VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE BILL—(No. 99.)—THIRD READING. (Hansard, 29 July 1867)

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, that Papers had been presented to the House showing that a Committee, consisting of Mr. Hunt, Secretary to the Treasury, and the Vice President of the Board of Trade, had been appointed to inquire into the organization of the department with a view to see whether any improvement could be effected in it. The Committee, having gone into the whole matter, decided that it was advisable to abolish one of the permanent Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries; to appoint four Secretaries, for the four departments into which the Board was divided; that there should be a Parliamentary Secretary instead of the Vice President; and a permanent Secretary, who should have equal rank with the Parliamentary Secretary. It was impossible to speak in too high terms of the ability of the gentleman who held the office of legal Adviser, or to say how great was the regret with which everyone connected with the Board heard the announcement that that gentleman intended to retire. The Committees recommended that the office should be abolished. The legal Adviser had partly held the Assistant Secretary-ship of the Railway Department in connection 328 with the post of legal Adviser, and he was offered that post. He declined it, however, on the ground that the duties were more than he could undertake to discharge satisfactorily. The Committee were also of opinion that the post of Permanent Secretary, which was filled by Sir Emerson Tennent, ought to be abolished. Of course it would not be abolished as long as Sir Emerson Tennent chose to fulfil the duties of it, and he might have remained in the office as long as he lived had he so pleased; but he agreed to give it up in order that the new arrangements might be carried out, and to receive a retiring pension. He did not retire, however, upon full pension, though the recommendation made to the Treasury was, he believed, that in consideration of his services, both in the colonies and at home, he should receive full pension. He was informed, however, that Sir Emerson Tennent was to receive less than he was entitled to. Instead of £1,500 per annum, to which he was entitled, he was only to receive £1,200.