§ MR. LEAKE (Lancashire, S.E., Radcliffe)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will consider the expediency of presenting a Return to the House of the number of Questions put to Ministers of the Crown during the years 1880–85, and to the month of April 1886, having reference to increase of pay, reduction of hours of attendance, holidays, and other matters affecting the position of the Civil and other Servants of the State; whether, in such a Return, the names of honourable Members putting such Questions, of the constituencies they represent, and the particular services in whose interest the Questions were asked could be included; and, whether, in view of the Constitutional incapacity of any private Member of the House to propose any increase in Estimates submitted by the Government 756 of the day, the First Lord of the Treasury can suggest any means by which the increasing interposition of Members between the administrative heads of departments and their staffs could be judiciously mitigated, in the interests of public economy and of administrative discipline?
§ MR. PULESTON (Devonport)asked the Prime Minister, whether he was aware that a large proportion of the Questions aimed at by the hon. Member were put in the interests of public economy, as well as to effect a just and equitable organization of the Civil Service; and whether such a Return as that asked for would not be inconsistent with the freedom of the House and of the Constitutional right and duty of the Representatives of the people?
§ THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE) (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)In reference to the Question just put, it may be a great piece of ignorance on my part, but I am not aware of the fact implied in the Question, that most of the inquiries put to Ministers on the subject of the Civil Service, its emoluments and conditions, are with a view to public economy. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I cannot say that information respecting the classification of Questions would be inconsistent with the freedom, of the House; and I so far agree with the hon. Member that I think we should carefully avoid, in procuring that information, anything invidious as regards any particular class or portion of the Members of the House. With respect to the Question of my hon. Friend (Mr. Leake), I certainly enter very much into the spirit of the inquiry, and I believe that the Return might be had with considerable labour. Upon the whole, I think it would be less open to any exception, such as has been taken to it, if a more comprehensive Return of the character, classification, and number of Questions were to be asked for; but, before determining upon a method to obtain that kind of information, however, I should be glad to wait a little to see what the Committee on Procedure—from which we all hope much good—can do for us, if it can do anything, with regard to Questions. If the Committee on Procedure is unable to grapple with the subject, then it will be time to consider whether the Question of my hon. Friend, 757 or some extension of it, might not be thought of.