The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-17 00:00:00

THE SUN 4 LONDON,

ennt. hQ n gn•nt, ;nilstieo to them?—(Tl.nr, he2.r.) lc,
Yea tll3 y,ourab:o G-nt!tara d c'd
to do, thL v left the gr;-at otneerq of the st,l-.? un.

touched, and cut desert the lower paid efileers, he would
say sliarne upon the House 01 Commons, or the Govere-
meat that could do so. But the Hen. Gentlemen drew
a distinction between paten, ofre!es and place holders.
He exceeted the Lerd Chancellor with hi; large salary,
because 'his was a patent office, while he would cut down
the poor letter carrier with 12e a week, because he was
a place holder; why, it was ridiculous. Then, again, in
another part of his speech. he spoke of the letter-carrier
as a working man, and contrasted his labours with those
of his carter, to whom he paid l ls. a week. But he did
not take into account the superior trust and responsibility.
--(Hear.) He held that a man ought to be paid in pro•
portion to the duties he had to perform, and if there
were no duties attached to any of these Offices, let them
be abolished at once.—(Cries of " Hear.") He treated
the labourer of the state just as he treated all other
labourers, and he said the labourer was worthy of
his hire. In the proposal before the House he could net
assent, for he regarded it as unjust in principle. He
objected to reducing all public salaries at the rate of 10
per cent., because he cen;itiered that some were under-
paid while others received exorbitant salaries. If the
Hon. Gentleman commenced with attacking the high
officers of the state, the Lords of the Household and
Ladies of the Bedchamber, for instance, ho would be
certain of gaining more popularity than by his present
motion, whch proposed to interfere with the salariee of
the poor letter-carriers, a class of men who, for most
responsible and important duties, were ill-requited, and
ought not on any principles of justice or ground of
economy to be depeived of any portion of the stipend
now allowed them. f_4l these grounds he dissented from
the motion submitted for the approval of the House, and
if the Hon. Gentleman pressed it to a division he cer-
tainly intended recording his vote against it.
Mr. DRUMMOND admitted that the motion did not
quite correspond in its terms with his views, but still as
It went the length pledging the House to a recogni-

tion of ecmomie principles, he could not abstain from
recording his vote in its favour. They had heard from
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and from other autho

rities on the Ministerial benches, that the prices of food
and other articles of commodity were much reduced,
but was not this admission tantamount to another im

portant admission, namely, that the reduction consider-
ably raised the fixed salaries of the officers of the state,
with whom the resolution submitted to the House now
proposed to deal. He thought it quite right, and he
made this remark in reply to an observation from the
opposite side of the [louse, that the resolution did not
propose to deal with the Judges of the land, whose offices
were patented, because their salaries were fixed by Act
of Parliament. In his own mind he felt convinced that
they should lighte❑ the burthens of taxation on the poor
by increasing those on the rich, and the motion of the
Hon. Gentleman to some extent recognising that prin-
ciple, he should accord to it his support.
Mr. HUME could not agree with the Hon. Member
for Sheffield in considering the motion unjust, for it pro-
posed to deal with all officers of the state, and the pub-
lic had a right to he served at the cheapest rate prac-
ticable. All his reasoning on that point was erroneous,
and many of the arguments which he advanced were un-
reasonable. If an opportunity had been afforded he
should have proposed a resolution pledging the House
that all future appointments should be made at a reduced
scale of salary, but not now being in a position to do so,
he would support the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman
opposite, although he did not approve of it entirely. The
extravagances ot society ought to be brought down, so
as to prove beneficial to the public expenditure. He
thought that lawyers were about the must overpaid class
in the country, and in his opinio❑ there was no situation
more extravagantly remunerated than that of the Lord
Chancellor, with all his patronage. If their incomes were
brought do wn, all public establishments would be affected,
the Bishops among the number; for the public money
that paid the Bishops ought to receive an equal
amount of protection as any other public money. Tne
Judges, too, were overpaid. The diplomatic services
were overpaid; and he contended that, with due regard
to their efficiency, they could be considerably reduced.
If the motion were carried, it would be a pledge to the
country chat the House of Commons was in earnest on
the subject of economy and retrenchment of the public
expenditure; and, with that view he should give his vote
with the Hon. Member who submitted the proposition
for their consideration.
Mr. HERRIE-4 telt himself compelled, on what he
considered grounds of jus,ice, to record his vu e in op-
position to the motion. having briefly adverted to the
grounds on which the lion. Me !Isar for Montrose de-
clared himself favourable to the proposition, the Right
Hon. Gentleman said he did not believe it would be just
or politic to take any given sum at once from the salaries
of all public servants. It might be as s ell to remark
that the average rate of salary in the Customs and the
Excise was 1011. It was a mistake to suppose that the
present proposition was anything new, for inquiries
had been repeatedly instituted since 1815 up to the
present time as to the salaries of public servants,
and reductions had been made in consequence. Out
of 143,000/. paid.to the heads of departments, a reduc-
tion had been m-,de of 21,0001. In 1815 it appeared

that 27,365 persons were employed in all the depart-
nu:•nts of the public service, and their salaiies amounted

to 3,768,0001.. He had no returns later than those of
1835, and he found that the persons employed had been
reduced to 23,500, and the salaries had been reduced
2,786,0001., showing that the reduction in salaries had
been in greater proportion than the reduction in the
number of persons.— (Hear, hear.) If his Hon. Friend's
motion had been in conformity with the recommendation
of the Committee on the subject—if he had proposed
that the salaries paid to public servants should be in con-
formity with the altered state of things, and with the
labour performed. he (Hr. /ferries) should have sup-
ported it, but it was impossible not to admit that the
men to whom he had alluded, the bulk of tae public
servants, performed their duties with a fidelity and cor-
rectness which invited all praise—(Hear, hear)—and he,
therefore, could not sanction the motion as regarded
such men, and he was more confirmed in the opinion
ho had expressed when ho remembered that, as com-
pared with France, a fewer number of persons were em-
ployed in the public departments of this country, and at
a far less expense.—(Hear, hear.) He found, by a report
made by the Minister of Finance in France, that while
in this country the revenue was collected at an expense
of 6i per cent., the collection of it in France cost 14 per
cent., and the saving in this country was attributed by
the French Minister to the superior class of the persons
who were employed in the collection. Under the cir-
cumstances of the case, he felt he could not support the
motion of his Hon. Friend.

Mr. MUNTZ was of opinion that the motion before
the House was of far greater importance than Hon.
Members seemed disposed to consider it. People
throughout the country thought that while so many were
suffering, it was not consistent or fair that the incomes
of Ministers should undergo no reduction. It was noto-
rious that all those who had fixed salaries had gained by
the changes which had taken place in the prices of no.
cessaries. He wanted to know on what principles of
justice or honesty the parties he had alluded to could
expect to continue in the receipt of their present incomes?
Let them ask traders and workman whether their profits
and wages were not reduced ?—(Hear)--and it that were
the case, why should not the salarier of the public ser-
vants also be reduced ?—(Hear ) The peoplt out of
doors were taking the present motion as a test of the sin-

cerity of that House, "being of opinion, as they were,

chat the salaries alluded to ought to be reduced in
the same proportion that they had b,en in their incomes.

Articles of all kinds had been reduced in price—some of
•hom so much as thirty per cent.; and why should not
,ho salaries of her Majesty's Ministers also be reduced?
In his own manulactory he should be at no loss how to
.et; and a Government rcight be looked upon as a large

rnanufactory.—(A lauc.h.) - lie saw no reason why the
commercial principle should not be applied to it, and
.he stiaries of the servAnts of the public reduced in a

proper proporrion.—(dear, hear.)

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said those Hon. Giontlemen
who had surported the toolian had treated the proposed
rpducti.n as ht-ir,g one which it was desirable to make.
He did not think, hnwever, that such was the opinion
of that House. His Hon. Friend the Member for Mon-

trose (Mr. Hume) usually laid down the doctrine that
the salaries should be reduced to the scale of 1792 and
1793, but he had not ventured upon that argument that
night. The Hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the
House (Mr. Mame) had stated it to be his opinion that
ti,ey ought to reduce the public salaries in proportion to
the reduction whlieh had taken place in the price of
other things.—( Hear, hear.) But, in fact, the salaries
of the Melt officer.; of state were not in the proportion the
Hon. Member supposed them to be. The salaries were
lower, and the emoluments were lower, than when those
high prices he had referred to hal been in operation.
The Noble Lord then alluded to the proceelings of the
Committee in 1831 and 1833, on the subject which was
now before the House, and said that that Committee
had fixed the salaries of Ministers below what tho'-e
salaries were in 1783. The Hon. Gentleman ought to
see in what confusion he would place the public offices
if his motion were carried. Some of them were fixed
during the war, and if the motion were acceded to
great injustice would be done to many. Let them take,
for example, the office of his Right Hon. Friend the
Secretary of State for the Home Department, which
was inquired into last year, and salaries fixed, and would
it not be unjust to meddle with them now again?—
(Hear, hear.) In his mind the objection made by the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford, of
the great hardship there would be in lowering salaries of
1001. or 1501. each, and that, too, of men who performed
arduous duties for those small salaries, was unanswer-
able. Inquiries were made into the Treasury as well
as the Elotne-office. Within the last two years large re-
ductions were made in the offices of Stamps and Taxes.
and he should be prepared to make any reasonable re-
ductions proposed; but to say that a general sweep of
the kind should be acceded to, he believed the House of
Commons would not agree to it. The Hon. Member said
he would not touch the law, because the judges took their
situations for life; but in his mind it would be a just
principle to do so, because a Judge who accepted an of-
fice of 5,000/. a year for life should not be exempted,
while a clerk with 80/. held only during pleasure, should
have his salary reduced. The Hon. Gentleman also
omitted the army and navy; but if he went into the
coempt.
st suteodand hflbiprovisions,
ve td
th of chairs and tables, and beds, he did
not see why the military and naval services should be ex-
empt,caitv
attendedil
suchpw toir
htai
ntemxatttr)tfee
extreme
hope
attempt
nraigml,n,
rua
;di
eiatyniditin he hittee
also
be-
lieved that the true way to make a reduction, that the
only way to act
with economy was, to see that the du-
ties were performed with real ability. But to make a
reduction o of 13 per
rcetn)tilritmhrheoet to h.ut. H
for i tsc;m,e- tax,e believed
his da
the motion would lead to difficulties, and ioextrieutde
confusion; and he hoped, therefore, the House would not
agree to it.
Mr. WODEEIOUSE should support, the 'Motion. He
protested against that doctrine which held they should

do nothing, but leavo things of themselves to come to
rig
Mr. SPOONER, contended it wa4 oF no use telling the
people what tind boca done, or g,;ing back to other pe-
rioos, lice his Right Lion. Friend the Member for S:ana-
fr,rd, in order to see what reductions were mvle. Sinco
thoy had cbanged their commerciAi policy he thought the
privileged classes ought not to be exempt any longer, bet
suffer the same reductions with the other portions of the
community. _ . .

Mr.AGLIONIY I:lievod the motion calculated very
much to mislead Hon. Members, and as to what the
Hon. Member for Birmingham said about the eyes of the
country being fixed on that motion, he denied it alto-
gether. He believed the country did not care one far-
thing about it.—(Oh, oh.) The Hon. Member said that
wages were reduced everywhere, and therefore officers of
the Crown ought to be reduced also, bat he denied that.
He denied that any reduction had taken place in wages.
He knew that in his own county (Cumberland) no reduc-
tion had taken placa even in the agricultural classcs, for
they give the same wages there they gave for years past.
He believed the motion was not a practical one; that it
was too general iu its nature, and he should therefore
vote against it.
Mr. GOULBURN observed that no class of men de-
served more from Parliament than Honourable Gentle-
men who filled the inferior offices in the state, and he
should therefore protest against that class being selected
for reduction in their salaries. In 1821, an address to
the Crown was carried in that House with reference to
the number of public officers, and the increase of sala-
ries since 1797; minute inquiries were made—a great
number of persons were s.,i-,.ranuuated—and yet his
Hon. Friend came down iu IS4 to reduce them still
further.

-....--.
Mr. COBDEN sail that on a former occasion, when
the Hon. Gentleinan brought f ;sward a motion to reduce
the salaries of one department, tn. voted with hitn, on the
understanding that the humi.ler offiee4 should not be re-
duced, but now the Hon. 16,-11;lernan hid gone much fur-
ther, even to the humble two-peony postmen. Now, he
could not he is party to redact, the wags or pay of any
man having twet,,, shil:iags a week. He would rather
augment their pay, ant the wages of the agricultural la-
bourer also, than be a party to seducing it. If he had
confined his motion to the higher departments he
would have had greater success; but he was new in the
field as a financial reformer, and probably he would
have greater success another time by wording his motion
better.—(A laugh.) But the salaries of the highest
offices were overpaid in this country.—(Hear, hear.)
Look at the American functionaries. Had they better
statesmen than Webster and Clay in this country? How
enormous was the difference in the remuneration they
received for their public services. Had we a better di-
plomatist, apart from his literary character, than Ban-
croft; and yet he received only 2,0001. per annum, when
our ambassador at Paris received 10,0001. a year, and
in Austria 9,0001. per annum. These were the class of
salaries that should be looked at. There was also ano-
ther class he alluded to, the supernumeraries. There
might well be a reduction in their number. In voting
for this motion he wished to guard himself against
affirming any principle other than this, that every re-
duction should be effected with a view to the efficient
discharge of public duty. He thought the best way of
effecting this was not by the sweeping motion before the
House, but by subjecting each department to a specific
inquiry. To conduct such an investigation they could
not have a better tribunal than an independent Com-
mittee of that House.

Mr. PACK E said that by the policy advocated by the
Hon. Member for the West Riditg and his supporters.
the wages of the agricultural labourer had been reduced
below the minimum beyond which he had stated he
should be sorry to see wages tenueed. He should give
his coraial support to the motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL, in explanation, wished to say,
lest he had been misunderstood, that all he meant to
convey was—that when objections had been made to
any pareiculer department of the public service he had
offered no objection to any inquiry ; as, for instance,
when objections were snide to the expenses incurred ire
the Home Department an inquiry had taken place, and
a reduction of 3,0001. per annum had been effected.
Sir W. CLAY wished to guard himself also from
being understood as assenting to the proposition that the
salaries of the humbler Governne-nt servants should be
reduced. Ile should support the motion upon the grouno
that some diminution she.uld take place in the large sala-
ries of the of tiers in the higher departments.
Mr. BRIG H I said he did nor, approve of the indiscri-
minate reduction of salaries. Ho thought that wages
from 12s. to 30s. a week should not be reduced. As
to wages generally, he was happy to say that there was
a tendency to raise them, which would be materially
felt next year, as the lion. Gentleman would find. As
for the question before the House, he should vote for it,
and then for the proposed amendment of his Hon. Friend
the Membar for the West Riding.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE said Oct instead of high wages
and low prices, as the Lion. /Limber for the West Rid-
ing and his coadjutors had promised years ago, and had
main promised to-night, they had now the greatest diffi-
culty in getting any wages at ali.—("Hear," from the Op-
position.) He thought the public servants of this coun-
try were overpaid, and the time was come for a sweeping
reform.

Mr. HENLEY shortly expll-4,iued that his motion was
a true motion, and it relatt,d to ss.iaries only, and had
nothing to do with wages.
The House then divided, when them, appeared—
For Mr. Henley's motion ... 102
.tig,sir!t it ... 142
bjorii.y fur going into Committee --40
SUPPLY.

The House then went into Committee of Supply, Mr.
BERNAL ill the Cnair.

Oa the vote of 361,9001. for Ordnance stores,
Mr. HUME said he expected some explanation of this
vote. What did the Government propose to do with
regard to the report of the Committee which had been
sitting so long upon these estimates ?
Colonel ANSON said that he thought that report,
able as it was, would be of little use without the evi-
dence. The House would find that the recommendations
in the report were couched in very light terms, ano
tended to the effect that the Government would take
them into consideration during the recess. He could state
that they would receive the most deliberate considera-
tion, without which the Government could not pledge
themselves to carry out these recommendations. The
recommendations that related to the artillery and ord-
nance, he thought, could not be acted upon, as they
were contrary to the opinions of the Duke of Welling-
ton, Lord Hardinge, and other experienced officers.—
(Loud cries of " Hear, :hear.") The Committee recom-
mended that the number of artificers and workmen
should be fixed at the rate usual in time of peace,
and that no addition should take place without the
express sanction of the House. He could only say
that, as far as this was possible, consistent with the large
works which had to be entered upon, this ought to be
done, and he had no doubt that the recommendation
would he attended to. Then they recommended that in
the colonies in the West Indies and Canada the establish-
ments should be reduced, especially in the smaller colo-
nies of the West Indies; the Government could not have
any reason for incurring unnecessary expenses in the co-
lonies—and he theretere had no hesitation in saying tha,
this recommendation might be attended to in certain
cases. The Committee,. with reference to the large
amount of stores in hand, had recommended that they
should as nearly as possible be reduced to the amount
required in time of peace. •He did not wonder at the
aueount at which these stores were valued, nearly sever,
militone, should have caused the Committee to make
such a recommendation, but when tee large portion ce
these stores which had been superseded, rendered useless
by modern improvements, was deducted, and those only
taken into account which were fit tor service, the quan-
tity would not appear so very large or disproportioned
to our actual wants. If any forced sale of these stores
were now made, it would be must imprudent,
and with regard to the total amount of
stores, it would be remembered that during
the Government of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R.
Peel) and the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) addi-
tions had taken place to the artillery, and there was up
to the present year nothing in the aspect of affairs to
warrant them in making any material reductions.—
(Hear, hear.) At the same time he had no doubt that
the Government would give their best attention to the
subject with the view of effscting every practicable re-
duciion. Lie might say the same of all other vote,
which were placed before the house in the same simple
form which had been recommended by experienced per-
sons connected with the Treasury in 1845. He saw no
reference in the sumwiry aqui respect to the works a:
the lonian Islands, BertuuL, nod other places, referred
to on a previous occasion, by the Hon. Baronet the
Member for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth). On re-
ferring to the body of the report, however, he found the
case referred to first was Bei-nettle ; the sum proposed
for this year was 4,5451., cc nein!), not a very large
one. The WIIC.II sum to be voice for these works, in
addition to tlest already expended, was 60,0001.,
though it admitte
d it might be much more.
Lord Grey, in tis evidence, was in favour of
these works being suspended. But there was a great
difference of opinion, as shown in the evidence of past
governors and officials connected with the colony. That
difference of opinion was, however, one reason why in-
quiry should take place, and he was empowered ou the
part of the Government to say that such inquiry should
be made. The same should apply to the M.,uritius, and
partly to the lonian Islands, ou thelassurance that part
of the estimates, hate though it was in the session, would
be withdrawn, and that orders should be sent out imme-
diately to stop as far as possible all new works. He hoped
that the explanation would be satisfactory to the Hon.
Baronet, and he thought it should be so, because, after
all, the recommendation of the Committee merely
amounted to a recommendation to the executive Go-
vernment to take the subject into consideration. He had
no wish to detain the House by any remarks of his own,
but as the Hon. Member for Montrose had asked what
the Government meant to do in the matter of these re-
commendations, he felt bound to state, on their part, that
the Government were prepared to give their best con-
sideration to the subject, and to lay revised estimates be-
' fore the House next year; and if these estimates did nut
meet the views of the Hon. Member for Montrose, or the
Hon. Member for the West Riding, they could then take
objections to them. Before he sat down, he would just
mention that the Government had already made a re-
duction of 320,0001. on the estimates of this year, and he
, hoped the Hon. Member would ticeept that as an earnest
I of the desire to make every possible reduction.
Mr. HUME said the Gallant Colonel had made a long
statement, but had not answered the question, what was
the number of the artillery? He was glad he had papers
he'ore him, because his figures would be right. He
I ound that the charge for the ordnance was 1,429,C001. in
1834-5, while in 1848.9 it had swelled up to 2,827,0001.,
or clout)), the amount. The Committee of 1828 had re-
cominendel a reduction of the number of artillery, but
instead of that he found that the number had been con-
stantly and gradually augmenting until from 8 369 they
amounted up to up ards of 14,000. He wanted some
explanation of this fact. They were told they had 80