CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS. (Hansard, 29 June 1875)

§ SIR WALTER BARTTELOT
suggested that each Department should state on its own account the amount of stationery it required, so that the House might see whether the money was fairly and properly spent.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
agreed that further information on the subject of the Vote was necessary. He wished to call attention to the inquiry over which the hon. Member for Hackney presided, in order to ascertain how far the recommendations of the Committee had been acted on. There was one suggestion which ought to be carried out, and that was a return to the old practice of keeping an account of the expenditure for stationery by each Department of the Government. It was not only the best, but, indeed, the sole mode, of exercising some influence on an expenditure which the superintendent of the Department was powerless to control. By means of comparative statements of several years, the progress of this outlay could be seen; and influence brought to bear against its progress.

§ MR. JOHN HOLMS
said, he hoped to hear how far the Treasury had endeavoured to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee appointed to inquire as to the purchase and sale of stores in our public Departments. It was recommended by the Committee that there should be better regulations as to taking stock, and that the expenditure of each Department for stationery should be ascertained. Another recommendation of the Committee was that the statutes of the realm should be printed and published by the Stationery Department in a cheap form.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
stated that there had not yet been sufficient time to carry the recommendations of the Committee into effect, but he hoped the House would have the required information at its disposal next year. There had not as yet been any formal meeting of the officers engaged in the purchase of stores as suggested by the Committee; but a very able Memorandum, prepared by 744 Mr. Rowsell, of the Admiralty, had been issued, which would go some way towards meeting the requirements of the case. As hon. Members knew, it was impossible to impose a new duty on any Department without being called upon to provide a fresh staff; but he could assure the House that the objects which the Committee had in view were not being lost sight of. The reprinting of the statutes in a cheap form, as recommended by the Committee, was being proceeded with, and he hoped they would be issued at something less than 5s.

§ MR. BUTT
called attention to the fact that the Imperial notices were not published in The Dublin Gazette, and suggested that it should be done in future.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, he was not conversant with the principles on which The Dublin Gazette was published, but he would make inquiries on the point.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, the cost of The Edinburgh Gazette was £213 14s. only, and the profit £2,632, and asked if the prices of the advertisements could not be reduced to the public?

§ MR. DILLWYN
called attention to the item of £200 remuneration to two Army and two Navy officials for preparing the Army and Navy Lists, and asked why the amounts were not carried to the Army and Navy Estimates?

§ MR. MACDONALD
asked if this was an additional sum to their ordinary salaries?

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, it was placed in the Estimate because the profits of the two lists went to the Stationery Department. This was an additional payment.

§ MR. MELLOR
called attention to the recent purchase of two houses in the City, and on their being leased on the following day to the sellers for 85 years at a rental of about 4 per cent on the purchase money.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, his attention had not been called to it, but he would see to it.

§ MR. DILLWYN
wished for some explanation with regard to the Surveyor of Public Works. That gentleman was paid partly by salary and partly by commission, and he thought such a system 745 highly objectionable. He should like to know what the Surveyor was actually paid, and whether it was not possible that his whole time might be devoted to the public service instead of being allowed to take private practice?

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, the present Government were not in any way responsible for the arrangements made with the Surveyor of Works. That gentleman was very well known in the public service, and he (Mr. W. H. Smith) believed the late Government placed the greatest confidence in him. He believed the Surveyor of Works had rendered very great assistance to every Chancellor of the Exchequer and every Prime Minister who had consulted him upon matters affecting the public interests as far as works and buildings were concerned. The present arrangement was made in 1869 by the Government of that day, after careful inquiry. The Surveyor of Works received a salary of £750, and a commission upon purchases or arrangements which he might effect on behalf of the Government of the day, which brought up the salary to the average amount of former times. His hon. Friend the Member for Swansea had given Notice of a Motion on the subject for Friday, and he (Mr. W. H. Smith) would then be prepared, if his hon. Friend wished it, to state exactly what was the amount which had been paid to the Surveyor of Works by the Government.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, a gentleman in large private practice was able to give a great deal of valuable information to the Government with regard to property to be purchased.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
asked that the Papers relative to the arrangement entered into in 1869 should be laid before the House.

§ MR. DODDS
asked the rate of commission paid.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, he was unable to say; but he would have a statement prepared showing the commission, and lay it on the Table of the House.

An hon. MEMBER
asked for an explanation respecting the charge for repairs at Broadmoor.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, the Board of Works was responsible for those repairs being properly charged.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
urged that the charge for repairs ought to be in- 746 cluded in the Vote for Broadmoor, so that the House could see what was the whole of the expenditure for Broadmoor, or at any rate there ought to be a marginal note stating the sums taken in previous Votes of the same year.