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

rtain

, but
bad
as
leas)
-ty
'so a
land ;
Irded

G W!1.1

might
sbil'

afore
shed
,xioa
!Ova
were
rge'
ea'

g of
tbo
jpoo

ora
lade

Oble
leb
ken

Md. ..:.

ST. JOHN'S HOSPITAL.
In answer to another question from Mr. HUME,
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to sate, that with
llgarttnrd to St. John's Hospital, lib Learned Friend the
ney-Generaacel would consider which way the inquiry
141111 pl.
INCUNIBERED ESTATES BILL.
B. OSBORNE that as the incumbored
Estates Bill stood for tonight, he wished to know
Whether the Noble Lord would inform them who the
Commissioners were to he.
tkLo nrd JOHN RUSSELL could not at present state
er ames of the Commissioners, because he had not re-
-teed the assent of the gentlemen to whom he had
_offered the offices. He VT a s anxious that the persons
mooed
Were appointed to the post should be qualified in
Av."3' respect for the duties they were called upon to
saseharge.
REMUNERATION OF MEDICAL OFFICERS.
,11r. DISRAELI wished to know from the President
tothe Puar-law Board if the Poor-law Commissioners
d a
rort Come to any determination to increase. tie
0-iinPration of Poor-law medical officers in consequence
,r.etillieir increased duties in connexion with the Board of
He believed the President of the Poor-law
Commission had the power to make an order for
tti,,etrheas2d remuneration. I> would be very sltisfactory
e prVession if the Hon. arid Learned Gentleman
Would state the course he int,-nded to pursip.
a, Mr. BARNES wai understood to say that the ques-
`ll3,n was under the comideration of the board.
:I_ll reply to Mr. MACKINNON,
I.ord ASHLEY stated that the Bishop of London
1"d intimated that interments in his diocese would. be
ntl'Pended if the President of the Board of Health deemed it
4cessarY, and that no resumption of them would take
r tee until it was deemed proper to do so.
INCUMBERED ESTATES BILL.
t M. MONSELL asked what the Noble Lord in-
ended to do with respect to this Bill?
Lord J. RUSSELL hoped to be enabled to proceed
wtth it this evening; but if not, he intended to proceed
With it to morrow:
take
DUNNE hoped the Noble LDrd would not
a;4O the Bill at twelve o'clock to-morrow. The Irish
eibiera Were desirous of confining the debate one
night.

Wording to the
Lord VAN COUVER'S ISLAND.
LINCOLN intimated that it was impossible,
tht:ille
on his Hi . rules of the Hose, that he could bring
on this siih-ct aiin this session. He
fore°i,t4)ll
-eggi.d to withdraw it.
Lord
o (L' rd J. Russell) would not ask the House to meet
f_rroorrow morning, seeing it would be likely to inter-
" e with the eveninr, sitting, when he had is very im-
Portant motion to bring forward, which he should like to
ace brought en and finished.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not suppose that the early
meet iu g to-morrow would extend beyond three o'clock.
46 Ron. Gentleman's motion might come on soon after
five, and be concluded that evening.
Sir W. CLAY and Mr. WALPOLE postponrA their
motions, the former respecting the expense of the new
14onses of Parliament, and the latter with regard to the
48e of Mr. Ry!and.
Mr. lIUNIE had on the paper a motion simiLar to that
orthe Hon. Member for Oxfordshire, but did it of intend
to bring it forward, as he would content hinxself with
supporting the in.tion of the Hon. Member.

REDUCTION OF PUBLIC SALAR
i WS. i
~, 0a the motion for the House resolving tss If into a
'-'oramittee of Supply on the Ordnance estimate sto,
movei s
Ur. HENLEY rose, pursuant to notice,
that a reduction of 10 per cent. be made in all salaries
La the Ordnance department, and in all other depart-
did4ef Government at home and abr
oad. the, sofficers
:not wish to cast any imputation uon t.
Pgaged in the public service. He wasp anxiousrlts
should
oouselde
Cat the parties engaged in the public departmee,
Perform,
qualified to discharge the duties they headdfotor
iiero:ll and that they should be fairly- remune rat
as
e it. services. He wished them to be as well off ether persons in similar situations. In fact he con
tsidered it the best mode to secure the efficient perform-
hee 01 the duties of these offices. He then reeerred to
ter report of the Committee presided over by the Member
44 imme Northamp on. That Committee did not i ee erntmend
diate reduction of salaries, as they were of
I).l:Anion that it should form part of a general considera-
13fonuaotfiotuhse,,,e,.xupsenditure of the country. It was the duty
of individuals, to take a view of their
:ltt.oeincial attairs, to adjust them to an altered state. of
egs- The last time there was a review of this subject
time in 1831, under the Reform Government. At that.
or a Committee was appointed to revise the salaries of
state, particularly those in the higher departments of the
1/ e' and he should therefore call the attention of the
ease to the position of the country to en and now, the means
I.‘.a_l resources to meet its liabili.ies and exciendituHree,
laatls the prices of the various necessaries of life.
Tie . not inclined to trouble the House with figures,_b.uut
fir,,e't st.o. compelled on the present occasion to do so. The pe ,!elhe he should direct their attention to was the ex
venuiture, including the charges for collecting the IT-
irsosuhriude,
nuinanbelBrs3„l
in 1848,
expenditure was 51,700,000/ ; in
;990 000/
and no doubt he should
be ' • kie might be told,
up to the 6th of January, it was
placetold, that a great increase in the population had taken
il in that period, The population in 1831 was
;,000; in 1848, allowing for no increasein Ireland,
" wes
the''28927,000, being au increase of 18 per cent.,
while
le Increase in the expenditure was 14 per cent.,
Stiiletbilt the expenditure bore a ratio of 44 per cent. to
PricreP,t•ilaticm.—(Hear.) Then if they took the average
se corn, f l - the first 14 years, they would
, or at east
End 't t
i 0 b
down at
tlntt ~,, e gout 575. per quarter, and was ,
the "'creent to 455. It was one of the reasons also why
the ratio of the present taxation was beyond the power ot
ine People to bear it, that crime had considerably.
erea3ed- Now let the House see the relation
Which the Pa'pu'a' ion bore with the number of their
etrittenals. In 1831 the population of England (he did
he mean to carry Ireland into the comparisen, in con-
England
of the great distress in that country), but
,ii ogland in 1831 it wes 13,897,000; criminals, 19,64 r ;
eaWhi„ile, in 1848, with it p puletion of 17,497,000 the cri•
iga's were 39 349, bein'ss an increase in the number of
eet'lllinek He (Mr. Heinley) did not attribu buttat to
a y a
'i uenaoraliz4tion on the part of the people, o the
em-
ployment.et of the existence of great distress and a want of
h For his own p irt he never found any period
e ~en cheapness of provisions and employment combined,
thet crime did not deteriorate; and believing that at the
present moment there was cheapness of provisions and
L
e diminution of crime, he believed it was solely from a
ant of employment. For the last ten years the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had a deficient income, and he
Chancellor,
although his Right Hon. Friend, the present
übancellOr, threw a shade over his statement for the
Present year, he would noth. in the end find himself in a
touch better position than is. pr cessi,rs.
ede • The salaries,
as he had said, were revised inand he (Mr. Hen-
-183.1,
would Oh itv that since that time a reduction on. an
average ' cent. at least,tookplace in
average of 20 per
thought
P. that were so, then he
and necessaries of life.
a reduction of 10 per cent.
he was, justified in asking
the Crown. In doing e,e, all 'salaries received from
as onl • re-
distinctly understood )
that, he begged to be
what were called
ter t,
' to those who technically hold
called
„ g
who derived what was
e,Placess" and not those
s Since
their dock-yard .
eZ''s, such as tradesmen in
in every l •t.. ar lc I. •
except the ash stick—(A laugh)—for which sixpencehad
Y ho still demanded ; and articles of consumption
l''aliehenß frien 15 to 20, and in some instances 50 per c,,n.. .
eight Hon Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
euequer said on a recent occasion that the fall of those
Justified
was equal to 25 per cent. in wages, which
Vetified him the more in asking by his motion a reduc-
:eke, oF 10 per cent. The classes of public offices to
"`"ell he meant to apply a reduction were those paid
(i).Ut of
lions, the Public Exchequer, and amounted to five tail-
,:iins• There were the five heads of the revenue to
6„ eel incomes were paid of 1,200,0001 ; the Excise,
5<58.244/.; Stamps and Taxes, 372 1251.; Post-office,
th 2 °(101; Woods and Forests, 44,700/.; amounting in
~...,ftegregate to 2,644,00(4. Then the re was to be added
t°
se several items from the miscellaneous estimates,
Z,,odner the htad of civil service, law and justice, educa-
tri colonies and consuls, boards of health, including a
proneetY °l' commissions, the expense of which were im-
_u,rly charged on the Consolidated Fund, and amount-
',ll,owtot 183,000 e making altogether about 1,191,000/.
i&rartiishsearrei wee,t the estimates for the Ordnance and
the entire maw' 0001,; diplomatic services, 140,0001.;
Lord JOHNI g 4,730 000/.
the the army asked if he did not include
pay of army and navy?
the differentNLE.l7. proceeded with the relative prices of
,It.
taken articles of consumption, and what reduction
!had place. Meat, according to him, had fallen 10
_e 15 And 17 per cent.; bread 25 per cent.; groceries 30
2lsr cent glass, hardware, &c, &c., 20 per cent.; coals
Per
cent; and in cotton goods and clothing, 20 to 30
rrs. nt. The same reductions took place in hosiery,
leor hoes, in beer, and even in locolioEion—(.1. laugh)-
10. even an omnibus took a p,rson now for threepenee a
distance for which
!?here was no good reason why that large class ot per-
a. who received fixed incomes from the Crown should
.I°_t have their salaries reduced. For every employment,
lowers
humble, there was a mass of competition. That
theere.d remuneration for labour. When they reduced
!_
4. price of corn they reduced the incomes of clergym-n;
Ittin now in scarce harvests there could be no rise.
every article the producer's profit Was Cut
ue_ewn, while the consumer's means of purchasing
Was reduced. Those elle wished to maintain the
Public credit must apply themselves to cut down the pay-
leents from the public treasury that could be cut down.
lie implorfd the guardians of the public honour to con-
Sider whether it would not be wise to make a timely
concession of this kind. It might cave an inquiry of
another, and, perh"Pa, a more objectionable kind. To
buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest was
now the principle laid down for acting upon in every
class of society. There was a less p asver in the people
how to bear taxation. The state of Ireland was alarm-
i,hte• The poor in that country were strugeling between
'Le and death, and a large class, hitherto comfortable,
were coming down to that condition. Every farthing
that they could save they should do so. lie believed
this Motion to be just and proper, and should therefore
Wove, "That a reduction of ten per cent. be made in
all salaries in the Ordnance Department, and in all other
departments of Government at home and abroad,"
thThe CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped
at the shouldsea treat this question apart from all personal consi-
rtions.—((lear.) The Hon. Gentleman said that he
included all classes in the public service from the hig,rlnest-
Paid functionaries down to the letter-carriers at 7s. 6d,
Per week.
navy.
Mr. HENLEY—The law excepted, and the army and
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Oh,
then, this is the fine instahnent.—(A. laugh.) The law
and the army and navy were to form another instalment.
:-(ltenewed laughter.) Now, what was the motion ?
That inasmuch as the price of srticlea now were about

the same as they were before the Bank Restriction Act
and before the revolution of 1788, the salaries in the
public offices should be somewhere about what they
were at that period. The Hon. Gentleman had referred
to a Committee of that House in 1831; hut that was at
a time when there was very great pressure from distress
They went through ail the offices, and after taking all
the circumstances connected with the subject into their
consideration, they recommended certain reductions in
the sal cries of the highest functionaries of the State,
after which they did not recommend any further re•
duction, upon the principle stated in their report,
• that to fill thee offices the highest class of intelli-
gence was required, and that economy, to deserve the
name, should be such as would not place these offices
beyond the reach of men of moderate fortune, who, by
the talent and industry which this situation oftener called
forth, were more fitted for these offices, which required
the entire attention of an individual to the exclusion or
his private affairs. Such men should not, by sudden
changes in political affairs, be in danger of being ruined;
and he suspected that if they examined the
annals of the country, they would tind that
a large ponies of those officers had been ruine 1.
Thet Committee had reduced the salaries of the highest
paid officers of the State, including the First Lord of the
Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Se-
cretaries of State, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the
President of the Board of Control. The salaries of the
highest paid officers were reduced by a thousand per an-
num, and some public officers were entirely cut off. The
Committee compared the then salaries with what they
were before 1780, and after considering all circumstances,
fixed a permanent rate of salary. It should also be
taken into cot ,ideration that a further reduction had
been made in all salaries. above 1501. per annum,
by the imposition of an income-tax. That tax made
a material reduction in the salaries of the great body of
persons who would be subject to the reduction proposed.
The general run of persons were paid lower in propor-
lion than persons employed in similar occupations in
private life. They had not refused to make any roduc•
Lion in the number of persons employed in the public
service. In one department of the revenue alone a re-
duction of two thousand persons had been made, and
wherever it was possible they were making similar re-
ductions. lie did not undyretand the principle upon
which the Hun. Gentleman wished to proceed. Now, he
might observe that the - low rate of pay exposed the
officers in the Revenue departments to great temptation.
—(Hear, hear.) Postmen and other persons similarly
employed should not be too much underpaid, as it ex-
posed them to temptations which it was desirable for the
public protection that they should not be exposed to.
lie did not think that because purchases might be made
at a low rate that it would be deSirable to reduce sala-
ries, because that would be laying down the principle of
fluctuation in the amount of salaries, and be making them
dependent upon the price of articles of consumption,
which he believed would be most prejudicial in practice,
injurious to the country, and in the end a more ex-
pensive system than that now in operation. Ile should
not, therefore, feel it necessary to fellow the Hon. Gen-
tleman through his mass of figures, but upon these
grounds state that he felt it to be his duty to oppose the
motion.

Mr. NE WDEGATE said that he felt great pleasure in
supporting the motion of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Henley)
There had oeen a reduction in the price of labour in the
country, and in the price of articles of clothing ate] con•
sumptien, and the difficulty of obtaining emiloyment ha
increased, arid therefore he thought that the hel !era of
the high official situations under the Crown should not
continue to receive the same amount of salaries which
they did under another and better state of things. It
the change in the monetary and commercial policy of
the country had been a slight or temporary one, he could
have understood the argumeui-, of the Chancellor of the
Excheqaer, but after the change in 1844, and that in
1846, both of which tended permanently to depress the
prices of a large interest, some great and decided reduc-
tion was absolutely requirtd. It, was said that salaries
had been definitely fixed in 1831, But had the reduc-
tions then made borne any proportion to the reductions
in prices during the same time ? With reference to that
point, he must refer to what had recently
passed in the House on the subject of official
and declared value. The Right lion. Gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of this as a
fanciful distinction, and the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R.
Peel) said, " Oh, that was Alderman Waithman's
view." IVho Alderman Vaithman was he did not
know; but the difference between official and declared
value was simply, that official value was fixed 150 years
ago, and had never varied since; it was simply a mea-
sure of quantity, while the declared value was the market
price of the goods. In 1811 and 1818, the official and
the declared value were as nesarly as possible at par, or,
in other words, the prices affixed to the goods, and that
realised were equal, but from that period an alteration
took place, a depreciation in market value began. In
1820 it amounted to 3,-} per cent. In the four years from
1829 to 1832, this discrepancy had increased, and the de-
precia ion amounted to 41i per cent., while late returns
showed it to be 56i pee cent., though, as h- was prepared
to show from tables, the declared value was rated
even higher than the price actually realised, and the real
depreciation was 63 per cent. •He therefore approved of
the principle in his Hon. Friend's motion, that a per-
centage should be taken from all salaries, in proportion
to the depreciation which had taken place in the value
of every other kind of labour.—(Hear, hear.) He indi-
vidually did not approve of the policy which had led to
the result—(Hear, hear)—on the contrary, he had op
posed it ; but he did say this, that if the country as a
whole was to be made poorer—if labour was to be paid
lower than before—let the principle apply to all and not
to few, or to any particular class.—(Hear, hear.) This
subject had been studiously ignored, and banished from
the !louse. Then, at best, men did not dare to touch
it, but it was well understood throughout the country,
and ho was certain that ere long a monetary and a
commercial change would be forced upon them of a
character which few persons dreamed of in that
House. Their system was one of impoverishment. It
made the poor man poorer, and the rich richer. The
returns of the income-tax showed that the number of
per,,ons possessing 15,0001. a year had been reduced by
1,481 since 1846.—(Hear.) He should cordially support
the motion.

Mr. V. SMITH said, as a Member of the Committee
referred to by the Honourable Member (Mr. Henley),
he could say that he had so far correctly stated the
views of the Committee, but he must add, that he indi-
vidually held that the House of Commons should urge
up ,n her Majesty's Ministers the propriety of snaking
not a sudden and sweeping reduction—(Hear, hear)—
but a careful revision of all the offices, and, having
done so, to cut down salaries wherever necessary and
just.—(Hear, hear.) In that way he thought very
great savings could have been effected— (Hear, hear)
—but the Honourable Gentleman shrunk from that
laborious process, and proposed summarily to deci-
mve the incomes of all persons, without rtoerence
either to their services, or th.ir incotnes. Could
thing be more unjust than such a coursea?ny-
(Hear, hear.) At the same time, he admirted there
were many grounds for such a motion. As an instance
of the anomalies which he thought existed, he might
men don the large salaries paid to the Secretaries of the
Treasury and Admiralty, 2,5001. a year, while other
officers more important in their duties, like that of Pre
sident of the Poor-law Commissioners, were much lower
paid.—(Hear, hear.) In that case, however, they bed
gone into the market, and got the best talent they could
for so important an office, and it would be most unjust
now to cat down the salary they had agreed to give. As
to the Committee 01 1831, the transactions of that period
took place under a very peculiar state of things; many
of the great Officers of State having in fact offered to
agree to reductions of their own salaries. He must.
however, say, that in his opinion, the Hon. Gentleman
deserved the thanks of the House for bringing forward
the motion. Unfortunately, with all-the boast of eco-
nomy with whica the session opened, there had been
fewer debates on these topics than in any other session
since he had sat in Parliament. There had been many
recommendations made by the Select Committee on
Miscellaneous Estimates, which had not been attended
to. For instance, he did not see why the expenses of the
Postmaster-General's office, and the Tithe Commission,
should not be brought before the House. With respect.
to the salaries of the higher officers of state, the Hon.
Gentleman bad quoted many facts as reasons for re-
ducing them which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
not answered, because they were in fact unanswerable.
—(Hear.) These reductions in price had taken place,
they could not be denied. But then the settlement of
1831 was pointed to. Why, at that time the Right
Hon. Gentleman would have to run down to his
country house in a chaise and four; whereas he now
took his day ticket on the rail like any other man, and
if the saving thus effected was calculated, it would be
found not 20 per cent., but 200 or 300 per cent. In nu-
merous other directions, if the subject was carefully re•
viewed, it would be found that after making ample
allowance for the dignity of a high officer of the state,
the salaries now paid them were more valuable than in
1831 ; and if the Honourable Member had confined his
motion to these salaries, he, for one, should
have been ready to
give him his support.—(Hear.) But
he could not vote for a motion which indiscriminately
sought to reduce the incomes of all the servants of the
state. There were large 'numbers of them, he thought,
too poorly paid considering the duty they had to per.
form.—(Haar, hear.) Besides, in order to obtain these
situations they had given up others, they had made all
their arrangements on the faith of the engagements
entered into with them by the Governtnent. Many of
them had insured their lives, and in other modes still
further diminished their limited incomes, on the faith
that they would continued to be paid, and he for one
believed that the House of Commons, however econo-
mical it might be, would not be b 0 at the expense of a
laborious and useful body of public servants.—(Hear,
hear.) For these reasons, therefore, while he agreed
with the general object of the Hon, Member, and would
be happy to aid in effecting any practicable reductions,
he could not concur in voting for a motion which, from
various indications on the Opposition benches, he could
not help looking upon as meant to punish (if it were car-
ried) the Ministers for having been successful with a
commercial policy to which they were opposed.
Mr. ROEBUCK rose to say a very few words on the
motion, because he did not mean to vote upon it.—(A
laugh.) Why that was a very good reason for speaking.
—(A laugh.) He objected to the motion that it was an
unjust one. It was what had been called a flash in
Ithe pan."
The Hon. Gentleman never meant it to be
carried. It wasoposed, because certain measures
I which had been carried in that House, such as the repeal
' of the corn-laws, had made things cheap, and it was
thought that it would be a good blow at Ministers in re-
taliation to cut down their salaries. He asked the House
it it could vote for such a motion?—(Hear, hear.) If
the Hon. Gentleman had come and said. here is a thing
that is unnecessary, abolish it; here is a place overpaid,
he
would have voted for him • but when he came and said
all salaries were to be reduced' 10 par cent., he could not
do so. He would ask, were all the working servants
of the Government overpaid?—(Hear, hear.) It that
was not the one, would not the reduction of 10 per

cent. be a great injustice to them?—(Hear, hear.) If,
as the Honourable Gentleman appear,,d disposed
to do, they left the - great officers of the state un-
touched, and cut down the lower paid officers, be would
say shame upon the House of COMILVMS, or the Govern-
ment that could do so. But the Hon. Gentleman drew
a distinction between potent offices and place holders.
He excepted the Lord Chancellor with his large salary,
because his was a patent offic,,, while he would cut down
the poor letter, carrier with 12s. 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 lie. 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 dudes attached to any of these offiiies, let them
be abolished at once.—(Cries of " Hoar.") He tre:.ted
the labourer of the state just as he tr:.ated all other
Ldeourers, and ho said the labourer was worthy of
his hire. In the proposal before the House Le could not
assent, fur he regarded it as unjust in principle. He
objected to reducing all public salaries at the rate of 10
per cent., because he considered that s:mm? were under-
pail while others received exorbitant salaries. If the
Hon. Gentleman cemmencf'd with attacking the high
officers of the state, the Lords of the Household and
Ladies of the Bedenatnb:,r, for instance, he would be
certain of gaining more popularity than by hi; present
motion, which proposed to interfere with the salaries of
the poor letter-carriers, a class of men who, fur roost
responsible and important duties, were ill requited, and
ought not on any principles of justice or ground of
economy to be deprived of any portion of the stipend
now allowed them. On 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 of pledging the House to a recogni-
tion of economic 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 th© 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
opposiLe side of the House. 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 lighten 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 eith 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 hid 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 bad 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, net now b ing in a position to do so,
he would support the proposition of the lion. Gentleman
opposite, although he did not approve of it entirely. The
extravagances of society ought to he brought down, so
as to prove beneficial to the public expenditure. He
thought that lawyers were about the most overpaid class
iu the country, and in his opinion there was no situation
more extravagantly remunerated than that of the Lord
Chancellor, wan all his patronage. It their inc,tmes wet e
brought do wia,aq public establishments would be affected,
the Bishops thong the number;. for the public money
that paid the Bishops ought to receive an equal
amount of protection as any other public money. The
Judges, too, were overpaid. The diplomatic services
were overpaid; and he contended that, with due regard
to their efficiency, they could be considerably reduced.
It the motion were carried, it would be a pledge to the
country that 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 lion. Member who submitted the proposition
for their consideration. _ _

Mr. HERRIEi felt himself compelled, on what he
considered grounds of justice, to record his vo:e in op-
position to the motion. Having briefly adverted to the
grounds on which the Hon. Me.i.br for Montrose de•
Glared 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 v. ell to remark
that the average rate of salary in the Customs and the
Excise was 101/. 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 143,0001. paid to the heads of departments, a reduc-
tion had been made of 21,0001. In 1815 it appeared
that 27,365 persons were employed iu all the depart-
ments of the public service, and their salaries 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 till salaries had been reduced
2,786,000/, showing that the reduction in salaries had
been in greater proportion than the reduction in a.e
number of persons.—(Edear, hear.) If his Hun. 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, end with the
labour performed, he (Mr. Herries) sould have sup-
ported it, but it was impossible not to admit that the
men to whom he had alluded, the bulk of the public
servants, performed their duties with a fidelity as d cor-
rectness which invited all praise—(Hear, hear)—and ho,
therefore, c uld not sanction the motion as regarded
such men, and he was more confirmed in the opinion
he had expressed when he remembered that, as com-
pared with France, a fewer number of persons were em-
ployed in the public departments of this country, and at
far less expense.— (Hear, hear.) He f..und, by a report
made by the Minister of Finance in France, that vi bile
in ihiscountry the revenue was collected at an expense
of 61 per cent., the coilk ction 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
ho were employed in the collection. Under the cir-
cumstances of the ca,e, he felt he could not support the
motion of his Hon. Friend.

MUNTZ was of opinion that the motion before
,he House was of far greater importance than Hon.
Members seemed disposed to c,,nAder it. People
throughout the country thought that while so man) were
suffering, it was not consistent or lair that the incomes
of Mitusters should undergo no reduction. It was noto-
rious that all those who had fixed salaries had gained by
ne-
cessaries, lie wanted to
eoskirilLit,omeiw,
the thongs which had taken place in the prices of ne-
f
jus
e a whatuedr presente ih ei principlestinorcpoc profits
and d
p:
tcchet,,otmor continuehasns honesty
tradersti hnt
ahpie:drr parties
workmen
hnt.
wdne
and wages were not reduced?—(Hear)—and if that were
the case, why should not the salaries of the public ser-
vants also be reduced?—(Hear) The peopha out of
doors were taking the present motion as a test of the sin-
cerity of that flouse, being of opinion, as they were,
that the salaries alluded to ought to be reduced in
the same proportion that they had been in their incomes.
Articles of all kinds had been reduced in price—some of
11,,m so much as thirty per cent.; and why should not
he salaries of her Majesty's Ministers also be reduced?
In his own manwactory he should be ut t:o loss how to
,et; and a Government nvglit be looked upon as a large
manufactory.—(A laugh.) lie saw no re4son why the
commercial principle should not be applied to it, and
salaries of i
the servants of the public reduced n a
proper proportion.—(tlear, hear.)

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said those Hon. Gentlemen
who had supported the motion had treated the proposed
reduction as being one which it was desirable to make.
He did not think, however, 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 labt addressed the
House (Mr. Muntz) had stated it to be his opinion that
they ought to reduce the public salaries in proportion to
the reduction which had taken place in the price of
other things.—(Hear, hear.) But, in fact, the salaries
of the hi=h officers 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 ho had referred to ha I been in operation.
The Noble Lord then alluded to the proceedings of the
Committee in 1831 and 1833, on the subject which was
now before the House, and said that the' Committee
had fixed the salaries of Ministers below what those
salaries were in 1783. The Hon. Gentleman ought to
see in what confession 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,
seere ee xt
sarmy p loef,
Statethe
for
•othfehilsiolmt eg aorntiht .mFriend
h ti
chhe
itw ansoitnqbueiruenjd unjust
to lasttumeddle year,edde andwi
tsbaltanrieems fixneodw, and would
(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 150 L each, atAl 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 Home-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 5,0001 a year for life should not be exempted,
while a clerk with 801. held only de-ring pleasure, should
have les salary reduced. The Hon. Gentleman also
omitted the army and navy; but if he went into the
cost of provisions, of chairs and tables, and beds, he did
not see why the military and naval services should be ex-
empt, and the civil portion of the community not exempt.
He believed that such an attempt, if made in the army,
would be attended with extreme danger; and he 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•
afewprlofp3ouerlapdmerer n
ed with real ability. But to make a
lead
tond t
b.
t, tmh
dr
noteei
ffi
cf
touorl t
bii
ene
sc o
umas
nte. t a
iHxn ,
eeandli
ci fear
vobeml
de
rtthiheiedses ust
nwca reduction of
n, op
o
d
confusion; and he hoped, therefore, the House would not
agree to it.
Mr. WODEHOUSE should support the motion. Ha
protested against that doctrine which held they should