HOUSE OF COMMONS' OFFICERS. (Hansard, 24 July 1834)

Mr. Hughes Hughes
said, there was no person in that House more desirous to abolish sinecures than himself, but instead of this being a Bill to do away with sinecures, its object was, to diminish the salaries of the effective officers of the House. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman in the chair whether his office was any sinecure, and yet the Bill proposed to reduce the salary from 6,000l. per annum to 5,000l. The salary of the Speaker had been fixed by the House at a period when there was not one half the present business to be got through; it was not objected to then; but when the business had increased to an unprecedented extent it was thought to be too much. He would refer to the sittings of the last three nights in proof of his assertion. The House had sat till three o'clock in the morning on each occasion. The same remark held good with regard to the salaries of the clerks at the Table; and if the House were desirous to secure the services of able and effective officers, and uphold the dignity of the House, it would reject the Bill without suffering it to go into Committee. He therefore opposed the Motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair.

§ Mr. Guest
said, the Bill had been founded on the report of two different Committees, and must not be considered as his individual proposition. He hoped, if the House would permit the Bill to go into Committee, to prove that the salaries of the different officers mentioned in the Bill ought to be reduced. The Bill did not seek to affect the salaries of the present possessors of those offices which were proposed to be reduced, and he thought, when 459 it was considered that the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer received only 5,000l. per annum each, that they were occupied in the discharge of their duties during the whole year, while the Speaker received 6,000l., and was called upon to perform the duties of his office during the Session of Parliament only, the House would not be disposed to prevent the Bill going into Committee, after it had sanctioned the general principle of the measure on the second reading.

Mr. Wynn
did not think any ground had been shown to suffer this Bill to proceed a single step. He should therefore give his decided opposition to its going into Committee. With regard to the salary now given to the Speaker, the House would observe, that it was fixed at 6,000l. upon mature deliberation, forty-four years ago, and that since that period the business of the House had increased fourfold. Surely, if it were expedient to grant such a sum at that time, it would be improper and unjust to make any alteration now. He spoke without any reserve on this question, as it was one in which the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair was in no way concerned. It was well known, that the sum of 6,000l. did not defray the expenses of the office, and that the late Speaker, Lord Colchester, was permitted to hold a sinecure of 1,500l. a-year on that very account. Nothing was ever saved from the office, and the result must necessarily be, if this Bill passed, that the dignity and splendour of the office must be considerably diminished.