HC Deb 31 May 1872 vol 211 cc976-83

SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

(1.) £26,402, to complete the sum for the Department of the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £26,397, 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 1873, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, and Subordinate Department.

MR. BOWRING

said, he wished to take occasion to call attention to the increase of the salary of the Registrar of the Privy Council from £1,300 to £1,500 a-year, which it appeared from a foot-note was only to be a temporary arrangement lasting for three years, a clerk being also appointed under him for the same limited period. Now, what he objected to was not so much the amount of the salary to be given to a highly deserving officer, as the novel principle involved in the mode of remuneration for a specified period to which he referred, and he should like to be told the reason for the course adopted. When the Board of Trade Estimates came on he should have to remark upon a similar case, where an appointment stated to be for 18 months only, and agreed to by Parliament on that understanding, had been forthwith converted into a permanent appointment.

MR. BAXTER

said, the increase of salary had been granted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in consequence of the recommendations of the Privy Council, founded upon any increase in the work to be done.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he should like to know why the period of three years had been fixed upon? Who could tell whether the extra duties for which the increase of salary was given, would come to an end at the expiration of that time?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

hoped, unless some more satisfactory explanation were furnished on the point, the Committee would decide against it.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

pointed out that the reason why the salary was fixed for three years was, that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was at present in a transition state, and that it was also very much encumbered with appeals. It was expected that those appeals would be got rid of at the end of three years, and that there would then be some change. Under those circumstances, it had been deemed to be the best course to reserve the question as to what should be the permanent salary of some of the officers.

MR. LIDDELL

remarked that the change referred to depended on the passing of a very important Act of Parliament, and contended that the mode of fixing the salaries of the officials adopted by the Government was not satisfactory.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

asked whether the Registrar was bound to devote the whole of his time to the duties of his office for £1,300 per annum? If he was, he could be given £200 a-year for part of his holiday being taken away.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he must object to grants, amounting to £1,200 per annum, being given to the officials, as it seemed to him that some influential person was being very liberal at the public expense. He would move to reduce this portion of the Vote by £200.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £26,197, 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 1873, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, and Subordinate Department."—(Mr. Rylands.)

MR. CANDLISH

hoped the Amendment of the hon. Member for Warrington would be withdrawn. He objected to the Vote of £1,950 for incidental expenses, and would move its reduction.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that in order to allay the alarm that existed last year of the danger of cholera visiting this country in the summer and autumn, it was found necessary to make provision in the event of its visiting this country. That course had been again followed, and it did not follow that because the money was voted it must be spent. It was to be hoped that the money would not be wanted.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

thought the Estimates applied to the coming year, and not to the past.

MR. BAXTER

said, the Estimate was for the current year. The Treasury had cut down the Vote, thinking the cholera was not so near as the Department imagined, but still it was only safe to take a Vote. With regard to the personal allowances, they had been adopted as an economical measure, for the Department had been reorganized, and instead of advancing the salaries, these personal allowances had been given.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

pointed out that such personal allowances were very common in all mercantile establishments.

MR. MUNTZ

thought that few vessels coming from Russia went to Liverpool. Bristol and Cardiff were as likely to take the cholera as Liverpool.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, there was no rule as to the resort of particular ships to particular ports. He had often taken exception on this Vote, but would not do so now, as the Department had taken a great deal of trouble, and incurred considerable expense, in order to satisfy the public in reference to the prevention of cholera.

MR. CANDLISH

complained that the application of the money would be partial. It was to meet cases arising in London, Liverpool, and Cardiff; but in Hull, Newcastle, Sunderland, and other ports, there would be probably as much need for it as the places named. He, therefore, wished to know why, up to the present time, the money had been ex- pended in so partial a manner, instead of being applied to all the ports at which danger might arise?

MR. D. DALRYMPLE

denied that there had been any partial application of the funds, and strongly deprecated the mischievous and dangerous parsimony involved in the proposal of the hon. Member for Sunderland.

MR. M'LAREN

objected to the proposal to make provision in the shape of personal allowances for three years in advance. Let Her Majesty's Government provide for the current year, and leave the future to be arranged for by the Government in office.

MR. F. S. POWELL

said, that the conversation that had taken place was an illustration of the extreme inconvenience of placing under the Privy Council functions so entirely diverse as judicial functions, quarantine, and the veterinary department, and he expressed a hope that the time would come when the Privy Council duties would be confined to one department. He was surprised to find so large a Vote for quarantine, though he was aware that in some ports, especially Liverpool, great alarm appeared to prevail on the subject.

MR. BAXTER

said, there was not the slightest intention of expending the money, unless it was absolutely necessary to do so. The necessity of taking the Vote arose from the fact that the Treasury had been warned by an authority that they dared not disregard that there was danger of cholera this year. If that were to be so, the Government had been greatly to blame for not having taken a Vote in anticipation with which to take the requisite precautions. The Treasury had power to alter the destination of the money, or any portion of it, according as the necessity arose.

MR. F. S. POWELL

asked for an explanation of an item in the Vote for auxiliary scientific investigations concerning the causes and processes of disease.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, it was true that the State interference in questions affecting the health of the country was by the Act of last year divided between the Local Government Board and the Privy Council; but it had been thought best, for the present year at least, to include in the Civil Service Estimates the Vote for scientific investi- gations concerning the progress of diseases.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, he wished for some explanation with regard to the item for the Veterinary department of the Privy Council. Whenever a temporary emergency arose, the House was always ready to vote whatever money was required to meet it; but, unfortunately, when the temporary emergency passed away, there was a tendency to make the provision permanent. When Providence removed the cattle plague, Providence did not remove Mr. Williams with it, and relegate him to another office. It had been thought necessary to make provision for him where he was, and his department was rendered permanent for him in the Privy Council, there he remained till the present time, and would remain till eternity, unless the Committee did something in the matter. Mr. Williams had a salary of £1,000 per annum for presiding over this Veterinary department, and there was a large staff, with inspectors, clerks, and temporary clerks. It was true the foot-and-mouth disease, after the cattle plague disappeared, was prevalent in the country; but it did not require the perpetual interference of the Privy Council and the permanent establishment of a Veterinary department, besides great expenses in every county, in the way of inspection, connected with this department. The importation of diseased foreign cattle might be prevented by local officers at the ports. He therefore asked the Committee to consider whether it was necessary to maintain this central department; and he must state that if such a department was required, it seemed proper that subjects of this kind should be dealt with by the Local Government Board. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would explain why this subject should be dealt with at all by the Privy Council Office; and, if so, why so large a staff of officers was permanently employed?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the only answer he could make to the first question was, that he found this department at the Privy Council Office when he went there; but he should be glad if it could be removed, for the change would relieve him from much work; although he supposed it would then fall upon some other Minister, so that little public advantage would result from the alteration. Pro- bably the department was originally placed at the Privy Council Office because the Orders in Council were there issued. The right hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken in supposing that with the present Acts of Parliament, and the expectations of the country, the department could be conducted at smaller expense, because a great deal of hard work was done in the office, and the salaries were carefully examined. During the cattle plague the expenditure was enormously larger than at present; but at that time the country got frightened, and thought it necessary that cattle diseases should be guarded against in future. The duties of the department related to the carrying into effect of those views. There might be some doubt as to whether any trade should be interfered with; but Parliament having decided to interfere with the importation of food, its wishes could not be enforced without a central department, and that department had very grave and onerous duties to discharge. For instance, until the completion of the Deptford Cattle Market, a cordon had to be maintained around the City of London. It would not be sufficient to employ local officers, and Parliament had no justification for requiring a department to perform duties if it did not provide adequate means for the purpose. The House had passed an Act to check home diseases, and if the right hon. Gentleman thought it should be repealed, he ought to move to that effect. But the Act related not only to the foot-and-mouth disease, but to the fatal disease of pleuro-pneumonia. He was glad to say that the House had been pleased also to try to make better regulations for the transit of cattle, and Parliament could not refuse to pay clerks to apply these provisions. He believed the Office was managed economically, and that the clerks in it performed their duties as efficiently and received as little pay as the officials in any other department.

MR. WHITWELL

asked for explanations respecting the personal allowances paid to individual officers.

MR. D. DALRYMPLE

thought that without having veterinary inspectors and an organized staff, with competent authorities to decide whether animals were diseased or not, it was quite idle to pass such Acts of Parliament at all.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

thought that a more useless body than the inspectors of foot-and-mouth disease could not exist, and regarded the London superintendents as an equally useless body. A penalty on anyone caught driving diseased cattle on public roads, enforced by Justices, would be quite sufficient, and save every county great annual and useless expense.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

submitted that it was impossible for the Government to constantly interfere with the cattle trade without they had the advice of some scientific persons, whose services they could not secure without they were adequately remunerated.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he would remind the right hon. Baronet that both sides of the House had forced the Government to take steps to prevent the importation of cattle disease, and that therefore they ought not to refuse now to pay the necessary expenses resulting from the course they had adopted.

COLONEL CORBETT

supported the Vote, on the ground that it would be unwise to scrutinize too carefully the means that were adopted to prevent the importation of cattle disease into this country.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

asked, and repeated the question, whether the Registrar of the Privy Council, like a County Court Judge, undertook, on his appointment, to give his whole time to the duties of the office?

MR. LIDDELL

said, he also thought it desirable to check the increase of the staff of the Department, but was willing to leave the matter to its discretion. There was, however, great danger in the accumulation of work on certain individuals. The Department ought to see that each individual had such an amount of work as he could perform properly, and not to give him more than he was able to do. The concentration of work on one individual, and asking him to do more than he was capable of doing, was a false economy.

MR. BAXTER

said, no doubt the understanding was the Registrar was to give his whole time for the salary; but additional duties had since been imposed upon him, and that was a reason for increasing his pay.

MR. MONK

said, the explanation of the Secretary to the Treasury was unsatisfactory, and he hoped the hon. Member for Warrington would divide the Committee.

MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUN

asked whether the Registrar had at first too little to do, or now had too much to do?

DR. BREWER

said, there was not an officer in the metropolis whose salary was not raised with the increase of duty.

MR. D. DALRYMPLE

said, with regard to the Registrar, he was quite certain that an official of equal efficiency could not be obtained without the payment of a large salary. It should also be borne in mind that considerable additions had been made to the work performed by this gentleman.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

deprecated what looked like a personal attack on the Registrar.

MR. RYLANDS

repudiated any intention to make a personal attack, and, while willing not to press the Amendment, would leave it to be disposed of by the Committee.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 74: Majority 46.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;

Committee to sit again upon Monday next.