The Sun.
London, England, 1850-09-19 00:00:00

-------
/

gr 1174, • Atist
SEPTEMBER 19, 1850.
N°. 18,093.] LONDON, THURSDAY ErJ! -
icsli;Jl y

SOUTH YORKSHII
RIVER EMS
At the HAIX.YEARLY- GENE
ING of Shareholderas, held at the
day, 31st August, 1850,
Lard IVIIARNCLI
The Secretary read the advertlso
On the motion of the Chairman,
party was affixed to the Register o
The Secretary read the Report.
On the motion of the Chairs
That the Report now read be ri
for circulation amongst the Proprif
That the forfeiture of the followi
tors be confirmed, and that such Sl
the Fame :
From To Sharks. •
115 .. 289 .. 145 '
9160 .. 9253 .• 94
36747 .. 36760 .. 14
1093 .. 1107 .. 15
1284 .. 1297 ... 14
3539 .. 1593 ..• 10
1713 .. 1729 .. 17
14435 .. 14444 .• 10
14469 .. 14487 19
17603 .. 17612 •• 10
33029 .. 33050 • • 22
33916 • • 33962 .. 47
1839 .. 1862 • • 24
17994 .. 18059 .. 66
22316 • • 22329 .. 14
32759 .. 32997 .. 239
33300 .. 33322 .. 33
33376 • • 33380 5
21838 • • 21856 .. 19
34065 • • 34078 .. 14
31311 • • 32248 .. 938
5015 5435 • • 421
5949 .. 5472 •• 24
14876 .. 14899 • • 24
33902 • • 33908 .. 7
5974 • • 5993 20
6354 6385 .. 22
6655 • 6688 .. 34
6890 • • 6918 • • 29
19191 .. 19260 •• 70
21259 • • 21282 • • 21
34079 .. 34132 • • 54
7096 .. 7283 • • 183
7308 • • 7330 •• 23
7336 • • 7345 • • 10
7318 .. 7357 • • 10
19359 .. 19332 .• 24
7281 • • 7307 .. 24
7360 .. 7393 •• 34
37311 • • 37328 • • 18
19521 • • 19569 .. 49
14579 • • 14588 .. 10
19261 19267 • • 7
17846 • • 17248 .. 3
8063 • • 8147 • • 85
F 255 .. 8318 • • 94
19.:64 • 19687 • • 24
23021 • • 23063 • • 43
9654 .. 9678 • • 25
21397 • • 21420 .• 24
33799 • • •• 1
;6997 .. 37042 • • 47
9084 • • 9712 • • 29
19757 .. 19786
22193 .. 22202. .. 10
13606 • 13661 • • 56
36924 .. 36950 •• • 27
10456 .. 10470 .• 15
16705 • • 16737 •• 32
20338 • • 20374 .. 37
33800 .. 83807 .. 8
35808 .. 35922 • • 115
36645 .. 36664 .• 20
10586 .. 10395 .. 10
11075 11151 .. 77
11182 .• 11195 .. 14

RAILWAY AND
COMPANY.

In cage those offices were abolished, do you think
that the common run of business; which devolves upon
the Government of the cotintry, could be dis-
charged by a staff consisting Merely of those who
hold offices in connexion with which considerable
duties have to be performed ?—I: think the country
would be very considerable losers by it; I think that,
as it is, it is rather a defect in the Government of this
country, that while persons who are out of office,
and who are in the House of Lords and in the House
of Commons, can give their attention to great sub-
jects, the time of the Ministers is so very much ab-
sorbed with the duties of their offices, that there are
very few of them who can give their attention to a
great subject and look at the consequences to the
country of the measures which are adopted. I think
that is a defect as it is ; but the defect would be far
greater if every man in the Cabinet had his time so
fully occupied as is the case in the departments which
are most busy.
Looking to the emoluments of the offices to which
you. have just been alluding, do you think it is neces-
sary that those offices should have attached to them
salaries on the average of about 2,0001. a year to each?
—I think you could not properly give them much
less. I was asking one, three or four months ago,
who had a salary of 2,0001. ayear, and he said that he
thought his extra expenses, to which he would not be
put if he were not in the Government, were about
2,0001. a year ; they were about 2,0001. a year more
than his average expenses would be.
With regard to the salaries of the offices of the
higher class, do you think that if those salaries were
reduced—taking, for instance, the three Secretaries
of State—the same efficiency would not be attained in
the diechage of the duties of those offices?—The Corn -
mittee can judge of that, as to the particular case, just
as well as I can ; I think the Committee are ap-
pointed rather to consider for themselves, having no
interest more than a general interest in the matter,
What is a sufficient salary for offices of great labour
and responsibility. The general principle to be kept
in view certainly is, that you should not narrow too
much your choice of public servants. If you say
t:-at you will not give a salary which shall be suffi-
cient without the possession of a very considerable
private fortune, of course you limit the choice of the
most important public .tervants to men who have good
private fortunes.
From your knowledge of the way in which Go-
vernments are carried on on the continent, should
you say that, as compared with the expense of living
in England, the salaries of the officers of the Govern-
ment are greater or less in England than they are in
some of the other principal states of Europe ?—I do
not know much of the salaries of the Ministers in
foreign countries, and I do not know whether they
have not in many foreign countries various einolue
meats and patronage of offices which have long since
been abolished in this country. But there is one
thing with regard to the Government of France in
which they differ very much from this country;
namely, that a man goes into an hotel, as it is called,
which he finds completely furnished, and everything
ready for him ; it is warmed and lighted, and he can
receive company there, and give dinners there, with-
out any expense at all for the house and furniture.
Now that is not the case with regard to any of the
offices here. It is in some degree the case with the
First Lord of the Admiralty ; ho has a certain num-
ber of rooms of reception, which are furnished, but I
believe the sleeping-rooms are not furnished by the
public. mVith regard to all the other offices, I think
that no man could take any of those high offices with-
out incurring some expense, unless he. has a very
considerable private fortune. Lord Lansdowne, or
Lord Stanley, or Sir Robert Peel need not incur any
great additional expense; but I know, fur my own
part, I never had a debt in my life till I was First
Lord of the Treasury. I have now paid it off, so that
it was no great incumbrance to me. But it is neces-
sary to make some outlay on taking one of these
great offices unless you have a large private fortune.
Mr. Bright—lt is assumed to be necessary, but is
it really necessary to incur these large expenses. Is
it necessary, for example, that the First Lord of the
Treasury, or a Secretary of State, should live on a
par, with reference to expense, with a man who has
20,0001. or 30,0001. a year, and who spends the
largest portion of it. Would the office suffer if any
gentleman or nobleman holding it were to live in a
more moderate style, on 2,0001. or 3,0001. a year ?
I do not think he could very well live for 2,0001.
or 3,0001. a ,year. I do not think that at present
the persons who hold those offices, and who have only
moderate fortunes, at all compete or live in the same
style with persons of 20,0001. or 30,0001 a year. If
you inquire with respect to those members of the
Government who have not a large private fortune,
whether in the present Government or any other, I
do not think you will find that they do that. But a
certain amount of expense for more carriages and
servants, I think, is necessary in this country, where
men holding high offices have to associate with per-
sons of large fortune ; and though they may net
compete with them, it is necessary to come something
near to their style of living. Now in a republic it is
quite different. If I recollect right, when Monsieur
de Torcy went from Louis XIV. to endeavour to
make peace with the Dutch Government, he was very
much struck, on calling on the Grand Pensionary, to
find the door opened by a servant maid, and he
thought it showed very great republican simplicity,
and no doubt it was very becoming ; but I think that
if Lord Palmerston had only a housemaid to open
the door, and Foreign Ministers called there, every-
body would say that he was very mean, and unfit for
his situation.

:RAL and also SPECIAL MEET-
Cutlers' Hall, Sheffield, on Satur-

IFFE in the Chair,
cement convening the meeting.
I, the Common Seal of the Com-
of Shareholders.

an It was resolved—

•eceived and adopted, and printed
etors.

ring Shares declared by the Direc-
&arcs be disposed of by cancelling

From

Shares.

• 11375 .. 11384 .. 10
22217 .. 22263 .. 47
23077 .. 23086 .. 10
33021 .. 33028 .. 8
13920 .. 13959 40
13980
35090 .. 3.5124 .. 35
3-208 .. 35224 .. 17
11880 .. 11907 •• 28
20544 .. 20553 .. 10
12734 .. 12747 .. 14
7394 .. 7399 .. 6
20554 .. 20558 .. 5
.12780 .. 12792 .. 13
13045 ... 13068 .. 24
13125 .. 13180 .. 56
13292 .. 13296 .. 5
32998 .. 3300 G .. 9
7400 .. 7419 .. 20
19418 .. 19437 .. 20
18284 .. 18293 .. 10
17216 .. 17229 .. 11
21548 .. 21594 .. 47
32750 .. 32758 .. 9
33195 .. 33214 .. 20
18294 .. 18310 .. 47
,36168 36188 .. 21
14545 .. 14554 .. 10
2050 .. 2072 .. 23
35771 .. 35302 .. 32
33294 .. 33295 .. 2
14682 .. 14691 10
36520 .. 36553 .. 31
36568 .. 36614 .. 77
33739 33754 .. 16
6045 •• 6143 .• 91
6144 •• 6167 .• 24
19186 .• 19190 .. 5
21233 .. 21291 12
34011 •• 34044 34
32598 .. 32611 .. 14
19392, ~ 19417 .. 26
6229 .. 6951 23
5740 .. 5789 .. 5)
19434 .. 19520 .. 83
22987 .. 22998 - 10
32729 .. 32735 .. 7
13829 .. 13843 .. 15
7041 .. 7045 .. 5
9100 .. 9101 .. 2
32496 .. 32500 .. 5
22174 .. 22192 .. 19
7932 .. 7952 .. 21
9274 ... 9278 ..
7168 .. 7514 .. 47
36459 .. 36485 .. 27
37394 .. 37404 .• 7
9767 .• 9771 .. 5
10140 .. 10149 .. 10
36189 36208 .. 20
11974 .. 11978 .. 5
12579 .. 12718 .. 140
36445 .. 36451 .. 7
3354 .. .3400 .. 47
14001 .. 14036 .. 36

That a Dividend, at the rate of 61. per. cent. per annum, Prom the
23d January to the 19th April last, be now declared, and also that
a Dividend, at the rate of 21. per cent. per annum, be declared from
the 20th April to the 30th June, 1850.
SPECIAL MEETING.

The Meeting was then made special:
Moved by the Chairman, and carried unanimously,
That the Directors be authorised to raise, on Mortgage or Bond
a sum of money not exceeding one hundred thousand pounds.

Moved by the Chairman, and seconded,
That the Directors be authorised to create and issue such number
of Additional Shares, to be denominated Navigation Shares, as
shall be equal to 150 Shares of 201. each, in the Capital Stock of this
Company, in respect of each Share in the River Dun Navigation;
and that the Company guarantee the payment of a dividend, after
the rate of 41. per cent. per annum, in preference to all dividends on
the ordinary Shares of the Company, on such of the said Navigation
Shares as shall be by the Proprietors accepted in lieu of the ordinary
Shares of the Company, upon condition that such guaranteed Divi-
dend shall be in lien of all varying and other Dividends, until or un-
less such stock shall be redeemed by payment of 3,0001. for each 150
allotted Shares, according to the provisions of the Company's Act.
Whereupon an amendment was proposed by Mr. Hadfl.ld, and
seconded by Me. Boothroyd,
That this meeting be adjourned for twelve months, to be held in
Yorkshire. _ .

The Chairman put the amendment to the meeting, when fourteen
voted in favour of it, and ten against.
_ _

I he amendment was declared to be carried.
WHA.RNCLIFFE, Chairman.
On the motion of Mr. Ironside, it was
Resolved unanimously—
That the thanks of the meeting be given to the Chairman for
his able conduct in the Chair, and for the fairness and candour of
his explanations to the meeting.
J. CHARLES' HANDFIELD, Secretary.

Mr. Walter—lhs it not been the custom, of late
years, for Governments to commit the preparation of
itny great measures fur which they mean to be respon-
sible, and which require considerable time to prepare,
to Commissioners, rather thin to members of the
Government holding nominal situations ?—Some great
measures which required a great deal of inquiry have
been so referred. The Poor-law is the most remark-
able instance of that that I remember; but it was con-
sidered by Lord Grey's Cabinet that the measure
could not be introduced without the appointment of
Commissioners to make previous inquiries. But there
are many very considerable measures that could not
be referred to Commissioners.

Mr. Ellis—Do you think it would be a more econo-
mical mode of carrying on the Government, to make
some deduction from the salaries of the chief officers
of state, and to pay allowances, such as are paid in
America and Prance, to the Members of Parliament ?
—I should think it would lead to very considerable ex-
pense; if every Member of Parliament was paid 11. a
day, it would come to a very considerable sum.
Are they not paid more than 1/. a day in America ?
—I have understood it is eight dollars a day.
Mr. Cobden—ls not the proportion of the year
spent in London very much the same, whether a mail
is in office, or whether he be a private Member of
Parliament; is a Cabinet Minister, as a rule, obliged
to reside in London, except during the session of Par-
liament ?—I think it would hardly answer for a
member of the Government not to have a house in
London, because though he may only reside constantly
in London during the session of Parliament, yet the
members of the Cabinet generally meet in October
and November ; a member of the Cabinet must have
a house in London, I conceive.

Mr. Ellice—Must not one Secretary of State
al ways be in London ?—The rule is, that one Secre-
tary of State must be in London ; I do not know that
it has been accurately kept of late years, as the com-
munications arc so very quick ; but that is the rule ;
every Secretary of State I have known has always
had a house in London.

Mr. Cobden—l understood your Lordship to say
that the increased expense of a Cabinet Minister
might be taken at 2,0001. a year; that is the increase.
over his ordinary expenditure ?—I said that that wrs
the opinion stated to me by one of the Cabinet, who
has 2,0001. a year for the office that he holds; that is
not a general rule, because I could not say that 2,0001.
a year was the limit of the expense of the First Lord
of the Treasury, or of a Secretary of State. I think
it must be far beyond that.

Is it not the fiet, that during the sitting of Parlia-
ment a Cabinet Minister is never expected to dispense
much hospitality, or to visit much, except on the
two days of the week when Parliament is not sitting ?
—Yes, it is quite true ; it may be only two days of the
week, but it comes to very considerable expense.
Assuming that a Cabinet Minister accepts an ordi-
nary number of invitations from other people, must
not that take up a considerable portion of those two
evenings in the week which he has alone at his dis-
posal ; must not it take up more than one-half of the
evenings to accept the invitations which are generally
showered upon a Cabinet Minister ?—Yes. Ido not
know what others do, but in the general way I decline
nine out of ten of the invitations I receive. lam ge-
nerally too much tired with the business of the week
to wish to go out on those other days.
And the same considerations would probably induce
you to avoid as much as possible large parties at borne
during those two leisure evening ?—I consider that
in sonic respects it belongs to the office, and that if I
were to live entirely with my family on the other
days of the week I should not 5.,:e persons as I ought
to do, with whom I am not only glad to keep up the
relations of society, haring known them for a great
number of years, but with many of whom I have
conversations on the political subjects of the day. I
think that if I lived entirely with my own family all

/
," ,• ...,
.3
....,
~..... --',
7
. -• • ' '. r , -
~,,,,le;---e.--4...-. ~....f
~...........„..e.e........./
f', .- • - , _._
,:' .. - ,
teo _, ,
t(''t:'*l .
7 ----
ZV2-1---0"---S,--e--/'
. __........-7,-q':l•ll4E,'", -V
itft,, --0111, c. CVO 4-r
V
~ •. ala
,
hr 4 s , IT, :* I. • --.:_'!._- _ V`AP. _ja
5,,, , .. •,
i 4 1
•' ' 1 ik-' \ ' L' "
4 •,. 7, • 4 _ . \,•' •4, 4 '
1 ,
, , • ~-, la-4A • ..i)
V 1' • .Ai 44
iiiA ; ~.. •,,,,., , _ K., 1,,,,44tr, , ?
- -V I
!=. i 4
1 r,
Bzt.,
lki I',
I t,ll''' i'' • . ig , lilt, - • ~a---- , •
,:-
•
Ift, , , Ist-1:4„,-.34,:;;;7,
(14,3,,7,e1, ...._.__.—t,,,,,4„., . ...,_ve,„..
vi
.7.,
.i.i:,,,,,,.„.4-\..
4_,,i,i(ti2140..„-..,,,,,,:i,„ , 7
.:
~... .R,N... . ca, ..,
.„.7_
~.ov
t N., -----•ck, . . •. i:, --
\ 4. - 1
._,l v.', ; - :,.-,
~ 11.:.5.,,!--w ,
''
/+•":
-4''''. -1 /
\ <;.3, _ 4 7 .' .• / ,d.,,KiL 1 Irv.t
'--- --ii 4--V-1 brEp---1,, et-t,-: - ..• -A _---t _- ruzorr.t `Ni.
ee4''' '

[PE ICE SD.

the time that I was not in the House of Commons it
would hardly be doing my duty, although I do not
know whether I should not like it as well.
But the fact is, that on Monday, Tuesday, Thurs-
day, and Friday, no Cabinet Minister would either
give or accept an invitation to dinner, except it were
visiting her Majesty, as a rule, his evenings being
al ways considered occupied in the House of Com-
mons. Is it-not so ?—Not quite. In the first place,
that does not apply to the House of Lords at all, I
think. During a great part of the year, as to those
who are Members of the House of Commons, that is
so generally ; but, at the same time, there are parti-
cubit. invitations of Foreign Ministers, and some others,
which one is obliged to accept ; not many.
With the exception of the Foreign Minister, who
is supposed to entertain foreigners, what additional
expense would the other Ministers, for example, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, necessarily have over
the President of the Board of Trade P—l think he
would probably see a great many more people, and
invite a great many more. I must add to everything
else, that a ',man holding such an office as that of
Chancellor of the Exchequer will hardly pay much
attention to his private affairs, and that everything in
his house, the whole management of his house, will
be more expensive than -it would b 3 otherwise.
. • Then the increased pay of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer over the President of the Board of Trade
would he a consideration for the increased labour
which devolves upon him, would it not ?—Yes, I think
so. I think it must be considered as the salary for
the duties of an important office.
- Mr. Ellice—Do you not think that there is some-
thing in the consideration that these salaries should
be somewhat proportioned to the scale of living in
the same class of soeisAy in this country, so as to en-
able the holders of these offices to maintain a certain
state proportioned to their importance P—Yes, I think
so. 1 have already said that I do not think that a
Secretary of State with 5,0001. a year thinks himself
at all obliged to live as a person of 30,000/. a year;
but still 1 think he must live on the sort of scale on
which persons in society in London usually live.
And the scale of allowances in this country is pro,

portioned to our monarchical institutions ; whereas,
under republiiaon Governments the allowances gene.
rally made are proportioned to those institutions ?
They are proportioned to our monarchical institu-
tions, and. I t Sink, to our aristocratical laws. I think
that the law of primogeniture is the cause of
there bring a great number of persons with very con-
siderable incomes, and that those persons coming to
London every year raise the whole scale of expendi-
ture ; that all servants and all tradesmen have their
wages and their prices augmented according to that
scale, end that men out of office find some difficulty
in conforming to that scale ;, and that men in
office would find it totally impossible with a low scale
of salaries.
Is it not the fact that the scale of our salaries is
not higher thr,n the scale of salaries in the French
Government during Louis Philippe's reign ?—No, I
do not believe that it is at all higher. Perhaps I
may state, with respect to my own office, that, with
the exception of persons who themselves were men of
fortune and had large hereditary possessions, the pre-
sent income of the First Lord of the Treasury is
smaller than it has been for a great number of years.
I find that in 1780, Lord North had 5,0001. a year as
First Lord of the Treasury, and 2,400/. as Chancellor
of the Exchequer; and it is supposed that he bad
4,000/. as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports ; that is,
11,4001. In 1782, the Marquis of Rockingham had
5,600/. ; but the Marquis of Rockingham had his
great estates. _ • _

Mr. Bright—He had only one office ?—He had
only one office. In 1782, the Earl of Shelburne had
5,000/. In 1783, the Duke of Portland had 5,0001.
In 1783, Mr. Pitt came into office ; he had 5,0001. as
First Lord or the Treasury, and 2,4001. as Chancellor
of the Exchequer ; and about the year 1792, I think,
when Lord _North died, Mr. Pitt became Lord War-
den of the Cinque Ports, with 4,0001. a year; that
made his whole emoluments 11,4001. In 1801, Air.
Addington, ;as First Lord of the Treasury, had
5,0001., and as Chancellor of the Exchequer 2,4001.,
making 7,4031. In 1804, Mr. Pitt returned to office
with the sate emoluments. In 1806, Lord Gren-
ville had 5,000/. a year as First Lord of the Treasury,
and 4,000/. as Auditor of the Exchequer. In 1807,
the Duke of Portland, as First Lord of the Treasury,
had 5,0001.; but then the Duke of Portland had his
own great estates. In 1809, Mr. Spencer Percival
had 5,000/. as First Lord of the Treasury, and it
is supposracil-tbar he- had 7001. atChancelior of the
Exchequer, :tad 3,000/. as Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster; it is supposed that he had 8,700/. In 1812,
Lord Liverpool, as First Lord of the Treasury, had
5,0002 , and a a LordiVardcn of the Cinque Ports 4,0001.,
making 9,000/. In 1827, Mr. Canning had 5,000/. as
First Lord of the Treasury, and, according to the
account I hteve, 4,000/. as Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, making 9,0001.; he held those offices a very
short time. In 1827, Lord Goderich, as First Lord
of the Treasury, had 5,000/. In 1828, the Duke of
Wellington, of course, had pensions and military ap-
pointments. In 1830, Lord Grey, as First Lord of
the Treasury, had 5,0001. In 1834, Lord Melbourne,
as First Lord of the Treasury, had 5,0001. In 1834,
Sir Robert, Peel had 5,000/. as First Lord of the
Treasury, and 2,500/. as Chancellor of the Exche-
quer. Then., in 1835, Lord Melbourne again, and in
1841, Sir Robert Peel, had each, as First Lord of the
Treasury, 5,000/.
Does that account go back to an earlier period than
1780?—No, I did nut ask for any account before
1780, and indeed up to the beginning of the present
century, there were sinecure offices which were gene-
rally granted to some member of the family ; Sir
Robert Walpole gave his eldest son and his second
son very valuable offices.
Mr. Ellice--Beyond those salaries were they not
in the enjoyment of large fees of office P—l believe
they were.
Mr. Henry Drummond—With respect to the whole
of those First Lords of the Treasury, whom your
Lordship has now enumerated, with the eeception
of
those who bud large private estates, is it not a matter
of notoriety that they all died in debt ?—I believe that
to be the case.
Chairman—Looking at the business that now de-
volves upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should
you think it at all probable that the practice of com-
bining the office of First Lord of the Treasury with
that of Chancellor of the Exchequer will be again had
recourse to ?—I should think very rarely; I think the
arrangement that was first made by Sir Robert Peel,
of assimilating the office of First Lord of the Trea-
sury, when held by a Member of the House of Com-
mons, to the same office when held by a Peer, will be
persevered in; at the same time, I do not say that it
might not happen that a man who was peculiarly
qualified to be Chancellor of the Exchequer might
not, when he became First Lard of the Treasury, re-
tain the two offices.
Mr. Walter—Does your Lordship think it practi-
cable to effect any considerable reduction throughout
the departments in a pecuniary point of view ?
I think it is very practicable to effect reduc-
tions from time to time. In the Home-
office, for instance, when reductions were
made in other offices (I think it was in
1822), Lord Sidmouth, I have always understood,
opposed reductions in that office. There were cer-
tainly some offices in the Home-office which had for-
merly considerable duties attached to them, but which
latterly had very little duty, and those have been, in
the course of the last year altered and reduced; and
so with other departments ; there are offices belong-
ing to them that may from time to time be reduced
or abolished ; but I do not think that the emoluments
of these who do efficient ter. vice can be with advan-
tage to the public reduced.
Chairman—Lord Durham in the evidence he gave
before the Committee of the House of Commons in
the year 1833, gave it as his opinion that the office of
Lord Privy Seal should be held without a salary ; I
conclude, from what your Lordship has stated, that
you do not coincide with the opionion of Lord Dur-
ham in that respect ?—No, I do not coincide in that
opinion ; I believe Sir Robert Peel in his evidence
quoted the opinion of Mr. Burke upon that subject ;
1 think myself that the opinion of Mr. Burke was quite
well-founded.

Mr. Cobden—lt appears to be acknowledged that
there are four or five offices in the Government, the
duties of which are not sufficient to occupy the whole
of the time of the Ministers filling them, namely, the
Paymaster of the Forces, the Master of the Mint, the
Chancellor of the Duchy of LaT:caster, the Lord Privy
Seal, and the President of the Council ?-1. should
hardly say that, as to the President of the Council,
who has a great deal of business and correspondence
with respect to the Committee of Education, which is
a Committee of the Privy Council, of which the Lord
President is head ; but with regard to the.other offices
mentioned in the question that is the case.

The maintenance of those offices is justified on the
ground that it is necessary that other Ministers, who
are excessively worked, should have the opportunity
of calling in the aid of their colleagues whose time is
not so fully filled up ?—I think that is one reason, and
a very strong one; but there are after reasons, one
of which I have !mentioned, that you may have per--
sons who have come to a certain time of life, or who
have not very strong health, or who wish to employ
part of their time in other matters, whom it is desir-
able to have in the Government and acting with the

aovernment. Now, such a man as Mr. Macaulay I
should have been very sorry not to have asked to take
office in the Government when the present Govern-
ment was formed. I think it is a great loss not hav-
ing Mr. Macaulay, but I do not think he would have
taken an office of great labour if I had proposed
it to him. Ido not think he would have returned to
his laborious duties as Secretary-at-War. But there
is another reason, I think, which is, that you must
look at this Government altogether as a Parliamentary
Government; if you were framing a Government as
the Emperor of nussia might frame a Government,
to conduct the business of the several departments, you
would certainly frame one somewhat different from
that which we now have; but, considering that every
measure that is proposed by the Government has to be
proposed to the House of Commons and to the House
of Lords, and that the policy of the Government has
to be defended in the House of Commons and in the
House of Lords, I think it very desirable to hate
persons who can take part in that defence, and are
qualified to do so, even• though they are men who
would not aecept offices of great labour; I think it
would not be a good thing ifethe Government of this
country were much weaker than independent Mem-
bers of the House of Commons and of the House of
Lords in defence of their measures ; for example, if
you want to alter the navigation-laws, you require to
have persons to defend the measure in the House of
Lords as well as in the House of Commons; if you
want to reduce the copper duties, or anything of that
kind, you must carry your measure both in the House
of Commons and in the House of Lords; and I think
for that purpose it is necessary, though it seems a
clumsy expedient, to have some of these offices with-
out the amount of work that fully employs the time
of the persons holding them.
In point of fact, have the individuals chosen to fill
those offices which have so little labour connected
with them, been generally selected for their capacity
to aid the Government in the way 'you speak of in the
House of Commons ?—I should say that, generally,
they have been ; I do not say that it is universally
so, because, of course, a Minister has his own reasons
for offering a particular office at a particular time to
some particular person ; but I should say that that
was the general plan.
Can you give the Committee some general idea of
the direction in which the patronage goes, that is, as
to how far the First Lord of the Treasury has the pa•
tronage, or his colleagues ?—ln the first place the
patronage of the Church, so far as the bishoprics and
deaneries are concerned, devolves upon the Prime
Minister, whose duty it is to recommend to the Queen
the persons whom he thinks fit; that is a very im-
portant kind of patronage. Then there are all the
chief offices of the Executive Government. Then,
likewise, if there is any very important appointment
to be made, whether it is in the diplomatic service, or
in the colonial service, or with regard to the govern-
ment of India, the Prime Minister is always consulted,
and he concurs in the appointment. For instance, last
year when there was to be a Commander-in-Chief in
India appointed, it was my duty to consult the Duke of
Wellington ; I had a good deal of correspondence
with him, and saw him frequently; and then with
Sir John Hobhouse ; and then I saw the chairman
and deputy-chairman of the East India Company, and
stated to them that I had come to the conclusion that
I must advise the Queen to appoint Sir Charles Na-
pier ; that is an office of 18,0001. a year ; a very con-
siderable office ; but, in the vulgar way of considering
patronage, it certainly was of no value to me, but it
was a great responsibility to have to advise the Queen
as to the person named.
What portion of the Church livings in the hands of
the Crown are at the disposal of the First Lord of the
Treasury, and what portion are in the gift of the Lord
Chancellor ?---.There is a much greater proportion in
the gift of the Lord Chancellor; I think that there
are about 700 in the gift of the Lord Chancellor.
Without being able to say bow many there are in the
gift of the First Lord of the Treasury, I should say
there are perhaps three or four in the Sear.
Mr. Deedes—lndependently of deaneries and
bishoprics ?—Yes.
Mr. Cobden—ls not that vast extent of patronage
considered a very large share of the remuneration of
the office of Prime Minister in this country ?—That
depends upon bow persons consider it. I think it an
exercise of power, like many other kinds of power ;
like proposing a great public measure, or carrying
into effect a change in the particular mode of admi-
nistration. It seems to me much more an exercise
of power than any particular'advantage. I remember
hearing a person who was very intimate with Mr. Pitt
say, that Mr. Pitt had told him that it never but once
occurred in his long and powerful administration,
that he was able to place exactly the man he wished
in the office that he wished.
Mr. Cobden—Your Lordship spoke just now of
the difficulty of placing a person who was not of a
rich family in the office of Prime Minister if the sa-
lary was much lower than it is at present. But would
not such a person have it in his power, by means of
the patronage at his disposal, to confer very large
benefits upon his own immediate family and de-
pendents without in any way compromising himself
ad Prime Minister doubt as to that, ea-
pecially in these times. Even in times a
little gone by, I should say that if a man had any
profession he would have a better prospect ,of pro-
viding for his family by pursuing it than by taking
office. Take the instance of Mr. Percival, he was
a very eminent man in point of abilities, and had a
standing at the bar as Attorney-General ; I should
say that he would have had much greater means of
saving some fortune to provide for members of his
family if he had gone on in his profession than if he had
taken the chances of political life, and accepted office,
even though he held the Duchy of Lancaster with
other offices; Mr. Percival, I have no doubt, had very
high minded reasons for to king the course that he
did ; but I do not think that a man looking to his in-
terest would have taken the course that Mr. Percival
did, of abandoning the law for political office.
Is not it considered a legitimate exercise of the pa-
tronage of a Minister to appoint to vacant offices
members of his own family, or his friends or de.
pendents, provided they are in other respects tolerably
well suited to fill the offices ; and, in point of fact, is
it not the practice for Ministers so to use their patron-
age ?—I should say that if a Minister has relations
who are qualified for office, they being persons known
to him to be qualified, and of course belonging to the
came political part:e, and holding the same political
views, it generally has happened that a Minister has
appointed some of his relations to some offices or
other, for which he conceived they were qualified.
They have generally been offices held during pleasure,
as well as his own.

Then, do not you consider that in that respect the
Prime Minister of this couLtry has a far greater
amount of patronage at his disposal than the Prime
Minister of au other constitutional country, espe-
cially seeing that we have a rich Established Church,
which does not exist in any constitutional state be-
sides ?—I cannot compare this country with other
constitutional countries. I believe in France there
are an immense number of offices which do not exist
here ; but the amount of patronage in the gift of the
First Minister, in one way or other, either by nomi-
nation or by reccmmendation, is, no doubt, very large.
It i 3 subject, of course, to responsibility, and subject
to public opinion.
Mr. Bright—There are 951 livings in the Church
in the gift of the Crown. What proportion of those
are strictly in the gift of the Chancellor, and what are
in the gift of the Prime Minister ; is there a distinc-
tion ?—I believe there are upwards of 700 which are
absolutely in the gift of the Lord Chancellor that he
does not take the pleasure of the Crown upon.
Mr. Ellice—Are not al! that are below a certain
valuation in the King's books in the gift of the Lord
Chancellor ?—Yes, all below 201. in the King's books ;
but that does not how the real value ; you will find
the real value in the Clergy List.
Chairman—lt is the value as it stood in the time of
Henry VIII. ; all below 201. in the King's books
being in the gift of the Lord Chancellor, and all above
20/. being in the gift of the Prime Minister ?—Yes ;
but there is this difference, that the Prime Minister
takes the pleasure of the Crown upon every living ;
he never disposes of any living, except some very
small ones created by Sir Robert Peel's Act, without
taking the pleasure of the Crown.

Sir J. Trollopc—Can the patronage be any pecu-
niary benefit to the First Lord himself, personally ?
—lt cannot be any pecuniary benefit to the First
Lord at all, and I do not see that it can well be an
inducenient to a man to take office. No doubt, when
a particular party is in office, the First Lord has an
opportunity, from time to time, of conferring certain
offices, held during pleasure, upon persons Rho may
be related to him ; but that is no pecuniary advantage
to him.

Mr. "Walter—Supposing official salaries were re-
gulated by the amount of patronage at the disposal of
the Minister, does not your Lordship think that in
the eyes of the public it would be thought rather an
excuse for the abuse of patronage, if the deficiency of
the salaries were attempted to be supplied by a par_
titular mode of distributing the patronage ?—I think
it would be pretty certain to lead to abuse of patron-
age, because then a person holding office might say
with great fairness, " I have been given an inadequate
salary, bf. CAW?, it is understood that the patronage is
to be of use to me and to my sons."
Mr. Henry Drummond—Your Lordship has
spoken\ of patronage generally, as meaning by that,
whatever is in the. gift of the Crown ; but it is, of
course, only that portion of patronage which happens
to fall during the particular administration of the
First Lord over which he has any control ?—yes,
that is certainly the case. In the formation of the
Ministry, if there are any offices of those held durin
pleasure, towhi;:h Le thinks that his relations can be
Appointed with benefit to tee public service, he can
do so; but during all the rest of his administration
it is only those that fall vacant of which he has the
patronage.
15 nut it the principle generally acted upon, that