§ (22.) £36,244, to complete the sum for House of Lords Offices.
§ MR. MONKasked why an allowance of £500 a-year in lieu of residence was made to the Clerk of the House of Lords? The Assistant Clerk had a salary of £1,800 a-year, and in addition was allowed £300 per annum for his official residence at 20, Old Palace Yard. He was sure that in the palatial building in which they were assembled there must be ample room for the residences for the Clerk of Parliaments and the Assistant Clerk. It seemed to him that in buildings which had cost so much money and contained so many separate rooms, there ought to be found an official residence for all the Clerks of Parliament, as well for those belonging to the House of Lords as for those belonging to the House of Commons, He should be glad to know why, if the Clerk of that House was provided with an official residence, the Clerk of Parliaments connected with the House of Lords should have no residence, but £500 a-year allowed to him in lieu of one?
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not inform the hon. Member why those officials were not provided with residences within that building like the officers of the House of Commons. He could only imagine that it was owing to the fact that there was not a sufficient number of residences attached to the House to accommodate all the officers entitled to residences. It was usual to make allowances for houses to those officials for whom there were no residences. In some instances, he believed, similar allowances were made to officials of that House where the accommodation in the building was not sufficient for them.
§ MR. MONKthought that some further information should be given on this subject; for it was not a question of some subordinate officer being without a residence, but of the two principal officials of the House of Lords, who were certainly entitled to residences in the Palace of Westminster. It was incorrect to say that there was not room for them. If any persons were entitled to residences in the 668 House, it surely was the Clerk of Parliaments and the Assistant Clerk. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could inform the Committee where the non-official residences were situate, and where the Clerk of Parliaments was supposed to reside? In his opinion, the Clerk of Parliaments ought to have an official residence, and that residence should be known. It was an absurd thing to say that there was not room in the House of Lords for the principal official of that House. If no explanation was given on this subject, he should feel it his duty to make a Motion on it upon Report.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the real explanation of this subject was that the rooms provided for these officials had been appropriated, in the interests of the Public Service, for other purposes. He believed that that was done with the sanction of the officers concerned. The residence of the Clerk of Parliaments was in Bruton Street.
§ MR. MONKfelt compelled to enter a protest against such a system, and should be glad if that protest would be seconded by some other hon. Member. He protested against the Clerk of Parliaments of the House of Lords being allowed to reside in his own private residence in Bruton Street. He ought to reside in the Palace of Westminster, just as much as the Clerk of the House of Commons. By residing in that House it was known where they were to be found; and Members ought not to have to go to Bruton Street, or elsewhere, to find the Clerk of Parliaments. It was a most improper practice; and it was a monstrous thing to say that because the Clerk of Parliaments preferred to reside at his private residence, some distance from the House of Lords, he should be allowed to do so, while his official residence and that of the Assistant Clerk were to be appropriated to the use of Public Commissions. There were plenty of rooms in that House and in the House of Lords where Public Commissions and Committees could be held. In the interests of the public, it was most undesirable that these officers should reside in private residences, paid for by the country, when official residences had been erected for them at the public expense.
§ Vote agreed to.
669§ (23.) £41,711, to complete the sum for the House of Commons Offices.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDasked whether the Government had considered the relative scale of pay of the officers of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons? The gentlemen to whom the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had been referring received larger salaries than were paid to the Clerks of that House. The amount of work done by the two sets of officers would not bear comparison for one moment. It was not necessary for him to state that the House of Lords sat only on rare occasions, and that its officers were not overworked; whereas the House of Commons sat very frequently, and for a long time together, and its officers had a very considerable amount of labour and work to go through. When there was that marked difference of salary in favour of the officers of that House, which had very little business, it was a matter of unfairness, which ought to be redressed; and he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he had considered the matter, and had any proposal to make to the House on the subject? The same feeling existed now as had existed for many years past on the subject of those salaries. A re-arrangement of the salaries properly made would not involve the country in any additional expenditure.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONremarked, that the matter rested entirely with the House of Commons, and if the House thought that an alteration should be made in the salary of its officers, he would be the last person in the world to resist such an alteration; but at present each House really settled the salaries paid to its own officials. While the House of Commons had no control over the salaries of the officials of the House of Lords, it might, if it pleased, make an alteration and increase the salaries of its own officers. He would remind the hon. Member that it was at the proposal of the House that one of its most respected officials had had his salary increased. His salary was altered on the Motion of the House, and the House had it entirely in its own hands to regulate the salaries of its officials.
§ MAJOR NOLANwished for some information upon a point of Order. The Secretary to the Treasury had told them 670 that the House of Commons could settle the salaries of its own officers; but he should like to know whether, in that instance, an exception was made to the ordinary rule? Could hon. Members propose that the salaries of the officials of the House should be increased? The general rule was that it was only the Government which could initiate any proposal for an increase of the Estimates; and that a proposal for an increase could only be brought forward in the way which the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid) had made the suggestion.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhad not intended to say that hon. Members could act in the way suggested. His meaning was that the Treasury would not stand in the way of an expression of the opinion of the House of Commons on the subject. He had pointed out that the suggestion that the salary of the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Raikes) should be raised came from hon. Members, and that the salary was raised by the Government at the suggestion of the House of Commons. It only rested with the Government to increase the expenditure; but it would be for the House of Commons to express a wish upon the subject.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, that there was one point in the statement of the hon. Gentleman to which he demurred—namely, that the House of Commons had no right to control the salaries of the officials of the House of Lords. He considered that view entirely erroneous. If the House had no right to control those salaries, they ought to be taken out of the Estimates; but while they remained in, hon. Members of the House had a right to criticize them. He thought the Government should consider what salaries should fairly be appropriated to the different officers, be aringin mind the work to be done.
§ MR. GREGORYobserved, that the question was how the opinion of the House was to be expressed that the salary of the Clerks should be increased? He did not see how any direct expression was to be given to their opinion; but if anything were to be gathered from the conversation that had taken place in the House upon the topic, it was that the feeling of the House was that the salaries of the gentlemen were now too small. He ventured to hope that the 671 Government would take this conversation, and such explanations as they had been able to give of their feelings upon this occasion, as an expression of opinion of the House that the salaries of the Clerks of the House should be augmented.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought hon. Members could not help recognizing the very great and valuable services they received from the officers of that House. He should certainly be very much disinclined to deal with officers whose services were of such a valuable character in a niggardly manner. At the same time, they were approaching the subject in a way which was neither convenient nor business-like. His hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Sir. Julian Goldsmid) pointed out that a discrepancy existed between the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords and those of the officers of the House of Commons. He said, very truly, that the officers of the House of Lords had nothing like the same amount of duty to perform as their own; and, therefore, he said that it was an unreasonable thing that their officers should not be paid as much as the officials of the other House. It might be a reasonable thing to bring down the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords to the amount paid to those of the House of Commons. He (Mr. Rylands) did not say whether it was reasonable to increase the salaries of the officers of the House of Commons; but what appeared to him to be the proper course to pursue was this—that the Government should deal with the whole question of the salaries of the officers of both Houses. They ought not to be satisfied with a dull, loose, and desultory conversation such as this—a conversation in which very few hon. Members participated; but, on their responsibility, they should carefully consider the amount of duty performed by the officers in the two Houses; and, as suggested by his hon. Friend (Sir Julian Goldsmid), they ought to prepare a plan under which, if any officers were underpaid, their salaries should be increased, and if any officers were overpaid, their salaries should be diminished. He thought this was a matter in which there would be little difficulty in arriving at a proper arrangement between the two Houses; but it was most undesirable that in regard to the salaries of 672 public officials in any Department whatever that they should, by a discussion such as this, seek to influence Government probably to make changes in salaries which might not be absolutely necessary or justified.
§ MR. O'CLERYsaid, he had brought the matter forward on a previous occasion, and then he thought it his duty to institute a comparison between the amount of work done by the officials of the House of Lords and those discharged by the officials of the House of Commons. At the time the salaries were arranged the cost of living was little more than half what it was at present. He believed that inquiry was instituted; and many persons in authority thought that it would be unnecessary to increase the salaries, forsooth, because 20 persons would apply for a vacancy at the present salary. He hardly thought it was fair to bring forward such an argument as that. It was not fair, at all events, to bring it forward as a reason for refusing an advance of salary to men who held positions of trust. It was contrary to usage, so far as he knew, to put up situations—posts, he would rather say, of trust—involving the strictest attention to duty, to public competition, or to offer them to men who would bid the lowest price. If that principle were adopted, the highest officials in the land would have many competitors. He had no doubt that there was not a post in Her Majesty's Government that they would not got 20 gentlemen in England ready to do the work for half the sum that was paid to the present occupant. At the time the Chairman of Committees took his position the comparison was made between that office and the one held by the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords; and that was one of the chief reasons advanced why the salary of the Chairman of Ways and Means should be materially advanced, and no one objected to it at that time. He thought it was hardly fair that the objection should be taken now in the case of men who had barely enough to eke out an existence. Would the Committee grudge a miserable advance to men to whom it would mean the difference between poverty and competence? He regretted that an hon. Gentleman who was essentially a Liberal—the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands)—and who, were a Liberal 673 Administration to come into power, would probably expect to be a Member of it, should, though he always attempted to influence the Government, now declare that he had no wish to influence them in this matter. When the case of these unfortunate officers—many of them connected with that House—who were compelled to strain every point to discharge their duties well, was brought forward, the hon. Gentleman disclaimed all intention of influencing Her Majesty's Government. This was only a part, it was only a sample, of the cheese-paring policy which a Liberal Administration would establish; and he regretted to find that the Government seemed to think that Englishmen would begrudge to give these officials a fair wage for honest work. Let them look at the way the officials were paid at Versailles. They were paid far better in proportion than the officials of that House. He had made inquiries at Berlin, and although Trance and Germany might not claim to be as wealthy as England, still, having regard to the dignity of the several Assemblies, he thought the officials of the House of Commons, at all events, should be placed above a position of want—of straining for existence. Now, what were the facts? One fact was that many officials in that House were compelled to seek work during the Recess. He hardly thought that that was consistent with the dignity of the House of Commons—that its officers should be compelled to be the servant of others, of private individuals. He thought such matters ought to be taken into account; and he ventured to express an earnest hope that the Government would not allow another year to pass over without the increase being made. For his own part, he was satisfied the country would not object to the increase.
DR. CAMERONsaid, he should be sorry to see any spirit savouring of parsimony entering into their dealings with the officials of that House; but it struck him this was not the time to propose an increase of salary all round. His hon. Friend who had just spoken was very liberal in his proposals; but he did not say to whom he referred when he spoke of underpaid and starving officials. If, under this pretence of increasing the salaries of starving offi- 674 cials, there was to be an addition made to salaries above £1,000 a-year, he should protest at the present moment, when there was general distress in the country, against anything of the kind being done. It would be very unpopular and unwise a step on the part of the Government to make anything like a general increase in the salaries of the officials of the House.
§ MR. BARINGsaid, he would like to supplement the remarks just made by the hon. Member for Glasgow by a few words of his own. He understood the cost of living had very much decreased, and, therefore, persons who had fixed salaries were proportionately far better off now than they were a few years ago, when there would have been a much better case in favour of raising salaries. Taking that into account, and the great prostration of trade, and the comparative poverty in the country, he thought great care should be taken before a general increase of salaries was made. He said this, though he had the greatest respect for those officials whose salaries it was proposed to increase.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought he might safely leave the question of the salaries of the officials of the House of Commons where it was. As to the House of Lords, there was a Committee appointed annually to settle the salaries in that House; and with regard to the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker was Chairman of a Committee, of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a Member, which considered and settled the salaries; and the Treasury never interfered in the matter. The Treasury accepted the Report of the Committee, and the amount was placed in the Estimates. With regard to the House of Lords, which was the point to which the hon. Baronet who introduced this question directed attention last year as well as this year, he would remind him that the House of Lords never came before the Treasury at all. After the Report of the Committee came from the Committee of the Peers it went to the Auditor General for revision; it did not come under the notice of the Treasury at all; and that was in accordance with an arrangement come to as to the fees of the Upper House.
§ MR. DILLWYNcould not quite agree with what had fallen from the 675 hon. Baronet with regard to the Reports of the Committee being final. He could not admit that.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he meant so far as the Treasury was concerned.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, that House had a right to criticize the Reports. He maintained that; and he could not admit the dogma that the Reports were final—that the House of Commons must accept as final any Report brought before the House for consideration. He reserved and claimed the right to criticize freely every item.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONprotested as strongly as he could against the assumption of the hon. Member that he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had said anything of the nature imputed to him by the hon. Member. He had said that the Treasury accepted as final the Votes of these Committees, and placed them in the Estimates; and he never insinuated that they were not subject to criticism by the House. All he had said was that the Treasury accepted the figures and presented them to the House.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, then the hon. Baronet admitted his argument—that they had a right to criticize the salaries of the officials of the House of Lords. He thought a great many of the officers of the House of Lords were overpaid, whereas some of the officers of the House of Commons were underpaid. The scale might be arranged fairly with regard to both Departments, and not involve any increase in expenses whatever; and, although the hon. Gentleman refused to control them, he (Sir Julian Goldsmid) said it was his business to control them as Secretary to the Treasury. He thought the Votes for the officers of the House of Lords being on the Paper, they had a right to suggest to the Government to control them as they controlled all other items.
§ MR. E. JENKINSsaid, in the early part of the evening he referred to a Vote taken for the police for the Houses of Parliament. There was another Vote under this head of £438 for the attendance of police during the Session. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would explain how many policemen were employed in the Houses of Parliament, and what this particular Vote for police in the House of Com- 676 mons covered? He had reflected on the use of police in some of the Lobbies in the House of Commons, not that he reflected on the police themselves, but that it hardly seemed a proper thing that inside the House it should be deemed necessary to place those representatives of law and order. Outside, where they found Carlyle's maxim in the letter carried out—"anarchy plus the policeman"—policemen were in their proper place; but at Mr. Speaker's door and in the Lobby the police all scattered about—this did not seem right; and he thought it would be better if ordinary attendants were there, who might be employed in waiting upon Members and facilitating the transmission of messages from strangers who visited the House and Members who might be in various parts of the building. He had intended to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman who had now left the front Bench with regard to the accommodation provided for strangers. He knew of no other House, with the pretensions of theirs, where strangers were kept standing in a draughty Lobby, on a stone floor, often for half-an-hour, while Members were being looked for. There could be no difficulty in laying a piece of carpet and placing some seats in the Lobby, so that persons who came to see Members might not be left to kick their heels about like a lot of footmen. As he pointed out, if they went to the Chamber of Deputies at Versailles, visitors were shown into a handsome apartment, they were accosted by a servitor, they were supplied with writing materials, and they found other conveniences provided. While there he had observed that it was of no consequence what the appearance of the visitors was, or the sex—they were all treated with the same politeness. If some similar arrangements were made here, they would conduce very much to the comfort of the people who came to the House, and who complained more than Members thought. The present state of affairs was not the fault of any official or officials. If there was not a sufficient number of attendants, it must be owing to some economy which was unintentionally exercised. The Sergeant-at-Arms and all under him kept affairs in perfect order, and there were no complaints. Everything was done for the comfort of Members. Where the inconvenience was felt was 677 in using policemen as messengers, and the result was they had not a sufficiently active service for the convenience of Members.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he would not dispute that it was not possible to make some arrangement for visitors more in accordance with comfort, perhaps, than those that existed. With, regard to the question of police, he thought his hon. Friend had pointed out that that was a matter apart altogether from the Office which he filled, and rested really with Mr. Speaker and other officers of the House, who had complete control over the officers in attendance, and who had the custody of the House itself. The question was asked about the additional money for the police who attended during the Sitting of the House. There was a certain number of police whose services were not required during the whole year. There were some who had the custody of the building; but there were some who were employed, as the hon. Member had pointed out, in the Lobbies and other parts of the House during the time it was open for the Session, and the amount here put down was for those additional police required beyond the ordinary number for the custody of the House. His hon. Friend had stated that he would make a note of the fact, and bring the point under the notice of those officials who had control of it.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (24.) £49,815, to complete the sum for the Treasury.
§ MR. RYLANDScalled the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to the amount put down for Parliamentary Counsel, fees, and salaries. Exactly the same amount was put down as appeared last year. They had the salaries of Parliamentary Counsel £5,666, then they had foes to Counsel to assist Parliamentary Counsel on Bills £1,000, and then there was the amount for draftsmen specially employed in drafting Bills £700. Now, he would remind the Secretary to the Treasury that last year the Government came down on two occasions for further sums to supplement that Vote for Parliamentary Counsel, and he thought he was correct in saying that altogether the amount paid for Counsel's assistance was almost as large as the sum paid to 678 the Counsel on the establishment. He wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there was any reasonable expectation that the Estimate they had now before them would not be exceeded? It was most inconvenient to have the Estimates brought forward year after year, and yet afterwards Supplementary Votes were asked for. Naturally that must excite remark on the inconvenience it caused in dealing with the Expenditure of the country. Last year was by no means the first occasion on which those Supplementary Votes for assistance to Parliamentary Counsel were asked for. It had grown to be a practice to employ assistance. He should be glad to know if the hon. Gentleman thought the Estimates could really be relied on. The Committee had a right to expect that there would be placed on the Paper the full amount the Government reasonably expected to require, and if they thought this sum would not be sufficient, then they ought to put down a higher Estimate. He pressed this on the attention of the Government to induce them to take steps to prevent the necessity of a Supplementary Estimate by asking for a larger sum at the outset. He hoped to have a clear and precise answer to the question.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member that it was far more preferable in the interests of the Public Service, and the Treasury also, that a proper Estimate should be submitted, and that there should not be Supplementary Estimates introduced as the Government had to do on one or two occasions before. But he might point out how excessively difficult it was to forecast the exact amount that would be required. The hon. Member was aware that now and then legislation was placed before that House which was of a character that required the greatest care in its preparation. He would instance the case which led to the Supplementary Estimate of last year—the Criminal Code Bill. The preparation of that Bill had swallowed up a large proportion of the amount of the Supplementary Estimate which he had to ask the House for last year. There was another Bill last year which also led to extra expenditure. He referred to the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill—a 679 measure with which he had so much to do in that House. These matters required a great deal of special knowledge, and Counsel had to be selected for that purpose. He could not himself see, in the preparation of the Bills this Session, any reason to justify him in thinking that the present Estimate would be exceeded. He went very carefully into this matter with the view of avoiding any difficulty in the future; but he could not pledge himself that the Estimate would not be exceeded. There might be additional pressure from Bills, but this was a matter which he could not forecast.
§ MR. WHITWELLcalled attention to the item for the salary of the Auditor of the Civil List, and asked for an explanation. The official in question appeared to have two salaries. But after this, this gentleman had a separate annuity as messenger to the Order of the Bath. He was given a very important appointment in the Treasury, worth £1,500 a-year. Pensions were usually given to compensate gentlemen who were no longer able to perform their duties, yet, notwithstanding the fact that this gentleman had a pension, they found him employed again, and receiving a salary. There were a number of cases of that kind in the Book.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONexplained that the Treasury was empowered by the 56 Geo. III. to appoint an Auditor of the Civil List Account, and his salary was originally paid out of the Civil List. In 1831, however, that official's salary was put on the Treasury establishment, and paid from the Vote, the salary being £1,300, which was afterwards reduced to £1,200. That arrangement was carried out by a Minute of 1834, which prescribed that whoever was appointed should perform the duties of Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, which was now given to a clerk of the Treasury, and had £300 added to his salary as clerk. The present Auditor was Mr. Law, one of the senior clerks in the Treasury; and the office, he might say, had existed since 1815.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he should like to hear something further as to this office. As he understood, the Auditor was appointed under the Act of Parliament by which the provisions of the Civil List were settled, and it was his 680 duty to see that the expenditure was correct and accurate—that the sums alleged to have been expended had been expended. It was a very proper duty to perform; but then the House knew nothing of the expenditure of the Civil List, and he presumed they were neither called upon nor entitled to inquire into what became of the money they voted. It appeared to him that this gentleman was not an officer of the House of Commons at all, and it was a most extraordinary thing that they should pay him £1,200 a-year in addition to his ordinary salary as clerk, and in addition to his pension of £86 5s. 10d. as messenger to the Order of the Bath. He presumed that he did no duty as a clerk at all, and that his whole time was taken up in fulfilling his duties as Auditor. Surely whoever required that duty performed should find the salary.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONbegged to remind the Committee that although one of the duties of this gentleman was to audit the Civil List, he also did a very considerable amount of Treasury work, being one of the principal officials of the Department. He received £1,200 as Auditor, and £300 as clerk, which brought his salary up to what he received for the particular class to which he belonged. He had, it must be remembered, one of the largests parts of the business of the Treasury to manage in his Department.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, that in this case there were two other clerks, one of whom received £500 a-year, and the other £350 a-year. The Secretary to the Treasury had told them that the duty of this official was to audit certain classes of the Civil List—that was to say, he supposed the Treasury had laid before them the expenditure of different classes of the Civil List, and they were aware whether the expenditure in one class was below the amount that was set apart in the Act of Parliament, or whether it was above the amount so set apart, and he was aware there was power to transfer from one Account to another in the event of there being a saving in one and a deficiency elsewhere. It might be all very well to have this audit, but it never came under the notice of the House of Commons, and so far as money was concerned they knew nothing of the result, and their opinion was never challenged upon it, 681 It did seem to him, therefore, that this was a question of the policy of paying for work in which they were not immediately interested.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (25.) £74,302, to complete the sum for the Home Office, agreed to.
§ (26.) £59,890, to complete the sum for the Foreign Office, agreed to.
§ (27.) £32,617, to complete the sum for the Colonial Office, agreed to.
§ (28.) £25,304, to complete the sum for the Privy Council Office, agreed to.
§
(29.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,270, 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 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he wished to make a few observations on this Vote, because there was a general impression abroad in many quarters that this Office was one which, whether considered as a whole or in detail, was not strictly necessary, and therefore required explanation. The ordinary ground upon which this Office was defended was, although no official work was attached to the Office of Lord Privy Seal, that, nevertheless, it was a very useful thing to have in any Cabinet some gentleman holding Cabinet rank, to whose position no particular departmental work was attached. He did not for one single moment dispute the force and accuracy of that argument; but he would, at the same time, point out to the Committee that the object in view could be equally attained, and had frequently been attained, by having in the Cabinet some Minister who did not hold any particular Office. Once quite recently, and if they went further back, quite frequently, Ministers were found in the Cabinet who held no particular Office. In Lord Aberdeen's Ministry, Lord John Russell for a short time led the House of Commons without holding any of the Offices which he had previously held. He had before that time held the highest Office in the country, that of Prime Minister, and yet he did not consider it out of keeping with his position for him 682 to lead the House without having any particular Office in the Cabinet. If they went further back, they would find that this same thing occurred in numerous cases. He believed he was accurate in saying that during the exceedingly long Administrations of Mr. Pelham and the Duke of Newcastle, the most efficient Minister was an ex-Chancellor, Lord Hardwicke; yet he held no particular Office. The same was the case with his son, the second Lord Hardwicke. Therefore, the main argument adduced for keeping up the Office was not one which could be put forward with unanswerable force. He might further point out that this argument failed, because, to be worth anything, it must be shown that every one of the Ministers who had held the Office of Lord Privy Seal were men whose services were of very great importance to the country, and could not very well be dispensed with by the Cabinet. He was perfectly aware that a short time ago a most eminent statesman did hold the Office of Lord Privy Seal, but then he held it in conjunction with the Office of First Lord of the Treasury; and, therefore, that argument could not be used. He did not wish for a moment to introduce the name of the present holder, or recent holders, of the Office, because that would be a disagreeable thing, savouring of personality; but still he would say, without fear of contradiction, that if they went over the names of the Ministers who had held this Office recently they would find that, although, no doubt, they had been men of dignity and much respected, yet as a rule they had not been men of such ability as to constitute them Ministers of the first rank. If it had been the intention of the Government to attach duties to this Office, it would not in the least signify whether the old name of the Office were kept up or not; but there never had been the very smallest tendency shown to attach any sort of work to the Office. Originally, no doubt, the Lord Privy Seal and the Lord President of the Council were two of the most important dignitaries of the State; and he remembered how Lord Macaulay, speaking of the reign of William III., pointed out as a most remarkable change in official hierarchy since that time, that then the important Officers of State were the Lord President and the Lord Privy Seal, while the First Lord of the Trea- 683 sury was absolutely nobody, and the Secretaries of State were persons, comparatively speaking, of no importance whatever, whereas all that had now been changed, so that the First Lord of the Treasury was the really important man, and the Secretaries of State ranked next to him. Since the time when Lord Chatham held the Office of Lord Privy Seal, and with it the rank, so far as it could be said officially to exist, of Prime Minister, there never had been any Minister of the very first rank put into the Office in order to bring him into the Cabinet. They had either been made Lord President of the Council, an Office to which duties were attached, or they had been brought into the Cabinet, as he had before explained, without office. Another reason against the retention of this Office was that it was an obstruction to Business. He would venture to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Office whether there were not certain documents of importance which originated in the Home Office, and from there had to go to the Office of the Lord Chancellor to receive the Great Seal; and whether it was not necessary for those documents to receive the Privy Seal before they could receive the Great Seal? According to a Committee of the House which had inquired into this matter, the Great Seal could not be set in motion without first setting in motion the Privy Seal. It was a sort of wheel within a wheel. It thus often happened, as he believed, that some document of considerable importance to the persons whom it affected could not receive full legal establishment and validity until it had received the Privy Seal; while the Lord Privy Seal, not having any regular departmental work, was often not in town, and persons were thus kept waiting. As the whole of the work of the Office had departed, and had not returned, as whatever use there was in the Office could be equally well obtained by bringing into the Cabinet a Minister without Office, and as the Office, with its head, and its chief clerk, and its assistant clerk, who helped the chief clerk—to do nothing, and its private secretary, and its messenger, put the State to very considerable expense, and caused delay in the transaction of Business, he moved the rejection of the Vote.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the arguments advanced to 684 them by the noble Lord were practically the same as those many of them had listened to on previous occasions, though they had been put just previously in the able manner in which the noble Lord was wont to advance in argument, and had been illustrated by that historical knowledge which they were all aware he possessed. The case really amounted to this. The Office was one of great antiquity; it had been handed down to them from many Cabinets in succession, and it had uniformly been found by the Members of every Government that it was very convenient that such an Office should exist, to which it should be possible to appoint some Nobleman, who should take part in the general Administration of the country, without having his time occupied by any particular departmental duties. When the noble Lord said that the difficulty might be got over by appointing Ministers to the Cabinet without Office, of course, that was correct to a certain extent; but, for his part, he did not think their experience in former times of that sort of arrangement was of a character which would lead them to think it was a generally convenient course to adopt. He did not say there were not cases in which this method had not been used of obtaining the services of Noblemen and Ministers of considerable importance. In the case of Lord John Russell, he certainly did sit on the Government Bench and lead the House for a short time without holding Office; but that was an exceptional arrangement which did not last long, and even at that time there was a Lord Privy Seal in the Cabinet. He did not think any sufficient reason had been given for altering the arrangement which now existed. The salary attached to the Office was not a very large one, and was not at all out of proportion to the duties which fell on the holder of the Office in his capacity of Member of the Cabinet. With regard to the observation about the block of Business occasioned by this at the Home Office, he was not aware that there was any such difficulty; and, in fact, he did not think there was any change in the position of this question since it was last discussed.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, when they remembered that the noble Lord who had moved the rejection of the Vote was the grandson of that Marquess of Lansdowne who had held a foremost 685 position in the Councils of England, and yet who for years was in the Cabinet without Office, they must consider his recommendation of some value. The present Government, above all others, had marked their opinion of the value of this Office of Lord Privy Seal by holding the appointment in suspense for a considerable time, on the ground that there was no noble Lord who thought it worth his while to take it. It was, therefore, attached for some time to the Office of the First Lord of the Treasury, which showed conclusively the value of the post to the Public Service. Most of the holders of it of late years, indeed, had been the Greenwich pensioners of past Ministries, noble Lords who were past work, but to whom it was desired to pay some compliment without much detriment to the Public Service. Parliament of late years, however, had set its face against sinecures, and, above all, it was bad that these sinecures in high places should be maintained. It was for that reason that many of them had objected to the maintenance of this Office; and he did not think the fact that they had had these arguments before was any reason why they should not urge them again, especially when they knew that the Prime Minister was of their opinion, and had been simply overruled by other Members of the Cabinet. He thought hon. Members who objected to this Vote ought to maintain their position, until they, in their turn, had persuaded the rest of the Ministers to follow the example of the Prime Minister. For his part, he did think it would be much better that they should abolish this Office of Lord Privy Seal, with its chief clerk, and its assistant clerk, and its private secretary, and its messenger. If it was found necessary to have the advice of some eminent statesman, any Government could follow the advice of the noble Lord, and imitate the example of the Marquess of Lansdowne.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, that the right hon. Baronet opposite, in referring to the position of Lord John Russell, said that it was objectionable. But that was no objection to it; and, for his own part, he was not aware that any inconvenience ever arose from it. Even if it was exceptional it was not therefore objectionable; and it was far better, at any rate, than keeping up these sinecures. They all know perfectly well 686 what the Office meant, and what it was for. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in telling them that this discussion had often been raised before, overlooked one fact—that the noble Lord who moved the reduction of the Vote not only declared that the Office was useless, but distinctly showed that it was obstructive. For his part, however, he did not think any new arguments were wanted to induce them to abolish this obsolete and useless Office.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the duties of this Office were, he believed, considerably diminished in 1851, and the appointment had, in a great measure, been simplified by the Acts of the 14 & 15 Vict., which abolished the office of clerks of the Privy Seal, and transferred the duties to the Home Office. The delays, therefore, that arose from the necessity of the prior sealing were done away with.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought the hon. Baronet had, by the statement which he had just made, strengthened the case against the Office; for it had been admitted by those who had held the Office before the year 1851 that the duties were very light. If, therefore, they had been much reduced since that date, they must at the present time be small indeed. An hon. Member once asked a former occupant of the Office what his duties really were. He replied that—
He could not say, but that twice a-year he had to stand at one end of a room while a gentleman at the other end of it made a horrid mess with a lot of sealing wax.It would be best to admit that the Office was a sinecure, and that it ought to be abolished. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that those arguments had often been raised before. That was quite true; but on former occasions those arguments had been met by a stronger pretence of a case from the other side of the House than that put forward on the present occasion. There had been no defence at all that evening. He had heard the Office defended on former occasions by arguments which, if valid, should have weight. Hon. Members were then told that the bidder of the Office of Privy Seal was useful to the Government, because he would take up Business that no other Member of the Government had time to deal with. But it was now notorious 687 that this official was of no use to the present Government in that way. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would like to know the frank and private opinion which the Government had of his services. The question of the retention of this Office could not be discussed without calling the attention of the House to the fact that the present occupant of the Office had made no speech whatever on public affairs, and had taken no part in the proceedings of the House of Lords, except upon one occasion when his private interests were concerned. He would, therefore, support the Motion of his noble Friend.
§ MR. WHITWELLwas sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would remember that many hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had voted, on former occasions, against this Office, by whomsoever it might have been held, and by whatsoever Government it might have been defended. The importance of the Office might be judged of from a small but amusing fact—namely, that the private secretary and assistant clerk were one and the same person, and that person was a second class superannuate from the Office of Works. There could be no more convincing proof of the nullity of the Office. A strong argument had been used against the Office that evening. He (Mr. Whitwell) could quite understand the objection of the Ministry to make any sudden change at the present time, when so many people throughout the country were badly off, and were acknowledged to be without work. Under such circumstances, and when the House had refused to take into consideration the services of its own employés, it would be utterly inconsistent to vote the money asked for. He hoped the Office would be abolished.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 25: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 68.)
§
(30.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £138,776, 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 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments.
§ MR. D. JENKINSasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he could give any information respecting the illegal detention of a vessel some time ago, and the trial which took place in the City of London, at which £1,600 damages were awarded for the detention? With regard to the Surveyors, he wished to point out that, in his opinion, naval officers were not the men best qualified to act in that capacity. He had nothing to say against naval officers; but they had not that practical experience of repairs which shipwrights possessed. He pointed to that circumstance in the hope that hereafter there would not be so large a number of naval officers placed in the position of Surveyors.
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he feared he was not fully informed upon the action referred to by the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. D. Jenkins); but if he would give Notice of a Question upon the subject it should be answered. With regard to the Surveyors, those naval officers upon the staff would, according to the practice of the Department, be retained; but the vacancies which occurred would be filled up from the Merchant Service.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, that he had been exceedingly anxious that an opportunity should be afforded that evening for the consideration of the case to which allusion had been made by his hon. Friend (Mr. D. Jenkins). It would not be of the slightest use for the hon. Member to put a Question in the House. The case referred to had caused a very great amount of public interest, as well as alarm, among shipowners. And the House was now asked to pay the salaries of the officers who had been, held by a Court of Law in damages to a very considerable amount. They might be told that there was going to be a new trial; but the case was one upon which the fullest information ought to be given. He could quite understand that the damages might be reduced, but nothing could alter the affair as far as the Board of Trade was concerned. If he (Mr. Rylands) understood the evidence aright, the officer of the Board of Trade acknowledged that he had detained the ship at the time when he knew that steps were being taken by the owner to put the ship in proper repair. He (Mr. Rylands) would have 689 been glad if this Vote could have been postponed, because he thought it would be a matter of public interest and importance if the point could be discussed in relation to the case as illustrated by the proceedings before a Court of Law. He had not expected the Vote to come on that evening, or he would have been prepared with all the facts in connection with the action. He feared that his information respecting the case was insufficient; but he felt sure that it contained enough to justify the Committee in hesitating to pass the Vote without further information.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, he knew something about the case referred to by the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. D. Jenkins). An action had been brought at the last sittings at Guildhall by a shipowner, against the Secretary to the Board of Trade, and against several Surveyors to the Board of Trade, and other officials, for the wrongful detention of a ship. During the case several points arose, some of which were points of law, and others points in connection with fact; and it was alleged by the plaintiff that the ship was improperly detained altogether, because the detention was not authorized by the Board of Trade, although the ship was detained by the Secretary to the Board. That raised a very important point of law, which would, undoubtedly, come before the Courts for consideration. The point of fact raised in the case was this. It was alleged that although the vessel might have been properly detained originally, yet, in making the survey, those who were intrusted with the survey—namely, some of the defendants—were guilty of excess, and the excess alleged was simply this. It was said that one of the Surveyors had ordered the owner of the vessel to take out what were called beam-fittings, in order that he might more fully examine the hull of the ship, and ascertain whether or not she was seaworthy. Now, in vessels of ordinary construction, the beam-fittings were pieces of timber inserted between the beams, and which could be taken out without any trouble or difficulty; indeed, they were left loose for the very purpose of being taken out, in order that the internal timbers might be examined. The Surveyor who gave this order was not aware at the time of giving it that this ship was constructed 690 in a different manner from other vessels; and it turned out, unfortunately, that she was differently constructed, and that these timbers were fitted and permanently fixed in the vessel. They were bolted to the timbers, and could not be removed without doing a considerable amount of damage to the vessel. Unfortunately, no communication was made to the Surveyor who gave the order, which was carried out without his attention having been called to it, and, no doubt, considerable damage was done and delay caused. The jury came to the conclusion that this was an excess of duty, and awarded considerable damages. On the other hand, the view of those who conducted the case for the Board of Trade was that the verdict of the jury was unsatisfactory, and an application for a new trial had been made, which now stood for the consideration of the Court on a future day. For that reason, no rule nisi had been yet obtained; but the application for the new trial would be made at the proper time, and those concerned for the Board of Trade fully expected that the new trial would be granted. At all events, the points of law would all be decided in a Superior Court.
§ MR. E. JENKINSremarked, that the Solicitor to the Board of Trade received a salary of £1,500 a-year, and begged to ask whether he was allowed to practise in private? He also desired to have some explanation of the sum of £15,000 for legal expenses; and would like the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade to be good enough to indicate what were the duties of this officer, and what was the nature of the legal charges which amounted to so large a sum of money.
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, the Solicitor took no private practice. His duties were to conduct all inquiries, and anyone who read the newspapers would see that he had a great deal to do. The expenditure of £15,000 was incurred under the Merchant Shipping Act.
§ MAJOR NOLANwished to inquire whether the Secretary to the Board of Trade could state that the new system with regard to the load-line of vessels was working satisfactorily? And, further, whether it was the practice of many owners to make the line too high; and, if so, what were the means adopted by the Board of Trade for the purpose 691 of checking that practice. Were the names of such owners published, or any means used to bring public attention to bear upon persons who placed the load-line too high up? He had been informed of one case in which the load-line was placed on the bulwarks, and he had heard of an owner who actually marked it on the funnel.
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTpromised to make inquiries upon the subject, as at present he was unable to answer the question fully. It was impossible for anyone new to the office to be armed at every point. He believed, however, that the rule as to the load-line was working well; at any rate, he had heard no complaints to the contrary.
§ MR. WHITWELLsaid, that no doubt it was impossible to be armed at every point; but the hon. Member had come forward in support of the Votes, and the Committee looked to him for explanations. In reply to the question asked, it had been admitted that the Surveyor had made some mistake, and that he called upon some of the workmen to remove portions of the timbers which ought not to have been removed. He wished to ask the Secretary for the Board of Trade, seeing that he could congratulate him upon a diminution of the expenditure upon the Surveyors this year of over £3,000, whether there was a probability of the expenditure being still further reduced when the Act had got into better working order? There was, he hoped, a reasonable prospect that a great many of the officials appointed to bring the Act into working order might shortly be diminished in number, now that the Act had got into better working order.
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that the question of the further reduction of the staff was being very carefully considered, and he had reason to hope that further reductions would take place. He was authorized in saying that, because he was informed that the reduction in these Estimates would have been considerably greater in the present year but for the annual increment in salaries which was always going on.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)wished to make his explanation somewhat clearer, and to inform the Committee that it was quite true that the Surveyor to the Board of Trade ordered a board to be removed in 692 excess of his duty. He ought not to have given that order; but his hon. Friend was in error in supposing that the workmen employed under the Board of Trade or that the Board of Trade by its own officers removed those beam-fittings. The order was given by the Surveyor that the work should be done by the master, or by the workmen employed by him. There would have been no difficulty, if the master or his workmen had come to the Board of Trade and explained that the ship was constructed differently from the usual manner, and that there would be more difficulty in removing these things than there would be in ordinary cases. Had that been done, the order which had been given under an erroneous impression would at once have been rescinded.
§ MR. DILLWYNbelieved that there was likely to be a considerable discussion upon this Vote. It was now past half-past 12, and he, therefore, begged to move that Progress be reported.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped that the Committee would not yet report Progress. That Vote had been under consideration for some time, and the points under discussion had been completely elucidated. He thought that the Committee would feel that the explanations that had been asked had been very thoroughly and very satisfactorily given. [Laughter.] That statement seemed to amuse hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House; but he would repeat that the explanations had thoroughly met the questions put. Under these circumstances, he did hope that the House would continue the Estimates in a business-like way, and would not break off until they had discussed that Vote.
§ MR. RYLANDSdid not think there was the slightest desire upon the part of any hon. Gentleman present to raise any unnecessary discussion on that Vote. He wished to point out to the Secretary to the Treasury, when he complained that they took up so much time over that Vote, that it was for £166,776, including several very important and entirely different departments of Expenditure, and upon some of these depart- 693 ments there had been very little said. He did not think that there had been any question raised with regard to agricultural statistics, in which some hon. Members took great interest. He was not aware that the question of the Surveyors to the Board of Trade would have come oil that night; he was, therefore, unprepared with information. But if he was not much misinformed, the conduct of the officers of the Board of Trade went far beyond the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was not raising any point of law, for the Board of Trade might be perfectly right upon the legal points; but if he was informed accurately, the conduct of this Surveyor was such as to destroy public confidence altogether in the Board of Trade with regard to the surveying of ships. He did not wish to be drawn into a statement which might be inaccurate in the slightest degree, as being made only from recollection; and he also did not wish to fail in expressing himself with perfect clearness. Although not asking for any delay, he did hope that before this Vote was passed more time would be given to the Committee to consider the action of the Board of Trade with regard to this ship, or rather the action of the Board of Trade through its officers. The subject was of importance, because the legislation of that House had been directed recently to this subject of ship-surveying, and the action of the officers of the Board of Trade was an important element to be considered in regard to the matter. He begged to propose to the right hon. Gentleman that, after having passed through a great number of Votes that evening, it would not be unreasonable for them to report Progress.
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTobserved, that the hon. Gentleman rested his desire for the adjournment upon the case of this ship, with regard to which his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had given full and satisfactory information. His hon. and learned Friend had explained that the matter was now under appeal in the Superior Courts. The hon. Gentleman must admit that they ought not to pronounce any opinion upon the conduct of this Surveyor until the matter had been adjudicated upon by the Courts of Law. When the Courts of Law had decided upon the question, it would be entirely within 694 the province of the hon. Gentleman, or of any other Member of the House, to raise the question, aye or no, Was the conduct of the Surveyor of the Board of Trade justifiable under the circumstances? The course he now suggested would not meet the object the hon. Member had at heart.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, that the arguments which had been offered by the Government for continuing the discussion of the Estimates for an indefinite time were such as hon. Members could not accept. At that period of the Session there could be no reason for prolonging the Sittings of that House beyond a reasonable time. It had always been considered usual, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had conceded, that a reasonable time for the House to sit was up to half-past 12. There could, therefore, be no reason for proceeding further with the Estimates that night.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONdisclaimed any intention to force the House to consider the Estimates further that night. All that he asked the Committee to do was to allow them to come to some conclusion upon the Vote under discussion, and then to report Progress.
§ MR. DILLWYNremarked, that the House was formerly not in the habit of proceeding with Supply after 12. He believed that there were other hon. Gentlemen who wished to take part in the discussion upon this Vote, but who were not then present. They had been going on for a very long time, and he thought that they had gone on quite long enough, and that if this Vote proceeded it would take a longer time than hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House imagined. He had no desire to stop the Business of the House; but he did think that it was a reasonable proposition to report Progress at the stage at which they had now arrived.
§ MR. RAMSAYalso thought it desirable that the Committee should then report Progress. With regard to the explanation given as to the action of the Board of Trade, the discussion of the matter by the House before the Courts had decided upon the case would only prejudice the question. The suggestion had been made that the question should be discussed on Report and not in Committee. He thought, however, that it would be much more satisfactory to ad- 695 journ the consideration of the Vote, and discuss the question in Committee rather than upon Report. Therefore he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to report Progress.
§ MAJOR NOLANagreed that the proper course would be to report Progress. Although hon. Gentlemen opposite might be anxious to continue the discussion then, it should be remembered that many of them had only recently come into the House; whereas there were half-a-dozen or more hon. Members on that side of the House who took considerable trouble in the discussion of the Estimates, and their convenience should be in some way regarded.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it was not at all desirable, or reasonable, to ask the Committee to continue its work at a late hour. But with regard to this particular Vote, no exception was taken to its being finished at the time it was commenced, and two or three questions had been raised upon it, one very important one, upon which explanations had been given by the Attorney General, which he thought carried that part of the question as far the Committee could possibly wish it to be carried until the decision of the Judges had been arrived at. With respect to the question which the hon. and gallant Member for Gal way (Major Nolan) wished to raise, that was a matter of great extent upon which information could be furnished. It was hardly desirable to postpone this question until that information had been obtained. His hon. and gallant Friend could obtain that information and bring the matter on upon another occasion. He did not think that there were any questions now raised upon the Vote which seemed to require its being adjourned. Therefore he thought that they should agree with the suggestion of the hon. Baronet and take the Vote now being discussed and then report Progress. That seemed to him not to be an unreasonable course.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
§ Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
§ House adjourned at One o'clock till Monday next.