§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Who is the official specially responsible for the due payment of pensions and other expenses charged upon the Consolidated Fund; when the total expenditure of £1,373 11s. 5d., in connection with the 466 duties of the Blaster of the Hawks, was reduced to £965, and under what circumstances; whether the original salary of £391 payable to the Master of the Hawks was at that time increased or reduced, and what is the present amount of his actual salary; what are the other payments which go to make up the present annual charge of £965; whether all these other payments, including the wages of keepers who are not appointed and the allowance for food of hawks which are not kept, have for some time past been paid over to the Master of the Hawks, in addition to his own salary; and, if so, for how long; and, whether, before making such payment during the past year, the Treasury took steps to satisfy itself that these additional payments were still a valid charge upon the Consolidated Fund, and could legally be claimed for his own use by the Master of the Hawks?
§ THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON) () Leeds, N.The charges upon the Consolidated Fund are paid upon a quarterly Schedule prepared by the Treasury, and for which, the Treasury are responsible. I have endeavoured to ascertain when the reduction took place, and I find that the Committee of the House of Commons on the Civil List of King William IV., and which reported in October, 1831, state that the charge was £1,373 11s. 5d., and the salary £391 1s, 5d. Shortly afterwards n, Warrant of the Treasury, dated September, 1833, directed that the sum of £965 should be paid in respect of this charge from the land revenues of the Crown until further directions—that sum, I understand, representing the net sum previously received by the Master of the Hawks after payment of certain fees and duties. In the Warrant ordering payment of the sum of £965 there is no reference to the salary as apart from the other charges. These payments have been made, as far as our knowledge goes, from the time of the original grant in the Reign of James II. Opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown have been taken on three separate occasions, the latest being so recent as 1875. These opinions satisfy the Treasury that they are legally bound to pay these sums, and the Treasury, therefore, yearly discharge their legal obligations.
§ MR. HANBURYDo I understand that there is no alteration in the salary, and that it is still £391?
§ MR. JACKSONI have endeavoured to give the information to the hon. Gentleman as far as I could. The Treasury Warrant makes no reference to salary in distinction to other charges; but simply directs the Treasury from date to pay a sum of £965 annually.
§ MR. HANBURYUp to that date the salary payable was £391.
§ MR. JACKSONNo, Sir; up to that date the sum payable was£l,373 11s. 5d.
§ MR. HANBURYBut did not the hon. Member himself mention £391 as the amount of the salary?
§ MR. JACKSONYes; it had been stated to be £391.