The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-02 00:00:00

CALEDONIAN CANAL.

A vote of 10,000/. for works and repairs upon the
Caledonian Canal was agreed to without discussion.
PUBLIC BUILDINGS (IRELAND).

Upon a vote of 24,233/. being 'proposed fel. the ex-
pense of maintaining several public buildings belonging
to the department of public works in Ireland, and also
fur the purposes of inland navigation, under the direc-
tion of the said Commissioners,
Mr. SPOONER moved, as an amendment, that the
vote should be reduced by 1,2251.15. Id., that sum being
required for certain repairs in connexion with May-
nooth College.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the reduction 27
Against it
Majority
KINGSTON HARBOUR.

A vote for 9,5501. for defraying the expenses of the
works and repairs at Kingston Harbour, was agreed to
without discussion or division.
SALARIES OF PARLIAMENTARY OFFICERS.
A vote for 93,2001 for the salaries of officers and
expenses of the two Houses of Parliament, and the sala-
ries of retired officers, was agreed to without discussion.
THE TREASURY.

On the vote for 57,2001. for the salaries and expenses
of her Majesty's Treasury being read,
Mr. GOULBURN said he could net concur in the
principle on which the reduction had been made
in those salaries. He did not deny that by this arange-
ment a largo amount of money was saved, but it was
very bail economy to save money at the expense of
the efficiency of the departments. It was highly
important that the subordinate officers of such depart-
ment of the state should be efficient individuals, well
versed in the usages and rules of Parliament, but
let them not establish a system which should place great
power and vast duties in the hands of only a few
individuals. It was much better to have one responsible
bead over each department, and spread the duties
over a number of subordinate officers, who
should be entitled to promotion according to
merit and seniority. He therefore thought the ar-
rangement now proposed of reducing the subordinate
officers was au ill-advised one. Under an Act of Perna-
ept, persons who held offices of a quasi freehold nature
c( 1...,%W-04/1/nounty courts were justly dechred entitled to
.: : • . iolliflir tAe loss of those offices consequent can
.1.
~,.. It Att . r 6f the new county courts. The Hon.
,-- 1,111 'lii- e• Id (Mr. Parker), who formerly hold
-.. tie fse re ry to the Treasury, arid now filled
.. 0- _ . ,
- i. , art' tos he Admiralty, was entitled to 1,2001.
, • ' a -yv.r- sa3.l4onog ion for the loss of one of those offices,
but he‘itadi• o accept it. At a tine when endea-
kvolirs there-,Beci made by a certain party to persuade
th.eatbiie, 1 public men were greedily intent upon

augmenting their incomes, it was desirable that a fact so
honourable to that Hon. Member should be conveyed to
the pub:is in a more direct manner than it could be by
the return upon the table, in which the circumstance was
samewhat obscurely alluded to.—( Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thanked
the Right Hon. Gentleman for the notice he had taken
of the sacrifice made by the Hon. Gentleman the Secre-
tary to the Admiralty. With reference to the reductions
which tho Right Hon. Gentleman had remarked upon,
he took upon himself all the blame of the alterations,
but he certainly thought then, and continued to think,
they were quite justified by the circumstances. The
opinion of those best able to judge of the value of the
reductions had been taken, and he believed there was a
general opinion that by these reductions the efficiency of
the Treasury departments had been improved.
Mr. HENLEY said, as we had cut down prices by the
liberal system of policy, it was impossible to keep up the
old scale of payment to public servants. All classes
should ba obliged to take their share of the general less.
As the Treasury was the principal department of the
Government, he thought the present vote presented a
suitable opportunity for proposing a reduction, and be
should therefore move that a reduction of 10 per cent.,
or 5,0401., be made in the proposed grant.
Mr. DRUMMOND said that effectual reductions could
only be made by the Administration itself, and he
thought the best thing the House could do would be to
adopt some such resolution as that which he had placed
on the table, and to say " We can afford to pay so much
no longer.—(Hear, hear.) The reduction of the salaries
of persons in public offices was a matter of some diffi-
calty, and the increase of the public business required a
great number of servants, especially in the higher de-
partments. Ho considered the proposed reduction
merely a drop in the ocean; bat acting on the principle
whic,., he had uniformly supported, he should give it his
support.—(Hear.)
Colonel THOMPSON did not see wby, at a time
when something like a national jubilee had taken
place, her Majesty's servants should be expected to
give up their chance of a participation in the reductions
which had taken place in the price of the necessaries
of life.

Mr. F. O'CONNOR did not know what the public
would think of the declaration just made by the Gallant
Colonel, who, on the hustings was such an enthusiastic
admirer of financial reform. de (Mr. O'Connor) thought
the Government the proper parties to commence with,
and therefore should vote for the proposition of the Hon.
Member for Oxfordshire, than whom the working classes
had no more sincere friend.—(Hear.)
After a few words from Mr. LOCKHART,
Mr. SLANEY expressed his opinion that the reduc-
tion which had taken place in the price of articles of
consumption would not be ;permanent; and, therefore,
thought the reduction proposed by the Hon. Gentleman
ought not to be so hastily made. Many of the members
of the executive were not paid a farthing too much for
their labour.

The CIIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
salaries of the Government had been inquired into, and
remained at the amount recommended by two separate
Committees. In the year 1831, on the motion of Mr.
Ashburton, a Committee was appointed to consider the
salaries of the higher officers. A considerable reducti,n
was reccrnmended by that Committee on many of the
salaries, and they have ever since remained at the
amount fixed at that time. In the course of the last
session tha subject was again gone into. A proposal
was made before the Committee to reduce the salary of
the First Lord of the Treasury, and on a division the
number of votes for rataining the salary at 5,0001 a year
was 11, and for reducing it 2; and he found the name of
the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire in the majority.—(A
laugh.) A similar proposition was made with respect to
the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and on
a division the result was the same. The proposal of the
Hun. Gentleman was not confined to the higher salaries,
but would extend to the smaller ones. Now the Hon.
Member for the West Riding said, the other day, he did
not think the public servants were overpaid.
Mr. COI3DEN—I beg pardon. I spoke of the army

and navy when I said thai the officers-in the service are
not overpaid, but that there or,: more than aro wanted.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the allusion of the Hon. Member had been general. He
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) entertained a strong
opinion t hat the public servants employed in the different
offices were, generally speaking, not an overpaid body
of men, and one proof of this might be found in the
fact, that these officers were not unfrequently tempted
to quit the public service by the prospect of higher pay
elsewhere.—(dear.)
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY said he should vote for the
proposed reduction, considering it a step in the right
direction. He thought a reduction of 10 p2r cent. per-
fectly justifiable, when articles of consumption generally
had undergone a reduction of from 20 to 25 per cent.
As this was a question on which her Majesty's Govern-
ment had a pecuniary interest, he thought they ought
to abstain from voting, and leave it to the decision of
independent Members.—(Hear.)
After a few words from Sir H. VERNEY and Mr.
HENRY,
Sir J. TYRELL remindechhe Right Hon. Gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the inquiry of
1831 was a political move by the party to which the
Right Hon. Gentleman belonged. Ile felt indebted to
the Hon. Member for Oxford for having made the mo-
tion, and thereby testing the sincerity of the economical
school of Manchester.
Mr. GOULBURN said the Hon. Member for Oxford
had rested his proposition on the general reduction that,
had taken place in the price of commodities from the le-
gislation of 1842 and 1846. He was glad to hear an
Hon. Member say that the general reduction in certain
commercial articles had been 25 per cent. He must say
that he had not profited by the reduction, though doubt-
less others had. If, however, such reductions had taken
place in consequence of the reduction of duties, they
ought to recollect that the income tax had been imposed
to ensure against deficiency of revenue, and that it was
paid among others by that very class whose salaries were
now proposed to be reduced.
Mr. BUCK thought the time had arrived for the House
entertaining some such proposition as that of the Hon.
Member for Oxford. He believed that discontent and
depression never existed to a greater extent that at this
moment. He should certainly vote for the proposal of
the Hon. Member for Oxford.
Mr. BROTHERTON said that if a general reduction
were proposed he should vote for it, but he did not think
it would be just on the present occasion to vote for a
partial and invidious reduction such as that proposed.
Mr. SPOONER recalled to the recollection of the
Right Hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. Goulburn) that
the income-tax was not imposed for the first time in
1846.. The question was not whether Ministers were
over paid, bat whether, having by Legislation reduced
every man's income and every man's profit, that class
who had made the reductions were alone to escape? He
should support the proposition. His•only fault with it
was that it did not go far enough.
Mr. COBDEN thought the proposal involved a prin-

ciple which might have important consequences. - His
reasons for supporting the proposition were not the same
as those of llon. Gentlemen opposite. They had rested
the proposal on the reductions in the price of commodi-
ties, which they had attributed to our recent commercial
legislation. He begged to remind them that if legisla-
tion had affected the pricy of corn, it had not
affected the price of manufactures. In fact, cotton
and woollen manufactures were cheaper before their
legislation with respect to corn and other articles,
than after it. The recent commercial legislation had
been of great advantage to the community he repre-
sented, whose condition now was comparatively better
than it was previous to such legislation. It would be
much easier now to raise from them the taxation neces-
sary to pay these and other salaries, than it would have
been if the corn laws had not been repealed. He did
not wish to be thought to give a vindictiie vote against
the Government. The tone of Hon. Gentlemen opposite
indicated revenge.—(Hear.) The vote which he in-
tended to give he should have given five years ago. He
thought the higher functionaries in the civil department
were paid more than they ought to be. He did not say
they should be paid low salaries, or that, because bread
was cheaper, salaries should be low. But, when he
found a First Secretary of State receiving 5,0001. a year,
he thought there was room for reduction without
trenching upon the dignity and hospitality of the office.
More than double the salary paid to public officers in
other countries was paid for simileal services in this.
Ono advantage he contemplated from a reduction
of salaries was the greater simplicity which it
would produce in the habits of life. If the salaries
of 5,0001. were cut down to 4,0001., that sum would be
ample. There was no very great additional expense en-
tailed on a man from filling the office of a Secretary of
State. On the contrary, his whole time was then de-
voted to work; and he had no idle time to fill up expen-
sively. Ho therefore thought 4,0001. ample for a First
Secretary of State, and had no objection at once to re-
duce the salary to that sum. But the Hon. Member for
Oxford had proposed a mode of reduction which he could
not altogether approve of—he proposed to take off 10
per cent. from all salaries. Now, in the Treasury there
were a great number of clerks at salaries of 1501., 146.,
and 1074 as also messengers at 70/. Now, he was by
no means disposed to deal with these small salaries in
the same way as be would with the large salaries of
5,0001. Indeed, if this motion were adopted, he should
propose that the saving be distributed in a totally diffe-
rent way from that suggested by the Hon. Gentleman—
and that it should go to increase salaries that were in-
sufficient. Whatever was the motive of the Hon. Gen-
tleman in bringing forward the proposal, he had done
well in boldly attacking the Treasury bench. In all
probability, if the First Lord had not 5,0001. he would
not get up and say that a Bishop should have 10,0001.
He should certainly support the motion of the Hon.
Member for Oxford,

Mr. SIMEON said it was not desirable that a ques-
iion involving so important a consideration as general
economy in the public expenditure should be brought
forward ir. the spirit in which that amendment had been
introduced, and therefore he should vote against it.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the Com-
mittee having divided, the numbers were—

For the vote 84
For the amendment ... ... 33
Majority
The vote of 25,4001. for the expenses of the office of
the Secretary of State for the Home Department was
then agreed to.
A sum, not exceeding 7,600/, was then proposed for
the offices of the Foreign Department.
Mr. COBDEN wish& d to know whether the Hon. Mem-
ber for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) intended to persevere
in his resolution with respect to that department, or
would give notice of some motion on the bringing up of
the report?
Mr. HENLEY said he thought the best way of ac-
complishing a general reduction of public expenditure
was to lay down the principle for which he had con-
tended. After the decision to which the Committee had
come he would not again divide, but he would not be pre-
chidedlrom taking whateTer steps lie thought advisable

on a future occasion to enforce that general principle
which he sought to establish.
After a few words from Mr. MITCHELL,
The vote was agreed to, as were also the following:—
A sum of 36,9001. for the expenses of the Colonial-
office.
43,0001. for the expenses of Privy Council-office and
Board of Trade.
2,000/. for the expenses of the office of Privy Seal..
28,900/. for the office of the Paymaster-General.
6,626/. ditto Paymaster of Exchequer-bills.
2,700/. for the expenses of the State Paper office.
3,540/. expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commission of
England.
A vote of 240,000/. to defray the expenses of the ad-
ministration of the poor-law having been proposed,
Mr. HENLEY wished to know how the increase oc-
curred in the expenses of that commission from former
}ears ? _

Mr. BAINES said the expenses of the united Ccm-
missions of England and Scotland had been added to
that of England. The only increase in England had
been caused by the appointment of two additional in-
spectors to the eleven already made, and had only made
an addition of 853/. to that item of expenditure.
Captain PECIIELL said he had always been opposed
to that grant, but considerable improvement had taken
place in the system since the investigation into the affairs
of the Andover union. He had intended. to bring for-
ward a motion for an inquiry into an important subject
connected with the administration of the law; bat, as he
understood the Hun. and Learned Commissioner was
himself about inquiring into it, he would not proceed
with his notice.
After a few words from Sir 11. VERNEY,
Mr. FRENCH cendeinned the great increase which
had taken place in the administration of the poor-law in
Ireland, a law which had been forced on the country,
and was considered unsuited to her condition. It might
be said that Ireland had no right to complain, for that
money came from the Consolidated Fund. Now, he
maintained, that Ireland contributed more than her
fair share to that fund. The expenses of introducing the
law into Ireland had been more than in England. He
found an architect appointed at a salary of 8001. a year,
while his assistants had 3001. a year, and their travelling
expenses amounted to over 5,000/ ; now, although that
officer had been sent over to Ireland at the commence-
ment, and had not been very successful in his labours, he
was still retained. In conclusion, he moved that the
item in the votes should be reduced from 35,0001. to
30,0001. (as was understood).
Mr. HENLEY said the travelling expenses of the
inspectors appeared to amoult t•) about O. a day—in
fact to more than their salaries. The salaries of the
Irish inspectors were 7,0001., and their travelling ex-
penses were 6,000/.; and than there was an additional
sum of 6,6001. a year for extra clerics and architects' as-
sistan's. It appeared to him that those charges required
some explination.
Mr. BAINES said that the English inspectors were
obliged to travel at a moment's notice to any part of
their respective districts in which it might be neces-
sary that they should institute inquires. In fact they
were compelled to be constantly on the move, and he did
not think that a sum of 10,7401. a year was too much
to meet the expenses which the thirteen inspectors had

to incur.
Colonel DUNNE said he felt it his duty to direct the
attention of the Committee to the feet that in Ireland
the poor law auditors, the schoolmasters and school-
mistresses, and the medical officers were paid by the
unions, while in England a considerable portion of those
expenses were paid out of the Consolidated Fund. In
the statements of his Hon. Friend, the Member for
iluscommon (Mr. F. French) with respect to the poor-
Taw architect in Ireland, he entirely agr--ed. He ba-
lieved that officer had been particularly mischievous,
and that he had put the country to a goad deal of un-
necessary expanse.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said he believed his Hon.
and Gallant Friend was mistaken in supposing that the
auditors in Ireland were not paid out of the Consolidated
Fund. It was, true, however, that the whole of the ex-
penses of the schoolmasters and the schoolmistresses in
England and half the expenses of the medical officers
were borne by the Consolidated Fond. But in exchange
for that indulgence extended to the people of this country,
it had been arranged that the expenses of the constabu.
lary in Ireland should be defrayed by the public exche-
quer. The expenses attending the bperation of the Irish
poor-law had certainly of late been very considerable;
but that fact might, he thought, be attributed to the un-
fortunate condition of the country; and he hoped that a
large portion of the expense would not be re2iuired after
the present year. With respect to the Irish poor-law
architect, he should observe that be entirely differed from
his lion. Friends as •to the merits of that gentleman,
whom he believed to be a very able and efficient officer.
Mr. SIDNEY said he could not help thinking that
the travelling expenses of the inspectors were unaccount-
ably large. Those expenses amounted to about 23. 10s.
per day for each inspector, Sundays excepted.
Mr. BAINES had only to repeat that the inspectors
had constant journeys to undertake.
Mr. SIDNEY wished to know what was the sum al•
lowed them daily for travelling?
Mr. BAINES—Their actual expenses.
Mr. WYLD said he could not help observing, even in
these days of economy, that there was one item connected
with the working of the poor-law which was much lower
than it ought to be. ll© alluded to the allowances to
medical officers, which amounted to only 150,000/. a
year. In his opinion that sum was altogether insuffi-
cient; and he hoped that some morn liberal provision
would be made for the payment of officers who were en-
trusted with the discharge of such very laborious duties.
Mr. SLANEY wished to know what was the number
of unions in which the system of industrial schools had
been adopted?
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said he hoped his Hon. Friend
the Member for Roscommon would not press his amend-
ment, because any excess beyond the amount that might
be voted would be defrayed out of the different unions,
instead of being chargeable to the Consolidated Fund.
In reply to the statement of the Right Hon. Baronet the
Secretary for Ireland, he wished to observe that the
people of Ireland had already paid more than 3,000,000/.
for the establishment of the Irish constabulary force ;
and as that was an armed force, which saved this country
the expense of extending the military establishment in
Ireland, he thought it would be unufair to place the pay-
ment of such a force out of the Consolidated Fund as a
set-off against the payment of medical officers and
schoolmasters and schoolmistresses in England out of
the public exchequer. He should therefore propose
that the charges of those officers should be defrayed in
Ireland, as in England, out of the Consolidated Fund.
Mr. BAINES wished to observe, in reply to the ques-
' tion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury
(Mr. Slaney) that he was not then enabled to state the
number of unions in which industrial schools had been
established; but he should be Prepared on a future day
to furnish the desired information.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE wished to remind his Hon.
Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell)
that the yearly charges for half the expense of medical offi-
cers,and for the whole of the expense of schoolmasters and
schoolmistresses in England and Scotland amounted to
only 120,0001. a year-85,0001. for England and 35,000/.
for Scotland—while the expense of the Irish constabu-
lary, which was defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund,
amounted to not less than 500,0001. a year.
Mr. J, O'CONNELL repeated that the people of Ire
land had already paid 3,000,0001. for the establishment
of the constabulary.
After a few words from Mr. F. FRENCH,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but no division
took place; and the vote was agreed to.
A sum of 45,684/. having been proposed for defraying
the expenses of the Mint,
the T two o -
Cs hui I i eNg pEi eLc
Le solo u
ofl would b
the
ies s
En ex.d ?
Mr. fIIORNELY asked when it was probable that
CHEQUER said
that all the necessary steps had been taken for issuing
these pieces, when he had found that it would be neces-
sary to pass a Bill for legalising any coin different from
that which had existed under the former Act. Ile had
given notice of a Bill for that evening to legalise the
issuing of the pieces in question.
Captain PEC HELL expressed ahope that the arrange-
ment with respect to the distribution of medals would be
reconsidered.
Sir F. BARING said that the claims for medals by
officers who had been engaged in certain actions were
still under consideration; but the whole question would
not again he reopened.
Mr. SPOONER wished to know whether it was the
intention of the Government to act on the report of the
commission in reference to this department?
Tho CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, it
was impossible to come to an immediate decision on the

subject.
The vote was then agreed to.
On the vote of 7,9961. for the railway department (per
Act 9 and 10 Viet., c. 105),
Air. HENLEY observed an unusual item under this
bead, namely, a charge for newspapers. This, he pre-
sumed, arose from the officers connected with the depart-
ment having nothing to do.—(Hear, and a laugh.)
Mr. LA BOUCHERE said, the lion. Member would
recollect that the Government had undertaken to make
all the reductions possible in this branch of the public
service' and in redemption of that pledge ho might refer
to the fact that while the original charge in 1847 was
176,000 i, and in 1848 10,6701., it this year did not exceed
7,996/. With regard to the question put by the Hon.
Gentleman, he might say that it was thought advisable
that the board should be supplied with railway news-
papers in order that they might be acquainted with what
going on in reference to railways.
was
aTvotes of 12,8221. for expenses of salaries, &c.,
public records;
7551. for offices in ,
11,869/. for the salarsiecso,tlklacn.d,
.of inspectors, &c.;
1,
6,4641, for the household of the Lord-Lieutenant in
der-Secretary's Office
Ireland;
master of Civil Services, Ireland;
larnedlanUdn;
an3sd9, Privy
Commissioners of Public Works, Ire-
-24,2351.
Council Office, Chief
5, 95
66 /2.
If. o r
fort ht
he
Ca 30'

land;
39,000 service,o.vfotresoefer2e7t7J62l.
fowr
perreinttbinegn
andag reedto.
Oathe
stationery,
ea.n oßcytaythoisfomrmea,nsintshteeyadwoofuldthbeeirrepnrdeesreendt
Mr. COBDEN suggested that tho blue books should
mubi
ben
much
aiancpcessible, more portable, and, in addition to
wsc,phi:lhinidneYoterusdenhderstood that a saving would be effcctLd of
from 20 to 30 per cent.
The CIIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said doc-
tors differed upon this as upon othar subjects, but it was
moro rroperly a subject for the c)nsideration of the
printing Committee.
The following votes were then agreed to:-
26,0001. for law charges paid by the solicitor to the
Treasury.
9,0001. Mint prosecutions relating to coin.
17,7001 sheriffs' expenses, officers of the Court of Ex-
chequer, &c.
.10, 3704 lazolvent Dvl.)tors' Court.