§ Captain W. BENNI apologise for raising the matter to which I am going to refer, but our opportunities for discussion are so limited that we have to take advantage of a casual occasion of this kind to ventilate grievances when they arise. We have heard a good deal in the House about the salary of the Minister without Portfolio. Hon. Gentlemen are 190 discontented because they allege that one Member of the Government is paid for no specified duties. There is a great deal to be said from that point of view, but I cannot help thinking, without imputing any motives, that that Minister has been selected rather on account of his political associations than because he is the only example of the abuse of which complaint is made. In looking down the list of Ministers one finds that the Minister without Portfolio is by no means the only example to be found. There are at least four other sinecures, as far as official duties are concerned, although some of them, of course, involve heavy duties, such as the office of the Lord Privy Seal. One particular example is the continuance of the practice of having Joint Parliamentary Secretaries to the Treasury. It is a very small matter, but I doubt whether we shall ever have an opportunity of discussing or voting upon it in the House of Commons.
As hon. Members know, Estimates are apt to be selected in order of urgency for the 20 days which the Rules of the House provide for Supply. That does not give us an opportunity of selecting for discussion all the Estimates which rightly deserve consideration, and on which we might desire to divide, so that it is probable that this Vote will never come before the House in Committee of Supply during the whole of this Session. I wish it were possible to put down this Vote and those of other sinecure offices with the Vote of the Minister without Portfolio, so that we might have an opportunity of judging of all the issues together, but as that seems extremely improbable, I am forced to raise the matter now on the Motion for Adjournment.
What possible defence can there be for dividing an office, which is itself a sinecure, into two offices paid at equal rates? That is the problem which the House has to consider. I myself was once a Lord of the Treasury, and know, as everyone else knows, that there are no departmental duties connected with the office. It has grown to be the practice of Parliament that certain Members should be appointed to these sinecures for the purpose of assisting in the party work and organisation of the party which happens to be in power at the moment. I am not questioning that practice. I do not know whether, in times of tremendous financial strain, such as the present, the 191 expenditure of money on party organisation is justified or not. What I do complain of is an extension of the practice which does seem to be going beyond any possible point that can be justified. No doubt the answer, if one is given at all, will be that this practice was instituted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, during the War. I do not think that is an answer at all. I never criticised any expenditure during the War or any arrangements made during the War. I considered during the War that everyone was, very often in rather a chaotic fashion, doing his best to get the War won. I never criticised even any of those reports made afterwards of squandering and profligacy in public expenditure. It was so, of course. An entirely new experiment, as far as our time is concerned, was instituted during 1915 and for that purpose two Patronage Secretaries were appointed. What is the justification for their continuance? The only justification is either the one I have referred to, and which could easily be disposed of, or that it is a very small sum, and that it does not matter. Or there is a third reason, which would not be a justification, which is that the party in power requires one Whip, who most efficiently and courteously carries out his duty in the House, and another who spends his time in the country organising the party ion elections. That is an expenditure which cannot be justified. I would invite the Leader of the House, if he intends to do me the honour to reply to me, to explain whether it is not possible now to bring to an end this small but significant unjustified expenditure of public funds.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINIf I had not already intended to reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman I could not resist the appeal he has just made. I spend my time when he speaks in mingled admiration of his zeal and his ubiquity in public controversy, and in wonder at the shortness of his memory and the profound distinction he draws between those things which are permissible when a Government is in office, which he feels enabled to support and those things which are permissible when we change sides, and the Government no longer retains his confidence. For myself, there is a certain crumb of comfort to be picked up from 192 his table. I observe that his particular animosity is reserved for the friends whom he has left and not for his old opponents.
§ Captain BENNThere is no animosity at all.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINLet me with draw the word. Let me say I observe that the hon. and gallant Gentleman feels it his bounden duty to criticise in particular the friends he has left and not his old opponents. This evening he spoke so nicely of the Patronage Secretary, who is drawn from the party with which I am more immediately associated. He finds no fault with his salary or with his discharge of his duties. It is my right hon. Friend with whom he was so lately associated (Mr McCurdy) whose very existence is now an offence. I hope he will get over these little prejudices and judge both my colleagues with an equal measure of amenity and consideration. If he does he will see that there is good reason for the course the Government have taken. I certainly would not put in the plea for any unnecessary salary in these days that it is such a little one. That is not the ground of my defence. Neither would I base my defence solely upon the fact that the right hon. Member for Paisley initiated this system of Joint Patronage Secretaries.
§ Captain BENNDuring the War.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINYes, during the War. I quite agree that many things were necessary during the War which are not necessary now. Certain things which were initiated during the War and which have survived the War might rightly be brought under review in view of present circumstances. Let us consider this matter on its merits, and in judging the arrangement on its merits let me ask my hon. and gallant Friend to consider two things: first, why the right hon. Member for Paisley initiated this arrangement, and, secondly, whether if he was right in initiating the arrangement then—and I do not think that the conscience of the late Junior Lord of the Treasury was greatly oppressed by the existence of two Patronage Secretaries during the War—
§ Captain BENNI did not think about it then.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI admit at once that my hon. and gallant Friend was, 193 for the most part, engaged in doing much more valuable service for his country. If he would consider why it was arranged I think he would see, not that there is less reason for it now, but that there is more. He has said that during the War he was not inclined to criticise anything that was done. That was the general attitude of the House. No doubt in certain respects the work of the House became extraordinarily heavy, because of the abnormal demands made upon it; but so far as the organisation of Government business was concerned, no Government, certainly no Government in my memory, ever could so confidently count upon the support of the House, and upon having their business facilitated for them as could the succeeding Governments during the War. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley found it necessary to make this arrangement. Why? Because the support of the Government depended upon a union of parties, and it was necessary for the smooth working of the machinery that that union of parties should be represented in the Government and in that particular branch of the Government's business, the Patronage Secretaryship to the Treasury. We cannot count, and my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise that we ought not to count, on the same forbearance and the same absence of criticism or of friction as Governments received by reason of the Coalition during the War. Nevertheless, the Government which sits on these benches is the creation of the Coalition, and combines elements as distinct in origin as those which formed the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, in which I had the honour to serve, and, accordingly, the circumstances which caused this arrangement of the Joint Patronage Secretaryship to be brought into operation is not merely in existence to-day with the same force as before, but with even greater force.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about a number of sinecures. I understood that a sinecure was an office to which no work was attached. There may be sinecures in the sense that the original duties of certain offices have disappeared, but the holders of these offices have other duties assigned to them, so that they are not holders of sinecures. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman means persons who draw salaries without doing work, then 194 of all against whom the charge could conceivably be brought there are none who work harder, who are more the servants, I might almost say the slaves, of the House than the Patronage Secretaries to the Treasury. In my very early years I had the honour to be Junior Whip to the Liberal Unionist party in Opposition. That was an unpaid post. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman would describe it as a sinecure. I have never been sorry that I had that opportunity, as it taught me a great deal, but it meant very hard work, even as a Junior Whip in the junior branch of a Coalition, and when the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that either my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend the present Patronage Secretaries to the Treasury in the circumstances of to-day do not earn their salaries, then I expect my hon. and gallant Friend himself when he becomes Prime Minister will pass a self-denying ordinance and take no salary and insist, which he will probably find more difficult, that none of his colleagues shall receive any remuneration from public funds. For if the Patronage Secretaries do not give a day's work for a day's salary I do not know anyone who does.
§ Captain BENNThey do give a day's work to their party.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINAnd to the House, and as long as Parliament works through party—and I am sufficiently a believer in party to think that if the House of Commons abandons the party system and breaks up into groups and interests—
§ Captain BENNCoalitions.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN—it will be a disaster. I am glad that the Government rests upon a firm Coalition. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has included Coalitions as groups and parties. Is he quite sure that he is not a member of a Coalition now—in opposition to a Coalition? If not, it is because the two parties cannot agree upon a common policy, because they do not mean the same thing. We on this side do mean the same thing. We pursue our purposes in common, and we take the measures and have the offices necessary for the purpose.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Ten o'clock.