons went up there, they usually found half the space which was said to be devoted to them taken up by persons who were not Members of the House of Commons.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

agreed with what had been previously said, as to the advisability of having some explanatory statement given by the person in charge of each class of Estimate beforehand of items on which there appeared to be an increase. It would economize the time of the House if, at the outset, an explanation of the increased expenditure were given by the Government, especially as there were an immense number of items in which there was a large increase, rather than have such explanation given as each item came before the Committee.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he would call attention to the fact that the net decrease of the Estimate for the year of Class II. amounted to £11,018. As to the increases in various items which struck hon. Members, his Predecessors had always been prepared to answer Questions and to give any explanation as to what seemed unusual. It was probable that, in many instances, the small increases arose from annual increments of salaries; and a little increase in the Estimates presented to Parliament was thus necessitated. Wherever any item struck hon. Members as an increase, he would endeavour to afford an explanation. He did not think the criticisms which the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had addressed to the Committee were justified.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he would point out that the Civil Service Estimates were not voted as a whole. Therefore, any one particular Vote would come under discussion on its own merits.

MR. DILLWYN

thought it would very much facilitate hon. Members in understanding the Estimates, if a Return were made, showing what officials receiving salaries for one office also performed other duties. One of the Clerks of the Parliament, for instance, received £425 as Secretary of Presentations to the Lord Chancellor. At present, it was necessary to pick out the particular offices for which salaries were received from different portions of the Estimates. Thousands of pounds were paid in salaries to officers in one Department over and above what they received in another. Some of these cases might be right, but others might not. He did not want to particularize or be invidious; but he thought hon. Members should have an annual Return laid before them of all instances in the different Departments where more than one salary was paid to the same individual before they were called upon to vote.

MR. HERMON

quite agreed with the remarks just made. He noticed that one official was allowed £300 a-year for a house; in his opinion, it would be much better allowed to their Chairman, whose duties detained him so late at the House.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that the Papers at present supplied showed the different amounts received by each official in every Department of the public service.

MR. DILLWYN

did not deny that the salaries received by every official were stated in the Estimates, but it was necessary to go through all the various offices to pick out the same individual. That labour would be saved by the Return he had suggested.

MR. E. JENKINS

wished to ask why a captain and lieutenant-colonel in the Grenadier Guards was allowed to be Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain, and at the same time to be in receipt of full pay? If it were half-pay, the same complaint might not arise. This was one of the many instances occurring in the Estimates where officers receiving full pay acted as Private Secretaries in Departments of the Government.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

would remind the hon. Member that the appointment mentioned rested with the Lord Chamberlain. If an officer could efficiently perform the duties, there was no reason why he should not give his services, or abandon the salary he received from another office.

MR. BIGGAR

did not know how this gentleman in question could perform his military duties in addition to those in the Lord Chamberlain's Office, for which he received £200 a-year. There was also in the Vote the salary for an Assistant Librarian of the House of Lords. It seemed to him singular that while the Librarian only got £810 a-year, the Assistant Librarian should get £800. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had remarked that these salaries had been allowed by the Committee on previous occasions; but he thought that was no reason for preventing a discussion now, and he would suggest that, in apportioning salaries, regard should be had to the work the gentlemen performed.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, while the Assistant Librarian of the House of Lords had £800 a-year, the Assistant Librarian of the House of Commons only received £475 a-year. No one could compare the arduous duties which were performed by the Assistant Librarian of the House of Commons with those discharged by an official holding the same position in the House of Lords. Therefore, if they were to cut down excessive expenditure, it did occur to him that this was an instance in which they might try their hands. He could not conceive what work the Assistant Librarian of the House of Lords discharged which entitled him to so proportionately a large salary, when it was considered what work was done by a similar officer in the House of Commons for so much smaller an amount. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had said that, putting the increases against the decreases in the Vote, there was a decrease in the sum total. That might be so, but it was scarcely a satisfactory way of answering objections to the Vote. He knew that decreases had been shown; but, to take those decreases in full as an equivalent for the proposed increases elsewhere, was not a very fair proposal.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, in order to bring the question of the salary of the Lord Chamberlain's Secretary to a division, he would move that the Vote be reduced by £200. The hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had said the Lord Chamberlain had the right to appoint whom he pleased as his Secretary; but, surely the House of Commons had the right to say they would not recognize the appointment, or otherwise a person might be selected who would prove totally incompetent to fill the office. He thought—and he believed hon. Members would agree with him—that it was not a proper thing for a man to be appointed Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain who at the same time received emoluments from the offices of captain and lieutenant-colonel in the Grenadier Guards.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £37,092, 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, 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."—(Mr. Edward Jenkins.)

MR. BULWER

hoped that the hon. Member for Dundee would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, for no grounds had been adduced to show that the Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain did not perfectly well perform his duties. To say that a captain and lieutenant-colonel in the Guards had not leisure time in which to perform the duties of Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain was a very strong assertion indeed; for he was sure there was no one in the House, who knew what the duties of a captain and lieutenant-colonel in the Guards while stationed in London were, who would say that such a gallant officer had not time, quite consistently with his duties in his regiment, to properly carry out the work appertaining to the Secretary of the Lord Chamberlain. The officer in question had, as captain, the command of a company; but he had not, in addition, as the hon. Member for Cavan seemed to suppose, the command of a regiment also; nor was it at all necessary that he should be on parade from 8 in the morning to 11 at night.

MR. DILLWYN

said, it was perfectly clear that either the office of Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain, or that of captain and lieutenant-colonel in the Guards must be a sinecure; and he sincerely hoped the latter office—one in the British Army—was not the sinecure. One of the rumours, which had just been rife in the country, was that the Guards were to be immediately sent out to Malta. They had not yet been sent; but, assuming they were, one of the two things must happen—either that the Lord Chamberlain would lose his Secretary, or a company of the Grenadier Guards would be minus a commanding officer.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, it was hardly worth while prolonging the discussion. The salary of £200 a-year always attached to the office of Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain; and, if his Lordship was satisfied that this captain and lieutenant-colonel in the Guards could fulfil the duties required of him, the salary would be paid. The moment he ceased to give satisfaction, the Lord Chamberlain would replace him by someone else. The salary was fixed, and the question was, whether £200 a-year was a proper sum to pay the Secretary of the Lord Chamberlain?

MR. WHITWELL

had a very strong opinion that, to allow one individual to hold two or three offices, was a very unwise proceeding.

MR. RAMSAY

hoped the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) would not press his Amendment. It had been explained that the salary of the Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain had been fixed; and, if the gallant officer, who now held that position, was unable to discharge his military duties, no doubt the Horse Guards would put a stop to his holding the office of Secretary. Seeing that it had not been proved that, by his holding the two offices, either Department suffered, he did not see how the House could refuse to vote the salary.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, he would not press his Amendment to a division; but, at the same time, he could not admit the remarks of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) to be a satisfactory answer to the objections he had raised. The point before the Committee was a very clear one—namely, whether a captain and lieutenant-colonel in the Grenadier Guards could, in justice to the Service, spare time to become Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain. His own impression was, that the country would get on much better without either office.

MR. BIGGAR

, could not see how a captain in the Guards could do his duty properly in his regiment, if, at the same time, he was Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain. They knew that during the Crimean War much was said about the ignorance of the British Army officers. The rank-and-file got a great deal of credit for their bravery and fighting qualities; but it was stated in the public Press, that the men were so badly officered that the real value and efficiency of the rank-and-file were lost. It had been said, that since then the British officers had greatly improved; but, when they found, as in this case, an officer neglecting his duty in his regiment to earn £200 a-year as Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain, he thought it might turn out that the Army was not much better officered now than on a former occasion. He thought the Government should give some explanation as to why they allowed this captain and lieutenant-colonel to hold a double appointment other than for the reason of enabling him to put some money in his pocket. He did not know who the Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain was—perhaps a relative of his Lordship's—but it was clear that he could not do his duty as a secretary, and as a military officer, too.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had told them that, if the Lord Chamberlain was satisfied with his Secretary, the House of Commons could have nothing to say on the matter. He most emphatically protested against such a doctrine. The House of Commons had to pay the money, and hon. Members were, therefore, responsible for the work for which the money was paid being done. If the Lord Chamberlain paid the salary, then he would admit that the House could have nothing to say on the matter; but, as the House of Commons was responsible to the country for the expenditure of the money, it was the duty of hon. Members to see how it was spent.

MR. PARNELL

said, it appeared to him that the Government had made an arrangement with regard to the Vote by which Parliament, practically, had no control over it—and, in fact, they had been told by the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), that they were not responsible for it. If Parliament had no control over the expenditure, still the responsibility of hon. Members remained; and though the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) might be right in not dividing the House, they were bound to protest against such an expenditure. If they did not direct attention to these anomalies and sinecures, they would not be doing their duty. The fact of the matter was there were no duties attaching to the office of Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain. Anyone who read the items in the Vote must at once come to that conclusion. The Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain had £200 a-year; then the Attendance Clerk had £100 a-year. That, he supposed, was another sinecure office, and a Return as to how many times during the Session this Clerk was in attendance would, he thought, be a very interesting document. It was manifest that he was not required to attend any considerable number of days, or he would be paid a much larger salary. Then, they had a Superintendent of the Office. What could he do? Whether he superintended the Lord Chamberlain, or acted as his Secretary, while the gallant officer was performing his duties as a captain and lieutenant-colonel in the Grenadier Guards, or whether he had to look after things in general in the absence of the Lord Chamberlain and his Clerk, it was impossible to say. They could only see how the Vote was framed, and any sensible person on earth must admit that the whole thing was a sinecure. In fact, he believed the majority of the offices connected with the House of Lords were sinecures. Inasmuch as an arrangement had been entered into by the Government to pay these salaries while the House of Commons was held responsible for them, he begged to give Notice that next Session he should hold himself no longer responsible for the payments, and he should oppose the granting of that sum of money.

MR. DILLWYN

desired to be informed, whether the Government could not lay such a Return as he had indicated before the House, in future, so that hon. Members could easily see what the salaries of the different offices were?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

did not see what advantage would be derived from adopting such a course.

MR. DILLWYN

said, it would assist hon. Members to understand the Estimates.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER moved to reduce the salary of the Assistant Librarian of the House of Lords to £475 a-year, and decrease the Vote by £325. The sum of £475 was the salary of the Assistant Librarian of the House of Commons, and anybody who was acquainted with the length of the Sittings of the two Houses could easily see that the duties performed by the Assistant Librarian in the House of Lords were very light compared with those discharged by the Assistant Librarian of the House of Commons. The Members of the House of Lords did not number more than half of the Members of the House of Commons, and the hours they spent in the Library were proportionately small. Their Lordships came to their House for an hour or two, and then went away, and they were not the class of men to use the Library as the Members of the House of Commons used theirs. Their Lordships did not sit on Wednesdays, their Sittings generally were short, and the work of the officers in every department of their Lordships' House was proportionately small. Therefore, it was quite clear that either the salary given to the Assistant Librarian of the House of Commons was too small, or that given to the Assistant Librarian of the House of Lords was too large. The duties of First Librarian in the House of Commons seemed to be very fairly recognized, as a salary of £1,000 was assigned to him; and therefore he should have thought that the salary of the Assistant Librarian in the House of Commons would also have been adequate, considering the onerous duties he had to perform. But there was a great disparity in the salaries of the Librarian and Assistant Librarian of the House of Commons; for, whereas the first had £1,000 a-year, the second, who did most of the work, only had £475 a-year. He could not imagine that the Secretary to the Treasury had anything to say in justification of the enormous difference in the salaries of the Assistant Librarians of the House of Lords and House of Commons, and, therefore, he moved to reduce the Vote by £325.

Original Question again proposed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £36,967, 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, 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."—(Mr. O'Connor Power.)

MR. WHITWELL

thought the question was one that should receive consideration. He found that the whole expenses of the Library of the House of Lords amounted to £1,710 per annum, while the expenses of the Library of the House of Commons were £1,900 per year—a difference of about £200. The Lords had two gentlemen in their Library about whose attendance and duties little or nothing was known. On the other hand, there were four gentlemen in the Library of the House of Commons whose duties all Members of that House appreciated and valued. They were kept about until early hours in the morning, and yet there was only a difference of £200 between the salaries of the four and of the two in the Library of the House of Lords. He did not think that was a proper state of things to exist, and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would consider the matter before another Session.

MR. BIGGAR

considered that the Government must do one of two things—either, on a future occasion, propose to reduce the salary of the Assistant Librarian of the House of Lords, or, in point of fairness, increase the salary of the Assistant Librarian in the House of Commons. It certainly was unfair that one set of officers should be so much more liberally treated than the other, and especially when they remembered the proportionate duties performed. He did not at present give any opinion, as to what extent, or whether or not any increase should be made to the salaries of the Librarians of the House of Commons; but, certainly, if they were not materially increased next Session, it would be the duty of the Committee then discussing the Vote to make a substantial reduction in the salaries given to the Librarians in the House of Lords. Members of the House of Commons came very much in contact with the officials of the Library of that House; they were treated by them with great civility; the officials did their duty most efficiently, and hon. Members would not be doing what was right, unless they induced the Government to raise the salaries of the Librarians in the House of Commons to the same amount as similar officers in the House of Lords received.

MR. M'LAREN

objected to a new grievance sought to be created on a matter of this kind, and suggested that the Vote should be allowed to pass.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he was afraid that, owing to the short time he had been in Office, he had not explained the matter very intelligibly. Up to the year 1868–9, no such Votes as these appeared in the Estimates submitted to the House of Commons. All the salaries in the House of Lords were up to that time paid in fees received from suitors and other persons having business with the House of Lords. In 1868–9, a Committee of the Upper House was appointed to consider this matter, and they recommended that in future all fees should be paid into the Public Exchequer, and that the salaries, as arranged to be paid by the Committee, should be submitted in the Estimates, subject, of course, to a proper audit. Up to 1869, these salaries really never formed part of the Estimates at all, the question being dealt with entirely by the House of Lords itself. He must say he deprecated very much this comparison between the services performed by the Officers of one House and those of another.

MAJOR NOLAN

thought that, as an historical explanation of the manner in which these Votes came to be inserted in the Estimates, the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had put the Committee in possession of the facts. The suitors who paid the fees were the constituents of hon. Members, and therefore they had a right to speak about them, and the whole argument of the hon. Baronet fell to the ground. These fees came from the taxpayers, and, consequently, the money ought to go into the National Exchequer, and then the House of Commons could deal with it. As to deprecating any comparison between the salaries of the respective officers of the two Houses, he could see no reason why one officer should be paid more than another. If the Officers of the House of Lords were to be paid more than those of the House of Commons, it would be equivalent to admitting that the House of Lords had pre-eminence over the House of Commons, and that they were more powerful in the State. He did not object to the Assistant Librarian of the other House receiving a larger salary than the corresponding officer in that House, provided it was given as the result of long and faithful services; but he objected to his being paid a higher salary merely because he was connected with the House of Lords. No one could be more attentive and obliging than the Librarians of the House of Commons. To young Members, especially, their services were of the greatest value. For the first three or four years in which he was a Member of that House, he should have lost, perhaps, half-an-hour every evening in searching for the information he wanted, if he had not been assisted by the Librarians, and that, sometimes, in matters in which they rather exceeded their duties than otherwise. He hoped that, unless the hon. Baronet could give them some further explanation, the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) would insist upon going to a division, the Motion being merely to equalize the two salaries.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, he should remind hon. Members of the House of Commons who had spoken on this subject, that there was an extensive Law Library attached to the House of Lords for the Court of Appeal. The House of Lords sat as an Appeal Court in the day time, and, therefore, the Librarians had more work to perform in the House of Lords than the Librarians of the House of Commons, as they had to supply the books which were required. He regretted to hear hon. Members opposite talking about the Officers of the House of Lords in a manner which clearly showed that they did not know what their duties were. It was in his recollection that the duties of the Officers of the House of Lords had been carefully scrutinized several times by Committees of the House of Lords, and when the arrangement was made about the fees, there was no doubt it was done after full inquiry. In fact, the other House exercised a very ample supervision over its Officers. He thought that these criticisms upon the Officers of the other House, without any real knowledge of the matter, accompanied, as they were, by intimations that the House of Lords itself was not of very great use, were inconsonant with the dignity of the House of Commons; and, if such discussion were to continue, the other House might retaliate and criticize their proceedings in a similar spirit. At any rate, without any complaint to the contrary, it was only fair to suppose that the duties of the Officers of the House of Lords were performed in a proper manner.

MR. O'CLERY

said, he did not intend to put himself in the position of trying to reduce the salaries of the Officers, because he did not consider they were excessive. But he wished to call attention to the fact that the salaries of the Officers of the House of Commons were far below those of the House of Lords, and below what they ought to be. He regretted that, while the salaries of the higher officials were constantly being increased, the small sums paid to the under officials, such as messengers, porters, fire-lighters, and men occupying similar positions, remained stationary. This class of men in the House of Lords received an average of £80 a-year, while those who did the same kind of work in the House of Commons, with, perhaps, five times the amount of labour, received only £58 10s. a-year, or 22s. 6d. a-week. It was hardly reasonable to expect that these men would continue to give up their time, almost day and night, for the pay of a labourer. He did not object to the payment of £80 a-year to the men who did the same kind of work in the House of Lords, and should be glad to see them receiving £100 a-year; but it was an anomaly that there should be this difference in the rate of wages paid to the servants of the respective Houses. He found that the messengers were paid 6d., 7d., 8d., or 9d. per journey—1d. more or less according to distance, and he thought that no employer of labour in that House would think of treating his employés in that way. He hoped the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would give an intimation that he would take the case of these men into consideration, especially, considering the high price of food, and of living generally, as compared with the times when these salaries were fixed.

MR. DILLWYN

said, the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) had told them they did not understand the question. That was their grievance. They were called upon to vote public money, and they did not know what it was for. Neither the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury nor the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford had informed them that the money was fairly earned. Unless they received an assurance on that point, he should be bound to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power).

MR. RYLANDS

entirely dissented from the opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. O'Clery), who urged upon the Secretary to the Treasury that he objected to the salaries of the Officers of the House of Lords; but he stated that he only did so to point out the necessity for increasing the salaries of the Officers of the House of Commons. He did not wish to be parsimonious to the officials of either of the Houses of Parliament, so long as they performed their work; but he thought if they were well served by the persons who undertook to perform their duties for a fixed salary, it was not fair to press upon the Treasury to increase the emolument of those persons. He, therefore, opposed any such increase, and, indeed, he could not suppose for a moment that the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would listen to such recommendations. But, perhaps, the hon. Baronet would give him his attention for a moment whilst he asked for a little information. He was quite aware that the salaries were formerly payable out of fees by the authority of the House of Lords; but that now salaries were paid, and the fees taken, by the Exchequer. The bargain was, that the Exchequer received the amount of the fees from the House of Lords, and out of those fees they paid a number of salaries. He supposed, when the bargain was made, there was reason to believe that after the salaries were paid, there would be a balance in favour of the Exchequer; but what was the fact? The Committee was now asked to Vote, as salaries, the sum of £44,692, and towards those salaries the Exchequer received certain estimated receipts in the form of fees. He presumed those fees were chiefly fees connected with the Private Bill Department. The Exchequer received from those fees, according to the Estimates, the sum of £30,000, so that, according to that statement, there was a loss to the Exchequer of something like £15,000 a-year. He could not think that this was really the case, and it was upon this point that he should like to have some explanation from the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, as he thought the matter must admit of some explanation. That, however, appeared to be the case, according to the Estimates before the Committee; and if a satisfactory explanation could not be given, the House had made a bad bargain instead of a good one.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

thought it a pity that the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer), who had taunted hon. Members with ignorance on this subject, should have sat down without enlightening his Colleagues to the smallest extent. Their object was to discover some principle upon which they could assent to a salary of £800 to the Assistant Librarian, and the only principle they could find was that the Lords, who apportioned the salary, were not responsible to the people who had to pay the money. But the Members of the House of Commons were responsible; and it was their bounden duty, which they could not shirk, to see that if public money was voted for public purposes, there should be an equivalent amount of work done for it. Reference had been made to the fees, but the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan) had clearly proved that these fees were paid by those whom the House of Commons represented. The hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford seemed to think there was a great Constitutional principle at stake; but it was their first duty to watch the expenditure of public money. There would, as had been pointed out, be great inconvenience in making so large a reduction in the salary at so short a notice. It might be a question of children crying for bread, and that was really the only argument in which there was a certain amount of force. Looking, however, to the humble position he (Mr. O'Connor Power) occupied in the House, the only way he had of recording his protest against the Vote, was by joining the small—and, if they liked, odious—minority, the effect of which, at all events, would be to call attention to these indefensible charges. He might also speak of the salary which was assigned to the Sergeant-at-Arms in the other House. Would the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford tell them that the Sergeant-at-Arms was an indispensable functionary in cases of appeal, and that he must be there representing the Sword of Justice?

MR. BIGGAR

considered that the officials of the House of Lords were overpaid as compared with similar officials in the House of Commons, and demurred to the proposition that, because the salaries were fixed by the House of Lords, this House had no right to alter them. All the House of Lords could do was to suggest the amount of the salaries, and it was for this House to confirm them, or set them aside.

MR. PARNELL

thought the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford must be contemplating a speedy retirement to the House of Lords. Either the salary of the Under Librarian in the Lords was too high, or the salary of the Under Librarian to the House of Commons was too low. The hon. and learned Baronet had not, however, attempted to mate out that it was too low, but had merely said he was not responsible for the Vote. He ventured humbly to suggest that he was responsible, and that as the Vote was in the Estimates, that he should be able to explain it. Up to 1868 these salaries were paid out of fees, which varied from £30,000 to £34,000, and when the House of Commons assumed the duty of providing them, it very naturally assumed that the fees would be sufficient. That was, however, by no means the fact, as the Vote had increased £11,000 since 1868, as the amount was formerly £8,000, while now it was £19,000. This showed that the Committee of the House of Lords had gone on adding to these salaries on the strength of the arrangement that had been come to. But what was the arrangement? Was the House of Commons pledged to vote any sum scheduled by this Committee of the Lords? That could not be, for the House of Commons could not deliberately give up its functions as custodian of the public purse in that manner. He should support the Amendment, and in future years would certainly call attention to the Vote.

MR. M'LAREN

said, his impression was that the House of Lords formerly paid its officers from its fees, so far as they went, and then asked the Commons to vote the difference; and that £8,000 was the amount of the difference in the year referred to. Of course, when the House of Commons took over the fees, there was an apparent increase; but it was merely apparent, and the House would find, he thought, upon examining the matter, that there had been no increase, or, that if there had been one, it was of a very trifling character.

MR. MELLOR

observed, that there had been a great change in the amount voted in this class. He found that in 1869 a reduction was made of £17,718. In 1870 there was a change of policy, and an increase of more than £18,000; in 1870–71, there was an increase of £176,469; in 1871–2, "emoluments and salaries" again increased £97,431; in 1872–3, they again increased by £253,576; and in 1873–4 the increase was £125,520. ["No, no!"] Well, he could only say that these figures were quoted from annual Returns printed and published under statutory obligations, and therefore they must be correct. He repeated them, and the House must see that the Liberal Party were as deep in the pitch as the present Government. In 1875, the increase was £199,776; and in 1876–7, the amount was £138,480; making altogether a difference between 1868–9 and 1876–7 in salaries, emoluments, and expenses in Class 2 of £1,000,000 sterling per annum. It was time, in his opinion, that the House of Commons should find some means of checking this extravagance.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the facts were as the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had said. Up till 1868, the House of Commons was only asked to vote what was needed for the salaries, after the fee fund had been exhausted. In 1868, an arrangement was made, by which, in future, the amounts were to be passed through the Exchequer, and the House of Commons voted the whole of the salaries. He must remind the Committee that the House of Lords was a Court of Record, and, as such, was competent to fix its own fees.

MR. BIGGAR

asked why the salary of the Assistant Librarian had been raised from £700 to £800?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the salaries were outside the knowledge and cognizance of the Treasury. They were fixed by a Committee appointed for the purpose by the House of Lords, and they sent them to the Audit Office, which transmitted them to the Treasury.

MR. M'LAREN

said, the hon. Baronet had fallen into an error in supposing that the fees collected by the House of Lords came mainly from the fees paid to it as a Court of Record. These formed but a trifling part of its revenue, the main part being derived from the fees on Private Bills.

MAJOR NOLAN

pointed out that there was no Committee in the House of Commons possessing powers similar to those now enjoyed by the Lords, and he thought the Committee of the Lords should not have that power.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 72: Majority 54.—(Div. List, No. 109.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. BIGGAR

observed, that the salary of this Assistant Librarian was £700 last year, and he would move that it be not farther increased. He thought such an increase should be submitted to the Treasury. Why a mere Committee of the House of Lords should have more power than the whole House of Commons he could not see; and, therefore, he moved that the Vote be reduced by £100.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £37,192, 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 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."—(Mr. Biggar.)

SIR ANDREW LUSK

wanted to say only one or two words to justify himself for what he had said some time ago. He had said it was well that this House and the House of Lords should appear well before the public to justify the salaries received. In consequence, the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown had made a speech, which would be found in The Times for the 5th March. And he had mentioned that the House of Lords had sat 93 days last year; on 49, Business had been over by 6; on 41, the House had risen between 6 and 9; and on three more days they had sat beyond 9 o'clock. According to that statement of the noble Lord, they ought to be careful how they were to justify themselves before the public for paying such an enormous sum for what was nothing at all, compared with the work of the Lower House.

MR. DILLWYN

hoped to have some explanation of the increase from £700 to £800, which could hardly be the regular annual increment. Was there some special reason for it? They did not wish to prevent proper salaries being paid; but it was an exceptionally large increase. He suggested that his hon. Friend should move, as an Amendment, that the Vote should be postponed.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the Treasury had never been aware of the rate at which the salaries had been arranged to be paid. They were, practically, arranged entirely by the House of Lords, dealing with the officials of their House. And, up to a certain date, they had always been arranged without any Vote being placed before the House of Commons at all, excepting the Vote of a limited sum to make up a deficiency. But, at the suggestion of the Treasury, in 1868 or 1869, a new arrangement had been made, by which an Estimate was placed in its present form before the House of Commons. The salaries were arranged and decided on by a Committee of the House of Lords; but the fee fund had passed over, in its entirety, to the Exchequer. They had never had, on any previous occasion, any inclination to dispute the Vote. He could find no trace of any. The original salaries had been fixed under the 7 Geo. III. c. 11, until the arrangement had taken place.

MR. DILLWYN

had never seen such a large increase. They were not to give blindly whatever the House of Lords fixed. He only asked to know the reason of the increase?

MR. E. JENKINS

said, that the House was placed in a position of some difficulty. It might be a grave Constitutional question whether the House of Lords ought not to have the entire control over its own officials. On the other hand, they had the fact that the Votes were put on their Estimates, which fact they could not ignore and escape responsibility in voting. He suggested, that for this year the question should be postponed, and raised next year, after consideration. There was not a shadow of doubt that the House of Lords could not come, cap in hand, for the salaries of its officials without allowing the House of Commons to consider whether it was proper to vote them.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, that if it had been a much smaller sum than £100, it would have been open to criticism. He understood that the fees received were not enough, and that was the reason of asking an increase in the salary to £800, which seemed to many hon. Members a very large and exorbitant sum. What view were they to take? The fees received by the House of Lords were to keep down the expenses, and to pay the expenses of litigation and of the suitors to that House. They should consider them just as they would fees received by any other Court, and consider the question apart. At page 71 of the Estimates, it appeared that the Assistant Librarian of the House of Commons had an actual salary of £475, while the Assistant Librarian of the House of Lords got £700 or £800 for duties which were discharged in a much shorter time.

MR. GORST

wished to ask who had recommended the increase? Had the House of Lords, in any shape or way, approved of it? If it had, he should, that House being a branch of the Legislature, be disposed, at all events for that year, to allow the increase to pass. If it had been approved by a Committee only of the House of Lords, he should like to know the constitution of that Committee, and whether the Report had ever been approved by the House itself? If the Committee alone had recommended the increase to the Treasury, and that recommendation had never been assented to by the House of Lords itself, he did not think they ought to pass it.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the matter was managed by a Committee of Peers appointed for the coming year. Their Report was submitted in the ordinary manner, and it came from the House of Lords into the Estimates.

MR. DILLWYN

observed, that it had not been confirmed by the House of Lords as a whole.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, that the explanation of the hon. Baronet was very alarming, because it showed a doctrine which no writer on English Constitutional Law had ever discovered—that the House of Commons must, as a whole, vote public money, but a Committee of the House of Lords could exercise functions which no Committee of the House of Commons dared attempt to exercise. He respectfully challenged the whole transaction; he did not care whether it was a matter of 800 pence or £800. He asked the Committee not to think it a matter of bagatelle at all. He had a very high opinion of the Assistant Librarian in the House of Commons, and either that gentleman was shamefully underpaid, or the gentleman in the House of Lords with double the salary should be doubly as good a man, which he did not believe. He should certainly refuse to support by his vote the increase asked for.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the Act of 9 and 10 Vict. c. 77, s. 3, contained the following provision:— An Estimate shall annually be prepared by the Clerk of the House, the Serjeant-at-Arms, and the Speaker's Secretary respectively of the sums which will probably be required in their several Departments for the payment of salaries, allowances, and contingent expenses, during the year ending on the 1st day of April in the following year; and such Estimates shall be submitted to the Speaker for his approbation, and subject to such approbation and to such alterations as the Speaker shall consider proper, shall be embodied, together with an Estimate of the sums which will be required for the payment of retired allowances and compensation for loss of office, in one Estimate; and there shall also be prepared under the direction of the Speaker an Estimate of the money which will probably remain in the hands of the Commissioners after the payments of the current Quarter ending on the 1st day of April, and of the fees expected to be received during the then Session, and of any sum which may be required to be provided by Parliament, in addition to such sums for the payments set forth in the said Estimate of expenditure; and such Estimates, signed by the Speaker, shall be transmitted by him to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury for their approval, and shall be laid before the House of Commons with the other Estimates. He observed that a Committee was appointed annually to settle the salaries of the Officers of the House of Lords.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, the Estimate referred to in the Act of Parliament was laid before this House—which, consequently, had an opportunity of reviewing it; whereas this House had no opportunity of exercising control over what was done by the Committee of the House of Lords.

MR. GORST

understood that, according to the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury, neither branch of the Legislature had any control in this matter, for this House was asked to pass the Vote on faith; and, of course, the House of Lords could not alter a Money Bill. Consequently, neither House could exercise any control as to this salary, which would be regulated by an irresponsible Committee of the House of Lords.

MR. PARNELL

asked what would be thought if, when this Estimate was brought before the House, an hon. Member should rise in his place and tell the Secretary to the Treasury that he knew nothing about it, and that the Committee of the other House was responsible for it? The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had told them that the House of Lords was responsible for this Vote, and that he was not responsible. He had quoted the Act of 9 & 10 Viet., which assigned certain duties to a Committee consisting of the Clerk of the House, the Serjeant-at-Arms, and the Speaker's Secretary, and had argued that that was a case analogous to the present. There could be no doubt that the arrangement made between the two Houses in 1868 was entered into for the purpose of giving the House of Commons more control over this Vote. But the House of Commons had never exercised its control. It had abdicated its functions as regarded the salaries of Officers of the House of Lords in the same way as it had abdicated its functions in respect of many other matters. It could not be contended for a moment that this House had not a Constitutional control over money which was voted for any purpose whatever. The money came from the taxpayers, and the gravest Constitutional question which could be raised was that of the levying of taxation from the people by the Crown, or the Ministers of the Crown. The hon. Baronet came here as the Representative of the Crown, and said—"Pay this." When asked why the money should be paid, he replied that he knew nothing about it, and that the House of Lords had settled the matter. That was un-Constitutional conduct on the part of the hon. Baronet, and he submitted that the time had arrived when the House of Commons ought to take some notice of this question.

MR. DILLWYN

observed, that the hon. Baronet could not avoid the responsibility quite so easily as he imagined—merely by reading a clause from the Act of the 9 & 10 Viet.—because it appeared that, although the salaries were to be approved by a Committee, they were afterwards to be submitted to the House of Commons for approval.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that had reference only to the salaries of Officers of the House of Commons.

MR. DILLWYN

could not understand what was the object of reading the extract from the Act of Parliament, unless the hon. Baronet meant to show that the same principle governed the proceedings of the House of Lords.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

would not repeat the arguments which he adduced some time ago; but he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there would be anything irregular in his assenting, on the part of the Government, to the proposed reduction of £100, or, at least, in his refusing to assent to the proposed increase? If, next year, it were proposed that the salary should be increased to £900, the hon. Baronet might use the same arguments which he had brought forward that night. It was time that the House of Commons should make a stand against this, for the conduct of the Committee was an outrage on Constitutional principles. He was much indebted to the hon. Baronet for his explanation of the manner in which this came about. No doubt, the cleverest financier in the House would find himself in a difficulty equal to that which the hon. Baronet experienced in dealing with this matter for the first time. He admitted the difficulty; but he did not see how hon. Members could shirk their responsibility, or how they could account in a satisfactory manner to their constituents for assenting to this proposed increase. It appeared to him that nothing could be said in defence of hon. Members if they gave a silent assent to such a proposition.

MR. BIGGAR

thought it only fair for him to say that he had no fault to find with the Secretary to the Treasury, who had explained fully and candidly how the matter stood. But, unfortunately for the hon. Baronet, he had no case, inasmuch as his Department had not inquired why the House of Lords asked for this increase. The hon. Baronet had failed to show that the ipse dixit of the Committee of the House of Lords must bind the decision of the House of Commons. He thought the House of Commons ought, in its own defence, unanimously to refuse to be bound by the Instructions of an irresponsible Committee of the House of Lords.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, there could be no harm in the Government allowing the matter to stand over for a few days, when a compromise might be effected that would be satisfactory to all parties.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 81: Majority 52.—(Div. List, No. 110.)

Original Question put.

MR. PARNELL

said, he did not propose to take a division upon the Vote after the division which had already been taken upon the Amendment; but he should certainly say "No" to its passing, because he thought it involved a point of the gravest importance. The Committee was asked to vote a sum of over £3,000 for the payment of salaries to officials in the House of Lords; and when the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury was asked for an explanation of the items, he replied that he had no knowledge on the subject; that he was not responsible for the application of the money; and he referred the Committee to an arrangement made between the two Houses of Parliament—an arrangement, the terms of which were to him unknown. All the hon. Baronet did know on the subject was that the arrangement was entered into in the year 1868, and that it superseded or took the place of a Statute passed in the reign of George III. The Committee could only suppose that the arrangement was drawn up in the terms of the Statute; because, if it were intended to make any radical change in the provisions of an Act of Parliament, it could only be done by means of an amending Bill which had received the assent of the Crown after having been passed by both Houses of Parliament. He therefore submitted that the Committee was asked to take a course at variance with the Constitution, because the Crown had no right to ask for or to take public money without giving a full explanation of the purposes to which it was to be applied, and no such explanation had been given with regard to the Vote now asked for. He was glad to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had returned to his place, because he might be able to supplement what had been stated by the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, whose courtesy and willingness to afford explanations seemed to have exceeded the amount of his knowledge. He believed there would be no difficulty about this question, if the functions of the House of Commons concerning it, as laid down in the Statute of George III., which had not been read or even explained in substance, were understood by the Committee. The House of Commons had as much right to require explanations as to the amount it was asked to vote for the salaries of officials engaged in the House of Lords as it had in reference to the salaries and expenses attendant upon the conduct of Business in the House of Commons itself. He should, therefore, say "No" to the Vote; and, even at the eleventh hour, he would again urge the Government to allow the Vote to be postponed, in order that inquiry might be made as to the Statute of George III., and the arrangement made in substitution for it, between the two Houses of Parliament in the year 1868.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, it had been urged, at an earlier period in the evening, that it was undignified on the part of the House of Commons to criticize the gross amount, or the items, of expense incurred in conducting the Business of the House of Lords. If that objection were entitled to any weight, it must surely be much more undignified in a Committee of Supply in the House of Commons to make any examination as to the expenses of the Household of the Queen. Yet that was, and had been, done in every Session of Parliament without the least objection. He was not, however, disposed to carry the discussion further as far as this particular point was concerned. There was another matter, however, upon which he wished to say one or two words. The Serjeant-at-Arms in the House of Lords received annually, in the shape of salary and allowances, a sum of £1,600; but would any hon. Member, for a moment comparing the duties of the Sergeant-at-Arms in the House of Lords with those of the Sergeant-at-Arms in the House of Commons, say that the emoluments of the two officials were proportionate to their duties, or deny that, also comparatively, the Serjeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons was underpaid? What he particularly wished to know was, how the salaries had been fixed? because, unless it could de shown that some distinct principle, applicable to each set of officials, had been formulated and acted upon, it might be thought that the House of Lords, which was answerable to nobody, proposed large salaries for its officials, while the House of Commons, the Members of which Assembly had to answer to their constituents, did not dare to propose that its own and more hardly worked officials should receive emoluments equivalent to the duties which they had to perform. He could not but think the whole question one that might advantageously be considered and dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If an undertaking that it should be so considered were given on behalf of the Government, he saw no reason why any further opposition to the Vote should be offered on the present occasion; otherwise, he was of opinion that the Vote ought to be strongly opposed.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £41,907, 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 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Offices of the House of Commons.

MR. PARNELL

said, he did not think the Committee had been treated very fairly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the last Vote, which he was asked to explain with more fulness than the Secretary to the Treasury had vouchsafed to the Committee. If the Committee were not to have the advantage of the greater experience of the Leader of the House, its proceedings would degenerate into a farce. He, therefore, moved that the Chairman do report Progress.

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the hon. Member for Meath was generally very ingenious in finding reasons why Progress should be reported when the House was in Committee of Supply; but, on the present occasion, he had no ground for the course he had taken. He saw no reason for entering upon a discussion of the last Vote, because it had been explained as fully as possible by his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury. The question really resolved itself into one as to the Privilege always possessed by the other House of Parliament, and always respected by the House of Commons——

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the right hon. Gentleman would be out of Order in referring, by way of explanation, to a Vote which had been already agreed to.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he bowed to the ruling of the Chairman, and would only say that it was from no feeling of discourtesy he refrained from taking part in the discussion of the last Vote agreed to.

MR. PARNELL

said, he would withdraw his Motion to report Progress, as it appeared no advantage could be gained by continuing the discussion upon it; but he would, before doing so, remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reference to one remark he had made, that he (Mr. Parnell) had not in the course of the Session called upon the House once to divide upon a Motion to report Progress.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put.

MR. BRISTOWE

remarked, that the Vote contained a somewhat large item for translation of foreign documents, and plans and maps issued in connection with Papers moved for and laid on the Table of the House. He did not suppose that this sum was in any way connected with the foreign documents issued from the Foreign Office; and, therefore, he could not understand to what Papers this sum of £1,000 referred.

MR. BOURKE

assured the hon. and learned Member that he was mistaken in supposing that the cost of any Papers issued from the Foreign Office was included in this Vote.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETS0N

explained, that the maps and plans referred to by the hon. and learned Member were partly prepared in connection with a Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) for Papers on the question of Monastic and Conventual Institutions.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, the Papers moved for by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire seemed to have acted as a regular stopper upon his zeal, and it was to be hoped that from year to year he would make similar Motions on a variety of other subjects with the same effect.

MR. SULLIVAN

suggested, that, perhaps, the maps and plans which had cost so much public money, had reference to the underground dungeons in which, according to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, nuns were habitually confined.

MR. PARNELL

thought the pay given to the police constables, who were constantly on duty at the House when Parliament was in Session, was inadequate, and expressed a hope that it would be increased.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

admitted that the constables in question were both attentive and courteous; but pointed out that although they received only a small amount of extra pay, the fact of their being on duty at the House relieved them from extra and heavier duty. In fact, it was considered by the Force that this was one of the lightest duties they could be called upon to perform.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £49,710, 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 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury.

MR. PARNELL

called attention to the fact, that there were three Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, whose duties did not appear to be particularly onerous. One of these gentleman was the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn), who was also one of the Government Whips. He thought the time would come when there would be Whips in an Irish House of Commons; but, if he happened to be a Member of that Body, he should oppose any proposal to pay them out of national funds. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain the duties of the Lords Commissioners. As far as he had seen, the chief office of the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire was to promote "counts-out" whenever Bills interesting to large masses of the Irish people were before the House. In order to raise the question, he would move to reduce the Vote by £3,000, the amount of the salaries of the Lords Commissioners.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £46,710, 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 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury."—(Mr. Parnell.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, there could be no doubt that the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury had many duties to discharge other than those which they performed with great advantage to the House in connection with Government Business. The duties which they had to perform in the House were far from being the whole of those which devolved upon them. They had, for instance, to settle the superannuation allowances of members of the Civil Service who retired, and one of the Lords Commissioners was always a Member of the Committee charged with this duty. Cases of the kind had to be settled weekly, often daily; and, in addition to being very important, they took up a great deal of time. There were also duties of a more or less formal character, but which required the personal authentication, as well as the signature, of a Lord Commissioner; and these, too, made considerable demands upon their time. Then, again, there were frequently occurring divisions and revisions in the different Offices attached to the Government, and Commissions appointed by Parliament, which had to be left to Departmental Committees, of which Lord Commissioners of the Treasury formed most useful Members. In all these respects, the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn), to whom special reference had been made, had been most useful; and he had also saved the country many thousands of pounds by the inquiries he had conducted and the improvements he had suggested in the Stationery Department. If he had time and opportunity to describe all that these Gentlemen did, he could show that they were far from being the holders of sinecures. In conclusion, he might say with regard to them, that they were often most useful Members, as representing the Government, of Select Committees appointed by Parliament.

MR. MELDON

said, he quite understood the nature of the services rendered by the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn), but wanted information as to those of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), who received a salary of £1,000 per annum as one of the Lords Commissioners. He desired to know, also, by what authority—whether of an Act of Parliament or otherwise—these Gentlemen were styled "Lords" Commissioners of the Treasury?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the explanation was that they were styled Junior Lords by a form of speech, the Treasury being a Commission of which the Prime Minister was First Lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Second. The other Members were Commissioners, commonly called "Junior Lords."

MR. MELDON

said, that being the case, he thought it clear that documents should be signed by them as Commissioners, and not as Junior Lords of the Treasury.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(4.) £73,345, to complete the sum for the Home Office.

MR. WHITWELL

said, he wished to draw attention to the inconvenience which arose from massing together the salaries of Clerks, Inspectors, and other officers, instead of placing them separately under their respective headings. He would like to ask whether the expense attendant upon the working of the Explosives Act would be continuous, or if there was any probability of a reduction in this item?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

thought the cost of the inspection of explosives was not likely to be reduced in future years, as the labour was likely to be increased rather than diminished.

MR. PARNELL

said, he wished to call attention to the question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) during the discussion of the Factories and Workshops Bill. The Home Secretary would recollect that it was stated by his hon. Friend that nearly all the Assistant Inspectors who had been appointed in Ireland were Englishmen and Protestants. He asked the right hon. Gentleman for some assurance that in future the Inspectors should not be picked from these classes, but that a selection should be made of the best men in the locality where their services were required. The Home Secretary had been kind enough to say that he would look into the matter, and remove any inequality which might be found to exist; and he wished to know whether any inquiry had been made?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he had not thought it wise to enter into any question relating to these matters. He had always endeavoured to select the Sub-Inspectors of Factories without any Party or political consideration. He would say to the hon. Member for Meath, that if he knew any person duly qualified for one of these posts, and would recommend him to apply to the Home Office, the application should receive proper consideration. The list of candidates was so large that he found great difficulty in selecting those who were best qualified, and he had thought it best, under the circumstances, to submit three or four persons to a competitive examination among themselves for the purpose of deciding upon their fitness. Notwithstanding that the list contained the names of a great number of persons, he would undertake that any really qualified applicant should have every attention paid to him.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, he noticed that, of the Inspectors appointed, one was a retired commander of the Royal Navy, another a retired captain of Militia, and a third a captain of Light Infantry. He asked the Home Secretary whether it would not be better to choose these officers from among men who were acquainted with the working of factories at home, who knew something of business and the state of the markets? He did not think that naval and military officers were the men best fitted for these posts, and did not approve of their receiving salaries for three or four different offices.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the great qualification for these offices was the ability to manage workmen; and, in addition to this, a knowledge of the world. He by no means excluded persons who had an acquaintance with machinery and the working of factories—in fact, the very last appointment made was offered to a person who had a thorough knowledge of machinery; but, unfortunately, the salary was too small for his acceptance. There was no rule which limited these appointments to military and naval officers, his sole object being to obtain persons of general ability and intelligence.

MR. PARNELL

said, he should be very sorry to recommend anybody in Ireland to apply for an appointment of this kind, because he thought it one of the great weaknesses of their position in Ireland, that these appointments were in the hands of the Government, who would use their patronage in such a manner as to forward their own ideas of governing the country. He thought it a very great mischief that Irishmen should be led to try to obtain any Government appointment; and, from his point of view, it would seem to offer immense advantage if Irishmen were opposed to Government appointments. He had no fault to find with individual or particular officers; but, although the Home Secretary had said that he never regarded religious or political distinctions in these matters, it might, unfortunately, happen that others, in recommending candidates, would do so, and thereby administer to Party and sectarian prejudices. He did not ask the Home Secretary to make any promise; but he hoped he would consider the question of appointments to be made in Ireland, under the Factories and Workshops Act, with a view to the removal of sectarian influence.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that he had already endeavoured to do this in every way.

(5.) £61,065, to complete the sum for the Foreign Office.

MR. WHITWELL

said, he saw in a foot-note, that two of the Clerks in the Department of the Foreign Office were in receipt of £360 a-year, in addition to their salaries—the one, as Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the other as Private Secretary to the Lord President of the Council. It appeared to him undesirable that an officer should hold two appointments, and he should prefer that only one should be held, and that be well paid for. He asked why the Foreign Office should be charged with the salary of two Clerks who performed some of their duties elsewhere? As a mere matter of routine, it would be better that the salaries should be paid in one amount, and not from two sources.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, when a Ministry came into Office, it was thought advantageous to select as Private Secretaries, Clerks who had a sufficient knowledge of routine business.

MR. BRISTOWE

said, it was, no doubt, of importance that Ministers should have Private Secretaries acquainted with the details of their respective Offices; but he could not conceive why a gentleman from the Foreign Office should be selected as Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the Private Secretaryships were not permanent offices. It was found of advantage to the Public Service to confer these appointments upon gentlemen who had the special qualification of being thoroughly acquainted with the business of their particular Departments. With regard to the Private Secretaries being taken from the Foreign Office, he would point out that in the present instance it was of great assistance to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have the services of a gentleman intimately acquainted with a subject which was now so interesting to the House and the country.

MR. WHITWELL

said, he would exclude from the list of the Foreign Office, officers who had been removed from that Department.

MR. BOURKE

said, when it became necessary to regard these appointments, the Vote must be taken as a whole. It was desirable that Ministers should have liberty to make such selections, and combine the two offices.

MR. RYLANDS

said, they could not suppose for a moment that leading Ministers should not have for Private Secretaries gentlemen of ability and knowledge of public affairs. He did not understand that his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) objected to the Chancellor of the Exchequer having a Private Secretary at £300 a-year. They were quite aware that the Private Secretary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would no doubt perform duties of a very important and responsible character, and they were also perfectly aware that the salaries which were paid to Private Secretaries were salaries of a very moderate character, and could hardly be considered at all excessive when the value of their services was taken into consideration. On the contrary, he thought the gentlemen fulfilling the duties of Private Secretaries fitted themselves, by degrees, to take important offices in the country, and the training they obtained as Private Secretaries was most valuable, and it was very much in the public interest that their existence should be encouraged. The objection raised to the two Private Secretaries in question—namely, to that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of the Lord President of the Council—by the hon. Member for Kendal, was a very valid one. It was this—that if they had gentlemen occupying the position of Private Secretaries to Ministers, they should cease to be Clerks in the Foreign Office, as the two gentlemen in question were; for they neglected, so to speak, their duties at the Foreign Office, in order to perform the far more important duties of Private Secretaries. His (Mr. Rylands') impression was, that the staff of the Foreign Office was either too large, or that there should be someone to take the places of the two gentlemen now discharging the duties of Private Secretaries. It was very important that Private Secretaries should not appear as Clerks, either at the Foreign Office, the Treasury, or in any other Public Department; because it naturally excited a good deal of suspicion that they would neglect the minor duties to fulfil the more important.

MR. GOLDNEY

was sure the Committee would not grudge the promotion which, from time to time, was conferred on some of the young men in our Public Offices by their being selected to discharge the duties of Private Secretaries to the Heads of Departments. A selection of the kind had been made in the case of a friend of his, whose name he would not mention, who had distinguished himself as a Clerk in the Public Service, and who now, as Private Secretary, had important duties to perform at all hours of the day, but whose purpose it would not answer to give up altogether the permanent appointment which he also held.

MR. RYLANDS

called attention to the fact that they paid 12 Queen's Foreign Service Messengers £400 a-year each, which amounted to £4,800, while of Queen's Home Service Messengers there were three at £250 each, and five at £200 a-year each—in all £1,750. He was under the impression that they were paying a much larger sum for messengers than they ought. Home Service Messengers he considered quite as important as Foreign Service Messengers; and, considering the great facilities this country possessed of forwarding messages to foreign capitals, an attempt ought certainly to be made to reduce this large item of £4,800, in addition to which there were allowances for travelling expenses amounting to £13,000. There was no Government which paid its Foreign Service Messengers upon the same scale as the English Government.

MR. PARNELL

quite concurred with those who held that it would be somewhat invidious to grudge a clever young man just commencing his career the promotion which he might obtain by being made Private Secretary to a Minister; while he, at the same time, fulfilled the duties of the Office to which he happened to be attached as a Clerk. He should, however, like to know whether the duties of both positions did not sometimes clash? Did, for instance, the two Clerks whose case was more immediately under discussion, go down to the Foreign Office every day to perform their duties there, or were their duties as Private Secretaries of such a nature as practically to prevent them from discharging those duties?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that as reference had been made to his Private Secretary, he wished to make a short explanation. He had selected that gentleman, in the first instance, to act as his Secretary because he found that, being left in charge of the Business of the House, and being in that position obliged to take a very considerable share in the discussions on foreign affairs, it was not only exceedingly useful, but almost necessary, that he should have the assistance of some one who was well acquainted with foreign subjects. It was on that account he had chosen a gentleman who had been in the Foreign Office for some years as Clerk, and who had done good service in that capacity. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), he felt, however, bound to say that his employment as Private Secretary did very greatly, indeed, interfere with the discharge of his duties at the Foreign Office. He was from time to time, nevertheless, able to attend there, and, indeed, scarcely a day passed that he did not do so, although it was rather with business of a general character connected with the work of the Government which he himself, as Leader of the House, had to conduct; and which, to a very great extent, he found himself enabled to conduct by means of the assistance which his Private Secretary rendered him, that the latter was mainly occupied. The practice, he might add, was one of long standing, and one which, in his opinion, did not really operate to the inconvenience of the public service. It was not permitted, by the rules of the service, that a Clerk who had attained a very considerable position in his Office should be allowed to act as Private Secretary out of his own Department; but junior Clerks were allowed to take temporary appointments as Private Secretaries when their other duties admitted of their doing so. Their brother clerks were, he believed, in such cases very ready to assist in performing any extra duty which might be thrown upon them; and the circulation which was brought about by employing young men for a limited time—and it was only for a limited time—to act as Private Secretaries, while not interfering injuriously with the work of a Department, operated, so far as he could see, as a stimulus, and was, in that respect, productive of considerable advantage.

MR. H. SAMUELS0N

thought the case was one of those in which the appointment by a Minister of a relative to be his Private Secretary was entirely free from the charge of nepotism, for the position was one in which the closest intimacy between employer and employed was required; and he could not imagine a better person for a Minister's Secretary than his own son, supposing his abilities to be equal to the task. He might also observe that it was likely to be of great use to the Foreign Office itself that some of its Clerks should be so engaged, because they would, in all probability, be enabled in consequence to learn much which would afterwards be of great service in their profession. These gentlemen's services were real services given to the country in two capacities, and it was fair that they should draw pay in both capacities.

MR. WHITWELL

was quite prepared to admit that it was of the utmost importance that a Minister occupying the position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did should be able to secure the sources of a Private Secretary in whom he could place entire confidence; but then he objected strongly to officials receiving public money from two sources, as in the instances to which he had called the attention of the Committee, although there might, of course, be some cases in which it would be necessary to make an exception.

Vote agreed to.

1. (6.) £32,217, to complete the sum for the Colonial Office.
2. (7.) £27,518, to complete the sum for the Privy Council Office.

MR. PARNELL

said, he recollected that when the Irish Cattle Plague Bill was passing through the House, his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had asked the noble Lord who then filled the Office of Vice President of the Privy Council (Viscount Sandon) a Question with respect to the payments of the Inspectors of the Veterinary Department in Ireland as compared with the payment of a similar class of officers in England. It appeared that in Ireland the local Inspectors were paid out of moneys partly derived from local sources and partly voted by Parliament, while in England the whole of their salaries was provided by Parliament. If that were so, the system was one which was regarded by himself and other Irish Members as being unfair; but his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan had, at all events, failed to obtain from the noble Lord the information for which he asked. Perhaps the noble Lord who had succeeded him in his Office (Lord George Hamilton) could give it; or, as he did not happen to be in his place, perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to inform the Committee whether there was any difference in the payment of veterinary Inspectors as compared with those in England?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON,

having expressed his regret that his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council was not in the House, said, he could state, from his own knowledge, that in England the Inspectors appointed by the Veterinary Department were paid out of moneys voted by Parliament. Whether that was so in Ireland or not, he was unable to inform the Committee.

SIR ANDREW LUSK,

having remarked that he thought the noble Lord who was responsible for the Department ought to be in his place to give the necessary explanations of the Vote, asked why the amount set down for quarantine and other expenses at Portsmouth was so much larger than the sum which was required in the case of places like London, Liverpool, and Southampton, at which the trade was of much greater magnitude?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, it was deemed expedient to keep up an establishment at Portsmouth for the purpose of seeing that quarantine was properly enforced, and that that could not well be done at a less cost than was stated in the Estimate.

MR. WHITWELL

wished to know why there was so great a reduction—amounting to a sum of no less than £8,000—in the Vote for the Veterinary Department this year as compared with last year? The Committee was aware how great the interest was which was at the present moment felt throughout the country with respect to the proposed legislation on the subject of the Cattle Plague. That legislation was, it appeared to be, of a very severe kind; and he was at a loss, therefore, to understand how the Government could see their way to making such a reduction as he had mentioned.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

pointed out, that a very large expenditure had last year been incurred in the appointment of additional Inspectors owing to the outbreak of the Cattle Plague. It had been, in consequence, found necessary to increase the permanent staff, and a number of temporary Inspectors had been employed; but the Cattle Plague having been stamped out, it had been deemed desirable to reduce that number, inasmuch as the emergency which they had been appointed to meet no longer existed. That accounted for the large decrease in the Vote for the Veterinary Department. The question, he might add, of what a future Act of Parliament might necessitate, was one on which he did not wish to speculate.

MR. WHITWELL

wished to know whether the hon. Baronet thought the expenditure now estimated would be quite adequate to meet the requirements of the Department?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

replied, that that was the expectation of the Department itself, unless, of course, a fresh out break of Cattle Plague should, unfortunately, visit the country.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

complained that an establishment was kept up at Portsmouth at a cost of £1,200 or £1,400 a-year for the purposes of quarantine; which, so far as he could see, was absolutely of little or no use.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the station there was necessary for the strict enforcement of quarantine regulations.

MR. PARNELL

thought that the subject of inspection ought to be carefully held in view by the Committee in connection with this Vote. He remembered that, some time ago, the local authorities at some English ports enforced stringent powers, which they supposed they possessed, against the importation of Irish cattle. A whole cargo was seized, and prevented from proceeding to its destination, by which great consternation was caused in the Irish Cattle Trade, and great confusion ensued. A debate on the subject was originated in that House by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), to which he listened very attentively. The Government said they found it necessary to adopt more stringent measures with regard to the importation of Irish cattle; but they thought that, for the present, by providing additional inspection, putting on additional Inspectors, and taking additional pains with regard to the inspection itself, purifying and disinfecting the trucks, and looking after the treatment of the cattle, they would be able, to a great extent, to get rid of the disease. That expectation of the Government, held out by the noble Lord who then represented the Department (Viscount Sandon), had been verified in a remarkable manner. It was supposed that the foot-and-mouth disease came from Ireland; but in Ireland it could always be traced as having come from England first; and it so happened, that since the Government insisted on these precautions—of white-washing the trucks, seeing that the animals were not carried about promiscuously, and that they were supplied with hay and water, the disease began to decrease, until at last there was no foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland, and scarcely any in England. Now, he found from these Estimates that those precautionary measures had been very much reduced, and he thought it bad policy, to say the least of it. He found, for instance, that the temporary Inspectors were to be paid as usual, but their travelling expenses were reduced one-half—that was from £4 to £2. The sum to be voted for them this year was £7,470. But, if these temporary Inspectors were to be of any use, they must go about the country and see that the local authorities put in force the powers with which they were armed; and how were they to perform that duty if their expenses were diminished? He saw, also, that the cost of disinfecting the vans was reduced. Those changes he looked upon as unfortunate and mistaken. He could attribute the stamping out of foot-and-mouth disease to nothing else but to the close attention paid to their duties by the temporary Inspectors, and to the enforcement of precautions by the local authorities; but if all that was to stop now, they would have foot-and-mouth disease again. The Government would again come to the House, and say—"There is a terrible disease raging in the country, and it was necessary to adopt fresh measures in order to get rid of it." Unless there were some reasons for it, with reference to these precautionary measures, of which the House was not aware, he thought the Government were embarking on a bad policy. Referring to the Irish Estimates, he found that a sum of only £150 was provided towards the cost of inspection in Ireland, while upwards of £7,000 was to be voted for inspection in England. It was very unfair that in this way a large extra charge should be thrown on the local resources of Ireland. In England the cost of inspection was to be defrayed out of money voted by Parliament; but in Ireland, all except £150 which Parliament would vote for it, was to be paid out of local resources. The reason of that difference, he presumed, was to be found in the different nature of the Irish Act. It could not be done this year, he supposed; but he hoped the time would come when they would have some addition made to that Vote.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he did not think the subject of inspection would be prejudiced in the way pointed out by the hon. Member for Meath. The Inspectors appointed for the inspection of the railway carriages, and of the vessels in which the animals were brought over from Ireland, would still perform the same duties. The duty of seeing that those carriages and those vessels were properly inspected would continue to be performed as now; and it was only a certain number of temporary Inspectors, put on during the outbreak in London, when the Privy Council took on itself the whole management of the precautions adopted in view of the disease, that were reduced. The temporary travelling Inspectors, appointed in 1875 and 1876, were still paid as when appointed. All the disinfections were now done by the local authorities under their order, and their expenses were therefore not charged in this Vote. The £7,000 for inspection in England, compared with the £150 for Irish inspection, referred to by the hon. Member, was for police expenses, in relation to the cordon established round London, to prevent the disease spreading thence through the country. The whole reduction in the Vote was due entirely to the fact, that that which was a temporary malady, and for which temporary restrictions had to be enforced, was now stamped out, and it was no longer necessary to be so cautious.

MR. DODSON

thought he might take that opportunity of delivering his word of exhortation to the Government. He called attention last year to the great number of Inspectors and Commissioners that were appointed for different purposes, and to the rapid rate at which they increased. He was not going over that ground now; but he wished to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this—that if they looked into the matter, they would find an increase of Commissioners and of Inspectors of about 50 beyond what appeared in the Estimates for last year; while their salaries had risen from £300,000 last year to £320,000 this year, and their salaries and expenses from £600,000 to £640,000. He knew they would say they had all been appointed under arrangements made by Parliament itself; but still it was not a satisfactory state of things, and demanded attention. What he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to do was to keep a watchful eye and a close hand on the Departments that applied to him for making additions to the number of Inspectors, and an increase to their salaries. If that were not done, there was certain to be a rapid increase of both.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he wished to remove an impression, which appeared to have been created by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), that only £150 was voted by Parliament for the inspection of cattle in Ireland. The fact was, as appeared from the Estimates, that that was only a portion of the whole sum provided; and which, in another part of the Estimates, amounted to £2,300.

MR. BIGGAR,

in reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), observed, that he had overlooked the fact that some of the items which appeared in the English Vote did not appear at all in the Irish Vote. The Estimate for England was, in fact, a sum of £33,000, and that for Ireland only £2,000—or the one was about 16 times the other, which was a wide disproportion. The £7,070 paid to English Inspectors was exclusive of the sum paid for temporary Inspectors, who got £3,000 last year. Their grievance in Ireland was that the £7,070 paid for England was provided out of Imperial resources, whereas the Irish inspection was left to be provided for out of local resources. They had to pay, moreover, for an inspection which did not affect their cattle. The inspection, such as it was, was carried on at the shipping ports; and, so far as his own inspection went, that temporary inspection was all nonsense—and, in fact, the term temporary Inspector, was altogether a misnomer. The evidence with regard to lung disease went to show that it was exceedingly doubtful whether it was a contagious disease. He believed it was not. It was not a disease carried from animal to animal, but it was an epidemic disease that seemed to exist in the air. Rinderpest, on the contrary, was of a very deadly nature; but the weight of evidence, with regard to these Inspectors, was that the disease could not be influenced by their supervision in any appreciable degree. He was conversing the other day with an Inspector about a cow that had got into a lingering state from eating too much cotton cake. At the end of the week he reported, in sympathy with the proprietor, that the cow died of lung disease; but, when the cow was slaughtered in order to prevent contagion, the lungs were examined, and it was found that the animal had no disease at all. That was a fair sample of the way in which the system worked, and he had a great mind to move the omission of the Vote altogether.

MR. M'LAREN

observed, that he had only desired to point out that the speech of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) went to create the idea that no sum was allowed for purposes of veterinary inspection in Ireland. The fact was, that, as regarded cattle, England was an importing country, requiring careful inspection at the ports of importation; but Ireland was an exporting country, and, therefore, did not require such extensive inspection. He did not intend, however, to make a complete comparison between the-two countries in those particulars.

MR. PARNELL

replied, that he complained that only £150 was allowed for Ireland; while, for England, £7,000 was provided for inspection. That was a very great disproportion.

MR. BIGGAR

wished to repeat that the money was thrown away on this inspection. The cattle were brought to the ports of shipment in Ireland, and taken down to the quay alongside the ships. It was generally after dark, and anything like inspection under such, circumstances was out of the question. He did not think they should be asked to vote money for such a purpose. In England the case was different, because the Inspectors could insist on seeing the animals before they left the port.

(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £2,305, 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 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Lord Privy Seal.

MR. DILLWYN

objected that this office was nothing but a sinecure pure and simple, as he had often heard admitted in that House, while he had never heard it pretended by anyone that there was any use in it. He objected to the principle of keeping up a sinecure office to eke out the emoluments for other duties, because it prevented the House from knowing what it was paying for, and whether the office was useful, or not. The arguments had been urged over and over again, and he would not repeat them. It was well understood that the office was a sinecure, and he objected to Members having any participation in the continuance of an office which it was clear was of no use.

SIR WILLIAM FRASER

thought the income was a small one, and but slightly increased the Expenditure, while it enabled the Cabinet to strengthen itself by the addition of a Minister who could not accept a more burdensome office. He had not changed his opinion that the position of Privy Seal should be held by the Prime Minister; it would give a not unreasonable addition to his salary, which at present was too low, and would give him the position and precedence which such great responsibilities demanded.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, that a debate took place on this subject in the Session of 1876. The Prime Minister then made a speech in defence of the sinecure. It was one of those speeches to which those who listened were just as wise at the close as at the beginning. He had read the whole of that speech, and there was not a single attempt in it to define the duties of Lord Privy Seal. The Prime Minister referred darkly and mysteriously to the importance of the post; but nothing more was said then than now to show that there was any use for the position. The statement made in the previous debate was very applicable to what had been said by hon. Gentlemen that night. It was now said that the Prime Minister had abandoned this position, and had transferred the duties to someone else, and that it must have been from a conviction that the duties must be performed by someone else that he did so. When that assertion was compared with the statement of the Prime Minister in 1876, he felt that some Members of the Government could throw some light on the subject. It had been said that the only defence for the salary was that the person appointed to the office of Lord Privy Seal having nothing to do must be of great use in relieving the other members of the Cabinet who were overworked. But that was not a satisfactory principle upon which to vote public money. He, for one, would not object if a proposal were made to the House of Commons to increase the salary of the Prime Minister—if the House were asked to give the Prime Minister the salary now paid to the Privy Seal, in addition to the £5,000 already received by him. He could well understand that the dignity of his position was such that to support it properly the salary now given was totally inadequate. But that was not the proposal made, and he must therefore record his vote against it.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, that he had several times, in successive years, listened to this Motion for the abolition of the office of the Lord Privy Seal. The office was one of considerable antiquity, and sometimes, when a person was invited to join the Cabinet, it was convenient to put him into that position, as it was one of the great offices of State about the King. It had been said by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that nobody had ever told him what the duties of the office really were, and he said the Prime Minister had made a speech in which he did not explain the nature of those duties. For his part, he did not think the Prime Minister was a man who would be likely to speak even for seven minutes, without saying something practical. Therefore, he thought the hon. Member must have misread the speech of the Prime Minister, or it must have been badly reported. He would tell the Committee what the duties of the Lord Privy Seal were. Every instrument, such as Letters Patent—except patents for inventions—had first to receive the Royal Warrant; that Warrant was sent to the Lord Privy Seal, who issued his writ of Privy Seal, which authorized the Lord Chancellor to put the Great Seal to the Patents. What was the effect of that? It might be said it was a mere formality; but it was not so. The effect was that two Cabinet Ministers were responsible for affixing the Great Seal. Not only was the Lord Chancellor responsible, but the Lord Privy Seal was responsible also, for every instrument which passed the Great Seal. Thus the country had the responsibility of two instead of one Minister for every instrument issuing under the Great Seal. It had been held, by high authority, that the person legally technically responsible for a Treaty of Peace was the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Privy Seal was also responsible, for it was by authority of his writ that the Lord Chancellor passed the instrument. In this manner thousands of instruments, that everybody was acquainted with, passed under the Great Seal, and could only be passed by the joint authority of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Privy Seal. He thought that was a matter of some importance in a Constitutional point of view; and, though he did not mean to say that the Lord Privy Seal was very hard worked, or had a great deal to do, yet what he did say was that his office was a Constitutional safeguard. Blackstone said— The law of the Constitution provides that all instruments passing the Great Seal should go through at least two Seals before they reached the Great Seal, in order that the responsibility may be complete. So great an importance does the law of England attach to the Great Seal of England. He should, therefore, contend that the office of Privy Seal was not useless, and that, if the holder was not over-worked, yet the salary was very small—so small as not to be worth mention. There must be some salary attaching to the office; for, although small, it was sufficient to make the office one of responsibility. The arguments which had been addressed to the Committee against continuing the salary of the Lord Privy Seal were so weak and poor that, as he had always thought, they could but be rejected.

MR. RAMSAY

thought that the hon. and learned Baronet who had just addressed the Committee had hardly done justice to the speech of the Prime Minister. What the noble Lord really said was, that the office was found useful, but he did not recommend that it should be continued in respect of any special duties that were to be performed. The hon. and learned Baronet had also said that every instrument passing the Great Seal did so under the responsibility of two Ministers; but how that could be, while the noble Lord filled the office himself as well as that of First Lord of the Treasury, he could not comprehend. In his opinion, the case against passing the Vote was conclusive; and he should suggest that the office should be abolished, and the blank thereby made would provide the opportunity of appointing a Minister for Scotland, to take charge of Scottish affairs in that House. He would recommend that suggestion to the consideration of the Government, for its adoption would not only be highly appreciated by the people of Scotland, but also be useful and acceptable to the people of England. It would conduce to the despatch of Public Business in that House, and would lighten some of the duties devolving upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department. There were many occasions on which the services of a Minister having a seat in the Cabinet, and specially charged with attending to the affairs of Scotland, would be highly desirable and advantageous to the interests of the United Kingdom.

MR. GOLDNEY

observed, that it was only by taking an office of this sort, that men, who had served their country well for a length of time but who were not equal to the performance of hard work, were able to take a seat in the Cabinet. He remembered an instance in the Cabinet of Lord Palmerston. That alone was a justification of the continuance of the past, for it gave the country the benefit of the long experience and powerful intellect of men who could not take upon themselves the duties of an active character, but yet were well able, in such a capacity, to serve their country. The office of Lord Privy Seal was one of great antiquity, and it was an office which afforded Mr. Fox an opportunity of joining the Ministry. Since that time, the maintenance of the post had been generally recognized as essential. It was the duty of the Lord Privy Seal to examine all documents before they passed into Chancery. But the great advantage of maintaining the office was, that the country was enabled to retain in the Cabinet, Ministers of mature age, without imposing upon them duties which were required from other Cabinet Ministers. At the same time, looking at the very miserable salaries which the Cabinet Ministers of the country were paid, he thought that the question of a supplementary office ought not to be cavilled at, and he hoped that the Vote would be passed.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

would remind the hon. Member who had last spoken, that no one would assert that it was essential to the interest of the country that the present Nobleman who filled the position of Lord Privy Seal should be retained in the Cabinet. As to the trifling amount of the salary paid him, it must not be forgotten that the Lord President of the Council only received £2,000 a-year, and the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department and the President of the Board of Trade had both the same salaries. There was one public official who did a great deal more work than the Lord Privy Seal—the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs—and yet he was not above taking the same miserable pittance. They had heard from the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer), what were the duties which the Lord Privy Seal had to perform. Those duties were described very much in the way that those of an Archdeacon were—when it was said, as the only possible explanation of his duties, that he had to perform archideaconal functions.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that this was an historical question, and one which he knew had in successive Sessions and years always been the subject of debate in that Committee. Therefore, everything that could be said upon it, from almost every point of view, had been said on that as well as on former occasions. The fact was, that the office was one of very great antiquity, and, as had been well described by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer), the holder of it was charged with the duty of ascertaining and supervising the authority upon which the Great Seal was affixed to Letters Patent and other documents. But the maintenance of the office had always been defended, and he thought it ought to be argued upon the ground that it enabled a Minister to have a seat in the Cabinet who was not charged with the duties of a special or heavy Department. There was no doubt that the pressure of Business upon Cabinets had increased very much, and it was exceedingly difficult for those who were charged with the administration of important and busy Departments to give as much, time as they would like to bye-questions that arose from time to time. It was very difficult for them to find time to give that careful examination and consideration to such questions unless they had the assistance of one or more of their Colleagues, who could give a little more time than the Chief of a heavy Department. It constantly happened that when a question had to be carefully examined, it was exceedingly convenient to ask one or two Members of the Cabinet, who were not overburdened with work, to make a detailed examination, and report thereon to their Colleagues. In matters of that kind, the Lord Privy Seal, having more time than most Members of the Cabinet, was extremely useful. It was a subject which had been frequently discussed, and had always ended in the Committee not refusing the salary.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

said, that he was a young Member of the House and had not had the experience of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, yet he well remembered some discussions on this subject on former occasions; he did not, however, remember that, on any former occasion, a detailed account of the duties of the Lord Privy Seal had been given. Before he heard that account of the duties, he had some doubts as to whether he should not give his vote in favour of the continuance of the salary of the Lord Privy Seal. But the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) had completely satisfied him that this was an office that ought not to be maintained. The hon. and learned Baronet had clearly shown what the duties were. Former Ministers were too astute to give an account of the duties of the Office they wished to maintain, and therefore spoke in the mysterious manner described by another speaker. But now they had been told what were the duties of the Lord Privy Seal. He had to give his sanction to the affixing of the Great Seal to certain instruments. He himself had not to affix it, and was not authorized to do so; but the Great Seal was afterwards affixed by the Lord Chancellor. "What did that mean? It meant a divided responsibility. The Lord Chancellor affixed the Seal to the instrument, because the Lord Privy Seal had passed it. Neither, thus, felt any special responsibility—the Lord Privy Seal would not feel himself responsible, because he knew that the act would be done in the last resort by the Lord Chancellor; and the Lord Chancellor would consider that he was justified in affixing the Seal by the warrant of the Lord Privy Seal. The real history of the case was that instruments, such as those spoken of, were, in the first instance, brought before the Attorney General; the matter was attended to, not by the Attorney General in person, but by his clerk. When the Attorney General's clerk had put his initials to the instrument, it went to the Lord Privy Seal, and he simply again initialed it without inquiry. Such were the duties of the Lord Privy Seal, and they were duties that should be dispensed with, because they only divided and thus lessened the responsibility. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, repudiated the explanation of the hon. and learned Baronet, and justified the continuation of the appointment by the statement that it was exceedingly convenient to have a Minister to make a detailed examination upon any question, and that the Lord Privy Seal was useful for that purpose. That seemed to him to make the Lord Privy Seal a journeyman Member of the Cabinet, who might be called upon to do any little odd jobs which no one else had in hand. He had no responsibility, and they might as well have a second-rate man to do that which no one else liked to do, but which had to be done by someone, as to appoint to that office an important personage. But the Privy Seal was not the only office which was held upon similar tenure. What had the Chancellor of the Duchy to do? There was already one Member of the Cabinet who had only odd jobs to do, and why could he not do the whole of them? It seemed to him that the only justification for the maintenance of the office of Lord Privy Seal was that it was an ancient one, and an office much sought after because it gave the holder a high position, a salary, and nothing to do.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

had hoped that, when Lord Beaconsfield took the office of Lord Privy Seal as well as that of Prime Minister, he did so with the view of practically bringing the office into disuse, and giving it up altogether. He thought that that act of the Premier was a very graceful and ingenious mode of bringing the office to a point, at which those who thought it unwise to continue it, desired to see it arrive. He was, therefore, sorry to see that the question of that office had again cropped up before the House; and, seeing that this was a period of economy on all sides, when a great many useful things which ought to be done had to be left undone, he thought it a great pity that £2,000 should be drawn for the purpose of maintaining an office which had passed into absolute uselessness for a long time, and into a pluralism for a short period. He did not know whether the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Vote would press his Amendment to a division; but, if he did, he would support him.

MR. BIGGAR

did not see that the Government had made out any case in favour of the retention of this office. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said it was a very ancient office. Well, it seemed to be a very ancient job. They ought to learn experience from the past, and he thought that the Government ought by this time to have gained enough experience to induce them to get rid of the office. They often heard of the great jobs perpetrated in America, and the corruption which took place in high offices. The late President of the United States got into bad odour by the jobbery and rascality of the parties who surrounded him in regard to the sale of contracts; but really he (Mr. Biggar) did not see that there was any great distinction between the selling of an office for ready money and giving an office to a personal friend on the pretence that he would have something to do, when really he had nothing to do in return for the money paid him. He did not think it was serving the interests of the Constitution to defend or uphold jobs which could not be pleaded for by any sound argument. The hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) had given the Committee, with great candour, the duties of the office; but, really, as the hon. and learned Gentleman who sat below the Gangway (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) said, he succeeded in proving that the office of Lord Privy Seal was of no use whatever. The system of Seals was not, he believed, conducive to the interests of the country. For instance, take the question of certificates. They were told that they were the certificates of the Attorney General, whereas they were issued by his clerk. Then, again, they were told that the certificate of the Lord Chancellor meant the certificate of the Privy Seal. The want of practical common sense and practical business habits, as evinced by the Government in this matter, did not, as far as he could form an opinion, give a very strong evidence that the business qualities which they arrogated to themselves were justified by the facts of the case.

MR. PARNELL

said, the Vote was now asked for under very different circumstances to those which existed the last time there was a debate on the matter. That was in 1876, when Lord Beaconsfield was a Member of that House, and when he described the advantages of retaining the office of Lord Privy Seal. The noble Lord then said the office would be retained, but the salary not drawn, unless there was occasion to confer the position on a Gentleman who could perform functions of great importance which no other Minister of the Government could perform. That was the only reason which Lord Beaconsfield gave for retaining the office. It was said that, in past times, great men and distinguished statesmen had held the office—men who had been of great use to the Government in matters of delicate negotiations, and so forth. Instances were given of the distinguished men who did hold the office; and it was said that, while the office was to be retained, the salary would not be drawn unless occasion arose when it would be a great advantage to fill the office with a statesman who had no other Cabinet cares to harass his mind, and who could give his whole and undivided attention to some particular negotiations and some particular affairs of State. That was all very well as far as it went, but that did not excuse the maintenance of a sinecure office. Besides, those expectations which had been held out had not been fulfilled. As far as could be made out, Lord Beaconsfield did draw the salary of Lord Privy Seal. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No, he did not.] He (Mr. Parnell) had thought he did, because the Appropriation Account, furnished with the Papers up to March, 1877, showed that the salary had been drawn. It was stated, at the same time, that the salary of the Secretary to the Lord Privy Seal had been surrendered to the Treasury, because that office of Secretary was not filled up by Lord Beaconsfield. Hence, he supposed, that as the salary for Lord Privy Seal was drawn, that Lord Beaconsfield had it, and he was glad to hear that he did not. At any rate, the salary was to be drawn this year, and the Nobleman who had been appointed to the office was of no use at all in the Cabinet. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, he should like to know whether the Nobleman who had been just appointed was such a man as Lord Beaconsfield described as deserving the office? Was he one of the most eminent public men of the day? Had he presided over the most laborious Departments of the Government, and were there duties which the Nobleman who was appointed to the office had to discharge which could not be indicated? These were the sort of claims which Lord Beaconsfield had said a Minister must have to be made Lord Privy Seal; but he saw nothing in the case of the present holder of the office to justify his appointment. The Nobleman might be an excellent man in every respect, and it might be desirable to get him into office; but, in this case, his appointment was evidently the mere exercise of patronage, and no advantage was to be derived from it.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

desired to know upon what principle they were asked to pay a salary and retain an office where there was no work to be done? As it was now a quarter to 1, he thought the best thing to do was to adjourn the discussion of the whole question; and, therefore, he moved to report Progress.

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

hoped the Motion to report Progress would not be pressed. There had been sufficient discussion on the subject, and he thought the Committee were perfectly ready to come to a Vote.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, if the Committee thought the Vote had been thoroughly discussed, he would not press to report Progress; but as it was getting on for 1 o'clock, and as they had been on the Estimates the whole evening, he thought the Government should not persist in discussing Votes any longer. It was unreasonable to expect a man to go on all night looking into these items. He would remind the Committee that the work of any earnest Member of the Committee did not begin when the Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair. He began his work in connection with the Estimates at 11 o'clock that morning, and, therefore, a vast amount of labour had been entailed.

MR. O'CLERY

said, when he saw £2,000 voted for a useless office, and remembered that a portion of the money came out of the pockets of the people of Ireland, he hoped the rejection of the Vote would be pressed to a division. In the very office where there was nothing to do the Chief Clerk had £350 a-year, which he supposed was given him to help the Lord Privy Seal do nothing. Then, the Private Secretary to the Lord Privy Seal received £120 a-year, and there was also a third office—that. of Assistant Clerk. A foot-note to the Estimates showed that one gentleman held these two offices, so the fact was that the Lord Privy Seal's Secretary was Assistant Clerk to himself. The fact was that the Lord Privy Seal was a Minister without a portfolio, and he ought to be paid as such. As he had no work, practically, to do, he hoped the House would divide.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DILLWYN

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had said the salary of Lord Privy Seal up to March, 1877, had been drawn, and some explanation of that was needed. The hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) had said the office of Lord Privy Seal was an important one, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not value it. He told the Committee, as it had been told before, that it was a sinecure, and no good at all. Therefore, the hon. and learned Baronet was not supported in his view by the Leader of the House, who said the money was asked to be voted because it was usual to have a person to fill the office of Lord Privy Seal. He strongly objected to that. They desired to secure economy in the public services; but how could they do that when the highest offices were paid for when there was nothing to do? He thought nothing had been said to justify the continuance of the office, and, therefore, he should press his Amendment to a division.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, although the salary of Lord Privy Seal was voted in 1877, it was not drawn.

MR. PARNELL

said, as he had introduced the matter of the salary being drawn in 1877, perhaps he might be allowed to explain. In the Appropriation Account for the year ending the 31st March, 1877, in a foot-note appended to the account, it was stated that the salary of the Secretary to the Lord Privy Seal was surrendered to the Treasury. That was accounted for by the fact that Lord Beaconsfield did not appoint a Private Secretary for the Lord Privy Seal. At the same time, the salary of Lord Privy Seal was not surrendered; consequently, it was drawn, and, of course, he supposed it had been drawn by the person who had power to appoint a Private Secretary and did not—he meant Lord Beaconsfield. As it was not necessary for the Lord-Privy Seal to have a Private Secretary that year, why was it necessary to have one this year? Yet the salary of the Private Secretary was provided for in the Vote now before the Committee.

Original Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 33: Majority 47.—(Div. List, No. 111.)

Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday.

Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.