CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

HC Deb 09 September 1886 vol 308 cc1793-846

(3.) Motion made and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £15,978, 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 1887, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I have an Amendment to move on this Vote. The object of it is this—there are certain officers in the House of Lords who perform similar duties to those which are performed by the officers of this House, and who ought to have equal salaries to the officers of the House of Commons. I am not raising the question whether any of these salaries are too high or too low. I know that it is not open to any private Member to move that any salaries shall be raised. I am not prepared to say that the gentlemen who sit in the House of Lords ought not even to have their salaries raised; but I do maintain that our officers ought to have equal salaries to the officers of the House of Lords. As a matter of fact, I am of opinion myself that they ought to have a good deal more; but, taking a mild and temperate view of the matter, I say that, at any rate, they ought to have the same. The four officers whose salaries I propose to reduce are the Clerk of the Parliaments, the Clerk Assistant, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, and the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod. I have divided them into two separate Amendments; but perhaps it will be more convenient that I should move both Amendments together. As to the Clerk of the Parliaments, we know very well that an abominable job was committed by the Tory Government last year. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that there was a vacancy in the office of Clerk of the Parliaments, who is the principal officer of those who sit at the Table of the House of Lords; and it was assumed that Sir Thomas Erskine May, who was the gentleman best adapted for the office, would be appointed. All that Sir Thomas Erskine May had to plead in his favour was his unrivalled fitness for the office, and the fact that he had passed his life in the service of the House of Commons. Another gentleman, however, was appointed, who, as far as I can make out, had passed his life in some office in a lunatic asylum, but who had the superior qualification of being a relative of a noble Lord who was a Member of the Conservative Ministry. That fact would, of course, outweigh any actual services rendered to either House of Parliament. I am not complaining in particular of the Conservative Government, because, if a Liberal Ministry had been in Office, it would probably have been one of their cousins. Indeed, I cannot venture to say which of the two Parties has committed the greatest number of jobs. At any rate, this particular appointment was a rather strong measure; but I will not allude to it further. I have only felt it my duty to mention it incidentally. What I submit is that officers who are hero from 10 to 12 and 14 hours a-day ought to have at least salaries equivalent to the officers of the House of Lords, who sit for an hour or two, and only very occasionally later than 8 o'clock. I propose to move the reduction of the salary of the Clerk of the Parliaments by £500, of the Clerk Assistant by £200, of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod by £800, and of the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod by £200. Those sums make £1,700 altogether, and I therefore move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,700.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £14,278, 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 1887, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."—(MR. Labouchere.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL) (Paddington, S.)

The Amendment moved by the hon. Member combines two different questions. It is a kind of censure on the appointment of Mr. Graham as Clerk of the Parliaments—[MR. LABOUCHERE: Not the Amendment.] It combines a stricture upon the appointment of Mr. Graham in the last Parliament, and it also alludes to the disparity, in point of salary, between the officers of the House of Commons and those of the House of Lords. As to the latter, I will only say it is a subject which, for a very long time, has attracted the attention of the public, owing to the saying and doings of the hon. Member and those who agree with him—namely, the question of the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords. But with regard to the appointment of Mr. Graham, I have to state, in the first place, that it chiefly concerns the House of Lords, of which he is the principal officer. Therefore, if it is open to the strictures, criticism, and condemnation passed upon it by the hon. Member and many others who have openly expressed their condemnation, it stands to reason that Members of the House of Lords in the position of Lord Granville, Lord Kimberley, or Lord Rosebery, who, if the hon. Member will pardon me for saying so, are quite as good judges as he—[MR. LABOUCHERE: No!]—quite as good judges of the interests of the Public Service, and with far more experience as far as regards the House of Lords—it stands, then, to reason that they would have stood up and condemned the appointment. But nothing of the kind has taken place, and the House of Lords has shown itself perfectly satisfied with the appointment made by the First Lord of the Treasury of that day, and not a word was said by us calculated to throw a slur upon the appointment of Mr. Gra- ham. Therefore, I maintain that as the House of Lords, who are the persons principally interested in the matter of the appointment of their own chief officer, there is certainly a primâ facie ground for no interference, on the part of the hon. Member or of this House, with the appointment. And now let me come to the appointment itself. The hon. Member, with that extraordinary freedom of language which he alone of all English Members allows himself to use, characterizes the appointment as an "abominable job." I ask the House to realize what such an expression means. It means that Lord Salisbury, who is responsible for the appointment, has been actuated by the most disgraceful and corrupt motives. [Cries of "No!"] I maintain either that the words mean something, or that they do not. I assume that when a Member of this House characterizes an appointment to an important office as an "abominable job," he distinctly means to bring a charge which is to carry with it the imputation of disgraceful, abominable, and corrupt motives on the part of the persons responsible for the appointment. Otherwise, the hon. Member stands convicted of using language in this House to which he attaches no importance whatever. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that Mr. Graham had passed his life in a lunatic asylum. I suppose he thought that a very humorous and witty way of describing the fact that Mr. Graham had been a Master in Lunacy. That is the way in which the hon. Member has thought it consistent with the dignity of this House and his own position to describe a gentleman who has for some considerable time faithfully served the public. He went on to say that Mr. Graham was appointed because he was a relation of Lord Cranbrook. That is an insinuation I decline to notice. It appears to be based upon the gossip-mongering and scandal in which the hon. Member, in his capacity as a society journalist, takes a warm and professional interest. And now let me see what were Mr. Graham's qualifications, dropping all the license and exaggeration of the hon. Member for Northampton. Mr. Henry Graham was for six years principal Private Secretary to Lord Cairns. Lord Cairns, during two of those years, was Lord Chancellor of England, and I do not think that, on the whole record and roll of Lord Chancellors, there has been a name more illustrious. Lord Cairns was essentially a man who required a first-rate Private Secretary, and his Private Secretary must, in the course of six years, have acquired a most intimate knowledge of the working and work of the House of Lords. For six years Mr. Graham served Lord Cairns, and assisted him not only in the work which would fall to the Lord Chancellor as Speaker of the House of Lords, but also in the most important work which falls to the Lord Chancellor as presiding over the Appellate Tribunal of the House of Lords. Lord Cairn's Secretary was able, during those six years, to obtain a thorough mastery over all the Judicial Business of the House of Lords. If that is not an important qualification for the post of Chief Clerk in the House of Lords, I am really at a loss to know what would be a qualification. The hon. Member made it a ground of complaint that Sir Erskine May—the late Lord Farnborough—whose loss we all deeply deplore, had not been promoted to the vacancy. I am not at present concerned to discuss the reason why that promotion did not take place, or the exercise of the discretion of the Prime Minister in not appointing him. But is the hon. Member aware that there is no precedent for the Chief Clerk of the House of Commons being appointed Clerk of the Parliaments in the House of Lords? It does not at all follow that experience in the work of the House of Commons is an evidence of qualification for work in the House of Lords. The work of the House of Lords is totally different, especially the judicial work. The hon. Member assumed that Mr. Graham was appointed solely because he was Private Secretary to Lord Cairns, and seemed to think that his position as Private Secretary to Lord Cairns was a disqualification rather than a qualification. The hon. Member amuses himself by writing every week in The Daily News, or in that other journal with which he is connected, panegyrics on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (MR. W. E. Gladstone), and by dooming to ostracism from the ranks of the Liberal Party everybody who presumes to differ from the right hon. Gentleman. Well, I will read an extract from a speech of that right hon. Gentleman which bears upon this subject, and I read it with the more interest because the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were made in answer to observations coming from myself. On a former occasion, the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to an appointment in the Customs out of the regular course, used these words, and I commend them to the notice of the hon. Member— I shall contend that such appointments—appointments of Private Secretaries—although in some cases they may be bad, have in many cases been the best that could be made. There have been many men prominent in the Public Service who have been Private Secretaries. There can be no other relation in political life which gives such knowledge of the capacities of a man as the relation of Private Secretary. I shall not hesitate to affirm, with regard to such offices, that they require qualifications which have often sufficed for the creditable discharge of political functions. In two cases I have appointed Private Secretaries. One of them was Mr. West, whose capacity has been tested by those who differed from him in politics; the other was Mr. Godley, than whom no person has more distinguished himself. That was the right hon. Gentleman's opinion as to the appointment of Private Secretaries, and so freely did he act upon it that the House will be surprised to learn the number of Private Secretaries the right hon. Gentleman appointed to high offices. Mr. Ryan, Private Secretary to Mr. Gladstone, was appointed Comptroller and Auditor General; Mr. West (now Sir Algernon West), Private Secretary to Mr. Gladstone, was appointed Chairman to the Board of Inland Revenue; Mr. Godley, also Private Secretary to Mr. Gladstone, was first appointed to a Commissionership of Inland Revenue, and then to the permanent Under Secretary ship of India; Mr. Horace Seymour, Private Secretary to Mr. Gladstone, was appointed permanent Commissioner of Customs at a salary of £1,200 a-year; and only the other day Mr. Primrose, Mr. Gladstone's last Private Secretary, was appointed to the lucrative and delightful post of permanent Assistant Commissioner of works. In the appointments made by other Liberal Cabinet Ministers I find that Sir Charles Rivers Wilson, who was Mr. Lowe's Private Secretary, was appointed Controller of the National Debt; and that Mr. Milford, Sir William Harcourt's Private Secretary, was appointed permanent Secretary to the Office of works. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian nor his Colleagues for having made these appointments; but it is certainly a long list of appointments of great importance which are looked upon as great prizes in the Civil Service, and which have been given—and rightly given—to the Private Secretaries of the right hon. Gentlemen and his Colleagues. Therefore, I decline altogether to entertain for one moment any accusation that may be brought against Lord Salisbury for appointing to an office in the House of Lords a man who had served Lord Cairns as Private Secretary for six years. The appointment of Mr. Graham has been approved by the House of Lords, who are primarily concerned, and it cannot, in any degree, be censured as a political job. Lord Salisbury singled out the man who was, by his qualifications and experience, fitted in every way to fill the office; and the persons whose comfort and convenience are mainly interested have expressed themselves thoroughly satisfied with the way in which Mr. Graham has discharged his duties. So much for this "abominable job." I now come to the question of the alleged disparity between the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords and of the officers of the House of Commons. It is not the case that there is a great disparity between the salaries of the Clerk of the Parliaments and of the Chief Clerk of the House of Commons. The salary of the latter is £2,000 a-year, in addition to £200 a-year as Secretary to the Caledonian Canal Commissioners. [An hon. MEMBER: No!] Then the information which has been furnished to me appears to be wrong. The salary of the Clerk of the House of Commons, then, is £2,000 a-year; he has an official residence provided for him; furniture is given to him; lighting and firing are provided for him; and he does not have to pay rates and taxes. These privileges are worth from £800 to £1,000 a-year. The Clerk of the Parliaments has a salary of £2,500 a-year, with £500 as an allowance in lieu of an official residence. Therefore, in respect of the salaries of the two officials there is no great difference. The duties of the Clerk of the Parliaments and of the Chief Clerk of the House of Commons are, to a certain extent, different. The duties of the Chief Clerk of the House of Commons, it is true, are very heavy while the House is sitting. There is a great deal of night work, which must be very trying. But it must be remembered that the Clerk of the Parliaments has duties to perform as registrar of the appellate tribunal of the House of Lords. Although he has not the night work to do which falls to the Clerk of the House of Commons, he is employed for a much longer period annually. He has to remain at his post from November until the commencement of the Long Vacation. Balancing the circumstances of the two offices, therefore, there seems to be no great disparity between them. The hon. Member alluded also to certain other officials—to the Second Clerk, to the Usher of the Black Rod, and the Yeoman Usher. Many Members of this House may not be aware of the fact that until 1869—and to this I would direct their attention—that up to the year 1869 the salaries and expenses of the officials of the House of Lords were mainly defrayed out of the fees paid in connection with Private Bills or arising from forfeiture. The deficiency, when any occurred between the amount of the fees and the expenditure of the House of Lords, was made good by the House of Commons each year. Until 1869 the House of Lords defrayed all its expenses, to the amount of £36,900 a-year, and only came to the House of Commons for £8,300, the total expenses of the House of Lords having been £45,200. In that year the House of Lords surrendered all its fees to the Exchequer, on the condition that the House of Commons should vote a sufficient sum for its expenses. From that time the expenses, which, in 1867, were £47,000, have diminished until, in the year 1886, they came to £46,000—a diminution of £1,000 a-year; and, moreover, the sum of at least £1,000 is invariably saved in the Vote granted by the House of Commons. Therefore, the actual expenses of the House of Lords have diminished, since they gave up their fees to the Exchequer, by no less a sum than £2,000 a-year. But that does not represent anything like the profit which the House of Commons makes. In the course of the year 1877, when Sir Augustus Clifford, the then Usher of the Black Rod, died, a sum of £2,000 came upon the Votes. But the salary and fees of the Usher of the Black Rod amounted, in 1869, to no less a sum than £4,000 a-year; so that the Treasury, by the bargain which was made in that year with the House of Lords with regard to this particular office of Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, have made a clear profit of £2,000 a-year. Instead of £4,000 a-year, the Usher of the Black Rod has only now £2,000 a-year, and the balance goes into the Exchequer. If, then, you take the £2,000 a-year which the House gained by the arrangement arrived at in 1869, and the £2,000 a-year gained in connection with the office of Black Rod, you get a resulting profit of £4,000 a-year from the House of Lords having given up its fees to the Exchequer. I do not think these facts are below the notice of the hon. Member, and of those who look upon the House of Lords as an Establishment which is going to be immediately abolished, and as one which reflects discredit on the country. But if that is the motive of the hon. Member in moving this Amendment, I will only say to him, and to those who support him, in the words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian at the commencement of this Session, in reply to the hon. Member's Colleague the other Member for Northampton (MR. Brad-laugh)—"If you want to attack the House of Lords, or abolish the House of Lords, bring up your proposition boldly, and let the House of Commons and the country decide upon it;" but do not in this petty, niggardly, and underhand fashion lay down an insidious hue of attack against the House of Lords and attempt to deprive it of the money which is absolutely necessary to enable it to discharge its functions as a Legislative Assembly and judicial tribunal. Bring up your proposition, and let us see whether Parliament is in favour of abolishing the House of Lords. But, until that moment arrives, let the hon. Member have sufficient generosity and chivalry to admit that the House of Lords is an Establishment that must be maintained in a certain amount of dignity and comfort, and not to attempt to deprive it of money which is necessary to enable it to discharge its functions with efficiency. I have shown that the House of Lords has given up to the House of Commons, from revenue which was its own, and absolutely under its own control, a sum of £40,000 a-year —all its fees were placed in charge of the House of Commons on the condition that the House of Commons should then undertake all the expenses of the House of Lords. Now I come to another matter. I am of opinion that the general sense of Parliament and the people is that the time has come when all our public Establishments might advantageously be examined into and reviewed; and it is quite possible that the Houses of Parliament will be found among the first of the public Establishments of the country which will usefully bear examination and inquiry. The proposal that I would be inclined to make to the House is this. That next Session there should be a Joint Committee appointed—a small Joint Committee of certainly not less than, and perhaps not more than, three Members of both Houses, who should examine into the Establishments of both Houses jointly—so that the knowledge acquired in the House of Commons may be applied to the House of Lords, and the knowledge acquired in the House of Lords may be brought to bear on the Establishment of the House of Commons. One matter which would be inquired into and reported upon would be the cost of each House. That is a procedure which I think might result in a considerable diminution of the Establishment charges. This would especially be the case if the Committee included within the scope of its inquiry the subject of Private Bill legislation. If that inquiry is undertaken with a view to diminish the duties which fall on Parliament in connection with Private Bill legislation, I think it is possible that the charges of both Houses might be very considerably diminished. What I want to impress on the House of Commons is this—that those who indulge in criticisms of the Establishment of the House of Lords, and the officials of the House of Lords, ought to remember that they live in a glass house. It is, of course, possible that the Establishment of the House of Lords may admit of reduction; but the same remark applies equally to the House of Commons. At the present moment there is no doubt that it is the bounden duty of the House of Commons to vote the reasonable demands of the House of Lords for its efficient maintenance, and I am sure that the groundless Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton will be repudiated by a large majority.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

In speaking upon this subject I will not go into the comparative importance or license implied in the use of the word "underhand," as applied to the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton (MR. Labouchere) for reducing the expenditure of the House of Lords. I think the hon. Member deserves the gratitude of the country for raising the question, and I believe that he has occupied the time of the Committee with advantage. I certainly failed to see anything in the remarks of the hon. Member to justify the severe censure of the noble Lord. The hon. Member has made no underhand attack upon the House of Lords. His proposition is simply to place the two Houses of Parliament on a footing of equality, and to save the money of the taxpayers, which is one of the most laudable functions of a Member of this House. The purpose for which I have risen now is to protest against the appointment of a Joint Committee. I do not care whether there are three Peers on it, or 15, or 20; but I altogether object to the proposal to select three Members of the House of Commons for the performance of these functions. May I ask if it is intended that one of them should be an Irish Member?

THE CHAIRMAN

I am afraid that the discussion is straying away from the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member cannot discuss the appointment of a Committee which has been merely foreshadowed by the noble Lord.

COLONEL NOLAN

I have no wish to discuss the appointment of the three eminent Members of the Committee further. I only wanted to suggest that each of these three eminent Gentlemen would probably have a Private Secretary, and that I think is strictly in accordance with the argument of the noble Lord. The fact of having three Private Secretaries to appoint might probably influence the action in the matter of noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen who have been Cabinet Ministers and of those who hope to be Cabinet Ministers. After the panegyric which has been pronounced by the noble Lord on Private Secretaries, I think there is likely to be a tremendous rush for the appointment. We have bad a most formidable list of appointments read out; but although it consists of appointments made on the Liberal side, I think it is quite probable that an equally important list could be given of appointments on the Conservative side. As the rule, I have not seen that Conservatives have been in the habit of treating their friends worse than the Liberals, and I should say that the prizes in the Civil Service have been applied in rewarding handsomely the devotion of Private Secretaries. There was one part of the noble Lord's speech which I think was chiefly conspicuous and important from its omissions, and that is, that he took no notice whatever of the object which the hon. Member for Northampton has in view—not separation on the part of the House of Commons, but complete equality with the House of Lords. Why should there be these extra payments to the officials of the House of Lords, because extra payments they are, wrap them up as you may? In short, the officers of the House of Lords are paid at a much higher rate than those of the House of Commons. Why should we submit to that inequality? Why should the House of Lords, with better appointments, claim from that fact a superior position for the Upper Chamber? That is the strongest reason why I support the hon. Member in his proposal to reduce the Vote. I think we are extremely good to the House of Lords, who represent nobody but themselves, to allow them equality; but if we consent to establish their superiority we deserve to be regarded as their inferiors. There was one argument used by the noble Lord which is altogether fallacious. He said that the House of Lords have given up fees to the extent of £47,000 a-year, and therefore we are bound, in ordinary justice, to find them the money. Now, if the House of Lords had given up £47,000 a-year out of their private property, there really might be something in the argument of the noble Lord. But what was it that they really did? They had been imposing taxes on the suitors, and those fees are now paid into the Exchequer, and it is a very ordinary kind of reform indeed that such fees should be paid into a common fund. The Attorney General for Ireland used to be paid in the same way, £2,000 a year, out of the Patent Fund; but because he surrendered it, are we in future to have no control over his salary? The argument of the noble Lord amounts to this—that the House of Lords has a vested interest and private property in these fees, which are wrung from the persons who go to them for justice. This £47,000 was a mere matter of account. The House of Commons of that day took a proper view of the importance of the matter, and insisted on there being one fund under the control of the Exchequer. This is not a very new Motion; it has often been brought forward before. [Cries of "Divide!"] I hear hon. Gentlemen opposite say "Divide!" but if there is any attempt to control the discussion of the Estimates, I, for one, shall not feel inclined to submit to it, and shall feel it my duty to speak on every Vote. At present we are engaged in an attempt to save the money of the taxpayers, and if in doing so we are to be cried down by the Conservative side of the House, it is our duty to assert ourselves and endeavour to affect these economies. I do not think the country will accept the principle of the noble Lord—that the officers of the House of Lords ought to be paid more than those of the House of Commons. I think that the hon. Member for Northampton, instead of deserving the severe censure which has been showered on his head by the noble Lord, deserves the gratitude of the whole country for bringing forward the question in the way he has done. The noble Lord tells us that, after a service of six years as Private Secretary, a gentleman was placed in a post to which a salary of £3,000 a year is attached; whereas there are Clerks at the Table of this House who have served for 14 years with nothing like an equivalent. I do not say that this appointment is worse than that of other Private Secretaries, but I think the hon. Member is right in the course he has taken.

MR. HENEY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

I always admired the ability of the noble Lord in dealing with difficult questions, and the admirable manner in which he skates over the thin ice, as in this case, and puts before the Committee two or three issues altogether distinct from those which have been raised. I do not propose to follow him into his defence of the appointment of Mr. Graham as Clerk of the Parliaments. All I will say in regard to the doctrine that the House of Lords are the only judges of the exercise of the patronage of the Prime Minister, is, that the Prime Minister is responsible for the exercise of that patronage to the House of Commons as well as to the House of Lords. But it is a mistake to rest the matter upon the merits or demerits of Mr. Graham. Everyone agrees that if Sir Erskine May had lived, he would have been the most competent person to fill that office. But Sir Erskine May has gone, and I am not prepared to say that Mr. Graham is disqualified or incompetent to perform the duties. I am sure that in reading out the list of Private Secretaries promoted by the late Prime Minister, the noble Lord forgot to state that every one of those gentlemen, before he became Private Secretary, was already a distinguished member of the Civil Service, and merely won a legitimate prize of his own profession. The grave question is the startling discrepancy in the salaries paid to officials for doing the same work in the two Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord attempted two or three defences of these discrepancies. The first was, that there was, in reality, no discrepancy at all; but the fact remains that the Chief Clerk of the House of Commons is paid £2,000 a-year, and has an official residence, whereas the Chief Clerk of the House of Lords is paid £2,500 a-year, and is allowed £500 a-year for an official residence. Therefore, for all practical purposes, there is a difference of £500 a-year between the two. With reference to the work, it is perfectly idle to compare the two. The House of Lords sits barely for three weeks in the month of November as an appellate tribunal. Pile it up over and over again, as you like, it is ridiculous to say that the Chief Clerk of the House of Commons, and the Clerks at the Table, do not perform as much work in one month as the Clerks of the House of Lords do in 12 months. I have no wish to place the House of Lords below the level of the House of Commons, but I support the proposition that the officers of both Houses should be placed on a level. Take another office—that of Usher of the Black Rod. Compare the duties of that office with those of our Serjeant-at-Arms. Yet the Sergeant-at-Arms gets £1,200 a-year, and an official residence, while the Black Rod has £2,000 and an official residence, together with emoluments as an Admiral on the Retired List, and fees for his own use as an officer of the Order of the Garter. I do not mean to contend that Black Rod should be paid less than the Serjeant-at-Arms; but the fact is patent to everybody that the work which the Serjeant-at-Arms has to do is very much heavier than that of Black Rod. "But," says the noble Lord, "Sir Augustus Clifford received a large sum in fees, and when the office became vacant, those fees were given up to the Treasury." I venture to say there was no officer who was not originally paid by fees. The Secretaries of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord Chancellor, and the Judges, were all paid by fees; but, after considering what the future remuneration of various officers should be when a new appointment was made, the Treasury received the fee and the person appointed was paid a salary. The Lord Chancellor now gets £10,000 a-year; but the fees in Lord Eldon's time amounted to as much as £27,000 a-year. It is a stock phrase in all these debates on the discrepancy of the salaries paid to the officers of the two Houses, that the Lords surrendered up a large amount of fees into the control of the House of Commons, out of which it previously paid its officials. That is true, and it is not true. The House of Lords did not pay its officers out of fees exclusively, but it had to come to the House of Commons for a Vote. If hon. Members will look at the Papers placed before them, they will see that the estimated receipts from the House of Lords are £26,000 only, while the requirements are £46,000, and, that being admitted, it is clear the House of Commons has a right to discuss and control the expenditure of that £20,000. The fees paid by the suitors—paid by the public for exercising their rights in one of the tribunals of the country; and, as a matter of fact, the House of Lords' fees do not cover the House of Lords' expenditure by something like £20,000. The simple issue upon which the Committee is now called to express its opinion is, whether the servants of the two Houses, without going into the question of the amount of work, should, as between the two Houses, be paid at the same rate. I think the noble Lord practically admitted before he sat down his own dissatisfaction with his own argument, because he said that the time has arrived, and I quite agree with him, for a regular overhauling of our spending Departments, and he threw out a hint that he was prepared to concede that the expenditure of the two Houses should be subjected to an inquiry of that sort. The Secretary to the Treasury also said, a short time ago, in refer-once to the Woods and Forests, that he was disposed to look favourably on the suggestion that the forthcoming Commission should embrace an inquiry into those two Departments. I think that suggestion was readily accepted by the House; but, I venture to think that it is not desirable to let a Joint Committee of both Houses determine questions which belong Constitutionally to the House of Commons. The House of Commons alone has control over the Expenditure of the country, and we must be careful how we admit even the thinnest end of the wedge. The noble Lord has a full right to discuss how such an. inquiry should be carried out—that is only a fair and reasonable proposition; but as far as the general principle is concerned, I cannot for one moment see, as between the two Houses, why the Chief Clerks, the Black Rod, and the Serjeant-at-Arms, and every other official, no matter what position he occupies, should not be paid the same level sums. Without raising the question of the work itself, I see nothing in the work done by the Clerk of the Parliaments in the House of Lords to justify the payment of that officer at a higher rate than the Chief Clerk of the House of Commons.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I wish to point out that the right hon. Gentleman has not carried his argument quite far enough. It would seem to be a long time since the right hon. Gentleman visited the House of Lords, or he would be aware that there is absolute inequality between the two Houses. Indeed, there is a shocking inequality between ourselves and the House of Lords—an inequality that fills me with shame and humiliation as a Member of the House of Commons. Hon. Members will have noticed that the staircase descending from the House of Lords is carpeted; our staircase has no carpet. The right hon. Gentleman will have ob- served that at the corners of that staircase there are magnificent attendants, dressed in scarlet and gold; we have no attendants dressed in scarlet and gold. If the right hon. Gentleman goes into the House of Lords itself, he will see that the benches are far more comfortable than ours, and that they are covered with scarlet leather. It must be perfectly shocking and humiliating to a patriot to observe all the marks of inequality between the two Houses. Therefore, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is worth nothing, unless he is prepared to go further, and sweep away and abolish for ever these inequalities, or anything that might lead the public to suppose that this House is in any way inferior to the House of Lords. The whole idea itself of the House of Lords—and you may abolish it if you like, or if you can—is to surround it with far more of pomp and state and circumstance than the House of Commons. All the pomp and state and circumstance which surround the Throne and the administration of justice is centred in the House of Lords. If you want to alter the character of the House of Lords, by all means do so if you can; but to say that all things are to be placed on a footing of equality, when there is no parity whatever between them, is absurd. It falls entirely to the ground, unless you are prepared to change the whole character of that Institution, and to make it nothing but what the right hon. Gentleman would probably like to see it—an Elective Senate, like that of the United States of America.

MR. BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

It is very difficult to know where to have the noble Lord; we have now had two speeches from him. In the first speech he argued that the House of lords was entirely on an equality with the House of Commons as to salaries and everything else; and now he comes down upon my right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (MR. Henry H. Fowler), and says the social inequality between the two Houses is so great, that it must of necessity extend to the salaries also. I do not propose to enter into the question which has occupied a large share of the speech of the noble Lord—namely, the appointment of Mr. Graham. I am not one of those who are anxious to scent a job in every appointment, and I believe that both sides of the House are actuated by a very high sense of the requirements of the Public Service, and that these accusations of jobbery on both sides are, in 99 cases out of 100, without the slightest foundation. On the question of the actual salaries between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, I think the noble Lord made out a pretty strong case as between the salary of the Chief Clerk in the House of Lords and the Chief Clerk here; but I would point out this fact in reference to the salary of the Assistant Clerk of the House of Lords, which is included in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (MR. Labouchere), that the Second Clerk of the Upper House receives a salary of £1,800 a year, and £300 for a house; while the Second Clerk in this House only receives £1,500 a year, and no allowance for a house. And surely this is an office in regard to which it cannot be said that the work of the Clerk in this House is not as great or very much greater than that of the Clerk of the Upper House. That is one of the points on which the Committee are asked to vote, and it is one on which we hope to obtain something more approaching to economy than we have at present.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I rise to ask an explanation from the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the reason why two Irish Votes, upon which I was anxious to make some remarks—that is to say, the Votes for University Buildings, and for Science and Art Buildings in Dublin, were taken at the commencement of the proceedings in Committee? I believed that the Votes would be taken in order; but, to my astonishment, I find that a considerable space in the Estimates have been passed over, and these two Votes taken.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I am sorry that the hon. Member has been disappointed in his wish to speak on the Votes referred to; but it would be a very hard thing to blame the Government for asking money for Ireland. The simple explanation, however, is that two Votes, one for £25,000 for the new Admiralty and War Office, and the other for £800 for Dover Harbour, have not been brought forward, because Her Majesty's Government have decided not to spend the money this year. The two Irish Votes were, therefore, taken in their order.

MR. DILLON

The explanation of the noble Lord is so unsatisfactory that I must say I think it would have been better to have appended a note to the Paper for our instruction. The Paper appears to show that the Votes referred to by the noble Lord would be taken.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

As I am technically responsible for this, I beg to assure the hon. Gentleman that there was not the slighest intention to mislead the Committee. The fact is, as the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated, these two sums of £25,000 and £800 which appear on the Estimates were not wanted this year, and therefore, following the usual course, they were passed over.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 98; Noes 173: Majority 75.—(Div. List, No. 17.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. P. J. POWER (Waterford, E.)

I wish to draw attention to the question of the salary of the Librarian of the House of Commons. His salary is not as large as that of the Librarian of the House of Lords, but we must agree that he does ten times as much work. I think also that it is unfair that the Librarian of the House of Lords should have a residence provided for him, while our Librarian has no residence. We must all acknowledge that we receive every attention from all the gentlemen in the Library when we require their services; and I believe that it is not too much to say that a gentleman who is kept here until 3 o'clock in the morning might more reasonably expect a residence than the gentleman who occupies a similar position in another House and who does not remain until so late an hour. This question was raised in a previous Parliament; there was then a strong minority in favour of it—of a residence being provided for our Librarian. I think it must be acknowledged by hon. Members in every quarter of the House that this gentleman performs more important duties in connection with this House than does the Librarian of the House of Lords in connection with that Chamber. I shall be glad to hear the remarks which the Government have to make on this matter.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

The noble Lord opposite(Lord Randolph Churchill), in some of his remarks on the last Vote, was, I think, hardly in Order in speaking of the decorations of the House of Lords. There may be carpets, and there may be red morocco leather, as well as other extravagances in the House of Lords; but as they do not appear in the Vote, we cannot properly discuss them. However, the noble Lord, in common with those hon. Members who object to the political action of the House of Lords, should have the courage of his convictions and vote against the whole sum. I think the House of Lords uses its powers in a way in which it ought not to use them, and I would call the attention of the hon. Gentlemen opposite to one of the last things done in the House of Lords last year.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman should recollect that criticisms on the political action of the House of Lords would be out of place on this Vote; but the hon. Member will be quite in Order if he speaks against the Vote as a whole.

MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.)

I have one question to ask with regard to this Vote. The Committee will be aware that the opening of the House of Lords and the House of Commons to the public on Saturdays is under tie control of the Lord Great Chamberlain. There has been a strong feeling that the House of Commons might now be again thrown open to visitors on Saturdays. Although Members of the House of Commons, some time ago, were in favour of opening the House to the public, yet it was discovered that this official, the Lord Great Chamberlain, had it in his power to prevent. I think the time has arrived when the House of Commons might again be thrown open to visitors on Saturdays, and I shall be glad if the noble Lord the Leader of the House would make a representation to the Lord Great Chamberlain to that effect.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I think, if the hon. Member will take into consideration the circumstance that the Lord Great Chamberlain was for many years a popular Member of this House, he may be assured that that official will not put any obstacle unnecessarily in the way of the public having access to the House of Commons, and I am sure he will find, if he inquires, that any arrangement with regard to the admission of the public to the Palace of Westminster has been made entirely in accordance with the Police Regulations which it became necessary to impose after the outrages which occurred two or three years ago.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(4.) £22,498, to complete the sum for House of Commons Offices.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

On this Vote I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to some items which appear under Sub-head III., page 90, with respect to the salaries of the Clerks of the House. Now, one would have supposed that in the House of Commons, the House of the Representatives of the people, there would be as much free and open competition for appointments as there is in other Departments of the Service. But this is not the case. There are four principal Clerks, whose salaries go from £850 to £1,000, and seven senior Clerks, at salaries from £650 to £800. I make no objection to the salaries, and have no doubt that the gentlemen who receive them are worthy of the money paid for their services. It is, of course, necessary to have gentlemen of a certain social position to fill places of this kind; but I do not know that the qualifications of gentlemen for these posts are higher or in any way better than the qualifications of men in the Foreign Office, Colonial Office, in the Admiralty, and War Office, and other Departments of Secretaries of State. But whereas, some few years ago, all the clerkships in these superior Offices were thrown open to competition, here, in the House of Commons, these appointments are reserved for the direct, or all but direct, nomination of an official of the House. Recently the position has been somewhat modified and explained by a letter which was laid before the House a few days ago from the Clerk of the House to Mr. Horace Mann, Secretary to the Civil Service Commissioners, to the effect that he informed the Commissioners that it was his intention, while remaining responsible for the appointment of clerks to the House of Commons, to make such appointments depend on the result of competitive examination among such candidates as he might nominate for the positions, and that subjoined was a schedule showing the subjects of examination to which candidates would be subjected. The schedule is as follows:—Handwriting and orthography; power of accurately perusing, connected with original documents; arithmetic, including vulgar and decimal fractions; English composition; history of England from 1603 to 1860; Constitutional history of England as gathered from four text-books; and, finally, Latin. The schedule goes on to say that for qualification, translation from Latin to English will be required, but marks will be given for translation from English to Latin. Now that is the standard of examination to which are to be subjected a very small number of gentlemen nominated by the Clerk of the House. I say that to fill up the staff of Clerks of the House of Commons in such a way as this, when positions in all other important Offices of State are open to the public by free competition, is to reserve to this House, which is the House of the people, a system of exclusiveness that ought not to continue. It is not to be contended that, in point of examination, there is any particular reason why the men in the Admiralty or the War Office should be superior to the clerks in the House of Commons, and yet the examination required to be passed by the clerks in the Department of the Clerk of the House is radically inferior to that to which persons competing for appointments in the Offices of the Secretaries of State are subjected. I do not want to move any reduction of this Vote, and yet I ask the Committee to consider the evident unfairness of reserving to a small number of men—the personal friends, possibly, of the Clerk of the House, or the friends of his friends—appointments which, as regards their financial remuneration, are so very much superior to those other appointments in the Civil Service open to competition, but the securing of which is so very much more difficult. If you require men who ought to be paid these large sums, then you ought to get the very best men as tested by the recognized system of examination; and you ought to have these posts in connection with the House of Commons as much open to competition amongst the great body of the people as the posts in all the Offices of the Secretaries of State and other Departments of the Public Service. The pay of these gentlemen is very much higher than the pay of any other persons who have to submit to so small an examination as that I have described. I stated that recently the position has been somewhat modified. Formerly it was more exclusive than it is now; there has been, to a certain extent, a yielding of ground. But what is the effect? The effect is small. It may appear paradoxical, as a rule, to extend patronage rather than to restrict it. When you have one post to fill, and you fill it by appointing a single individual, you discharge your obligation to a political supporter or friend, and to one only; but directly you adopt a system of limited competition for each post you have in your gift, you may throw a sop to half-a-dozen or even a dozen people. It was Lord Palmerston who was cute enough to see that first. He was decidedly in favour of doing away with direct nomination, and of instituting a system of limited competition, because, for every post he had to fill, he was able to satisfy half a-dozen different political supporters instead of one. I am decidedly of opinion, and I trust many other Members of the House are of opinion, that posts in connection with the House of Commons, which is the House of the People, should be as open to public competition as any other post in any other Department of the Public Service; and I trust this concession—for it is a concession—which has now been made will be followed up, and that the next move will be to throw open to public competition all the posts, all the small clerical posts, in connection with the House.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

The hon. Member (MR. Arthur O'Connor) has correctly stated that these positions are filled up upon what may be called the principle of limited competition. I understand that the plan adopted is that not more than six or less than three men are selected in case of a vacancy; and that these men have to go through a certain examination, and that the one who is most successful receives the appointment. Hon. Members will, how- ever, bear in mind that the Clerk is practically responsible for the conduct of the Business of the House, and that he is not likely to appoint any gentlemen who are in any sense incompetent. I think we may take it for granted that the Clerk will see that none but suitable men are appointed.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman (MR. Jackson) does not quite see the point of my observations. I did not for one moment question the discretion of the distinguished gentleman who is at present the Clerk of the House of Commons. I am perfectly certain that that gentleman would be incapable of appointing to one of these posts anyone who was not perfectly fitted for it. But the same thing may be said of the Head of every other Department in the Civil Service; and if the argument holds good with regard to the Clerk of the House of Commons, why should it not hold good equally with regard to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Secretary of State for War, and the First Lord of the Admiralty? Surely they can be trusted quite as much as the Clerk of the House of Commons to be as anxious to fill the posts under them by men qualified to occupy them. The question is not the discretion of the Clerk of the House of Commons, but the right of the people of this country to have open to public competition, and to all who will offer themselves and prove themselves qualified, the posts which are connected with the House of the People.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

I am sorry the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (MR. Jackson), who I would describe as a Progressive Conservative, should have taken up the attitude he has upon the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). There is not a single argument which the hon. Gentleman (MR. Jackson) has used that has not been exploded in the course of the controversy which took place a long time ago with regard to the nomination system of this country. Everything the hon. Gentleman has urged in favour of the discretion of the Clerk of the House was urged in favour of the discretion of the Heads of all the other Departments, and we all know what homilies were preached as to the danger to the Service of the country, if the situations in it were exposed to the risks and inconveniences of public competition. The sense of the country and of Parliament upon this question, which has been displayed in an unmistakable manner, is that all situations under the Crown shall be the rewards of success in competitive examinations; and I hope the hon. Gentleman will rise immediately after me, and give us a promise that this last bit of patronage will be taken away, and that the situations in this House will be given as rewards of ability and of knowledge, as are the other posts of the country. Now, as I have risen, perhaps I had better not sit down before I have alluded to one or two other matters on which I should like information from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. I find £1,600 is put down for shorthand writers. I assume this is paid to Hansard for reporting the debates of the House. Well, Mr. Courtney, I am sure I shall enlist your sympathy in making some inquiries with regard to this question, for I am sure it was largely due to your action that the small reform in the reporting of our debates has taken place. But, Mr. Courtney, what was effected some years ago in regard to reporting our proceedings was but a compromise, and, like most compromises, it left things in a rather worse position than they were in before. What is the present state of affairs? I am sure hon. Members of this House can have no conception of how the reporting of this House is conducted at the present moment. Everybody knows that a revolutionary change has taken place in the reporting of Parliamentary proceedings by the daily Press. Anybody who refers to the newspapers of 30 or 40 years ago will find full reports, not only of the speeches of prominent Members of Parliament, but even of the very inferior and very minor Members of this Assembly. For instance, when Mr. Disraeli, in 1837, got up to make his first historical speech in this House, he was, in a Parliamentary sense, a person of no very great consequence; and yet, if we go back to the daily papers of that day, we find a very full report indeed of the speech of Mr. Disraeli. When a man makes a maiden speech nowadays, we find him dismissed in a couple of lines, or perhaps find him consigned to that limbo of reporting—"after a few words from Mr. So-and-so, Mr. So-and-so said." I mention the case of Mr. Disraeli, because it shows the remarkable importance of the question I am raising. I maintain it is important to the country that it should have a record of the utterances of its public men in the Assembly of the people. A gentleman who has written to me on the subject points out that, in his early days, which are not very remote, the present Leader of the House (Lord Randolph Churchill) made a good many speeches, but in Hansard you find him dismissed in three or four lines. You, Mr. Courtney, were one of the Members of this House who first called attention to the defective reporting in this House, and in a Committee which sat upstairs to inquire into the reporting by Hansard you elicited the very extraordinary fact that Hansard is mainly filled up with the reports of The Times newspaper, that the reports in The Times are largely regulated by the gentleman who holds the position of chief of the reporting staff of The Times newspaper. It therefore comes to this, that the records of the proceedings in this House are entirely dependent upon the will or the judgment—or it may be the caprice—of the chief of the reporting staff of one of our daily newspapers. That was a state of things so extraordinary as to require a remedy, and a remedy was provided. But the remedy was about as extraordinary as it could well be. What was done was this—a certain sum of money was allowed to Mr. Hansard for reporting debates in this House; but Mr. Hansard was strictly confined to—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The reporting under this head is the reporting of the proceedings before Committees upstairs. The reporting of the proceedings of this House to which the hon. Gentleman refers is provided for in the Stationery Vote, and the discussion with regard to it must take place on that Vote.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

I should like to say a word upon the subject raised by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor)—namely, the nomination of the clerks in this House. It will be in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen who were Members of the last Parliament that a Motion on this subject was put upon the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Postmaster General (MR. Raikes), who, unfortunately, I do not see in his place to-night. The subject bad to be considered by the late Government, and I consulted my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian(MR. W. E. Gladstone) in regard to the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman the present Postmaster General had put upon the Paper. I have not the exact words of his Motion; but if I remember right, it was to the effect that the nomination of the Clerks of this House ought to be placed in the hands of Mr. Speaker; and certainly we came to the conclusion that the arrangement suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be better than the existing one, and we should have been prepared to have supported his Motion upon that footing. If the nominations are to be in the hands of any individual, it is well that they should be in the bands of the principal Officer of the House—at all events, that was the conclusion at which we arrived. The bon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) bas raised another important question—namely, whether there ought to be single nominations at all, whether they ought to be an exception to the general rule of the Public Service, whereby places in the Public Service are open to public competition. I confess I am disposed to agree with the hon. Member that, as that principle has been accepted in the Public Service of the country, there is no reason why the appointment of Clerks of this House should be an exception to the general rule. But I would ask the Government to consider this matter, both from the point of view adopted by the hon. Member, and also from the point of view of whether, if the nominations are to continue, they ought not to be in the hands of the Chief Officer of the House who, of course, is Mr. Speaker. I think the present arrangement is capable of improvement, and I hope the Government will look at the matter from that point of view.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I do not quite gather what the right hon. Gentleman is aiming at. Is he aiming at transferring the nomination of the Clerks of the House from the present Clerk of the House to the Speaker?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

That was the proposal of the right hon. Gen- tleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes), and certainly, as between nominations by the principal Clerk and the Speaker, we should prefer nomination by the Speaker. The question of competition was not raised at that time, and, in fact, it had not occurred to me. Now that it has been raised, I do think there is a great deal to be said in favour of the principle of competition, subject, of course, to the control of the Speaker as to the conditions on which the competition should be conducted. If I may take the liberty of expressing it, my present view is that the Speaker should be the Head of the Department, and that the appointments should be open to competition, the conditions of which should be laid down by the Speaker in the same way as conditions of competition are made by the Principals of every other Department of State.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) that although he has advocated this change, he has not suggested any reason why the change should be made. From time immemorial, as far as I know, this patronage has been vested in the Clerk of the House; it is vested in him by Act of Parliament, and by Letters Patent, and I did not gather from what the right hon. Gentleman is urging that the patronage has been at all improperly disposed. On the contrary, I should say that it is owing to the fact that this patronage was so well disposed by the late Clerk, that the House of Commons is so well served at the present time. Again, there is this to be said. The difference between the Speaker and the Clerk of this House is this—that one is a Member of the House of Commons, and the other is not; and that is certainly a difference which ought to be taken into account before any great change is made. I should also say, though I speak with less knowledge and authority than I wish to on the subject—I should say that the Clerk of the House is brought more into connection with the general clerical staff than the Speaker, and that, therefore, it is important the Clerk should have the direction of that staff. I admit the whole thing might be usefully considered, particularly in connection with the throwing open of the appointments to competition. I understand that the present Clerk of the House has decided, on his own authority, to make that change. [MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Only partially.] As the Clerk has initiated such a change, it is well that we should proceed cautiously in the matter. There are qualifications which would not necessarily be secured by free and open competition, and, therefore, caution is desirable in making any large change in this matter. But I can assure the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) that what has fallen from him and from other hon. Members will be considered by the Government, and that the Government will, in regard to this subject, enter into careful and close consultation with the authorities of the House.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

The competition proposed by the Clerk is not open competition; it is a limited competition in which there will be only three nominees. That is a totally different thing to free and open competition. I cannot see why the Clerkships of the House of Commons should be the only exception in the Civil Service to the system of open competition. [An hon. MEMBER: The Foreign Office.] No doubt, there is an exception in the case of the Foreign Office; but in regard to the Clerkships in the Foreign Office, it is to be observed that a considerable number of young men are nominated, so that practically there is a very open competition. I think that even in the Foreign Office the principle of open competition might be carried out. What greater reason can there be for limiting the nomination or competition in the case of the Foreign Office and the House of Commons, than there is in the case of the Treasury? I venture to say that the Clerks in the Treasury have duties quite as important, quite as confidential, quite as essential in every respect to the Public Service, as the Clerks of the House of Commons or of the Foreign Office. I therefore hope the Government will bring pressure to bear on the Chief Clerk of this House, in order to introduce the system of open competition in the case of the Clerkships in this House. The principle has now been generelly adopted throughout the Public Service, and I do not think it ought to be infringed, even in the case of the Clerkships of this House.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) hopes the Government will bring pressure to bear on the Chief Clerk of the House. I think pressure is not necessary. The Chief Clerk has but one object—the general efficiency of the work of the House of Commons; and, certainly, in the matter of reform in the House, the Government will not take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman to bring pressure to bear on the Chief Clerk. The Government have the fullest confidence in the Chief Clerk who, they know, only desires to be guided by knowledge and information.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

It was stated that a change could not be made without an Act of Parliament, because it is under an Act of Parliament that this patronage is now vested in the Clerk of the House. The initiation of any change must rest with the Government, who, therefore, might legitimately exercise the only pressure to which I referred.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

Mr. Courtney, I must object to the tone which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) has adopted. The noble Lord endeavours to make it appear that we are making this a personal question in regard to the present Clerk of the House. That is not the question at all. My hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) who introduced the subject, began with the declaration that he had the most perfect confidence in the judgement and in the desire to do right of the gentleman who now holds the position of Chief Clerk. The noble Lord, in discussing this question a few moments ago, made an unfavourable contrast between the Clerk of the House and the Speaker of the House. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No.] He made a contrast most unfavourable to the Speaker. Perhaps the noble Lord does not know exactly what he said. I will repeat for his benefit what he did say, and draw my own conclusions, and the Committee will be at liberty to judge whether my inferences are correct or not. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) drew attention to the fact that the present Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes) put down a Motion, during the last Parliament, in favour of transferring this patronage from the Chief Clerk of the House to the Speaker of the House. The right hon. Gentleman was followed by the noble Lord (Lord Randolph. Churchill), who said it must be recollected that the Chief Clerk was not a Member of the House of Commons, whereas the Speaker was a Member of the House of Commons. What did that plainly mean? I do not object to the observation at all, but what did it mean? It plainly meant that the Speaker, being a Member of the House, was subject to pressure from his constituents. ["No!"] Well, I should like the noble Lord to get up and say what it did mean. What did he mean by drawing a distinction between the Clerk not being a Member of the House of Commons and the Speaker being a Member of the House of Commons in favour of his proposition that the Clerk of the House was a better depository of the patronage of the House than the Speaker? I think it is very necessary the noble Lord should make it clear what he meant.

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES) (Cambridge University)

I only wish to say one we rd, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) appears to be under some misapprehension. I gave Notice of the Motion to which reference has been made, when the position of the Chief Clerk of the House was vacant, and the Motion contained no reflection either upon the Speaker or the Chief Clerk. When I gave Notice of the Motion, my intention was to suggest that on such an occasion it was desirable to consider whether any change was necessary. I do not in any way attempt by that Notice to prejudge the question which was to be examined by the Committee.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

; The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) has entirely misunderstood my observations. I did not suggest for a moment that he meant to cast any reflection upon the Clerk or the Speaker. What I did say was that I objected altogether to Members being accused of disrespect to particular persons because they wanted to make these positions subject to public competition instead of to patronage. I was merely answering what I considered the most unfair argument of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I have nothing to object to in the remarks of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill); on the contrary, I think they are eminently satisfactory, because by them, he has indicated the readiness of the Government to consider the question, and I do not think we can well expect him to say more. The noble Lord, however, dropped an expression which I should be sorry to let go by without a disclaimer. He seemed to suggest that it was desired to asperse the qualifications of the gentlemen occupying the positions as Clerks under the Clerk of the House of Commons. He probably did not mean that; but I should be sorry such an expression should go abroad without contradiction. Speaking for myself, and I suppose my experience is similar to that of every Member of the House, I have, whenever I have had to have recourse to the staff of the House of Commons, including these gentlemen, always found them not only highly qualified, but eminently courteous; and my remarks had no reference whatsoever to the present officers, but only to the filling up of future vacancies.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £23,506 (including a Supplementary sum of £788), 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 1887, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury, and in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I have to propose the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £3,000, being a portion of the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill). But I may state, at the outset, that there is nothing personal in the matter; in fact, that when in the last Parliament the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, I had the same Motion on the Paper. I had also on the Paper a Motion to reduce the salary of every Gentleman sitting on the Treasury Bench—with the exception of that of the Prime Minister, because I thought the right hon. Gentleman occupied an exceptional position—who had £5,000 a-year to £2,000 a-year. I confess it seems a fortunate accident that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's should be the first salary on the list in the present Vote, because the noble Lord who at present occupies that position (Lord Randolph Churchill) has spoken a great deal lately about economy in the Public Departments. The noble Lord has told us that he wishes to appoint a Royal Commission to see whether economy cannot be effected; but I think the tendency of these Royal Commissions generally is to begin economizing by reducing the salaries of small people and not of great people, and I am sure the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel himself bound to accept my Motion. No doubt, I shall have his support in this proposal, for it would be a hint to the Royal Commission whom he proposes to appoint, that he is serious in his desire to promote economy—which is an important desire for one in the position which the noble Lord occupies—were he to agree to the reduction of his salary from £5,000 to £2,000. I remember speaking to the late Mr. Fawcett one day about the salaries of the women in the Post Office. I said to him—"Why do you, who are so strongly in favour of the principle of putting we men on an equality with men—why do you pay women less than men?" His reply was that "in every Department you must have regard to the market value of the article," and that "you can get women for less than men." It, therefore, becomes important to see for what we can get a Cabinet Minister. I find that Cabinet Ministers are divided into two categories; some get £5,000 a-year and some £2,000 a-year, and it has always appeared to me, both in regard to the present Government and the last Government, that the Gentlemen who receive £2,000 are just as good value as those who receive £5,000. For instance, take the present Government. We have the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade (Lord Stanley of Preston), and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie)—though the latter is not in the Cabinet, but never mind him. The President of the Board of Trade I have always regarded as a most able man—though differing from him on most political questions—yet we get him for £2,000 per annum. Now, can the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer show us, as he is bound to show us if he claims this £5,000 a-year, that he is worth two and a-half times as much as the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade? We will take another point. Quite lately a new Minister was created—namely, the Secretary for Scotland. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman who at present holds that Office (Mr. A. J. Balfour) happens to be in the Cabinet, but we may naturally suppose that this is a post which will be very frequently filled by Gentlemen in the Cabinet. Well, this Office was created, and the amount of the salary was fixed at a sum which was deemed sufficient for a Minister. What is that sum? £2,000 per annum. That proves conclusively that—in the present day—it is felt that £2,000 per annum is amply sufficient for a Cabinet Minister. But what I would point out is this—and I believe every Gentleman here will agree with me—that it is very objectionable to have two categories in the Cabinet. There is no difference in the work or in the position in the Cabinet; and yet you have some Ministers there receiving £2,000 and others receiving £5,000. What is the consequence? Why, that it is looked upon as a species of promotion to get from the £2,000 class to the £5,000 class. Thus, a man who has made a speciality of a certain subject, it may be that he has been Minister of Commerce as President of Board of Trade, which is one of the most important positions in the Cabinet, may change in a moment into the Minister representing some other Department of the Service. A Gentleman who has made a speciality of commerce, and who may have been President of the Board of Trade for a considerable time, very naturally desires to be something else in the Cabinet, because it means promotion, and it is a very natural wish, nowadays, for a Gentleman to prefer £5,000 per annum to £2,000. But let us look abroad in this matter. It used to be said, "Oh, living is cheaper abroad than in England;" but I should think that living in Paris, or in Berlin, and certainly in Washington, is as dear as living in every other country. What are the salaries paid abroad? Well, a Minister in the United States receives 8,000 dollars per annum—that is,£ 1,600. In France he receives 60,000 francs per annum, or £2,400. In Prussia the Ministers receive 30,000 marks per annum, or £1,800, with the exception of Prince Bismarck, who receives 54,000 marks, that is to say, £2,600. Therefore, I will not suggest that the President of the Board of Trade is as good a Minister as the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but I will put it that the noble Lord has the ability of Prince Bismarck, and yet Prince Bismarck only receives £2,600 per annum, while the noble Lord receives £3,000 more than the President of the Board of Trade. I think I may say that if Prince Bismarck is adequately paid at £2,600 a-year, the noble Lord would be adequately paid at £2,000 a-year. I would not say that all Cabinet Ministers should be paid £2,000 per annum, because, no doubt, there are exceptions to the general rule. The Prime Minister ought to have something more. He is at the head of the Government, and I think it only reasonable, as is the case in Prussia, that the Prime Minister should have something more. I think also that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for the Colonies should receive something more than £2,000 a-year; for the former should be able to entertain Foreign Ministers, whilst the Secretary of State for the Colonies—although I do not see that either of them do it—should entertain all the Colonial visitors that come to this country. With respect to other Ministers, I really cannot understand why they should be expected to spend more money whilst in Office than they would do if they were not Ministers. Do they entertain anybody? I do not know that they do. They live in a certain position when they are Ministers; but they also live in that position when they are not Ministers. No doubt, they give parties with ices occasionally, but you can do that with an expenditure of very little money. I should think that if you give them £2,000 per annum, you will find that they have made money by the transaction at the end of the year—they will make more out of their salary than the extra cost they are put to by the fact of their being Ministers. I shall be told to-night, perhaps, something about the dignity of these Offices. What does that mean? It simply means the old-fashioned idea that it is a grander thing to be rich than to be poor. But that is an exploded idea. I will admit that it is a more pleasant thing to be rich than to be poor; but to think that a man is a better man because he lives in a large house instead of a small one, and to think that a man who is connected with a Department of the State is bound to live in a house of a certain size is an absurdity. I remember reading in the letters of Sir William Neville that when he went over to Holland he contrasted the surroundings of the Pensionary De Witt with those of Lord Clarendon in this country. Lord Clarendon was a man in receipt of £30,000 or £40,000 a-year, living in a great palace; but when he (Sir William Neville) called upon De Witt, he rang the bell, a servant opened the door and showed him in, and he found the Pensionary occupying three or four rooms. Neville contrasted these two men; and surely it would be absurd to suppose that, because Lord Clarendon lived in greater style, that he was the greater man of the two. Then, with regard to Mr. Pitt. We have always been told what a grand and noble thing it was for Mr. Pitt to die in debt, having been Prime Minister; but, for my own part, I have always considered it the most scandalous thing he ever did, and he did many scandalous things in the course of his career. Mr. Pitt was a young man, and received from the State £15,000 a-year during a large portion of his life, and yet he is to be praised because he could not live at the rate of £15,000 per annum, and because, when he died, his creditors came upon the country to pay his debts. It is because that sort of delusive idea respecting the dignity of Office still exists that it is thought that a man, because he is a Minister, ought to live in a certain way. As a matter of fact, they do not spend more money on account of their Office, and probably they put by all they get as Ministers. This notion about the dignity of Office, indeed, is carried so far, that when a Minister is out of Office, he has only to sign a certificate to the effect that he has not enough money to live in a sufficiently dignified way to obtain a pension from the State of, I think, £2,000 per annum. These pensions do not appear on the Estimates; I only wish they did. Let us consider what the duties of Ministers are. We may divide them into two. They have to attend their own businesses, and they have to look after the affairs of the country at Cabinet Councils and attend in this House. Probably they have very hard work putting the two things together. But so have we. We do not receive anything, as Ministers do, though we have just as hard work to perform in looking after these right hon. Gentlemen. You cannot suppose that the sheep have more work than the sheep dog. It is all the more important that we should look into these salaries, because there is a tendency to select Ministers from the privileged classes. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members cry "Oh!" but take the present Ministry. The total payment per annum on account of what one sees in the newspapers, when a new Government is formed, under the head of "Ministerial appointments," is something like £160,000. Will the House credit it that £110,000 of this is divided between Peers and Peers' sons. How many Peers are there? About 600, and some of them are Liberals; so that, taking Conservative Peers and their sons, one may doubt whether they will amount to more than 1,000 persons in number. On the other hand, there are 31,000,000 and odd persons that inhabit this country; and yet we are asked to believe that these 1,000 persons possess in an especial way capacities for being Ministers which are not possessed by the 31,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects. The noble Lord will say this has absolutely nothing to do with the question, just as he did in his reply in reference to the appointment of Mr. Graham as Clerk of the Parliaments. He will say—"These Gentlemen are selected because they are the salt of the earth," the wisest and best of the country's produce, and that, therefore, they must be Ministers. We know what that means. We know what an aristocracy means. We know that we are living under an aristocratic Government, a Government of the privileged classes; and when you talk about looking after economies in the Public Departments, you should not merely look to a Royal Commission composed of three Members of this House and three of the other House, as proposed by the noble Lord, but you should see that these appointments, which seem to be especially in the hands of the aristocracy, are reduced to their absolute market value. It is in that spirit that I move this reduction. My Motion has nothing personal in it, either in regard to the noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord will support me in the division; and I trust that every hon. Gentleman who hopes ever to attain to the position of Secretary of State will abstain from voting against me.

Motion made, and Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £20,500 (including a Supplementary sum of £788), 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 1887, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury, and in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 181: Majority 115.—(Div. List, No. 18.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(6.) £40,632, to complete the sum for the Home Office.

MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)

I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) a Question which, on a previous occasion, I put to his Predecessor in regard to the appointment of County Court Judges. Many of the County Court Judges hold also the position of Recorder; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) held the Office of Home Secretary, I asked him whether he would consent in future, on the appointment of any County Court Judges, to compel them to give up the position of Recorder. I pointed out that the position of Recorder, which had not a shilling of emolument attached to it, was a position of honour which ought to be given, as far as possible, to members of the Bar—

THE CHAIRMAN

The question of the nomination of County Court Judges will not come under this Vote.

MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)

I think the question of the appointment of Recorders comes under the Vote, because those appointments are vested in the Home Office, and the point I wish to raise has reference to the Recorders, and not so much to the County Court Judges. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby stated that as far as he was concerned, if he had to deal with the matter, County Court Judges in future would have to give up the position of Recorder. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will carry out the rule laid down by his Predecessors?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, East)

In reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite, he will remember that all the Judges are appointed during good behaviour. I am not aware of any single case of a Recorder who, being appointed Judge of a County Court, has been asked, still less obliged, to give up his Recordership. I can hardly believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby agreed to make that alteration. It is, at any rate, entirely beyond my knowledge.

MR. MOLLOY

I did not say that the late Home Secretary had agreed that those who now unite in themselves the offices of County Court Judge and Recorder should give up the position of Recorder. I referred to the future. When I brought forward this question, I dealt with future appointments, and in that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby agreed with me.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, East)

I think my right hon. Friend would not have spoken of a Recorder as being asked to give up the position. It might have been that he said he was not prepared to recommend the appointment to a Recordership, who was at the time a County Court Judge.

MR. MATTHEWS

I must say I approve of what the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) has stated as being the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt); but I should certainly hesitate before pledging myself to ask a Recorder to give up that position.

MR. MOLLOY

I did not ask that.

MR. MCLAREN (Cheshire, Crewe)

I wish to say a few words upon this Vote with regard to the inspection of factories and workshops. The Trades Congress only yesterday passed a resolution to the effect that, in the opinion of the Congress, the Factory, workshop, and Mine Act was destined to become a dead letter, unless a much closer supervision was inaugurated, and for this purpose a considerable increase in the staff of Factory, workshop, and Mine Inspectors was indispensible; and that the Congress therefore instructed the next Parliamentary Committee to continue to urge upon the Government the importance of appointing a considerable additional number of practical working men, and, where expedient, women as Factory, workshop, and Mine Inspectors. It is to the last part of that resolution that I wish to ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. I am a large employer of labour, and I know it is most necessary that there should be a better system of inspection of factories and workshops. At our factory we have no difficulties with the Inspector; he comes there seldom, but I have no doubt that when he does come, he pays attention to those points which it is his duty to attend to. One thing which particularly demands attention is the inspection of tailors' workshops. I have seen numbers of persons employed in those places, which are often underground, and are thoroughly defective in the matter of ventilation. I could give instancess of workshops which the Inspector has only visited once in three years; and I may point out that the Inspector for all the workshops in the North of Scotland lives in Dundee. The tailors in the workshops in Inverness tell me that the Inspector only visits them once in three years. With reference to the employment of women as Inspectors of workshops where women are employed, I think it exceedingly desirable that women should be appointed in that capacity, and that this system should be adopted as soon as possible. For these reasons I earnestly appeal to Her Majesty's Government to give their attention to this important matter.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) to give his attention to the desire expressed by the miners for the appointment of men of their own class as Mine Inspectors; and I refer to the distinct declarations on this subject which have been made by the various mining bodies. The men have declared that their interest will never be looked after, until Inspectors of their own class are appointed.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

With reference to this question I would point out that, in a discussion which took place in 1884, opinions were expressed by those who represented the mining population not greatly differing from those of the employers. The desire of both was that the inspection should be efficient. Employers do not concern themselves with regard to the condition in life of Inspectors previously to their appointment; all they wish is that the Inspectors should be competent and qualified men—men possessing at least the qualifications required in the case of certificated managers of mines. With reference to the inspection of factories, I know that in the town which I represent this subject is occupying a good deal of attention on the part of the working classes. What is desired is that the inspection of factories should be efficient and adequate. With regard to the appointment of working men as Inspectors, the desire is, as in the case of mines, that whether the man appointed has worked in a factory or not he should be qualified to judge of those things which it is the duty of an Inspector to ascertain. I would desire to press strongly upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department that if we are to appoint working men as Inspectors of Mines and Factories these are considerations which ought not to be lost sight of by Her Majesty's Government.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I desire to elicit, if possible, from Her Majesty's Government an explanation of what they propose to do with regard to the inspection of mines, because it is at present eminently hopeless to attempt to press forward the Bill which I brought in last Session. That Bill provided for an increase of Inspectors. It is very well known that the staff of Inspectors is insufficient to do the work of a reasonable system of inspection. It is far short of anything of that kind; it is perfectly inadequate to make anything like an approach towards proper inspection. There are mines which ought to be inspected once a quarter—that is to say, the majority of mines; but there are many mines, especially where there is fire-damp, which ought to be inspected at least once a month. The system of inspection at present is ridiculous. I can appeal to anyone acquainted with the mining districts to confirm what I say—namely, that much of the inspection of mines goes on to a great extent after an accident has happened; whereas the pit which is an unsafe one is left uninspected for a long time because there has been no accident in it. I have had a large amount of correspondence from different persons connected with mines, and I find that they agree on this point—namely, that there is a very great need of an increase in the frequency of inspections. If an inspection is to take place at all, it is necessary that it should take place without any communication between the Inspectors and the colliery. It is known that Inspectors sometimes go through their work in a perfunctory manner, and that many preventible accidents arise from the almost entire absence of regular inspection. I know the case of a man in Lancashire who owns several mines, and who boasted once that in every one of his collieries the same man was fireman, roadsman, and overseer. Now, to anyone acquainted with collieries, it is perfectly plain that such a system is a very bad one. As fireman, his duty would be to look after the shutting of the doors; as roadsman, he might have the duty of removing a stone from the road; but, as overseer, it might be his duty to report on the conduct both of the fireman and of the roadsman? What, then, is the use of his reporting when all these duties are concentrated in one person? Now, that is the sort of thing which Inspectors are likely to overlook, and I fear that many accidents are due to causes of that kind. Then, again, from the Midlands I have a communication which says that some of the certificated managers of collieries have, some two, some four, and some as many as twelve collieries under their management. In the Mines Regulation Act, 1872, it says, in reference to this matter, that every colliery should be under the daily superintendence and control of a certificated manager. Hon. Members will observe that the law is that there should be daily superintendence; and I am satisfied that if the Inspectors would inquire, they would find that, in many cases, a number of collieries were under the nominal superintendence and control of managers under the Act of 1872. I say, then, it is a physical impossibility for a man to discharge the duties incumbent on a manager under that Act; but this is a point which Inspectors seldom report upon, or take the trouble to inquire into. I will not trouble the Committee further with this question, which resolves itself into this —that it is absolutely necessary there should be a very large increase in the number of Inspectors of Mines. Now, we shall be told that you will not pay for what my Bill proposes—that is to say, 130 Inspectors instead of 30. But, Sir, it would be better to have 230 Inspectors in order to prevent accidents; and, therefore, I hope that this House will not consent to sacrifice the people engaged in mines to the niggardly policy of the Government. Not long ago, when there was a bad smell in this House, the Government did not hesitate to take the matter in hand and spend money, because the health of a score of men were jeopardized; but here you have many men, men who are the cause of the wealth of this country, and who are exposed to preventible dangers all the year round, which could be avoided altogether if you had anything like an efficient system of inspection. I hope, before the end of the Session, the working and mining population will obtain from the Government some assurance, no matter what the expense may be, of that protection which they have a right to expect.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

With regard to the adequacy of the inspection of workshops, I have received since I had the honour of a seat in this House repeated communications from my own constituency with reference to the very inadequate inspection of workshops there. I had a letter the other day which stated that a workshop, where there were employed 400 men, had not been inspected for four years I make these few remarks simply in confirmation of what has fallen from the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. McLaren).

MR. MATTHEWS

I sympathize very much with almost all that has been said by the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. McLaren) and the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) on the subject of the inspection of mines. I think that no one who is acquainted with mines, and takes into account the enormous extent of underground workings, the great difficulty of examining those workings from the working face to the bottom of the shafts, who measures the mileage which an Inspector would have to travel in the course of a year, can say that the Inspecting Staff is otherwise than very insufficient; but an increase of Inspectors means increase of cost. The Estimates in this respect have been steadily growing year after year, and the hon. Member for East Donegal knows perfectly well how the salaries of Inspectors have grown from time to time. In view of that fact, it would be a very difficult thing to provide such an increase in the number of Inspectors as would be necessary to carry out the system of inspection which we all desire for the protection of the men engaged in the perilous operations of collieries. Of course, in these Estimates, no such provision could be made; but if there should prove to be any disposition on the part of this House to make such provision I should be glad. The same observations apply to the inspection of factories and workshops. It is a physical impossibility for the Inspectors to go through all the workshops in their districts; but here, again, the question of cost arises. There is a difficulty of getting the consent of the Treasury to the expenditure of the money that would be required for an extended system of inspection, although, so far as I am aware, there has never been any lack of desire on the part of the Home Office to increase the staff of Inspectors. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. McLaren) expressed a desire that women should be appointed as Inspectors. I entirely agree with him that, in large towns, women should be employed to inspect milliners' and other shops where women are employed; but I am by no means prepared to say that there are under the present law powers to appoint we men. I will, however, undertake to look into that matter, and I shall be extremely glad if I can find that there is power under which women can be appointed. The desire has also been expressed that working men should be appointed as Inspectors. I have only had to do with the appointment of one Inspector; and in that case I did my utmost to have a working man appointed. The hon. Member will be aware that there are certain difficulties in the way of this arrangement. There is a limit as to age, and other rules laid down by the Privy Council; and here, again, the Treasury are bound to object. The Treasury are a little stubborn on the point of pay. Then there is the further difficulty on the point of examination. A working man naturally finds it difficult at the age of 35 to go through an examination in vulgar and decimal fractions, which, under the present regulations, would be required of him. It is true that I have to some extent an expansive power in this matter. I have had to interfere in one instance, and I should certainly be disposed to exorcise that power again in favour of an efficient and competent working man. With regard to the other matters, however, hon. Members will see that in attempting to deal with them the Home Office would be met with difficulties, not the least of which would be that of finance.

MR. SCLATEB-BOOTH (Hants, Basingstoke)

I should like to have heard some expressions of sympathy with the Treasury from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) in resisting these encroachments on the public purse. I venture to say that this is not a question of money alone. The system which has been advocated in this discussion is one for the carrying out of which not hundreds but thousands of Inspectors would be required, and the cost of which it is impossible to calculate. And not only that, but the proposal is one which, if it were carried out, would have the effect of demoralizing both, servants and masters, and would destroy, by carrying too far, a system which points out what are the obligations between the two classes. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman were to yield to the requests of hon. Members opposite, he would soon be made open to the charge of extravagance as well as of having abolished a sense of responsibility, and created a false reliance on a system of excessive inspection. I have offered these few remarks because I desire to make my protest against Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench swallowing the extravagant suggestions which have been made on this subject, which, if they were adopted, would be sure to lead to great financial difficulties, and would be open to other and very serious objections.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I will ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to concede this point—that inquiries in cases of accident should be conducted openly. At present, when there has been an accident in a mine, and the mine has to be inspected, the inspection is of a very close and almost secret nature. The only persons who are allowed to attend are practically Her Majesty's Inspector and the manager, and the inquiry takes place at the particular colliery where the accident has occurred. I think there is no doubt that if the Government would make arrangements that there should be an open inquiry, a great many things would be revealed which relate to the causes of accidents, and which are now cloaked by the present secrecy of the proceedings. This is an arrangement which would cost no money, and would be the means of getting men to come forward and give evidence as to the mode in which the mine is worked. At present those things are very closely cloaked, and evidence is not always forthcoming; whereas if the men were allowed to know what was going on, and to point out to the Inspectors the facts within their knowledge, it is very likely that many accidents would be prevented.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

I hope the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) will be taken to heart by the mining population of this country. It is rather astonishing that any Member of the House can be found to make such observations in the face of the fact that there has been an increase in the number of fatal accidents in mines.

Vote agreed to.

(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £31,671, 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 1887, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will now (12.30) agree to report Progress. We see that hon. Members cannot keep awake; besides it is generally considered that the money of the country ought not to be voted after half-past 12.

MR. HENEY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) whether the arrangements with reference to the Legal Department of the Foreign Office, which were approaching completion when the late Government went out of Office, have been completed? A Departmental Committee recommended the change which, I think, involves a saving of £1,000 or £2,000 a year.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (Manchester, N.E.)

The arrangements are all but complete. There has been a difficulty with the Treasury as to some small matters of detail; but it has now been overcome, and the arrangements will be immediately completed.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid.)

I really think that at this period of the evening (12.35), and especially in view of the fact that the Vote we are now asked to discuss—that for the Foreign Office—is one which should be criticized amply and thoroughly, it is high time to report Progress; and if it is the wish of the Committee I shall have much pleasure in making the Motion that you, Mr. Courtney, do now report Progress.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W., and Sligo, S.)

Perhaps it will be convenient for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say what progress he thinks would be reasonable to make with Supply to-night?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL) (Paddington, S.)

The hon. Gentleman (Dr. Tanner) may not be aware that Committee of Supply generally sits long after half-past 12. [Colonel NOLAN: No; half-past 12.] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) will bear me out that the Committee of Supply always sits later than half-past 12. Of course, we are anxious, considering the period of the year, to make an unusual effort to make progress with Supply. Hon. Members will also bear in mind that from one cause or another we were not able to commence the work of Supply this evening until after 9 o'clock. I trust that we may rely on the co-operation of hon. Members to get through the work as speedily as possible.

MR. SEXTON

The reason why I asked the question was that yesterday the Navy Vote relating to the supply of ammunition was postponed, and I have a question to raise upon it.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Perhaps it will be better to proceed until we get to some Vote which involves a lengthy discussion.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co. Mid.)

I simply rise to move that you, Mr. Courtney, do now report Progress. I think we have now arrived at an hour of the evening when the proceedings of the Committee ought to cease. I merely repeat what I said a few moments ago—that this is a Vote which requires strict investigation, and the hour is already too advanced to enter into such an investigation. I have been here night after night—[A laugh.] Hon. Members may laugh; but I have been here night after night when Business emanating from these Benches was not allowed to come on after this hour, and when hon. Gentlemen, some of whom now adorn the Treasury Bench, got up one after another and moved that the House do adjourn. Now, Sir, I beg to move that you do now report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Tanner.)

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W., and Sligo, S.)

I must agree with the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) that the discussion on the Motion to go into Committee did occupy a great portion of the evening, and also that it is not usual in Committee of Supply to move to report Progress at half-past 12. I am certainly inclined to ask my hon. Friend (Dr. Tanner) not to press his Motion; but I would couple with that request an appeal to the Government not to take many more Votes.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

1. (8.) £17,016, to complete the sum necessary for Colonial Office.
2. (9.) £22,816, to complete the sum necessary for Privy Council Office.
3. (10.) £46,817, to complete the sum necessary for Board of Trade.
4. (11.) £142, to complete the sum necessary for Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

; I am not going to detain the Committee more than one moment; but I desire to ask whether it is not a fact that there were considerable misunderstandings, or indications of dissatisfaction, in the Department of the Chief Official Receiver under this Vote, and whether a Committee was not appointed to inquire into the cause of the complaint; and, if so, whether any Report was made by the Committee, and what was the nature of the Report?

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS) (Liverpool, East Toxteth)

In answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman, I may say that an inquiry has been made into the working of this Department, and that the Report of the Committee is in the hands of the Department. I am afraid the Report must be considered strictly confidential, and that I cannot, therefore, communicate its nature to the Committee. At the same time, I may assure the hon. Gentleman that the working of the Department is now very satisfactory, and that there is every reason to believe that friction will be avoided in the future.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he can, without divulging any official secrets, say whether the system under which the Chief Official Receiver disposes of the allowance for his clerical staff is to continue? There is an abnormal condition of things in this Department. The Chief Official Receiver is allowed a certain sum of money for a clerical staff. This staff is partly composed of men who were in professional life before the formation of the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade, and who were induced to come into what they called the Public Service by representations that if they did so they would obtain permanent appointments and have a right to pensions. It appears the Chief Official Receiver has been allowed by the Government to treat these clerks as if they were his own personal clerks. He was allowed some thousands of pounds a-year for the purpose of paying the clerks. I believe he has recently been compelled to disgorge the money unexpended, and that the accounts are now audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. But the clerks are not allowed to be Civil Service clerks, but are absolutely at the disposal of this official, who himself is supposed to hold only a temporary appointment. Their whole position is exceedingly unsatisfactory, both from the Public Service point of view and from the individual point of view of the persons concerned. Will the hon. Gentleman say if the present system is to be continued, and, if it is not, what will be the position of these clerks in future?

BARON HENRY DE WORMS

The system of which the hon. Gentleman complains will not be continued; but the position of these clerks in future will be governed by the provisions of Schedule B. They will rank as quasi-Civil servants, but not be entitled to superannuation allowances.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

Touching the Board of Trade Office in the City of Cork. The Board of Trade Office—

THE CHAIRMAN

; The Vote for the Board of Trade has been agreed to; this is the Vote for the Bankruptcy Department.

Vote agreed to.

1. (12.) £14,965, to complete the sum necessary for Charity Commission.
2. (13.) £14,554, to complete the sum for the Civil Service Commission.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I think, that as we have taken the last two or three Votes very easily, the Government should not begrudge the time necessary to answer a query as to their intentions with regard to the Civil Service writers and clerks of the Lower Division. I do not want to go into the details of their case; no doubt, every Member of the Committee is conversant with them; but, as far as we learn, nothing has been done, and nothing of a satisfactory character has been promised to be granted to either of these classes of public servants. Their case is certainly one which does deserve some attention at the hands of Her Majesty's Government.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

I am sure the hon. Member does not desire to state the case unfairly. Although it is true that in the answers to many Questions which were put to me last week I was unable to make any definite announcement, I can assure him that it is not a fair or accurate statement of the case to say that nothing has been done. The position of these public servants has been engaging the attention of the Treasury. The hon. Member knows that the Treasury has not lately been in the most favourable position for considering such matters, because within the last 15 months there have been, I believe, six separate occupants of the position I now hold. The hon. Member and the Committee knows that under such, circumstances it is most difficult for anyone to find the time to give continuous examination to such, a difficult question as this. Although I have not seen it, I have the best reason for supposing that the draft of the Report of the Departmental Committee has been prepared, and is now awaiting correction. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a great deal of time and attention has been given to the question of the condition of the Civil Service writers and Lower Division clerks, and that we hope very shortly to be in a position to say something definite, or to make some proposals.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that the language I used was scarcely fair, and then he imputed language to me which I did not use.

MR. JACKSON

It was certainly not my intention to say that the hon. Gentleman's language was unfair.

MR ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I said that, so far as we had been able to learn, nothing had been done, and I think the Committee will agree with me that even the answer of the hon. Gentleman does not enlighten us particularly as to what has been done. We are given to understand that because there have been six occupants of the post he now so worthily fills, within the short space of 15 months, nothing has been done, but that a great deal of consideration has been given to the matter, and that some time or other shortly the hon. Gentleman will be in a position to make some statement as to what it is intended to do. My complaint is that, year after year, these unfortunate men have been treated most unfairly; many of them have had to do work far above the grade for which they are paid—far above the work which they ought to be given according to their status; and though they have all sorts of prospects of improvement held out year after year, they find themselves precisely in the same position as they were at the beginning. We get these assurances from every Administration; but really nothing whatsoever is done.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL) (Paddington, S.)

The Government have really had no time to turn round, and this subject is one of great importance. It has, as the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) has just said, been the subject of anxious and close consideration by a Departmental Committee. The Report of that Committee will, in due course, receive the anxious consideration of the Treasury.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

I see that there is a charge in this Vote for advertisements, and I should like to receive some information as to the newspapers in Ireland to which advertisements are given. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen cry "Oh, oh!" but I will nevertheless explain the reason why I make this inquiry. In Ireland it is unfortuately the experience that Government advertisements are always given to one class of newspapers only; what are known as the Castle newspapers in Ireland get all the advertisements, and it is well known that these newspapers are about the least fitted for the advertisements. The papers that are most read in Ireland are the Nationalist newspapers, and they never get any of these advertisements at all. Now, I want to receive an assurance that these advertisements will in future be given to the Nationalist newspapers in Ireland as well as to the Castle newspapers, and unless I get an assurance to that effect I shall certainly move to reduce the Vote by £500, the amount asked in respect of advertisements.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

I am sorry I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman the information he asks. I do not know how the money is expended; but if the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance I will look into the matter, and endeavour to secure a fair and proper distribution of the advertisements amongst the newspapers of the country.

MR. CLANCY

I am afraid the assurance of the hon. Gentleman is hardly satisfactory; it is a little too vague. I ask for a distinct pledge, and certainly I will go to a division if I do not get it. I ask for a distinct pledge that these advertisements will be given to the Nationalist newspapers in Ireland as well as to the Castle newspapers. I ask for that on the ground that these newspapers are the most widely read, and that consequently from the point of view of the Public Service it is most advantageous to advertise in these journals. [Interruption.] If I am interrupted in making the remarks which I consider necessary in regard to this matter I will certainly do my utmost to detain the Committee until I get a satisfactory assurance.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL) (Paddington, S.)

I trust the hon. Member will give my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) time to examine the records of the Office, so that he may ascertain correctly what newspapers the advertisement do appear in. This is not a subject which my hon. Friend could imagine was likely to be brought up, nor do I understand that the hon. Member (Mr. Clancy) is exactly informed on the subject. If he will allow this matter to stand over, I am sure my hon. Friend will be glad to make a statement either in reply to a Question or on the stage of Report. Of course, if the statement is not satisfactory, it will be within the power of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clancy) to oppose the Vote.

MR. CLANCY

I accept the suggestion of the noble Lord; but I think it right to mention, in defence of the action I have taken, that I recollect distinctly an application being made last year by the proprietor of a Nationalist paper in Dublin to the Board of works for certain advertisements which were to be given to the public Press. I remember that these vague assurances that justice would be done were given by the authorities, and I am informed that from that day to this not a single advertisement has been given by the Board of works to a Nationalist newspaper.

Vote agreed to.

(14.) £20,955, to complete the sum for the Exchequer and Audit Department.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W., and Sligo, S.)

This is a large Vote, raising questions of some importance, and therefore perhaps the noble Lord will consent to report Progress.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL) (Paddington, S.)

I hope hon. Members will allow us to take the Navy Votes which stood over from yesterday, and to which, I understand, there is no objection to their being taken.

MR. SEXTON

This Vote was postponed in consequence of a misapprehension.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON) (Middlesex, Ealing)

One Vote was post- poned on account of a misapprehension, but another Vote had not been reached at the time for adjournment.

MR. SEXTON

I wish to raise one or two questions on the Navy Votes.

Vote agreed to.