COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 17 June 1884)

§ EARL CAIRNS
said, that the real question raised was whether the Office of Lord Privy Seal was to be abolished or not. It was an important question, which had been brought forward in his recollection four or five times in the other House. The Bill did not directly propose to abolish the Office; but it seemed to be a surreptitious way of effecting that purpose, as it would leave nothing for the Lord Privy Seal to do. The Bill, in fact, did not tell a true story.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, the Bill proposed simply to take away from the officer called the Lord Privy Seal the few nominal duties which he had now to discharge. That officer did not exercise any efficient control over the Instruments which had to pass the Great Seal, for which, in some instances, the Lord Chancellor, in others the Home Secretary or other Secretary of State, or the Treasury were responsible. This Act contemplated that the persons who had the real responsibility should obtain the Royal Warrant, and that the Royal Warrant should then pass directly through the Office of the Lord Chancellor. The formal duties now discharged by the Lord Privy Seal only served to add to the expense in the case of those Instruments. The Bill did not propose to abolish the Office; but no salary would henceforth be attached to it. In fact, no salary had for the last two or three years been asked for it. He did not anticipate that the Office would long survive.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, that the matter was not of such trivial importance as the noble and learned Earl seemed to attach to it. It was a matter which affected the most important body of men in the country—namely, the Cabinet, of which the Lord Privy Seal was, from time immemorial, a Member. It ought carefully to be considered whether the Bill was sweeping away a mere administrative cobweb, or making an important change.