The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-10 00:00:00

pay for their seats. Was it for the private interests or ad-
vantage of Hon. Members that the papers of the House
were delivered to them, or was it for the interest of the
public ? No one would maintain the former. Why, then,
pay for them ? If they were to be payed for, the House
should come to a resolution on the subject ; but until then,
acting on a high principle—( Laughter)—he should refuse to
pay for them.
Sir R. H. INGLIS hoped that the House would not be
led to believe, by the eloquence of Hon. Members, that the
question was one of public economy.—( Hear, hear, from the
Opposition Benches.) Hon. Members were called on by the
resolution to save their own pockets alone, and nothing more.
It might be right or it might be wrong, but that was not the
question. The fact was, the resolution—divested of all its
accompaniments--would only have the effect of saving the
pockets of individuals, and not of benefitting the public in the
slightest degree.
Mr. KEARSLEY (we believe) said, when the Hon. Mem-
ber for Salisbury pays his arrears I shall consent to support the
motion, but not till then.—( Laughter. )
Mr. B. BARING begged that the House would understand
the true state of the case. It was not, as the Hon, Baronet
had stated, to enable Hon. Members to save their pockets that
this motion was brought forward ; but in pursuance of the re-
commendation of the Committee, that a revision of the whole
system on which the officers of this House received remune-
ration should be effected with the least possible delay. Whew
the public saw most respectable individuals, with duties fully as
responsible, and yet with salaries and allowances cut down year
after year, they might be expected to criticise with some se-
verity any favouritism or inconsistency which the House might
be inclined to exhibit to their servants.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
He believed there were no other public duties better paid for
than those which it fell to the lot of the officers of that House
to discharge ; yet, for his own part, he felt disposed to advo-
cate their interests (in any new artangement affecting them)
with all possible tenderness and care. It had been stated that
the fixed salaries of the two door-keepers were 1,100/. and 6001.,
an allowance already so ample that it might be seriously asked
on what grounds the House would be justified in refusing to
deal with their extra allowances according to the recommenda-
tion of the Committee. They would get little credit for a
desire for financial economy and reform in other branches of
the public service, if they shrunk from looking into the •alarie.
of their own servants.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that hie
Hon. Friend well deserved the thanks of the House for urging
his motion, founded, as it was, on the unanimous advice of the
Committee. It was now an acknowledged object in every step
of financial reform to get rid of these disgraceful fees, and
the principle should not be allowed to be arrested in a case
thus brought home to the door of the House of Commons
itself.—( Hear. )

Mr. G OULB URN thought that it was not a question
that came strictly within the legislation of the House. It
was rather one of personal accommodation of individual Mem-
bers. The doorkeepers were in the habit of undertaking
various duties not incumbent on them, and taking trouble and
attention in a variety of matters which Hon. Members ought
to attend to themselves. They separated papers and kept
them distinct for Hon. Members, who, if they did not like
the trouble of keeping their own papers in order, ought to have
no objection to gyve proper compensation to those who did.
He knew something of the feelings of clerks in public offices ;
he knew that they were a class of men not less devoted to the
interests of the public than those two individuals who offi-
ciated at the door of that House, and he thought himself
warranted in assuring Hon. Members that those individuals
would not as a class feel hurt in any respect at any gratuities
which the doorkeepers of that House might be permitted to
receive for their extra endeavours to accommodate Members of
Parliament in the despatch of their business. For himself, he
would say, that he did not object to any regulations which the
Hon. Member might introduce for the better regulation of the
offices of the House of Commons, but he did object to the spe-
cific proposition which would prevent him giving a gratuity to
any officer if he pleased, when he thought be deserved it by
attentions independent of his duty.
Mr. RUSSELL thought the most desirable and respect-
able way for the House was, to pay all their officers completely
by salaries, not by fees, which it appeared after all did not go
to the persons intended, for those who actually discharged the
duties in question were hired, and did not receive fees.
Mr. ROBINSON thought it had been a settled matter
that these officers should be paid by salaries. The present
mode was very objectionable. Some Members paid large
fees, some small, and some none at all, and were now largely
in arrear.
Mr. O'CONNELL said Hon. Members ought to be ex-
ceedingly cautious in deciding the matter either way, lest they
should by one course establish a bad precedent by indulgence,
or on the other hand lean hard on those persons who so meri-
toriously performed the duties which devolved on them as door-
keepers of that House. There was no question that they
should receive a " fair and adequate remuneration ;" but as
there might hereafter arise one on the point in what this fair
remuneration should consist, he thought it only just to the
parties to come to the understanding that it should be taken to
mean an equal amount to what they received at present. If
any doubt existed in a case of this kind, which certainly was
one that required to be dealt with (in the conflicting opinions
apparent to the House) with some degree of delicacy, be waS
inclined to give the parties the benefit of it, and not injure thern
or their families by a too strict interpretation of the point of
economy which might be applicable to their case, and he would
therefore say, let them have the full amount for life. The onif
question was,!from what fund it should come. Were the ques-
tion to come before the House anew he would vote against it,
but they must take the case as they found it, with all its elairOs
attaching.
Colonel CONOLL Y agreed with the Hon. Member, and,
where all concurred in hearing testimony to the efficiency and
propriety of conduct which distinguished the officers of the
House, he was surprised that Hon. Members should, notwith-
standing, think it worth while to spend so much time in econo-
mising in the matter of fees, which did not altogether come to
more than about 61. on each Member.
Mr. WARBURTON condemned the present system of
fees, as not only inconsistent with the progress of reform in
similar matters in other departments, but as most irregular M
its working amongst Hon. Members. Some paid nothing
whatever—some refusing from principle, some perhaps from
economy or caprice ; some paying one guinea, some two,
perhaps and those who did pay acquiescing from an idea Of
custom, instead of any settled rule or order of the House-
The whole proceeding had an indescribably shabby appear-
ance; and it wrs not the less scandalous in the eyes of re-
flecting men, when they compared the amount which was thus
allowed to be accumulated by an individual in the capacity of
doorkeeper with that awarded by the State to a Lord of the
Admiralty. The latter was allowed 1,0001. a year, the former
was, by the indulgence of that House, in the receipt of 1,100/-
a year, and sometimes 1,100/. the half year, if the session
should only last so long.---( Hear.)
Mr. RIC H ARDS argued that the effect of fees was to
make servants pay greater attention than they otherwise
would to those on whom they waited, as was felt practically
in the case of postboys, waiters, &c. The experience of this
was so universal that everybody preferred paying the waiters
who served them at taverns instead of letting the tavern-keeper
pay them.—( Oh.) He thought Hon. Members should pay
their fees cheerfully, and look for the proper equivalent of all
their outlay in the applause that their grateful country would
bestow on their toils.—( Laughter.)
Mr. C. FE RGU S SON contended that the motion was al-
together erroneous, being founded on the false principle. that
the gratuities given to the officers of the House were fees,
which was not really the fact.
Mr. GLADSTONE would suggest as the most equitable
and least objectionable course, that every one should continue
to pay the present amount as his regular contribution to the
effective support of the officers of the House.
Captain PE C HEL L thought the public had nothing to do
with the question. He did not expect or wish that the
public should pay for the care which the lower door-keeper
took of his great coat, for instance.
Mr. HUME could not conceive how the Hon. Member for
the University of Oxford could have argued as he did, if he
had read the report of the Committee. The Committee did
not desire to interfere with the just compensation of door-
keepers, Committee clerks, or others ; but they were most
desirous that whatever was considered by the House a proper
remuneration should be decided on, fixed, and made known to
the public. They had come to the conclusion that the present
system was highly objectionable where a clerk was paid in
the shape of fees 20/. 301. or 40/., for instance, to expedite
a particular Bill through the House.—(Hear, hear.) These
charges the Committee say ought to be specified and pub-
lished, laid on the table in fact, so that every one interested
might have fair play, and not lose the opportunity of conduct-
ing his business properly, by being left in ignorance of the
necessary expenditure.—( Hear, hear.) Whatever the claims
were on the part of these officers, the Committee recom-
mended t hat they should now be laid before the House, and
thence submitted for consideration and revision to the Trea-
sury, where the subject was sure to receive the attention it
merited.—( Hear.) The Committee, after giving the subject
of fees every attention, decided that they were inadmissible
as a means of equitable remuneration. How, for instance,
could it be arranged where there were two Sessions in the
year ? Were the officers to have double fees ?—( Hear, hear- )
In future, however, as it was to be hoped that all the officers
would be paid by salaries, there would be no confusion on these
points. He had been blamed by some individual for a dispo-
sition to be too liberal—(Laughter)—and the fact was, that
the present Report added 25 per cent. to all previous esti-
mates and allowances in favour of the officers:—( Hear, hear-)
He would undertake to say that they should have full compen-
sation, but it must be founded on the principles laid down by
the Committee.
[At the request of Mr. O'Connell both resolutions of the
Committee were again read, to put the House in full posses-
sion of the plan proposed in arranging compensation, and Mr-
O'Connell added, that a Lord of the Treasury (not now in
the House) had promised particularly to attend to it in per-
son, and complete the measure in a way that lie trusted would
ensure compensation.]
Mr. BROTH E RTON declared his determination to have
justice done to the inferior officers.
Mr. T. ATT WO OD begged leave to ask the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to give his word that the officers of the
House should obtain justice from the Treasury in this refer-
ence, and he should be satisfied. He knew from experience
the difference which existed in the result where justice was
to be procured for small fry and for large fish.—(Laughter.
In 1796 the Chief Justices of the King's Bench and of theer
Common Pleas had their salaries raised from 3,000/...13,.,
annum in gold money—mind, gold money—to 8,0001,,r,
paper money.—(No, no.) Well, 7,000/.—(No, no.) ?A
7,000/. at least. In 1796 he was sure the salary was 3,oin
a year. He would now say a word about that Hon. a),`;
excellent man, the Member for Middlesex.—( Laughter.) 13_
did not think it right in that lion. Member to cast his net
as to let the large fish escape, while he caught the little
(Laughter.) The expenses to which Members of that t"