MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 12 May 1874)

§ MR. DILLWYN
, in moving that a Select Committee be appointed— 184 To inquire into and report on the Salaries and Emoluments of the Officers of the Two Houses of Parliament, with the view, as vacancies occur, of fixing them upon an equitable basis, said, he had no intention whatever of disturbing the present holders of these offices; on the contrary, if it were found that any of them were paid upon too low a scale, he should desire that their salaries should be raised to the proper amount. There was a great discrepancy between the salaries paid to the officers of the two Houses, those of the House of Lords being paid on a far higher scale than were those of the Commons. Thus the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords received £2,500 per annum, while the Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons received only £1,500 a-year. The Clerk of the Parliaments in the House of Lords received £2,500 a-year, while in the House of Commons he only received £2,000 per annum. The Reading Clerk in the House of Lords received £1,200 per annum, while the Clerk's Assistant in the House of Commons received only £1,000 per annum. The 25 clerks in the House of Lords received among them £14,470, or an average of £579 per individual, while the 34 clerks of the House of Commons received only £15,476 or an average of £455 per individual. The junior clerks in the House of Lords received an annual increment of £20, while those in the House of Commons received an annual increment of £10. The principal door-keeper in the House of Lords received £500 per annum, while the same officer in the House of Commons received only £300 per annum. The second door-keeper in the House of Lords received £300 per annum, while the same officer in the House of Commons received only £250. The Serjeant-at-Arms in the House of Lords received £1,500 per annum, while the same officer in the House of Commons received only £1,200. The Yeoman Usher of the Black Pod in the House of Lords received £1,000 per annum, while the Assistant Serjeant of the House of Commons received only £800 per annum. Neither in that House nor in Committees could the duties of their officers be less severe and arduous than those discharged by the officers of the House of Lords. Indeed, he should have 185 thought the duties of the former were rather more severe. What he wanted the Committee to be appointed for, was in order that they might ascertain and report whether the officers of the House of Lords were paid too much or those of the Lower House too little. If the former, then it must be the duty of the House of Commons, as guardians of the public purse, to call their Lordships' attention to the fact, because it was most important that their own establishment should be the model on which to form the rest of the Estimates. He might be told that they ought not to interfere with the House of Lords; but he hoped that argument would not be urged, as he did not bring forward this Motion in any disrespect to them, thinking, on the contrary, that that House would rather be obliged to those who would point out where their officers were overpaid. He therefore trusted the Inquiry would be granted.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
seconded the Motion.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he thought the hon. Member would, on reflection, see that the question he raised by this proposal was one which was not merely confined to the differences between the salaries of certain gentlemen who might be performing services on a footing of equality, but that it entered into considerations of a different character affecting the relations between the two Houses of Parliament. In this matter there had always been a considerable delicacy as to the mode in which the House of Commons had behaved towards the other House, and as to the mode in which the salaries of the officials had been treated. Up to a comparatively recent time it was the practice of the House of Lords to pay the salaries of its own officers out of the fees received by that House, and if the fees were not sufficient, to certify through the proper channel the amount required to make good the deficiency, which, almost as a matter of course, was voted by this House. But of late years it had been felt by the Members of the House of 186 Lords themselves that it was desirable to change the practice, and he believed in the year 1868 or 1869 a Select Committee was appointed by the House of Lords to consider the position of the salaries of their different officers. That Committee reported, and, after referring to the arrangements which had been for many years in existence, proposed that in future the fees received in the House of Lords should be paid into the Exchequer, and that the sums which were required to pay the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords should be voted in full by the House of Commons. Therefore, they had recently had in the Estimates the sums which were required for these salaries, which were the salaries that had been given for a long time, and there was no attempt to increase them. On the contrary, an inspection of the Estimates would show that the tendency had been to diminish them. For instance, in the Estimates of the present year, in the department of the Lord Chancellor one office was abolished, saving £200 a-year in a Vote of £4,000, and a Senior clerkship at a salary of £1,150 had been abolished out of a Vote of £23,000. The salary of the Chief Clerk of the Parliament Office stood now at £1,500, and it was proposed to reduce it to £1,200 on the next vacancy. There were other Votes in the Estimates from which it would be seen that the House of Lords were themselves proceeding on every proper opportunity to keep down the expenses of their establishment. The practice was for a Committee to be appointed every year by the House of Lords which settled the salaries, and sent the amounts to the Treasury, and the Treasury submitted them to Parliament. If it were proposed by the House of Lords or by this Committee that there should be any increase in the Votes, the attention of the Government and the House would, of course, be directed to it. On the other hand, that there should be a reduction in the salaries of gentlemen who for years had been fulfilling the duties assigned to them was what the hon. Member himself did not propose. All that he asked for was that there should be some general inquiry into those salaries, not by the authority of the House of Lords as was done now, but by a proceeding on the part of the House of Commons. Whether the salaries were or were not 187 such as hon. Members would like to see them—and, for his own part, he did not object to them—the mode of proceeding proposed by the hon. Gentleman was one which, in his opinion, this House should be very slow to adopt lest it might raise a question between the two Houses which it would be most undesirable to provoke. If any action was to be taken, it ought to be by a Joint Committee of both Houses. It would be—he would not say "unconstitutional," because that was a word which was used on so many different occasions that it had almost ceased to have a definite meaning—but it would be a very great infringement of the practice which had always prevailed between the two Houses, and would be rather an offensive measure towards the House of Lords if they were to appoint a Committee of this House to inquire into the salaries of the officers of the other House of Parliament. He would like to know how the Committee so appointed would conduct its proceedings. It would be necessary that the Committee should obtain evidence in order to know the duties of the officers of the House of Lords, and therefore that they should invite the attendance of Members of the other House of Parliament to give evidence. But hon. Members were aware the Members of either House were not in the habit of attending before Committees of the other, unless with the sanction of the House of which they were Members, and it would be impossible for the House of Commons by its own authority to compel the Members of the other House to appear before a Select Committee of this House. He would, therefore, put it to the hon. Member and the House whether it was desirable for the comparatively small object in view—an object which might be attained in other ways—to raise questions of such delicacy and, he would say, such difficulty. There was no disposition on the part of the House of Lords unduly to keep up the salaries of its officers. The differences to which the hon. Gentleman pointed might appear to indicate some inequality in the case of persons charged with an equal amount of duty; but if the hon. Gentleman went through all the salaries in the Civil Service, if he were to compare the cases of right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, he would find great inequalities in the salaries of men 188 who had to discharge duties of equal responsibility. It would not be possible for the Select Committee to go with any advantage into the salaries of all the officers throughout the service with a view to do what the hon. Gentleman proposed. It would be far better to proceed in this matter carefully and cautiously, and in the spirit in which the Committee of the House of Lords dealt with it on the occasions of new appointments, which they always brought under the notice of the Government, and through them of the House of Commons.

§ SIR HENRY WOLFF
said, he thought that an inquiry would be very desirable in regard to the salaries of the officers of the House of Commons, which in very many cases were totally inadequate to the duties which had to be performed. He therefore proposed an Amendment to restrict the inquiry of the Select Committee that had been moved for, to the officers of that House.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
observed that, in his opinion, the Amendment got rid of the objections to which the Motion was obnoxious.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he was not prepared to vote either for the original Motion or for the Amendment. As regarded the Amendment, which proposed the appointment of a Committee to inquire into nothing more than the scale of salaries of officers of the House of Commons, he was not aware that anybody had attempted to make out a case showing that the salaries of the officials of that House were settled upon an inequitable basis. [Sir HENRY WOLFF said, he was ready to omit the words referred to.] In that ease there was really nothing to inquire into. The original Motion rested upon this—that a Committee should be appointed to inquire, whether, in comparison with the salaries paid by the House of Lords, the salaries paid by the House of Commons did not stand upon an inequitable 189 basis. That was a question on which much might be said; but he thought the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to prevail. It would be no breach of the privileges of the House of Lords to inquire into the subject; but they ought, he thought, to respect the susceptibilities of the House of Lords as much as they would expect the House of Lords to respect theirs. The proper mode of proceeding would be to invite the Lords to take part in a Joint Committee of Inquiry, or to open the matter to them by means of a conference or message. No doubt the salaries of the House of Lords were now voted, and therefore admitted to be within the control of the House of Commons, still they ought not to interfere with the salaries unless there should appear on the Votes some abuse which called immediately for a remedy. Under any circumstances, he thought the present time was especially inopportune for entering into any inquiry on the subject. The House of Lords had already parted with some of its judicial functions, and was probably about to part with more, and that must lead to some modification of the salaries of the officials. They ought to wait until those measures had been completed, in order that they might be in a position to know exactly what were the functions required in the other House in the altered state of things. Under these circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friend would content himself with having called attention to the subject, and would be willing to withdraw his Motion.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, that the proposed inquiry was a sort of idle dealing with a very critical and dangerous question. The present was not a time to raise unnecessarily, and about a very trifling matter, a question full of all sorts of difficulties, and at a moment, too, when in a great neighbouring country the subject of the existence of a second Legislative Chamber was being discussed.

MR. DLLLWYN
said, he could not but believe that if they asked the House of Lords respectfully to allow their officers to be examined, a consent would be given. He was not wedded to the course he had proposed; and therefore if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give an assurance that he would endeavour to induce the other House to have 190 a Joint Committee to inquire into the matter, or if the Treasury themselves would look into the subject, he would at once withdraw his Motion.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
observed that when he had said there was another way of dealing with the matter, he might also have mentioned the way in which it was now dealt with. After the sums were certified, an estimate and statement were laid before a Committee of the House of Lords, and by them submitted to the Treasury, and then laid before Parliament in the annual Estimates; and if it should appear to the Treasury that there was reason to object to any of the proposals made by the Committee, they would feel it their duty to challenge them as they might any other Estimates. The hon. Gentleman might rest assured that the matter would be dealt with in a fair and impartial spirit on all sides. He also trusted the hon. Member (Sir Henry Wolff) would withdraw his Amendment.

SIR HENRY WOLFE
said, he would withdraw his Amendment.