The Express.
London, England, 1851-06-17 00:00:00

•
the spirit and tendency of the Roman catholic system, he
Dilly recognised the right of those who held that system to
complete religious equality with all others. (Hear, hear.)
Nor on economical grounds—for when he remembered to
what an extent we had in past times been indebted to these
Roman eatholies—when lie remembered the magnificent
cathedrals, the numerous churches, the glorious colleges,
and the large endowments founded by their zeal and
liberality, but of which they were no longer the
possessors—such • sum as that involved in the
present vote would be but a beggarly offering to there
in • pecuniary point of view ; therefore he put the pecu-
niary consideration altogether out of the question. (Hear,
hear. He respected the growing tendency of the Roman
catholics lately to throw themselves entirely and broadly on
the voluntary principle. He would be no party to perm._
cueing catholici or to paying catholies. (Rear, hear.) lie
had voted against the one, and he was prepared to vote
against the other; but while he thought either pre,eas had
—persecution of religion, or payment of religion--he
thought a combination of the two was the worst of all.
(Cheers.) For the sake of the Roman catholic sys•em itself
ho should oppose the vote—and he should oppose it because
he considered it an abuse of the public money to apply it
1 in supporting any theological system whether by large mei
extensive endowment fur the purpose of upholding some
peculiar form of faith, or by doling it out in driblets mimic:
sects, placing theta also iu a state of dependence and degra-
dation. (Cheers.)
Cal. RAWDON was prepared to vote this money, as lie
considered tho state was committed to the establishment of
Maynooth to support it, not in • beggarly way, but in such
a manner as should make it worthy of its object—the edu-
cation of the catholic clergy. (Cheers.)
Mr. Alderman SIDNEI opposed the vote, because the
grant had failed in conciliating the Romun catholim.

The committee then divided.
For the reduced vote
Against it
The announcement of the numbers was hailed with o,r•
derable cheering by the minority.
The vote as originally proposed was then put 341
metl_ to. _ . .

On the next vote, 10,6601. for Kingstown harbour,
Alderman SIDNEY objected to this vote as being utt, rlv
unncensary, Kingstown being a harbour where any r.rait
begond a collier or a vessel loading with stone was r
seen. He moved, in order to get rid of the vote, that th.
Chairman report progress.
And after souse discussion Alderman SIDNEY withdraw
his amendment and the vote was agreed to.
The next vote was of 92,3001., salaries and expenses of the
houses of parliament.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS pointed out that in proposing that
vote, the government had taken little or no notice of the
recommendation of reduction in these salaries and ex-
ponies made by the committee last year.
Mr. lIUME perceived iu this estimate that the recent
change in regard to the clerkship of the Douse of Com-
mons had caused an increased expense of 5,0001. Tnia
was very extraordinary, because it had been supposed that
the change would have beets attended with a saving.
After a long pause, the occupants of the Treasury
benches apparently nut understanding whence the increase
had arisen,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that hitherto the salary of the clerk and other, had lnett
paid out of the Conwlidated Fund, and that this was the
tint year in which these salaries had appeared in the esti-
mate.

The vote was then agreed to.
Upon the next vote, being 53,7001. for the &dark', con
tingent, and other C peIISCS of the Trea.mry department,

Major BEItESFORI) expressed his surprise on finding
in this vote a sum of 2,500/. a year tbr the salary of ut
assistant-secretary, which was 5001. a year more than the
other saretartes of the Treasury. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer had some years ago opposed the salaries to the
regular secretaries under the government of Sir It. Peel,
and yet he himself now proposed an addition of .51)0/. a year
more to the assistant-secretary than he had formerly re-

teivcd. Ile (Major Berestiiril) should propose that this
estimate be reduced by the amount of ,300/.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER defended
the vote. The hon. and gallant gentleman was right in
saying that some years ago he had opposed the salaries of
these secretaries, but it was when he first came into par-
liament, and at a time when the secretaries received
2,0001. a-year, and when he observed that one had -VOL
a-year more, he opposed it. The vote had not been in-
creased in any way by the present government, and the
hon. gentleman would hardly think it right in the govern-
ment to deprive the assistant-seeretary of an additional
amount of salary, which he had gained by length of service.
The salary of the assistant-secretary was fixed at 2,0001. a-
year, with an addition of 500/., after a certain number
of years' service. The ministers of the crown had shown
themselves ready to adopt the recommendntiou of the com-
mittee on public salaries, as to a reduction of the salaries of
the secretaries of state. He had already borne testimony to
the valuable services of Sir Charles Trevclyan, and therefore
seed say no more upon that point.
Mr. DISRAELI—WouId the government please to in-
form the house upon whet principle they decided on the
recommendations of the committee ou public salaries ?
The committee, for example, had receotnmended that the
salary of the Paris embassy should be cut down to ono
half ; and instead of adopting that recommendation the
government increased the salary. The government ought
to state the principle they had adopted with respect to the
committee on public salaries, which was a great mis-
take ; for no government should have accepted
such a committee unless they were prepared to
act upon their recommendations. The government
were bound to accept the recommendations of the committee
whose responsibility they guaranteed, but they could not act
in one direction in one case and in another direction in
another. They must adopt the recommendations of that
committee as authority for the house or set them aside alto-
gether. The right hon. gentleman had openly, and scarcely
with decency, observed that he disapproved of the reduc-
tions of salary which his own government had made. He
thought the secretary to the Treasury was not over remu-
nerated; but if that was the opinion of the government,
why had they not acted with respect to the secretary of the
Treasury in the same st.irit as in the MSC of the Paris em-
bassy ? But if the government had thought proper to
assent to a reduction in the case of the secretary to the
Treasury, then they were hound to regulate the other sala-
ries of the office in harmony and analogy with the amount
they thought was just. Here was a govenun,nt at the
beginning of the evening announcing that they would not
act iu accordance with the recommendations of the com-
mittee because they thought it inexpedient to do so, and at
a later hour in the genie evening confessing that they wero
acting in accordance with the recommendations of that
committe

..mittce although they thought them unjust.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the hon. gentleman
who had just spoken must have forgotten that he had on
one night in the present session stated why the government
disagreed with some of the recommendations of the com-
mittee, and agreed with others. That was the principle
upon which the question turned ; but after he had treated
the whole matter, and had explained the views of the go-
vernment, the hon. geutlemaut took it as a matter of sur-
prise that the government had agreed with some of the
recommendations and disagreed with others. The hon.
gentleman laid down the proposition, that if a select com-
mittee made certain recommendations, the government
was bound to adopt the whole, or reject the whole. He could
net see the reason of that proposition, or why, because the go-
vemment had thought that the embassy to l' uris required moro
than .1,000/., they should bo of opinion that a secretary to
the Treasury required more than 2,0001. a year. On a
question of this kind the government had a tall right to
take into their consideration the whole question of the
recommendations of the committee, adopting those which
they thought were beneficial to the public service, and also
adopting others which, although they thought ant bene-
ficial, would not do serious injury to the public interest,
aad to reject—or ask the house to reject—those which they
believed would inflict injury upon the public service.
His belief was that if the mission to Paris had been fixed
at only 5,0001. a year the public service would have
suffered in the diplomatic relations of this country with
France, and that they could not have been conducted in
the same way as when an ambassador was present. But he
owned he could not see the same consequences flowing
Orem a secretary to the Treasury being reduced to 2,0001. a
par. Ile could not say that efficient persons—members of
Mat house—could not be found to fill the office for 2,0001.
a year, which was, he believed, what the President of the
Board of Trade received for his important duties. Ile did
not feel bound to say that every one of the recommendations
adopted in that noose was in itself altogether wise.
When Lord Grey was in office in 1830 Lord Althorp pro-
posed a committee on salaries, and that committee recom-
mended a reduction of the salaries of the Under Secretaries
of State ; but that proposition was only in part accepted,
the salary of one of the Under-Secretaries being reduced to
1,5001. a year. If asked for his own opinion he should say
that for the important duties of au Under Secretary a salary
of 2,000/. a year was not too much. Still he had gone on
making reductions, and it appeared to him that
the government were right in saying with respect to
those political offices with which the ministars were most
immediately connected that they would accept the recom-
mendations of the committee for reduction when no serious
injury would result to the public service. And in the pre-
sent instance they had adopted the recommendation of the
committee with respect to the diplomatic service, because
the committee, having laid down the proposition that
.5,0001. a year was sufficient,' that scale had been
adopted in the embassies to Madrid and Vienna.
Nothing he conceived would have been more pre-
posterous than for the government to have conic down
and said " Here are a number of recommendations, some
of them we think are good, others will not do much harm.
and others we think would prove highly miechiecous, and
we will adopt them all as proposed by the committee ;" or,
on the other hand, to have said " We will reject them all."
(!fear, hear.) They had gone on the principle which be
had stated at great length on a former day, and that prin-
ciple he thought was a sound one.
Mr. V. SMITH conceived that the conditions stated in
reference to the office of assistant secretary ought to be ob-
served.

After a few words from Major BERFAFORD,
Captain MANULES spoke in high terms of the Wants
of Sir Charles Trcvelyan, and said that he had sacrificed
prospects of advancement in another profession whoa he
took the office of assistant secretary. He did not think it
was fair now to turn 'round and reduce the agility is the
face of the treasury minute which existed. •
Mr. DISRAELI must protest against the introduction
of personal matters into a discussion of this kind.- • (lieu.)
It had nothing to do with the question whether Sir Chi.
Trevelyan were or were not a distinguished
Mr. HUME agreed that the personal. aervicei_of sir
Charles Trevelyan had nothing to do,wirls tbemitter. Ile
thought, however, that public faith iboild be kept
riblso sernats.