CLASS II. (Hansard, 5 September 1893)

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, that on this Vote it was his unfortunate duty to draw attention to the first of a long series of pluralists who appeared on the Estimates. There were 12 pluralists on this Vote, and by pluralists he meant persons holding two or more places and receiving salaries from two or more sources. The Lord Chancellor was the first and worst pluralist of them all, and therefore he moved to reduce the Vote by the amount of £4,000—his salary as Speaker of the House of Lords. In addition to this £4,000 on the Estimates the Lord Chancellor received £6,000 a year as President of the Supreme Court of the Chancery Division. The duties of the Lord Chancellor as Speaker of the House of Lords were not to be compared in importance with those of the Speaker of the House of Commons. The noble Lord had not the authority over the House of Lords that the Speaker had over the House of Commons. He was not even addressed by Members of the other House in Debate—a circumstance which he (Mr. Gibson Bowles) mentioned to show the inferiority of the Lord Chancellor's position as compared with that of Mr. Speaker. In addition 157 to that the time occupied by the Lord Chancellor in the discharge of his duties as Speaker of the House of Lords was as nothing compared with the time occupied by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Neither was the strain, mentally and physically, upon the one in any way comparable with that on the other. When they considered the relatively small importance of the duties performed in the House of Lords and the importance of the issues raised in the House of Commons, and practically decided there, and when they considered the large number of gentlemen on the Benches opposite who paid no attention to the decisions of the House of Lords, it must be apparent that the position of Speaker of the House of Lords was in no way comparable with that of the Speaker of the House of Commons. The salary of the Speaker of the House of Commons was placed on the Consolidated Fund to show that he was far removed from all Party affection and Party consideration—that he was, in fact, as said by Mr. Speaker Lenthall, the eyes and ears of the House. Could that he said of the Speaker of the House of Lords? They knew how the Speaker of the House of Lords was chosen. He had never known of one being appointed except for serious and considerable Party services, or services believed to be such. He had another grievance against the Lord Chancellor—the most serious grievance of all—and it was that he was a lawyer, one of those about whom Junius said— As to lawyers, their profession is supported by the indiscriminate defence of right and wrong. It seemed to him (Mr. Gibson Bowles) that a long course of the indiscriminate defence of right and wrong was not a good preparation for the post of Speaker of the House of Lords. Apart from the dignity of the office and from the fact that the duties of the office were far less onerous than those of Speaker of the House of Commons, it behoved the Committee to consider the kind of man they were certain to get as a lawyer, and to take that into consideration in reckoning the salary. There never had been in living memory a Lord Chancellor who had given satisfaction who had not been accused of jobbery—

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
Name one.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
All of them. Under the last Government never a day passed without an attack being made in the Radical Press on the eminent person who filled the position of Lord Chancellor—

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member must confine himself to the duties of Lord Chancellor as Speaker of the House of Lords.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
On the point of Order, am I to understand that in moving a reduction of the salary of the Lord Chancellor I am debarred from dealing with the noble Lord in his capacity as Lord Chancellor?

THE CHAIRMAN
Certainly; there is no doubt about it.

§ MR. HANBURY
Take the next item, the Sergeant-at-Arms in Attendance upon the Lord Chancellor. Cannot we discuss that except when the Sergeant-at-Arms is in attendance upon the Lord Chancellor as Speaker of the House of Lords?

THE CHAIRMAN
No; there is no question on this point.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, he bowed to the Chairman's ruling; but he failed to see how he could deal with the question of the Lord Chancellor being a pluralist if he was compelled to deal with him as two entities, unless he could deal with him both as Lord Chancellor and Speaker of the House of Lords.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
said, he understood that the Lord Chancellor received £6,000 salary as President of the Supreme Court and of the Chancery Division, that being purely for judicial duties. On that he would ask whether it was possible to discuss anything else besides the noble Lord's duties as President of the Supreme Court—patronage for instance?

THE CHAIRMAN
No; because patronage belongs to the Lord Chancellor as Lord Chancellor, and not us Speaker. The Lord Chancellor has a double capacity, and the capacity before the Committee is that as Speaker of the House of Lords.

§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)
As a point of Order, is the ecclesiastical patronage belonging to the Lord Chancellor exercised as President of the Chancery Division?

THE CHAIRMAN
Certainly not as Speaker of the House of Lords.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
asked whether he was to understand that he could not discuss the messengers of the Lord Chancellor, because the Lord Chancellor did not exist in this Vote? He submitted that he was warranted in calling attention to the fact that the Lord Chancellor received these two salaries in his different capacities. He thought his salary of £4,000 as Speaker of the House of Lords was too large. The Lord Chancellor had been constantly denounced in the Press as "The Lord High Jobber"—

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is distinctly out of Order in these references.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
Will you allow me to conclude my sentence—denounced as a jobber in connection with the exercise of his patronage as Speaker of the House of Lords and not as Lord Chancellor. [Cries of "Order!"] He had a perfect right to refer to that.

THE CHAIRMAN
But, as Speaker of the House of Lords, I do not think the Lord Chancellor exercises patronage.

§ MR. HANBURY
Oh yes; in regard to the Clerks at the Table.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, that history would bear out his statement that the Lord Chancellor had been accused of being a jobber. He thought that the Committee should put an end to one of the two salaries of the Lord Chancellor. He would move to reduce the Vote by £4,000.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, he should like to make this remark in behalf of what had been said by his hon. Friend indirectly—that there appeared to be some misapprehension as to the amount of patronage that the Lord Chancellor had at his disposal as Speaker of the House of Lords. Judging from the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, the Lord Chancellor, as Speaker of the House of Lords, had a considerable number of officers in that House at his disposal. He appointed the Clerks at the Table with the exception of the Clerk of Parliaments. Therefore, the hon. Member for King's Lynn was quite entitled to point out that if the Lord Chancellor wished to job he had it in his power to do so. He thought hon. Mem- 160 bers opposite were inclined to be a little ashamed of the accusations they made against the late Lord Chancellor. The Liberal Press had teemed with accusations against the late "Lord High Jobber," as he was called. ["Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN
No; it is not in Order. We are restricted here to the salary of the Speaker of the House of Lords.

§ MR. HANBURY
I have pointed out that the Speaker of the House of Lords has patronage, and it was in connection with patronage that the late Lord Chancellor was accused—

§ MR. WADDY
I ask, again, if the hon. Member is in Order in referring to the late Lord Chancellor?

THE CHAIRMAN
No; he is not in the Vote at all.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
asked if the late Lord Chancellor could not be referred to for purposes of illustration?

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that these references were clearly out of Order.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, that his object in rising was to protect the present Speaker of the House of Lords from the gross insults that were hurled against the late Lord Chancellor by the Liberal Party. [Cries of "Order!"]

§ Ms. H. H. FOWLER
I rise to Order. What right has the hon. Member to charge Members on this side of the House with hurling insults against the late Lord Chancellor? [Cries of "Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN
The President of the Local Government Board is entitled to rise to Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Preston will have regard to the orderly conduct of Debate. Whatever his motive may be in persisting in these references, I would point out that no charge whatever has been made against the present Lord Chancellor, and the only question before the Committee is that of his salary as Speaker of the House of Lords.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, the House had a right to protect everybody to whom it paid these large salaries from the violent insults often directed against them. [Cries of "Order!"] He was perfectly in Order, and was not going to be put 161 down by the President of the Local Government Board.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
I rise to Order. The question is as to the salary of the present holder of the Office of Speaker of the House of Lords. I venture to say that this House has no right to discuss the conduct of any previous Lord Chancellor, whether for good or for evil. I say that all that the Committee is entitled to do is to discuss the administrative action of Lord Herschell

SIR J.FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)
I would ask whether it can possibly be out of Order for the hon. Member to deprecate the holding of more than one Office by the Lord Chancellor on the ground that the tenure of such Office has previously been made a cause of attack?

THE CHAIRMAN
That is not the ground taken up by the hon. Member. As I pointed out, he was out of Order in referring to the late Lord Chancellor in connection with this matter. The only question before the Committee is the position of the present Lord Chancellor as Speaker of the House of Lords.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, it was exactly Lord Herschell's position as Speaker of the House of Lords that he was endeavouring to support. ["Oh!"] He was deprecating any treatment of the noble Lord as Speaker of the House of Lords by any Party in the House similar to the treatment to which the late Speaker of the House of Lords had been subjected. ["Oh!"] He was glad to see that the Gladstonian Party were thoroughly ashamed of their attacks. [Cries of "Order!"] He was not going to submit to these interruptions.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
I ask whether the hon. Member for Preston is to defy the Chair in the way he is deliberately doing?

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is distinctly out of Order, and I must request him to discontinue his observations.

§ MR. TOMLINSON
On the point of Order—

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! I cannot permit this. When I have ruled an hon. Member out of Order somebody else rises and raises the same point in a different form.

§ MR. SEXTON
As to a point of Order, does not the Standing Order empower the Chair to direct an hon. Member who defies the ruling of the Chair to withdraw?

THE CHAIRMAN
There is no question about that. But the hon. Member has submitted to my ruling, therefore there is an end of the matter.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
was sorry the hon. Member for King's Lynn had thought it necessary to use strong expressions in connection with the Office of Lord Chancellor.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
I was defending the Lord Chancellor.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
I am sorry he should have used strong epithets—

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
I was provoked by the denial of the President of the Local Government Board.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, he thought they ought to discuss these things in a reasonable frame of mind, and not throw stones at either the late or the present Lord Chancellor. The salary of the Speaker of the House of Lords had been fixed at £4,000 a year so long ago as 1832; therefore, for 60 years it had been paid, sometimes by a Conservative and sometimes by a Liberal Government, and yet he did not suppose that it had ever been called in question before. The hon. Member for King's Lynn was a new Member, and, to that extent, was justified in going into these matters. But however objectionable the system of holding a plurality of appointments might be, he did not think it would be said of the Offices of Speaker of the House of Lords and Lord Chancellor. The Speaker of the House of Lords stood in a peculiar position. He had not the powers possessed by the Speaker of the House of Commons; but, at the same time, the condition of things which now prevailed had continued for 60 years. Unless there was some real grievance—any objection upon which anyone could put his finger—it was not a wise thing to raise these questions in Committee of Supply. He, for one, should certainly oppose the proposal.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, he thought it desirable to raise this question of pluralism, especially in the case of this most notorious and remarkable pluralist the Lord Chancellor. As to the 163 present arrangement having continued since 1832, he should think that, in the minds of hon. Members opposite, that was a good argument for making the change now. In 1832 there was a larger proportion of work in the House of Lords than at present, and a less proportion of work in the Commons. He had no desire to press his Amendment, however. He was satisfied with having raised the question, and perhaps some day when they had a real Radical Government in power, and not a sham one, these salaries of the Lord Chancellor would be brought down to proper proportions, or one of them would be done away with. He would withdraw the Amendment.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, he wished to move to reduce the salary of the messenger to the Crown Office and the messenger to the Lord Chancellor, but after what had occurred he was doubtful whether he could do it, for he understood that the Lord Chancellor was not on the Vote. He could not conceive how the Lord Chancellor could have this messenger if he was not on the Vote.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
He has the messenger as Speaker of the House of Lords.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
No; it is not as Speaker, but as Lord Chancellor, according to the Estimates. It certainly is not as President of the Supreme Court of Chancery—

THE CHAIRMAN (interrupting)
It is out of Order to do indirectly what cannot be done directly. The position of the Lord Chancellor cannot be discussed on this item.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, he wished to move to reduce the Vote by £84 for the messenger of the Lord Chancellor, who did not exist in the Vote. If this messenger was attached to the Speaker of the House of Lords it would be a different thing.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, he did not think-this was a question on which 164 they should spend much time. If the hon. Member wished to strike out the salary of the messenger of the Lord Chancellor they had better at once have a Division upon the question. He moved that the Question be now put.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, he desired to call attention to the disproportion that existed between the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords as compared with the salaries of the officers of the House of Commons for precisely similar work, or, he should say, for a great deal less work. He was one of those Tories who, while he thought that this branch of the Constitution, which some people looked on as anomalous, ought to be maintained, at the same time thought they ought, as far as possible, to relieve it of many excrescences which deprived it of its value. The House of Lords, with regard to the salaries of its officials, stood in an unfavourable position. Though the officials of the House of Lords did less work than the officials of the House of Commons, their salaries averaged at least 30 per cent. more. Take the case of the Clerk of the Parliaments. He received £2,500 a year, whilst the Clerk to the House of Commons received £2,000, or £500 less. The Clerk to the House of Commons had a residence in the House of Commons, but the Clerk of the Parliaments had another £500 in lieu of a house. That the work of the Clerk of the House of Commons was much more important than that of the other official was demonstrated by the fact that it was deemed necessary for the former .to reside here, but not for the latter. With regard to the officials of the House of Lords, he had to complain that they were all pluralists or drew salaries "personal to the holder." These were two points in the Estimates which he, for one, was prepared to fight from beginning to end. If a salary was good enough for one man it was good enough for another. There were, he believed, 32 officials on the establishment of the 165 House of Lords, and no less than 27 of those had asterisks or other marks against their names, showing that they were either pluralists or had salaries personal to them as present holders of the Office. The Clerk Assistant in the House of Lords received £1,200 a year, and the Clerk Assistant of the House of Commons received only £1,000 a year. Take the case of the senior clerks. In every individual instance in the House of Lords, they started at higher salaries than in the House of Commons. All the senior clerks in the House of Commons started at the initial salary of £650; but every clerk in the House of Lords started at £50 higher—namely, at from £700—which was the lowest—to £850. Nearly every one of them, also, for no special reason that he could see, had an extra £150 a year. In one case the extra allowances amounted to £350 a year, and in another case to £450 a year. There were in the House of Lords 12 junior clerks—and all these clerks did the same kind of work as that performed by the clerks in the House of Commons, only much less of it—and the number of junior clerks in the House of Commons was 23. They started at a minimum salary of £100 a year in the House of Commons, and the 23 in that House received only £200 a year more than the 11 in the House of Lords, the total figures being £6,250 and £6,450. It was monstrous that there should be that difference—a difference which ran all the way through the list from the Clerk of the Parliaments to the messengers. The messengers in the House of Lords rose to £170, while in the House of Commons they only rose to £150, the bulk of them receiving £120 per annum. Why there should be this difference he was at a loss to imagine, particularly as the work was a great deal less. Salaries ought to be paid according to the work that the recipients performed, and it ought to be possible to point to the House of Lords as an example in this respect. If the House of Lords did not set an example, how could they expect other Departments of the Civil Service to attend to the matter. The House of Commons was bad enough, but the House of Lords set a shocking example. He was aware that they could not disturb the holders of these offices, but now that they had a Radical Government in power, he 166 thought that there ought to be some security that when new appointments were made the holders should be paid on a lower scale than the present. They had had Committees inquiring into this matter. He found that one sat in 1889, and brought in two Reports. Would the House believe it, that the whole of the first Report was that the salaries of four housemaids should be reduced to 10s. per week? That was the beginning and the end, and the sum total of the whole of the Report, and in order to carry out that revolutionary proceeding the Committee had to support itself by the Report of the previous Committee which had similarly dealt with 12 housemaids. The language they concluded with sounded strange and mysterious— The scheme of the Lord Great Chamberlain that was, as to the reduction of salaries) has been found to give a better security for the Palace of Westminster, and for the maintenance of order and regularity therein. Another matter on which he felt strongly was the number of official residences. There were a great deal too many of them, and they did not know where the expense began and ended. The House of Lords was a notorious offender in this respect. The House of Commons was an offender, but nothing to be compared with the House of Lords. There was in the House of Lords an official called the Black Rod. He was a distinguished Admiral who did not do his work. He had an official residence valued at £500 a year, he drew a salary of £2,000 a year, and he got full Admiral's retired pay. He received fees in addition as an officer of the Garter. Well, when the House of Commons had to be summoned to the House of Lords, Black Rod, who was the proper person to do the summoning, sent to them an official called "The Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod," who got £300 a year for doing Black Rod's work. He (Mr. Hanbury) was not sure that it was not proper for the dignity of the House of Commons to have the right official to summon them. At any rate, the officials of the House of Lords ought to come under the Rules and Regulations which bound other Departments of the Government. There was a Rule that men in the Public Service should retire at the age of 65. If Black Rod was over 65, then he ought to retire. If he 167 was under 65, he ought to come and do his work, and not employ a deputy to do it for him. There were other official residences in the House of Lords. The Librarian had an official residence, but the Librarian in the House of Commons had not. The Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain had a house—why on earth he could not conceive. Why should such a functionary as that occupy space in this building when they all knew that space was very much wanted here? Similiarly the resident Superintendent had a house in the House of Lords. He (Mr. Hanbury) held that these residences ought to be done away with altogether, and that, if necessary, residence salary should be substituted. That would be found economical in the long run. The House of Commons voted these moneys, and the House of Commons ought to have control over the officials in the House of Lords as well as in the House of Commons. At present the regulating Act was 5 Geo. IV., chap. 82—au Act for the Better Regulating of the Office of Clerk of the Parliaments. What was the reason the House of Lords officials were not regulated by the ordinary rules that covered Civil Departments? They were under a special Act of their own. There was no limit as to age. A man might be appointed to a position at any age. There was no qualification for a clerkship in the House of Lords. They should insist upon the ordinary qualifications—that was, they should insist upon the person to be appointed having a Civil Service certificate. Then, again, there should be equality as between clerks of the House of Lords and the Civil Service clerks. That was not the case at present. Then he came to the bargain struck with the Lords as to fees. In return for the Commons voting the salaries the Lords handed over certain fees. It had been a standing rule of the Civil Service for years that these fees should be treated as appropriated in aid, and he did not understand how it was that the same rule did not apply to the House of Lords as applied to the ordinary Departments. But, as a matter of fact, the Lords did not hand over all the fees, for the pensions were to a large extent paid out of them. The manner in which the fees were dealt with, and in which they might be dealt with, was such that it was perfectly 168 ridiculous to say they got any quid pro quo. The expenses of the House of Lords reached £100,000 annually, and they only got £25,000 back, leaving £75,000. This was a question that ought to be dealt with. They in the House of Commons had set a better example in regard to their own clerks. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed himself very favourably to the view he (Mr. Hanbury) now took, and he hoped he would have him on his side in these matters when they came up. He would urge that the two Houses of Parliament ought to set a good example in all respects connected with their officials, and both Houses should be put on the same footing as other Civil Departments. He moved to reduce the Vote by £500.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, the hon. Member who had just spoken had not looked fairly at both sides of the question. He had looked only at one side; but he might have drawn attention to the other. He sympathised with the hon. Member in many of the remarks he made on the subject of economy, but he certainly could not agree with him in the opinion that the House of Lords had done nothing in that direction with regard to the salaries and charges of its officials. In 1889 a Committee went fully into the question of the salaries, pensions, and other expenses connected with the House of Lords, and that Committee, whose Report had been laid before both Houses, recommended changes and reductions in the salaries, &c, which, if carried out, would effect a saving of £6,874.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, there were two Reports. The second one only made recommendations.

SIR .J. T. HIBBERT
said, the second Report was adopted by the House of Lords, and the recommendations made had, so far, been acted upon that up to the present a saving of £2,304 a year had been effected. Reductions were being effected as vacancies occurred; sooner was impossible, because of vested interests. The figures were:—Serjeant-at-Arms, including Deputy (£250)—present, £1,500; future, £1,250; saving, £250. Clerk of the Parliaments—present, £3,000; future, £2,000; 169 saving, £1,000. Clerk Assistant, £2,100 present salary; future, £1,500; saving £600. Chief Clerk—present, £1,200; this remained as at present. Then they had two junior Clerks at £700, to be abolished; accountants to be reduced from £1,030 to £600; Black Rod, reduction from £2,000 to £1,000; Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain and Yeoman Usher, £1,200 to £500—reduction of £700; Doorkeepers, &c, £3,075 to £2,500—reduction of £575; housekeeping, £783 to £364—reduction, £419. Of these the following had been effected to date, vacancies having permitted:—Clerk Assistant, £2,100 to £1,500, reduction £600; allowance of a senior clerk, £150 saved; one junior clerk reduced, saving £350; accountants, £600, reduction' of £430; Yeoman Usher of Black Rod, £1,000, reduction of £700; housekeeping, £783 to £709, a reduction of £74. The total was, as he had said, £2,304. The points of attack might be summarised thus:—(a) absence of age-retirement rule; (b) independent treatment of pensions; (c) patronage; (d) general expensiveness. As to the first point, the Public Accounts Committee in their third Report expressed the hope That the authorities charged with the regulation of the offices of both Houses will consider the question how far they can be assimilated to other Public Departments by the adoption of the principle of compulsory retirement as laid down by the 17th clause of the Order in Council of the 15th August, 1890.' This paragraph would be communicated officially by the Treasury to the authorities of the House, and it was to be hoped that those authorities would see their way to adopt the recommendations so temperately, but distinctly, expressed by the Committee. It was only fair to give the House of Lords an opportunity of dealing with the matter themselves before the House of Commons moved in regard to it. There was no immediate hurry, as it appeared that there was no member of the House of Lords staff not holding a Patent Office to which the rule would apply. It was, doubtless, an anomaly that the Lords' pensions should not only be fixed by the Lords, but paid out of a fund not voted by Parliament. In the former respect they were like the Commons, but the Commons' pensions were paid from the Superannuation Vote 170 in the usual manner. The only practical difference between the two cases was that the particulars of the Lords' pensions were not published, except that a list of names and amounts was given in the account of the Lords' Fee Fund annually laid before the House of Commons. The Clerk of Parliaments stated that all the pensions had been granted under the terms, and on the scale, of the Superannuation Act of 1859, except one, of whom the service extended over 49 years, and the case was treated as under an earlier Act. The Lords might agree, without derogation of their position, to put their pensions on the Superannuation Vote. Again, the principal officers of the Lords were appointed, like the permanent officers of Public Departments and those of the House of Commons, by nomination of the Crown or of Ministers. The Lords' officers, however, held office in several cases by Patent—again like the permanent officers of the House of Commons. It might be fairly questioned whether they should not in the future hold office, like ordinary Civil servants, during pleasure, but this change could only be introduced as changes arose, and would probably require legislation. As regarded the clerical establishment, it was true that, as in the Commons, these officers were in form nominated by the Clerk of the Parliaments, on whom this disagreeable duty was imposed by Statute or by his Patent. But successive Clerks of Parliament had minimised this responsibility by arranging for a limited competition for each vacancy, the number nominated on each occasion being at present six—sufficient to secure effective competition. Whether open competition would be an improvement on this plan was a matter for consideration. All the staff of the House of Lords, with the usual exception of those in Patent Offices, held Civil Service certificates. On the last point, that of salaries, he had already replied. He thought the questions raised should be considered in a fair and reasonable spirit, and that the House should not adopt in haste the view taken by the hon. Member.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)
said, he need not follow the hon. Member for Preston at any length, but he would gladly support the hon. Member's Amendment. He (Mr. 171 Morton) had on several occasions raised this question. His opinion was that the Committee should have the courage to reduce the Vote in order to impress upon the House of Lords the fact that the money voted belonged to the ratepayers of the country, and ought, consequently, to be economically expended. He objected to reducing the wages of labourers and servant maids (as was the custom of our Government) and refusing to reduce the salaries of the highly-paid officers who did the least work. If these extravagant salaries were to be paid to the officers of the other House, it would be necessary to reconsider the salaries of the officers of this House with a view to increasing them. His view was that the fees should not be dealt with as at present. A very large sum was spent in pensions. That was not fair. If these matters were to go on as at present, they would have to consider the position of the officers of the House of Commons, because they did tea times more work than those of the Lords and were not half as well treated. He hoped the reduction of the Vote would be carried.

§ MR. JACKSON
said, he could not allow the Vote to pass without one remark. It seemed to be taken as surprising that the anxiety for economy should be confined to one side of the House; but before this discussion arose at all the idea of economy had been acted upon by others than those of the other side.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
Do you mean the House?

§ MR. JACKSON
said, the hon. Member was not listening to what he was saying. He believed that the Treasury officials always did their best to secure economy with efficiency.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
No!

§ MR. JACKSON
said, he regretted that the hon. Member should not think so. He believed that these matters should be managed as they were in ordinary private firms, so that injustice should not be done to the men themselves.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
Subject to a quarter's notice.

§ MR. JACKSON
said, that would be a part of the contract, and, therefore, their part would be no injustice. But if a man was engaged otherwise, he believed his right ought to be respected. He ventured to say that if these salaries 172 were compared by any impartial person with the salaries paid in the House of Commons, it would be found that they were very reasonable salaries for the amount of work done, and they had had the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury that as vacancies arose every one of the economies recommended by the Committee would be brought into operation. Members of the Government who were brought into contact with those officers must bear testimony to their willingness at all times to combine efficiency with economy. While he was at the Treasury he never had the slightest-difficulty with those officers. He had! always met with, on their part, the greatest readiness to do everything possible to bring the appointments in the House of Lords into line with the appointments of the House of Commons, and effect economy in every possible way.

§ MR. BARROW (Southwark, Bermondsey)
said, the hon. Member for Preston had stated that 12 clerks in the House of Lords had a gross salary of £200 or £300 more than 23 clerks in the House of Commons. He would like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what comparison these salaries would have to-each other when the proposed economies, were effected?

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, it was refreshing to hear speeches in favour of economy from the other side of the House. He had always believed that it was possible to find a few honest Radicals who were in favour of economy, and he was glad to find proof on this occasion that he was right. Everybody had admitted that the salaries of the House of Lords were considerably greater than those of corresponding offices in the House of Commons, and nobody had disputed the fact—not even the Olympians of the Front Benches—that these salaries were greater than they ought to be. The only answer that had been given by the Government was that a Committee appointed in 1889 had recommended certain reductions, and that in course of time those reductions would be effected. But these reductions were always postponed, and he would remind the Government in the words of the poet that "reduction deferred maketh the heart sick." It was to be hoped that the reductions would not be long deferred. He sug- 173 gested that the Secretary to the Treasury should, with that severe air which he could so well command, inform the proper authorities that the House of Commons would not be trifled with any longer; that it would insist on the clerkships of the House of Lords being reduced to a proper level; that it wished for some immediate result, instead of being told that if they waited for a few years the reductions would come. But, above all, let the Secretary to the Treasury assume his very severest air and tell the authorities that they had no right whatever to presume to withdraw these clerks from the ordinary rules governing the ordinary Civil servants; to claim that they were something above and beyond ordinary Civil servants, that they could retire then at any time, and confer upon them any pension they pleased. If the Committee did not get some assurance that these things were not stopped there would be trouble on the Estimates next year. The Committee had also been told that a large number of these gentlemen in the House of Lords had official residences. If a decayed officer, or the reduced widow of a decayed officer, were accommodated with apartments in any of the Royal Palaces of this country, they were made to pay rates on the rooms they occupied. The gentlemen who lived in the Royal Palace of Westminster were not decayed; they were not even widows; they were persons in the enjoyment of robust health and large salaries, and they ought, therefore, to be made to pay rates.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
I do not think they pay rates.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
Why not?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
I cannot tell.

§ MR. WHITTAKER (York, W.R., Span Valley)
said, it seemed to him that these positions and salaries were a scandal. The continuance of them was a scandal, and could not be justified. The Secretary to the Treasury could not say that it was a matter of honour to continue a scandal. If they desired to have economy in the administration of State affairs they must commence in this very building, and so set an example for the rest of the Kingdom to follow. He hoped the Government, as representing the Radical Party, would take the matter 174 in hand. It was most disgraceful to find officers of Parliament drawing salaries for doing nothing. The Radicals through the country would never stand the continuance of such a system, and the sooner it was brought to an end the better.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)
said, he thought every Radical in the House had reason to be thankful to the hon. Member who had raised this question; and though he thought the Secretary to the Treasury the most courteous and able of officers, those who were in favour of a policy of economy had reason to be dissatisfied with the answer he had given to the hon. Member for Preston. He himself was in favour of the general principle of treating public servants with as much consideration as possible. He was in favour of economy, but he was also in favour of the kind and fair treatment of all servants of the Public Departments. What he thought would strike everyone as curious was that whilst they had been discussing recently the question of the dismissal of dockyard servants, the Secretary to the Treasury did not get up and make the statement that a man once employed in the dockyards was entitled to be employed there for the rest of his days. He admitted the general principle that a considerable amount of consideration should be shown to the employés of the Government; but he was unable to see the reason for the radical difference between the treatment given to the higher officers and the treatment given to the poorer officers.

§ MR. JACKSON
There is no difference according to contract.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he did not see the meaning of that interruption. There was no exposed contract that these high officers should be employed for life, though that might be implied, and there was no exposed contract that men employed in the dockyards should be employed for life, and that being so he could not see how the authorities were entitled to drive away, without a week's or even a day's notice, a dockyard employé who had perhaps a wife and seven or eight children dependent upon him, while these high officials were retained for life at salaries which were double what they were fairly entitled to. This question of the high salaries of the officials of the House of Lords had been 175 before the Commons for years. He had raised it himself nine or ten years ago. It was a question that should be raised year after year until the remedy was obtained, and he thought it was a reproach to the Radicals that on this occasion the initiative should have been left to a Conservative Member. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds had told them the Clerk of Parliaments got £2,500 a year. As he understood it, the Clerk of Parliaments in another place occupied the same position as the Chief Clerk in the House of Commons; but to compare, as the right hon. Gentleman had done, the duties of the Clerk of the Upper House, which sat on an average one hour each day a certain portion of the year, with the onerous and laborious duties of the Chief Clerk of this House, which sat each day from 3 o'clock till 12 o'clock, and sometimes till 3 o'clock in the morning, was grotesque and absurd. The right hon. Gentleman was one of the most successful business men in York, but if he had conducted his business on the principle which he applied to public servants it would not be long before he was in the Bankruptcy Court.

§ MR. JACKSON
The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. He is in error in saying that I said that what the House of Lords are at present paying is earned by these clerks. What I said was that if the salaries suggested by the Committee, and which are to be put into operation according as vacancies arise, were impartially considered they would be deemed fair for the work to be done.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had deviated somewhat from his original statement. It was quite true that the right hon. Gentleman had said what he repeated now, but it was also true that the right hon. Gentleman had said that the gentlemen who filled these offices did not get more than they were entitled to. But he would not enter into a discussion on that point. This question came home to the House of Commons in another way. There was a complaint made against this Assembly which was unknown in reference to any other Assembly of the kind in the world, that it was absolutely without adequate accommodation for its Members. Members had not sufficient seats on the floor 176 of the House. At certain periods during the Session it was as much as a man's life was worth to fight his way into the House. The explanation was that there were no less than five officers of the House of Lords accommodated with residences in the Palace, thereby occupying the space that should be devoted to the uses of Members of the House of Commons. Then, again, 12 clerks of the House of Lords, with much less work, received larger salaries than 23 clerks of the House of Commons. That was a most scandalous state of affairs; it was high time for the House to deal with it; and he certainly would support the hon. Member for Preston in the Division Lobby.

§ MR. WADDY (Lincolnshire, Brigg)
said, that on several occasions in recent years, he, in common with others, when he sat in Opposition, felt it incumbent on him to criticise these salaries and to vote against them. He did not think that one's attitude on this question was altered by the fact that he sat on a different side of the House, and he therefore felt bound to support the Motion. He did not agree with the theory suggested by the Secretary to the Treasury that they were to wait until the deaths of the various incumbents of these various offices before they made the alterations which were admitted to be reasonable and proper. If it so happened that by some reason or other some years ago these people came into the possession of offices to which they were not entitled, they ought to thank God that they had been left to the enjoyment of them so long, and give them up now. It was most unreasonable that the House should go on paying these men salaries which they believed to be wrong. It was not business; it was not common sense. If a gentleman retired from a high position, having, as in the case of the gentleman who filled the office of Black Rod, earned the respect and esteem of those best calculated to judge of his character, it did not follow that he should be paid a big salary for doing in Parliament, not figuratively but absolutely, nothing at all. If Members met that gentleman in the Lobby they would not know him. He was away from the place, and he got his duties discharged by somebody for £300 a year.

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, Order! That salary does not come under this sub-head.

§ MR. WADDY
said, he would conclude by saying that he would vote for the Amendment before the Committee.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, he thought his right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Jackson) was under some misapprehension as to the terms under which the Clerks of the House of Lords served. The Public Accounts Committee which sat last year had the Clerks of Parliament before them, and in their Report they said— The Clerk of Parliaments was appointed by the Crown, and is removable by an Address from the House of Lords. The Clerks at the Table were appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and are only removable by Order of the House. All the other Clerks attached to the Office of the Clerk of Parliaments are appointed by that officer, and are removable at pleasure by him. The Clerk of Parliaments himself in his evidence said— My own appointment is for life; the other two clerks are for life, but all the other clerks are removable at pleasure. Therefore, these clerks were under a totally different position from the clerks in the Civil Service.

§ SIR M. HICKS BEACH (Bristol, W.)
The Committee has just had a very remarkable Division, and before we part with this Vote we might ask the Government what course they intend to take. It is all very well for a Committee of the House of Commons by a Vote to reduce this Estimate by £500. No doubt we have the power to say what money should be granted for the salaries of the officials of the House of Lords, but it is quite another thing whether the Vote will have any practical effect. The Committee ought to remember that the House of Commons is not omnipotent in this matter. The House of Lords are in receipt of their fees, which amount to a very large annual sum, just as this House is in receipt of its fees. All these fees are now paid into the Exchequer, not by statute, but simply by arrangement, and I venture to say that if sufficient pro- 178 vision should not, in the estimation of the House of Lords, be made for the salaries of its officers it would be legally in the power of that House to do as it likes with its own fees. [Cries of "Oh!"] I am not suggesting that course, but I am merely stating what I believe to be the law of the case, and I would point out that the matter is one of considerable delicacy as between the two Houses, and that any incautious action would lead to difficulties between them, which I do not think any thoughtful person "would wish to see raised upon such a question as this. It is one thing to hold that the House of Lords ought to be put an end to. [Loud Ministerial cheers."] Hon. Members may cheer that sentiment, but I think they will find it extremely difficult to give practical effect to it. [Opposition cheers and a voice, "We will see!"] That is not the question at issue. The question at issue is this. The House of Lords exists as part of the Constitution; it must have officers, and they must be paid. [A VOICE: Reasonably.] Yes, reasonably. Under these circumstances, I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what course he suggests? It may be very desirable to further consider the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords, but that question could be considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses and an amicable conclusion arrived at. It seems to me, however, that this matter cannot be allowed to rest upon a mere snap vote of the House of Commons, and I hope we shall have some statement from the Government.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I really thought when the right hon. Gentleman arose and addressed the Government in so alarming and serious a tone he was going to ask whether they considered that the vote imperilled their existence. The real truth is that votes in reference to the House of Lords are not fatal to the existence of the Government. It certainly is a matter which requires a good deal of consideration as to how far effect should be given to a vote of this character. I agree that it ought to be a question of amicable discussion and arrangement between the authorities of the two Houses, but I am not in a position at this instant to make any statement on the subject. I hope, however, 179 that when the Vote comes up upon Re-port the Government will be able to state what is to be done.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)
said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take into account the fact that two leading Conservatives, supported by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and by the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Gorst), had gone into the Lobby against the Government, and that he would inform the Members of the other House that the feeling against them was so strong that the Amendment was supported from all parts of the House.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has raised a question of some Constitutional importance—namely, that the votes in reference to the House of Lords are not fatal to the existence of the Government. That statement implies that the right hon. Gentleman is of opinion that the Government may pick and choose between their own Estimates, and that in some instances they would be rather pleased than otherwise if the Committee of that House reject them. This is certainly an entirely new doctrine. Up to now it has always been understood that when the Government lay their Estimates before the House of Commons they do so with a considerable sense of responsibility, and it has been supposed that no Government would lay Estimates before the House which they did not believe were necessary for carrying on the business of the country. I now understand from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government has deliberately put before the House Estimates which they do not feel themselves conscientiously called upon to support. I cannot help thinking that my right hon. Friend has been led a little astray as to the meaning of the vote which has been given. I undoubtedly sympathise with the idea that the officials of the House of Lords ought not to be paid on a higher scale than those of the House of Commons. But I go beyond that. My opinion is that the Government occupy a very doubtful position, and I do not be- 180 live that they any longer enjoy the confidence of the country, and that it is desirable they should be compelled at the earliest possible opportunity to ascertain the feeling of the country on the subject. In these circumstances it is the Constitutional right of the House of Commons to refuse them Supplies, and I gave my vote quite as much upon that ground as upon the merits of the particular Vote. I may say once for all that I cannot feel inclined to place any more money than I can possibly help at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
said, he took a different view from that held by the right hon. Gentleman, and thought that instead of the Government resigning the House of Lords ought to resign.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
said, there was a feeling among the officials of the House of Commons that they were not paid as they ought to be, and he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether or not a Committee might be appointed to consider the subject?

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
was understood to say that he had heard no complaints.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
disclaimed any desire to make an attack upon the Clerks of the House, but he must move to reduce the Vote by £500. The Chief Clerk had a residence and £2,000 a year. He wished to take his house from him, and if he would not give it up he wanted an equivalent part of his salary, £500 a year.

THE CHAIRMAN
ruled the hon. Member's remarks out of Order.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
urged that it was undesirable the Clerk should have an official residence at all. It was not, he contended, an actual neces- 181 sity that the Clerk or the Clerk Assistants should be provided with an official residence at the House. It was a bad thing to live over the shop, to reside with their work, and it would be much more advantageous to health, and conducive to longevity, if the Clerk lived away from the House. He moved to reduce the Vote by £500.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
did not wish to say anything on this reduction, which he did not understand, but he should take the opportunity of bringing the cases of some of the lower paid officers before the right hon. Gentleman.

§ SIR J. GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)
asked the hon. Gentleman opposite not to press this Motion, which was decidedly against the feeling of the House. He was sure they did not consider the Clerks at the Table, who had a great deal of work to do, were overpaid, and any question of official residences ought to be settled on entirely different principles; moreover, what applied to one should apply to all. He, therefore, begged his hon. Friend not to press this matter.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I also join in the appeal which has just been made by my hon. Friend behind me. I am quite sure that putting a vote of this kind to the House would be extremely distasteful to all sides of the House, who have so much reason to be grateful to the Clerks at the Table for their services and the kindness they exhibit towards us, and especially in a Session where there has been a special strain put upon them—it would be a most ungrateful thing that such a question as this should be put to a vote. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will withdraw it.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, when he was speaking on the subject of the appointments in the House of Lords, one argument he adduced against the existing system was that the salaries were too large, and the other was the irregular system on which the abodes of the clerks in that House were arranged. He thought if they were going to set an example to the Civil Service it ought to 182 be set by the House of Commons, and however well the work might be done by the clerks in that House the system upon which they worked was essentially a bad one. Like the clerks in the House of Lords they were exempt from the ordinary Rules of the Civil Service, and the Order in Council recently framed by the Treasury was ignored by them on the ground that they were on a different footing from all the rest of the clerks in the Civil Service. He complained that the Civil Service Commissioners had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the clerks of this House, and all his remarks relative to the system of appointment of clerks in the House of Lords applied to the House of Commons with the exception of salaries, which were much less in this than in the other House. He was aware there was a Commission consisting of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Speaker, and others to regulate the salaries, &c, of the clerks, but practically the whole of the appointments were in the gift of the Principal Clerk at the Table, and he believed every clerk under him held office at his pleasure. The Public Accounts Committee, although they did not express any opinion of what ought to be done in this matter as being outside their functions, indicated that in their opinion the existing arrangements were not to the advantage of the Public Service. Undoubtedly the whole staff of clerks being appointed under a special Act of Parliament had no recognised head; they were subjected to no limit of age for entering and retiring from the service, and were not under the regulation which applied to other branches of the Civil Service. It was ridiculous in these days to have these salaries regulated by a large Commission, who acted ex officio, and had practically no responsibility in the matter. The whole responsibility rested in the House of Commons and with the Speaker of the House, and having condemned the House of Lords staff it was necessary they should look into the organisation of the House of Commons staff.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, the hon. Member said that Clerks of the House of Commons were entirely appointed by the Principal Clerk at the Table, without any examination.

§ MR. HANBURY
I said he had the right to so appoint them.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, he had the right, but he really appointed by nomination. He selected six persons to be examined by the Civil Service Commissioners, and he took their recommendation. Therefore, although it was a matter of grace, the principal Clerk did carry out that principle, and although he was not compelled by Act of Parliament to do it, it was but fair to him to say he had acted upon that principle for years. It was not correct to say that the Clerks of the House were entirely free from all the requirements of the Superannuation Act. All the clerks were placed under the Act and were subject to its conditions. With respect to the Order in Council as to retirement at 65, he must say they were not under that Order. The House of Commons declined to place itself under the Order. He was told, however, by the Speaker of the House of Commons, only a few days ago, that the spirit of the Order was carried out. He might say that this was a matter entirely for the Commission for the management of the House of Commons, which included the Speaker, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, and the First Lord of the Treasury, together with two of Her Majesty's Judges. If any change were made in the direction suggested by his hon. Friend, it would have to be carried out by legislation, and unless they saw that the spirit of the Rules regulating the other Departments were not carried out, he, for one, did not feel inclined to take any strong action, but to leave it to the Commission, who, he believed, were acting on the principle his hon. Friend desired to see carried out.

§ MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)
said, he did not know how the Commission was appointed, what were its duties, how often it met, or whether it had more than an ornamental existence, but he thought it was very peculiar that clerical appointments should be made at the discretion of any individual, even of a gentleman so accomplished as the Clerk of the House, under the supervision of the Speaker, and he intended at the earliest opportunity to move and to press upon the 184 House the duty of appointing a Committee to bring the department of the Clerk of the House into conformity with the ordinary rule of the Public Service. Economy was always desirable, but if economy was to be entered upon it ought not to commence in the House of Commons but in the House of Lords. The officers of the House of Lords had lighter duties and higher pay than those of the House of Commons, and until there was some reduction in the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords it would be ridiculous to attack the officers of the House of Commons, whose duties were onerous, delicate, and exacting. He wished to put a question which might have an important bearing upon some future action of his connected with the personal experience he recently had in the House. He wished to ask whether the Clerk or the Clerk's Assistant had any duty cast upon him, or whether he had any right, when the Chairman of Ways and Means was in the Chair, to volunteer advice when the question of the punitive treatment of a Member was under consideration? Was the Clerk under such circumstances entitled to interfere, and suggest and press a course upon the Chairman, or was he, as in the case of the Speaker, only to give advice when he was asked for it? He thought it was extremely desirable that this question should be made clear, because, unless he received an assurance that it was not within the scope of the duty of the Clerk or Assistant Clerk to suggest punitive action, such as the expulsion of a Member by the Chairman, it would be his duty to take the earliest opportunity he could find for testing the opinion of Members upon the circumstances of his expulsion on a recent occasion when the Standing Order was put in force in a manner in which it was never intended to be applied. He had put the question solely in the hope that someone might be able to answer it, and that it might be made clear that no Member in future was likely to be placed in danger of censure or expulsion, because of the unasked and unauthorised intrusion of any Official of the House. Unless it was made clear it was not within the purview and right of the Officials of Parliament, he feared it would be necessary to take some future action?

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
The hon. Member has asked a question, and I will endeavour to answer it. I believe the Clerks at the Table are the advisers, and the only advisers to whom the Speaker, if necessary, and the Chairman of Committees can have recourse. I do not believe that any such circumstances really occurred as those the hon. Gentleman has suggested. I am sure that the Clerks faithfully perform their duties, giving such advice as is required either by the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees. I hope, under those circumstances, the hon. Member will be satisfied with the assurance and declaration, and will not think it necessary to proceed further in the matter.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, that in moving this reduction he wished to disclaim any desire to reduce the salaries of the Clerks of the House, to whom he, like all other Members, had been greatly indebted for their courtesy and assistance, and his reason for moving the reduction was to raise a question which had been ruled out of Order. Every one of his reductions were moved for a set purpose; he had not put down reductions at large, but for a specific and definite purpose. He should have asked leave to withdraw the Motion before had not a discussion sprung up upon a matter of importance, and he would now ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)
said, that before parting from the question, as the Secretary to the Treasury did not appear to be aware of the constitution of this particular Commission, who would state the Members of whom it consisted, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him that if any other Department were regulated by any such Commission the House of Commons would be the very first to question it and to put an end to its existence. The Commission that regulated the salaries, emoluments, and retiring allowances of the officials of the House consisted of the Speaker, the Secretaries of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Master of the Rolls, the Attorney 186 General, and the Solicitor General for the time being. It was a perfectly ridiculous Commission, and another year he should certainly press the Government of the day to put an end to so absurd a system, and to adopt a system by which they would have the Business of the House of Commons regulated in a manner more akin to that which regulated other Departments.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
said, that if the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) moved for a Committee he would ask him to include in it the officers who were appointed by others than the Chief Clerk, because there were a number of officers of the House who were appointed by others, and he thought the inquiry should be general. But he wished to ask a question in regard to the chaplain of the House. The chaplain received £400 a year. He did not wish to interfere with that; but he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would use his influence to get a Nonconformist chaplain appointed to act alternately. He belonged to the Church himself, but he wished to act fairly to his Nonconformist brethren. There were about half and half in the House, and he thought the Nonconformists were entitled to have a chaplain of their own way of thinking at least three days a week. [An hon. MEMBER: And a Roman Catholic] By all means, if they liked. As the salary of the chaplain was paid for out of the taxes of the country, half of which were paid by Nonconformists, they were entitled to share in the benefits. He did not wish to move a reduction; but he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the event of a vacancy occurring, to use his influence with the Speaker to get a Nonconformist appointed to act alternately with the Episcopal chaplain.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
One of the difficulties of the House is the large number of questions with which we have to deal, and, to add to those questions, a theological competition with reference to the chaplain would be to increase the difficulties already sufficiently burden-some.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
wished to ask a question about one item in this 187 Vote coming under Sub-head E, as to the delivery of Parliamentary Papers. Formerly every Paper that was issued by Order of the House was delivered the next day to every Member of Parliament. He did not say that was an economical system; and it was found that some Members, instead of reading them, indulged in the reprehensible practice of selling them for waste paper, and on that account it was recommended that the number should be greatly reduced, and certain Papers were only sent to Members who applied. He did not object to that, but he wanted to point out that the new principle had been carried to excess. In the early part of the Session certain Papers were issued with regard to finance, and were published by the Government in explanation of the Home Rule Bill. These Papers only consisted of one or two pages, and the total value, if delivered to every Member, could not have amounted to £1 sterling. These Papers were withheld unless special application was made for them. In reply to a question from him, his right hon. Friend undertook to see that they were delivered, and afterwards those Papers were delivered. What he wished to ask was on what principle the delivery of Papers proceeded? In a recent Paper he received he found a notice of a very important Paper which was published annually, which gave very important particulars as to Revenue and Expenditure. That was a short Paper, and would not cost more than a halfpenny to print, and he could not conceive why that should not be forwarded. He understood that many Papers that were of interest were delayed, whilst many that were of no interest to the general body of Members were despatched at the earliest moment. He would be perfectly satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. T. Hibbert) would give him an assurance that he would look into the matter, and that he himself would undertake to have some responsibility in the matter. It was not desirable that the present inconvenience should be stereotyped, and if the right hon. Gentleman gave him an assurance on this point he would not press the matter further.

§ MR.CRILLY (Mayo, N.)
said, he agreed with the right hon. Member for West 188 Birmingham. The officials of the House were very courteous and obliging, but he thought better arrangements might be made for the distribution of Papers. From his experience he would say that it would be quite easy to alter the arrangements so as to meet the convenience of Members.

§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)
said, he was also agreed as to the desirability of meeting the views of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham in this matter. There were certain Papers that they did not get until late in the day, and he did not think that should be the case, as it caused serious inconvenience to Members. The service of Papers might certainly be better than it was at present.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)
said, he only had one complaint to make, and that was that he got a whole pile of Papers which he did not want without asking for them; but, as regards Irish Papers, which he did want, he found that he could not get them without application. Surely there was some remedy for this?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, there was justification for calling attention to this matter; but he would point out that the Rules for the distribution of Parliamentary Papers were laid down by a Committee appointed in 1889. All Votes, Proceedings, and Bills were distributed in the ordinary course, and so were Papers of special interest. He was sure if the hon. Member (Mr. T. W. Russell) intimated the class of Papers that would be of interest to him they would be forwarded. Orders had been given that all financial Papers relating to the Home Rule Bill should be distributed generally.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
said, all the Government Papers—all Papers presented by the Government—should be despatched as a matter of course.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
All Papers of general interest.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)
said, he would mention the Return issued the other day as to the pay of Honorary Colonels. Such Returns as that should be placed in the same category with 189 others. [Cries of "Oh"!] Yes; it was a matter he considered of general interest, and should be placed on a like footing or position.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
said, for his part, he thought such Papers were of general interest. He had sent them to the Public Library at Peterborough, and expected them to be filed, so that he could have the use of them for years.

§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
said, there was a matter to which he would draw attention, upon which, he thought, hon. Members of all Parties would agree. Few of them would dispute that the expenditure on the Refreshment Department of the House of Commons was inadequate, and that the waiting arrangements were inefficient. He thought in this matter a mistake had been made in the past. A grant of £1,000 was inadequate to provide for the needs of 670 Members. The deficiency arose from the fact that the Kitchen Committee had to deal with a sum which was inadequate to the needs of the House. There were three great necessities. The first was better dining accommodation. The kitchen was wholly inadequate, and a better service room was required, so that the waiters could have a proper place in which to meet the demands made upon them. He did not complain of the refreshment contractor, Mr. Saunders. On the contrary, he said nothing could be more admirable than the manner in which that gentleman met the demands. He did not believe it would be possible to find a man who would attend to matters better than he did—certainly they would not get a man who would do it better at the same salary. But he had serious difficulties to contend with—waiting for the changes in the House and other matters, and he (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett) said that under such conditions it was impossible for them to have a proper service. Members of the House were aware that a large number of persons waited in the vicinity of Westminster about 3 and 4 o'clock in the afternoon in expectation of engagement for their service as waiters. The result was, 190 because of the uncertainty and the risks the contractor had to encounter, that the attendance was very unsatisfactory, and Members did not know in what direction to turn. There should be, at least, a permanent staff of 20 or 30 head waiters—men who would know their duties, who would understand the ways of the House and the habits of Members who were accustomed to dine here. He repeated that the difficulties were not to be blamed upon the contractor or upon the waiters. It was the system that was at fault. Another thing was as to the necessity for increased accommodation. He hoped the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would consider this very important question. He believed that in foreign Houses of Legislature the accommodation was 10, and, in some cases, even 20 times as great as here. They did not ask for much. £2,000 or £3,000 would not be a large subsidy when they remembered that Members had to be in attendance very often for 8 or 10 hours. He trusted the Government would give attention to this question.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
said, he thought the Kitchen Department was extremely well conducted, considering that it was a ready-money transaction. He rose, however, to deal with the question of the distribution of Papers, which had been previously referred to, and he hoped the Government would consider that matter with a view to the improvement of the existing system.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
The Kitchen Committee should furnish a balance-sheet. They were entitled to have some statement of gain and loss. A promise was given on the point two years ago, and he would like to know if it were to be fulfilled?

§ MR. S. HERBERT (Croydon)
said, it had been considered by successive Kitchen Committees that it would not be expedient to place before the House a full balance-sheet, which would give rise to discussions upon items. The Members of the Committee ought to be trusted. If the hon. Member (Mr. A. C. Morton) considered it necessary, perhaps there might be a statement made of the turnover.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
Showing losses by bad debts or otherwise?

§ MR. S. HERBERT
said, that it would be exceedingly difficult to show the actual losses. The Committee considered that the present method of dealing with the matter was more economic and satisfactory than the former one. He agreed as to the difficulties which had been mentioned. The communication in the Dining Room was absolutely inadequate for the demands that were made upon it when there was a full attendance of the House. The Kitchen was a mere passage, unsuited for providing those who dined at the present time—sometimes 300. They had also an inadequate dining room; and the only communication between the Dining Room and the kitchen was a lift of some three feet by two. He feared that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have some difficulty in meeting their demands; but he certainly hoped that the First Commissioner (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that they would do their best to meet the difficulties that existed. His experience showed him that it was impossible to have the matter dealt with properly until structural alterations were made. They got at present £1,000. They had to make a profit of £2,000—for the average amount they paid was about £3,000—before they could pay their way. They sometimes had the greatest difficulty; and it was evident that they must have the structural alterations in order to meet the necessities of the case. As to the wages, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to grant an additional £1,000 or £1,500, he thought the Kitchen Committee could do a good deal to improve the service. They might have a larger permanent staff—better hands than they had under the present system. The Committee would see that it would be inadvisable to have a full working staff to dine 300 Members, when they might often only have 150 Members to attend to. He thought that if they could get an increased grant from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—an increase, say, of £1,000 or £1,500 a year—the Kitchen Committee would be able to do a great deal in the way of improving the service.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I am sure we are all exceedingly obliged to the hon. Member and his colleagues for taking so much trouble for the comfort and convenience of the House. So far as I am concerned, I can assure him that, in concert with him, I shall be glad to consider anything that can tend to the comfort and convenience of the House. We have been compelled this Session to dine in the House more frequently and in larger numbers than at any previous period during my Parliamentary life. The accommodation here is the result of the British Constitution. Every public building in this country is unfit for the purpose for which it was intended; and if that is true of all the Public Offices outside we can hardly expect this House, the principal Office of all, to be an exception to the rule. Certainly there are difficulties with which we have to struggle. Everybody knows the great uncertainty there always is in the attendance—much greater than befalls any club—and we ought to make every allowance for those difficulties. I hope the Committee will accept the assurance on the part of the Government that they will do what they can, in concert with the Kitchen Committee, to improve the arrangements. I would now appeal to the Committee to allow this Vote to be taken. I should hope that the Treasury Vote might be disposed of to-night, and the Motion to destroy altogether the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

§ MR. ANSTRUTHER (St. Andrew's, &c.)
said, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, on behalf of the Government—and he thought he might say on behalf of the whole House—recognised the admirable work of the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee. It was to be hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would favourably consider the making of an increased grant to the Committee as well as the granting of increased accommodation. He gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's last sentence that he would be willing to confer with the Kitchen Committee in regard to increasing the accommodation.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
Increased accommodation is impossible.

§ MR. ANSTRUTHER
Increased accommodation in the money-lenders' sense.

§ MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)
said, he had put a notice of Amendment on the Paper to in certain contingencies prevent foreigners landing on our shores, and so infecting the country with cholera, but cholera had come now—

§ MR. HENEAGE
said, he only wished to say that he did not propose to proceed with his Motion. The reason he was going to give was that he thought it exceedingly desirable that there should be entire harmony between the Government and everyone in the measures taken to get rid of the cholera now that it had come. He was anxious not only as Member for Great Grimsby, but as a Member of the Corporation of that town, to co-operate in every way with the Local Government Board. They could thresh out any point in which they disagreed afterwards.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
said, he took some interest in the subject of cholera.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the Treasury had nothing to do with the question.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
said, the subject came within the Department of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for certain difficulties in the way of Port Sanitary Authorities had been removed by the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Morton) rose to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his action in that matter.

§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT
said, that before he proceeded with the Motion he wished to make, he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was in charge of the Business of the 194 House, whether he would consent to report Progress? ["No, no!"] He asked because he thought that the discussion of his Motion and of the next item would occupy some time.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I hope the Committee will proceed with this Vote. We have been getting on very satisfactorily, and I hope we shall continue in that course.

§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT
said, he was quite ready to proceed. He had given notice of an Amendment to reduce the Vote for the First Lord of the Treasury, but he did not propose to move it. He wished, however, to call attention to certain phases of the policy of the Prime Minister. ["Oh!"] He did not wish to move the reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary, but he wished to direct attention to the fact that since the Prime Minister occupied his present position—since July or August last year—there had been throughout the country and the Empire and in our relations to Foreign Powers a general want of confidence. ["Oh, oh!"]

THE CHAIRMAN
It is out of Order to discuss the policy of the Government on this Vote.

§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT
said, he did not propose to go into it at length, and he only gave that as the general basis of the particular subject to which he proposed to call the attention of the Committee. He did not intend to refer to the Irish policy of the Prime Minister. He wished to call attention to the fact that certain words used by the right hon. Gentleman some two years ago at Newcastle with regard to the evacuation of Egypt had led to very serious results. [Cries of "Order!" and "Name!"]

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman cannot on this Vote bring forward matters of policy. If he wishes to attack the Prime Minister he must do so in connection with some administrative act.

§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT
[Cries of "Order!"]: Then I appeal to the Chairman of Committees to be good enough to inform me—[Cries of 195 "Name!"]—I am speaking with all respect to the Chairman of Committees, and I ask him to inform the Committee on what subject I can possibly impeach the Prime Minister in connection with this Vote? In dealing with the salary of the Foreign Secretary we are distinctly allowed to impeach his policy. I ask whether I am not at liberty to refer to certain declarations of the Prime Minister which I hold—rightly or wrongly—to have produced certain results?

SIR W. HARCOUKT
I would ask, as a point of Order, whether an attack can be made on the Prime Minister on this Vote for a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman before he took Office?

THE CHAIRMAN
There is no doubt about the Rule. The only thing for which the Prime Minister is answerable is some administrative act done by him as First Lord of the Treasury. Any general impeachment of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman must take place in the House of Commons, and not in Committee of Supply. The case of the Foreign Secretary is different. He can be attacked in Committee for the policy of his Department.

§ MR. J. W. SIDEBOTHAM (Cheshire, Hyde)
asked that consideration should be given to the case of the Assistant Inspectors of Mines. He would not go at length into the matter if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would assure him that the matter was not entirely closed, but could be re-opened, and that the Government would investigate the matter and attempt to put a stop to the great injustice these men suffered under.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, he had great sympathy with this class of public servants. For many years he had been at the Home Office, and had had intimate personal relations with the Inspectors. These gentlemen were governed by regular rules which it was difficult to depart from; but he could assure the hon. Member that, if he or anyone else would bring the circumstances under his notice, he would give them the most favourable consideration.

§ MR. J. W. SIDEBOTHAM
If I ask for an interview, will the right hon. Gentleman give it?

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
Yes; I shall be quite ready to speak to the hon. Member in private on the matter.

§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)
said, these gentlemen were appointed under circumstances which led them to believe that they would receive a certain amount of superannuation so far as the Home Office was concerned. They were appointed at a time when there were no such Inspectors in the Public Service, so that there was no precedent to follow except in other branches of the Public Service.

§ SIR T. LEA (Londonderry, S.)
said, he desired to move to reduce the salary of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in order to call attention to the action of the Treasury in regard to the Irish Church tenants who were known as the glebe purchasers. Some time ago he had obtained the first place for a Motion dealing with this question. The Chief Secretary for Ireland appeared to be in favour of the object he had in view, but the Secretary to the Treasury had come down on him, and had refused to give him a Committee. Therefore, in the interests of these tenants he had felt bound to bring the question forward in a few words to-night. These tenants were subject to Treasury Rules—Rules which had been laid down in a most austere and mean manner. The case of these suffering men had been brought before them, but the Treasury never moved one fraction beyond what it was obliged to do. It was shown in the discussion in 1891 that, although an extension of time had been given to a number of the Irish Church tenants, yet there were some to whom that consideration had not been extended. The right hon. Gentleman had asked him if he could suggest any other way in which the Treasury could relieve the Irish Church purchasers, and he had made a suggestion. He proposed that some arrangement should be made by which these tenants could borrow the, one-third or one-fourth from the Land Commission in order to pay off the usurers from whom they had borrowed it. These unfortunate people had bought at 26, 27, and 28 years' purchase. They had had to find one-third or one-fourth of 197 the purchase money, and this they had to borrow at exorbitant rates of interest—so exorbitant that they were unable to pay off the instalments. He would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to appoint a Committee of Inquiry. It would be found that a great proportion of these tenants had been sold up through the high price they had had to pay for their holdings—the purchase having been, in a sense, compulsory. He considered that the proposal he had made under which the tenants would be able to borrow from the Land Commission at 2¾ per cent. would, in the long run, benefit the Treasury. These were a highly honourable and deserving class of men. They existed throughout the whole length and breadth of Ireland, and they felt the pinch of the times enormously. The only argument adduced in opposition to his proposal by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that if they did this thing the money would have to come from somewhere, and the only available source was the £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 allocated under the Land Purchase Act, which fund the Government were anxious not to diminish unnecessarily. But this fund had not been got into working order to any great extent yet, and he did not see why the money he asked for should not be advanced in this way. If the Secretary to the Treasury could give this relief let him do so; if not, let him give the Committee of Inquiry. He (Sir T. Lea) begged to move the reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary by the sum of £1,000.

THE CHAIRMAN
It is not necessary to move a reduction of the Financial Secretary's salary in order to draw attention to this subject.

§ SIR T. LEA
After his hard work to-night I should be glad to spare him. I will not move.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
said, he would give the hon. Baronet the best reply he could under the circumstances. There would be very great difficulty in carrying out the suggestion of the hon. Member, because he sought to re-open the question of the number of years' purchase which had been paid by these tenants. He (Sir J. T. Hibbert) would not say that the Committee for which the hon. Mem- 198 ber asked would not be desirable. He would like to discuss the matter with the hon. Member, and try and come to some conclusion. Therefore, he would suggest that the hon. Member should furnish the Treasury with a statement giving all the facts of the case.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)
said, it was not necessary to draw up a statement. It was admitted that these purchasers had purchased under especially hard conditions. It was, in fact, almost compulsory purchase. These persons had to borrow one-fourth of their purchase-money, while purchasers under the Land Purchase Act had the money advanced to them by the Government, All that was wanted was that, in order to prevent these men being ruined by usurious interest paid to the moneylenders and gombeen men, some arrangement should be made by the Land Commission to advance money to them in order to enable them to pay off this one-fourth. He admitted the difficulty of the case, for it would be said—"You are asking for British money to pay off Irish debts," But that was all the more reason why the Committee should consider whether these purchasers could not be placed in the same position as purchasers under the Acts of 1885 and 1891.

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
I shall be happy to discuss the matter with hon. Gentlemen.

§ SIR T. LEA
said, that all he wanted was that the Irish Church purchasers under the Act of 1870 should have the same privileges as were given to the Ashbourne Act purchasers. There were one or two other things that a Committee might well investigate.

§ MR. TOMLINSON
wished to know what was the meaning of an asterisk being put against the salaries of the Directors of the Suez Canal. What were to be the salaries paid in the future?

§ MR. HANBURY
asked whether the Committee were to understand that after this Vote the Government would move to report Progress?

§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT
Yes. The information the hon. Member for Preston asks for can be given on Report.