The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-06 00:00:00

MAY 6, 1851.

by a tax on a more equitable principle, on the owners
and occupiers of house property.—(Hear.) The House
had also agreed to the resolutions which his
Right Hon. Friend had proposed with respect
to the timber and coffee duties. This composed the
financial arrangements for the year. Now the Govern-
ment would be extremely reluctant to forego the repeal
of the window-tax, not so much on the ground of its
being a great financial burden, as a great social evil.—
(Hear, hear.) The Government, therefore, considered
that daring the inquiry to which they were disposed
to agree, it should be clear to them, that no further al-
teration would be made in the income-tax—in the pro-
duce of that tax—during the year, and, in the next
place, that there should be no burden thrown on the fi-
nances of the country, so as to prevent the Chancellor of
Exchequer maintaining the public credit, and carrying
out the proposed reductons in taxation.—(Hear.) He
thought he was making no unreasonable requirements
when he stated this to the House.—(Hear.) It would
be certainly the duty of the Government, while they pro-
posed to go on with the income-tax as the Honourable
Member for Montrose proposed, to suggest that it should
pass without further modification, and likewise that the
whole revenue far the year should remain secure,
so as to enable them to repeal the window-
tax, and carry into effect the resolutions with
regard to timber and coffee.—(Hear, hear.) He
proposed to ask the House to allow him to correct a
misconception which seemed to prevail on Friday night
in the mind of the Hon. Member for Montrose.
He seemed to think that he (Lord John Russell)
reproached him for asking the aid of parties to
assist him in carrying his resolution who did
not agree with him in political opinions, and
said, fairly enough, that such had, on former occasions,
been his (Lord J. Russell's) own situation. Now, all
he said was, that those gentleman did not agree in the
ultimate object for which the Hon. Member for
Montrose contended. He (Lord J. Russell) proposed
that the question should be submitted to a fair inquiry,
and be trusted that the country would be satisfied
that this tax cannot be made more equal without
either exceedingly diminishing its amount or mak-
ing it ten times more inquistorial ; or if they were
not satisfied in that respect, and thought that a general
modification of the tax would make it more just and
equal, then his Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose
would have had a great success in his motion—a
success which he should not envy him, for he
thought it was fairly due to him. Such was the course
which the Government proposed to take, and he could
assure his Hon. Friend that the last thing which he
would think of doing would be to attempt to evade any
inquiry on the subject.
Mr. HUME quite agreed with the Noble Lord in the
assumption that supposing his motion should be acceded
to, no further alteration of the tax should be proposed
this year. Whatever the result of the inquiry should
be, and even if it should be found that no improvement
could be effected, the country would be satisfied that
everything had been done to remove all the evils of the
tax. He hoped, therefore, that the Gallant Officer
(Colonel Sibthorp), who had a motion on the paper for
the relief of a particular class, would not press it.
He thought the Noble Lord was quite judicious
in his determination of not disturbing the repeal of
the window-tax, as it had been agreed to, looking upon
the tax as a social evil. With regard to what had fallen
from the Noble Lord on the importance of maintaining
public credit, he could assure the Noble Lord that no
man had ever shown himself more anxious to sup-
port public credit than he had ; and in pro-
posing the motion of Friday he had no intention
whatever of disturbing it. He himself should be satis-
fied with doing his best to place matters in the beat posi-
tion possible; and with regard to the Committee, he
should place a notice on the books to-night, and hoped
that it would be appointed with as little delay as possible.
Mr. DISRAELI said that after the vote which the
House had come to on Friday night, and after the noti
fication of the Noble Lord, it would certainly be unfair
to criticize the tax in detail on the present occasion.—
(Hear.) There certainly was one motion, that of the Hon.
and Gallant Member for Lincoln, which was deserving
of the special consideration of the Committee, and,
although perhaps the Honourable and Gallant
Gentleman might not think it altogether desi
rable for him to take exactly the same course
which he meant originally to have done, yet he
hoped that her Majesty's Ministers would take into
consideration the propriety of adopting the principle of
that motion, that the tenant-farmers of England should
be rated in the same manner to the tax as were all other
interests. With regard to the statements which
the Noble Lord had made on the importance
of maintaining public credit, Honourable Gentlemen
on that side of the House had certainly always
shown extreme anxiety to fulfil that paramount
duty, and with that view he assured the Noble Lora
that Hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House
would feel it their duty to consider the remainder of
the financial propositions of the Government
entirely in a new light, and with reference to the
new position in which they were placed by the
vote which the House had come to. With regard to
what had been said by the Noble Lord as to the con-
trariety of views which were entertained by
Gentlemen on that side of the House, and those
who acted generally with the Hon. Gentleman who
had proposed the motion, le entirely dissented from
the Noble Lord, and thought that the two parties
had essentially one common and Parliamentary object,
and he thought the conclusion which bad been arrived
at would be found to be a salutary one, and would lead
to most beneficial results.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not mean to say
that the case of the tenant-farmers was not to
be considered; but thought it was a fair subject of
consideration for the whole House when the whole
principles and character of the income-tax were
to be taken under review. The case of the tenant-far•
mess was one which evidently required attention; but
he thought that the better plan would be to turn to it
when they came to a final decision respecting the full
principle of the income-tax.
Colonel SIBTHORP said that this was a question
which demanded much attention. He never had shrunk
from his duty, and he never would. He had considered
during the last eight or nine years the position
of the tenant-farmers. During that period they had
not received, not only not any fair profits upon their
outlay, but the capital which bad been made upon the
land which they occupied. He was delighted to see
the result of the division on Friday last. He
did not expect to see such a result, but it bad come, and
he believed that it had given a great shake to the Go-
vernment, and especially to that member of it the
Chancellor of the Exchequer.—(Laughter.) Well, they
might expect a second shake—(A laugh)—and they
all knew that two shakes were better than one.—(Hear,
hear, and laughter.) He had never shrunk from his
duty—(Hear, hear)—and neither in the House or out of
the House had he ever forsaken his principles, and
therefore it was that he gave his adhesion to the
principle which had been announced by his Honourable
Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire. What he
wanted to know, therefore, was, what the Chancellor of
the Exchequer intended to do with regard to the tenant-
farmers?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that he could not possibly see what was the,. ob-
ject of the Honourable and Gallant Member for
Lincoln in asking this question. He thought that
it had been fully answered by his Noble
Friend the First Lord of the Treasury.—(Hear, hear.)
As far as he understood it, the question was simply
as to whether the Government intended, through the
House, to continue this tax formore than one year. That
had been decided, and the tax was only to be renewed
for one year, with a view to re-considering the injus-
tice of the tax, and the mode in which it was levied.
Until that was decided nothing could be done.
Lord JOCELYN said that, conceiving that the obser-
vations of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had
quite put the question into its proper light, he
snould, therefore, reserve his motion and his observa-
tions to a future opportunity.
Mr. BOOKER said that be had received a number of
addresses from the agricultural county which he re-
presented, and: all those who had signed these ad-
dresses concurred in the opinion that they could not
bear the impost as it at present existed; but yet inquiry
was necessary, and he trusted that his Hon. and Gal-
lant Friend would withdraw his motion.
Mr. WILLIAMS said that this question had been
put upon two grounds on Friday night. One was
as to whether the income-tax should be continued at
all; the other, whether it should exist fora period of one
or three years. That was a matter of convenience, but
he wished to assure the House that it was not merely as
a matter of convenience that they legislated upon it. It
was a matter of principle, and it was simply on that
ground that he had joined with the majority.
Mr. CHAPLIN, who spoke amidst much interruption,
proceeded to show the difference between the quantity
of flour produced in France and in England from a
load of wheat.

Mr. SPOON-ER submitted to the consideration of the
Committee the propriety of making as few alterations
in the Bill as possible, now that Government had consented
to inquiry. In order, however, to provide for tenant-
farmers who were making no profit or reduced profits
by their farms, he would suggest that an appeal should
be established or allowed in such case. He would be the
last man in the world to take a step which could have the
effect of shaking the public credit; but he was very
much afraid, if the House led the farmers of England to
believe that they were unjustly dealt by, no severer blow
could be struck at the credit of the country.
Sir T. ACLAND said it had become a duty of wis-
dom and justice to allow thisßill to pass with as little modi-
fication as possible, but there was one class who:were ac-
knowledged to be in a state of distress, and some, change
ought to be made in their favour. He, therefore,
hoped a clause would be introduced into the
Bill giving the power of appeal to persons
assessed under Schedule B, either as the owners of land
in their own occupation, or as tenants in respect of
leases.
Mr. ALCOCK concurred very much in what had
fallen from the last two Honourab:e Members. He
did not wish to see the farmer exempted from
paying the income-tax upon his legitimate profits,
but many of the English farmers were making no profit
at all, and it was therefore perfectly unfair and unjust
to call upon them to pay according to the old rate.
Mr. BANKES said that they ought to consider the par-
ticular year this was as regarded the tenant- farmer. At the.
-6:li-ening of the session her i\Jajesty was advised by her Bi I-
/titters to state that the tenant-farmers wore in a great and
peculiar state of distress. The Ministers, notwithstanding,
had refused up to the present moment to offer any alleviation
for that distress. Alter these circumstances, it surely was
not too mull to grant to this suffering class thepoawsersin
ofs en
ap-
pealing against an unjust assessment. The se
might have been good when it was first proposed, but at
that time the tenant-farmers had protection.—(Hear, hear.)
Their distressed state being now universally acknowledged,
he called upon the Government to give them at least the
benefit now demanded. If this appeal be not assented to
now by her Majesty's Ministers, he predicted that it would
be forced upon them.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought that
they were really getting into a discussion of the whole prin-
ciple under which Schedule B was to be framed. All these
questions were so linked together, that it was impossible to
deal with tho one without considering the whole. Lust
year the Noble Lord the Member for Stamford (the Marquis
of Granby) thought that the arrangement under Schedule
B was rather a fair one as regarded the farmers. His (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) opinion was, that it was a
favourable ground upon which to place the assessment of the
farmer. If a reduction was to take place at all, be thought
that it should be made in the rent and not upon the profits.
The tax calculated upon the rent would be reduced far more
than the tax upon the profits. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to
think that the circumstance of one particular year ought to
justify a change of the law in this respect. It was, however,
impossible to come to any conclusion in respect to the cir-
cumstances of any one particular year. He was sorry to see
what the feeling was on this particular subject. He did not
tbi k that they would deal fairly in the matter unless they
considered the whole mode of assessment under Schedule B.
In his opinion it was better either to let the tax stand as it
was for one year, or to go into Committee upon the tax as a
whole.
Sir T. D. ACLAND said they might make the assessment
in the way proposed, but they ought to grant an appeal
from it to the farmers who complained of its iujustice.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
but fair, if they allowed this advantage on the one hand,
that they ought to be allowed on the other to impose the tax
upon those of the same class whose profits extended beyond
1501. a year.
After a few observations from Colonel SIBTHORP,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
thought it was not quite fair that this discussion should be
raised on a question which had been withdrawn from pre-
sent consideration. The Bill should be left in its present
shape, and a Select Committee appointed to consider
whether any and what modifications might be made in the
law. Under these considerations he did not think it right
to suggest any alterations until that Committee was ap-
pointed. It was his interest as much as that of any other
person that that Committee should be appointed as speedily
as possible. Various questions might be raised which were
so interwoven one with another that it was impossible to dis-
cuss them apart.
Mr. HENLEY remarked that the case of the tenant-
farmers rested upon special grounds. The assessment upon
them was for three years, and that being so, he s as sure no
one would have the hardihood to say that in the years 1849
and 1850 the tenant-farmers had made anything like the
sums for which they had been assessed. During that time
the capital of many had been diminished at least 25 per
cent., and all that was asked for now was, that there should
be some means of appeal to parties who had made no profits
last year, or in the present year, against their being assessed.
That was not an unreasonable thing to ask ; and he was
sure the Right Hon. Gentleman would not tell them that
be could not hold out any hopes to a suffering class that
they would be permitted to escape from the injustice about to
be inflicted upon them.
Sir J. TROLLOPE said as far as regarded the tenant-
farmers, they could not permit the Government to have re-
course to the convenient mode that had now been suggested
of shelving this question. Unless some more satisfactory
assurance were given than any that had yet been received
he would entreat of the Hon. Member for Warwickshire to
persevere with his motion. It was very convenient for a
Government to get rid of a question by referring it to a
Committee, and as a proof of this he would allude to what
had happened in the case of the Committee on Official
Salaries, which was appointed last session ; and yet:they had
arrived at the present period in the session without the Noble
Lord telling them what he intended to do in consequence of
it. He told the Noble Lord that they would be compelled to
bring the subject of the tenant-farmers to an issue during the
present session.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL did not consider that the Hon. Baronet
was very reasonable or very fair in his attack upon her Ma-
jesty's Government when he said that the appointment of a
Committee was a very convenient way for them to get rid of
a subject, as if it had been the intention of the Government
to propose any such Committee. The Government had op-
posed it with all their force—(Hear, hear)—and they had
used against it every argument they could employ in the
hope of dissuading the House from adopting any such pro-
position.—(Hear, hear.) and yet the Government having
done this, the Hun. Baronet charged them by saying that it
was a convenient mode for a Government to get rid of a diffi-
culty by appointing a Committee.—( Hear, hear.) There were
two courses which might have been fairly taken on this sub-
ject—the one was, to agree to the appointment of a Com-
mittee to make an inquiry before the tax was imposed; and
the other, to discuss all the modifications which might be in-
troduced in a Committee of the whole House; and having
either agreed to or rejected these, then proceed with the
enactment of the tax. Either of these courses might
reas nably have been taken ; but now the Hon. Baronet pro-
posed, when there was to be an inquiry into all the matters
in a special Committee, with a re-enactment of the tax for
another year, the case of the tenant-farmers as a special case,
and one that should have the advantage of special exemptions.
Why, if this were done for one particu ar class— it the House
agreed thus to exempt one particular class—what would be
more reasonable than for traders and manufacturers to come
before them and to say that in the years 1817 and 1848 they
had been obliged to pay on three years' returns, when they
were, in fact, making no profits?—(Hear.) In fact, if they
made an exemption in favour of one class, they must make
it for another, and they would thus involve themselves in
endless discussions. As it was the wish of the House that a
Committee should be appointed, he hoped they would now
consent to renew the tax.— (Hear.) But the Hon. Baronet
bad charged him with not having stated his views respect-
ing the report of the Committee on official salaries. He had
already mentioned, that on going into the first Committee
of Supply, it was his intention to state what course he
meant to adopt on the subject, and he held at the moment
the report of the Committee on Oficial Salaries in his hand,
and was prepared then to state to the House his views re-
specting it.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE observed that his vote the other night
was that the income-tax should t a for one year, instead of
three years.—( Hear, hear.) His vote had nothing to do
with the appointment of a Committee.—(Hear, hear.) His
vote was a vote with respect to the duration of the income-
tax.—(Hear.) The Noble Lord the other evening had been
pleased to be facetious with respect to the Protectionists;
he had told them that they did not march in time, nor fire
their muskets in order. He believed that the Noble Lord
had by this time discovered that they steadily maintained
their ground, that they marched with a firm step, and that
in their muskets there was something more than blank
powder. (Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. DISRAELI considered the Noble Lord was under a
misconception when he supposed that those on his (Mr.
Disraeli's) side of the House had voted for the motion of re-
ferring the income-tax to a Committee.—(Hear, hear.) He
understood that a Committee to inquire into the income-tax
was a Government proposition. (Hear, hear.) If it were
not he was labouring under a mistake. He did not know
what was the intention of others ; but this he said, that
if a Committee had been proposed, he should pro-
bably have taken a different course from that
which he had adopted. He certainly had no official in-
formation as to the appointment of a Committee until he
heard the Noble Lord propose it that night.—(Hear, hear.)
He certainly had been very incredulous when the fact was
first mentioned, and when he was told that such a course
would be taken he said that he did not think that it would,
because there was the Kafir Committee--(Hear)—it had not
yet reported; and he conceived there would be a difficulty
in naming a Committee.—(Hear.) The proposition of the
Hon. Member for Warwickshire was virtually introduced in
chat of his Hon. and Gallant Friend the Member for Lincoln,
and therefore he would suggest to the Noble Lord, when he
came down to the House with such an unusual proposition
as he had made that night, and which was not very favour-
ably received, that he should now move that the Chairman
should report, so as to enable his Hon. and Gallant Friend
to bring forward his proposition; and then, too, his Noble
Friend could inform them as to what further business he
proposed to proceed with that night.—(Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL remarked that the Hon. Gentleman
had asserted that he (Lord J. Russell) had entirely mis-
taken the view with which the Hon. Member for Montrose
proposed his motion ; that his views were the same as the
views of the Hon. Gentleman ; that he was entirely in error
in saying that the proposition of his Hon. Friend was incon-
sietent with the grounds on which it had been supported
by the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire. In this case he
was in the recollection of the House, and nothing could be
more easy than to ascertain whether what he had stated was
in accordance with the recorded views of the Hon. Member
for Montrose. (Hear.) The Hon. Member tor Buckingham-
shire said that the proposition fur a Committee was one of
which the House had never heard before; that he was
taken by surprise by its proposition, and yet what was the
Hon. Gentleman's motion? It was not, of course, put in
full, but these were the terms in which it was made, "to
move to limit the duration of the tax to one year, with a
view of instituting an inquiry, by a Select Committee, into
the mode of assessing and collecting the tax. (Hear, hear. )
And yet, with these words before him, the Hon. Gentleman
had repeatedly declared that he had the same views on this
subject with his Hon. Friend ; and yet now told them that
he only supposed his lien. Friend was for merely limiting
the duration of the tax to one year.—(Hear.) He now
asked whether or not he was satisfied in supposing that, in
the adoption of the motion of his Honourable Friend, the
House assented to the appointment of a Committee.
The Government had now adopted that proposition, and
now, when it was wished to move that the Chairman should

f report progress, he at once declared that the Government
could not accede to any such proposition. (Hear) In ac-
ceding to the wishes of the House that which he did on due
deliberation, and not without the consent of his colleagues,
he trusted to find the House prepared to meet the tax for one
year, so as to enable them to carry out measures that were
necessary for the public credit.
Mr. DISRAELI said, that so far was the proposition of
the Hon. Member for Montrose from being put to the House
in the terms stated by the Noble Lord, that he found this
motion was in the business paper for that very evening :
" Mr. Hume —To move to limit the duration of the tax to
one year, with the view of instituting an inquiry by a Select
Committee into the mode of assessing and collecting the tax ;
and whether the injustice of levying the same rate of charge
upon terminable as upon perpetual annuities, and upon fluctu-
ating and varying inc mes from trades and professions as upon
fixed incomes from real property, cannot be greatly modified
or altogether removed." This showed the motion was not
yet made. (Cheers.) And what was more, the Hon. Mem-
ber for Montrose had never read a resolution, and had never
referred to it. But he excused the Noble Lord, as no doubt
after what occurred the Noble Lord was under excited feel-
g up
P the report
h
ings.—(Lmghter.) But what he rose for was, was
iforerptotrite
purpose of saving that the proposition of the lion. and Gal-
lant Member for Lincoln was a fair proposition, and he would
suggest to the Hon. Member for Warwickshire not to press
thehis motionHnn. mfeomr theher
fpresent,or Lincoln so
mightthatonhbrri
forwardin
e
had to submit to the House as a substantive motion.
Mr. HT ME said that having been referred to, he felt
bound to state that he had declared that if he carried his mo-
tion for one year, then he would move for a Committee.
These were his words ; and to carry out that intention he had
given the notice which was on the paper, for the purpose of
moving the Committee to-morrow.
Mr. NE
wDEGATE understood the motionand otfhattheit
wason.
a hehadstated it, Committee. At the same time he
Hon.
MemberMontroset n move
for a s
had no hope from a Committee; for he remembered Sir It.
‘Mhiseminbteer to
intention
Peel declaring that it was impossible to levy'thrmers, he reminded the
doing injustice. As to the tenantofa a tax without
Right Hon. Gentleman the
chat]
e lor of the Exchequer
that he had admitted they
were entitled to specific relief—
that he had even made a proposition to that effect, which he
had subsequently withdrawn—that he proposed a remission
of 30,0001. for seeds, and to
transfer 150,0004fr0m the rates
to the Consolidated Fund. But was the Able Lord sure
that if relief were granted the traders and manufacturer•
might ask for a remission for losses sustained in 1847 and
1848? The Noble Lord forgot that in 1847 and 1848, if
such losses were sustained, traders, merchants, and manu-
facturers had a power of appeal given to them—that which
was denied to the tenant-farmers.- (Hear.)
Mr. SPOONER agreed that the motion ought to be
brought forward by the Hon. and Gallant Member for Lin-
coln, and he, therefore, should not press his motion.
Captain HARRIS distinctly protested against the notion
that in voting as he did on Friday night he was voting for a
Committee. To appoint a Committee was to propose to
make the tax perm/Aleut; to appoint a Committee We t 9

enable a Government to get out of a scrape—to throw upon
a Committee the ressonsibili:y which attached to a Govern-
ment, and this the Government had done with the Kefir war.
He warned the House not to allow this subject to go to a
Committee.—(hear.) There should not be an income-tax
in time of peace.
Colonel IBI'HORP said it was his intention to bring for-
ward his motion on the report.
Sir B. HALL observed 35 Members on that (the Govern-
ment) side of the House voted for the motion of the lion.
Member for Montrose with the intention of a Committee
being appointed. Hon. Gentlemen opposite epol=e as if
tenant-farmers were the only persons in the country that
were suffering.
Mr. FRESEIFIELD was, he said, perfectly aware that
many tradesmen were suffering from the effects of free-trade
—they were suffering as well as the tenant-farmers, bu• then
they paid taxes only on profits, whereas the tenant-farmers
paid whether they had profits or not.
Mr. WILLIAMS wished to know whether it was the in-
tenrisn to charge income-tax on the interest of the public
debt paid in Ireland, as well as on the salaries in public
offices? Ile also wished to know whether it was intended to
extend the income-tax to Ireland?
ihe CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER repli,d that
the question of the income-tax being extended to Ireland was
one Sro the whole House to decide.
Sir B. HALL wished the Chaneellor of the Exchequer
would name a day when he might bring forward his motion
for extending the income tax to Ireland.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER declined
doing so. Whenever the motion was brought forward, it
was his intention to oppose it.
Clau e 1, as amended, was agreed to.
On clause 2 being proposed,
Mr. CHAPLIN moved the insertion of a proviso, by way
of amendment to the second clause, to the effect that, with
a view to a just relief of the occupiers of farms chargeable
to the duties under Schedule B, the same privileges of exemp-
tion from duty be granted to all parties chargeable under,.
that schedule as are. ay the 133 d and following sections of
the present Property-tax Act, secured to the parties made,
liable to duties by Schedule D of the same Act, in respect of
the profits of trade, 6 c., in the events set forth in the said.
133 d section.
Mr. SPOON ER suggested the postponement of this ques-
tion until the report was brought up.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought it would be very unwise te
add a proviso to the Bill, the only effect of which would be
to create great confusion.
Mr. HENLEY also urged upon the Hon. Member that be
should not press his motion at that time.
The gallery was then cleared fora division, but none took
place, and after a desultory conversation the motion Was by
leave withdrawn, and the cd clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 were agreed to.
Mr J. B. SMITH moved the addition of two clauses to
the following effect • That offices
. - all appointments to any
authorised to be made by local commissioners of propert.r
tax should be subject to revision by the Lords Corn
sioners of her Majesty's Treasury; and that no appointment
to any office under the provisio of this Act should be made
of persons under twenty-one years.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought his
Hon. Friend had better not press the question, for it seer"'
to him to comprise one of the subjects which the non'
Member for Montrose had suggested as being particularly
desirable to submit to a Select Committee.
Mr. J. B. SMITH begged leave then to withdraw hi°
clauses, being satisfied to leave them in the bands of the
Committee.
Mr. MACGREGOR also withdraw his amendments.
The House then resumed, and the report was erdered to
be brought up to-morrow (this day), on the understanding
that it was not to be discussed.
08t-
The Committee on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was
poned to Friday.
. _

OFFICIAL SALARIES. o„,n.
On the order of the day for the House going into a gym.
mittee of Supply,
Lord J. RUSSELL rose to call the attention of the Souse
to the report of the Committee on Official Salaries, but bie
.
spoke in a low tone, and was occasionally indistinctly hear".
He was understood to say that considerable benefit ha
n
--
flowed from the appointment of the Committee on Official
Salaries from the circumstance of an opportunity being
afforded of placing on record the opinions of - mign9 0
persons of official experience of various kinds, Pet
litical, judicial, legal, and diplomatic, with ress,,Pe-es
to the salaries and emoluments attached to the offices
in
in the various departments. Above all, the Comm 4.,
had had the opportunity of hearing the opinion of tits
late Sir Robert Peel, with his long experience and cast
preheusive mind, on the subject of the salaries of ofhei:4
persons. On the other hand, the Committee, pursuing w "/
was unluckily the usual practice of Select Committeesay.
that House, continued to take evidence during a great n. ra
of then ession, and :id not come to their resolution untit„s,
period when a large portion of Members, wearied Lust The
out by attention to public business, had left town. `,.,1
consequence was, that although the Committee on Officio
salaries was composed of 15 Members, the Committee came
to the decision on its final resolutions when there were 0.;,?;
eight or nine Members present, and the voting majority
amounted to five or six, being an actual minority of the
whole Committee. This, unfortunately, was the practice
with Select Committees generally; but it was desirable that
it should be altered, either by taking care that evidence
°
should not run to too great a length, or that when it did!,
a Committee should postpone the consideration of it until it
re-appointment at the commencement of the following ees"
sion. Having made these observations, he would next Pro'
teed to state the opinion of the Government upon the recom-
mendations of the Committee. It was the desire of the Go'
vernment to defer as much as possible to the expressed
wishes of the Committee; and therefore they had agreed to
some proposed reductions, which, nevertheless, did not seem
to them to be conducive to public advantage, though, on thet
other baud, thy would not be attended' with any grea
public detriment. The report of the Committee, after stating
that it recommended no reduction in the salaries of the First
raceme
Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the
three Secretaries of State, and the First Lord of the Admi-
ralty, proceeded to deal with the Treasury department, and
recommended that the Lords of the Treasury should receive
1,0011. a year each, instead of 1,2004, and the two secretaries
2,0001., instead of 2,5001. This recommendation the Govern-
ment had adopted, and had made the reductions proposed-
The Committee had not proposed any alteration with respect
to the offices of the Under-Secretaries of State. 'With re-
spect to the President of the Council, the Committee observed
that this office had attached to it duties of great importance
as President of the Committee of the Council of Education,
and therefore they were of opinion that the salary of 2,000-
was not more than an adequate compensation for the duties
to be performed. In the next place, the Committee recom-
mended that the duties of the Railway Commission should
again be discharged under the direction of the Board of Trade;
in short, that with a view to save the salaries of the Railway
Commission, it should be consolidated with the Board of
Trade. The President of the Board of Trade, having taken
this recommendation into consideration, had come to the con-
clusion that it could be adopted, and therefore the Railway
Commissioners ceased to be separately paid officers. The,
Committee then proceeded to recommend chat the office of
Vice-President of the Board of Trade should be united
with that of Paymaster of the Forces, and that in-
stead of the present salary of 2,000/. for each office, the
salary for the joint-office should b 1,5001. The Committee
likewise recommended that the office of Lord Privy Se"
should be joined with some other office, and that no salary
should be attached to that of Privy Seal. Another met ID'
mendation of the Committee was that the Mastership of the
Mint should no longer be a political office. The Govern'
ment had endeavoured to comply with these suggestions of
the Committee, as far as was consistent with the public ser-
vice; but at the same time it must be observed that there
were some important considerations -in connexion with these
proposals, suggested to the Committee by Sir R. Peel and
other persons who had had great experience in public affairs,
to which the Committee did not seem to have paid any
at-
tention. It certainly appeared to him advantageous
to the
public service that some Members of tl•e Government
should hold offices the duties of which were not so laborious
as to prevent them from undertaking the performance of
other duties not immediately connected with their own de-
partments. It must be obvious to all persons of "Pe-
rience in public affairs, that from day to day, questions
arose involving the performance of duties not properly refer-
able to any particular departmerit, which, if not attended to
by some persons not overloaded with ocher duties, would
have very little chance of being attended to at all. If that
were true, as a general proposition, at former periods of our
history, it was more peculiarly so at the present time,
owfhtehne theEx orhffie ense
ro,
otfhe
tththeeFiSrsetcrLeotarrlosf SAt ad tme
rt
ahlet
yC, Chancellor
etlhl oart
w
which be had the honour to fill, we. e so much more loaded
busin ss than they ever were before. The quantity of
writing and correspondence—the increase of business of va-
rious kinds in these offices, was so great that it was ex-
tremely difficult for the persons filling them to discharge any
dui ies not immediately connected with their own immediate
departments. It frequently was necessary far the Govern-
ment to consider an .t dispose of some important question
whieh did not belong to any department. For instance,
there was the preparation of the Reform Bill, and the Ines-,
sure respecting the marriages and bareism of Dissenters,
which came under his consideration when he was paymaster
of the Forces. If there were not some member of the
Go-
vernment able, to some extent, to attend to those things
it was not probable—indeed, it was hardly possible—that
such grave matters could receive sufficient attention; but
when they were prepare i the manner he had indicated
the members of the Cabinet were able to consider and come
to a decision upon them. This was one reason which in-
duced the Government to think it would be unwise to abo-
lish pothrteam.
nt offices
Anotherwhie
h reason had notfor maintaining
onerous
tached
these
offices was that it frequently happened on the formation of
all
new Government, or perhaps during the continuance of an
existing one, that persons who had paid great attention 10
public affairs, and were fit for any office, were called into the
service of the State at a time of life or in a state of health
which precluded them from accepting offices that had labo-
rious duties connected with them. At the same time, the
opinions of these persons carried with them the utmost
weight, and would prove of the greatest service to the
public. It might be said that a Government could secure
the assistance of persons of this kind by giving them no-
minal offices, such as that of the Privy Seal, without sala-
ries attached to them. This, to be sure, might be done in
the case of persons possessing e nisiderable fortunes. Men
of fortune having establishments in London might be
induced to accept great offices without salaries, but he
thought the adoption of that course would establish a bad
principle in the public service or this country. It was true
that the course recommended by the Committee in this
respect had the authority of Lord Durham in its favour.
Lord Durham, admitting that the duties of the officeof
Privy Seal sometimes occupied seven or eight
hoursrss eau I day
dagre
nevertheless was of opinion that, if
maintained, t
without salary. The tendency of any change which would
offices
reduce the salaries of the important to which re-
ference had been made would,
be feared, be to make those
considerable fortune. That
offices attainable only by men of
would be an evil. It would throw an impediment in the
way of talent - in the way of men of the highest ability,
who, perhaps, had gained the greatest fame in this or the
other House of Parliament, but who could not afford to
hold the offices in question. It would be mischievous
to the public service to exclude persons of small for-
tune from these situations. There was another con-
sideration which was entitled to considerable weight. Any
one who had marked the course of official life in this
country must have perceived that Offices in the Cabinet
were frequently held by men of other pursuits, who en-
tered into politics with a wish to take part in the service
of their country without entirely abstracting themselves
from their usual occupations and enjoyments. An example
of this kind was the nobleman who filled the office of Lord
Privy Seal, and, subsequently, of President of the Council
under Sir R. Peel's Government—the Duke of Buccleucb, a
man of great fo tune, who could hardly be expected to aban-
don all his previous occupations, for the purpose of dis-
charging the duties of a laborious office. It was a great
advantage to attract men of this sort to official life, and if
the offices in this country were filled, as in continental na-
tions, exclusively, by a class of men who had devoted them-
selves solely to official life, and were called " Bureaucrats," it
would be an alteration for the worse. He remembered read-
ing with interest the remarks of a Frenchman of eniinenee,;4„,
who was much atruck with what helm while atteaktirtol4