MR. WHITEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in the preparation of the promised Reform Bill, the practice adopted in 1858 of availing himself of the services of the professional agents of the Conservative party, in lieu of the ordinary advisers of the Government, will be followed, seeing that such a mode of procedure led to a cost of £3,608 17s. 2d., as per Treasury Minute of June 13, 1859?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI am sorry, Sir, to say that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton is under an erroneous impression as to the ordinary Advisers of Her Majesty's Government in drawing Bills. I regret to say that at the Treasury at the present moment there is no equity draughtsman who can assist the Government in that respect. There ought to be one; and I made an offer this year to one of the most distinguished men in the profession; but so great is the reward which first-rate professional talent now commands, that the application of the Government was fruitless, and I did not think myself justified, though the sum offered was considerable, in increasing that offer. The hon. Gentleman perhaps had in his mind the case of Mr. Thring, a very eminent man, who is usually employed professionally in drawing Bills for the Government. The appointment really filled by Mr. Thring is that of standing counsel to the Home Office, though he is employed 1236 mainly in drawing up Government Bills. But Mr. Thring is so over-worked just now, and such considerable appeals have been made to his energies, owing to the number of Bills introduced by Her Majesty's Government, that we have been obliged to give him extra assistance, and to ask him to undertake the work of draughting a Reform Bill, in addition to the labours which already overburden him, would be almost an insult. I trust the House will feel that the Government are not asking for too much confidence when, they hope that the House will allow them to select the best talent they can procure to perform the work now in hand; and I will not therefore dwell further upon that point. With regard to the sum mentioned by the hon. Member of £3,600, which appears in the Treasury Minute as the cost of the Reform Bill of 1859, I would observe that that sum really includes, besides the cost of drawing the Bill, which was comparatively small, the payments made to some of the most eminent statisticians and men of science, whose services were engaged in procuring facts and information upon the subject of Reform. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if he believes that £3,600 is an extravagant sum for the preparation of a Reform Bill, he labours under a very erroneous impression. To my knowledge there have been other Reform Bills which have cost much more than £3,600. But I am sure the House will never grudge payment for any conscientious efforts in this direction. I believe I am right in stating that owing to the accumulated information now at our disposal, the cost of the present Reform Bill will amount to a sum which will quite satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
MR. GLADSTONEI wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman arising out of the answer he has just given to the question of the hon. Member for Brighton, and also respecting an entirely different point. The right hon. Gentleman has not merely dealt with the right of the Government, which is undeniable, to engage the services of any gentleman they may select for any particular task, but also with their right to appoint a new draughtsman of Bills, who is to stand in an official relation with the Treasury. Now, I think the House would wish to receive from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that in making any such appointment he will be careful to make it known that any title which any gentleman may obtain from such 1237 an appointment, and the salary connected with it, will be subject entirely to the judgment of this House. The other point to which I wish to refer has reference to a misapprehension existing on a subject of great public interest—I mean respecting the time when we may anticipate the introduction of the Government measure relating to the amendment of the Representation of the People. On Tuesday I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he could not then name a day for the introduction of that Bill, but could state with tolerable confidence that it would not be later than Thursday in next week. I have understood from other sources that last night an assurance was given that before the right hon. Gentleman introduced such a Bill, he would give notice of the day. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will have the kindness to say in what way these different versions are to be reconciled, because great anxiety prevails upon a subject of so much importance. I think I have stated clearly the two versions, and I hope that the first of them is accurate?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThe two statements I made were, I think, perfectly consistent. I hoped that I might be able to introduce the Bill on Thursday, but I particularly guarded myself on that subject. The right hon. Gentleman said—as I thought, courteously and fairly—that it was a business in which a Minister ought not to be bound to any particular day. Yesterday there was some conversation in the House on the subject. I said that fair notice should be given; and I propose on Monday next to name the day on which I will bring forward the Bill.