The Sun.
London, England, 1850-09-07 00:00:00

a great advantage to the public service, that there
-hould be a limited number of persons not ove r-
e helmed with the proper official duties of their Own
department, able to assist the Llr ivernment in the
House of Cjmmcns and in the II ease if Lords in
conducting the public business.
Have you observed that the noblemen and gentle.
men generally appointed to those °W' s ef great dig-
nity and little or no lab cur, such as the Lard Privy
Seal and the Mastership of the Alnt, have been pre-
cisesly those to whom the Prime Minister would re-
fer th use important questions to which you have al-
luded, and whom he would consult upon those mat-
tera ?—I recullect persons filling the office of Master
of the Mint very capable of rendering most valuable
assistance; I think the efficient discharge of the
whole functions of government rt quires the present
number of offices; and there is an advantage, inde-
pendently of that, in having different shades of poli-
tical opinion represented in the Cabinet.
The office of Master of the Mint is not always,
perhaps not generally, a Cabinet office ?—No ; I aas
speaking more particularly of the Privy Seal and the
President of the Council; I think there is en advan-
tage in having a Cabinet composed of a certain nutn-
er of persons who represent the different shales of
opinion there may be among members of the same
great party ; I do not, however, defend the mainte-
nance of these cfficea upon that ground; I take
another and a stronger ground, that the proper dis-
otch of public business requires that the present
number of Parliamentary offices should not be re-
duced.
Are not some of these offices maintained rather
with a view to reward men of party, or to satisfy the
claims of particular sections of parties, than with any
reference to the public duties which appertain to the
offices themselves 7—lf you are to maintain the sys-
tem of Parliamentary government, I am not prepared
to say, that if that be one of the purposes to which
these offices are applied, it is not a legitimate applica-
tion of them. In this country you govern by means
of party combination, and you must govern by means
of it according to the present Parliamentary consti-
tution. It is therefore necessary that Members of
Parliament of great eminence should be connected
with Government by the tenure of office. But, as I said
hefore, Idu not rely upon that ground"; I think there
is more than sufficient labour, in the whole, to occupy
all the persons who are now employed in the public ser-
vice and that the division of that labour among some
whose time is occupied for twelve or fourteen hours a
day in the proper business of their offices, and among
others whose time is not so occupied, and who have,
therefore, leisure to consider matters not properly
pertaining to their own departments, is not an incon-
venient or unwise arrangement. It is upon that
ground that I defend the maintenance of such an
office as the Privy Seal and the Mastership of the
Mint; not asserting that the special duties of those
offices are sufficient to occupy the whole time of the
holders of them, but thinking that they may be most
usefully occupied with other matters connected with
the public service.
Allowing that there is a fair reason for maintain-
ing those offices, and allowing, also, that the dignity
and station which the office gives is to be taken as
part of the compensation to the holders of the office
along with the pecuniary emoluments, would it not
he possible that those offices, which are more honorary
than laborious, should be paid by salaries rather more
nominal than real, and if you give large salaries of
5,0001. a year to the Home Secretary, and 2,0001.
a year to the President of the Beard of Trade,
who have important duties to perform, would not
it be fair to say, that the Mastership of the
Mint and the Privy Seat, being held by gentle-
men to whom no specific labour is apportioned,
they should be content, to a great extent, with the
honour attached to those offices, and that their sala-
ries should be small ?--If it be true, as was stated by
Lord Durham, and I believe it was strictly true, that
although the duties of the Privy Seal in themselves
are not very arduous and laborious, yet still that re-
ferences were made to him upon general business
which occupied him sometimes six or seven hours a
day, then I think the Lord Privy Seal is performing
public service when he is so occupied; and that
2,0001. a year is not more than a suitable remunera-
tion for that labour. Ile take.; the salary because he
has labour to perform, not labour connected with his
immediate office, but labour of much more import-
ance. lie is capable of rendering great service, by
relieving those who are overburdened by official duty.
A good deal has been said regarding the txpezise
to which a Cabinet Minister is subjected, owing to
his high position. Taking that class of men from
which Cabinet Ministers are usually selected, men,
if not of ample, of fair feline, is there any very
great increase to their ordinary expenditure incidental
to their becoming Cabinent Ministers ?—I have be-
fore observed that a man with twelve cr fifteen thou-
sand a year of his own, has probably no necessity for
any great increase in his establishment on appoint-
ment to office.
Take a person like the late Lord Sydenhatn, Mr.
Poulett Thomson, a man of moderate fortune, was he
necessarily subjected to any considerable expense
beyond his former expenditure, by being made a Ca-
binet Minister, and President of the Board of Trade ?
—lf he had not more than 2 0001. a year, I should
say that the emolument which Mr. Poulett Thomson
received from office was not sufficient to defray the
additional expenses to which he was subject, whatever
was his private fortune.
You think that a Cabinet Minister in general
would incur an additional expenditure of 2,000/. a
year in consequence of his being placed in that posi-
tion ?—lf he were Prime Minister, or Secretary of
State, it would be much more than that. I do not
think that 5,0001. a year is more than sufficient as a
hyiemar, witheitshear
ytheear
exorpensB,eoooo/f.
salary of one of those great offices; but, as I said be-
3fi
lie
no.
orauet ,thge
atriosv
oeoaf
fhmc
orfai
In;
io:oawfsr
salary
tsaimrv, Oyee 0a
cOni
fn/s
i3oitff:rooeo2roeomln,.o:oeeaot It. a
office. But in the case of such men as I have named,

the two Wtn. Pitts, or Mr. Fox, or Isir. Canning, or Mr
Burke, or Mr. Huskisson, if they become Secretaries o
State, an official salary less than that which is now
appropriated to those offices would not suffice. They
have no adtquate establishment of servants, of car-
riages of horses; they must have some provision of
that kind. Then observe, after their habits of life
have been altered, and their new establishment
formed, a change of government may suddenly take
place, rendering useless the expenditure they have in-
curred. The precariousness of the tenure of these
offices must be taken into account. Mr. Fox, I be-
lieve, after labouring for 40 years in the public ser-
vice in Parliament, did not hold Cabinet office for
much more than eighteen months. During the two
periods when he was Secretary of State, in Lord
Rockinghant'a administration, and Secretary of State
with Lord Grenville, I do not apprehend that Mr.
Fox held office for a period of two years in the whole.
II each case he probably entered office without hav-
ing an adequste establishment, and had to provide
one. In the later case, death prevented him from
holding office more than a few months, and at the
former period a change of Government took place.
Would not that rather lead to the conclusion, that
the amount of salary is, in point of fact, not the con-
sideration which induces men who possess talents for
public service to pursue official rank and station ?—I
am sure that it is not. Their views are much more
elevated. Such men as Lord Chatham, and Mr. Pitt,
and Mr. Fox, enter into public life from honourable
ambition, from the desire to render public service,
but I doubt whether it would be wise or just in the
state to turn round upon them on that account, and
say, " Since you are prompted by these high and ho-
nourable motives, we will cut down the salar, about
which you think nothing, and care nothing." It is
more wise to say, "We will allot to you a provision
sufficient to enable you to sustain the unavoidable ex-
.
eprcusesse
Are not the payments of our Cabinet Ministers
otfooaffibucese;
itwsepawtrilolnaggivee. you no temptation or
much higher than those of the Foreign Ministers ?—I
do not know what those Ministers receive ; I should
have thought not. Tht re are probably many indirect
allowances made to Foreign Ministers. The Minister
of Russia, for instance, has I believesel.cnaostntttimimcneauern:
.yuau
:roycf;ouhtmbiuops ex-
pensesutarrdeidon
y o u borne
allude
eaahnci
tnetdState,besidesvrbroceeofcaipstnierhideees
labourthis
tdirecto
which
hch
the
i 1 emolu-
mentsilieitnrhei s tieos
therf
dies,
meuw,oa,hjrnei
ch e
you not think that in all classes of the community
tall pursuits than there was at that time ?—There pro-
bably is, but that activity reacts, I think, upon the
duties of the Minister. That tendency to increased
labour throughout all classes adds to the public busi-
ness. It would he important that the Committee
should ascertain the progressive increase of business
in each department, caused by a combination of many
circumstances. Probably the penny. post has had its
ir fluence. There is a greater disposition to write to
Ministers, to send suggestions, and it is very ustla
that there should be that free voluntary communica-
tion upon nil matt( rs of public concern ; but it greatly
increases the business of the public offices:
creSasire Charlesbusiness
Woohal
the case that letters
the- penny postage was it not
received by the public offices before the penny postage
hisn consequence opinion an l no-f
had taken
e n that
place
il