COLONEL HERBERTsaid, that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) stated the other day, in answer to the hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote), that the remuneration of Dr. Sutherland was fixed at £3 3s. a day, and was afterwards "continued at the same rate so long as he was completely occupied upon these duties." The noble Marquess added, that 990 Dr. Sutherland's time had since been entirely occupied on the details of the business of the Sanitary Commission, and he therefore continued to receive the above rate of remuneration; that his salary was charged in the Vote of £20,000 taken for sanitary services, and that this arrangement was generally approved by the Treasury. It appeared from the papers since published that on the 5th of June, 1858, a letter was written from the War Office to the Treasury, by direction of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Peel), with reference to certain Committees and sub-Committees appointed to assist in organizing the hospital and sanitary arrangements of the army; and in this letter occurred the following passage—
As there are expenses for travelling and attendance arising out of the same, and as the subcommittees are offshoots and extensions of the Royal Commission, I am to request the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury will authorize the charges incidental thereon, being issued temporarily from army funds, and reclaimed, as in the case of Royal Commissions, from the Vote for Civil Contingencies.It appeared that Dr. Sutherland was now altogether employed. He was therefore drawing £3 3s. a day for every day in the year, and had been doing this for several years past. There was, however, no appearance of this charge in the Army Estimates, and therefore the House had been voting about £1,100 a year to Dr. Sutherland for some years past without the slightest knowledge that it was voting anything to that gentleman. The sanction of the Treasury, given through Sir Charles Trevelyan to the arrangement proposed by the War Office, appeared to him a mere form, and of no value whatever, except as sanctioning a merely temporary arrangement. He wished, therefore, to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that the sanction of the Treasury has been given to this payment of £3 3s., as a salary, to Dr, Sutherland, and whether he approves such a construction being placed upon the Treasury sanction of the "expenses" of the Sanitary Commission?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in the only document which had issued from the Treasury on the subject—namely, the letter of the 11th of June, 1858, signed by Sir Charles Trevelyan—the question raised was considered one quite of departmental routine and practice, and was not, therefore, referred 991 to the political officers of the Government. In looking at the letter of Sir Benjamin Hawes, he was bound to state that he did not see any reference to a salary to Dr. Sutherland, or anybody else, but only to expenses for travelling and attendance; and he certainly should not have inferred that the payment of members of the Committees was included in its terms. That document was received before the present Government were in office. He had no official knowledge whatever on the subject, but he believed his noble Friend the Secretary of State for War was prepared to justify the proceeding.
GENERAL PEELsaid, that the letter of Sir Benjamin Hawes was written in consequence of an account having been sent in certified by Lord Panmure as President of the Sanitary Commission, for the sum of £500, at the rate of three guineas a day to be paid to Dr. Sutherland. That was before he (General Peel) came into office, and all he did was to ask the Treasury how the money, the charge for which had been sanctioned by the President of the Sanitary Commission, was to be paid?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman (General Peel) that his sanction to the transaction embraced a little more than a reference to the Treasury as to how the money was to be paid, for, on a discussion respecting the accounts sent in, the question was brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice, and the accounts included the charge of three guineas a day, as originally fixed by Lord Panmure. He was not sure what the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Herbert) objected to in this matter. As to the appointment itself, he (the Marquess of Hartington) had no more to say than he had said the other day. Dr. Sutherland was in the Crimea, and on the Sanitary Commission, and had great experience. He was employed by the Home Office on questions of this nature before he was sent to the Crimea. Without disparagement of the Army Medical Department, he thought Dr. Sutherland's knowledge better fitted him for such a position than any gentleman connected with the Army Medical Department, however great his experience might otherwise be. As long as the work performed by the Army Sanitary Commission was to be done, it was impossible to place a more useful member on the Committee than Dr. Sutherland. The Committee was not to be permanent, and the appoint- 992 ment of Dr. Sutherland to attend the Committee and work out the details was not intended to be a permanent appointment at all. No doubt the labours of the Committee extended beyond what was originally intended by a reference to them of several questions relating to Indian sanitary matters. The work might not be brought to an end for a considerable time, but they should not give any ground to Dr. Sutherland for the assumption that his office was intended to be permanent or that he should have a claim for superannuation and additional allowances on the abolition of the office. Dr. Sutherland was perfectly aware of the position in which he stood, and that the office was not permanent. There was no more reason for an application being made to the Treasury since the date of the correspondence then there existed before. It was not referred to the Treasury for formal sanction, because it was not intended to be permanent. The hon. and gallant Gentleman would find, on reference to the debates on the Army Estimates, that some years ago the appointment of Dr. Sutherland was referred to in the House, and it was moved that the sum paid should not be allowed, which showed that there was no concealment of the appointment of Dr. Sutherland. The Audit Office asked for an explanation regarding the payment to Dr. Sutherland, and received it from the War Office, and as the Commissioners of Audit made no further objection, it was to be presumed that the explanation was satisfactory.