SECRETARIES TO THE TREASURY. (Hansard, 21 June 1921)

§ Mr. HAYWARD

I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit the number of Parliamentary Secretaries to the Treasury."

This is a very short Bill, consisting of one Clause only, and it provides that the number of Parliamentary Secretaries to the Treasury shall not exceed two, thus reverting to the practice before the formation of the first War Coalition Government, when the number was increased to three by adding an additional Patronage Secretary, or Chief Whip. The history of this office is somewhat obscure. I believe that the late Lord Burleigh was the first to make such an appointment, and he appointed only one. Subsequently the number was increased to two. One was attached to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His duties were purely financial and official, and he was called the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The other was attached to the First Lord, who was generally the Prime Minister, and he was, from the nature and character of the more important part of his duties, called the Patronage Secretary. That office, as we know it, took shape about the beginning of the eighteenth century. There is no doubt that at one time the duties of the Patronage Secretary were very onerous and responsible. According to Redlich and Ilbert's work on "Procedure of the House of Commons," we find that: He had in his hands the disposal of the whole of the Government patronage, the distribution of places, livings, and open and secret favours. In the days of rotten boroughs and secret service money, often amounting to millions of pounds, the holder of this office—one of whose duties was to look after the purchase of constituencies for the maintenance of the majority—obtained an enormous influence over Members of Parliament. This part of the duty of the Patronage Secretary all disappeared after the Reforms of 1832, and from the same authority we learn that 1104 the Patronage Secretary now has to ply his calling with very different tools from those used by his namesake a hundred years ago. In spite of the disappearance of the reservoir of public funds from which we could draw, there is no question that the Patronage Secretary still obtains and maintains enormous influence over Members of Parliament. That great authority, Redlich, lets us into the secret how this is done, for he says: The authority of the Whip is of a purely moral nature. Hon. Members on all sides of the House know that quite well from their own knowledge and experience. This authority lets us further into the secret and gives us some indication of the nature of the moral authority which is exercised, for, speaking of the Chief Whip, he says: He must be acquainted with each Member, know his weak and strong points, be able to talk him round, to coax him by smiles, by exhortations, by friendly remonstrances, and by promises or other devices, such as invitations to the entertainments of the dukes and marquises of the party, which he gets for Members and their wives.

§ Mr. HAYWARD

Yes, certainly; Redlich and Ilbert, the late Clerk to this House, on "Procedure of the House of Commons," which the right hon. Gentleman will find in the Library. It is clear from this—and it is very relevant to this matter—that the predominant duties of the Patronage Secretary are purely political, and part political at that. I am quite willing to concede that there are sufficient official duties, as distinct from Party duties, attached to the office to justify one Patronage Secretary, because, after all, there is his duties in this House in arranging the business, and there is also the disposal of such patronage as is still left at the disposal of the First Lord. That being so, I do not think that it can possibly be pretended that there are sufficient official duties to justify the appointment of two Patronage Secretaries. Everybody knows that the number was increased when the First War Coalition Government was formed. There was at least this justification, that at that time the Chief Whips were performing no Party political duties; in fact, the Party machines, of which they were the heads, were diverted 1105 entirely to public and War services, and the two right hon. Gentlemen who then acted as the Chief Whips were engaged very largely in public War work. Now we are back in normal Parliamentary circumstances, and, in view of the fact that there are not sufficient official duties to engage the attention of two Chief Whips, and in view of the importance of economy even in so small a matter, I do think that the time has come to revert to the pre-War practice.