The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-12 00:00:00

THE SUN,

amend the law relative to pleading and practice in the
sup,rior c.urts at WustalinA(.:r.
Mr. PARKER hiought in a Bill to regulAte the dis•
position of the Naval I'r;z- Cash Balance."
The House then adjourned at Half-past One o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

From the Votes and Proceedings of the Howe of Comnusu.,

THURSDAY,

APRIL

PARLIAME TARY VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

Fifty-seventh Clause (Appeal from Barrister's :-.;ecision on
Points of Law) :—Amendment proposed, page 31. line ~'6, to
leave out these words "if he thinks it reasonable and proper
that such appeal should be entertained :" Question put,
" That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the
Clause." The Committee divided :
MAJORITY—AYES, 102.
Abdy, Sir Thomas Greene, John Parker, John
Adair, R. A. Grenfell, Charles W. Perfect, It.
Aglionby, 11. A. Grey, Sir George Pilkington, James
Anson, Colonel Hall, Sir Benjamin Power, Dr.
Armstrong, Sir A. Harris, Richard Power, Nicholari
ratites, M. T. Ilatchell, John Rice, E. R.
Baring. Sir F. Hayter, W. G. Rich, Henry
1 lass,.`.E. T. Henry, Alexander Romilly, Colonel
Birch, Sir Thomas Heywood, James Romilly, Sir John
Bright, John Heyworth, L. Russell, Lord J.
Brotberton, Joseph llobhouse, T. B. Russell, F. C.
Brown, W. Hodges, T. L. Rutherford, A.
Campbell, W. F. Hodges, T. Twisden Salwey, Colonel
Castlere,wh, Vis. Howard, Lord E. Scully, Francis
Childers, J. W. Howard, C. W. Seymour, Lord
Clay, James Jervis, Sir John Shell, R-.. L.
Clements. Charles Keating, Robert Smith, John B.
Cobden, Richard Kershaw, James Somers, J. P.
Cowper, W. F. Labouchere, Henry Somerville, Sir W.
Craig, Sir W. G. Langston, J. H. Talbot, J. H.
Crawford, W. S. Lascelles, W. S. Tenison, E. K.
Dalrymple, Captain Lawless, Cecil Thompson, Colonel
Devereux, J. T. Lewis, G. C. Thornely, T.
Divett, Edward M'Callagh, W. Townley, R. G.
Dundas, Admiral M'Taggart, £lrJ. Townsheud, Captain
Dundas, Sir David Meagher, Thomas Trelawny, J. S. _
Ebrington, Viscount Mangles, It. D. Tufnell, Henry
Ellis, John Manic, Fox Watkins, Colonel
Enfield, Lord Milner, W. M. Wawn, J. T.
Evans, John Moffatt, George Williams, John
Fagan, W. Molesworth, Sir W. Wilson, James
Fordyce, A. D. Monsen, William Wrightson, W. B.
Fox, R. M. O'Connell, Maurice TELLERS.
Gibson, Thomas M. O'Connell, M. J. Hill, Lord Morena
Grace, 0. D. Paget, Lord Clarence Bellew, R. M.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FItOM TIIE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAY

TIMES.—To-night Lord John Russell is to pro-
pose the appointment of a Committee to consider the
amount and character of certain public salaries. It
may, of course, be presumed that the present move-
ment is made with a view to some reductions, and as
offices of various kinds—Ministerial, judicial, and di-
plomatic—are classed together iu the proposition
before us, we may conclude that reference is made
rather to the remuneration generally due to public
services than to emoluments accidentally attached to
any partizuk,r capacities. We may dismiss, too, not
only as groundless, but as wholly beside the mark,
any appeal to the alleged poverty of the nation or the
hardness of the times, as well as all ingenious deduc-
tions as to what the country "can afford to pay." The
country can never afford to pay unreasonable salaries.
As regards the tact there is far more prudence than
penury abroad ; but, however that may be, the ques-
tion of public salaries must rest on its own grounds,
and be considered with reference to the work done,
the talents required. the returns exacted, and, of
course, the relative value of that currency through
the medium of which recompense is given. No
riches can justify extravagance; nothing short of fair
wages can command fair services. if any of the
salaries appear high, it should be recollected that
they are the great prizes of a life, and owing to the
vicissitudes of party and the chances of competition,
are rarely enjoyed beyond very short periods, and at
long intervals, though the work continues all the
while without intermission and in behalf of the coun-
try still. For, according to our theory of constitu-
tional government, the leader of au Opposition is dis-
charging a public duty no less than the leader of an
Administration, and in the eyes of one section of the
people, even more meritoriously. Many persons
think that Mr. Disraeli's services are to the full as
beneficial as Lord John Russell's; and yet
Mr. Disraeli's compensation from the Exchequer
may be deferred for a considerable time, and
acquired ultimately upon a very brief tenure.
Indeed, if we take the most conspicuous ex-
ample of success in this profession and dis-
tribute the aggregate income received during
periods of office over the whole time spent in training
for it, we doubt whether the average stipend would
equal that expected from ordinary success in any
liberal vocation. There are places, however, both in
and out of the Cabinet, to which no such acknow-
ledgments can apply ; but these, perhaps, would be
better abolished altogether, or retained, if at all, with
a compensation as purely honorary as their duties.
In such cases, too, as that of the Admiralty, where
the whole establishment is misconceived and rotten,
it would be a mere farce to estimate the claims of
particular offices. The first condition of all is, that
no work should be unnecessarily made, and that what
exists should be well done. Till these results are se-
cured by a good organisation the question of recom-
pense is superfluous. When the object is lost, all
payments are overpayments. The salaries of
the diplomatic body will be found, we suspect,
to admit of a material circumscription ; though, if
the pruning-knife is to be applied judiciously,
it must be at a sacrifice of prepossessions not often
witnessed in ruling quarters. There have hitherto
been two distinct functions of the craft and mystery of
-diplomacy,—one by which international transactions
were carried on, and one by which Great Britain
was " represented," always rather imposingly, in the
eyes of foreign states. This latter function will bear
considerable curtailment. We can afford at this
stage of our national life to dispense with appearances,
and take our stand upon realities. In fact, much of
the old diplomatic ceremonial is obsolete in the pre-
sent day, and many of our smaller missions might be
either abolished or consolidated without offence given,
loss felt, or discredit contracted. The tendency of
modern times, indeed, has been wholly towards the
consolidation of states, and consequently to diminish
the number of those centres of political sentiment
between which, for the sake 9f reciprocal improve-
ment and general peace, intercommunion is re-
quired. Still, if the great prizes of 4,0001. and
5,0001. per annum are to be suppressed in favour
of more moderate stipends and less aristocratic
qualities, it must be remembered that secre-
taries and attaches can no longer be expected to work,
without hope or prospect, for 3001. a year. We
have indicated a few points of this question, which,
simple as it may appear, has many and very import-
ant bearings. Speaking generally, we should much
regret to see a baseless allegation of public poverty
satisfied by an indiscriminate reduction of salaries.
A surrender of a certain per centage upon all debate-
able incomes would merely represent a false confes-
sion and an unworthy compromise. Let useless or
supernumerary offices be abolished altogether, or
preserved only like the high-stewardships of munici-
pal towns. Let every board and every establishment
be organized for the maximum of efficiency, and with
the greatest economy of power; but let the compen-
sation due to public services actually rendered be
computed as becomes a people which knows the value
of money in one sense, and its worth in another.
UHRONICLE.—The appointment of a Select
Committee for inquiring into the salaries of political,
diplomatic, and judicial offices, of which notice was
given by the Prime Minister just before Easter, is to
be moved this evening. From an explanation given
by Lord John Russell during the debate of last Mon-
day, we infer that the jurisdiction of the proposed
Committee is to be limited to the heads of the Go-
vernment departments, the Foreign Ministers, and
the superior judges of the courts of law and equity,
and that it is not to extend to subordinate function-
aries. Internal financial reforms in the public offices
have been, and will continue to be, carried on by the
responsible heads of the several departments. Upon
this proposition Mr. Disraeli has given notice of an
amendment, the intent of which amendment may not,
perhaps, be quite obvious at,first sight. It is meent,
no doubt, to operate as an indirect negative upon the
Premier's motion. But, coming from the Member
for Bucks, whose personal distaste for financial
reform, as a corollary of Free-trade and a stalking-
horse of the "Manchester School," has been frankly
avowed, it bears palpable marks of being a party move,
and indicates clearly enough the existence of " some-
thing behind." On referring to the " Votes," we
find a probable solution of the mystery. The Hon.
Member for Oxfordshire, who, differing in this re-
spect from his anti-economical friend, is known to
the public as a truculent reformer of official incomes,
has another proposition on the notice-book for the
30th instant, " for the general revision of all salaries,
with a view to their due reduction." Whether this
object is to be effected through the medium of a
Select Committee, or by what other means, is not
apparent from the notice. The motion of Lord John
Russell has no doubt been judiciously timed, so as to
take the wind out of Mr. Henley's sails; Mr. Disraeli
on the other hand, seeing this design, attempts to turn
the Premier's flank by his skilfully-devised amend-
ment. Thus the fear of Mr. Henley, and of the
support which he might have received from other
sections of the House, has spurred on the Ministry;
while the anxiety of the Protectionists to keep the
game in their own hands has ingeniously
cloaked itself in that apprehension of delay,
and that zeal for the principle of Ministerial
re±ponsibility, which are expressed in Mr. Disraeli's
resolution. Does the object which Lord John
Russell now proposes to accomplish fairly fall within
this category ? We think it does, for several reasons.
In the first place, so far as political salaries are con-
cerned, the Government, by taking the matter
wholly into their own hands, would in fact be dealing
with their own case. They would be called upon to
assess the value of their own services. So delicate
an exercise of discretion ought hardly to be exacted
from any set of men. Again, in regard to the judi•
cial salaries, the question to be decided is one of grave
importune-, which may well be thought worthy of
the combined and mature consideration of the leading
members of all parties. Nor is it quite clear to our
minds that, as Mr. Disraeli asserts, " the House is in
possession of all the information requisite to re-
gulate those salaries." If the salaries of the
judges should bear a relation, as it seems to be ad-
mitted that they should, to the emoluments gained
in the higher ranks of the profession, there may be
materials necessary to a decision on that subject
which do not lie within the sources of Ministerial
intelligence. At all events precedent is in favour of
Lord John Russell's mode of proceeding. The last
re-adjustment of official salaries, which took place in
1831, was the result of an inquiry by a Select Com-
mittee. A similar course had been pursued on many
previous occasions, as, for instance, in 1815 and 1821.
Upon the general question, we have already ex-
pressed our opinion, that there is scope for a well-
adjusted reduction of the higher class of salaries,
and that the public service would sustain no detri-
ment thereby. More work and less pay has of late
years become the rule, not only in commercial and
professional employments, but also in the lower
walks of official life. Even-handed justice requires
that the great functionaries should not be treated
with more indulgence than the smaller ones. Unless,
however, the retrenchment now meditated should
greatly exceed either the amount which Mr. Henley
proposed last year, or that which any Select Commit-
tee is at present likely to adopt, the scale of salaries
in England will still surpass, by an immense per
centage, the standard of the !most lavish of foreign
Governments. We have no objection that, within
certain reasonable limits, England should continue to
be distinguished by her liberality in this respect. We
repudiate the miserable parsimony of under-paying
any class of men, and we recoil from the idea of set-
ting up the highest preferments in the state to a
Dutch auction. The Crown is entitled to be served by
the highest degree of integrity and intelligence that
the ranks of public life afford. The sums necessary
to secure such services must be paid. No anxiety to
diminish the burdens of the public can justify the in-
fringement of this principle. But whether the altera-
tions which time and social changes have introduced
since the present scale of payments was adopted, may