SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

HC Deb 01 June 1871 vol 206 cc1381-433

SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

(In the Committee)

(1.) £34,054, to complete the sum for the Offices of the House of Lords.

MR. RYLANDS

said, that last year the House of Lords made use of a sum of £692 taken out of the money voted for Miscellaneous Expenses in order to pay the law costs incurred by the claim of the infant son of Mrs. Ellen Howard to the earldom of Wicklow. It was true this payment had been made with the sanction of the Treasury; but it ought to be explained to the Committee how it was that public money voted for the service of the House of Lords should have been appropriated to the purpose which he had mentioned.

MR. BAXTER

said, that formerly their Lordships claimed the right to expend this money as they thought fit; but last year it was distinctly explained to the Committee that the expenditure under this head was to be subject to the superintendence of the Treasury. He would look into the matter to which his hon. Friend had called attention, and explain how it had happened on the Report.

MR. RYLANDS

said, the payment to which he had referred had been made out of the money voted in 1869–70, and therefore the question would not arise on the Report. His object in bringing the matter to the notice of his hon. Friend was that nothing similar might be done for the future.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £38,082, 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 1872, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Commons.

MR. BOWRING

observed that he had called attention last year to the frequent discrepancies in the numbers returned on divisions by the Tellers and the Division Clerks. He was glad to say that he noticed fewer of such discrepancies this year. The Clerks were mostly gentlemen of experience, and performed their duties with great accuracy; and the fact that a few nights ago the Tellers had to come to the Table and explain a mistake of no less that 10 in the number which they had made, showed that it was not always the Clerks who were in error. He had also complaint to make of the rule of the House which prohibited the messengers from bringing messages and letters to Members—a thing which was allowed in the other House. This prohibition was very inconvenient, as it often led to their constituents being kept waiting for hours. As to the item of the Vote which referred to the salary of the Chairman of Committees, he held that, considering the arduous nature of the duties that hon. Gentleman had to perform, £1,500 a-year was very inadequate remuneration—especially when compared with the salary of £2,500 paid to the corresponding officer in the House of Lords. If it had not been against the rules of the House to propose the increase of a Vote, he should be very much inclined to do so in this instance.

MR. MACFIE

said, he wished to direct the attention of the Committee to the want of accommodation for clerks and other persons who might come to see hon. Members on matters of business. Additional accommodation was more than ever necessary during the present Session on account of the Morning Sittings. In all the public institutions of Edinburgh there were waiting-rooms where a director could go and read or sign a letter brought to him by his clerk. There was room enough in that House, notwithstanding what had been said the other night by the First Commissioner of Works in banter about Westminster Hall. All that would be required, if a waiting-room was set apart for the purpose to which he referred, would be two or three desks and two or three chairs.

MR. MELLOR

said, there were a number of persons employed in connection with the ventilation of the House, and in addition to that staff there was an "Attendant on Ventilation," who received £105 a-year. He did not see why the services of such an officer should be required, and he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the amount of his salary.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £105, for the Attendant on Ventilation, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Mellor.)

MR. RYLANDS

said, it was not worth while to divide the Committee on the point, but he thought there was a great deal of expenditure in connection with the Houses of Parliament which could be avoided.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, that the comfort of Members while in the House very much depended on the way in which the ventilation was managed, and that almost any other officers could be better dispensed with than those who attended to that department. The attendant in question was the man who watched the thermometer and took care that a sufficient supply of air was provided.

MR. MELLOR

said, he was very much disposed to move the rejection of the whole item, because he did not think the ventilation of the House was so well attended to as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine.

MR. AYRTON

said, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed. The expense of the general arrangements for ventilation was not included in the Vote. The attendant to whose salary the Amendment related was merely an officer under the Serjeant-at Arms to assist in looking after the ventilation. If the item were struck out of the present Vote, it would have to be inserted in another, and no real economy would be gained; while, on the other hand, it would be very inconvenient to make any change in the existing arrangements. As to the observations which had been made with reference to the convenience of messengers being allowed to run about the House to deliver cards and letters to Members, he would only say that the matter was one which had been under consideration, and that there was a great conflict of opinion between hon. Gentlemen with respect to it. It was felt by some that if the public generally were aware that any cards and letters which they might desire to send in to Members would be delivered immediately, the practice might be resorted to to such an extent as to be not a little inconvenient. The suggestion, therefore, was one which it would not be well to adopt hastily.

MR. DILLWYN

said, that many persons who came up to town from the country complained that they were unable to see their representatives; and that, although the arrangement of allowing cards and letters to be sent into the House might not be very convenient for metropolitan Members, it would be found to operate satisfactorily generally. He hoped, he might add, the Amendment would not be pressed, for that House was the best ventilated public building of which he had any knowledge.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(3.) £41,464, to complete the sum for the Treasury.

MR. MONK

asked, whether the Parliamentary Bills drawn in this Department were drawn by Parliamentary counsel attached to it or by other counsel. He knew that in one case some bills had been drawn by Messrs Fresh-field and Co., which he thought ought to have been drawn by the Parliamentary counsel to the Treasury.

MR. BAXTER

said, the case referred to had already been satisfactorily explained. Messrs. Freshfield and Co. were employed in drawing up some bills relating to the Bank, and it was for the convenience of the public, the Treasury, and the Bank that that the arrangement with them was made.

MR. BOWRING

called attention to the item of £1,500 for Writers at the Treasury, which for the first time appeared in the Estimates, and said, that there was a corresponding decrease in the item for permanent clerks. He wished to know whether the plan of substituting writers at low salaries, and without superannuation, for permanent clerks was intended to be carried out in the Civil Service generally.

MR. BAXTER

said, it was the fixed determination of the Government to carry out that plan as speedily as possible, with due consideration for those now employed.

Vote agreed to.

(4.) £66,930, to complete the sum for the Home Department.

(5.) £49,174, to complete the sum for the Foreign Office.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, he desired to take the opportunity of saying a few words in reference to the Foreign Office Messengers, who had lately been worked in a manner which everybody must admit was very unusual. He had seen them working in France in such a way as to entitle them to some extra gratuity. In one case a Foreign Office Messenger, sent from Paris to Metz in charge of letters, was in imminent danger of his life—indeed his life was threatened, but he behaved in a most courageous manner. His case had, he believed, been brought under the notice of his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He did not know whether the Government had considered the question of granting some gratuity to that Messenger, and to others; but he hoped their case would be borne in mind, and that they would be rewarded for their admirable services during the last four months of the last year. There was a fund out of which they could be rewarded, because, only the other night, the Secretary to the Treasury told the House there was an officer in the Foreign Office who, without the sanction of Parliament, received an addition of £500 from the Secret Service Fund to his regular salary of £1,000. An hon. Member (Mr. Bowring) had truly said the Chairman of Committees had a small salary for the services he gave to the House, and he would ask whether the services of General Claremont, who, to use a common expression, "levanted" from his post as soon as the condition of things round Paris became precarious, could at all be compared with those rendered by the Chairman of Committees? The Secret Service Fund was never intended to augment the salaries of officers, and he protested against its being applied for that purpose. He again expressed a hope that those Foreign Office Messengers who had discharged their duties in a manner which reflected the highest credit on them would receive some reward.

MR. RYLANDS

objected to giving any additional sum to the Foreign Office Messengers. They received £400 a-year each, with £1 a-day for expenses while travelling; and Her Majesty's Home Service Messengers only received as salary about half the amount. From the Report of the Controller and Auditor General on the Foreign Office expenditure last year, it appeared that these Messengers received sums which were largely in excess of their ordinary allowance for travelling expenses. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) claimed credit for the Foreign Office Messengers, because some two or three of them made journeys last year under circumstances of extraordinary difficulty; but he must say that a large number of the journeys made last year were made under most comfortable and luxurious circumstances, without any danger or difficulties, and the Messengers, in fact, had all the enjoyment of foreign travel at Her Majesty's expense. He hoped that the heads of the Foreign Office would consider whether the number of these Messengers might not be considerably reduced, and their salaries put on something like the same basis as those of the Home Office Messengers.

MR. A. GUEST

said, that the Foreign Office Messengers were by no means overpaid; and, notwithstanding what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rylands) had stated, their journeys were anything but comfortable, for they had to travel day and night. The Home Service Messengers, who received £250 a year each, were a very different class of men from those who travelled abroad, and it was essential that important dispatches should be transmitted through the hands of men of education and ability. He did not think that the number of Foreign Office Messengers could be advantageously reduced, for it would be ruinous economy to wear out this deserving class of public servants.

MR. D. DALRYMPLE

observed, that on a former occasion it had been proposed to reduce the salaries of the Foreign Office Messengers, and he thought that the events of the last few months completely vindicated the conduct of those hon. Members who resisted that proposal. The Foreign Office Messengers had to perform their work under circumstances of danger and great pressure, and he thought that the Foreign Office ought to have the power of supplementing their salaries on any great occasion—such as that where the lives and safety of the Hungarian refugees depended on the exertions of Colonel Townley, who, crossing the Balkans to deliver his despatches, was seven days and seven nights on horseback, and in that effort laid the foundation of an illness from which he never recovered. These Messengers sometimes also carried oral communications. It was of the highest importance to select for the class of Foreign Office Messengers the very best men for the service.

MR. GOLDSMID

agreed with the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel). The Home Service Messengers only required a knowledge of English, while the Foreign Service Messengers required a knowledge of other languages. Moreover, they had much longer and more continuous journeys. He had himself met at Constantinople a Foreign Office Messenger, who, within two months, had been to Berlin, to Constantinople, to Athens, and to Florence. The work of these Messengers often necessitated great tact and knowledge of men, and required a superior class of men, accustomed to deal with a variety of persons, and able to meet any emergencies that might arise. They had to run many risks to which the Home Service Messengers were not exposed. Consequently he thought that the House would not be acting with economy by reducing their salaries, which would lead to the substitution of inferior men. If the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) undertook the duties of such an appointment he would not find the work as light as he imagined, nor would he desire to retain the post long at the salary he proposed. For these reasons it was to be hoped that the House would not reduce the pay of this deserving body of public servants.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he thought the House would be indisposed to regard the pay of the Foreign Office Messengers as too large; but it might be considered whether their number was not greater than was sufficient for the service of the country. This most pro- bably was the case before the breaking out of the late war, during the continuance of which they were fully employed. It did not conduce to the reputation of the House that pressure should be put upon the Government to grant larger sums than appeared in the Estimates, and if the Government thought gratuities ought to be given it was for them to make the proposition. He hoped that the question of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) as to the salary of the Military Attaché at Paris would receive an explicit answer, for if it was true that his salary had been habitually supplemented by a grant of £500 per annum from Secret Service money, it was monstrous to allow information as to the application of that fund to ooze out. If the statement were admitted, he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) should feel it to be his duty when the Secret Service Vote came on to move its reduction by £500.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD

said, he had heard with great satisfaction the remarks that had been made with regard to the manner in which the Foreign Office Messengers had performed their duty, for he also could bear testimony not only to their zeal and assiduity, but also to the great risk which they ran. It was not his province to enter now into the question of extra remuneration which had been suggested by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), he being quite sure that if any means could be found for expressing to them the satisfaction which was felt at the Foreign Office, his noble Friend at the head of that Department would be the first to give them such a mark of his approbation. He (Viscount Enfield) desired to remind the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) that the number of these gentlemen had been reduced for 1869–70 to 17; for 1870–1 to 15; and 1871–2 to 13, and that it was intended to have a fixed establishment of 12. With regard to the Vote for the Military Attaché at Paris, he could only repeat the statement he made earlier in the year—namely, that his salary was £500 per annum, charged in the Diplomatic Estimates, his half-pay which appeared on the Army Estimates, and other expenses which were defrayed out of funds in the hands and at the disposal of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He could not specify what the latter sum was, and he hoped the right hon. Ba- ronet would not require him to state it, because if he were asked to do so he must respectfully but firmly decline to give the information.

MR. RYLANDS

said, the excessive expenditure over the ordinary allowance for travelling expenses had not been alluded to, and, in reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid), he was quite at a loss to know why they should employ so aristocratic a class and not get men at the same rates as were paid by foreign countries.

MR. GOLDSMID

said, that the whole scheme of payment of men in all classes of life in other countries was entirely different. For example, the hon. Member would find that for a clerk he would have to pay less than in England. He asked for an explanation regarding the £455 for miscellaneous services.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD

said, the foreign Messengers sent in a most accurate account of this expenditure, which was most carefully audited. He was afraid he could not give any particulars regarding the £455.

Vote agreed to.

(6.) £23,749, to complete the sum for the Colonial Office.

(7.) £42,385, to complete the sum for the Privy Council Office.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

asked for an explanation with regard to that new Department in the Privy Council which has lately been set up merely to carry out the provisions of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act. The medical chief, who had been as it were pensioned off by the creation of this Department after his employment during the cattle plague had ceased, the secretary, and the number of clerks was a staff disproportionately large, and last year the right hon. Gentleman failed to convince the Committee of the necessity of having a staff with enormous salaries for such a purpose, and he now asked the right hon. Gentleman to explain the necessity of retaining this anomalous innovation in the Privy Council.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he thought it hardly correct to say that he failed to convince the Committee as to the necessity for maintaining a permanent head of that branch, the object of which was to carry out an Act passed after very considerable discussion, and it would be vain to suppose that that could be done without a large staff. He was in the unfortunate position of having to give nearly as much time to this branch as he devoted to the Education Department, though of that he made no complaint. The office, however, was a responsible one, its object being to exercise a supervision over the importation of foreign animals, and to do what could be done towards checking the spread of disease at home. The clerks were very hard worked, and it would be impossible for him or anyone else to take charge of the Department without a responsible secretary.

Vote agreed to.

(8.) £73,390, to complete the sum for the Board of Trade Office.

MR. EYKYN

suggested that the registration of joint stock companies should be put upon a business-like footing. At present you could get no trustworthy information there—the Act was not enforced in any way; and the office was of no use whatever.

MR. BOWRING

asked whether any steps had been taken to make the library of the Board of Trade available to the public, in accordance with the assurance lately given to him by the President of the Board of Trade?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the subject was about to be submitted to the consideration of an official Committee, and he hoped that they would soon arrive at some conclusion.

MR. RYLANDS

said, that in one case a salary was increased in the Department and charged to incidental expenses. He thought when salaries were increased the fact should be made known to the House of Commons, and he regretted that the Board of Trade did not concur with the Committee of Public Accounts in this respect.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, no complaints had reached him with regard to the registration of public companies; aud with regard to the increase of salary included in the incidental expenses, he thought it must have been for an exceptional and temporary duty, and must have been in the nature of a gratuity.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £2,089, 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 1872, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal.

MR. DILLWYN

said, the present Government had made many reductions which created dissatisfaction throughout the country, because the people thought they struck at small matters rather than at large. He (Mr. Dillwyn) thought the present was a case in point. In his opinion the office of Lord Privy Seal was of no use whatever, and he had hoped to see the Vote altogether omitted. He had never heard any satisfactory reason assigned for continuing the office; but, without repeating former arguments, he would now move the omission of the Vote.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, this subject was fully discussed last year, and since then the office of the Lord Privy Seal, so far from being useless, had been proved of the most signal service to the public. It was impossible for gentlemen already fully worked to attempt new duties. It was an immense advantage, therefore, for a Member of the Cabinet who had not a heavy Department on his hands to be able to undertake, if necessary, the duties of another office, and he was satisfied that no retrenchment more disadvantageous to the public could be made than the discontinuance of this office, so long as a competent person was appointed to it, and it was not made a job of. During a portion of the last and the present year the Government were so unfortunate as to lose the services of the First Lord of the Admiralty; but they had in Lord Halifax a gentleman who had presided for many years at the Admiralty, who was thoroughly conversant with the business, and was able to keep things going perfectly well during the absence of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers), and until the office was filled up. Again, during this Session Earl de Grey undertook the onerous duty of going to America to negotiate a treaty on the subject of the Alabama and the Fishery Questions; and the Government had the advantage of the able assistance of Lord Halifax in discharging the duties of President of the Council. How these duties would otherwise have been performed he did not know. Owing to the increase of their business, and the non-increase of their numbers, Ministers had as much on their hands as they could get through. The public service would suffer materially if the office were abolished, and he hoped, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion.

MR. GOLDSMID

said, his constituents, who felt a great interest in this question, desired to know why a Government, which was supposed to be economical, had begun by making reductions at the bottom instead of at the top of Departments. If they had begun at the top they certainly might have struck off a number of useless officers. But they were told that the Lord Privy Seal was bandied about from one office to another to perform the work of any Minister who might happen to be absent on account of illness. He did not think that was a satisfactory mode of having the work of any Department of the State executed. If there was any Department not properly officered, suitable men should be appointed, and the House of Commons would make no difficulty in voting the requisite salary; but the office of the Lord Privy Seal only reminded one of the old story of Jack who was doing nothing and the fellow-servant who was assisting him. Besides the Lord Privy Seal, who had a salary of £2,000 a-year, there was the chief clerk, formerly at a salary of £400, now reduced to £250, a private secretary to the Lord Privy Seal at £150, an assistant clerk at £150, and a messenger, who, of course, could have no messages to carry, at £89. There was also a charge of £100 for incidental expenses. All these amounts might very well be struck off, and he thought the office of Lord Privy Seal might also be abolished. He should certainly vote with his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn).

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been very happy in his defence of this Vote. It seemed to him that a nobleman of great ability and experience was not inadequately remunerated by £2,000 a-year for attending sittings of the Cabinet and giving valuable advice to his Colleagues. Undoubtedly it was also convenient to the Government that the Lord Privy Seal, or some other officer who was not very hardly worked, should be able to render assistance to his Colleagues in the manner which had been described, and of which they had had several instances in the present Administration. If they once began carping at these great offices of State, he did not know where they would stop, because there were many great officers of State whose positions might be considered sinecures, and about whose salaries much the same might be said as had been advanced in this case. The Government had, to a great extent, brought these arguments upon themselves by the wholesale reductions which they had effected in several Departments, and which had excited a vast amount of discontent among a large class of people of very small means. That might have been avoided if the changes had been made with less haste. At the same time, he hoped the Committee would not support the hon. Member for Swansea, for the office might very well be defended on its merits.

MR. COLLINS

remarked that a Minister of a specific department, with duties of his own, could not afford such aid to those of his colleagues who might be laid up for a time as those Members of the Government who, having little business of their own, might be regarded as supernumeraries with respectable, old, and dignified titles. Neither the House nor the country would be benefited by the abolition of the office of Lord Privy Seal. The salary was small, and the existing arrangement enabled the Government, in the cheapest and most convenient way, to supply the places of Ministers who, like the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), and the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), broke down from illness. He hoped the Committee would not be led astray by false notions of economy.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) was right in taking the sense of the Committee on this question, especially after the admission of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Muntz), that if they once began to reduce the number of officers they would be able to strike off others. He deplored extremes, however, and there was a very general feeling against ill-considered reductions. The Government had begun at the bottom in their reductions instead of at the top of the list; and he deeply deplored the results as seen in the unfortunate dockyard men who had been dismissed in the depth of winter and obliged to emigrate, while subsequently new men had been taken on at Woolwich who knew nothing of their duty. It would, perhaps, be an effective example to strike off the Lord Privy Seal. Then the country would understand that there was something like evenhanded justice. It was said, in reply, that the Lord Privy Seal had temporarily taken the office of First Lord of the Admiralty; that was quite true, but it was during that time that a most deserving public officer, Sir Spencer Robinson, had been turned out of his office. He should, therefore, support the Motion of his hon. Friend.

SIR DAVID SALOMONS

said, there were two questions which the House of Commons had to consider—economy and efficiency. Believing the Lord Privy Seal to be an efficient officer, he thought the valuable services he had rendered were well worth the money.

VISCOUNT BURY

said, he could not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) that his disapproval of a particular act of a public servant was any reason for abolishing the office. Whatever might have been the course taken by Lord Halifax with regard to Sir Spencer Robinson, he thought it had nothing to do with the question of continuing the office of Lord Privy Seal. The office should stand on its own merits, and not be defended because the Lord Privy Seal was a Parliamentary Jack-of-all-trades, who might be conveniently utilized in any department in the absence of its chief. The Lord Privy Seal was, in fact, an instance of what was called in another country a Minister without a portfolio; and this Motion was another development of the habit, which had been too much growing up of late, of putting every institution on its trial, and, if it did not commend itself immediately to the necessities of the position, at once and for ever abolishing it. The office had grown up in the course of a long Parliamentary history; it had done, and he believed would again do, good service; and he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), having given a good back-handed hit to the Government for the way in which they had commenced and carried on their reductions, would not press his Motion to a division.

MR. MUNTZ

said, the only argument advanced in defence of the Vote was that if they began with it, they would not know where to stop, as there were so many others of the same kind. That seemed to be a reason for putting an end to it at once. But, whatever might be said of the usefulness of the Lord Privy Seal, it could not be supposed that he needed the help of a chief clerk, a private secretary, an assistant clerk, and a messenger.

MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

observed, that the Lord Privy Seal was not the only supernumerary whom the Government had at their disposal; they had also the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He did not see why the Government should have two supernumeraries to replace any Colleague who might for a time be unable to attend to his duties.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

thought that a larger question lay behind the controversy—namely, the maintenance of the House of Lords as a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature. It would not be thus maintained, unless the responsible Officers of the Crown took a proportionate share in its deliberations. Many heads of departments who used to sit in the House of Lords now sat in the House of Commons, and he asked how the Lords could interest themselves reasonably in the administration of the affairs of the country in the absence of sufficient Members of the Government from their House, charged with every Department, and therefore competent to devote their energies to the general conduct of Parliamentary Business. As an instance of the fact that the proportion of Ministers in the two Houses had been continually altered to the advantage of the House of Commons, he might quote the office of Postmaster General, which had been, till a recent date, one which was always filled by a Peer. The House of Lords was, in his opinion, peculiarly suited to deal with questions of art and taste affecting public buildings, national pictures, and matters of that sort; yet the exigencies of business required that the Chief Commissioner of Works and the Vice President of the Council should sit in the House of Commons, and therefore it was desirable that there should be a Minister of the position of the Lord Privy Seal in the other House to answer questions of that kind on behalf of the Government.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he did not think the House of Lords wanted £2,000 a-year to enable it to interest itself in the government of the country. It was evident that the Lord Privy Seal did very little or nothing, and it was still more clear that he did not want a chief clerk to help him. Unless, therefore, he obtained from the Treasury bench a sufficient reason for continuing the office, and such a reason as he could take to his constituents, he should be obliged to vote against retaining the office.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he could not consent to withdraw his Motion; but he wished it to be understood that he was not making a fling at Lord Halifax, whom he believed to be a most valuable public servant. He took exception to the appointment itself, and, in the absence of a sufficient explanation from the Government, felt compelled to divide.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

asked, as a new Member, for some information as to the duties of Lord Privy Seal, stating that without further knowledge he should be unable to come to a decision upon this question.

MR. BRUCE

said, there was no doubt that the duties of this office were not considerable, and might easily be attached to another office. There were, however, duties to perform, and many appointments had to be examined into by the office of the Lord Privy Seal, and if they were transferred to another department the employment of a clerk would still be necessary. The real defence of this Vote was that the greater number of Members of the Government were over worked, and those Members who had least work of their own were told off to consider certain questions as they arose and to inquire into certain branches of business, and the Government had derived very great benefit from the services both of Lord Halifax and of his predecessor, Lord Kimberley. After this explanation, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 44: Majority 29.

(10.) £13,456, to complete the sum for the Charity Commission.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, he had ventured the other night to call atten- tion to this Vote. The Vote for this Commission had increased during the last few years by £2,000 a-year. When Lord John Russell in 1853 introduced the measure he expressed a hope that the Commission would be made self-supporting, but that three persons would require to be appointed by the Bill who would receive salaries. Those three persons, he was sorry to observe, were still receiving salaries. The Secretary was a gentleman, no doubt, of great experience; but his absence from office almost exceeded that of Lord Halifax from his. He had a note of 17 visits which he had made to the Charity Commissioners' Office, and on every occasion had been told that Mr. Vane had just stepped out. He had also received letters from various persons complaining of the incivility with which they were treated when they went to the office to make inquiries. Eighteen years ago Lord Russell stated that the Roman Catholics were omitted from the administration of the Charity Commissioners, and his Lordship gave a pledge that though omitted then it was not with the view of omitting them permanently. He (Sir Robert Peel) now wished to be informed, therefore, whether the Roman Catholic charities were at the present time within the scope and action of the Charity Commissioners; and, if not, why they should not be equally subjected to the inquiry of Parliament? The expense of the Commission was very considerable, and on that ground he would ask Government a question which would press itself upon the notice of Parliament before long—whether the Charity Commissioners had turned their attention to charities which of all others he should say in the United Kingdom were subject to the greatest abuses—the City charities? Anyone who had looked into the subject of the City charities would agree with him that the enormous revenues received by the City charities were absorbed—he would not say in sensual enjoyment, but in luxurious living, and were not applied to the purposes for which they were originally destined. Take the case of St. Thomas's Hospital, erected opposite the Houses of Parliament. Nothing could be more extravagant than the erection of that Hospital. The money swamped in erecting that building would, if properly laid out, have doubled the number of patients provided for. He wanted to know if the Charity Commissioners, who cost £18,000 a-year, dared venture to interfere with the great City charities? Would Government give any Return, or allow him to move for any Return, showing the receipts and expenditure of these City charities, in a tabulated form—how much was spent in pensions; how much in eating and drinking, and such like inglorious occupations; and how much in united visits of committees to ascertain how the business was conducted? It was a most serious question. Hundreds of thousands of pounds a-year were in the hands of these great City Companies' charities, and he did not believe that half or a quarter of the amount was expended in the manner intended by the original donors. A proper application of the money would relieve a great deal of pauperism in the Metropolis. A short time since a Bill—the Court of Hustings Abolition Bill—had been introduced into that House, which belonged to nobody; the two gentlemen whose names were on the back denied all knowledge of it, and the Attorney General characterized it as a fraud. Now, there was a Bill before the House, which exactly entered into the category which the Attorney General had called "fraud." It had on the outside one title, and in the inside another. Outside it was called "The Charity Commissioners Bill;" but inside it was stated that it might be cited as "The Charitable Trusts Bill." The Bill was drawn up by the Secretary of the Charity Commissioners himself. What did the Bill do? It proposed to give to the Treasury power to increase the powers of those Charity Commissioners in a manner which could not be better explained than in certain Petitions which had been presented to Parliament, and among them one presented by the hon. Member for the City of London. That Petition stated that— If this Bill is passed it will enable the Charily Commissioners, in their absolute and uncontrolled discretion, without the consent of the existing trustees of charities, to exercise their jurisdiction and to frame new schemes which may lead to the removal of active trustees and the vesting of all the property of a charity in the Charity Commissioners." "There is no precedent," said the Petition, "for vesting in an irresponsible body such extensive powers as are contemplated by the said Bill. Just fancy all the property of all the charities in the kingdom in the power of the Charity Commissioners and their able Secretary! But, as he had already stated, his present object was—first to ask Government whether the Roman Catholic charities were, according to the pledge given by Lord Russell in 1853, included in the management of the Charity Commissioners, and if not, whether they would be included by the introduction of a Bill for that purpose; and secondly, whether Government had any objection to laying before the House some detail—say for the last five years—of the revenues from all sources of the various charities of the country, together with the expenditure; and also of the revenues and expenditures of the great City Companies' charities? It would be an introduction to more considerable action on the part of the hon. Member for the City of London himself. Perhaps the Government would likewise give the House some assurance that the Bill he had referred to had been incautiously drawn up; that the title by which it was to be known had been accidentally inserted; and that it would be withdrawn with a view to its re-introduction in a more correct shape.

MR. BRUCE

said, he could not admit that there was the slightest fraud connected with the Bill to which his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) had referred. It was a Bill very largely to extend the powers of the Charity Commissioners, and was therefore very properly called "The Charity Commissioners Bill." It was also called "The Charitable Trusts Bill," and the short title by which it was to be known was "The Charitable Trusts Bill;" but whichever of the two names it was to be called by, the public attention would be directed to it. But his right hon. Friend also wished to know why the Charity Commissioners did not inquire into the City charities? He must, however, be aware that their powers were at present very much restricted, as they could only call for accounts where the charities were under £50 a-year, and he would find that, while it was proposed by the Bill in question to extend those powers, it was not intended that absolute authority should be conferred upon them, but that it should be subject to an appeal to the Attorney General. The matter was one which might no doubt be very properly discussed, and if an opportunity had been given to his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council, or to his hon. Friend the Under Secretary to the Home Department to explain the provisions of the measure they would, he felt sure, have shown that there were sufficient reasons why it should have been introduced. The right hon. Baronet further expressed a wish to know why the undertaking which had been given by Earl Russell that Roman Catholic charities should be brought under the control of the Charity Commission had not been carried into effect. Now, as was well known, that was a point which had been the subject of considerable discussion. His hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was aware of the reasons why Roman Catholic charities had been exempted, and had frequently brought the subject before the House. Many of them, for instance, were regarded as illegal; and the question had last year been submitted to a Select Committee, while Notice of Motion had been given again this year for another Select Committee to see how far it was possible to bring those charities under the revision of some legally constituted authority. The matter was one, however, of great difficulty. It required the attention of the House; but no adequate solution had yet been proposed. His right hon. Friend objected, he might add, to the largeness of the Vote under discussion; but he seemed to have lost sight of the fact that the duties of the Charity Commission had increased greatly beyond the increase of expenditure. Every year brought a fresh number of charities under their cognizance, and under the cognizance of this House;—every year a large number of charities were only too glad to revise their position, to reconsider the appointment of trustees, and to bring their funds and endowments under the supervision of the Charity Commissioners. The time had, in his opinion, arrived when it had become necessary to consider the whole question of charitable trusts. Year after year, as Parliament bestowed attention on this subject, it was more and more felt that the subject was a national subject, and it seemed to him to be no illegitimate use of the national funds to apply a sum to defray the cost of the Commission. But his right hon. Friend must remember that during the course of this Session a Motion had been made by the hon. Member for South Essex (Mr. A. Johnston) and adopted by the House, which in substance pledged the House to impose some form of taxation on those charities, and it was certainly in the interest of the State that there should be as judicious an application as possible of the immense sum which they represented.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he thought the Committee had some reason to complain that the present Estimates should have been laid on the Table without any provision having been made to give effect to the vote at which the House had arrived on the question, especially when it was borne in mind that he himself when in office a few years ago, on an occasion when it was his duty to make a similar Motion, met with opposition from right hon. Gentlemen on the other side on the ground that the expenses of the Commission should no longer be borne by the public. How the Government could have gone on for two years without making any effort to carry out the vote of the House he could not understand. No inconsiderable sum might, in his opinion, he would add, be obtained by means of a small sum levied in the shape of a percentage on the dividends received by the Charity Commission. The revenue received was something like a million and a-half, and a very small percentage would produce an important sum. Part of the cost might also be raised by requiring the use of certain stamps in applications connected with trust funds. The Motion to which he referred embraced also the Copyhold Commission, to which they would come presently.

MR. A. JOHNSTON

said, he had heard it stated that whenever the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) rose to address the House no one could tell on which side he would speak; but on that occasion he had managed to speak on both sides. First he had attacked the Charity Commission for not reforming the corrupt charities, and then he had, in unmeasured language, attacked the Bill whose object was to give them power to effect those very reforms—a power they did not at present possess. He could tell the right hon. Gentleman something about more than one of those charities. There was one charity in the case of which the Charity Commissioners were, to use a homely phrase, for some time "nagging" at the trustees to make a better use of, and at last to get them to promise an annual subscription of a handsome amount to a hospital in the East-end of London which did a great deal of good, but which was very badly supported in proportion to its wants. But when the proposal came before the hospital committee it was found that the instinct of jobbery was strong even in their reforms, and that the money was not to be had unless the committee would consent to keep three beds wholly at the disposal of the trustees. Now, to that, of course, in a hospital in which there urgent cases needing relief night and day, it was found impossible to agree. [Mr. Alderman LAWRENCE: Name.] The name was St. Edmund King and Martyr, and if the Charity Commissioners had the powers which the Bill before the House would confer upon them they could have insisted on something being done. The right hon. Baronet asked for further Returns; but hon. Members had already had Returns until they were sick of them. What were wanted were not Returns, but reforms. He wished also to say that he could not allow the suggestion which had been made by the hon. Gentleman on the front bench opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth), to the effect that only those funds of charities which were received by the Charity Commissioners should be taxed, to pass without comment, for that would be in reality to tax the good while the bad were permitted to escape. It was most desirable that trustees should be encouraged to transfer their property to the official trustees, because that did away with all jobbery in the receipt of the income at any rate; but the hon. Member's proposal would entirely stop such transfers. It appeared to him that there were only two modes of dealing with the question—to make all charities liable to income tax, or to subject them to payments in the nature of a succession duty. Annual payments equivalent to a succession duty of 10 per cent imposed about three times in a century would, he thought, be a perfectly fair charge, and would go far to meet the difficulties which stood in the way of carrying out a Resolution of that House to which no Government seemed able to give effect. It would also fall on clubs and institutions of that kind. It was a monstrous anomaly that palaces in Pall Mall, belonging to associations of rich men, should be exempt from taxation simply because they were held in trust. All these exemptions meant additional taxation on the necessaries of life, and therefore on the poor, and reformers ought not to rest until they were swept away.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he did not think it would be advisable at present to change the manner in which the Charity Commissioners were constituted, or their salaries; nor that the payments made to them were excessive. He thought the constitution of the Board was a wise one. They inquired into the disposition and administration of charities without displacing the trustees or Governing Bodies, and then reported to the Court of Chancery, which was the legitimate source of jurisdiction in those matters. He believed that the powers of those Commissioners, especially their powers of inquiry, ought to be enlarged; and that there was in this respect a deficiency in the powers of the Court of Chancery itself. There ought to be further powers of inquiry. Here he would touch for a moment upon the subject of the City charities. A letter had appeared in the papers that day by Sir Charles Trevelyan, and it was of a most sweeping character. It seemed to him (Mr. Newdegate) as if the writer were the very essence of Civil Service centralization, whether as regarded corporate or charities, or Army organization; and if that was his object he (Mr. Newdegate) could not conceive of anything more mischievous. They had vast wealth in this country, and if the possessors of that wealth would not exert themselves for the public service, they and their wealth would be looked upon coldly by the great body of the people. It ought to be the policy of that House by every inducement and requirement, to urge the owners of wealth to exert themselves for the public service in a national sense, since their doing so afforded one of the most valid securities for peace and order in this country. Let hon. Members cast their eyes across the water to any foreign country, where great wealth had been accumulated under a centralized system of Government, apart from the ownership of property, and they would not find property safe; they would find that discontent prevailed, and that the wildest principles were growing up among the great body of the people. The saying had been attributed to Lord Shaftesbury, that—"Property had its duties as well as its rights;" whoever spoke that uttered a maxim of deep importance. It would be wisdom on the part of that House to enlist the energies of the owners of property, and to require that their means and their energy be exercised for the public good. In the City of London there were, no doubt, things in the administration of the charities that required to be corrected. The great Companies, however, represented the civic aristocracy of this country, whose existence and whose action was no less necessary than those of the hereditary aristocracy to the preservation of freedom. This country was not like America, divided into States, each State requiring the action of its leading inhabitants for its government, and that circumstance rendered it ten times more necessary in this country than in America, in proportion to the increase of its wealth, that we should preserve corporate municipalities and those companies, as a means of enlisting and enforcing on the owners of wealth, the duties that belonged to their station. He came now to the subject of the Roman Catholic charities. He moved for the appointment of a Select Committee in the early part of last Session. A Committee was appointed, but it had not sufficient powers adequately to prosecute its inquiries. If they had a Committee with a recalcitrant minority, and with deficient powers, it was utterly impossible to proceed efficiently with such an inquiry as that intrusted to the Committee of last Session. That was the reason that he declined to serve upon the same Committee when it was proposed that it should be re-appointed this Session. Their whole system of inquiry would fall utterly into disgrace if their Committees were not fairly constituted, and had not sufficient powers to investigate matters of great intricacy. Having supported the Bill of 1860, which was intended to bring these Roman Catholic charities within the purview of the law, and having therefore for some time considered the subject, he could assure the House that without larger powers the re-appointment of the Committee of last Session would be positively useless, because, as had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, the whole system of administration of those charities was intended to be secret. It was an administration which was intentionally evasive of the law; it was an administration intentionally evasive of the jurisdiction of that House; he made that statement strictly in accordance with the evidence given by the Charity Commissioners before the Select Committee, and strictly in accordance with the documents which were brought before the Select Committee, and strictly in accordance with the documents which were brought before them from the Courts of Law. He believed, then, that the Charity Commissioners should have further powers of investigation: nay, that the Court of Chancery itself should be armed with additional powers to enable them to deal with this subject. He could not recommend, then, that this Committee of Supply should refuse the means—the only means at present available—to constitute an authority which had any hold whatever on this great mass of property. He was sure that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) would excuse his somewhat differing from him upon this matter when he spoke the result of some experience, and before he sat down there was one point which he wished to mention as most important; it was that in any Bill which might be introduced granting further powers to the Charity Commissioners there should be clauses enabling and compelling them to enrol those charities, to ascertain the nature, extent, and character of charitable property, and to compel the enrolment under penalty of forfeiture, or penalty of some kind in case of recusancy; the names of the trustees who held this charity property, ought, of course, also to be enrolled. Without that publication it was utterly impossible that the Legislature should deal with this mass of property, and he trusted that in whatever Bill might be brought forward they might find adequate powers for enforcing the publication of the names of the trustees, and for the discovery of this property in the case of the Roman Catholic, and, indeed, of all other charity trust property, otherwise he could assure the Committee that they would never be able to deal in a constitutional and satisfactory manner with those large funds.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, that the salaries of the Charity Commissioners, being at present fixed by Act of Parliament, it was now proposed to remove the limit as to their amount. No person would ever have supposed, from the title of the Bill, what its object really was. It was entirely by accident he discovered that the Bill—professedly one for raising salaries—had for its object to sweep into the net of the Charity Commissioners, subject only to a delusive appeal to the Attorney General, the whole of the charities of the kingdom. The measure contained several clauses, each a Bill in itself; but it might be described shortly as a measure—first, to repeal all the Acts connected with the Charity Commissioners; and, secondly, to hand over to them all the existing charities, to be dealt with as they might deem advisable. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had made various references to the City charities, which he could only attribute to want of information. The fact was that the Livery Companies made returns regularly to the Charity Commissioners of the various trusts connected with them, and the right hon. Baronet was mixing up with them the charities not connected with the Livery Companies. It was easy to point to the manner in which these Companies had distributed the funds at their disposal; but hon. members might not be aware that these Companies had existed centuries before insurance companies, and that in providing for the families of decayed or deceased members they had been fulfilling valuable and important duties to society. Many who had held high places in these societies were afterwards indebted through surviving members of their families to the aid which those very societies could afford. Within the short time that he had enjoyed a seat in Parliament he had known a Member of the House of Commons, by whose side he often had the pleasure of sitting, and the widow of that Member now received an annuity from one of those City Companies. Yet no one could have supposed in the lifetime of her husband that assistance of this nature would have been required. The Vice President of the Council had had many communications with the City Companies in reference to his Education Bill, and he (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) appealed to him to say whether any of them ever offered any obstruction to his measure. There was a favourite notion abroad that because these were wealthy Companies their funds were therefore legitimately to be appropriated for any purpose whatever. That was a dangerous doctrine, and one susceptible of very wide application. The right hon. Baronet pointed to the noble building at the opposite side of the Thames as an illustration of the manner in which the Livery Companies wasted their money. It was first of all to be remembered that the Livery Companies had nothing whatever to do with the great hospitals of the City of London, St. Thomas's, Guy's, and St. Bartholomew's being all separate corporations. He was not there to defend the manner in which any one of those hospitals might have expended its funds; he had yet, however, to learn that, assuming the governors to have been extravagant, the Charity Commissioners were the proper persons to decide upon the requisites in a great modern hospital, which, moreover, had been compulsorily removed and re-built, not in consequence of any wish of those responsible for the conduct of the Hospital, but because of railway operations at London Bridge. The Charity Commissioners Bill would be discussed on some future occasion; all he wished now to do was to protest against the general set and the sweeping charges which at the present moment were being made against the Livery Companies. Those Companies were reproached with their time-honoured custom of entertaining personages of distinction and others at dinner in their great City halls. He maintained that great and solid advantages had resulted from those much-abused festive gatherings in the City of London. At those entertainments persons of different social positions, different religious views, and different political opinions were brought together side by side and shoulder to shoulder, under softening and genial influences, and he believed that in a long course of years these social gatherings had done much to mould and form public opinion in the City of London, which, as they all knew, exercised a large, and direct influence upon opinion throughout the country. It was pandering to vulgar prejudice to make attacks in this House upon the Livery Companies, for if they did not do their duty the Charity Commissioners had full power to inquire into the mode in which they distributed their funds, and to compel them to do their duty. He must protest against what had been said by the Home Secretary as to the object of the Bill being to give the Charity Commissioners greater power to seize funds, and apply them to more beneficial purposes, for that involved confiscation and communism.

MR. BOWRING

said, he wished to re-call the attention of the Committee to the Vote under discussion, and, before it closed, to defend an absent gentleman, Mr. Vane, the Secretary to the Commissioners, from what he could not but consider the undeserved attack made upon him by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. He had always found Mr. Vane at the office when he had called there on business, and his experience was that he was always courteous and anxious to discharge his duty efficiently.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, he brought no charges against the City Companies for their hospitality. He merely wished to know whether the Government had any objection to a tabulated Return of the income and expenditure of the City Companies for the last five years? He should feel obliged if the hon. Member for the City of London would take an early opportunity of proposing him (Sir Robert Peel) as a member of some of those Companies—the Goldsmiths' Company, for example. In his ignorance, he thought they were charities; and it was this ignorance he wanted to have cleared up, for he believed that a great sum of money was misapplied. He believed that an extravagant sum had been spent on St. Thomas's Hospital, and that double the number of beds might have been provided for the sum which had been expended.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he had the honour of knowing Mr. Vane, the Secretary of the Charity Commissioners, and could bear testimony to his great ability and attention to the duties of his office. He challenged the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) to move for a Return of the days and hours dedicated by Mr. Vane to his department, because he knew that the result of such a Return would show how unfair and ungenerous were his attacks upon that gentleman.

MR. M. CHAMBERS

expressed a wish that the Chairman would keep speakers to the question before the Com- mittee, because there had been a good deal of wandering—as he understood, not having been present himself. The subject of the Charity Commission was one of extreme importance, and demanded their utmost attention. He did not think that the City Companies, alluded to by the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence), were charitable institutions, but rather political institutions, and it was wandering from the point to discuss the way in which they managed their affairs. We all knew that they were universally praised, after dinner, in the City of London. He had no hesitation in saying that the money they were called upon to vote for the Charity Commission, and who were all barristers, was a great deal too much considering the limited powers they possessed, or the good they were able to effect. As to St. Thomas's Hospital, it was no doubt a beautiful series of buildings; but the public were not to suppose that those buildings were all appropriated for the reception of patients. No, they were intended to accommodate the Board at their meetings; also to give a spacious and handsome residence to the Treasurer, and to furnish accommodation to other officers connected with the institution. Now, what was the use of the Charity Commission if it could not prevent abuses? The Charity Commission was, in his opinion, a partial failure. Unless the powers of the Charity Commissioners were extended so as to enable them to put an end to the abuses of charitable institutions it would be better to abolish their office altogether.

Vote agreed to.

(11.) £12,982, to complete the sum for the Civil Service Commission.

MR. CUBITT

said, there was considerable dissatisfaction felt at the replies given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the questions put to him respecting the action of this Commission. That Commission started last autumn some new regulations, under which nearly the whole of the appointments were thrown open to competition. In January a preliminary examination of candidates for first-class appointments was announced, and a great many gentlemen entered into competition. A certain number of the candidates failed in their examina- tion; but, on the other hand, several gentlemen passed that stage, and were declared qualified to compete for appointments in Her Majesty's service. All those who competed did so under the belief that the Civil Service Commission had something to bestow upon them, and had probably given up other objects which they might have secured. But what had happened? It seemed that no day had been named for the final competition, and those gentlemen began to wonder how much longer they were to be disappointed in their hopes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to a Question on the subject, said, he was sorry to say, there was no place at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government. Now, he (Mr. Cubitt) wanted to know whether the Civil Service Commission were responsible to anybody for their acts, and whether a repetition of those disappointments could not be prevented in future by a clear understanding with the head of Government Departments as to the number of vacancies likely to occur before any competitive examination was announced. One of the regulations of the Civil Service Commission was that every gentleman who competed at this preliminary examination should pay £1, and in case of ultimate success, another fee of £5. Now, in the case to which he had particularly referred, the Civil Service Commissioners would not even incur the trouble or expense of writing a letter to those candidates, informing them of the result of their examination, but left them to ascertain that fact in a chance number of The London Gazette—a newspaper not generally easy of access. Again, gentlemen had been allowed to compete on the supposition that the limit of age—24—applied not to the final but to the preliminary examination, and it was only when they had passed the latter that they discovered that the limit applied to the former examination. Thus many who had successfully passed the preliminary examination found to their disgust that they were precluded, on the ground of their age, from ever obtaining any employment in the service.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, that the limited body of the first Commissioners received £3,500 for their services; the large body of examiners, and of assistant examiners, who really did all the work, only received £5,000 between them.

MR. MELLOR

called attention to the employment in the Civil Service Commission Department of two female servants and three charwomen for washing purposes, and said he thought that those gentlemen ought to do their washing at home. The increase in the incidental expenses had raised the expenditure from £12,000 to £16,000.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Cubitt), said that the Civil Service Commission was responsible to the Treasury; but it was impossible that the latter could attend to all the minute details of the business of the Commission. The Treasury was only technically responsible to that House and the public for what was done. He could only again express his regret at the error which had been committed with respect to the preliminary competitive examination referred to. He feared there would not be any first-class vacancies for some time to come. It was no doubt very unfortunate that those gentlemen should have been put to the trouble and expense of the examination when there was nothing likely to come out of it. As far as he was concerned, he would take good care that such a mistake should not again occur. Having passed the examination, it was quite fair that these gentlemen should have their money back again. If they would write to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), or to the Commissioners, he had no doubt that matter could be arranged. He did not like the principle of demanding payment; but it was necessary to do so to prevent being overwhelmed with speculative applicants and the Department being put to a great expense, and there seemed no way to check the number other than by imposing a pecuniary fine. As it was, out of 180 candidates in the first class, two-thirds were plucked. The Gazette was certainly not an accessible paper, or a satisfactory medium for announcing the result, and he approved of the suggestion that the Department should send a circular round announcing the result to each candidate, or advertise in such papers as were likely to be read by all. He could only say that the expenses were inevitable, and there was no reason to suppose it would be less from the amount of work that was thrown on the Department to exa- mine in different parts of the country. The correspondence alone was enormous, arising from the fact that the Department undertook to furnish the other Departments with all the information they required upon the subject. He should be happy to reduce it if possible. With regard to the two female servants and the three charwomen, to whom attention had been drawn by the hon. Member for Ashton, the fact was that the Department had to conduct many examinations in the building in Cannon Row. It was, therefore, necessary to have a great deal of cleaning done. It was not peculiar to this Department alone.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he thought it was exceedingly desirable that a circular should be sent to the disappointed candidates. He did not think that an advertisement in the newspapers would answer the purpose.

MR. M. CHAMBERS

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adopt the reasonable suggestion of the hon. Member for Warrington.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, it might very well be done. It was not the practice at the Universities. There the only way a gentleman had of ascertaining he had failed was by not finding his name in the list.

Vote agreed to.

(12.) £14,348, to complete the sum for the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission.

MR. BOWRING

said, there had been a complaint for many years that this Department ought to be self-supporting, and although there had been a decrease of £1,160 in the amount of the Vote this year, yet the receipts far from met the expenses. The Estimate showed a receipt from stamps of £8,074, and extra receipts of £4,420; and as the amount of the Vote was £18,848, there was an apparent deficiency of £6,354. If he was not mistaken, however, the estimated receipts were considerably understated.

MR. BAXTER

said, it was highly desirable that the Commission should be self-supporting. The sum paid into the Exchequer in receipts were £15,000 against £18,848, the cost of the Department.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, the question was, whether there was sufficient work to employ the large number of clerks? The charge of £2,400 for tracing maps, &c., ought to be paid by the parties who applied for them. The work of the Commission was now practically at an end, and, therefore, as what they had now to do was principally in reference to exchanges, he could not see why the office should not pay every fraction of its expenses. The benefits derived from the Commission were now not general, but almost individual, saving the parties great expense with regard to tracing or copying maps.

MR. M. CHAMBERS

said, he found on the Vote for tracings of maps for 1871–2 a sum of £2,400, and for 1870–1 precisely the same amount. He had looked for an explanation, and when he found one it had only left him still more embarrassed. Though with regard to this item he acknowledged that he had been totally ignorant, yet with respect to the tracing of maps he had a practical knowledge. The tracing of a map was made by placing a piece of transparent paper over the map and following out the particular figure and outline. He had not the least hesitation in saying that a map as large as the Table might be traced at the cost of 6d. or 1s. at the utmost. Who fixed the price of these tracings? In a note there was an explanation of the item of £2,400, that it was for "supplying to the Public Extracts, &c, from confirmed Documents." What was the meaning of that? In Note D there was an item of £1,900 for "services beyond those of the Establishment for Copying, &c., (partly Task-work, partly Day-work.") This equally required explanation.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

, agreeing that the Notes were obscure, asked the Secretary of the Treasury whether, after three years' experience of the Act, it must not be pronounced satisfactory in a financial point of view, seeing that the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission now paid about two-thirds of its expenses.

MR. BAXTER

said, he had already explained that the financial working of the Act was every year more satisfactory. There was a decrease of £1,160 in the Vote for the present year. It was desirable that further explanations should be given in the Notes, and the suggestions of the hon. and learned Member for Devonport (Mr. M. Chambers) should be duly attended to by the Treasury.

MR. M. CHAMBERS

said, he could not regard the explanation as satisfactory.

Vote agreed to.

(13.) £8,350, to complete the sum for the Inclosure and Drainage Acts (Imprest Expenses).

(14.) £28,353, to complete the sum for the Comptroller and Auditor General of the Exchequer.

(15.) £30,250, to complete the sum for the Department of Registrar General of Births.

(16.) £11,732, to complete the sum for the Commissioners in Lunacy in England.

(17.) £28,375, to complete the sum for the Mint, including Expenses of Coinage.

(18.) £16,206, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.

(19.) £24,539, to complete the sum for the Patent Office.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, it was very hard that persons who went to take out patents should pay such enormous fees, and he trusted that the Government would put the Patent Office in order, so that there should not be so many complaints against that office.

MR. BAXTER

said, that there was a decrease of £1,726 in this Vote, and that a Committee up-stairs was now investigating the subject.

MR. GOLDNEY

complained that, while the scope and spirit of the Act of Parliament on the subject were to the effect that a statement of all new fees should be laid before Parliament within 14 days, no such statement had ever been presented. The great objection to all those payments was that they tended practically to shut out the poor man from obtaining a patent.

MR. LEEMAN

said, that although a Select Committee was sitting to inquire into this subject, it was only right that the public should be made acquainted with the fact that, under this one Vote, a sum of £10,000 was divided in fees between the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. Now, the duties which they performed for that amount were matters of the purest formality, and for the performance of those duties they each received—supposing the money to be divided equally between them—a sum as large as the salary paid to the Prime Minister. It was high time, in his opinion, that a Return should be furnished to the House of the fees which the Law Officers of the Crown got for doing the business of the country, and nothing could, he thought, be more scandalous than the manner in which the public were made to pay for patents, as illustrated by the division of the sum of £10,000 between two hon. and learned Gentlemen for work which was as entirely formal as any work could well be.

MR. G. B. GREGORY

said, the services of men of the highest professional skill were necessary in those who filled the offices of Attorney and Solicitor General, and they must be highly remunerated in some way or other. The present mode of remunerating them was highly objectionable; but if that were superseded, some other mode of payment must be substituted. He was a member of the Patent Law Committee, and he hoped that the result of their labours would be the reduction of the patent fees; but, if so, the Law Officers' remuneration must be otherwise provided for.

MR. RYLANDS

said, that the Secretary to the Treasury had taken credit for a reduction in the Vote to which he was scarcely entitled, inasmuch as the decrease was the result of the circumstance that there was a smaller number of certificates for patents this year than last.

MR. M. CHAMBERS

said, it would be very bad taste in him to go into a controversy with regard to lawyers' fees. But he might say that it would be exceedingly desirable if the remuneration of the Attorney and Solicitor General were placed on a different footing. There was a time when the greatest men at the Bar, occupying the positions of Attorney and Solicitor General, did not get such enormous remuneration as was now received from patent fees. He wished, he might add, to have a detailed explanation from some Member of the Government of the sum of £19,000, which he found in the Vote under the head of payments for Printing, Lithographer's Bills, for Drawings accompanying specifications, and estimated Cost of Paper supplied to the Printer and Lithographer by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. What did all this mean? He thought these expenses were paid by the patentees.

MR. HERMON

said, he saw certain expenses put down as having to be added to the original Vote, and he asked why the different amounts could not be put down together?

MR. BAXTER

said, the £19,000 was not in the Estimate at all. It was simply an explanation of the Estimate for next year, founded on the expenses of the year that was past.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, the total expenses connected with the Patent Office seemed to be £54,469. If so, why was the Vote put down at only £32,539?

MR. AYRTON

replied that the expenses for stationery and other items, referred to in the foot-note, were really incurred by other Departments on account of the Patent Office, and were voted in those Departments. To include them in the present Vote would be to vote them twice over. Every public office was thus supplied from the Stationery Office, for example, and of course no double Vote was taken.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

asked why, in that case, should the Patent Office be alone pointed to—in invidiam, as it appeared—in a foot-note which explained that other charges arose in respect of it? Such a note was misleading, and should either apply to all Departments or to none.

MR. AYRTON

said, that people frequently had an erroneous notion about the cost of patents, and it was thought well to show what they really cost.

MR. M'LAREN

said, the Government appeared to make a profit of £65,000 out of patents. The fees paid to the Law Officers of the Crown were £10,080—an amount equal to the salaries of two Judges in Westminster Hall, so that if two Judges were appointed to attend to patents they would receive no more than was thus paid. In addition, the Attorney General for Ireland received £1,200; the Solicitor General for Ireland, £800; the Lord Advocate £850; the clerk to the Attorney General for Ireland, £300; and the same to the Lord Advocate' clerk. The Law Officers of the Crown therefore received £14,430, which fell on the inventive genius of the country. The whole of this system of fees required revision. The Law Officers should have reasonable salaries, and be required to devote such time to the public as the performance of their public duties demanded.

MR. MACFIE

said, that a portion of this Vote was paid as compensation for loss of office, and therefore no work was done in return for the emoluments. The inventors of this country had several grievances, one of which was that from them there was taken away every year a large sum of money which was not applied to fostering invention in connection with trade. Very large fees were paid to the Law Officers for granting patents. It should be remembered that the scale of fees was fixed at a time when there was only one-fifth of the present number of patents sealed. Those gentlemen had met the Patent Laws Committee in a liberal and candid spirit, and the inquiry would, he believed, result in a great and wholesome change. He did not see on the credit side of the account any sum derived from selling copies of specifications, and he suggested to the Secretary to the Treasury the propriety of providing a Return of the total amount of the commercial business done by the Crown on the part of the country.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

objected to its being assumed that those who possessed patent rights had any reason to complain.

Vote agreed to.

(20.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £16,866, 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 1872, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Paymaster General in London and Dublin.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

called attention to the fact that the item "The Cashier and Pay Clerks' Risk Money, £47" this year showed an increase of £17 on the Estimates for last year.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he wished to know what the risk money was for. Was it given to the clerks to make up for mistakes? If so, it was a premium on slovenliness, and he would further say that in banks and offices in the City no such allowance was made, and it ought not to be sanctioned by Parliament.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he believed his hon. Friend was mistaken. An allowance of that sort was very common in banks, and it was made in the Bank of England. It was not made to meet mistakes in account, but to meet mistakes in giving change.

MR. HERMON

inquired the meaning of the item of £47 for "risk money."

MR. BAXTER

explained that the item was put down to provide for any mistake that might occur handling the cash.

MR. HERMON

said, he did not see such an entry in his ledger. Merchants were expected to keep their books within sixpence. He moved to reduce the Vote by that sum of £47.

Motion made, and Question, That a sum, not exceeding £16,819, 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 1872, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Paymaster General in London and Dublin,"—(Mr. Hermon,) —put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(21.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £171,648, 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 1872, for Expenses connected with the Administration of the Laws relating to the Poor.

MR. GOLDNEY

called attention to the amount put down as a commuted charge for the travelling and personal expenses of the Inspectors, which was about double the amount paid to the School Inspectors under the Privy Council for the expenses actually paid for by them, though the expenses of the Poor Law Inspectors were materially less than the School Inspectors, as most of the workhouses they visited were in towns to which railways went. Nothing was so bad as allowing persons to make up their salaries by charging more than they actually expended; and in order to prevent the practice being set up as a precedent in the case of the School Inspectors, he moved that the Vote be reduced by £1,500.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £170,148, 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 1872, for Expenses connected with the Administration of the Laws relating to the Poor."—(Mr. Goldney.)

MR. MELLOR

supported the Motion. From the 21st October, 1863, to the 10th November, 1870, the whole time spent in the inspection of workhouses amounted to 24 hours and 5 minutes, and he thought the sum paid for expenses was largely in excess of what it ought to be.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

objected to the increase of taxation while the people were struggling hard to obtain the means of livelihood.

MR. STANSFELD

said, the increase this year amounted to £6,856, which was chiefly attributable to the items for incidental expenses and Returns. The commutations for personal expenses of the Poor Law Inspectors varied from £200 to £300 a-year, and depended upon the extent of districts and the frequency of visits paid. They were based on the experience of many years, and there was no reason to believe they were excessive. He would, however, satisfy himself on this point, and communicate the result of his inquiries to his hon. Friend (Mr. Goldney.)

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he would withdraw his Motion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

called attention to rather a small item in this Estimate—£150 for fees to counsel. Considering the strength of the Poor Law Board—the great ability possessed by its head and by the Under Secretary who had charge of the legal business of the Department, and the extremely efficient aid received from the subordinates—he thought there was no necessity for such an item.

MR. STANSFELD

said, this was not a standing Estimate; but there had been cases during the short time he had been at the Board in which it was thought advisable that the opinion of the Law Officers should be taken.

MR. C. S. READ

asked, whether the £2,500 charged for "special Parliamentary Return" had reference to the Local Taxation Bill.

MR. GOSCHEN

replied that the Return in question had been prepared for the purpose of ascertaining precisely what rates fell on each class of property.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

complained that the description "special Returns" was obscure.

MR. C. S. READ

asked how the local Returns had been paid for.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, they had been compiled by a single gentleman working under him, and at present they had cost nothing but for the printing. The Treasury, however, was considering the advisability of granting a sum for the labour of compilation.

MR. GOLDNEY

asked whether the Inspectors rendered an account of their time in the same way as the Educational Inspectors.

MR. STANSFELD

said, they did.

MR. GOSCHEN

stated that the £2,500, to which previous reference had been made, was for the clerks of the Unions who had filled up the tables, and, considering that there were 700 Unions in England, this would not be found to be a large sum.

In reply to Mr. CRAUFURD,

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that the explanation of a schoolmaster apparently receiving only £1 was that they were paid by the number of children, and doubtless the man referred to had other scholars.

MR. MUNTZ

ridiculed the idea of a medical officer being found for a parish at a salary of £10 per year, and protested against the present system of Poor Law medical relief as a farce. The office was taken at absurdly low salaries, either to keep new medical men out, or by new men to get a footing in the parish, and in neither case were the poor cared for.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, it would be a mistake to compare what Members of the House were accustomed to give their medical men with that which was given to doctors attending paupers. As a fact, these gentlemen found it worth their while to undertake these duties.

MR. C. S. READ

said, that in rural districts medical officers were appointed to single parishes, and the salary of £5 was held to be sufficient. He quite agreed, however, that medical officers of Unions were very badly paid.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(22.) £17,523, to complete the sum for the Public Record Office.

(23.) £3,453, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan, &c. Commissions.

(24.) £1,819, to complete the sum for the Registrars of Friendly Societies.

MR. DIMSDALE

observed that the time had arrived for the re-consideration and revision of the law relating to Friendly Societies, and recommended the abolition of the office of Registrar, remarking that it was of no use, while the certificates it gave conveyed a false impression of security.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

was very much inclined to agree in that, but the question was under the consideration of the Home Secretary, and he did not know at what conclusion he had arrived on the subject.

Vote agreed to.

(25.) £289,531, to complete the sum for the Stationery Office and Printing.

MR. BOWRING

remarked that the Vote this year showed a decrease of more than £5,000, which he thought highly creditable to the gentleman who had control of the office. He especially referred to the saving in the item of steel and quill pens. It had been the subject of much ridicule; but it was worthy of note that in two years the quantity of steel pens employed in the Government departments had been reduced from 15,000 gross to 10,000, making a saving to the country of £600 a-year; and the quantity of quill pens from 840,000 to 430,000, giving a saving of nearly £1,000 a-year.

MR. MACFIE

regretted that this had been done at a sacrifice in quality, and hoped the steel pens would be improved—at least as far as the House was concerned. He suggested that the three Gazettes should be amalgamated, published "at cost," be better indexed, and made more interesting to the general public, in which event the publication would be subscribed to by all news-rooms as being a necessary part of their reading apparatus. Such a Gazette would also be an excellent medium for advertising specifications of patents, Blue Books, the valuable historical works recently published, and other publications brought out by the Government and the Public Departments. In reference to another matter, he was of opinion that as the Committees of the House upstairs had shorthand writers to publish their proceedings there should be an efficient shorthand writer appointed to supply reports of the debates of the House. They would be valuable as records, and advantageous for reference.

Vote agreed to.

(26.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £19,961, 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 1872, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, that in the last published Report, which only came down to the 31st of March, 1870, it was stated that the amount paid by the Office of Woods and Forests into the Exchequer during that year was £375,000. £14,800 of this sum, however, came out of the balance they had in hand. The actual income of the year ending the 31st of March, 1870, was put down at £360,133; but the cost of keeping up the office, &c, was £24,200, and the net produce of the Woods and Forests was only £335,900, or about £40,000 less than was stated to have been received by the Exchequer from the Department. In the last Report the irrecoverable arrears for England and Wales amounted to £35,100, and those for Ireland to £53,295, and these two items were included in the total of sums receivable. Surely there ought to be some means of discharging the accounts of these items. The receipts from the New Forest were £12,034, while the payments were £12,257. Now, it was certainly very remarkable that a tract of land consisting of nearly 100 square miles should yield no income whatever. With regard to Kensington Palace Road, he wished to remark that it ought not, in his opinion, to be blocked up against cabs. This Vote showed that his former Motion, in favour of a representative of the Woods and Forests being in the House, ought to be renewed at a future time.

MR. MILLER

wished to know how it happened that the incidental expenses of one year corresponded precisely with those of another. Was he to understand that a sum of £5,000 was to be spent one year with another in law expenses?

MR. BAXTER

Yes, that is so.

MR. HERMON

said, he thought it would be better if, instead of having two Commissioners at £1,200 a-year each, they had only one Commissioner. That would obviate a divided responsibility. What would be said if they had two Chancellors of the Exchequer? It would be well if the Department of Woods and Forests were placed under the Office of Works, and then they might expect to receive answers to their ques- tions from the First Commissioner of Works.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the duties of the two Commissioners referred to were quite separate and distinct. If two persons acted as Chancellors of the Exchequer, their duties would clash.

MR. MUNTZ

called attention to the fact that when the subject of the Woods and Forests was before the Committee last year there was a strong inclination on the part of the Committee to move a reduction of the whole Estimate. The expenditure was then found to be about equal to the income, and some member of the Committee stated that if any private estate in the world had been managed so, the steward would have been dismissed as perfectly incompetent. It was then promised that there would be a revision; but he did not know whether that was to take place. They were spending £5,000 in law expenses on an estate the whole net income of which was £2,700.

MR. RYLANDS

said, that in 1869–70 there was a similar grant for incidental legal expenses of £5,400, and only £2,949 was required, so that £2,451 was surrendered, to the Exchequer.

MR. MILLER moved that the Vote be reduced by £2,000.

Motion made, and Question, That a sum, not exceeding £17,961, 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 1872, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments,"—(Mr. Miller,) —put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(27.) £29,741, to complete the sum for the Office of Works and Public Buildings.

In answer to a question by an hon. MEMBER,

MR. AYRTON

explained that the increase of the expenses arose from the fact that a great addition had been made to the business of the office, both by Act of Parliament and by the arrangements of the Government. By one Act they had obtained charge of the County Courts, and by another arrangement they had charge of all the Consular establishments abroad, and the supervision of the Ordnance Survey and some other special buildings. Besides these there had been an increase in the business of the Department in consequence of the telegraph service having been taken over by the Post Office. Many of the buildings of the Post Office had had to be rearranged for carrying on the business of the year. Hitherto sums had been paid for commission in reference to erecting the buildings to persons who were not in the office; but this practice had been discontinued, and considerable economy would be the result.

MR. A. GUEST

referring to the opening of the gate into Richmond Park, which had been so often under discussion, expressed a hope that it would be regarded by the First Commissioner of Works no longer as a merely local matter.

MR. AYRTON

said, it was a purely local matter, and those who were most interested in having the road were the most proper persons to take steps to obtain it. It was no part of the business of the Government to provide roads for the metropolitan districts, and there was no ground why the Wandsworth district should be an exception.

Vote agreed to.

(28.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £19,000, 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 1872, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services.

MR. RYLANDS

alluded to the statement of the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel), to the effect that certain sums were paid out of the Secret Service money to our Military Attachés abroad in addition to their salaries. He had every reason, he added, to believe that the information of the right hon. Gentleman on that point was correct, and that many other salaries were increased or pensions given out of the Secret Service money voted by Parliament in a way of which the House knew nothing. As a member of the Diplomatic Service Committee, and being possessed, as he was, of information which he regarded as authentic, he had put several questions to witnesses as to the payments made out of the Secret Service Fund, but he was stopped in doing so by a majority of the Committee. He now, however, begged to repeat that he had good reason for supposing that out of that fund additions were made to salaries which never came under the cognizance of the House. Anything more calculated to lead to jobbery he could not conceive. The Under Secretary was not, so far as he knew, aware of the way in which the money was expended, that being a matter which was entirely settled in a cabinet of the Foreign Office. There was nothing, indeed, to show that it was not devoted to augmenting the pay of a few persons connected with the Foreign Office who might be favourites of the Secretary of State. Under these circumstances, he should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £5,000.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD

said, that, so far as the extra allowances which were granted to our Military Attaché at Paris were concerned, he had no further information than he had already given in reply to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. It was perfectly true that that Attaché was paid a certain sum which was charged on the Diplomatic Estimates. He also received his half-pay as major, which was charged in the Estimates for the Army; while he was, in addition, re-imbursed for other expenses he might have incurred from the amount which was placed by Parliament in the hands of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. What the sum he received out of that amount was, he must, however, decline to state. He would, at the same time, observe that if it was right to intrust the Secretary of State with a certain sum of money, it was equally right to allow him to exercise his discretion as to the manner in which it should be expended. He believed that when a question was put to the late Lord Clarendon on the subject his reply was— Parliament and the country think I am fit to be at the head of Foreign Affairs, and yet some persons seem to be of opinion that I am not fit to be intrusted with the expenditure of the small amount which is placed in my hands for the purposes of the Office. The Committee would not, he hoped, press him for any further explanation on the point. He had merely to add that, to the best of his belief, no further sum was paid to any individual connected with the Foreign Office.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he thought the question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) had been altogether evaded by the noble Lord. The real point was that if certain public servants were in the receipt of salaries known to and fixed by Parliament, those salaries ought, if not sufficient, to be increased by this House, instead of having additions secretly made to them. He should vote in favour of the proposed reduction.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, he happened to have been a member of the Committee on the Diplomatic Service, and therefore could not allow this discussion to be concluded without a few remarks which he was led to make by what had passed when he was present at that Committee. He certainly could not see the least use in putting questions which no Minister sitting on the Treasury bench was in a position to answer. What was the use of asking for information when there was no Minister in the House who could give it; as it was well known, in accordance with the evidence of the late lamented Lord Clarendon, that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs knew nothing of the disposal of the Secret Service money, and that, as that noble Lord had said before the Diplomatic Committee, the Foreign Secretary alone was responsible for its expenditure? Last year, in the Diplomatic Committee, the hon. Member for Warrington often alluded mysteriously to this subject of Secret Service money. The members of the Committee were anxious to know on what grounds he based the remarks he made with respect to the application of this money; and they felt somewhat aggrieved that he did not give them the slightest clue to the mysterious information in his possession as to the application of the money in supplementing the salaries of public officers. The accusation was a grave one to make, and, if there were anything in it, the matter was well worth the attention of the House, and ought to be sifted to the bottom. He was not a member of the Committee this year, and therefore did not know what had been done in it; but, if there was real evidence to show that the money was employed in an improper manner, the hon. Member for Warrington, who had bestowed praiseworthy attention to the subject of the Diplomatic and Consular Services, ought to move the House to inquire gravely into the disposition of Secret Service money. As long as Parliament thought fit to make a grant for Secret Service money, we ought, unless strong evidence led us to suppose that it was improperly used, to regard it as such, and to treat Ministers of the Crown, who had the control of its expenditure, with that confidence which Lord Clarendon claimed for his high office.

MR. DILLWYN

suggested that the Committee should defer the consideration of the Vote until they knew whether the money was spent in the manner indicated.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, that when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) stated, as a matter of fact, that the salary of an Attaché at Paris was supplemented by £500 a-year out of Secret Service money, he said if it were so he would move the reduction of the Secret Service Vote by that amount, because it was a contradiction in terms to pay a regular salary out of Secret Service money; but the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had given a different account of the matter, and had stated that the money was not paid as salary, but that a member of the Staff was entrusted with expenditure, which was reimbursed out of the Secret Service money. This was quite legitimate, and the House would only stultify itself if it voted Secret Service money, and then inquired to what purposes it was applied.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

doubted the propriety and the necessity of voting Secret Service money at all, and thought that now-a-days it might be stated plainly and openly what money was required for.

MR. MUNTZ

said, they were asked to vote £25,000 a-year without any reason being assigned. What was there that the Government were afraid or ashamed to speak of? He believed there was nothing wrong in the appropriation of the money; on the contrary, he believed it was required; and why could it not be stated what the money was wanted for? It had been very appropriately remarked by the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Sandon) that there was no use in asking for information when there was no Minister present to give it. The inference was that the money was to be voted without their questions being answered. Of course they ought to have confidence in the Government, who asked for it often enough; but the logical sequence of that would be that the £70,000,000 required for the total Estimates for the year should be voted at once without any explanation. Let the Government give a reason, and the money would be voted; but if they gave no reason he would vote against them.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, the question was, whether the Government was to be entrusted with an amount of money for Secret Service; those who thought it ought were illogical in attempting to reduce the Vote.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he had stated positively that he had reason to believe that the money was applied in aid of certain salaries under the Foreign Office; and he gathered it was the general feeling of the Committee that if that was the case it was an objectionable application of the money. Of course he did not give the Diplomatic Committee the information which had been communicated to himself confidentially; but he gave the witnesses an opportunity of giving negative answers and of saying that the money was not spent in augmenting salaries. If the noble Lord the Under Secretary would say that Secret Service money was not spent in augmenting the salaries of persons in the public employment, he should be disposed to accept the assertion of the noble Lord; but the noble Lord could not give that assurance, and the reason was that the Secret Service money was administered by the permanent Under Secretary of the Foreign Office, so that the only representative of the Foreign Office in the House of Commons could give no information on the subject. It was most objectionable that the Under Secretary should not have personal knowledge of the matter. There was no imputation on anyone's honour; the imputation was not that the money was appropriated, but that it was spent upon objects which the House did not approve. Unless the noble Lord was prepared either to give a denial to the statements which had reached him or to postpone the Vote while inquiry was being made, he should be compelled to press for a division.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD

said, he was sorry the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) should think he had declined to answer any Question that was put to him. As to the particular expenditure incurred by and reimbursed to the Military Attaché in Paris, he thought he had explained the matter with complete frankness to the House. The salary to which that officer was entitled appeared in the Diplomatic Estimates, his half-pay was included in the Army Estimates, and the money which he had expended for other purposes was repaid to him out of funds applicable to that purpose in the hands of the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) was evidently in possession of secret sources of information which he himself did not possess. If the hon. Member would state, either in the House or privately, the names of the officials of whom he had reason to believe that, being already in receipt of salaries which appeared in the Estimates, they had additional money given to them out of the Secret Service Fund, he would endeavour to procure for the hon. Member the information which he required. [Mr. RYLANDS: And postpone the Vote.] But if the hon. Member either could not give the names, or should not be willing to do so, he did not think that he himself was called upon in that event to offer any further explanation.

Motion made, and Question, That a sum, not exceeding £14,000, 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 1872, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services,"—(Mr. Rylands,) —put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(29.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £4,476, 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 1872, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in the Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly paid from the Hereditary Revenue.

MR. CRAUFURD

wished to know if the office of Lord Lyon received in fees £800 over the sum paid for salaries, because there was as large a surplus received for fees. He wished to know if they were paid over.

MR. M'LAREN

asked for an explanation of the Vote of £1,000 for the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, which salary a Treasury Commission, specially charged to inquire into the circumstances, had reported ought only to be £800. He likewise wished to know whether the present holder of this office also received anything additional for services connected with The Edinburgh Gazette. Under the same head he found there were two second-class clerks, with salaries extending from a minimum of £315 to a maximum of £500. In parenthesis, however, it was stated that one of those clerks received £550, so that there must be a maximum above the maximum.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the amount of the salary had been very carefully considered; and, having regard to the important duties performed, the conclusion arrived at was that £1,000 a-year was not excessive. He was unable to answer the question relative to the clerks.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, the Commission which had been sent down to investigate this matter included one of the most experienced men at the Treasury, and a noble Lord who had been employed on similar Commissions. The Committee had not been informed what influence was brought to bear upon the Treasury to induce them to fix the salary at £1,000, against the recommendation of the Treasury Commissioners that it be in future not more than £800, or whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered that the Commissioners had made an absurd and improper recommendation.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had not stated that the recommendation of the Commission was either absurd or improper. But the question at issue was, whether, having regard to the duties of the office, and the trust necessarily reposed in the person who filled it, £1,000 was too large a salary. He felt that it was not, and it surely was a matter upon which it was competent for him to express an opinion.

MR. M'LAREN

pressed for an answer to his inquiry, whether any additional remuneration was received by the same gentlemen for services proposed in connection with The Edinburgh Gazette.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Not any.

MR. MUNTZ

said, he found an item of £240 charged for a law agent to the Bible Board. It seemed to him incredible that the Bible Board in distributing the Bible should incur an annual expense of £240 for a law agent. This item required explanation.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that a little further on there was a charge for law expenses connected with the Bible Board of £100.

MR. M'LAREN

said, the Government Commissioners had been as much surprised as the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) at these items. On making inquiry into the amount of legal business done by their law officer, the answer was that upon one occasion "he almost had a lawsuit to conduct." The evidence showed that there being nothing whatever to do, the Lord Advocate, for the time being, appointed anybody who was politically useful to his party to the office.

MR. MUNTZ

said, as no satisfactory explanation had been given, he should move the reduction of the Vote by £240.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £4,236, 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 1872, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in the Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly paid from the Hereditary Revenue."—(Mr. Muntz.)

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he was not satisfied with the answer which had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For many months the House had been told, in the most ostentatious manner, of the great reductions which were to be made by the Government in this very department, moreover, of the Queen's Remembrancer. The right hon. Gentleman over and over again stated that the matter was under consideration, and finally a Treasury Commission was sent down which recommended that the salary attached to the office should be £800. This recommendation the Chancellor of the Exchequer proprio motu had overruled. Now this was an ancient and well-known office; and either grounds for consideration by the Government and for inquiry by a Treasury Commission with regard to it existed or they did not. If they did, then the deliberate recom- mendation of the Commissioners ought to have been acted on. If not, and their minds were made up all along, what became of this pretence of economy, carried on for months by the Government?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the hon. Gentleman had forgotten the circumstances under which this Commission was sent down. Great pressure had been brought to bear upon the First Minister by Members from Scotland, who suggested that there were great expenses in Edinburgh and elsewhere which, if curtailed, might admit of the establishment of a Scotch Minister with greater authority than the Lord Advocate possessed. It was to test that assertion and to see how it was borne out by the facts that the Commission was sent down, and not specially with a view to this office of the Queen's Remembrancer, which was one of the greatest dignity, importance, and responsibility in connection with the control of public money in Scotland. The Government did not bind themselves to accept all the recommendations of the Commission. Some they did accept, but this one they felt they would not be justified in adopting.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

asked for some explanation respecting the Bible Board.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, that the Bible Board consisted of certain Commissioners appointed by the Royal Warrant, by whom licences were granted to print copies of the Bible and certain other books, and thus the monopoly which existed in this country was got rid off. All these Commissioners, with the exception of the secretary, who was also a Commissioner, were unpaid; but as it was necessary that a law agent should be consulted, in granting these licences, the gentleman holding that office received a salary of £240 per annum. The amount of the law agent's salary had been fixed some 25 years ago, and at all events it must be paid during the lifetime of the present holder of the office. No doubt at some future time the question would arise whether it was necessary that such an officer should be maintained at all.

MR. CRAUFURD

complained that what was done gratuitously in England by the Universities should cost £1,000 per annum in Scotland.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, that whereas the monopoly of Bible printing existed at the present time in England, it had, owing to the existence of the Bible Board, been abolished in Scotland.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, that although the Lord Advocate had stated that the Commissioners were unpaid, the right hon. and learned Member and the Solicitor General, who were at the head of that Board, were paid whenever the Board required their opinion. What was the use of placing this Vote upon the Estimates if that House were bound to pay the salary of the law agent during the life of the present holder of the office?

MR. MUNTZ

said, he saw no reason why this £240 should be paid; and he felt bound to divide the Committee upon the question. As to the office being abolished, he had never known an instance of its being done in the last 40 years, except by a vote of the House.

MR. M'LAREN

said, the evidence given to the Committee showed that the agent was properly the agent for the Lord Advocate, and that his appointment continued only so long as the Lord Advocate who appointed him remained in office.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 35 Noes 88: Majority 53.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;

Committee to sit again To-morrow.