CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

HC Deb 10 June 1881 vol 262 cc242-81

(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £33,182, 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 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, there was a Motion upon the Paper with reference to this Vote standing in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers.) He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had no intention, nor did he believe any other hon. Member had any intention of taking up that Motion, of which the object was to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,500, being the salary of Colonel Talbot, the Serjeant at Arms in attendance upon the Lord Chancellor. He wished, however, to put a question to the Secretary to the Treasury in reference to the electioneering matters with which Colonel Talbot had been conspicuously concerned. The matter he referred to related to the election for the City of Oxford, and he desired to know whether there had been any expression of the displeasure of the Executive concerning the connection of Colonel Talbot with that election. Although he did not intend to move a reduction of the Vote by the amount of Colonel Talbot's salary, he certainly thought it a most unbecoming thing for an officer of the House of Lords to interfere in any way with electioneering matters, either in Oxford or anywhere else; and he believed the Committee would learn with satisfaction that there had been some official expression of displeasure in this matter.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

did not think that it was the duty of the Treasury to express any opinion upon the conduct of an officer of the House of Lords. He wished to remind the ton. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) that until a recent period the salary of the officers of the House of Lords were paid out of the fee funds of that House; but, in accordance with a new rule, an arrangement had been come to by which the House of Lords surrendered that fund on condition that the salary of all their officers should be placed upon the Estimates. He did not think it would be a good return for that concession on the part of the House of Lords if the Treasury were now to take upon themselves the duty of passing an opinion upon the conduct of one of the officers of that House. Still, further, be was assured by his hon, and learned Friend the Attorney General that a reference to the Report of the Oxford Commissioners would show the hon. Member for Salford that no action was required on the part of the Government.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that there was not the slightest ground for any representation to the House of Lords, or for inflicting a reprimand on Colonel Talbot.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

asked for an explanation in reference to an item in the Vote for Exchequer extra receipts, and also for some information in regard to the invested fee fund of the House of Lords, out of which the retiring allowances of the officers of that House were paid. He wished to know if the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury could inform the Committee what was the amount of that invested fee fund; the amount of interest received from it; what was the particular appropriation of that interest, and whether there was any Parliamentary Paper which gave any information with, regard to it? There was another question he wished to put in regard to pensions. He found in the Report of the Comp- troller and Auditor General a statement that the pensions of ex-Lord Chancellors would be found in Vote 3, Class III. He had looked in vain through that Vote to find any account of the kind, and all he could find was that the pensions were referred to in Class VI., Vote 1. He had carefully examined that Vote, and he failed to find any charge of £ 1,500 upon the invested fee fund; and he therefore asked the noble Lord to assist him, as otherwise it would be practically impossible to check the total charge for these Services. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to enable the Committee to come to a complete understanding in regard to the various items of the Vote.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, the amount of the fee fund was £14,000, and the interest upon it was annually returned at £420. With respect to the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report, he could only say that his attention had not been called to any error in the Report; but he would make inquiry and inform the hon. Gentleman where he could find the information he wanted.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that on page 71 he saw a reference to two officers of the House of Lords. He had no wish to attack either of them. He believed that both of them were efficient and useful officers. One of them was the Usher of the Black Rod, and he saw that Sir William Knollys received the payment of £1,000 a-year as honorary colonel of a regiment. From the same Vote it appeared that one of the door-keepers received £300 for acting in that capacity, and that he was also entitled to a retiring pension of £100 a-year from some other office; but during the time he held the posision of door-keeper in the House of Lords the pension was suspended. There was, therefore, an important discrepancy in the two cases. In the one case one official received two payments, while in the other, although the claim was certainly more substantial than for holding the honorary colonelcy of a regiment, the pension was suspended as long as the salary of door-keeper was enjoyed. He wished to know whether, in the opinion of the Government, it was not advisable to have one system of payment in all cases?

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

had no doubt the real fact of the case was that that the door-keeper was entitled to a pension from some other office, which brought him under the ordinary rule by which pensions were suspended in the case of officers receiving direct salaries. It was the usual custom, in all such cases, to hold the pension in abeyance. With regard to the Black Rod, he was not aware of the circumstance under which Sir William Knollys continued to receive the allowance of £1,000 a-year; but he presumed that that allowance was not regarded as a pension. Sir William Knollys was the honorary colonel of a regiment, and as such was entitled to the pay of a colonel.

MR. HINDE PALMER

remarked that the Lord Chancellor was paid in two ways. He received one salary of £4,000, and in addition to that sum there was a charge of £6,000 a-year in the Consolidated Fund in respect to the Lord Chancellor's Office as Lord Chancellor. Now, of late years, the Lord Chancellor seldom, or ever, sat in the Court of Chancery as Lord Chancellor at all, and on several occasions some inconvenience had been experienced inconsequence. At the present moment, for instance, from a cause which they all lamented, there was a vacancy in the Lord Justices' Court, and it became desirable that the Lord Chancellor should take turns in sitting with the Lord Justices as a Court of Appeal. The Lord Chancellor's duty as Lord Chancellor, as far as a Court of Chancery was concerned, had almost become a sinecure in reference to the number of days he sat there. When this Vote was last before the House, he (Mr. Hinde Palmer) had a Return from the Judicial Statistics showing the very few occasions in which the Lord Chancellor had sat at all in the capacity of Lord Chancellor. He merely mentioned the circumstance because he thought it was desirable, if possible, consistently with his other duties, that the Lord Chancellor should take his turn with the Lords Justices in the Court of Appeal. He was happy to see that the present Lord Chancellor, since he held the Office, had taken the opportunity of more fully complying with the position of Lord Chancellor, and had frequently acted as Judge of the Appellate Court. He (Mr. Hinde Palmer) had felt it his duty to make these observations, because he saw that there was a sum of £6,000 additional secured upon the Consolidated Fund for the Office of Lord Chancellor.

MR. FINIGAN

wished to know what was contemplated by this fee fund, and what was the object with which it was paid into Her Majesty's Treasury? He did not find that the whole of the fees received by the House of Lords were, as a matter of fact, paid into the Treasury; and he wished to know why the sum which was kept back, and which amounted to about £2,000, was not paid into the Treasury in the way in which the ordinary fees were?

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, he presumed that the invested fee fund consisted of the accumulated balances of the fees received in former years. These fees were invested for the payment of the expenses of the House of Lords. An arrangement, as he had already said, had been made with the House of Lords by which that House gave up their fees, and the salaries of the officers of the House were charged in the Estimates.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, that one hon. Member—the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Woodall)—had placed a Motion upon the Paper for the reduction of that Vote by the sum of £200, being the salary of the Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) found that last year the Comptroller and Auditor General directed special attention to that charge, and to some correspondence which took place in regard to it between Mr. Treherne and Sir William Rose. It was a matter which certainly ought to be ventilated in the House of Commons, if only for the sake of the officer referred to. The first letter was from the Exchequer and Audit Department, and was dated the 9th December, 1880, and ran as follows:— In your cash account of the House of Lords for the quarter to 30th June last, a sum of £50 is charged as a payment to the Hon. "W. H. P. Carington, for salary as Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain. I am directed by the Comptroller and Auditor General to request that you will be good enough to inform him if this gentleman is the Lieutenant Colonel the Hon. W. H. P. Carington, who is stated in The London Gazette, of 2nd April last, as a Member returned to serve in the Parliament summoned to be holden at Westminster on the 20th April, 1880, for the Borough of Chepping Wycombe. If this should be the case, I am to inquire whether this payment is, in your opi- nion, as accounting officer, one that can be properly charged to the Vote for the House of Lords, having regard to the Act of Parliament 6 Anne, c. 41, s. 24. The answer which the Comptroller and Auditor General received was scarcely satisfactory. Sir William Rose acknowledged the receipt of the letter, and went on to say that he believed Lieutenant Colonel Carington, the Secretary, was Lieutenant Colonel Carington of the Grenadier Guards, who was returned Member for Chepping Wycombe at the last General Election. The letter proceeded to say— "The salary of £200 per annum attached to this office appear to have been sanctioned by the Treasury in 1855, and paid by that Department together with the salaries of the Chairman of Committees and his Council, Serjeant-at-Arms, and extra door-keepers, until 1868, when, in consequence of the Treasury refusing to continue such payments, the matter was brought before the Parliament Office Committee, and the Committee directed the Clerk of the Parliaments by Resolutions, copies of which are inclosed herewith, to prepare a detailed statement and estimate of 'the salaries and expenses relating to the House of Lords;' and the expenses of the Lord Great Chamberlain's Department, including the salary in question, appears in the Civil Service Estimates laid before Parliament in 1869, and has been continued in the Estimates down to the present time. The appointment of the Secretary is in the Lord Great Chamberlain or Deputy. He is not of my establishment, nor in any respect under my control. The statute 6 Anne, c. 41 (in the ordinary editions, 6 Anne, c. 7), s. 24, referred to, imposes certain disabilities, and your inquiry is whether, in my judgment, it is applicable to the office in question. The answer to this appears to me to affect the status of a Member of the other House of Parliament, and any such question is, I apprehend, to be decided by the House of Commons. Under these circumstances, I must submit that any further inquiries should be addressed to the Deputy Lord Great Chamberlain rather than to myself; and I certainly do not feel called upon to give any opinion upon the construction of a statute which eventually might have to be decided by the other branch of the Legislature. This letter would show that this was a matter which ought to be brought before the notice of the House of Commons. The Comptroller and Auditor General replied to that letter in these words— I have, in the first place, to observe that your opinion was requested, not upon a construction of a statute, but upon the propriety of a payment which you, as accounting officer, had charged to a Vote which you were responsible for administering within the limits of the Estimates and authorities relating thereto. I am to remind you that, as accounting officer of the Vote under the provision of the Exchequer and Audit Act, the Comptroller and Auditor General can only look to you to supply him with any information necessary to substantiate charges in your account. He, therefore, does not feel himself justified in accepting your suggestion that he should apply to the Deputy Lord Great Chamberlain on the subject." He thought everybody would admit that the Comptroller and Auditor General was right in the course he took. His reply elicited another letter as unsatisfactory as the first. It was as follows, and was dated Parliament Office, House of Lords, 11th January, 1881:— I am directed by the Clerk of Parliaments to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, No. 1723, dated 24th December, 1880, referring to his letter of 20th December, to Mr. Treherne, on the subject of a payment to the Hon. Lieutenant Colonel Carington, from the Vote for the Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords, in which you state that 'the only matter upon which the Comptroller and Auditor General feels it necessary to trouble you further has reference to the concluding paragraph in which you submit that any further inquiries should be addressed to the Deputy Lord Chamberlain rather than to yourself, and that you certainly do not feel called upon to give any opinion upon the construction of a statute which eventually might have to be decided by the other branch of the Legislature,' and you proceed to state that the opinion of the Clerk of Parliaments was not required upon the construction of a statute, but 'upon the propriety of a payment which you, as accounting officer, had charged to a Vote which you were responsible for administering within the limits of the Estimates and authorities relating thereto.' Mr. Treherne's letter, after inquiring whether the Hon. Lieutenant Colonel Carington, the Lord Great Chamberlain's Secretary, was the hon. Lieutenant Colonel Carington, the Member for Chepping Wycombe, proceeded— ''If this should be the case, I am to inquire whether this payment is, in your opinion, as accounting officer, one that can be properly charged to the Vote for the House of Lords, having regard to the Act of Parliament, 6 Anne, c. 41, s. 24? The Clerk of the Parliaments was and is still of opinion that this inquiry can only be answered by giving an opinion upon the construction of the clause referred to. You remind the Clerk of the Parliaments of his duty as accounting officer, and that the Comptroller and Auditor General can only look to him to supply him with information necessary to substantiate charges in his account. The Clerk of the Parliaments was called upon, not merely for information, but for an opinion. The Clerk of the Parliaments, in his letter to Mr. Treherne referred to, stated the grounds upon which the payment in question is included in the Estimates of the House of Lords, and as the Comptroller and Auditor General does not require any further information on the subject, the Clerk of the Parliaments presumes that he is satisfied with the explanation, and that the Clerk of the Parliaments has duly discharged his duty as accounting officer, and has afforded the Comptroller and Auditor General the information necessary to substantiate the charge in his account. I am further directed to acquaint you that the Clerk of the Parliaments is ready to furnish any further information which may be required, and which belongs to his Department; but, with reference to the gentleman who may be acting as Secretary, this is a matter that rests entirely with the Lord Great Chamberlain, or his Deputy, to whom upon this particular point the Clerk of the Parliaments begs again to refer the Comptroller and Auditor General." It would appear that that officer distinctly refused to express any opinion as to the propriety of a charge which he himself made in his capacity of accounting officer. He appeared to decline to go into the question submitted to him by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and that officer very properly declined to continue the correspondence, but referred to the matter as one which ought to be dealt with by the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Woodall) had given Notice of his intention to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £200, the amount of the salary of Colonel Carington; but the hon. Member had not brought that Motion forward. It had, however, been upon the Paper for some time, and must have been brought to the notice of the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Colonel Carington) and his friends, and it was only right that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury should have an opportunity of offering some explanation upon the matter.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, that, as Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, he hoped to be allowed to make a few observations. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was quite right in bringing the question before the Committee; but it appeared to him (Sir Henry Holland) that the hon. Member had read to very little purpose the long correspondence which had passed between the Comptroller and Auditor General and Sir William Rose, if he did not go a step further and show the state of facts brought out by the Public Accounts Committee, so as to enable the House, if it was desirous of doing so, to express an opinion upon the whole question. Now, the Public Accounts Committee did not consider that it was within the scope of their duties to offer any opinion upon the legal question; but they thought it only fair and just to an hon. Member of that House to give him an opportunity, when the case was brought before them by the Comptroller and Auditor General, of appearing before the Committee, so that the Committee might hear what he had to say. Colonel Carington came before the Committee, and handed in a Memorandum, which, with the permission of the Committee, he (Sir Henry Holland) would read, because it embodied the whole case. The Memorandum was dated 8th March, 1881, and was as follows:— I am advised, and submit to the Committee, that the position which I occupy as Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain does not bring me within the disqualification created by the 6th of Anne, c. 41, for I hold no office of profit under the Crown. I am appointed by and solely under the Deputy Lord Great Chamberlain. My appointment is in no way submitted to the Crown for approval or rejection. Even the Lord Great Chamberlain holds no office of profit from or under the Crown. It is an hereditary freehold office, held by descent, and not by appointment. The creation of my position appears to proceed from the Lord Great Chamberlain requiring assistance in the performance of his duties, and so establishing an office in which was located a Secretary. Originally the whole expenses of such office amounted to £210 per annum, of which the Secretary received £100, since raised to £200. The annual expenditure was, in the first instance, defrayed by the Great Chamberlain, and repaid by a Treasury grant. The fact that the salary of the Secretary is voted by Parliament cannot cause me to be regarded as holding an office of profit under the Crown. The Estimates are full of instances (such as Judges, Marshals, or Gaol Chaplains) where persons performing public services are paid through a Parliamentary Vote; but yet no office of profit under the Crown is held by them." The Memorandum began with the words "I am advised." He thought it desirable to know whether the hon. and gallant Member had been advised by counsel, and in answer to a question upon that point, the hon. and gallant Member stated that he had been advised by counsel, and, he (Sir Henry Holland) believed, by a very eminent counsel, on the whole matter. As it was not for the Committee to offer an opinion upon a point of law, they reported that it was beyond the powers intrusted to the Committee to express an opinion upon the question. They added in their Report that they had considered it desirable to call Colonel Carington before them, in order that they might afford him an opportunity of making any statement he chose upon the matter. He (Sir Henry Holland) ventured, in conclusion, to express his entire concurrence in the opinion given to the hon. Member and embodied in the Memorandum.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Colonel Carington) placed himself unreservedly in his (the Attorney General's) hands when this question first arose; because, if the contention of the Comptroller and Auditor General was correct, it might have affected the seat of his hon. and gallant Friend in that House. He (the Attorney General) went as fully as he could into the matter, and examined the whole of the documents relating to the Office of Lord Great Chamberlain. He found that the Office was an hereditary one, and that the Secretaryship to the Lord Great Chamberlain was certainly not an Office of profit under the Crown. The money voted in payment of the salary was voted by Parliament; but it was in no respect an office of profit under the Crown. If he had entertained any doubt upon the matter before he made this inquiry, that doubt was entirely dispelled by the facts that were brought before him.

MR. RYLANDS

entirely supported the views which had been expressed by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (Sir Henry Holland). The matter was very carefully considered by the Committee, together with the whole Correspondence; and he could scarcely understand why the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) should have brought the matter forward, if he had seen the Report of the Committee.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

remarked that he had not seen the Report of the Committee.

MR. RYLANDS

ventured to point out that it was hardly necessary to read the whole of the voluminous Correspondence if the hon. Member was not prepared to state the conclusions which the Committee of Public Accounts had drawn from it. The Correspondence and the Report had been placed in the hands of every hon. Member. He thought that, in future, it would be a great advantage if hon. Members, before the Estimates were discussed, would refer to the Re- port of the Committee on Public Accounts, in order to see the manner in, which the Committee dealt with the various points connected with the Estimates that were raised by the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, that he had not been at all prepared to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the salary of the Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain; but it had struck him as strange that the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Woodall), who had placed the Notice upon the Paper in regard to the salary of the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe, should have left it standing there for a very long time, and should not have been in his place to bring it forward when it came on that morning. The course taken by the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent struck him as so very extraordinary, that he had himself brought the matter forward in justice to the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe. He now wished to ask why it was that the Serjeant at Arms in attendance upon the Lord Chancellor got £1,500 a-year, or £300 in excess of any similar Vote? Unless some good grounds could be shown for it, he would move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £300.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £32,882, 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 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."—(Mr. Arthur O' Connor.)

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that the salaries of the officers of the two Houses of Parliament should be the same; but he thought the remedy was to be found, not in reducing the salaries of the House of Lords, but in increasing those of the officers of the House of Commons. He hoped the noble Lord, whoso duty it was to bring the Estimates before the House, would, before another Session, seriously consider this question. There could be no doubt that the work of the officers of the House of Commons had been very much increased. As far as the officers of the House of Lords were concerned, the noble Lord had already stated that that House had arranged to give up certain fees out of which their officers were originally paid, on the understanding that the whole of the salaries would be voted by the House of Commons. Under those circumstances, it would be a breach of faith to reduce any of the salaries.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) that the Serjeant at Arms in the House of Lords was paid £1,200 a-year for one office that he held and £300 as Deputy Serjeant. It was thought that that office should be put on the same footing as the Serjeant at Arms in the House of Commons; but the Serjeant at Arms in the House of Commons had an official residence, which he believed Colonel Talbot had not.

MR. BIGGAR

stated that the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), in the last Parliament, suggested what was afterwards carried out, that the salary of the Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons should be raised so as to be the same as that received by the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords. The Government which was then responsible for these matters agreed to that proposal, and placed an increased sum upon the Estimates for the salary of the Chairman of Ways and Means. He (Mr. Biggar) thought the salaries of the two offices should be equalized, and perhaps the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would look through the list of salaries, and ascertain whether it was necessary or desirable to raise them or to lower them so as to assimilate them in future.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he had no faith in the economical professions which hon. Members made in dealing with the National Expenditure. He always observed that hon. Members who, under ordinary circumstances, professed to be economical, when they came to deal with the public money and had an opportunity of gratifying persons who were connected with the Public Service without putting their hands in their own pockets, rarely paid the slightest regard to their professions. They were always generous and readily disposed to reward public servants at the public expense. Now, he (Mr. Rylands) was quite as much alive as any hon. Member to the value of the services rendered by the officers of both Houses of Parliament; but he must confess that he looked with some jealousy upon the payments that were made in "another place," payments, too, over which the House of Commons had no control. It might be that the House of Lords, situated as they were in a magnificent chamber, and surrounded by great and august associations, might consider it necessary that all their officials should have large salaries, in order to mark their sense of the dignity of their position. But it did not at all follow that the House of Commons were to allow themselves to be influenced by the same considerations. They could not with propriety reduce the salaries of the officials of the Upper House; but he hoped they would guard against the feeling that because the House of Lords paid certain salaries they were bound to raise those which they paid to the same amount.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

rose to Order. He thought the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was availing himself of the occasion to make a speech that had nothing whatever to do with the subject before the Committee. He would also express a hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would not press his Motion for the reduction of the Vote.

THE CHAIRMAN

I waited until the hon. Member for Burnley sat down, in order to remind the Committee that any remarks upon the salaries of the officers of the House of Commons should be made upon the next Vote, and not upon the present one.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, he had already pointed out that the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords were in no way under the control of Her Majesty's Government. He believed that they were mainly settled by the Parliament Offices Committee, which had existed for a long series of years.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he had not recommended, as the hon. Member for Burnley implied, that the salaries should be raised in the House of Commons. All that he said was that if the one salary was fair then the other must be presumed to be too high. He knew that it would be difficult to carry into operation any scheme that might be devised there by reducing salaries in the House of Lords; but he would suggest that if they found, on comparing the salaries of the two Houses of Parliament, that the salaries of the House of Lords officials were too high compared with the labour they underwent, an arrangement might be made that when, any vacancy arose, the person succeeding an existing official should be required to take the appointment at a salary more in conformity with the sum paid in the House of Commons. On the other hand, if it was found that any salary was really too low, he saw no reason why it should not be raised. He certainly thought it unfair that one official should be paid upon so much higher a scale than another; and he would suggest to the Government that some means should be adopted for revising the salaries paid to the officials of the House of Lords, so that hereafter they might be assimilated to those paid in the House of Commons.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he had no wish to press the Motion to a division. He had simply made it in order to obtain an explanation and some information from the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury. There was, however, one point upon which the noble Lord had as yet given no answer, and that was, what was the amount of money deducted from the Exchequer receipts in aid of the fees. It appeared that the sum of £2,000 was taken out in aid of the House of Lords Vote, and the balance only paid into the Exchequer. He wished to know on what ground that was done, and if it was intended to extend the system to any other Votes?

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

paid, he was unable to give any precise information on the point at that moment; but he would make inquiries. He would, however, point out that when the arrangement was made with the other House of Parliament, by which they gave up their fees, they really made a very considerable concession to the House of Commons; and it was not desirable, under all the circumstances of the case, that they should impose anything like pressure upon the House of Lords.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he had received no explanation in regard to the different treatment received by the Black Rod and the door-keeper of the House of Lords. At present these two officials appeared to be paid in an entirely dif- ferent way. He thought that when an official was promoted to a position which involved the receipt of an increased salary he should be required to surrender his pension, or, at any rate, that it should be held in abeyance. He had no doubt that the Usher of the Black Rod was thoroughly deserving of the promotion he had obtained; but he did not see why that officer should continue to receive the salary attached to his former position; and he was of opinion that the sum of £1,000 a-year should be deducted from Sir William Knollys' salary, being the amount he received as honorary colonel of a regiment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(2.) £40,644, to complete the sum for House of Commons Offices.

MR. FINIGAN

wished, before the Vote was passed, to call attention to a matter which had occupied the Committee upon that Vote for several years past—namely, the propriety of equalizing the payment of all the police officers who did duty in connection with the House of Commons. As the matter now stood, one portion of those officers was paid at one rate, which he believed was a very fair rate, while another portion was paid at a very low rate indeed. Although he might suffer in the estimation of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), he was certainly of opinion that the lower scale should be raised to the higher one, and that the policemen who now received the lower rate of wages should be paid the higher rate, which at present was only paid to a part of the officers. He was strongly of opinion that if any payment was made at all, it should be made equally to all persons who were required to perform the same duties; and, so far as he knew, all the police officers connected with the Houses of Parliament performed exactly the same duties. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the Government would really promise to do something for the officers who were underpaid. The noble Lord answered the question very favourably last year. He hoped the noble Lord would be prepared to give a similarly favourable answer now, and even go a step further, and say that something would really be done in the matter.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, he had made inquiries into the circumstances, and he found that all the police were paid equally during the Session; but some of the less experienced of them did not receive as much during the Recess, as their general duties were not so heavy. An exception was made, however, in the case of some of the senior officers on this ground—that they had given up all chance of promotion, and had, therefore, to a certain extent, placed themselves in a disadvantageous position. They were all meritorious officers, and it was not desirable that they should be constantly changed; and, therefore, it had been agreed that they should receive a small additional remuneration.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

appealed to the noble Lord to consider this Vote before next year, observing that there could be no doubt that the work of the House had very much increased, and, consequently, the work of the officers of the House must have increased. Under these circumstances, he believed the noble Lord would have the support of the House generally if he saw his way to liberally increasing the scale of remuneration.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

explained that this Vote was very slightly under the control of the Treasury. The salaries paid to the officers of the House were determined by a Commission, which consisted of the Speaker, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Master of the Bolls, the Attorney General, and the Solicitor General. In order to relieve the mind of the hon. Member, he would mention that some increase had been made in the salaries of some of the officers since last Session.

MR. FINIGAN

wished to call attention to the case of the Votes Office, mentioning that the salaries in that Department were fixed by a Committee of the House in 1835. Since that time everything had changed; money was not of the same value, and the gentlemen connected with that Office had now very much more heavy and serious duties than they formerly had. He wished to ask whether the noble Lord would introduce into that Office the principle that prevailed in the other Treasury Departments, so that the Deliverer of Votes and the first, second, and third Assistants should in future be paid as other officers of the House were paid? The salaries were now so fixed that if a clerk entered that Office at 16 and finished at 90 he only got the same fixed salary. He hoped that between this Session and next Session the noble Lord would try to introduce some system more in keeping with the general spirit by which this officialism was ruled, and more in keeping with the exigencies of the times, and with the increased work of these officers.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, that it would be irregular for any one Department to recommend such a change.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

inquired whether the police who were kept at the House sometimes all night, as hon. Members were, received any extra allowance for the additional strain put upon them? He was under the impression that they did not, and he thought that unfair.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

observed, that the police and Post Office officials held positions which were rather sought for, and he reminded the hon. Member of the different conditions of the work of the police engaged in the House from those of the police engaged outside, who were exposed to all kinds of weather. He did not consider that the night duty was very arduous for the police in the House.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, the police engaged in the House were men of special character and qualifications, and far above the ordinary run of policemen; and he thought it shabby that they should be detained sometimes all night without a penny of extra pay. He would suggest to the noble Lord, if the matter lay with the Treasury, to use his influence to obtain some additional payment for these men.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

stated that the House police received Is. a-day extra pay.

MR. LOWTHER

was glad to hear the hon. Member for Queen's County took so much to heart the fatigues of the police, and he trusted that next Session he would do all that lay in his power to prevent All-night Sittings.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £35,732, 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 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury, and in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he found that this Vote was largely-increasing. Last year the fees for counsel amounted to £7,200; but this year they were £8,700. He objected to the double mode of paying counsel by salaries as well as fees, mentioning that there were two legal officers of the Treasury, with a clerk, receiving fixed salaries; and yet there were additional charges in the form of fees for counsel to the extent of £3,000 more than those fixed salaries. With such large sums annually paid as fees, in excess of the fixed salaries, it would be far preferable to employ additional lawyers at regular fixed salaries. He did not object to gentlemen rendering service to the State receiving remuneration; but the fees annually paid to individuals ought to be known to Parliament. The Appropriation Account gave no information upon this point. He hoped that the matter would receive attention, and that similar information would be given with respect to the English counsel to that given with regard to the Lord Advocate and his Department. In Scotland the amount paid as fees to the Law Officer was fixed and clearly stated.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, that on general principles he agreed with the hon. Member; but he had not been able to carry them out.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

wished to know how it was that there was an increase in counsel's fees this year, seeing that there had not been many important Bills?

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

explained that for many years the Government had endeavoured to have all Bills, as far as possible, drafted by their own officers; but that had not been, altogether possible, and there had been an annual necessity for a Supplementary Vote. This year they had thought it better to acknowledge the fact, and to make some provision for it.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

thought it very likely that some of this money had been wanted for the drafting of the Coercion Bills; and, to mark his opinion of the action of the Government, he should move to reduce the Vote by £400.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £35,332, 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 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury, and in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

did not know whether it would be satisfactory to the hon. Member if he stated what his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) had done in this matter.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he supposed that part of this money was for the Coercion Bills, and part for the Land Bill; but he could not understand the matter.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

hoped his hon. Friend would not proceed with his Motion, for it was only nibbling at the subject to reduce the Vote by £400; and that was not half as important as the question of time. The hon. Member was right as to the necessity for economy; but this was so small an economy that he hoped the Motion would be withdrawn.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to,

(4.) £61,278, to complete the sum for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

wished to know whether any alteration had been made in regard to the examination of candidates for the office of certificated manager of mines? Lord Aberdare, when passing the Coal Mines' Act, thought these examinations should be self-supporting; and he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had followed in his steps to a certain extent. He only wanted now to draw attention to the subject.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he was not aware that any change had been made.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

referred to a Return recently issued, which gave the names and previous occupations of the Inspectors of Factories, and stated whether they had been appointed by nomination or by open or limited competition. Looking through that list of 41 Inspectors, he found that only three had passed any examination by which their qualifications for their appointments were tested; while the other 38 were appointed directly by nomination. The first of these persons was a student-at-law; the second was an ensign; the third was a private tutor; the fourth had been a farmer who had farmed his own land; the fifth was a local secretary of the Royal Insurance Company; the sixth was a clerk in the Customs; the next was a B.A. of Christchurch, Cambridge; the next was a barrister, and so on. Those Inspectors had no proper qualifications for their appointments; and he wished to know whether the Government intended to institute, in the system of appointing Inspectors and Sub-inspectors of Factories, any mode of testing their qualifications?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he had lately instituted a considerable change. A deputation had represented to him the desirability of appointing as Inspectors of Factories persons more conversant with the details of the work than the class from whom they had hitherto been appointed. Mr. Redgrave had agreed with him that it would be safe and wise to make make the experiment of selecting an Inspector of Factories from the artizan class. Nothing could be more injurious than to select a person who would represent a class interest, and who would be likely to exercise his influence as against employers; but with Mr. Prior, who had been selected, there was no fear of that. It was a matter of considerable importance that the class affected in this respect should feel that they were personally represented, and that they should feel that they had a share in the Public Expenditure. How far that experiment would succeed remained to be seen; but he should be sorry to consider that appointments such as Factory Inspectors were to be regarded as the appanage of any particular class. They ought to be made as generally representative of the community at large as possible; and the great object ought to be to select persons who would represent the different classes of the people. He understood the hon. Member to think that the standard of examinations for these appointments was not sufficiently high; but while it was quite true that a certain number of the Inspectors were appointed by nomination, he could assure the hon. Member that, according to his experience in the few cases that had occurred while he had been at the Home Office, the stan- dard was extremely high. Besides Mr. Prior, he had only appointed one Inspector. There were, as candidates for that appointment, two gentlemen of the highest University reputation and attainments. One of them, who had passed the examination, was afterwards found to be physically unfit for the post, and he was succeeded by the other gentleman, who came next in the examination. Rather than exalt the standard, he thought if there was to be any reform it should be in another direction, for although candidates might be men of great ability, just come from the Universities, he was not quite sure that they were the right persons to send to inspect a sweating tailor's factory. He was not sure that such a man was the best instrument; what was wanted was a rougher and readier instrument; and if he could see his way to utilizing men employed in factories as Inspectors, and so getting material of a rougher character for the purpose, that, he thought, would be the best way in which to attempt a reform. He did not despise his Predecessors, and he desired to proceed tentatively. He had made one experiment from the artizan class, and he should watch that with great interest. He should be the last to desire to lower the standard of efficiency, though he thought it might be of a somewhat different character from what it had hitherto been.

MR. C. H. JAMES

wished to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the question of Inspectors of Mines. He had been struck by the disparity between the deaths from explosions in mines in different parts of the country, and he could not make up his mind that there was any good reason for that disparity. It might be that the different condition of the collieries, the veins of coal, and a variety of other circumstances, would account for a certain amount of disparity; but he did not think those varying conditions would account for so terrible a disparity as there was. He did not know whether it would be possible to get all the Inspectors together upon some occasion, so that they might put their heads together and see whether there was a substantial reason for the difference; but his impression was that if that was done it would be found that there was one sort of working in the North, another in Staffordshire, and another in Wales. If they found that they might suggest something by which the great loss of life in collieries might be lessened.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

informed the hon. Member that the Inspectors did meet every year for consultation, and that that had been the practice for many years. He wished to ask the Home Secretary whether he could give the House any information as to when the Royal Commission on Mines were likely to make their Report?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

replied, that he had answered that question a fortnight ago. A preliminary Report would soon be made; but there had been considerable delay with the final Report in consequence of a number of experiments which had been made with the safety lamp. The work was going on very satisfactorily, and the final Report would be presented as soon as possible. The right hon. Gentleman had stated what he was going to say with reference to the suggestion that the Inspectors met for consultation; but with respect to the disparity in the deaths, he had at one time thought there might be something special in the character of the coal mine affected. All at once, however, there occurred the explosion at Seaham, and that altered the whole balance of the year's calculations. One district might be perfectly safe for a long time, and then suddenly it was overwhelmed by some terrible calamity. Whether the Royal Commission would be able to throw any light on the subject he did not know; but the Reports on the four explosions which had occurred while he had been at the Home Office had thrown very little light upon it.

MR. BIGGAR

said, it seemed to him that with regard to the qualifications of Inspectors the Home Secretary had done very little to remedy the present system, and he thought the experiment of appointing Mr. Prior might be carried yet further. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be absurd to appoint a graduate of a University to inspect a tailor's shop; but he thought the Inspectors, as far as possible, should not be military men or unsuccessful farmers, or whoever could obtain the appointment through personal or political influence. Great benefit would be effected to all parties by a further improvement in the system of making appointments, and he thought it probable that if more practical men had been Inspectors of Mines there would have been fewer accidents.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

explained that no person was appointed an Inspector of Mines who had not served in a mine, and who possessed actual knowledge of mining. Factory Inspectors were on a totally different footing, and the examination of Mine Inspectors would be of a lower standard than in the case of Factory Inspectors.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

wished to know why the system in regard to Mine Inspectors was not applied to Factory Inspectors, instead of men being appointed without any qualification whatever? What qualifications had a man who was merely a student at Oxford or Cambridge? Absolutely none. The Inspectors should be men who had some practical acquaintance with the work they had to inspect. If they did not know the ropes they would be of little use as Inspectors. He wished also to have some explanation of the legal charges under sub-head E.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

pointed out that while the work which a Mine Inspector had to inspect was always the same, a Factory Inspector had to inspect 50 different sorts of work. It would, therefore, be impossible for a Factory Inspector to have practical knowledge of all the work he had to inspect. He might know one trade out of the 50, but that would not help. There was one thing that was wanted—that was to get, not such men as could be obtained by competitive examination, but men of whose integrity there could be some guarantee. There was no class of men so exposed to temptation as the Factory Inspectors; and, therefore, it was difficult to select the best men. With regard to the legal expenses, it very often occurred that the costs incurred in enforcing penalties for breaches of the Act were not recouped to the district authorities by the penalties, and in those cases the Government made up the amounts and put them down as legal expenses.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

observed, that to find fit men for Factory Inspectors it was necessary to search not in one class alone, but all through society, and there was scarcely any way of preparing a class of men for such posts. It was a great thing if the Government could in each, case find a man of intelligence and integrity, and who was content to take £200 a-year. These appointments should be given with regard to fitness only, and were not suitable objects of patronage.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £48,068, 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 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."

MR. RYLANDS

said, that last year, he believed, there was a Supplementary Estimate, in addition to the £7,000 charged for telegrams. However that might be, so much money was spent upon telegrams for the Foreign Office that he should be glad to hear from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that this large sum was not likely to be exceeded. He believed it was stated by his hon. Friend on a former occasion that it was under the consideration of the Foreign Office how far the expenditure in connection with telegrams might be reduced. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to the amount paid to Queen's Messengers. It was a remarkable circumstance that these persons were paid a much larger amount of money than was paid to the Queen's Home Messengers. In the Home Office the pay Was £150 a-year, while in the Foreign Office the Home Messengers received £ 150 increasing to £250 a-year, and the Foreign Service Messengers £400 a-year and £1 a-day for expenses. He had never been able to understand why a higher salary should be paid to persons going abroad on the Queen's Service; and he ventured to say there was no Foreign Office in the world which had officers fulfilling the same duties as these to whom anything like the same amount of salary was paid. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary would, perhaps, be able to afford an explanation of this matter.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, with respect to the cost of telegrams, he was in a position to inform his hon. Friend that a Circular had been sent to all our Consuls abroad, calling attention to the great expenditure under that head, and asking them to limit the amount, and especially to abbreviate their messages as much as possible. The good effect of the Circular would, he hoped, be apparent in future years; but the Bill for the present year would necessarily be considerable, partly on account of the war between Chili and Peru, in relation to which a telegram cost at the rate of £1 6s. a word, and partly owing to the state of affairs in the East, in which case also the cost was very high. With regard to the second subject of the hon. Member's remarks, he had to say that the Foreign Service Messengers were required to speak foreign languages, and that the nature of their duties was the reason for paying them higher salaries. The Home Service Messengers of the Foreign Office would, in future, be placed on the same footing as the Messengers at the Home Office.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

thought it right to point out to the Committee that a large portion of the expense for telegrams in connection with Greece might have been saved had the Government made up their minds last October to do what they had done in April this year. The whole of the troubles in connection with Greece had been brought about by Her Majesty's Government, who took credit for the recent settlement which had been arrived at with regard to that question; while the truth was, as in the case of Ireland, that the Government had first created difficulties, and then undertaken to settle them. He should put himself in Order by moving the reduction of the Vote by £5,000.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that he should not discuss the Eastern Question on the Civil Service Estimates, and that he cannot put himself in Order by simply moving a reduction of the Vote.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

. did not propose to discuss the Eastern Question. He was simply advancing a reason for his proposed reduction of the Vote, on account of the misconduct of the Foreign Office. He had merely stated that in October last it was open to Her Majesty's Government to take the steps which they had taken only a month ago. That might be ascertained by a perusal of the Blue Books, which would show that the Turkish Government made the same offer in October as they had made since. Of course, the question might be greatly developed. He believed it would be easy to give such details as would satisfy hon. Members as to the unnecessary expenditure to which the Government had put the country. The same thing might be said with regard to affairs in North Africa. Her Majesty's Government had quite misconducted their relations with Tunis. He should not, however, go into that question, nor would he have alluded to it had it not been for the monstrous statements made outside the House by Members of the Government, which could not be allowed to pass without protest. Again, he considered it a just cause for complaint that Her Majesty's Ministers had not furnished the House with any Papers relating to their foreign policy for a period of more than four months.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £43,068, 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 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."—(Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett.)

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

hoped that the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division. The country did not pay the officials of the Foreign Office according to the success of their policy, but in order to secure the attention and intelligence that were undoubtedly devoted to the Public Service. For that reason he did not think the hon. Member for Eye would be justified by any precedent in dividing the Committee upon his Motion. He wished to ask a question with regard to an item which appeared as an allowance to the Permanent Under Secretary to the Foreign Office for the management of the Secret Service Fund. That was a most extraordinary item. The Permanent Secretary received a salary of 2,000 a-year, and the Government gave him £300 a-year extra for his services in connection with the Secret Service Fund. He believed the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had on former occasions taken part in the discussion on this Vote; and, being aware of his economical interest in matters of this kind, he was anxious to attract his attention to the item in question. He ventured to say that the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would not get up in his place and say that the Secret Service money disbursed in the Foreign Office amounted to more than £1,000 a-year; and even if it did it was ludicrous to pay a man already in receipt of £2,000 a-year an additional amount of £300 for his management of this small fund. He hoped a full explanation of the item would be given, otherwise he thought the Committee would be justified in supporting a Motion for the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £300.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

trusted the noble Lord would not oppose this item. He knew of no precedent that would justify the noble Lord in moving the reduction of the Vote by this sum of £300 for so necessary and important a purpose. It was well known that the Foreign Office had to conduct duties of great delicacy and difficulty, and he could not help thinking that the noble Lord was singularly unfortunate in choosing this particular item to object to.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he believed that the £300 a-year now paid to Lord Tenterden replaced the sum of £500 paid from 1824 to 1872. The Committee that sat in 1871–2 recommended that the sum should be reduced as it had been to £300. It should be remembered that the money was paid under peculiar circumstances. The Secret Service money was expended in a manner which did not admit of the account being audited by a clerk, and was, therefore, placed in the hands of one person—the Permanent Under Secretary of State. Under those circumstances, he thought the allowance was not an improper one. It might, perhaps, be thrown into the salary of Lord Tenterden; but he saw no reason why the two sums should not be voted separately. Under any circumstances, he could not undertake to withdraw the item.

MR. NORTHCOTE

thought there was a legitimate opportunity for effecting a small saving of public money in connection with the Department. It was formerly the case, when legal questions were raised of minor importance, to make the documents relating thereto up into a bundle, and send them to the Law Offices of the Crown, who very naturally objected to the practice; and it was therefore suggested that a legal adviser should be appointed to deal with minor legal points. There was a sum of £2,000 paid to a gentleman for legal advice given to the Foreign Office which he thought might be saved. Even if it were necessary to appoint another Assistant Under Secretary there would be a saving of £500 a-year. For this reason he would like to receive some information from the Under Secretary upon the point.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

thought they could best discuss this matter on the Vote of £2,000 a-year for Dr. Parker Deane's salary. The opinion of the Law Officers, when asked, was given after consultation with Dr. Parker Deane; and, therefore, any proposal for saving money under that head would be better discussed as he had suggested. He believed that a large reduction had been effected upon the sum voted for the purpose in question, and it was possible that some reduction might be made at a future time.

MR. RYLANDS

did not think it desirable that the item of £300 objected to by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock should be passed without further consideration. It was true that Mr. Hammond received for several years £500 a-year for managing the Secret Service Fund, and that £500 a-year was taken out of the Secret Service money without the knowledge of Parliament, though the same gentleman was receiving £2,000 a-year as salary. With no little difficulty he (Mr. Rylands) was able to extract from the Government for the time being that this £500 was paid, and it was then arranged that the item should be put upon the Estimates, with the understanding that it should be reduced to £300. But he had never at any time agreed to, or expressed any opinion in favour of, this £300 a-year being paid. On the contrary, he had always considered that any payment for the administration of the Secret Service money was altogether unjustifiable, and that the Permanent Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should have a salary sufficient to cover all the duties of his Office. The Committee must observe that the control of the Foreign Office over the Secret Service money was of a very partial character; and he thought the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) was quite justified in raising this question.

MR. GORST

thought it was a great pity that the discussion of a point of this kind should not be conducted without personal references. He did not consider it becoming that, in Committee of Supply, they should be occupied in praising or blaming gentlemen whose salaries they were asked to vote. The question of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock deserved a more complete answer than it had yet received from the Under Secretary. The noble Lord's observation was that £300 a-year was paid to an official to whom, independently of that sum, Parliament paid what it considered to be a sufficient remuneration. The first question asked, and to which no answer had been given, was as to the amount of the Secret Service Fund of the Foreign Office. They knew that the accounts of the fund could not be audited; but there could be no objection to a statement on the part of the Under Secretary of the amount of Secret Service money spent by the Foreign Office. If that were stated, the Committee could then judge whether £300 a-year was a proper sum to pay any person for managing the fund. He supposed there was Secret Service money in every Department of the State; he knew there was in the Office of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Would the Under Secretary say that as much Secret Service money was spent by the Foreign Office as was spent in the Department of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who received nothing whatever for managing the Secret Service Fund of his Department? The question which the Government had to answer was, why someone in the Foreign Office should, be paid a certain amount of money for managing the small amount of Secret Service money at the Foreign Office, while in other Departments exceedingly large sums of Secret Service money were managed without any payment at all? That was a question which ought to receive an answer.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he might state, in general terms, that the expenditure of Secret Service money by the Foreign Office was much larger than that of the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland. For the reasons he had given, he could give no figures or details.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, the question was, why the Permanent Under Secretary at the Foreign Office received a salary for managing the Secret Service Fund, which no other official received?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, the only reason he could give was that the expenditure at the Foreign Office was larger than that of any of the other Departments.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

reminded the Committee that when Mr. Fox was asked about the Secret Service money, he expressed an opinion that it was a disgrace to the country; and he added that he did not wish to know more about it than would prevent him making a fool of himself when he had to answer a Question in the House of Commons. He presumed the reason why the allowance was made for managing the Secret Service Fund at the Foreign Office was that a very large sum was placed for Secret Service purposes at the disposal of that Department, and it was not unusual for drafts to be made by Secretaries of State for the other Departments upon the Foreign Office—some of the Secret Service money placed in the first instance at the disposal of the Foreign Office being passed on to the other Offices as occasion required. He was quite at a loss to understand why the Foreign Office should act as banker for the other Departments in the matter of the Secret Service Fund, and that a charge of £300 a-year should be placed upon the Estimates in consequence. Supposing, as he hoped would be the case, the Secret Service Fund came to an end, that charge of £300 a-year would reckon as a kind of vested interest, and would become a permanent charge in favour of the official who drew it, because, no doubt, it would be agreed to in the same generous way in which, according to his experience, similar cases were always dealt with by the Government. It would, therefore,-cost the country a considerable sum of money to wipe out this charge, and for that reason he objected to its standing upon the Estimates.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, he was willing to withdraw his Motion for the reduction of the Vote, and wished, at the same time, to appeal to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock and the hon. and learned Member for Chatham not to press their opposition to this charge of £300. It was clear that the administration of the Secret Service money was a very delicate operation; it was also clear, from the statement of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that more of that money came under the control of his Department than under the control of any other Office of State, and it was obvious that the negotiations and general business of the Foreign Office were far more difficult in their character than the business of other Departments. Under those circumstances, he hoped the Vote would be allowed to pass without further opposition.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, it was admitted that there must be Secret Service money, and that it must be administered by some one person in each of the offices. Therefore, he thought it not unreasonable, where so large an amount was disposed, of as in the Foreign Office, that remuneration should be given to the person specially responsible; and it was simply a question whether it should be given by way of increase of salary or by special payment. His own opinion was that it should appear as a special sum, because, if the Secret Service Fund should cease, there would be no reason why the payment should continue; whereas by increasing the Permanent Under Secretary's salary a vested right would be established.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

believed the Secret Service Fund was administered through the Treasury, and the accountant entered in the Estimates as responsible to Parliament for the money voted was the able and reliable officer, Mr. Welby, of the Treasury. With such an officer the House of Commons might fully trust in the accountability, if supplied with the requisite information as to how this money was applied.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, the Treasury had no knowledge whatever of the administration of the money.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he felt it his duty to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £300. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) that if the remuneration for administering the Secret Service Fund were included in the salary of the Permanent Under Secretary, there would be a risk of establishing a vested right. He wanted to know why the Permanent Under Secretary should receive £300, when no other official had the same payment? The Under Secretary had stated that the amount disbursed by the Foreign Office was larger than the portion of the Secret Service Fund disbursed by the Irish Office. He had reason, however, to believe that the hon. Baronet was in error; but, without entering into particulars, he preferred to have his own opinion on the subject, and to say that the amount disbursed by the Irish Secretary was, in all probability, more than that disbursed by the Under Secretary at the Foreign Office. But whatever might be the fact, it would not account for this amount being paid to the Under Secretary at the Foreign Office, and nothing being paid in the case of the Irish Office. He had always understood that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was one of those great reformers who advocated reductions in all the Departments of State; but it appeared that the only argument he could bring to bear on the present question was that the payment had been defended by successive Governments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £47,768, 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 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

MR. GORST

thought the Committee had been left unintentionally by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in a state of great misapprehension. He believed that most hon. Members supposed that the principal part of the Secret Service money was disbursed by the Foreign Office for Foreign Office purposes. Now, he ventured to say that a very small part of the fund was so spent. He believed everyone knew what the money was spent for, but that no one liked to say. No doubt it was quite true, as the Under Secretary had said, that the Foreign Office acted as bankers for the fund; but he (Mr. Gorst) denied that any considerable portion of this money was spent for strictly Foreign Office purposes. He challenged the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to state whether it was not the fact that it was only a small part of this money that was spent in the Foreign Service of the country.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham had just challenged the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to say on what the Secret Service money was spent. But the hon. and learned Gentleman then went on to say that everyone knew; and, therefore, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) would challenge him to state how the money was applied. He appealed to his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley not to join in a discussion raised by hon. Members opposite upon this miserable item of £300. There was a time for all things, and he ventured to say that the time which had been occupied in this discussion represented the loss of a large sum of money to the country, because it delayed the consideration of a great remedial measure.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

wished to correct the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) with regard to one point. The observation attributed to him by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the Foreign Office acted as bankers for the other Departments in the matter of the Secret Service money, had really fallen from the hon. Member for Queen's County. Certainly, as far as the disbursement of the Secret Service money went, he believed it would be highly improper, without sufficient reasons, for any Member of the Government to say what was the amount spent in his Department in the course of the year; and he could therefore only in general terms say that the normal disbursement of the Foreign Office was much greater than that of any other Department.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that the remarks of the hon. Member for Galway had no bearing on the question before the Committee. After appealing to the hon. Member for Burnley not to occupy time by joining in this discussion, he had done nothing else than occupy time himself. For his own part, he thought that a proper discussion of the Estimates, and an examination of the various charges contained therein, would tend to a considerable reduction of the Votes. Therefore, when a question of importance like the present arose, hon. Gentlemen, in his opinion, were perfectly justified in discussing it fully.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

remarked, that last year the Prime Minister assured the House positively and emphatically that there should be a considerable saving effected in the amount of the Secret Service money—larger than there had been in previous years. As a matter of fact, however, there had been nothing of the kind. He repeated his statement that the Foreign Office was drawn upon frequently in past years by the other Departments, and that would account for the large amount of money placed at the disposal of the Foreign Office for Secret Service purposes. As a matter of fact, a very large proportion of the Secret Service money was spent by other Departments than the Foreign Office; and there was no reason whatsoever why this permanent charge of £300 a-year should be inserted in the Estimates for the remuneration of one particular official, when, at the same time, there was no similar charge in any other Department. If, as he believed, much of the Secret Service money found its way into the hands of those persons in Ireland who recently issued the notorious Circular relating to persons "reasonably suspected," the management of the fund was both discreditable to the Government and the Empire. Under the circumstances, he hoped the Motion of the noble Lord would be pressed to a division.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 165: Majority 144.—(Div. List, No. 237.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. CARINGTON

remarked that there seemed to be 22 Messengers abroad who spent no less than £12,500 in travelling expenses. There were also £7,000 charged for telegrams in connection with the Foreign Service; and he should be glad if the Under Secretary would afford an explanation with regard to these items, for it was clear that the present method of gaining knowledge of the world's affairs was very expensive.

MR. LABOUCHERE

thought he could explain how this money was spent—that was to say, if things went on at the Foreign Office as they did when he was attaché at Constantinople. On one occasion £450 was spent in the ex- penses of an officer who brought a box of pills for the late Sir Henry Bulwer. Most of the despatches sent could be put into cipher and sent by post. In his opinion, £12,500 was a great deal too much to pay for Foreign Office Messengers; and therefore he should be glad to have some explanation as to how this money was expended.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Northampton that it was desirable to intrust the Post Office with messages in cipher. The translation and deciphering of the messages would necessitate the employment of a large number of clerks and create a great additional expenditure. There would in that way be more money spent than under the present system. The Messengers were formerly paid by mileage; but they now received £1 1s. a-day for subsistence and their travelling expenses. Their accounts were produced in elaborate detail, and were audited by clerks at the Foreign Office, extreme care being taken that the money paid to them was the money actually spent. The journeys undertaken were large and difficult, and the staff had been cut down as much as possible. Indeed, the Department had been at considerable inconvenience on some occasions for the want of a sufficient number of Messengers. In the late commercial negotiations with Spain, for instance, it was necessary to send a special Messenger owing to the reduction of the staff; in fact, they were continually forced to put on special Messengers. The late Government, shortly before they left Office, had appointed an additional Messenger. In conclusion, he begged to assure the Committee that the greatest care was taken to reduce the number of journeys undertaken.

MR. GORST

said, there was a discrepancy with regard to the number of Messengers, which was an instance of the extremely careless manner in which the Estimates were prepared. Looking at the Estimates, it would seem that the number of Messengers had been reduced from 10 to 8, whereas it had been actually increased from 10 to 11. He agreed with the hon. Member for Northampton that the journeys performed by these officers were, for the most part, useless, because he supposed that most of the Foreign Office despatches, which were of a character that anyone in the world might read, could very well be sent by post. He did not suppose that oftener than once or twice a-year there was any need of secrecy. At any rate, those occasions were very rare, and the Under Secretary had admitted that the despatches could be written in cipher. When the hon. Gentleman said that it would take so long to write and decipher them he had wondered what cipher the Foreign Office used. He ventured to say that the despatch could be written in King Charles's cipher almost as quickly as ordinary writing, and that it could be deciphered with equal facility. If the Government would send most of their foreign despatches by post and use King Charles's cipher in the very few cases where secrecy was necessary, he believed a reduction of this large expenditure might be secured.

MR. LABOUCHERE

asked whether these appointments were made by public competition?

SIR, CHARLES W. DILKE

said, they were not; but officers were generally appointed. If the appointments were by public competition, persons who had been residents abroad would be appointed, and, in that case, there would be no guarantee of their trustworthiness.

MR. LOWTHER

remarked, that in his time there was a greater number of Messengers than now, and it was even then the case that Her Majesty's Legations were put to great inconvenience by the want of a proper number of Messengers. The Under Secretary had stated that the Messengers received £1 1s. a-day during the time they were absent from home. But he considered that hardly a sufficient allowance for English officers living in foreign hotels, where it was well known they would be put to greater expense than the people of the country. Indeed, he regarded this payment as a very small one, and he trusted the Under Secretary would see his way to increase it. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham asked why the Foreign Office did not make use of a well known cipher in their despatches; but a Member with a certain amount of common sense would see that it was not at all desirable to do so. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would recollect that Mr. Hammond had given evidence before the Committee, of which he was a Member, to the effect that no cipher had been yet introduced or used which could not in a short time be made out by a practised man.

MR. CARINGTON

wished to know if there would be any objection to instituting an inquiry as to the desirability of appointing Messengers by public competition?

MR. GORST

said, there appeared to have been an additional Messenger appointed within the last year. He presumed the hon. Gentleman did not bring that as a charge against the late Government?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that the last appointment appeared to have been made on the 16th March, 1880. His reference was to an increase in the number of Messengers of the Home Service.

MR. GORST

hoped, in that case, the Under Secretary would explain how the increase in the number had arisen. There must have been an addition to the number, because it appeared that 10 Messengers were provided in 1881, and 11 in 1882.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, that, according to the information of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary, the appointments were made before the Estimates were framed.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, the hon. Gentleman had given a reason why, in the ordinary way, the Foreign Office Messengers were not selected by public competition. He would like to know why it was that exception was made in the case of clerks at the Foreign Office? The objection of the hon. Gentleman would hardly apply to the case of clerks, who, it was generally recognized, should be appointed by public competition.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, it must be that the present Government were responsible for the increase in the number of Messengers, because it had gone up since the hon. Gentleman was in Office from 21 to 23. It would be seen on page 88 that there were three officials resident abroad who received an extra £100 a-year each for their knowledge of foreign law. It was, to his mind, an extraordinary thing that these officers, while they were employed abroad, should receive a salary, not for the work they performed, but for a qualification which they possessed, whether they were abroad or at home; and he should very much like to know why that charge was relegated to Vote 1, Class V. There was another point to which he wished to call attention. The; Committee would remember that last j year, for the first time, the stationery and printing work of the country was thoroughly overhauled. It appeared that the printers received between 27 and 28 per cent more for the confidential work which they executed at the Foreign Office than they received from the War Office for the same work, and 41 per cent more than the work executed at their own premises, all of which they were bound by the terms of their contract to treat as confidential. He thought it would be very hard to defend the charge for the printer and reader on page 89.

MR. A. MOORE

asked if it was the fact that a weekly Messenger was sent to the principal European capitals, whether there was anything particular to communicate or not? Looking at the increased postal facilities, he thought they had a right to hope for a reduction under the head of Messengers.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, they could not trust to the telegraph, for if telegrams were sent in cipher they must be followed by written despatches. It was quite true that there was a fixed Messenger Service. The routes were so arranged that the Messengers, as they returned, picked up bags sent from other places than the capitals. For instance, a man going to the Danube would pick up on his way home despatches from such a place of importance as Bucharest. It was a mistake to suppose that the Messengers ever left on their weekly route without despatches of the most important kind. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Queen's County upon the charge for printing and binding, it was quite true that the bill of the Foreign Office for these items was high; but the cost of binding was higher than at other Public Offices because the documents were of an extremely confidential kind, while the cost of printing was higher than it was at the War Office, because many of the documents were in foreign languages. He could assure the hon. and learned Member for Chatham that there had been no increase in the number of Messengers since the present Government came into Office. Two names were, he believed, omitted from the Esti- mates of last year; but those Estimates were not prepared by the present Government.

MR. BOURKE

reminded the hon. Gentleman that the two names were added because two office-keepers were abolished. He agreed with all that the hon. Gentleman had stated with regard to the Foreign Office practice; but he was quite unable to agree with the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that there was not sufficient work for the Foreign Office Messengers to do. He could assure the Committee that this question had been fully investigated by both Lord Derby and Lord Salisbury, who both agreed that it was absolutely impossible to reduce the number of Messengers. He would not go so far as to say that that these officers carried despatches of great importance every week; but if there were important despatches to be sent a sufficient staff must be retained. The hon. Gentleman had dwelt upon the necessity of sending a special Messenger to Madrid. He should like to ask him what had been the result of the commercial negotiations at that city, and whether this country had any chance of obtaining better terms with regard to their commerce?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he did not think he should be in Order in answering the question of the right hon. Member who had just sat down; but if he would give Notice of the Question, he believed he should be able to assure him that there was a chance of the negotiations with the Spanish Government leading to a satisfactory result in the course of the next winter.

MR. GORST

begged to withdraw what he had said with regard to the increase of the number of Messengers. He had been misled by the form of the Estimates, and had to thank the hon. Gentleman for the explanation he had given.

MR. LABOUCHERE

reminded the Under Secretary that he had not explained why the clerks at the Foreign Office were not appointed by public competition.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, it was the distinct policy of Parliament, on the last occasion when this subject was dealt with by the House of Commons, to make a distinction between the Foreign Office and other Offices in the application of unrestricted competition. The decision arrived at was a tentative one; and this, no doubt, was a matter which might fairly again occupy the attention of the House. An attempt had been made by Lord Granville to enlarge the field of selection, and, on the average, 11 or 12 candidates had competed for each of the latest vacancies. Most of the men who came in passed a brilliant examination, and he believed they would have come in under a system of unlimited competition. This was a matter which, from time to time, would come under revision. He believed his noble Friend had gone as far as public opinion was prepared for at the present moment in opening the doors as widely as he had done, and in enabling 11 or 12 candidates, on the average, to compete for a single vacancy.

MR. NORTHCOTE

asked whether the clerks in the Foreign Office did not receive smaller salaries in consideration of the fact that the Office was not thrown open to public competition; and whether the question of throwing open the Office to competition was not decided by the Secretary of State on his own responsibility, and not by the Department?

MR. LABOUCHERE

asked whether, on the other hand, the clerks in the Foreign Office did not receive larger salaries than those paid in other Offices?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that the Foreign Office clerks received usually low salaries, and that, in particular, the junior clerks were paid only half as much as clerks of the same grade received in other Offices.

MR. CARINGTON

asked whether the Queen's Messengers could not be appointed by open competition?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he would take care that the point was brought under the notice of the Secretary of State.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

asked the Under Secretary if there was any way by which economy could be effected in the cost of printing for the Foreign Office?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that two months ago, when a discussion took place on this subject, he had engaged that the question should be again considered.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.

Committee to sit again this day.