I beg, Sir, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is able to give the House any information respecting the renewed negotiations which are stated to be in progress between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Russia; and, whether he is able to hold out any hope of an early assembling of the European Congress? I should wish, also, to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question, of which I have given him private Notice, relating to a subject which it is, perhaps, desirable should be explained as speedily as possible. That Question is, Whether he is able to explain why the decision of Her Majesty's Government to despatch a Force of Indian Native troops to Malta was not communicated to Parliament before the rising of the House for the Recess, the public announcement that that step would be taken having been made the day after Parliament separated for the Holidays?

Sir, with regard to the first of the Questions which the noble Lord has asked me, I am at the present moment only in a position to say that active negotiations have been and are now going on, and that it would be, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, exceedingly disadvantageous to the public service were any general discussion to be held upon this subject at the present moment. I may, however, say with reference to one matter of interest to which reference was made before the rising of the House, that the negotiations which Her Majesty's Government have been carrying on with regard to the disturbances in Thessaly have now been conducted nearly to an issue, and we have every reason to believe that a pacification upon equal terms will be secured. With regard to the last Question of the noble Lord, I can only say that the decision of Her Majesty's Government to order a certain number of Indian troops to Malta was one arrived at some time ago; but that it was not thought necessary, nor is it according to practice, that such a decision should be communicated to Parliament. It will, however, be our duty, as early as is convenient—and I hope it will be very soon—to lay before Parliament an Estimate of the cost of that Expeditionary movement; and that, I think, will be the most convenient time for raising any discussion it may be thought desirable to raise upon the subject. I do not see the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) in his place; but even in his absence I wish to take very brief notice of a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman during the Recess, in which he charged Her Majesty's Government, and myself individually, with having deceived the House. I do not think it generally desirable to take notice of statements made in this manner, neither do I wish to discuss the matter now; all I desire to say is, that I hope if the right hon. Gentleman has any charge of that kind to make, he will lay it before the House, and in a form which will afford an opportunity of answering it. There is a small matter of routine which I ought to mention now, relative to the Business of the House. It was understood before the Recess, that after we met again Public Business should begin at a quarter-past 4. I therefore give Notice that to-morrow, and on subsequent days, we shall propose to take Public Business at a quarter-past 4, if the Private Business will allow of it.

said, he desired to bring before the House a subject of considerable importance, and to put himself in Order, he should conclude with a Motion for Adjournment. He had no desire to interfere with the Business of the House; but he felt the matter to which he wished to direct attention could not bear a moment's delay. It was one that intimately touched the Privileges of the House and the authority of Parliament. After what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, he (Mr. Fawcett) was not going to say a word about the position of the negotiations which were now pending; for it would be a serious responsibility for a private Member to take upon himself to raise a discussion on the subject of the negotiations after he had been appealed to by a responsible Minister. And with regard to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just said about his (Mr. Fawcett's) right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, he could only say this—that he was not going to charge the Chancellor of the Exchequer with intentionally misleading him. He knew the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not intentionally mislead any Member of the House; but this he did wish to say, in the most distinct manner, that, although it was not the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to mislead him, he, and at least 100 other Members of the House, had been misled. And it was not their own fault that they were misled. If the English language had not lost its plain and distinct meaning, he should say it was natural, and that there was no other course but that they should be misled by the speech which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made immediately before the adjournment for the Recess. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members, that before the Recess, he (Mr. Fawcett) proposed a Motion to shorten the proposed Recess by a week. He withdrew that Motion against the wish of some of his Friends; but he felt it was impossible for him to divide the House after what he regarded as "the eminently satisfactory statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer." He had read that statement again within the last hour, and he adhered to the expression he used on that occasion—namely, that in the face of so eminently satisfactory a statement, he felt it impossible to divide the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said—"I beg to assure the hon. Member for Hackney, who has brought forward this Motion, and I beg to assure the House most distinctly, that there has been no change in our policy." No change in our policy! If the bringing of an indefinite number of our Indian troops, for the first time, into Europe, to be engaged in a European contest, was not a change in our policy, he (Mr. Fawcett) did not know what a change in our policy was. There could not be a change of policy which could raise a more important Constitutional question affecting this country, or a question of more vital importance affecting the Government and the finances of India. What was the meaning of their Mutiny Bill, the passing or the withholding of which was among the dearest and most cherished privileges of Parliament? It was that they might not be overborne by a large standing Army. Why was it that they voted every year, most carefully and most scrupulously, the number of men who should constitute their standing Army? It was because Parliament might keep a tight hand on the strength of the standing Army. It was not for him to go into history on that occasion, or he could show that there was no Constitutional principle which their forefathers thought of greater importance to preserve. But what was the position now? The numbers of the Indian Army were not limited. They might have 200,000 men in that Army this year, and 500,000 next year. The Government might decide to bring 70,000, or 170,000, or 250,000 of that Army into Europe. [Ministerial cheers.] He was glad of that cheer, for the House was now beginning to discover from it the intentions of the Government, and the country would see the gravity, the peril, and the importance of what had been done. And then the Chancellor of the Exchequer might come down to the House, and, in a few light sentences, say it was not according to custom that Parliament should be informed on the subject. How could he say that, well knowing that Indian soldiers had never before been brought into Europe to engage in a contest; and that, therefore, there was no precedent to justify what had been done? About what subject was it necessary that Parliament should be informed, if not about this? He (Mr. Fawcett) believed he was speaking the opinion of the great majority of those sitting near him, when he said that they would far sooner have squandered and wasted millions of English money than that the Government should have started upon this course of bringing the troops of India to fight European battles without consulting Parliament. If they could do that, it seemed to him that there was no single matter which they could not do as an Executive without consulting the House of Commons. What was the use of Army Estimates, and of voting a certain number of men, if a week or two afterwards they were to be told that an indefinite number of soldiers were coming from India, but that it had not been thought worth while to inform Parliament? Would it not have been worth the while of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inform Parliament what would be the cost, and how the expenses were to be borne between England and India? The House knew nothing of the relative charges to be borne in India and the relative charges in England. Again, look at the question as affecting India. We were responsible for the good government of India. There was no one who had given any attention to the question of the government of India, who did not feel that you could not raise a question of so much vital importance connected with the government of India as the bringing of Indian troops into Europe and their possible return to India, either flushed with victory, or crushed with disaster. ["No!"] India had been deprived of 7,000 troops, and we were told that the Government were going to deprive her of 7,000 or 8,000 more. But, whether that was so or not, 7,000 had sailed from Bombay. From this dilemma there was no escape—either before these 7,000 troops sailed from Bombay the Indian Army was extravagantly large, or, at the present moment, India was inadequately supplied with troops. Either she had been paying, whilst her finances were in a critical and crippled condition, to provide a Reserve for this country, or she had at this moment 7,000 less troops at command than were necessary for the safety of the Empire. When it was considered, as a matter of taxation, that these 7,000 troops cost more than had been raised by the increased salt duty imposed upon famished millions in India, the importance of this matter to the finances of India would be seen. But, what was more important than all, was that it was necessary that the House should do something to prevent this thing being repeated; because, according to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just said, it was not necessary that Parliament should be informed on this subject. The House did not know what was going to be done with these troops. According to the opinion of some of his Friends, to whose opinion he was bound to pay respect, there was nothing to prevent the Government, now that they had started on this career of coming to the help of poor enfeebled England with the resources of the Indian Army, from landing 70,000 or 80,000 Indian troops in London without consulting Parliament, and then asking for a Supplementary Estimate. However unimportant the Government might consider the matter, he knew he was expressing the opinions of many, both inside and out of that House, when he said they were determined that such a thing as this should not be done without Parliament being consulted, and the advice of the House of Commons taken, or they would do all in their power to protest and remonstrate against it. He now begged to move the Adjournment of the House.

said, he desired to speak in no Party spirit, but rather in the character of an old Indian official who had had some experience of those subjects. It was unnecessary that he should say very much on the Constitutional phase of the question, as it had been so forcibly and emphatically handled by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). The House must admit his hon. Friend was right in saying that a very great Constitutional question was raised by that act of the Government. The bringing of Indian troops into Europe was a course that had never been adopted before, and it was a totally different matter from the calling out of the Reserves at home. It was not foreseen in either their civil or their Army constitution, and the question it raised—a very difficult one, which had been noticed by one of the great public journals—was, by what military law were these Indian troops to be governed when they entered a British Colony in Europe? The people of this country had long been most jealous of a standing Army, which could not be maintained except under an annual Mutiny Act. In India, on the other hand, a different state of things prevailed. There they had no free Government or Parliament, and they had a Mutiny Act, which was not annual, but perpetual, passed under the authority of the Indian Legislature. When the English Mutiny Act was under discussion the other day, the question was asked whether that Act was applicable to Indian troops? and it was then distinctly stated that it was not. Therefore, if those Indian troops were to be governed at all, it must be under the Mutiny Act passed by the Indian Legislature, whose powers for some purposes were not absolutely confined to India, but extended to the old Indian limits of the Cape of Good Hope and the Isthmus of Suez. He did not see, however, how they could extend beyond those bounds. Therefore, it was a question, when they had brought those Indian troops to Malta, whether they would have any law to govern them by. If, when they were at Malta, they would be governed by Indian military law, he did not see why they might not some day be brought to England to be governed by the Indian perpetual Mutiny Act, in which case Parliament would have no control in the matter. Then came the question, how was provision to be made for the payment of the troops? The expense, which would no doubt be very great, had not been contemplated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend to meet this expenditure by asking the House to re-commit the Inland Revenue Bill, which was down for third reading that evening, in order that he might impose an addition to the income tax and to the tobacco duty, or to the duty on malt? The question was a very serious one, and would involve the expenditure, not only of hundreds of thousands of pounds, but possibly of millions. No doubt, in so important an affair, Lord Napier of Magdala had been consulted. Whatever that noble and gallant Lord did, would, he was sure, be very well done, and in military matters the Government would be safe in his hands. But there was no concealing the fact, that as regarded expense Lord Napier of Magdala was one of the most lavish men. They knew how soon an Abyssinian Expedition, hardly larger than that now ordered from India, was run up to a cost of £9,000,000 sterling. In all probability a very heavy expenditure would be incurred by despatching Indian troops to Europe; and yet, as he had observed, not one word had been said by Her Majesty's Government as to the manner in which they proposed to meet that expenditure. Looking at the matter from the point of view of an old Indian, he confessed that he was inclined to believe that, at the right time, and in the right place, and under proper circumstances, it would not, perhaps, be a bad thing to relieve the strain on the home population by utilizing Indian soldiers for some kinds of service. Such a measure would be justifiable in two cases—first, either as an experiment made at a fitting time and under fitting conditions; and, secondly, when our resources were strained to the utmost by a great war, and we must have recourse to all the men and means we could command, from whatever quarter derived. Now, the despatch at present of a few regiments from India could hardly be treated as more than an experiment, and he did not think that this was a fitting time for making such an experiment. They should remember President Lincoln's advice—"Don't swop horses when crossing a stream"—for, if ever men were crossing a stream, we were in that position at this moment. It might be said The Times correspondent had told them that the measure had succeeded. Now, they were all much indebted to The Times for its admirable foreign correspondence. That great journal maintained the very best men in every country in Europe. In India, its famous Special Correspondent during the Mutiny, developed a new art. But in ordinary times, it was very difficult to get good correspondents; when everyone was either in office or in business. He thought The Times was the only paper which had regular correspondence from India; at any rate, it was the only paper which got its correspondence by weekly telegram, and thus it had a peculiar influence on opinion. For a long time it was very lucky in a succession of excellent men, but it was the general Indian opinion that at this moment it was not so fortunate. Old Indians thought there was nothing they so little knew as the real opinions and feelings of the Natives; but this correspondent was ready, the very day after a great measure had been promulgated, to tell them that the Hindoos looked upon it as throwing lustre on their race, and on the next day that the Native Army were enthusiastic about it. At the end of a few days, they received more detailed accounts of that enthusiasm. He suspected that they were very much exaggerated. At the same time, he did not doubt that they had a substratum of fact. The Sepoys were a very practical people. What they were influenced by was not so much political enthusiasm as the prospect of the increased pay and plunder—loot, as it was called in India—they were likely to get; and he had no doubt that the very liberal terms offered sufficed to bring them away from India very well pleased. But let the House not deceive itself; and he warned the Government, that the terms on which we were served by our Indian Sepoy troops were such that we dare not order them off on foreign service as we would an English regiment, and that we must, in one shape or another, bribe them to go. That was, in fact, what we had done. Supposing some 7,000 Native troops, all told—a mere bagatelle from a European point of view—had been successfully despatched from India, that Force would be enough intensely to irritate Russia and to induce other Powers to look askance at us; enough to serve as a menace, but not enough to give effective aid to our troops in case of war. The selection of the Expeditionary Force seemed to have been made with a view fairly to distribute the honour among the different Presidencies of Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta, and to satisfy all sensibilities. They were good enough troops in some ways; but, with regard to the question of efficiency, most of them would be unable to cope with first-class European troops. Probably, in the 7,000 men who had been ordered to Malta, it would not be possible to find more than two battalions—the 31st Punjabis and the 2nd Goorkhas—fit for severe European warfare; but they would be thoroughly good and well-officered troops. There was also a small force of cavalry, which, however useful it might some day prove itself in the case of a long campaign in the open, would be enormously expensive and very useless while maintained on a rock like Malta. Again, it was another and a very grave objection to the action of the Government, that we had no absolute right to bring troops through the Suez Canal. Hitherto we had done so for ordinary relief purposes on sufferance, having established no right to carry our troops through the neutral territory, and if we were to do so now for purposes of warlike demonstration, we should not only offend Russia, but should create a dangerous precedent which other nations might possibly use for hostile purposes. He could not see why, if our transports carried troops from India through the Suez Canal, someday vessels of war might not appear before Port Said and insist on going through the Canal to Madras and Bombay. The Canal ought to be neutralized, and for the future to be used only for the purposes of legitimate commerce. Another word as to the cost of Native troops. In India, the Native soldier received about £10 per annum, and was not expensively paid; but the men selected for despatch to Malta would be very differently treated, and would receive not only the batta, or extra allowance for foreign service, but also a free kit, free rations, and free quarters. They would thus be "all found," and have a clear cash payment of 1s. a-day, while no European soldier received so much; and he doubted whether we were prepared to have Native soldiers serving side by side with Europeans, and receiving larger pay. Then there was the expense of transport to be considered, and the House would remember that it was more expensive than that of European troops, that European soldiers could be mose closely packed on board ship, and that the Indian soldiers would require more camp followers than Europeans, that their cookery was a less simple affair, and that the voyage was a longer and more expensive one than from England to Malta. That cost would, no doubt, amount to an enormous sum before the troops got back to India. Supposing even that the first experiment encouraged us to bring Indian troops to Europe in such numbers that they might be seriously effective, they could not do so so easily as was thought. What would be their position if, during a great war, they had to rely upon their Indian troops? The Native Army consisted of 120,000 men, all told, and from these it would be necessary to deduct great numbers for guard and garrison duty all over India for the maintenance of peace and the security of the Indian Dominion. Again, three-fourths of the Natives were not men who could be trusted to fight in Europe, and all they had, therefore, was an available force of some 25,000 or 30,000 Sikhs, Patans, Goorkhas, and Dogras, all of whom could not be sent away. It must be understood, that if we desired to raise a large number of additional troops in India, that there were no Reserves, as service was for life; and if it were necessary to treat India as a recruiting ground, it would be found that the manufacture of soldiers would be a very long process, and that the recruits would literally have to be taken from the plough-tail. The Punjaub alone yielded a race of men fit for such services. No doubt, when we first occupied India, the country swarmed with soldiers; but that state of things had entirely passed away, and we could only picture to ourselves the condition of India in that respect by imagining the state of England without the Militia, and the Reserves, and the Volunteers. In time, if liberal terms were offered, a very large number of recruits would be obtained, but they were not immediately available, and would be very expensive. Nor could he forget that the great objection to any very considerable increase in the number of the Native troops, even if they were found able to compete with European troops, was the difficulty of getting rid of them when they were one with. It would be necessary either to maintain them, or to give them a bonus and disband them. The former course was bad for economical reasons, and the latter for political. He came, then, to the conclusion that, we had in one part of India a great Reserve of men who might be very useful in the course of a long struggle, but whose services could not be rendered effectively in other circumstances, and would not be justified by the attainment of any secondary object. Looking, then, to the dangers and difficulties he had pointed out, it was clear that a step like that the Government had taken ought not to be resorted to until war was really upon us; but, as the thing was now done, he would simply ask the Government to inform the House under which Mutiny Act the Native troops were to be governed, and whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to provide for the expenses without re-casting the Budget?

Sir, I do not rise to discuss this question generally, but to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he makes any observation upon the remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), to explain a phrase which he was understood to use in answer to my noble Friend the Leader of the Opposition. My noble Friend asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give some explanation as to why this measure on the part of the Government was not communicated to the House on the day of its rising, and I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the decision of the Government was arrived at some days previously, and that, in his opinion, it was not necessary to communicate it to the House. If that sentence has the meaning it would seem to bear, it propounds a doctrine against which every man who sits on this side of the House must protest, and against which I should hope most hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House would protest; also, because, if it means anything at all, it means this—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the direct Representative of the Crown in this House, can go on and claim the right to employ the whole Indian Army—for there is no distinction between one regiment and the whole for any purpose whatever, either in Europe or elsewhere, or in England. I shall be glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds he can support the bringing of the troops to Malta and not here? Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has considered the question, and is prepared to answer it; but it is right we should know what is the limit to the doctrine which the Government on the part of the Crown asserts. I should like to know, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer lays down the rule that, without the consent of Parliament, without communication with Parliament in any form, the Crown claims the right to employ the whole of the Indian Forces for any purpose whatsoever? Because, if so, that is contrary to the doctrine which I have always understood to belong to the Constitution of this country, and I cannot for a moment believe that that is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to assert. In this country for generations the English people have taken precautions—wise precautions and safe precautions—that the Armies of the Crown, shall not be employed without the knowledge and without the consent of Parliament. It has not hitherto been necessary, because the case has not hitherto been contemplated, to apply the same Constitutional safeguards and precautions to the Armies of India. I do not wish to express any decision at this moment at all adverse to the policy of the Government. I am speaking only of the manner in which this policy has undoubtedly been put into effect. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer adheres to the assertion that this is a thing which can be done, and which ought to be done, without any communication with Parliament, I say, we are then in the face of a very grave Constitutional question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he will bring forward an Estimate; but it might be that it would not be necessary to bring forward an Estimate. It might be that the Revenues of the Indian Government would be found adequate to supply these Forces. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer assert that if there was an Indian surplus the Government need not come to Parliament for any authority; but that they might employ the Indian Revenue to furnish the Crown with Armies for European purposes or for English purposes? [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: No, no!] I shall be glad to hear his explanation on that point. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not think that any Member of the Opposition is not justified in asking that question of the Government. I ask it, not in a hostile spirit; but, wanting to know exactly the relations in which the Crown stands to Parliament in matters of this sort, I did not wish to pass by that sentence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for fear it might bear an interpretation which he did not intend should be put upon it. I cordially agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, that no one desires to impute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a moment that he desired to deal with the House otherwise than with a spirit of perfect frankness. We certainly have had no occasion to complain of the want of willingness on the part of the Government from time to time to communicate such information as they thought consistent with the public service; but I confess I have some difficulty in understanding how it was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have been able, on the day of adjournment, to say that nothing had occurred which should give occasion for increased anxiety. I confess that the meaning to be attached to these words very much depends on the animus recipientis; but it so happened, that next afternoon, I met my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who had asked from the Government the explanation which they gave. I met him just at the moment when this news of the Government ordering troops from India came out in the evening papers; and all I can say is, that it did give us very much increased anxiety. We both asked whether it could be possible that the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew of that when he gave the answer the day before? I presume, from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that his real meaning was that this resolution had been taken some time previously. It would appear that this is, in fact, one of the measures of the Government—I do not know how many of them there are yet undisclosed—which Lord Derby said had led him to withdraw from the Cabinet. We know, that at the time when Lord Derby resigned, in order to remove public anxiety, it was stated by the First Minister of the Crown that the measure intended to be taken was the calling out of the Reserve Forces, and innocent-minded and ignorant people concluded that that was the only measure. By degrees, however, measure after measure reveals itself, and we were certainly told by Lord Derby that there were more than one. Finally, this measure is taken to bring the Indian troops to Europe. I do not say it is wrong; but it is, at all events, a very grave measure—a very novel measure—certainly a measure seriously affecting the internal policy and organization of our Indian Empire and the relations of England with Europe. And then the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects us to be satisfied with a single sentence to the effect that the measure was decided on some time, and that the Government did not think it necessary to communicate it to Parliament. I do not think that that is a situation with which the House of Commons will rest content in the presence of the Government. I do not think the House of Commons ought to rest content with it. Whether the measure is right or wrong—upon which point I will offer no opinion—I do say the House of Commons ought not to accept the situation of being told by the Government that a measure of this gravity and this consequence, whether in relation to peace or in relation to war, is to be determined on by the Government, and the House of Commons is not to be told. I can quite understand that if we were at war, or even if war were imminent, that there might be strong reasons for a Government keeping back its policy, in order that they might be able to strike an immediate blow. They can give to Parliament afterwards explanations why they did not reveal it. But that was not the case here. I do not know when the order was given, or when the order was sent; but, at all events, the Government did not keep their own secret; although they did not think it necessary to communicate it to Parliament, they allowed it to be communicated to the public within 24 hours after the House rose. Therefore, it is impossible to believe that it was necessary to keep it back from the House of Commons; because, if it had been necessary on the grounds of public policy, they would have kept it back from other quarters. In order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may give us fuller explanation, in order that we may understand the relation in which the House of Commons stands to the Government in reference to this measure, and other measures of a similar character, I have put these Questions.

Sir, I am as far as possible from being disposed to complain of any remarks which have been made by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), or on the discussion which has been raised by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). I think it was only to be expected, and it was clearly right and natural for Members of this House that they should, at the earliest period which presented itself, put Questions to the Government on this matter, and claim for the House of Commons the discussion of the step which Her Majesty's Government have thought it their duty to advise. I can only say that when we are in a position—which I hope will be very shortly—to bring forward the Estimate of the expenses attending this movement of troops, opportunity will be given for full discussion of the various points which have been suggested in the speeches to which we have just listened and the other questions which will then, no doubt, be raised. There are, however, matters upon which I think I ought at once to offer some explanation. I was very brief in my answer to the noble Lord opposite, because I felt almost certain that this discussion would come on, and because I thought it would be more convenient to wait to give explanations in answer to what might be said. Now, I would like to make one or two remarks with reference to the observations which have fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. There is no doubt whatever that this is a very important step; but it is, at the same time, a step which, after all, when you come to regard what it is, is neither more nor less than a direction-given by Her Majesty for the moving of a portion of Her Forces from one part of the Empire to the other. And, though it is a movement which will undoubtedly come under the notice of Parliament, and over which Parliament holds the control, which it holds over all movements of British Forces—that of the right of withholding or challenging the Supplies asked for the purpose—yet, so far as the order given to Her Majesty's troops is concerned, it is an order strictly within the proper Constitutional Prerogative of the Crown, and one which Her Majesty has as much right to give as to order any portion of British troops now in England to proceed to Gibraltar, or Malta, or anywhere else. Then, I am asked why notice was not given of this step before? Well, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has himself suggested to our consideration what it seems to me might have suggested itself to any mind—that, in a movement of this kind, it was not desirable that there should be any premature discussion or disclosures until the necessary arrangements were completed. The decision was arrived at in principle some time ago; but the arrangements had to be made in India, where they required time, and where they could be satisfactorily completed only by the observance of secrecy. It would, indeed, be inconvenient in every way, that there should be any premature publicity with respect to them. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, that, as a matter of fact, the Government allowed the matter to transpire within 24 hours after the rising of the House. Well, there was no communication made on the part of the Government, and I may say that the Government generally were not prepared for the matter becoming known so soon. It, however, became very well known in India, in consequence of the preparations which were necessary, and which were hurried forward in order to enable the troops to sail before the Monsoon. But, under any circumstances, I may frankly say that we should not have thought it our duty—even if we had not foreseen that the matter would become public within so short a time—to have made a communication to Parliament with respect to it until the arrangements had been completed. There was no reason why it should be done, and we saw much inconvenience in premature discussions and disclosures on the subject. The question of transports, as one instance, would have been complicated if any premature discussion arose. But the hon. and learned Gentleman says that if this is a power which the Crown claims, and which is to be recognized, very serious consequences may follow, and we must be prepared for some very serious results. It is contended, that it may happen that a large Force, or some Force, may be brought from India into the United Kingdom. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, again—suppose the Indian Revenue were in a flourishing condition, it might be claimed by the Crown to make use of a portion of the Indian Army, the expenses coming out of the Indian Revenue, without coming to Parliament for Supplies; and that, in that way, the power of Parliament might be evaded. Now, in regard to the first point—the question of bringing the troops to England, I believe I am right in saying that that would be contrary to the Bill of Eights, and that it is a step which it would be impossible for any Minister of the Crown to advise should be taken, because it is distinctly contrary to an Act of Parliament. "Movement of the British troops from one part of the Dominions of Her Majesty to another," does not authorize the bringing into the United Kingdom of any troops that have not been authorized. That is recited in the Preamble of the Act. With regard to the employment of the Indian Revenues for the purpose of enabling Indian troops to be used by Her Majesty, that has been distinctly provided against by an Act that was passed somewhere about 1856 or 1857—[An hon. MEMBER: 1859.]—after the Persian War. That Act, passed in 1859, as I am reminded, provides that the Indian troops cannot be employed beyond the limits of India or paid for out of the Indian Revenue without the consent of Parliament, and that Indian troops can only be brought outside the limits of India for the purpose of repelling invasion, and they can only be paid for by funds supplied by Parliament, or with the consent of Parliament. With regard to the Question out of which funds the troops will be paid for?—I may say we propose that the entire expense shall be borne out of the Imperial Exchequer, and that India shall be entirely relieved of any charge in respect of them. Therefore, the House will see that the proposal will be one of a character that will not be open to the objections taken by the hon. Member for Hackney, though I should be prepared to say that the question was one in which the interests of India were involved as a part of the Empire. For, in fact, they are very much affected by events which may possibly come. However, I will not raise the question, because it is one which more properly belongs to the discussion which may take place when the Estimate is proposed. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) whether I propose to reconstruct the Budget in consequence of this?—I have to assure the hon. Member that that is not my intention. I would remind him that, at the time I brought it forward, I stated that there would be Supplementary Estimates, and that they were not being lost sight of in the arrangements I was then proposing. That, again, will be matter for discussion on another occasion. The Act under which the Indian troops will serve in Europe will, I apprehend, be the Indian Mutiny Act. That, however, is a question which I would rather leave to my legal Friends to discuss. I would now say a word with regard to the inconsistency alleged to exist between what I stated on the day before the Recess, and the step which I was aware was about to be taken. The House will remember that I was asked, whether there had been any change in the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and whether any fresh cause of anxiety had arisen? In reply, I stated, and stated with perfect truth, that there had been no change in the policy of Her Majesty' s Government, and that there was no fresh cause for anxiety. The policy of Her Majesty's Government, as we have declared over and over again, is to endeavour to bring about a peaceful and satisfactory settlement of the grave questions that have been raised, and at the time Parliament rose we did not see—as, indeed, we do not see now—any reason whatever for thinking such a settlement less probable than we had previously thought it. On the other hand, we never disguised from the House or the country, from the first, that we might be disappointed in our hopes, and that we thought it right, in the general interests of the Empire, to adopt certain measures of precaution. The sending of troops from India to Malta is one of those measures. I may add, also, that on the eve of the Recess I spoke more particularly with reference to rumours which had been going about, and which had attracted the attention of hon. Members of this House and elsewhere, as to complications and unsatisfactory proceedings which made us appear to be in a less satisfactory position for the business in which we were engaged. I said, in reference to that, that there was nothing which made the situation less favourable, or that gave increased cause for the alarm that had previously existed. I stated, at the same time, that Her Majesty's Government did not conceal from, themselves that the situation was an anxious one. That, I believe, was a perfectly legitimate, frank, and satisfactory statement. It was far from our wish to conceal anything which we thought might properly be made known, and certainly there was nothing further from, my intention, or from the intention of the Government, than to deceive the House. I hope we may not require to go further into this discussion at the present time; but I quite feel that it will be within the province of the House, and will be the duty of the House, to discuss these matters when the Estimate I have referred to is produced.

said, he did not wish to protract the debate after the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an early day for the consideration of the question. Speaking from an Indian point of view, he should like to challenge the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that this was a question of no more importance than bringing a brigade of troops from Gibraltar to Malta. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I did not say so.] He did not dispute that it was competent for the Crown to order a brigade from India to Malta, just as British troops were ordered to Malta, or to any other point; but, speaking upon the strength of Indian experience, he did say that this was a question fraught with most momentous issues. It was the first step towards the reversal of maxims of policy that had been acted upon by the great statesman who had had charge of Indian affairs since the Mutiny. He would not be justified in relying on his own authority, but he took that of Lord Canning—with whom he (Mr. Laing), as Finance Minister, was instrumental in reducing the Native Army of India from 300,000 to 125,000 men—one whose maxim was that it should be laid down as an axiom for the Government in India that the Indian troops should not be removed from that country. In India, danger was from within, and not from without. He did not deny that our Indian Forces were perfectly loyal and ready to go on foreign service. The danger was not from any active disloyalty; but there was a great variety of races in India, who were liable to be swayed by feelings with which we could only be imperfectly acquainted; and the old regimental system, under which European officers were, so to speak, the fathers of the regiments, having been practically broken up, it behoved us to maintain a very firm hold on India in a military sense. Now, our hold on India, he contended, would be seriously endangered, if we removed our Indian troops from the garrison duty they were performing, and transformed them into a powerful Army, with a martial and roving spirit. A much larger number of European officers would be required to keep them in check than at present, and the strength of our European Army in India would also have to be increased, so as not to tempt the Native troops to rise against us by allowing them to feel that they were stronger than we. The result would be an enormous increase in the financial burdens of India. He must condemn the step which the Government had taken. Was it not a farce, that the House of Commons, who were taken into the Councils of the Government on all questions of finance and taxation, on a question of this kind of vital importance, and adverse to precedent, should be totally ignored, and should be told that this was a step the Government took on their own authority six weeks or two months ago, and did not think it worth while to mention it to the House?

said, it had been stated by three hon. Members opposite who had addressed the House—namely, the Members for Hackney, Orkney, and Kirkcaldy—that the employment of Indian troops out of India was a matter fraught with danger to Indian finance. [Mr. FAWCETT: I said in Europe.] Well, geographically, Malta might be said to be not in Europe, but in Africa. As the hon. Member for Hackney so limited his observations, he should address himself to the remarks of the other two hon. Members. Indian troops had been employed in both the China Wars—in one China War since the Indian Mutiny. They had also been employed in Abyssinia, and a Vote of Credit was taken for £2,000,000 for the purpose of conducting the Expedition to that country. The expenses of their employment were then, as they were proposed to be now, borne out of the Imperial Exchequer. Again, they were employed in Persia. So that it was altogether erroneous to speak of the present step as being an experiment, or as being one for which there was no precedent. When the matter came to be more fully discussed, it would be seen that it was not an experiment, but a step which, when taken on former occasions, had proved of the greatest possible advantage. The Army of the Queen had been gallantly aided by the Army of the Empress of India. They had fought side by side on many fields, and he believed that the course adopted by Her Majesty's Government would show that they were prepared to put forth the full strength of the Empire, should the occasion arise for doing so.

regarded the question raised by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) as being a good deal more than a mere matter of punctilio. The Abyssinian War had been referred to; but, at the commencement of that war, it was perfectly understood by the House that Indian troops were to be employed—that fact was known when the Vote of Credit was asked for. But, on the present occasion, the House had not the slightest conception, when the Vote of £6,000,000 was asked for, that such a course as that referred to was about to be adopted. It might be right that Her Majesty should employ her Indian Forces in the manner proposed; but why, he asked, was the Imperial Parliament not to be informed of the fact? For his part, he should much have preferred, under the circumstances, that the Government had employed mercenary rather than. Indian troops. Let the House look at the position in which it stood. The House ought to consider the effect of the acts it had passed for the government of India, for the regulation of the Indian Army, and for the adoption by Her Majesty of the title of Empress of India. There were not wanting writers of authority, who declared that the House of Commons must be prepared to abdicate many of its functions. Statements to that effect appeared in periodicals of much influence, and he trusted the House would take care that its internal difficulties were not used to prove its incompetency, and to beware lest a belief in its incompetency might not be used to deprive it of the active exercise of that Constitutional control, which appeared to be imperilled by this step—not so much by the step itself as by the reticence of Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Ministers said that these military preparations were measures of precaution. If that were so, why should Her Majesty's Ministers not have consulted that House previous to the adoption of the measure? The Government, it appeared, had made up their minds some time since to use the Vote of Credit for this purpose. ["No, no!"] Perhaps, then, the Vote of Credit was exhausted; and, if so, why had they not proposed their measure and produced their Estimate before the step was taken? It was, he thought, one which the House would do well to view with Constitutional jealousy.

wished to express his thanks to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), for showing them on the opposite side of the House that there was one hon. Member on the Conservative side of the House who was prepared to maintain the rights of the House of Commons. He was not then going into the points which had been adverted to by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell); because, although not unimportant, they were comparatively small points. The main question was, whether the Government were treating the House in a fair and right spirit in the course they had taken on the question? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had complained that the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) had charged him with deceiving the House by the statement he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) made before the House separated for the Holidays, nor did he wonder that the right hon. Gentleman should feel inclined to resent such an imputation. He (Mr. Rylands) did not, however, suppose his right hon. Friend intended to charge the right hon. Gentleman with intentionally deceiving the House. But, at the same time, he must tell the right hon. Gentleman, that throughout the country, and not merely amongst hon. Members of that House, when the announcement was made that Indian troops were about to be brought to Europe, there was an impression that the Government had been guilty of a suppressio veri, and that they had not acted frankly in permitting the House to separate under the impression that no step of an unprecedented character was likely to be taken. The right hon. Gentleman, in the speech he made before the House rose for the Recess, assured the House that, if any matter of importance occurred that could be communicated, care should be taken to place the House and the country in possession of it. How, in the face of such a statement, could the House imagine that the Government had already given orders to send Indian troops to Malta? He thought, therefore, they had a right to complain that they had been allowed to separate for the Holidays under an impression that was absolutely, though he would not say intentionally, false. The Government had, indeed, he was sorry to say, adopted the custom of using language in what might be called a non-natural sense, and had, in consequence, misled the House. On more than one former occasion, statements had been made from the front bench which had subsequently turned out not to be accurate. He did not accuse them of intentional falsehood, but of using language liable to misapprehension. When, for instance, the Vote of Credit of £6,000,000 was taken, the House was told that little or none of it would be spent; that it was, in fact, only wanted as an expression of the Confidence of the House of Commons. And yet they knew that as soon as Government got the Vote, they proceeded to spend it as fast as possible. The right hon. Gentleman said, very truly, that it was not out of the Vote of Credit that these troops were to be maintained. But that did not improve the situation. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, when he introduced the Army Estimates at the commencement of the Session, proposed that a certain number of men—135,452—should be engaged in the service of the country. That was the proposal submitted to the House. They had then to consider whether that number of troops was a right one to maintain for the defence of the Empire, and whether they would be justified in voting the necessary taxes to maintain such an Army. But the Secretary of State for War never gave them an idea that behind and beyond these 135,452 men he had the decision of the Cabinet in his pocket to supplement the Army voted by the House of Commons with another Army from India. He ventured to say that there was a grave Constitutional question involved, and that the House would be placed in a humiliating position if, after they had considered what number of men were required for the service of the country, they were liable to see them supplemented by an Indian Army. It certainly seemed to him that even if the course adopted by the Government was not illegal, it was contrary to the spirit of the Mutiny Act, according to which the number of men voted by Parliament ought not to be exceeded without the consent of Parliament. It was a mere subterfuge to say that the Government should be allowed to bring additional men from India without obtaining the previous consent of Parliament. He supposed that they would have another opportunity of entering more fully into the question, and of discussing it under its larger aspects; but he could not even then help saying that he doubted whether, even as a matter of public policy, there was not a serious risk in the course the Government had adopted. He had, at all events, thought it right on that, the earliest occasion which offered, to join in the protest which had been made by his hon. Friend against the course they had adopted as one inconsistent with the rights and privileges of Parliament.

said, he entirely differed from the opinions which had been expressed by the hon. Members opposite. He thought it was a most fortunate circumstance that the Government had ordered the troops from India, because it had shown that a noble spirit animated the Indian Army. There could now be no doubt what the feeling of that Army was. The hon. Members complained that the Government had not informed the House of its intentions in this respect; but they knew that if hon. Members opposite had been informed of those intentions, they would have taken objection to the employment of the Indian troops. He deeply regretted that when the Government were placed in a most difficult position, and when the most important negotiations were in progress, that both out of the House and inside of it, these debates should be raised, the effect of which would be to trammel the hands of the Government and lead Russia to think that the Government had not the support of the country in their policy. He considered the course which was being taken on the Opposition side was most unpatriotic. He could not comprehend the object of hon. Members, night after night, coming down and attacking the Government and then running away as if afraid of the sound they had made—not venturing to divide the House. If hon. Members opposite considered that the feelings they entertained were in harmony with the feelings of the country, then let them take a Vote of that House; but do not let them, night after night, raise, at this important crisis, debates which could only hamper the Government.

Sir, I wish to say a few words on this matter. The discussion which has taken place may be very useful, but it certainly has been very prolix; and, as I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing), I must say I was surprised that nobody rose to call him to Order. When I listened to the hon. Member's glowing eulogium of Lord Canning, whom he spoke of as the greatest statesman that had ever lived, I could not help thinking that that eulogium reflected some credit upon the hon. Member himself, who was Finance Minister for India in Lord Canning's time. I well recollect that period, and I remember how the Government of the day was very glad to have the opportunity of recalling the hon. Gentleman to domestic life in this country; and I do not know whether that circumstance would lead us to believe he has been so successful, as his remarks would imply, as Financial Secretary to the most illustrious statesman England has ever produced. I certainly did not expect the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) to express his approval of the step in question, but I was sorry to hear him compliment my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) on his intention of going into the same Lobby with him. To hear a compliment from the hon. Member to my hon. Friend on such an occasion is rather distressing. What we want to see is every Member on this side of the House supporting Her Majesty's Government. I generally take an independent course myself, and I am conscious of the value of that course when taken by others; but this is a matter in which we should wish to see hon. Members acting in a unanimous and determined spirit in support of the Government. You may find fault with their policy if you please; you may canvass it if you can; but I am sorry to say my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire complains of what he calls the reticence of the Government. Why, if there ever has been a Government for the last 20 years that has not been reticient, this is the Government. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), to-night, speaking from the front Opposition bench, complimented the Government on the readiness it had always shown to communicate its intentions so far as was consistent with the public service. I wish to point out the grave mistake made by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. He said that the Government, when it asked for the Vote of Credit, had no idea of bringing over troops from India. I do not suppose that the Vote of Credit had any reference to Indian troops. We know it had none. To-night, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he will move Supplementary Estimates for the purpose of defraying the expenses that may be incurred in this movement of troops; and the hon. and gallant Admiral has shown that this is no new action—this movement of Indian troops. They were employed in Abyssinia, and they have been employed in China; and now they are being brought into, probably European waters, for the purpose of any emergency for which they may be required. Now, I cannot conceive, except in a spirit of faction, anybody setting out his belief that this is an un-Constitutional measure on the part of Government in endeavouring to employ for the service of the State Indian troops. Surely, if these troops are available for the defence of this great Empire, it cannot be wrong that they should be employed on this occasion? Great emergencies may arise. The Government is anxious to have at their disposal a Force which will relieve the strain upon England without increasing the strain elsewhere, and I cannot see the slightest objection to the course which the Government have thought proper to pursue. Of course, on a subsequent occasion, we shall have an opportunity of discussing this question; but, in the meantime, I should be glad if it went forth to the country that the House of Commons, at all events, the Supporters of the Government, are firm in their determination to support the Government in the policy they are now following, and which they have continued to follow since the resignation of Lord Derby. I am thoroughly convinced we shall only be doing right in supporting the Government in that policy, and by every means in our power within these walls endeavouring to give them that cordial support which I believe their policy fully justifies them in expecting at the hands of the House.

said, that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) had complained of all those who had taken the opportunity of raising that question in the House—and, not only that, but the right hon. Baronet had proceeded to bully the only independent Member on the other side of the House who had risen to protest against the action of Her Majesty's Government. It was all very well for the right hon. Baronet to shake hands with the hon. Member as a public testimony of private and personal friendship; but it nevertheless remained before the House, and would go forth to the country, that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was not able to get up and make some remarks criticizing the action of the Government without another hon. Member rising and protesting against the want of unanimity that had been exhibited. He might say, incidentally, that a pressure was put upon the hon. Member by such conduct as that, which was very dangerous in its effect. But he wished to say a word or two upon the propriety of continuing the discussion. Now, the right hon. Baronet, in endeavouring to apologize for the reticence of the Government, said that it would have been premature to have made the announcement before the troops were ready to move; and he said that one of the things that would have been in question would have been the difficulty of getting the transport service at anything like a cheap rate. Now, every shipowner in that House was aware that the Government had paid twice as much as they would have had to pay if they had announced it to the country. He rather fancied that their excuses would be found to be no more satisfactory. But what had caused his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) to get up and protest against the action of the Government was that, for all they knew, probably orders had gone to India for the despatch of 10,000, 20,000, or 25,000 more of these troops to Malta. They wanted to know whether that was the case? and, when he said to Malta, he was reminded that they did not know whither in reality these troops were to be sent. He saw the Home Secretary in his place. Would he tell them where these troops were to go to? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was merely a movement of troops from one part of the Empire to the other; but where was it to? Was it to Aden, or Suez, or were they going to occupy Egypt? They were entitled to know. What he complained of was that they had been kept from the beginning of this business in the dark. They were going through a long, narrow, and tortuous way, and they did not know where they were to emerge. He, for one, and he believed others in the House, thought the time had come when they were entitled to ask the Government what was its policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that it remained the same, and that now their policy was to endeavour to bring about a peaceful settlement. But who believed that? The right hon. Gentleman, in the ensuing debates, might appeal to European opinion as generally supporting the policy of Her Majesty's Government. But why did the French, the German, and the Italian papers support Her Majesty's Government? Not at all because its policy was a policy of peace, but that it was a policy of menace and of war; because it was an attempt on the part of Her Majesty's Government to bring Russia's nose to the grindstone, or to force her into a long and enfeebling war, which would weaken her for generations. They were entitled to know what was proposed to be done with these Indian troops, and what were the Constitutional grounds upon which this step was to be defended. It might be true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that the Government were within their technical right in this act; but he would ask whether it was always right to carry technicalities to extremes? In a free nation like theirs, looking to the jealousy with which any extreme action on the part of the Monarchy was regarded, the Government might take upon itself to push the limits of Constitutionalism too far; and to advise the Crown to push its technical rights to the very verge of un-Constitutionalism was a very serious step, and might do that which would, by-and-by, shake the stability of the Throne itself.

said, there was one observation of the right hon. Baronet opposite with which he was in cordial agreement. He said they all knew the opinion of the country. Considering what had recently happened in the borough with which the right hon. Baronet was most intimately connected (Tamworth), he should say that nobody did know the opinion of the country better than the right hon. Baronet did. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) said they liked debates, but not divisions. The reverse was just as true of the other side of the House; but he assured them that they should have a division in this case. They would be altogether false to the principles they were sent to that House to represent, if they did not by their votes protest against the claim of the Government to have a right to bring an indefinite number of troops into England without consulting Parliament; and, therefore, if a Resolution were not brought forward by someone of higher authority, he should move one himself. But a division on the adjournment would not be a fair way of testing the question, and, therefore, for the present, he would withdraw his Motion. As the third reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill came on that evening, he wished to know how the right hon. Gentleman proposed to provide out of the Ways and Means of the present year for the expense consequent upon withdrawing these troops from India? Was the necessary expense to be met by a fresh loan or by additional taxation?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether dog licences taken out at the beginning of next year, at 7s. 6d. each, would expire in the June following, as he thought such was the interpretation of the Act?

said, he understood that the dog licences would be issued for the usual year, as heretofore; those taken out before the 1st of June would hold good for the year, and those taken out after the 1st of June would hold good for the remainder of the current year—namely, till 31st December. He believed that would be the case, but he would look into the Bill for the purpose of ascertaining the fact.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What Business would be taken on Thursday?

, in reply, said, that on Thursday the Government proposed to go on with the Civil Service Estimates.

admitted that, in many respects, this was an important question. Irrespective of considerations of taste, it was necessary that the best arrangement should be come to for the accommodation of the Public Departments, some of which were in a very unsatisfactory condition. His hon. Friend had paid much attention to the subject, and the Committee had made various suggestions, which deserved consideration. At the same time, he was bound to look at the matter in more points of view than one, and especially to take into consideration the question of economy. It was not alone for him to consider what was really a reasonable amount that the Government should be called upon to expend upon the work. Many questions were raised occasionally with respect to the reconstruction of public offices which did not fall properly within the province of the Government. At the same time, he agreed that time ought not to be lost for carrying through some further arrangements for the improvement of the War Office and the Admiralty, which were the two Departments requiring better accommodation. At present, the War Office was housed in several buildings, which had not been constructed with a view to the convenience of the Department. At the same time, a good deal had been done lately to mitigate the inconveniences under which that Office had suffered. With regard to the Admiralty, there was another difficulty. The object was to avoid two movements, which would be involved in turning the Department out of the present building, and, when the new one was completed, bringing it back again. At the present moment, he was in communication with his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty; and he was not without hope that he might be able, before the end of the Session, to make a statement on this subject, which, he admitted, could not be postponed indefinitely.

said, that in consequence of the announcement made tonight, that there would be a Supplementary Estimate presented to the House for the expense of conveying the Indian troops to Europe, there appeared to be a desire on the part of several hon. Members, before the Budget Bill passed away from the House, to offer some observations upon it; and he, therefore, rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he would suspend proceeding in Committee of Supply in order to bring on the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, at an hour which would give hon. Gentlemen an opportunity of making remarks upon it.

expressed his willingness to make an arrangement which might meet the wishes of the House. He would also like to have an opportunity of considering the point which had been raised by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Thomson Hankey); and, if he found anything in it which might render it necessary to give more time for the discussion of the Bill, perhaps it would be better to take the third reading on Thursday. However, for the present, he suggested that if, when the Bill was called on to-night, it was found that there was not time for a proper discussion, the third reading should stand adjourned to another day.

said, he thought the principle had been established last year, that the Gentleman who had charge of the Civil Service Estimates should give the Committee a general idea of the policy of the Government in framing those Estimates, by making a statement similar to those with which the Army and Navy Estimates were annually introduced.

observed, that the question had been raised in the House during the present Session by the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid), when his Predecessor in Office stated that, after careful consideration, it had not been thought worth while to continue to follow the course which was adopted last year. He thought the House had accepted that decision; and, therefore, he could not reverse it on the present occasion.

hoped that the suggested reform would be introduced even in a more extended form than was referred to by the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury. As matters at present stood, it was perfectly impossible for any hon. Member, who did not possess special information, to follow these Civil Service Estimates in the various items. He would venture to suggest to the Government that they should adopt the French system of having all the Estimates sifted by a Select Committee upstairs, before they were submitted to Parliament. By that means, a great deal of time would be saved; and, in his opinion, the Civil Service Estimates would be very materially cut down. It was true that the late Government was a Liberal and economical one, and that the present was supposed to be extravagant; but, in the face of a continued increase in the salaries of a department like the officials of the House of Lords, they could not help seeing that there was a necessity for inquiry and reform. The House of Lords was not distinguished for the large number of hours it sat, and it would follow, of course, that the officials of that House, for whom the present Vote provided, could not be very much overburdened with work. The time during which the officials of the House of Lords were engaged was usually about an hour and a-half, while the officials, of the House of Commons worked on an average five hours. The work done was of an infinitesimal character, and he believed large sums were paid to officers for doing almost nothing. He would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member who was responsible for the appropriation of the Vote, whether those expenses could not be in some way reduced. In the present year, the Estimate for the House of Lords' Offices was £44,692, while last year the Vote was for £45,553. That was a decrease of £861, and was so far satisfactory; but if they were to compare the total amount of the Vote for the House of Lords' Offices with the Vote for the House of Commons' Offices, they would see that nearly the same sum was paid for a very much less quantity of work. They would find that the House of Lords' Offices cost only £6,000 less than the House of Commons—the figures being £44,692 to £50,207. When these large sums were paid away, year after year, the country had a right to expect some sort of ratio between the amount paid and the return for the money. It was true that the House of Lords was a very beautiful place, and that two or three times during the Session very eloquent speeches were made; but, except as an ancient relic of antiquity, it was admitted on all hands to have no functions at all. As a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, in the taxation of the country, the Government should begin with the House of Lords, and endeavour to put down, so far as possible, the expenditure of this particular branch.

would not follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) in the criticisms in which he had indulged, for he thought that it was extremely inconvenient—as well to criticize the Offices of the House of Lords as to make reflection on the House itself. He did not consider it wise for one House to treat the other in such a manner, and he hoped the hon. Member would not persevere in the course he had taken.

would remind the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that some time ago, when the House of Lords abandoned their Fee Fund, a Committee was appointed to consider the question of the salaries of all the officials of the House of Lords. Upon the Report of that Committee the Vote was fixed, and the Treasury did nothing further than follow the course suggested by that Committee.

thought the expenses of the House of Lords very great; and, without finding any fault with that body, he was of opinion that those expenses might be considerably reduced. Considering the short period the House of Lords usually sat, the expenses were really disproportionate and enormous. That House was a very dignified one, but it treated the Speaker with but scant respect in compelling him to stand at its Bar amongst a crowd as if he were at the bar of a Police Court or a Court of Justice. Some alteration ought, he thought, to be made in that respect.

complained of the small accommodation afforded to Members of Parliament at the Bar of the House of Lords. The accommodation itself might not be much in fault; the evil rather arose from the fact, that when the House of Commons went up there, they usually found half the space which was said to be devoted to them taken up by persons who were not Members of the House of Commons.

agreed with what had been previously said, as to the advisability of having some explanatory statement given by the person in charge of each class of Estimate beforehand of items on which there appeared to be an increase. It would economize the time of the House if, at the outset, an explanation of the increased expenditure were given by the Government, especially as there were an immense number of items in which there was a large increase, rather than have such explanation given as each item came before the Committee.

said, he would call attention to the fact that the net decrease of the Estimate for the year of Class II. amounted to £11,018. As to the increases in various items which struck hon. Members, his Predecessors had always been prepared to answer Questions and to give any explanation as to what seemed unusual. It was probable that, in many instances, the small increases arose from annual increments of salaries; and a little increase in the Estimates presented to Parliament was thus necessitated. Wherever any item struck hon. Members as an increase, he would endeavour to afford an explanation. He did not think the criticisms which the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had addressed to the Committee were justified.

said, he would point out that the Civil Service Estimates were not voted as a whole. Therefore, any one particular Vote would come under discussion on its own merits.

thought it would very much facilitate hon. Members in understanding the Estimates, if a Return were made, showing what officials receiving salaries for one office also performed other duties. One of the Clerks of the Parliament, for instance, received £425 as Secretary of Presentations to the Lord Chancellor. At present, it was necessary to pick out the particular offices for which salaries were received from different portions of the Estimates. Thousands of pounds were paid in salaries to officers in one Department over and above what they received in another. Some of these cases might be right, but others might not. He did not want to particularize or be invidious; but he thought hon. Members should have an annual Return laid before them of all instances in the different Departments where more than one salary was paid to the same individual before they were called upon to vote.

quite agreed with the remarks just made. He noticed that one official was allowed £300 a-year for a house; in his opinion, it would be much better allowed to their Chairman, whose duties detained him so late at the House.

said, that the Papers at present supplied showed the different amounts received by each official in every Department of the public service.

did not deny that the salaries received by every official were stated in the Estimates, but it was necessary to go through all the various offices to pick out the same individual. That labour would be saved by the Return he had suggested.

wished to ask why a captain and lieutenant-colonel in the Grenadier Guards was allowed to be Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain, and at the same time to be in receipt of full pay? If it were half-pay, the same complaint might not arise. This was one of the many instances occurring in the Estimates where officers receiving full pay acted as Private Secretaries in Departments of the Government.

would remind the hon. Member that the appointment mentioned rested with the Lord Chamberlain. If an officer could efficiently perform the duties, there was no reason why he should not give his services, or abandon the salary he received from another office.

did not know how this gentleman in question could perform his military duties in addition to those in the Lord Chamberlain's Office, for which he received £200 a-year. There was also in the Vote the salary for an Assistant Librarian of the House of Lords. It seemed to him singular that while the Librarian only got £810 a-year, the Assistant Librarian should get £800. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had remarked that these salaries had been allowed by the Committee on previous occasions; but he thought that was no reason for preventing a discussion now, and he would suggest that, in apportioning salaries, regard should be had to the work the gentlemen performed.

said, while the Assistant Librarian of the House of Lords had £800 a-year, the Assistant Librarian of the House of Commons only received £475 a-year. No one could compare the arduous duties which were performed by the Assistant Librarian of the House of Commons with those discharged by an official holding the same position in the House of Lords. Therefore, if they were to cut down excessive expenditure, it did occur to him that this was an instance in which they might try their hands. He could not conceive what work the Assistant Librarian of the House of Lords discharged which entitled him to so proportionately a large salary, when it was considered what work was done by a similar officer in the House of Commons for so much smaller an amount. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had said that, putting the increases against the decreases in the Vote, there was a decrease in the sum total. That might be so, but it was scarcely a satisfactory way of answering objections to the Vote. He knew that decreases had been shown; but, to take those decreases in full as an equivalent for the proposed increases elsewhere, was not a very fair proposal.

said, in order to bring the question of the salary of the Lord Chamberlain's Secretary to a division, he would move that the Vote be reduced by £200. The hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had said the Lord Chamberlain had the right to appoint whom he pleased as his Secretary; but, surely the House of Commons had the right to say they would not recognize the appointment, or otherwise a person might be selected who would prove totally incompetent to fill the office. He thought—and he believed hon. Members would agree with him—that it was not a proper thing for a man to be appointed Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain who at the same time received emoluments from the offices of captain and lieutenant-colonel in the Grenadier Guards.

hoped that the hon. Member for Dundee would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, for no grounds had been adduced to show that the Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain did not perfectly well perform his duties. To say that a captain and lieutenant-colonel in the Guards had not leisure time in which to perform the duties of Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain was a very strong assertion indeed; for he was sure there was no one in the House, who knew what the duties of a captain and lieutenant-colonel in the Guards while stationed in London were, who would say that such a gallant officer had not time, quite consistently with his duties in his regiment, to properly carry out the work appertaining to the Secretary of the Lord Chamberlain. The officer in question had, as captain, the command of a company; but he had not, in addition, as the hon. Member for Cavan seemed to suppose, the command of a regiment also; nor was it at all necessary that he should be on parade from 8 in the morning to 11 at night.

said, it was perfectly clear that either the office of Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain, or that of captain and lieutenant-colonel in the Guards must be a sinecure; and he sincerely hoped the latter office—one in the British Army—was not the sinecure. One of the rumours, which had just been rife in the country, was that the Guards were to be immediately sent out to Malta. They had not yet been sent; but, assuming they were, one of the two things must happen—either that the Lord Chamberlain would lose his Secretary, or a company of the Grenadier Guards would be minus a commanding officer.

said, it was hardly worth while prolonging the discussion. The salary of £200 a-year always attached to the office of Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain; and, if his Lordship was satisfied that this captain and lieutenant-colonel in the Guards could fulfil the duties required of him, the salary would be paid. The moment he ceased to give satisfaction, the Lord Chamberlain would replace him by someone else. The salary was fixed, and the question was, whether £200 a-year was a proper sum to pay the Secretary of the Lord Chamberlain?

had a very strong opinion that, to allow one individual to hold two or three offices, was a very unwise proceeding.

hoped the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) would not press his Amendment. It had been explained that the salary of the Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain had been fixed; and, if the gallant officer, who now held that position, was unable to discharge his military duties, no doubt the Horse Guards would put a stop to his holding the office of Secretary. Seeing that it had not been proved that, by his holding the two offices, either Department suffered, he did not see how the House could refuse to vote the salary.

said, he would not press his Amendment to a division; but, at the same time, he could not admit the remarks of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) to be a satisfactory answer to the objections he had raised. The point before the Committee was a very clear one—namely, whether a captain and lieutenant-colonel in the Grenadier Guards could, in justice to the Service, spare time to become Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain. His own impression was, that the country would get on much better without either office.

, could not see how a captain in the Guards could do his duty properly in his regiment, if, at the same time, he was Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain. They knew that during the Crimean War much was said about the ignorance of the British Army officers. The rank-and-file got a great deal of credit for their bravery and fighting qualities; but it was stated in the public Press, that the men were so badly officered that the real value and efficiency of the rank-and-file were lost. It had been said, that since then the British officers had greatly improved; but, when they found, as in this case, an officer neglecting his duty in his regiment to earn £200 a-year as Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain, he thought it might turn out that the Army was not much better officered now than on a former occasion. He thought the Government should give some explanation as to why they allowed this captain and lieutenant-colonel to hold a double appointment other than for the reason of enabling him to put some money in his pocket. He did not know who the Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain was—perhaps a relative of his Lordship's—but it was clear that he could not do his duty as a secretary, and as a military officer, too.

said, the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had told them that, if the Lord Chamberlain was satisfied with his Secretary, the House of Commons could have nothing to say on the matter. He most emphatically protested against such a doctrine. The House of Commons had to pay the money, and hon. Members were, therefore, responsible for the work for which the money was paid being done. If the Lord Chamberlain paid the salary, then he would admit that the House could have nothing to say on the matter; but, as the House of Commons was responsible to the country for the expenditure of the money, it was the duty of hon. Members to see how it was spent.

said, it appeared to him that the Government had made an arrangement with regard to the Vote by which Parliament, practically, had no control over it—and, in fact, they had been told by the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), that they were not responsible for it. If Parliament had no control over the expenditure, still the responsibility of hon. Members remained; and though the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) might be right in not dividing the House, they were bound to protest against such an expenditure. If they did not direct attention to these anomalies and sinecures, they would not be doing their duty. The fact of the matter was there were no duties attaching to the office of Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain. Anyone who read the items in the Vote must at once come to that conclusion. The Secretary to the Lord Chamberlain had £200 a-year; then the Attendance Clerk had £100 a-year. That, he supposed, was another sinecure office, and a Return as to how many times during the Session this Clerk was in attendance would, he thought, be a very interesting document. It was manifest that he was not required to attend any considerable number of days, or he would be paid a much larger salary. Then, they had a Superintendent of the Office. What could he do? Whether he superintended the Lord Chamberlain, or acted as his Secretary, while the gallant officer was performing his duties as a captain and lieutenant-colonel in the Grenadier Guards, or whether he had to look after things in general in the absence of the Lord Chamberlain and his Clerk, it was impossible to say. They could only see how the Vote was framed, and any sensible person on earth must admit that the whole thing was a sinecure. In fact, he believed the majority of the offices connected with the House of Lords were sinecures. Inasmuch as an arrangement had been entered into by the Government to pay these salaries while the House of Commons was held responsible for them, he begged to give Notice that next Session he should hold himself no longer responsible for the payments, and he should oppose the granting of that sum of money.

desired to be informed, whether the Government could not lay such a Return as he had indicated before the House, in future, so that hon. Members could easily see what the salaries of the different offices were?

did not see what advantage would be derived from adopting such a course.

said, it would assist hon. Members to understand the Estimates.

thought the question was one that should receive consideration. He found that the whole expenses of the Library of the House of Lords amounted to £1,710 per annum, while the expenses of the Library of the House of Commons were £1,900 per year—a difference of about £200. The Lords had two gentlemen in their Library about whose attendance and duties little or nothing was known. On the other hand, there were four gentlemen in the Library of the House of Commons whose duties all Members of that House appreciated and valued. They were kept about until early hours in the morning, and yet there was only a difference of £200 between the salaries of the four and of the two in the Library of the House of Lords. He did not think that was a proper state of things to exist, and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would consider the matter before another Session.

considered that the Government must do one of two things—either, on a future occasion, propose to reduce the salary of the Assistant Librarian of the House of Lords, or, in point of fairness, increase the salary of the Assistant Librarian in the House of Commons. It certainly was unfair that one set of officers should be so much more liberally treated than the other, and especially when they remembered the proportionate duties performed. He did not at present give any opinion, as to what extent, or whether or not any increase should be made to the salaries of the Librarians of the House of Commons; but, certainly, if they were not materially increased next Session, it would be the duty of the Committee then discussing the Vote to make a substantial reduction in the salaries given to the Librarians in the House of Lords. Members of the House of Commons came very much in contact with the officials of the Library of that House; they were treated by them with great civility; the officials did their duty most efficiently, and hon. Members would not be doing what was right, unless they induced the Government to raise the salaries of the Librarians in the House of Commons to the same amount as similar officers in the House of Lords received.

objected to a new grievance sought to be created on a matter of this kind, and suggested that the Vote should be allowed to pass.

said, he was afraid that, owing to the short time he had been in Office, he had not explained the matter very intelligibly. Up to the year 1868–9, no such Votes as these appeared in the Estimates submitted to the House of Commons. All the salaries in the House of Lords were up to that time paid in fees received from suitors and other persons having business with the House of Lords. In 1868–9, a Committee of the Upper House was appointed to consider this matter, and they recommended that in future all fees should be paid into the Public Exchequer, and that the salaries, as arranged to be paid by the Committee, should be submitted in the Estimates, subject, of course, to a proper audit. Up to 1869, these salaries really never formed part of the Estimates at all, the question being dealt with entirely by the House of Lords itself. He must say he deprecated very much this comparison between the services performed by the Officers of one House and those of another.

thought that, as an historical explanation of the manner in which these Votes came to be inserted in the Estimates, the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had put the Committee in possession of the facts. The suitors who paid the fees were the constituents of hon. Members, and therefore they had a right to speak about them, and the whole argument of the hon. Baronet fell to the ground. These fees came from the taxpayers, and, consequently, the money ought to go into the National Exchequer, and then the House of Commons could deal with it. As to deprecating any comparison between the salaries of the respective officers of the two Houses, he could see no reason why one officer should be paid more than another. If the Officers of the House of Lords were to be paid more than those of the House of Commons, it would be equivalent to admitting that the House of Lords had pre-eminence over the House of Commons, and that they were more powerful in the State. He did not object to the Assistant Librarian of the other House receiving a larger salary than the corresponding officer in that House, provided it was given as the result of long and faithful services; but he objected to his being paid a higher salary merely because he was connected with the House of Lords. No one could be more attentive and obliging than the Librarians of the House of Commons. To young Members, especially, their services were of the greatest value. For the first three or four years in which he was a Member of that House, he should have lost, perhaps, half-an-hour every evening in searching for the information he wanted, if he had not been assisted by the Librarians, and that, sometimes, in matters in which they rather exceeded their duties than otherwise. He hoped that, unless the hon. Baronet could give them some further explanation, the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) would insist upon going to a division, the Motion being merely to equalize the two salaries.

said, he should remind hon. Members of the House of Commons who had spoken on this subject, that there was an extensive Law Library attached to the House of Lords for the Court of Appeal. The House of Lords sat as an Appeal Court in the day time, and, therefore, the Librarians had more work to perform in the House of Lords than the Librarians of the House of Commons, as they had to supply the books which were required. He regretted to hear hon. Members opposite talking about the Officers of the House of Lords in a manner which clearly showed that they did not know what their duties were. It was in his recollection that the duties of the Officers of the House of Lords had been carefully scrutinized several times by Committees of the House of Lords, and when the arrangement was made about the fees, there was no doubt it was done after full inquiry. In fact, the other House exercised a very ample supervision over its Officers. He thought that these criticisms upon the Officers of the other House, without any real knowledge of the matter, accompanied, as they were, by intimations that the House of Lords itself was not of very great use, were inconsonant with the dignity of the House of Commons; and, if such discussion were to continue, the other House might retaliate and criticize their proceedings in a similar spirit. At any rate, without any complaint to the contrary, it was only fair to suppose that the duties of the Officers of the House of Lords were performed in a proper manner.

said, he did not intend to put himself in the position of trying to reduce the salaries of the Officers, because he did not consider they were excessive. But he wished to call attention to the fact that the salaries of the Officers of the House of Commons were far below those of the House of Lords, and below what they ought to be. He regretted that, while the salaries of the higher officials were constantly being increased, the small sums paid to the under officials, such as messengers, porters, fire-lighters, and men occupying similar positions, remained stationary. This class of men in the House of Lords received an average of £80 a-year, while those who did the same kind of work in the House of Commons, with, perhaps, five times the amount of labour, received only £58 10s. a-year, or 22s. 6d. a-week. It was hardly reasonable to expect that these men would continue to give up their time, almost day and night, for the pay of a labourer. He did not object to the payment of £80 a-year to the men who did the same kind of work in the House of Lords, and should be glad to see them receiving £100 a-year; but it was an anomaly that there should be this difference in the rate of wages paid to the servants of the respective Houses. He found that the messengers were paid 6d., 7d., 8d., or 9d. per journey—1d. more or less according to distance, and he thought that no employer of labour in that House would think of treating his employés in that way. He hoped the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would give an intimation that he would take the case of these men into consideration, especially, considering the high price of food, and of living generally, as compared with the times when these salaries were fixed.

said, the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) had told them they did not understand the question. That was their grievance. They were called upon to vote public money, and they did not know what it was for. Neither the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury nor the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford had informed them that the money was fairly earned. Unless they received an assurance on that point, he should be bound to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power).

entirely dissented from the opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. O'Clery), who urged upon the Secretary to the Treasury that he objected to the salaries of the Officers of the House of Lords; but he stated that he only did so to point out the necessity for increasing the salaries of the Officers of the House of Commons. He did not wish to be parsimonious to the officials of either of the Houses of Parliament, so long as they performed their work; but he thought if they were well served by the persons who undertook to perform their duties for a fixed salary, it was not fair to press upon the Treasury to increase the emolument of those persons. He, therefore, opposed any such increase, and, indeed, he could not suppose for a moment that the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would listen to such recommendations. But, perhaps, the hon. Baronet would give him his attention for a moment whilst he asked for a little information. He was quite aware that the salaries were formerly payable out of fees by the authority of the House of Lords; but that now salaries were paid, and the fees taken, by the Exchequer. The bargain was, that the Exchequer received the amount of the fees from the House of Lords, and out of those fees they paid a number of salaries. He supposed, when the bargain was made, there was reason to believe that after the salaries were paid, there would be a balance in favour of the Exchequer; but what was the fact? The Committee was now asked to Vote, as salaries, the sum of £44,692, and towards those salaries the Exchequer received certain estimated receipts in the form of fees. He presumed those fees were chiefly fees connected with the Private Bill Department. The Exchequer received from those fees, according to the Estimates, the sum of £30,000, so that, according to that statement, there was a loss to the Exchequer of something like £15,000 a-year. He could not think that this was really the case, and it was upon this point that he should like to have some explanation from the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, as he thought the matter must admit of some explanation. That, however, appeared to be the case, according to the Estimates before the Committee; and if a satisfactory explanation could not be given, the House had made a bad bargain instead of a good one.

thought it a pity that the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer), who had taunted hon. Members with ignorance on this subject, should have sat down without enlightening his Colleagues to the smallest extent. Their object was to discover some principle upon which they could assent to a salary of £800 to the Assistant Librarian, and the only principle they could find was that the Lords, who apportioned the salary, were not responsible to the people who had to pay the money. But the Members of the House of Commons were responsible; and it was their bounden duty, which they could not shirk, to see that if public money was voted for public purposes, there should be an equivalent amount of work done for it. Reference had been made to the fees, but the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan) had clearly proved that these fees were paid by those whom the House of Commons represented. The hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford seemed to think there was a great Constitutional principle at stake; but it was their first duty to watch the expenditure of public money. There would, as had been pointed out, be great inconvenience in making so large a reduction in the salary at so short a notice. It might be a question of children crying for bread, and that was really the only argument in which there was a certain amount of force. Looking, however, to the humble position he (Mr. O'Connor Power) occupied in the House, the only way he had of recording his protest against the Vote, was by joining the small—and, if they liked, odious—minority, the effect of which, at all events, would be to call attention to these indefensible charges. He might also speak of the salary which was assigned to the Sergeant-at-Arms in the other House. Would the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford tell them that the Sergeant-at-Arms was an indispensable functionary in cases of appeal, and that he must be there representing the Sword of Justice?

considered that the officials of the House of Lords were overpaid as compared with similar officials in the House of Commons, and demurred to the proposition that, because the salaries were fixed by the House of Lords, this House had no right to alter them. All the House of Lords could do was to suggest the amount of the salaries, and it was for this House to confirm them, or set them aside.

thought the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford must be contemplating a speedy retirement to the House of Lords. Either the salary of the Under Librarian in the Lords was too high, or the salary of the Under Librarian to the House of Commons was too low. The hon. and learned Baronet had not, however, attempted to mate out that it was too low, but had merely said he was not responsible for the Vote. He ventured humbly to suggest that he was responsible, and that as the Vote was in the Estimates, that he should be able to explain it. Up to 1868 these salaries were paid out of fees, which varied from £30,000 to £34,000, and when the House of Commons assumed the duty of providing them, it very naturally assumed that the fees would be sufficient. That was, however, by no means the fact, as the Vote had increased £11,000 since 1868, as the amount was formerly £8,000, while now it was £19,000. This showed that the Committee of the House of Lords had gone on adding to these salaries on the strength of the arrangement that had been come to. But what was the arrangement? Was the House of Commons pledged to vote any sum scheduled by this Committee of the Lords? That could not be, for the House of Commons could not deliberately give up its functions as custodian of the public purse in that manner. He should support the Amendment, and in future years would certainly call attention to the Vote.

said, his impression was that the House of Lords formerly paid its officers from its fees, so far as they went, and then asked the Commons to vote the difference; and that £8,000 was the amount of the difference in the year referred to. Of course, when the House of Commons took over the fees, there was an apparent increase; but it was merely apparent, and the House would find, he thought, upon examining the matter, that there had been no increase, or, that if there had been one, it was of a very trifling character.

observed, that there had been a great change in the amount voted in this class. He found that in 1869 a reduction was made of £17,718. In 1870 there was a change of policy, and an increase of more than £18,000; in 1870–71, there was an increase of £176,469; in 1871–2, "emoluments and salaries" again increased £97,431; in 1872–3, they again increased by £253,576; and in 1873–4 the increase was £125,520. ["No, no!"] Well, he could only say that these figures were quoted from annual Returns printed and published under statutory obligations, and therefore they must be correct. He repeated them, and the House must see that the Liberal Party were as deep in the pitch as the present Government. In 1875, the increase was £199,776; and in 1876–7, the amount was £138,480; making altogether a difference between 1868–9 and 1876–7 in salaries, emoluments, and expenses in Class 2 of £1,000,000 sterling per annum. It was time, in his opinion, that the House of Commons should find some means of checking this extravagance.

said, the facts were as the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had said. Up till 1868, the House of Commons was only asked to vote what was needed for the salaries, after the fee fund had been exhausted. In 1868, an arrangement was made, by which, in future, the amounts were to be passed through the Exchequer, and the House of Commons voted the whole of the salaries. He must remind the Committee that the House of Lords was a Court of Record, and, as such, was competent to fix its own fees.

asked why the salary of the Assistant Librarian had been raised from £700 to £800?

said, the salaries were outside the knowledge and cognizance of the Treasury. They were fixed by a Committee appointed for the purpose by the House of Lords, and they sent them to the Audit Office, which transmitted them to the Treasury.

said, the hon. Baronet had fallen into an error in supposing that the fees collected by the House of Lords came mainly from the fees paid to it as a Court of Record. These formed but a trifling part of its revenue, the main part being derived from the fees on Private Bills.

pointed out that there was no Committee in the House of Commons possessing powers similar to those now enjoyed by the Lords, and he thought the Committee of the Lords should not have that power.

observed, that the salary of this Assistant Librarian was £700 last year, and he would move that it be not farther increased. He thought such an increase should be submitted to the Treasury. Why a mere Committee of the House of Lords should have more power than the whole House of Commons he could not see; and, therefore, he moved that the Vote be reduced by £100.

wanted to say only one or two words to justify himself for what he had said some time ago. He had said it was well that this House and the House of Lords should appear well before the public to justify the salaries received. In consequence, the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown had made a speech, which would be found in The Times for the 5th March. And he had mentioned that the House of Lords had sat 93 days last year; on 49, Business had been over by 6; on 41, the House had risen between 6 and 9; and on three more days they had sat beyond 9 o'clock. According to that statement of the noble Lord, they ought to be careful how they were to justify themselves before the public for paying such an enormous sum for what was nothing at all, compared with the work of the Lower House.

hoped to have some explanation of the increase from £700 to £800, which could hardly be the regular annual increment. Was there some special reason for it? They did not wish to prevent proper salaries being paid; but it was an exceptionally large increase. He suggested that his hon. Friend should move, as an Amendment, that the Vote should be postponed.

said, the Treasury had never been aware of the rate at which the salaries had been arranged to be paid. They were, practically, arranged entirely by the House of Lords, dealing with the officials of their House. And, up to a certain date, they had always been arranged without any Vote being placed before the House of Commons at all, excepting the Vote of a limited sum to make up a deficiency. But, at the suggestion of the Treasury, in 1868 or 1869, a new arrangement had been made, by which an Estimate was placed in its present form before the House of Commons. The salaries were arranged and decided on by a Committee of the House of Lords; but the fee fund had passed over, in its entirety, to the Exchequer. They had never had, on any previous occasion, any inclination to dispute the Vote. He could find no trace of any. The original salaries had been fixed under the 7 Geo. III. c. 11, until the arrangement had taken place.

had never seen such a large increase. They were not to give blindly whatever the House of Lords fixed. He only asked to know the reason of the increase?

said, that the House was placed in a position of some difficulty. It might be a grave Constitutional question whether the House of Lords ought not to have the entire control over its own officials. On the other hand, they had the fact that the Votes were put on their Estimates, which fact they could not ignore and escape responsibility in voting. He suggested, that for this year the question should be postponed, and raised next year, after consideration. There was not a shadow of doubt that the House of Lords could not come, cap in hand, for the salaries of its officials without allowing the House of Commons to consider whether it was proper to vote them.

said, that if it had been a much smaller sum than £100, it would have been open to criticism. He understood that the fees received were not enough, and that was the reason of asking an increase in the salary to £800, which seemed to many hon. Members a very large and exorbitant sum. What view were they to take? The fees received by the House of Lords were to keep down the expenses, and to pay the expenses of litigation and of the suitors to that House. They should consider them just as they would fees received by any other Court, and consider the question apart. At page 71 of the Estimates, it appeared that the Assistant Librarian of the House of Commons had an actual salary of £475, while the Assistant Librarian of the House of Lords got £700 or £800 for duties which were discharged in a much shorter time.

wished to ask who had recommended the increase? Had the House of Lords, in any shape or way, approved of it? If it had, he should, that House being a branch of the Legislature, be disposed, at all events for that year, to allow the increase to pass. If it had been approved by a Committee only of the House of Lords, he should like to know the constitution of that Committee, and whether the Report had ever been approved by the House itself? If the Committee alone had recommended the increase to the Treasury, and that recommendation had never been assented to by the House of Lords itself, he did not think they ought to pass it.

said, the matter was managed by a Committee of Peers appointed for the coming year. Their Report was submitted in the ordinary manner, and it came from the House of Lords into the Estimates.

observed, that it had not been confirmed by the House of Lords as a whole.

said, that the explanation of the hon. Baronet was very alarming, because it showed a doctrine which no writer on English Constitutional Law had ever discovered—that the House of Commons must, as a whole, vote public money, but a Committee of the House of Lords could exercise functions which no Committee of the House of Commons dared attempt to exercise. He respectfully challenged the whole transaction; he did not care whether it was a matter of 800 pence or £800. He asked the Committee not to think it a matter of bagatelle at all. He had a very high opinion of the Assistant Librarian in the House of Commons, and either that gentleman was shamefully underpaid, or the gentleman in the House of Lords with double the salary should be doubly as good a man, which he did not believe. He should certainly refuse to support by his vote the increase asked for.

said, the Act of 9 and 10 Vict. c. 77, s. 3, contained the following provision:—

"An Estimate shall annually be prepared by the Clerk of the House, the Serjeant-at-Arms, and the Speaker's Secretary respectively of the sums which will probably be required in their several Departments for the payment of salaries, allowances, and contingent expenses, during the year ending on the 1st day of April in the following year; and such Estimates shall be submitted to the Speaker for his approbation, and subject to such approbation and to such alterations as the Speaker shall consider proper, shall be embodied, together with an Estimate of the sums which will be required for the payment of retired allowances and compensation for loss of office, in one Estimate; and there shall also be prepared under the direction of the Speaker an Estimate of the money which will probably remain in the hands of the Commissioners after the payments of the current Quarter ending on the 1st day of April, and of the fees expected to be received during the then Session, and of any sum which may be required to be provided by Parliament, in addition to such sums for the payments set forth in the said Estimate of expenditure; and such Estimates, signed by the Speaker, shall be transmitted by him to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury for their approval, and shall be laid before the House of Commons with the other Estimates."

said, the Estimate referred to in the Act of Parliament was laid before this House—which, consequently, had an opportunity of reviewing it; whereas this House had no opportunity of exercising control over what was done by the Committee of the House of Lords.

understood that, according to the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury, neither branch of the Legislature had any control in this matter, for this House was asked to pass the Vote on faith; and, of course, the House of Lords could not alter a Money Bill. Consequently, neither House could exercise any control as to this salary, which would be regulated by an irresponsible Committee of the House of Lords.

asked what would be thought if, when this Estimate was brought before the House, an hon. Member should rise in his place and tell the Secretary to the Treasury that he knew nothing about it, and that the Committee of the other House was responsible for it? The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had told them that the House of Lords was responsible for this Vote, and that he was not responsible. He had quoted the Act of 9 & 10 Viet., which assigned certain duties to a Committee consisting of the Clerk of the House, the Serjeant-at-Arms, and the Speaker's Secretary, and had argued that that was a case analogous to the present. There could be no doubt that the arrangement made between the two Houses in 1868 was entered into for the purpose of giving the House of Commons more control over this Vote. But the House of Commons had never exercised its control. It had abdicated its functions as regarded the salaries of Officers of the House of Lords in the same way as it had abdicated its functions in respect of many other matters. It could not be contended for a moment that this House had not a Constitutional control over money which was voted for any purpose whatever. The money came from the taxpayers, and the gravest Constitutional question which could be raised was that of the levying of taxation from the people by the Crown, or the Ministers of the Crown. The hon. Baronet came here as the Representative of the Crown, and said—"Pay this." When asked why the money should be paid, he replied that he knew nothing about it, and that the House of Lords had settled the matter. That was un-Constitutional conduct on the part of the hon. Baronet, and he submitted that the time had arrived when the House of Commons ought to take some notice of this question.

observed, that the hon. Baronet could not avoid the responsibility quite so easily as he imagined—merely by reading a clause from the Act of the 9 & 10 Viet.—because it appeared that, although the salaries were to be approved by a Committee, they were afterwards to be submitted to the House of Commons for approval.

said, that had reference only to the salaries of Officers of the House of Commons.

could not understand what was the object of reading the extract from the Act of Parliament, unless the hon. Baronet meant to show that the same principle governed the proceedings of the House of Lords.

would not repeat the arguments which he adduced some time ago; but he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there would be anything irregular in his assenting, on the part of the Government, to the proposed reduction of £100, or, at least, in his refusing to assent to the proposed increase? If, next year, it were proposed that the salary should be increased to £900, the hon. Baronet might use the same arguments which he had brought forward that night. It was time that the House of Commons should make a stand against this, for the conduct of the Committee was an outrage on Constitutional principles. He was much indebted to the hon. Baronet for his explanation of the manner in which this came about. No doubt, the cleverest financier in the House would find himself in a difficulty equal to that which the hon. Baronet experienced in dealing with this matter for the first time. He admitted the difficulty; but he did not see how hon. Members could shirk their responsibility, or how they could account in a satisfactory manner to their constituents for assenting to this proposed increase. It appeared to him that nothing could be said in defence of hon. Members if they gave a silent assent to such a proposition.

thought it only fair for him to say that he had no fault to find with the Secretary to the Treasury, who had explained fully and candidly how the matter stood. But, unfortunately for the hon. Baronet, he had no case, inasmuch as his Department had not inquired why the House of Lords asked for this increase. The hon. Baronet had failed to show that the ipse dixit of the Committee of the House of Lords must bind the decision of the House of Commons. He thought the House of Commons ought, in its own defence, unanimously to refuse to be bound by the Instructions of an irresponsible Committee of the House of Lords.

said, there could be no harm in the Government allowing the matter to stand over for a few days, when a compromise might be effected that would be satisfactory to all parties.

said, he did not propose to take a division upon the Vote after the division which had already been taken upon the Amendment; but he should certainly say "No" to its passing, because he thought it involved a point of the gravest importance. The Committee was asked to vote a sum of over £3,000 for the payment of salaries to officials in the House of Lords; and when the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury was asked for an explanation of the items, he replied that he had no knowledge on the subject; that he was not responsible for the application of the money; and he referred the Committee to an arrangement made between the two Houses of Parliament—an arrangement, the terms of which were to him unknown. All the hon. Baronet did know on the subject was that the arrangement was entered into in the year 1868, and that it superseded or took the place of a Statute passed in the reign of George III. The Committee could only suppose that the arrangement was drawn up in the terms of the Statute; because, if it were intended to make any radical change in the provisions of an Act of Parliament, it could only be done by means of an amending Bill which had received the assent of the Crown after having been passed by both Houses of Parliament. He therefore submitted that the Committee was asked to take a course at variance with the Constitution, because the Crown had no right to ask for or to take public money without giving a full explanation of the purposes to which it was to be applied, and no such explanation had been given with regard to the Vote now asked for. He was glad to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had returned to his place, because he might be able to supplement what had been stated by the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, whose courtesy and willingness to afford explanations seemed to have exceeded the amount of his knowledge. He believed there would be no difficulty about this question, if the functions of the House of Commons concerning it, as laid down in the Statute of George III., which had not been read or even explained in substance, were understood by the Committee. The House of Commons had as much right to require explanations as to the amount it was asked to vote for the salaries of officials engaged in the House of Lords as it had in reference to the salaries and expenses attendant upon the conduct of Business in the House of Commons itself. He should, therefore, say "No" to the Vote; and, even at the eleventh hour, he would again urge the Government to allow the Vote to be postponed, in order that inquiry might be made as to the Statute of George III., and the arrangement made in substitution for it, between the two Houses of Parliament in the year 1868.

said, it had been urged, at an earlier period in the evening, that it was undignified on the part of the House of Commons to criticize the gross amount, or the items, of expense incurred in conducting the Business of the House of Lords. If that objection were entitled to any weight, it must surely be much more undignified in a Committee of Supply in the House of Commons to make any examination as to the expenses of the Household of the Queen. Yet that was, and had been, done in every Session of Parliament without the least objection. He was not, however, disposed to carry the discussion further as far as this particular point was concerned. There was another matter, however, upon which he wished to say one or two words. The Serjeant-at-Arms in the House of Lords received annually, in the shape of salary and allowances, a sum of £1,600; but would any hon. Member, for a moment comparing the duties of the Sergeant-at-Arms in the House of Lords with those of the Sergeant-at-Arms in the House of Commons, say that the emoluments of the two officials were proportionate to their duties, or deny that, also comparatively, the Serjeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons was underpaid? What he particularly wished to know was, how the salaries had been fixed? because, unless it could de shown that some distinct principle, applicable to each set of officials, had been formulated and acted upon, it might be thought that the House of Lords, which was answerable to nobody, proposed large salaries for its officials, while the House of Commons, the Members of which Assembly had to answer to their constituents, did not dare to propose that its own and more hardly worked officials should receive emoluments equivalent to the duties which they had to perform. He could not but think the whole question one that might advantageously be considered and dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If an undertaking that it should be so considered were given on behalf of the Government, he saw no reason why any further opposition to the Vote should be offered on the present occasion; otherwise, he was of opinion that the Vote ought to be strongly opposed.

said, he did not think the Committee had been treated very fairly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the last Vote, which he was asked to explain with more fulness than the Secretary to the Treasury had vouchsafed to the Committee. If the Committee were not to have the advantage of the greater experience of the Leader of the House, its proceedings would degenerate into a farce. He, therefore, moved that the Chairman do report Progress.

said, the hon. Member for Meath was generally very ingenious in finding reasons why Progress should be reported when the House was in Committee of Supply; but, on the present occasion, he had no ground for the course he had taken. He saw no reason for entering upon a discussion of the last Vote, because it had been explained as fully as possible by his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury. The question really resolved itself into one as to the Privilege always possessed by the other House of Parliament, and always respected by the House of Commons——

said, the right hon. Gentleman would be out of Order in referring, by way of explanation, to a Vote which had been already agreed to.

said, he bowed to the ruling of the Chairman, and would only say that it was from no feeling of discourtesy he refrained from taking part in the discussion of the last Vote agreed to.

said, he would withdraw his Motion to report Progress, as it appeared no advantage could be gained by continuing the discussion upon it; but he would, before doing so, remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reference to one remark he had made, that he (Mr. Parnell) had not in the course of the Session called upon the House once to divide upon a Motion to report Progress.

remarked, that the Vote contained a somewhat large item for translation of foreign documents, and plans and maps issued in connection with Papers moved for and laid on the Table of the House. He did not suppose that this sum was in any way connected with the foreign documents issued from the Foreign Office; and, therefore, he could not understand to what Papers this sum of £1,000 referred.

assured the hon. and learned Member that he was mistaken in supposing that the cost of any Papers issued from the Foreign Office was included in this Vote.

explained, that the maps and plans referred to by the hon. and learned Member were partly prepared in connection with a Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) for Papers on the question of Monastic and Conventual Institutions.

said, the Papers moved for by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire seemed to have acted as a regular stopper upon his zeal, and it was to be hoped that from year to year he would make similar Motions on a variety of other subjects with the same effect.

suggested, that, perhaps, the maps and plans which had cost so much public money, had reference to the underground dungeons in which, according to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, nuns were habitually confined.

thought the pay given to the police constables, who were constantly on duty at the House when Parliament was in Session, was inadequate, and expressed a hope that it would be increased.

admitted that the constables in question were both attentive and courteous; but pointed out that although they received only a small amount of extra pay, the fact of their being on duty at the House relieved them from extra and heavier duty. In fact, it was considered by the Force that this was one of the lightest duties they could be called upon to perform.

called attention to the fact, that there were three Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, whose duties did not appear to be particularly onerous. One of these gentleman was the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn), who was also one of the Government Whips. He thought the time would come when there would be Whips in an Irish House of Commons; but, if he happened to be a Member of that Body, he should oppose any proposal to pay them out of national funds. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain the duties of the Lords Commissioners. As far as he had seen, the chief office of the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire was to promote "counts-out" whenever Bills interesting to large masses of the Irish people were before the House. In order to raise the question, he would move to reduce the Vote by £3,000, the amount of the salaries of the Lords Commissioners.

said, there could be no doubt that the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury had many duties to discharge other than those which they performed with great advantage to the House in connection with Government Business. The duties which they had to perform in the House were far from being the whole of those which devolved upon them. They had, for instance, to settle the superannuation allowances of members of the Civil Service who retired, and one of the Lords Commissioners was always a Member of the Committee charged with this duty. Cases of the kind had to be settled weekly, often daily; and, in addition to being very important, they took up a great deal of time. There were also duties of a more or less formal character, but which required the personal authentication, as well as the signature, of a Lord Commissioner; and these, too, made considerable demands upon their time. Then, again, there were frequently occurring divisions and revisions in the different Offices attached to the Government, and Commissions appointed by Parliament, which had to be left to Departmental Committees, of which Lord Commissioners of the Treasury formed most useful Members. In all these respects, the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn), to whom special reference had been made, had been most useful; and he had also saved the country many thousands of pounds by the inquiries he had conducted and the improvements he had suggested in the Stationery Department. If he had time and opportunity to describe all that these Gentlemen did, he could show that they were far from being the holders of sinecures. In conclusion, he might say with regard to them, that they were often most useful Members, as representing the Government, of Select Committees appointed by Parliament.

said, he quite understood the nature of the services rendered by the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn), but wanted information as to those of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), who received a salary of £1,000 per annum as one of the Lords Commissioners. He desired to know, also, by what authority—whether of an Act of Parliament or otherwise—these Gentlemen were styled "Lords" Commissioners of the Treasury?

said, the explanation was that they were styled Junior Lords by a form of speech, the Treasury being a Commission of which the Prime Minister was First Lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Second. The other Members were Commissioners, commonly called "Junior Lords."

said, that being the case, he thought it clear that documents should be signed by them as Commissioners, and not as Junior Lords of the Treasury.

said, he wished to draw attention to the inconvenience which arose from massing together the salaries of Clerks, Inspectors, and other officers, instead of placing them separately under their respective headings. He would like to ask whether the expense attendant upon the working of the Explosives Act would be continuous, or if there was any probability of a reduction in this item?

thought the cost of the inspection of explosives was not likely to be reduced in future years, as the labour was likely to be increased rather than diminished.

said, he wished to call attention to the question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) during the discussion of the Factories and Workshops Bill. The Home Secretary would recollect that it was stated by his hon. Friend that nearly all the Assistant Inspectors who had been appointed in Ireland were Englishmen and Protestants. He asked the right hon. Gentleman for some assurance that in future the Inspectors should not be picked from these classes, but that a selection should be made of the best men in the locality where their services were required. The Home Secretary had been kind enough to say that he would look into the matter, and remove any inequality which might be found to exist; and he wished to know whether any inquiry had been made?

said, he had not thought it wise to enter into any question relating to these matters. He had always endeavoured to select the Sub-Inspectors of Factories without any Party or political consideration. He would say to the hon. Member for Meath, that if he knew any person duly qualified for one of these posts, and would recommend him to apply to the Home Office, the application should receive proper consideration. The list of candidates was so large that he found great difficulty in selecting those who were best qualified, and he had thought it best, under the circumstances, to submit three or four persons to a competitive examination among themselves for the purpose of deciding upon their fitness. Notwithstanding that the list contained the names of a great number of persons, he would undertake that any really qualified applicant should have every attention paid to him.

said, he noticed that, of the Inspectors appointed, one was a retired commander of the Royal Navy, another a retired captain of Militia, and a third a captain of Light Infantry. He asked the Home Secretary whether it would not be better to choose these officers from among men who were acquainted with the working of factories at home, who knew something of business and the state of the markets? He did not think that naval and military officers were the men best fitted for these posts, and did not approve of their receiving salaries for three or four different offices.

said, the great qualification for these offices was the ability to manage workmen; and, in addition to this, a knowledge of the world. He by no means excluded persons who had an acquaintance with machinery and the working of factories—in fact, the very last appointment made was offered to a person who had a thorough knowledge of machinery; but, unfortunately, the salary was too small for his acceptance. There was no rule which limited these appointments to military and naval officers, his sole object being to obtain persons of general ability and intelligence.

said, he should be very sorry to recommend anybody in Ireland to apply for an appointment of this kind, because he thought it one of the great weaknesses of their position in Ireland, that these appointments were in the hands of the Government, who would use their patronage in such a manner as to forward their own ideas of governing the country. He thought it a very great mischief that Irishmen should be led to try to obtain any Government appointment; and, from his point of view, it would seem to offer immense advantage if Irishmen were opposed to Government appointments. He had no fault to find with individual or particular officers; but, although the Home Secretary had said that he never regarded religious or political distinctions in these matters, it might, unfortunately, happen that others, in recommending candidates, would do so, and thereby administer to Party and sectarian prejudices. He did not ask the Home Secretary to make any promise; but he hoped he would consider the question of appointments to be made in Ireland, under the Factories and Workshops Act, with a view to the removal of sectarian influence.

said, that he had already endeavoured to do this in every way.

said, he saw in a foot-note, that two of the Clerks in the Department of the Foreign Office were in receipt of £360 a-year, in addition to their salaries—the one, as Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the other as Private Secretary to the Lord President of the Council. It appeared to him undesirable that an officer should hold two appointments, and he should prefer that only one should be held, and that be well paid for. He asked why the Foreign Office should be charged with the salary of two Clerks who performed some of their duties elsewhere? As a mere matter of routine, it would be better that the salaries should be paid in one amount, and not from two sources.

said, when a Ministry came into Office, it was thought advantageous to select as Private Secretaries, Clerks who had a sufficient knowledge of routine business.

said, it was, no doubt, of importance that Ministers should have Private Secretaries acquainted with the details of their respective Offices; but he could not conceive why a gentleman from the Foreign Office should be selected as Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, the Private Secretaryships were not permanent offices. It was found of advantage to the Public Service to confer these appointments upon gentlemen who had the special qualification of being thoroughly acquainted with the business of their particular Departments. With regard to the Private Secretaries being taken from the Foreign Office, he would point out that in the present instance it was of great assistance to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have the services of a gentleman intimately acquainted with a subject which was now so interesting to the House and the country.

said, he would exclude from the list of the Foreign Office, officers who had been removed from that Department.

said, when it became necessary to regard these appointments, the Vote must be taken as a whole. It was desirable that Ministers should have liberty to make such selections, and combine the two offices.

said, they could not suppose for a moment that leading Ministers should not have for Private Secretaries gentlemen of ability and knowledge of public affairs. He did not understand that his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) objected to the Chancellor of the Exchequer having a Private Secretary at £300 a-year. They were quite aware that the Private Secretary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would no doubt perform duties of a very important and responsible character, and they were also perfectly aware that the salaries which were paid to Private Secretaries were salaries of a very moderate character, and could hardly be considered at all excessive when the value of their services was taken into consideration. On the contrary, he thought the gentlemen fulfilling the duties of Private Secretaries fitted themselves, by degrees, to take important offices in the country, and the training they obtained as Private Secretaries was most valuable, and it was very much in the public interest that their existence should be encouraged. The objection raised to the two Private Secretaries in question—namely, to that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of the Lord President of the Council—by the hon. Member for Kendal, was a very valid one. It was this—that if they had gentlemen occupying the position of Private Secretaries to Ministers, they should cease to be Clerks in the Foreign Office, as the two gentlemen in question were; for they neglected, so to speak, their duties at the Foreign Office, in order to perform the far more important duties of Private Secretaries. His (Mr. Rylands') impression was, that the staff of the Foreign Office was either too large, or that there should be someone to take the places of the two gentlemen now discharging the duties of Private Secretaries. It was very important that Private Secretaries should not appear as Clerks, either at the Foreign Office, the Treasury, or in any other Public Department; because it naturally excited a good deal of suspicion that they would neglect the minor duties to fulfil the more important.

was sure the Committee would not grudge the promotion which, from time to time, was conferred on some of the young men in our Public Offices by their being selected to discharge the duties of Private Secretaries to the Heads of Departments. A selection of the kind had been made in the case of a friend of his, whose name he would not mention, who had distinguished himself as a Clerk in the Public Service, and who now, as Private Secretary, had important duties to perform at all hours of the day, but whose purpose it would not answer to give up altogether the permanent appointment which he also held.

called attention to the fact that they paid 12 Queen's Foreign Service Messengers £400 a-year each, which amounted to £4,800, while of Queen's Home Service Messengers there were three at £250 each, and five at £200 a-year each—in all £1,750. He was under the impression that they were paying a much larger sum for messengers than they ought. Home Service Messengers he considered quite as important as Foreign Service Messengers; and, considering the great facilities this country possessed of forwarding messages to foreign capitals, an attempt ought certainly to be made to reduce this large item of £4,800, in addition to which there were allowances for travelling expenses amounting to £13,000. There was no Government which paid its Foreign Service Messengers upon the same scale as the English Government.

quite concurred with those who held that it would be somewhat invidious to grudge a clever young man just commencing his career the promotion which he might obtain by being made Private Secretary to a Minister; while he, at the same time, fulfilled the duties of the Office to which he happened to be attached as a Clerk. He should, however, like to know whether the duties of both positions did not sometimes clash? Did, for instance, the two Clerks whose case was more immediately under discussion, go down to the Foreign Office every day to perform their duties there, or were their duties as Private Secretaries of such a nature as practically to prevent them from discharging those duties?

said, that as reference had been made to his Private Secretary, he wished to make a short explanation. He had selected that gentleman, in the first instance, to act as his Secretary because he found that, being left in charge of the Business of the House, and being in that position obliged to take a very considerable share in the discussions on foreign affairs, it was not only exceedingly useful, but almost necessary, that he should have the assistance of some one who was well acquainted with foreign subjects. It was on that account he had chosen a gentleman who had been in the Foreign Office for some years as Clerk, and who had done good service in that capacity. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), he felt, however, bound to say that his employment as Private Secretary did very greatly, indeed, interfere with the discharge of his duties at the Foreign Office. He was from time to time, nevertheless, able to attend there, and, indeed, scarcely a day passed that he did not do so, although it was rather with business of a general character connected with the work of the Government which he himself, as Leader of the House, had to conduct; and which, to a very great extent, he found himself enabled to conduct by means of the assistance which his Private Secretary rendered him, that the latter was mainly occupied. The practice, he might add, was one of long standing, and one which, in his opinion, did not really operate to the inconvenience of the public service. It was not permitted, by the rules of the service, that a Clerk who had attained a very considerable position in his Office should be allowed to act as Private Secretary out of his own Department; but junior Clerks were allowed to take temporary appointments as Private Secretaries when their other duties admitted of their doing so. Their brother clerks were, he believed, in such cases very ready to assist in performing any extra duty which might be thrown upon them; and the circulation which was brought about by employing young men for a limited time—and it was only for a limited time—to act as Private Secretaries, while not interfering injuriously with the work of a Department, operated, so far as he could see, as a stimulus, and was, in that respect, productive of considerable advantage.

thought the case was one of those in which the appointment by a Minister of a relative to be his Private Secretary was entirely free from the charge of nepotism, for the position was one in which the closest intimacy between employer and employed was required; and he could not imagine a better person for a Minister's Secretary than his own son, supposing his abilities to be equal to the task. He might also observe that it was likely to be of great use to the Foreign Office itself that some of its Clerks should be so engaged, because they would, in all probability, be enabled in consequence to learn much which would afterwards be of great service in their profession. These gentlemen's services were real services given to the country in two capacities, and it was fair that they should draw pay in both capacities.

was quite prepared to admit that it was of the utmost importance that a Minister occupying the position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did should be able to secure the sources of a Private Secretary in whom he could place entire confidence; but then he objected strongly to officials receiving public money from two sources, as in the instances to which he had called the attention of the Committee, although there might, of course, be some cases in which it would be necessary to make an exception.

said, he recollected that when the Irish Cattle Plague Bill was passing through the House, his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had asked the noble Lord who then filled the Office of Vice President of the Privy Council (Viscount Sandon) a Question with respect to the payments of the Inspectors of the Veterinary Department in Ireland as compared with the payment of a similar class of officers in England. It appeared that in Ireland the local Inspectors were paid out of moneys partly derived from local sources and partly voted by Parliament, while in England the whole of their salaries was provided by Parliament. If that were so, the system was one which was regarded by himself and other Irish Members as being unfair; but his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan had, at all events, failed to obtain from the noble Lord the information for which he asked. Perhaps the noble Lord who had succeeded him in his Office (Lord George Hamilton) could give it; or, as he did not happen to be in his place, perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to inform the Committee whether there was any difference in the payment of veterinary Inspectors as compared with those in England?

having expressed his regret that his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council was not in the House, said, he could state, from his own knowledge, that in England the Inspectors appointed by the Veterinary Department were paid out of moneys voted by Parliament. Whether that was so in Ireland or not, he was unable to inform the Committee.

having remarked that he thought the noble Lord who was responsible for the Department ought to be in his place to give the necessary explanations of the Vote, asked why the amount set down for quarantine and other expenses at Portsmouth was so much larger than the sum which was required in the case of places like London, Liverpool, and Southampton, at which the trade was of much greater magnitude?

said, it was deemed expedient to keep up an establishment at Portsmouth for the purpose of seeing that quarantine was properly enforced, and that that could not well be done at a less cost than was stated in the Estimate.

wished to know why there was so great a reduction—amounting to a sum of no less than £8,000—in the Vote for the Veterinary Department this year as compared with last year? The Committee was aware how great the interest was which was at the present moment felt throughout the country with respect to the proposed legislation on the subject of the Cattle Plague. That legislation was, it appeared to be, of a very severe kind; and he was at a loss, therefore, to understand how the Government could see their way to making such a reduction as he had mentioned.

pointed out, that a very large expenditure had last year been incurred in the appointment of additional Inspectors owing to the outbreak of the Cattle Plague. It had been, in consequence, found necessary to increase the permanent staff, and a number of temporary Inspectors had been employed; but the Cattle Plague having been stamped out, it had been deemed desirable to reduce that number, inasmuch as the emergency which they had been appointed to meet no longer existed. That accounted for the large decrease in the Vote for the Veterinary Department. The question, he might add, of what a future Act of Parliament might necessitate, was one on which he did not wish to speculate.

wished to know whether the hon. Baronet thought the expenditure now estimated would be quite adequate to meet the requirements of the Department?

replied, that that was the expectation of the Department itself, unless, of course, a fresh out break of Cattle Plague should, unfortunately, visit the country.

complained that an establishment was kept up at Portsmouth at a cost of £1,200 or £1,400 a-year for the purposes of quarantine; which, so far as he could see, was absolutely of little or no use.

said, the station there was necessary for the strict enforcement of quarantine regulations.

thought that the subject of inspection ought to be carefully held in view by the Committee in connection with this Vote. He remembered that, some time ago, the local authorities at some English ports enforced stringent powers, which they supposed they possessed, against the importation of Irish cattle. A whole cargo was seized, and prevented from proceeding to its destination, by which great consternation was caused in the Irish Cattle Trade, and great confusion ensued. A debate on the subject was originated in that House by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), to which he listened very attentively. The Government said they found it necessary to adopt more stringent measures with regard to the importation of Irish cattle; but they thought that, for the present, by providing additional inspection, putting on additional Inspectors, and taking additional pains with regard to the inspection itself, purifying and disinfecting the trucks, and looking after the treatment of the cattle, they would be able, to a great extent, to get rid of the disease. That expectation of the Government, held out by the noble Lord who then represented the Department (Viscount Sandon), had been verified in a remarkable manner. It was supposed that the foot-and-mouth disease came from Ireland; but in Ireland it could always be traced as having come from England first; and it so happened, that since the Government insisted on these precautions—of white-washing the trucks, seeing that the animals were not carried about promiscuously, and that they were supplied with hay and water, the disease began to decrease, until at last there was no foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland, and scarcely any in England. Now, he found from these Estimates that those precautionary measures had been very much reduced, and he thought it bad policy, to say the least of it. He found, for instance, that the temporary Inspectors were to be paid as usual, but their travelling expenses were reduced one-half—that was from £4 to £2. The sum to be voted for them this year was £7,470. But, if these temporary Inspectors were to be of any use, they must go about the country and see that the local authorities put in force the powers with which they were armed; and how were they to perform that duty if their expenses were diminished? He saw, also, that the cost of disinfecting the vans was reduced. Those changes he looked upon as unfortunate and mistaken. He could attribute the stamping out of foot-and-mouth disease to nothing else but to the close attention paid to their duties by the temporary Inspectors, and to the enforcement of precautions by the local authorities; but if all that was to stop now, they would have foot-and-mouth disease again. The Government would again come to the House, and say—"There is a terrible disease raging in the country, and it was necessary to adopt fresh measures in order to get rid of it." Unless there were some reasons for it, with reference to these precautionary measures, of which the House was not aware, he thought the Government were embarking on a bad policy. Referring to the Irish Estimates, he found that a sum of only £150 was provided towards the cost of inspection in Ireland, while upwards of £7,000 was to be voted for inspection in England. It was very unfair that in this way a large extra charge should be thrown on the local resources of Ireland. In England the cost of inspection was to be defrayed out of money voted by Parliament; but in Ireland, all except £150 which Parliament would vote for it, was to be paid out of local resources. The reason of that difference, he presumed, was to be found in the different nature of the Irish Act. It could not be done this year, he supposed; but he hoped the time would come when they would have some addition made to that Vote.

said, he did not think the subject of inspection would be prejudiced in the way pointed out by the hon. Member for Meath. The Inspectors appointed for the inspection of the railway carriages, and of the vessels in which the animals were brought over from Ireland, would still perform the same duties. The duty of seeing that those carriages and those vessels were properly inspected would continue to be performed as now; and it was only a certain number of temporary Inspectors, put on during the outbreak in London, when the Privy Council took on itself the whole management of the precautions adopted in view of the disease, that were reduced. The temporary travelling Inspectors, appointed in 1875 and 1876, were still paid as when appointed. All the disinfections were now done by the local authorities under their order, and their expenses were therefore not charged in this Vote. The £7,000 for inspection in England, compared with the £150 for Irish inspection, referred to by the hon. Member, was for police expenses, in relation to the cordon established round London, to prevent the disease spreading thence through the country. The whole reduction in the Vote was due entirely to the fact, that that which was a temporary malady, and for which temporary restrictions had to be enforced, was now stamped out, and it was no longer necessary to be so cautious.

thought he might take that opportunity of delivering his word of exhortation to the Government. He called attention last year to the great number of Inspectors and Commissioners that were appointed for different purposes, and to the rapid rate at which they increased. He was not going over that ground now; but he wished to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this—that if they looked into the matter, they would find an increase of Commissioners and of Inspectors of about 50 beyond what appeared in the Estimates for last year; while their salaries had risen from £300,000 last year to £320,000 this year, and their salaries and expenses from £600,000 to £640,000. He knew they would say they had all been appointed under arrangements made by Parliament itself; but still it was not a satisfactory state of things, and demanded attention. What he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to do was to keep a watchful eye and a close hand on the Departments that applied to him for making additions to the number of Inspectors, and an increase to their salaries. If that were not done, there was certain to be a rapid increase of both.

said, he wished to remove an impression, which appeared to have been created by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), that only £150 was voted by Parliament for the inspection of cattle in Ireland. The fact was, as appeared from the Estimates, that that was only a portion of the whole sum provided; and which, in another part of the Estimates, amounted to £2,300.

in reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), observed, that he had overlooked the fact that some of the items which appeared in the English Vote did not appear at all in the Irish Vote. The Estimate for England was, in fact, a sum of £33,000, and that for Ireland only £2,000—or the one was about 16 times the other, which was a wide disproportion. The £7,070 paid to English Inspectors was exclusive of the sum paid for temporary Inspectors, who got £3,000 last year. Their grievance in Ireland was that the £7,070 paid for England was provided out of Imperial resources, whereas the Irish inspection was left to be provided for out of local resources. They had to pay, moreover, for an inspection which did not affect their cattle. The inspection, such as it was, was carried on at the shipping ports; and, so far as his own inspection went, that temporary inspection was all nonsense—and, in fact, the term temporary Inspector, was altogether a misnomer. The evidence with regard to lung disease went to show that it was exceedingly doubtful whether it was a contagious disease. He believed it was not. It was not a disease carried from animal to animal, but it was an epidemic disease that seemed to exist in the air. Rinderpest, on the contrary, was of a very deadly nature; but the weight of evidence, with regard to these Inspectors, was that the disease could not be influenced by their supervision in any appreciable degree. He was conversing the other day with an Inspector about a cow that had got into a lingering state from eating too much cotton cake. At the end of the week he reported, in sympathy with the proprietor, that the cow died of lung disease; but, when the cow was slaughtered in order to prevent contagion, the lungs were examined, and it was found that the animal had no disease at all. That was a fair sample of the way in which the system worked, and he had a great mind to move the omission of the Vote altogether.

observed, that he had only desired to point out that the speech of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) went to create the idea that no sum was allowed for purposes of veterinary inspection in Ireland. The fact was, that, as regarded cattle, England was an importing country, requiring careful inspection at the ports of importation; but Ireland was an exporting country, and, therefore, did not require such extensive inspection. He did not intend, however, to make a complete comparison between the-two countries in those particulars.

replied, that he complained that only £150 was allowed for Ireland; while, for England, £7,000 was provided for inspection. That was a very great disproportion.

wished to repeat that the money was thrown away on this inspection. The cattle were brought to the ports of shipment in Ireland, and taken down to the quay alongside the ships. It was generally after dark, and anything like inspection under such, circumstances was out of the question. He did not think they should be asked to vote money for such a purpose. In England the case was different, because the Inspectors could insist on seeing the animals before they left the port.

objected that this office was nothing but a sinecure pure and simple, as he had often heard admitted in that House, while he had never heard it pretended by anyone that there was any use in it. He objected to the principle of keeping up a sinecure office to eke out the emoluments for other duties, because it prevented the House from knowing what it was paying for, and whether the office was useful, or not. The arguments had been urged over and over again, and he would not repeat them. It was well understood that the office was a sinecure, and he objected to Members having any participation in the continuance of an office which it was clear was of no use.

thought the income was a small one, and but slightly increased the Expenditure, while it enabled the Cabinet to strengthen itself by the addition of a Minister who could not accept a more burdensome office. He had not changed his opinion that the position of Privy Seal should be held by the Prime Minister; it would give a not unreasonable addition to his salary, which at present was too low, and would give him the position and precedence which such great responsibilities demanded.

said, that a debate took place on this subject in the Session of 1876. The Prime Minister then made a speech in defence of the sinecure. It was one of those speeches to which those who listened were just as wise at the close as at the beginning. He had read the whole of that speech, and there was not a single attempt in it to define the duties of Lord Privy Seal. The Prime Minister referred darkly and mysteriously to the importance of the post; but nothing more was said then than now to show that there was any use for the position. The statement made in the previous debate was very applicable to what had been said by hon. Gentlemen that night. It was now said that the Prime Minister had abandoned this position, and had transferred the duties to someone else, and that it must have been from a conviction that the duties must be performed by someone else that he did so. When that assertion was compared with the statement of the Prime Minister in 1876, he felt that some Members of the Government could throw some light on the subject. It had been said that the only defence for the salary was that the person appointed to the office of Lord Privy Seal having nothing to do must be of great use in relieving the other members of the Cabinet who were overworked. But that was not a satisfactory principle upon which to vote public money. He, for one, would not object if a proposal were made to the House of Commons to increase the salary of the Prime Minister—if the House were asked to give the Prime Minister the salary now paid to the Privy Seal, in addition to the £5,000 already received by him. He could well understand that the dignity of his position was such that to support it properly the salary now given was totally inadequate. But that was not the proposal made, and he must therefore record his vote against it.

said, that he had several times, in successive years, listened to this Motion for the abolition of the office of the Lord Privy Seal. The office was one of considerable antiquity, and sometimes, when a person was invited to join the Cabinet, it was convenient to put him into that position, as it was one of the great offices of State about the King. It had been said by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that nobody had ever told him what the duties of the office really were, and he said the Prime Minister had made a speech in which he did not explain the nature of those duties. For his part, he did not think the Prime Minister was a man who would be likely to speak even for seven minutes, without saying something practical. Therefore, he thought the hon. Member must have misread the speech of the Prime Minister, or it must have been badly reported. He would tell the Committee what the duties of the Lord Privy Seal were. Every instrument, such as Letters Patent—except patents for inventions—had first to receive the Royal Warrant; that Warrant was sent to the Lord Privy Seal, who issued his writ of Privy Seal, which authorized the Lord Chancellor to put the Great Seal to the Patents. What was the effect of that? It might be said it was a mere formality; but it was not so. The effect was that two Cabinet Ministers were responsible for affixing the Great Seal. Not only was the Lord Chancellor responsible, but the Lord Privy Seal was responsible also, for every instrument which passed the Great Seal. Thus the country had the responsibility of two instead of one Minister for every instrument issuing under the Great Seal. It had been held, by high authority, that the person legally technically responsible for a Treaty of Peace was the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Privy Seal was also responsible, for it was by authority of his writ that the Lord Chancellor passed the instrument. In this manner thousands of instruments, that everybody was acquainted with, passed under the Great Seal, and could only be passed by the joint authority of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Privy Seal. He thought that was a matter of some importance in a Constitutional point of view; and, though he did not mean to say that the Lord Privy Seal was very hard worked, or had a great deal to do, yet what he did say was that his office was a Constitutional safeguard. Blackstone said—

"The law of the Constitution provides that all instruments passing the Great Seal should go through at least two Seals before they reached the Great Seal, in order that the responsibility may be complete. So great an importance does the law of England attach to the Great Seal of England."

thought that the hon. and learned Baronet who had just addressed the Committee had hardly done justice to the speech of the Prime Minister. What the noble Lord really said was, that the office was found useful, but he did not recommend that it should be continued in respect of any special duties that were to be performed. The hon. and learned Baronet had also said that every instrument passing the Great Seal did so under the responsibility of two Ministers; but how that could be, while the noble Lord filled the office himself as well as that of First Lord of the Treasury, he could not comprehend. In his opinion, the case against passing the Vote was conclusive; and he should suggest that the office should be abolished, and the blank thereby made would provide the opportunity of appointing a Minister for Scotland, to take charge of Scottish affairs in that House. He would recommend that suggestion to the consideration of the Government, for its adoption would not only be highly appreciated by the people of Scotland, but also be useful and acceptable to the people of England. It would conduce to the despatch of Public Business in that House, and would lighten some of the duties devolving upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department. There were many occasions on which the services of a Minister having a seat in the Cabinet, and specially charged with attending to the affairs of Scotland, would be highly desirable and advantageous to the interests of the United Kingdom.

observed, that it was only by taking an office of this sort, that men, who had served their country well for a length of time but who were not equal to the performance of hard work, were able to take a seat in the Cabinet. He remembered an instance in the Cabinet of Lord Palmerston. That alone was a justification of the continuance of the past, for it gave the country the benefit of the long experience and powerful intellect of men who could not take upon themselves the duties of an active character, but yet were well able, in such a capacity, to serve their country. The office of Lord Privy Seal was one of great antiquity, and it was an office which afforded Mr. Fox an opportunity of joining the Ministry. Since that time, the maintenance of the post had been generally recognized as essential. It was the duty of the Lord Privy Seal to examine all documents before they passed into Chancery. But the great advantage of maintaining the office was, that the country was enabled to retain in the Cabinet, Ministers of mature age, without imposing upon them duties which were required from other Cabinet Ministers. At the same time, looking at the very miserable salaries which the Cabinet Ministers of the country were paid, he thought that the question of a supplementary office ought not to be cavilled at, and he hoped that the Vote would be passed.

would remind the hon. Member who had last spoken, that no one would assert that it was essential to the interest of the country that the present Nobleman who filled the position of Lord Privy Seal should be retained in the Cabinet. As to the trifling amount of the salary paid him, it must not be forgotten that the Lord President of the Council only received £2,000 a-year, and the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department and the President of the Board of Trade had both the same salaries. There was one public official who did a great deal more work than the Lord Privy Seal—the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs—and yet he was not above taking the same miserable pittance. They had heard from the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer), what were the duties which the Lord Privy Seal had to perform. Those duties were described very much in the way that those of an Archdeacon were—when it was said, as the only possible explanation of his duties, that he had to perform archideaconal functions.

said, that this was an historical question, and one which he knew had in successive Sessions and years always been the subject of debate in that Committee. Therefore, everything that could be said upon it, from almost every point of view, had been said on that as well as on former occasions. The fact was, that the office was one of very great antiquity, and, as had been well described by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer), the holder of it was charged with the duty of ascertaining and supervising the authority upon which the Great Seal was affixed to Letters Patent and other documents. But the maintenance of the office had always been defended, and he thought it ought to be argued upon the ground that it enabled a Minister to have a seat in the Cabinet who was not charged with the duties of a special or heavy Department. There was no doubt that the pressure of Business upon Cabinets had increased very much, and it was exceedingly difficult for those who were charged with the administration of important and busy Departments to give as much, time as they would like to bye-questions that arose from time to time. It was very difficult for them to find time to give that careful examination and consideration to such questions unless they had the assistance of one or more of their Colleagues, who could give a little more time than the Chief of a heavy Department. It constantly happened that when a question had to be carefully examined, it was exceedingly convenient to ask one or two Members of the Cabinet, who were not overburdened with work, to make a detailed examination, and report thereon to their Colleagues. In matters of that kind, the Lord Privy Seal, having more time than most Members of the Cabinet, was extremely useful. It was a subject which had been frequently discussed, and had always ended in the Committee not refusing the salary.

said, that he was a young Member of the House and had not had the experience of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, yet he well remembered some discussions on this subject on former occasions; he did not, however, remember that, on any former occasion, a detailed account of the duties of the Lord Privy Seal had been given. Before he heard that account of the duties, he had some doubts as to whether he should not give his vote in favour of the continuance of the salary of the Lord Privy Seal. But the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) had completely satisfied him that this was an office that ought not to be maintained. The hon. and learned Baronet had clearly shown what the duties were. Former Ministers were too astute to give an account of the duties of the Office they wished to maintain, and therefore spoke in the mysterious manner described by another speaker. But now they had been told what were the duties of the Lord Privy Seal. He had to give his sanction to the affixing of the Great Seal to certain instruments. He himself had not to affix it, and was not authorized to do so; but the Great Seal was afterwards affixed by the Lord Chancellor. "What did that mean? It meant a divided responsibility. The Lord Chancellor affixed the Seal to the instrument, because the Lord Privy Seal had passed it. Neither, thus, felt any special responsibility—the Lord Privy Seal would not feel himself responsible, because he knew that the act would be done in the last resort by the Lord Chancellor; and the Lord Chancellor would consider that he was justified in affixing the Seal by the warrant of the Lord Privy Seal. The real history of the case was that instruments, such as those spoken of, were, in the first instance, brought before the Attorney General; the matter was attended to, not by the Attorney General in person, but by his clerk. When the Attorney General's clerk had put his initials to the instrument, it went to the Lord Privy Seal, and he simply again initialed it without inquiry. Such were the duties of the Lord Privy Seal, and they were duties that should be dispensed with, because they only divided and thus lessened the responsibility. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, repudiated the explanation of the hon. and learned Baronet, and justified the continuation of the appointment by the statement that it was exceedingly convenient to have a Minister to make a detailed examination upon any question, and that the Lord Privy Seal was useful for that purpose. That seemed to him to make the Lord Privy Seal a journeyman Member of the Cabinet, who might be called upon to do any little odd jobs which no one else had in hand. He had no responsibility, and they might as well have a second-rate man to do that which no one else liked to do, but which had to be done by someone, as to appoint to that office an important personage. But the Privy Seal was not the only office which was held upon similar tenure. What had the Chancellor of the Duchy to do? There was already one Member of the Cabinet who had only odd jobs to do, and why could he not do the whole of them? It seemed to him that the only justification for the maintenance of the office of Lord Privy Seal was that it was an ancient one, and an office much sought after because it gave the holder a high position, a salary, and nothing to do.

had hoped that, when Lord Beaconsfield took the office of Lord Privy Seal as well as that of Prime Minister, he did so with the view of practically bringing the office into disuse, and giving it up altogether. He thought that that act of the Premier was a very graceful and ingenious mode of bringing the office to a point, at which those who thought it unwise to continue it, desired to see it arrive. He was, therefore, sorry to see that the question of that office had again cropped up before the House; and, seeing that this was a period of economy on all sides, when a great many useful things which ought to be done had to be left undone, he thought it a great pity that £2,000 should be drawn for the purpose of maintaining an office which had passed into absolute uselessness for a long time, and into a pluralism for a short period. He did not know whether the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Vote would press his Amendment to a division; but, if he did, he would support him.

did not see that the Government had made out any case in favour of the retention of this office. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said it was a very ancient office. Well, it seemed to be a very ancient job. They ought to learn experience from the past, and he thought that the Government ought by this time to have gained enough experience to induce them to get rid of the office. They often heard of the great jobs perpetrated in America, and the corruption which took place in high offices. The late President of the United States got into bad odour by the jobbery and rascality of the parties who surrounded him in regard to the sale of contracts; but really he (Mr. Biggar) did not see that there was any great distinction between the selling of an office for ready money and giving an office to a personal friend on the pretence that he would have something to do, when really he had nothing to do in return for the money paid him. He did not think it was serving the interests of the Constitution to defend or uphold jobs which could not be pleaded for by any sound argument. The hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) had given the Committee, with great candour, the duties of the office; but, really, as the hon. and learned Gentleman who sat below the Gangway (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) said, he succeeded in proving that the office of Lord Privy Seal was of no use whatever. The system of Seals was not, he believed, conducive to the interests of the country. For instance, take the question of certificates. They were told that they were the certificates of the Attorney General, whereas they were issued by his clerk. Then, again, they were told that the certificate of the Lord Chancellor meant the certificate of the Privy Seal. The want of practical common sense and practical business habits, as evinced by the Government in this matter, did not, as far as he could form an opinion, give a very strong evidence that the business qualities which they arrogated to themselves were justified by the facts of the case.

said, the Vote was now asked for under very different circumstances to those which existed the last time there was a debate on the matter. That was in 1876, when Lord Beaconsfield was a Member of that House, and when he described the advantages of retaining the office of Lord Privy Seal. The noble Lord then said the office would be retained, but the salary not drawn, unless there was occasion to confer the position on a Gentleman who could perform functions of great importance which no other Minister of the Government could perform. That was the only reason which Lord Beaconsfield gave for retaining the office. It was said that, in past times, great men and distinguished statesmen had held the office—men who had been of great use to the Government in matters of delicate negotiations, and so forth. Instances were given of the distinguished men who did hold the office; and it was said that, while the office was to be retained, the salary would not be drawn unless occasion arose when it would be a great advantage to fill the office with a statesman who had no other Cabinet cares to harass his mind, and who could give his whole and undivided attention to some particular negotiations and some particular affairs of State. That was all very well as far as it went, but that did not excuse the maintenance of a sinecure office. Besides, those expectations which had been held out had not been fulfilled. As far as could be made out, Lord Beaconsfield did draw the salary of Lord Privy Seal. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No, he did not.] He (Mr. Parnell) had thought he did, because the Appropriation Account, furnished with the Papers up to March, 1877, showed that the salary had been drawn. It was stated, at the same time, that the salary of the Secretary to the Lord Privy Seal had been surrendered to the Treasury, because that office of Secretary was not filled up by Lord Beaconsfield. Hence, he supposed, that as the salary for Lord Privy Seal was drawn, that Lord Beaconsfield had it, and he was glad to hear that he did not. At any rate, the salary was to be drawn this year, and the Nobleman who had been appointed to the office was of no use at all in the Cabinet. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, he should like to know whether the Nobleman who had been just appointed was such a man as Lord Beaconsfield described as deserving the office? Was he one of the most eminent public men of the day? Had he presided over the most laborious Departments of the Government, and were there duties which the Nobleman who was appointed to the office had to discharge which could not be indicated? These were the sort of claims which Lord Beaconsfield had said a Minister must have to be made Lord Privy Seal; but he saw nothing in the case of the present holder of the office to justify his appointment. The Nobleman might be an excellent man in every respect, and it might be desirable to get him into office; but, in this case, his appointment was evidently the mere exercise of patronage, and no advantage was to be derived from it.

desired to know upon what principle they were asked to pay a salary and retain an office where there was no work to be done? As it was now a quarter to 1, he thought the best thing to do was to adjourn the discussion of the whole question; and, therefore, he moved to report Progress.

hoped the Motion to report Progress would not be pressed. There had been sufficient discussion on the subject, and he thought the Committee were perfectly ready to come to a Vote.

said, if the Committee thought the Vote had been thoroughly discussed, he would not press to report Progress; but as it was getting on for 1 o'clock, and as they had been on the Estimates the whole evening, he thought the Government should not persist in discussing Votes any longer. It was unreasonable to expect a man to go on all night looking into these items. He would remind the Committee that the work of any earnest Member of the Committee did not begin when the Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair. He began his work in connection with the Estimates at 11 o'clock that morning, and, therefore, a vast amount of labour had been entailed.

said, when he saw £2,000 voted for a useless office, and remembered that a portion of the money came out of the pockets of the people of Ireland, he hoped the rejection of the Vote would be pressed to a division. In the very office where there was nothing to do the Chief Clerk had £350 a-year, which he supposed was given him to help the Lord Privy Seal do nothing. Then, the Private Secretary to the Lord Privy Seal received £120 a-year, and there was also a third office—that. of Assistant Clerk. A foot-note to the Estimates showed that one gentleman held these two offices, so the fact was that the Lord Privy Seal's Secretary was Assistant Clerk to himself. The fact was that the Lord Privy Seal was a Minister without a portfolio, and he ought to be paid as such. As he had no work, practically, to do, he hoped the House would divide.

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had said the salary of Lord Privy Seal up to March, 1877, had been drawn, and some explanation of that was needed. The hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) had said the office of Lord Privy Seal was an important one, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not value it. He told the Committee, as it had been told before, that it was a sinecure, and no good at all. Therefore, the hon. and learned Baronet was not supported in his view by the Leader of the House, who said the money was asked to be voted because it was usual to have a person to fill the office of Lord Privy Seal. He strongly objected to that. They desired to secure economy in the public services; but how could they do that when the highest offices were paid for when there was nothing to do? He thought nothing had been said to justify the continuance of the office, and, therefore, he should press his Amendment to a division.

said, although the salary of Lord Privy Seal was voted in 1877, it was not drawn.

said, as he had introduced the matter of the salary being drawn in 1877, perhaps he might be allowed to explain. In the Appropriation Account for the year ending the 31st March, 1877, in a foot-note appended to the account, it was stated that the salary of the Secretary to the Lord Privy Seal was surrendered to the Treasury. That was accounted for by the fact that Lord Beaconsfield did not appoint a Private Secretary for the Lord Privy Seal. At the same time, the salary of Lord Privy Seal was not surrendered; consequently, it was drawn, and, of course, he supposed it had been drawn by the person who had power to appoint a Private Secretary and did not—he meant Lord Beaconsfield. As it was not necessary for the Lord-Privy Seal to have a Private Secretary that year, why was it necessary to have one this year? Yet the salary of the Private Secretary was provided for in the Vote now before the Committee.