The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-13 00:00:00

THE SUN,

from his own patronage. It would ho a painful thing
for a Minister to reduce the salaries of ail the public
servants appointed by him. He wouid never be tree from
the suspicion of bias and partiality. No charge of that
kind could be made against a Committee. He thought,
therefore, that the course of the Government was con-
sVtutional and politic. Precedent was in its favour.
To act otherwise the Government would he usurping the
constitutional functions of that House. Did the oppo-
sition to this course rest upon a sincere wish to reduce
the public expenditure ? He very much doubted it; but
perhaps, Hon. Gentlemen opposete would rise and tell
them their real motives. He believed that this amend-
ment proposed was with a view to " overtrump" th•_, Go-
vernment; and being opposed to action upon any but
bane fida intentions of redaction of the public expendi-
ture, he should oppose the amendment, and cordially
support the motion of the Noble Lord, which he believed
to be the most expedient and the best course to pursue,
under the circumstances, far the diminution of the sa-
laries and emolumerts of the public servants of the
state.—(Cheers, and loud crits of "Divide.'') In the
midst of which

2,1 r. lIERRIES rose and sail, that the caution mani-
fested by the Noble Lord in proposing the Committee
was observ,ble. Ile did not give them the slightest
elite to the amount of reduction which he was prepared
to make. Teat had somewhat shaken hie c,ntidenceiu

...•••.• • .. •••••
the Noble Lord's disposition to make reductions. The
working of Committees appointed by the Govern-
ment was not to be admir, d. They were so constructed
and composed that the opinions of Government should
come out of them. Bat it was not only that, but it was,
that after what had taken place there would be a sus-
picion in the public mini that they had not received all
that they had a right to expect from the predominating
influence of the Government, which give them a majo-
rity in the Committee. He thought the House would
receive with more confidence and impartiality a propo-
sitio❑ coming from the Government. He, for his part,
should say, that he felt no doubt whatever that the. G-
overnment was in possession of all means requisite for the
reduction of those salaries alluded to in the motion,
and he should add, that he was fully assured
that the House had all the necessary information relative
to those salaries, and, under these circumemaces, what
❑eed was there of a Committee? He did not see why it
should be objected to by the Hon. Member opposite (Mr.
Cockburn) that Government should not place themselves
in the invidious'position of reducing the salaries of those
under their patronage ; and to that he should say that
such reductions might be proposed by the Noble Lord
. .

(Lord J. Russell) to which no prudent man, in any
Ministerial situation, could object, particularly as it was
the wish of that House. However, he should say that
ho had that confidence in those gentlemen on the
Ministerial benches that they would make every reduc-
tion consistent with the public interest; but, at the
same time, he felt bound to remark that he was at a loss
to know why such caution was observed by the Noble
Lord in his attempt to develop his views, for when he
(Lord J. Russell) alluded to the reductions of the three
branches be did not then state what that reduction would
be. And he, therefore, considered that it was the duty
of the House to consider which of the two propositions
was worthy of their approval—whether that which was
most immediate and less expensive, or that which was
dilatory and more expensive, and, in consequence of his
approval of the proposition of the Hon. Member (Mr.
Disraeli), he had no hesitation to give him his support.
Mr. BRIGHT said that, from the opinion he had
necessarily formed of Committees of the House on all
previous occasions of importance, as such Committees
wero merely a sham, he felt disposed, at the first brush,
to support the motiun of the Hon. Member (Mr. Dist a .1t),
but seeing that he had not on this occasion recommended
any specific reductions which the public interests re-
quired, and also seeing that, on reference to his former
vote?, his present course was inconsistent and anoma-
lous, particularly when be recollected his former attacks
on his Hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden), particularly when he
stated that no plan of his lion. Friend's was either phi-
losophical or practical. Now, he would ask, could there
be a stronger proof of the utility of his Hon. Friend's
plans than that both sides of the House were Tieing with
each other to see who could best pursue the course pointed
out by him (Mr. Cobden). Yes, it was his Hon. Friend
that showed the House and the country that many un-
cessary expenses had been created through false alarm,
such as the Oregon question and the defence against the
invasion of France; but when the groundwork of those
alarms was totally removed, he (Mr. Cobden) advocated
the reduction of expenses raised through means of snch
a phantom. He was completely at a loss to account for
the new light that seemed to illume the understandings
of many Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side, and parti-
cularly the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries), who
had been frequently a member of the Committee on
miscellaneous estimates, and who was never known to be
in a minority when the economical interests of the
country were argued. Nay, he would go farther, and
say that he had never known that Right Hon. Member,
since he had the honour of a seat in that House, to have
voted in favour of a reduction of the national expenses.
—(Hear, hear.) He considered that the present
question might be reduced to the following form :
Shall the Government make such a reduction as
they think proper, or shall it be left to a Committee of
the House to enter into arrangements for the ne-
cessary reductions. His opinion was that if the Com-
mittee was; fairly appointed much more good; would
be effected than that the Government should take the
matter to themselves, for in the latter case much dissa-
tisfiction",,would be created by those in the Ministerial
employ, in consequence of such an interference by those
from whom they should least expect it. But if the Noble
Lord (Lord J. Russell) should appoint such Committee
as he ha i frequently seen appointed iu that House, con -
sisting of Members of the House who held Government
situations or pensions, then he would raise his voice
against such a Committe, and proclaim to the country
that the true interests of the people were slighted and
neglected by those who should be their protectors. Yet
from the interest that must be created in the public'
mind by that night's debate, he hoped that there was
no ground for the anticipation of such a packing of a
Committee, and should therefore support the motion of
the Noble Lord.—(tlear, hear.)
Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND observed, that if the
proposal of the Noble Lord had borne the smallest re-
semblance to the picture drawn of it by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Manchester (Mr. Bright)—if there had been in
it the slightest indication of the remotest intention on the
part of the Government to do anything more than to in-
quire, most unquestionably he would have voted for that
motion. The Noble Lord, with great naiveté, asked the
House to inquire. To inquire of whom ? They c iuld
only inquire of the Noble Lord himself, who possessed
twenty times more information on the subject then any
one else.—(A laugh.) This, then, was the motion—the
true pledge of the economical intentions of the Govern-
ment—for which all the Financial Reformers wets to
vote to-night.—(Hear, and a laugh.) It was not the
province of the Committee to reduce one fraction; it was
not a Committee to do any single thing beyond making
an inquiry.—(Hear, hear.) It was notorious that this
motion would never have been made but for the proposal
which had on a former occasion been submitted to the
House by the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire—(Hear,
hear)—and the intention of this motion was to trip up
the heels of that Hon. Gentleman. He must say he

thought the House was somewhat indebted to the Noble
Lord for shortening considerably the future labours of
the session; for, if this motion should be carried, it
would be utterly useless to entertain any other question
of financial reform.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) An
amusing book had lately been published in France—the
life of a certain Jerome Paturot in search of a social po-
sition. The hero was, if he remembered rightly, a
cotton nightcap manufacturer.—(A laugh.) Now, if
any gentleman was in search of a social position in this
country, there was not one that he could so well turn
to good account as that a of a financial reformer.—
(Laughter.) The financial reformer began by jobbing
and getting into Parliament, where he continued to as-
sail the Noble Lord and the rest of them in office, very
muoh to his own profit; be always voted for all impossible
motions, and when he went back to his constituents he
said, " Oh, was I not one of the three who went into the
lobby on such a question ?—(Laughter.) Was I not one
of that small minority that never effected anything, and
never meant to effect anything?"—(Renewed laughter.)
The Government, after playing one party against the
other, had lately resorted to a new " dodge."—(A laugh.)
They had said, " If we are to be in a minority we will
go out of office;" or else, " Oh, this motion is only a
masked battery. and the intention is to supplant the Go-
vernment." Now, if a formal motion were brought for-
ward on that subject, he (Mr. Drummond) would give
the Noble Lord his vote against all competitors; for he
believed nothing could be so detrimental to the country
as losing the services of that Noble Lord on the Treasury
bench. But he Mr. (Drummond) would never submit
to be bullied by any Minister who turned sulky and
threatened to run away from his place—(Laughter)—
leaving the country in confusion. He felt quite satisfied
that this motion would lead to no result.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had
listened with great attention to the discussion, but he
thought there had been a total lack of argument in the
speeches of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire and
those Hon. Gentlemen by whom his views had been
supported. The motion of his Noble Friend had been
characterised as one that was proposed for purposes of
delay, and it had been said that no conclusion could be
arrived at by the Committee during the present session.
The Honourable Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume)
found fault with the motion because it did not go far
enough, complaining that it was confined to three or
four subjects, and that they ought to have instituted
an inquiry into fifty other departments of expendi-
ture. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) entirely
agreed, however, with the Honourable Member for
Oxfordshire, that if the Government were to concur
in the suggestions of the Honourable Member for Mont-
rose and the Honourable Member for Marylebene, they
might be justly charged with endeavouring to avoid a
practical conclusion. The inquiry now proposed by his
Noble Friend could not occupy any lung tune, and would
be terminated long before the close of the session. The
Honourable Member fur Montrose (Mr. flume) then
said that a Committee never did the slightest good—
that the recommendations of a Committee were never
carried into effect. Why, he must have forgotten the
Committee which sat upon this very subject in 1831—a
Committee for which Lord Ali horp moved, to inquire
into the subject of official salaries—and which reported
upon all the principal salaries ; every recommendation
was carried into effect.—(Hear, hear.) Take the Corn •
mittee on the navy expenditure which had been referred
to; that suggestion of this Committee which had not
been carried into eff,ct—as to the numb?r of admirals—
had been alluded to; but nine out of ten of its recom-
mendations had been adopted. Let the Honourable
Member only recollect the case of those Committees
on which he had himself sat. The Import Duties
Committee did not its report lay the founda-
tion of measures since carried ?—(Hear, hear.)
Then the Honourable Member for Buckingham-
shire (Mr. Disraeli) said that the course pro-
posed by the Government was unworthy of
them ; that their opinion ought to hare been first ex-

pressed to the House ; that the House should have
had the emborl'ed opinion of the Government devee
loped in pipers on the table. But had the Hen. Mem-
ber looked into the prmVee of the House? Thu Com- I
mittee for which Lord Aithorp moved, for instance, was
not moved for upon estimates on the table. T here
wer,r ether cases of the same kind—the Committee to
inquire into the administration of the law, with the view
to aieertain the proper number cf judgos; another with
regard to the salaries of the judges; another with regard
to the emolument of the judges of the Prerogative
Court. The Hon. Gentlemen should refer to the case
the Noble Lord had himself mentioned—the 27th report
of Vie Committee in 1798. The Hon. Gentleman said
the Government out to take upon themselves the respon-
sibility of dealing with the public establishments. They
had never shrunk from that responsibility; and the
Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had reminded the House
that they had dealt eery largely with the public estab-
lishments with a view to the reduction of the expendi-
ture. The principle upon which they had proceeded had
not imh ed been that of a general reduction of salaries—
it would be the worst policy to un.lerpay the pubic ser •
rants—but rather that of redue:ng the number of pr-
eens employed. (Hear, hear.) Nothing could be
more unjust or unwise than the general reduction of
salaries prop said by the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire
(Mr. Henley) without regard to the circumstances of
each ewe., the merits of the individual, or the amount ut
w rk he might Le called upon to perform. The Hon.
M. tuber would make the public servants a whole army
of martyrs.—(A laugh.) Thu first branch of the h.-
qeiry was therefore not proposod to bo extended to
those with respect to whom the Government fully ad-
mitted that the responsibility rested with itself and was
conducting•an investigation by officern of its own, in-
quiring into their duties and their salaries, and the
proportion borne by the work to the remuneration.
With regard to the salaries of members of the Govern-
ment, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not
differ very much from those who said that Ministers of
the Crown ought not to be altogether led by feelings of
delicacy to abstain from expressing an opinion; but no
one could say that they were as impartial judges me the
question of their own salaries; as of the salaries of
others, and surely it would be infinitely better and far
more satisfactory to the country that an opinion upon
the amount of these should emanate from an impartially
constituted Committee.—(Hear.) Then, with regard to
the next branch of the inquiry—namely, judicial
officers—it was desirable that those who filled
these places should not be in the slightest degree de-
:pendent, with regard to their emoluments, upon the Ex-
ecutive; and it would be far better that these should be
inquired into by a. Committee than that the opinion
merely of the Government should be had. It had been
said that these functionaries could not be summoned
before a Committee to give evidence. Why; the Lord
Chancellor appeared before Lord Althorp's Committee
in 1831:—(Hear, hear.) As the Hon. and Learned
Member for Southampton (Mr. Cockburn) had said,
there could be no obstacle on the ground of delicacy in
getting a statement with regard to legal emoluments.--
(Hear, hear.) A strange objection was made to the
proposed inquiry into the diplomatic establishments. It
was a mistake to say that the salaries could not be
altered without an Act of Parliament. The whole sum
applicable to the service was fixed by statute, but not
the salary of each person. The Hon. Member (Mr.
Disraeli) supposed that the reference of the diplomatic
establishments to a Committee was devised to prejudice
his bringing on his motion upon that department; but
would it suit him better, in bringing forward such a
motion, to be without the information which
the investigation 'of the Committee would supply?
Was not the want of information a difficulty which
he would have to encounter?—(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Member for Surrey (Mr. Drummond) had stated that
not a word was said about reduction; he could not have
attended to what fell from the Noble Lord.— [Mr.
Deumsisioxn—" I said there was nothing about it in the
motion."] -The Noble Lord stated that, abstaining
(which the Hon. Gentleman might, perhaps, attribute
to a false delicacy) from giving any opinion on the sub-
ject of official salaries, and wishing to leave it to the
Committee, he was of opinion that reductions might be
made in the other departments—the diplomatic and
judicial. One Hon. Gentleman thought it exceedingly
wrong that the Noble Lord did not state the amount
of reductions he was of opinion might be made ; why,
if he had, it would have been said that it was useless
to move for a Committee when the Government had
made up their minds, and openly stated the extent of
reduction they intended to agree to. It would have
been unfair to a Committee of Inquiry, and inconsis-
tent with the object of its appointment, for the Go-
vernment to say beforehand what they considered
the result of the inquiry ought to be.—(Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Member (Mr. Israeli) in part of
his speech, used language that might well surprise one.
He spoke of the House of Commons as the guardian of
the public purse, but of the Government as the obnoxious
instrument of fiscal extortion. Gentlemen opposite
might take the admonition which they had themselves
given, and consider not merely their present position,
but that which they might possibly occupy.—(Hear,
hear.) The expressions in which the Government of
the country had thus been characterised were surely net
wisely used.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Member
for Stamford (Mr. Henries) had stated that the House
Has only asked to choose between two modes of effect-
ing the same object, acd that the amendment would lead
to the more extensive and speedy reduction of the ex-
penditure and relief to the country. But surely the
amendment was one of those vague resolutions which
did not necessarily lead to any reductisa or any practical
conclusion; the orignal motion was for a definite in-
quiry. which was much more likely to lead to a practical
result.—(Hear.) The amendment, indeed, had been put
by Gentlemen opposite upon the ground of its being a
complimentary expression of confidence in the Govern-
ment as prepared and disposed to carry out reduction;
but, if Gentlemen thought the matter should be left in
the hands of the Government, why had one Hon. Mem-
ber (Mr. Disraeli) given notice of motion with a view to
a reduction in the diplomatic and consular expenditure,
and another (Mr. Henley) of a motion for a general re-
vision of all salaries with a view to reductions?—(Hear,
hear.) Those notices did not indicate the confidence
which was now professed.—(Hear.) As already stated,
the Noble Lord had declared that in two branches of

the inquiry he looked for reduction of the expenditure;
he abstained from pronouncing any opinion as to one
branch, because he thought it decent and proper that he
should not do so at this stage, but one member of the
Government at least would be on the Committee, and
would state the opinion of the Government unhesitat-
ingly in Committee on the proper occasion. Gentlemen
who talked of the relief from taxation to be effected by
the reduction in the salaries of the great officers, or even
of the establishments, must remember that it was impos-
sible so to deal with parties who had held their situations
for a length of time as to give any such great relief at
once, whatever reduction there might be in the course
of years. The Noble Lord had stated the reductions
made in the last year or two; these were going on from
day to day. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did
not think any great reduction could be effected (as we
understood) in the higher offices which the Committee
would have to consider; but, whether that was so or not,
the Government thought it better to obtain the opinion
of a tribunal which might take a more impartial view
than perhaps any persons would take with regard to their
own salaries.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord J. MANNERS was tempted to ask, when the
Right Hon. Gentleman seemed a little indignant at any
suspicion that the Noble Lord's motion was caused by
the notice given by the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire
(Mr. Henley), why was it that the Government did not
bring forward their motion at the commencement of the
session?—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable and Learned
Member for Southampton (Mr. Cockburn) had based
his argument considerably upon the impropriety
and indelicacy of calling upon the members of the
Government to come forward and state what was a
fair remuneration for the services they were per-
forming; but if the matter was to be submitted to a
Committee, those very persons must be summoned be-
fore it, and asked their opinions, and their evidence
reported to the House.—(Hear.) And what would fol-
low ? Suppose the Committee constituted in the very
free and liberal spirit indicated by the Hon. Member for
Manchester (Mr. Bright)—though every one knew it
would be constituted in a very different manner; then it
would be almost certain that some salaries of members
of the Government would be reduced by such a Com-
mittee below what the Noble Lord charged with the
responsibility of the Government thought a proper remu-
neration, and the Noble Lord would have to come before
the House appealing from the Committee as to the salary
of his successor.—(Hear, hear.) As for the Hon. Mem-
ber for Manchester (Mr. Bright), seeing the practical
inconsistency in which he was involving himself, the
Hon. Member, towards the conclusion of his speech, said
that if he thought the Committee was to be constituted
as every Committee had been before or since he (Lord
J. Manners) had sat in the House and was to be com-
posed of Noble Lords and Right lion. Gentlemen who
belonged to the present or any former Government, and
of officers of the army and navy, he would not consent
to vote for it. What pledge to that effect had he received
from the Noble Lord? Had he seen the least symptom
that the Committee would be constituted in such a form as
he desired in the speech of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer? Nothing of the kind. Notwithstanding the
speech of the Hon. Member, it was yet time for him
to mend his rote, and no one could doubt that if no con-
cession was made as to the appointment of the Committee,
they would have a report containing various recommen-
dations just as usual, some of which would be adopted if
they met the views of the Government, and the others
quietly shelved. Such would be the Committee for
which the tribune of the people—the man who had no
confidence in any Government—was about to vote.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) spoke
of the amendment as a deliberate Tarty movement, but
if they went on attacking every motion as a question of
party they never would arrive at aoy end they desired.
He (Lord John Manners) hoped the advice of him
whom he might term the Nestor of financial reformers
(Mr. Hume) would be taken into serious considera-
tion by the younger financial reformers in the House,
though he could scarcely hope to see them carry it
into effec'. The House would have to decide on two
propositions, one of which placed before them without
delay the moans of effecting the retrenchments which,
in the opinion of the Government and of the House, the
public service would amply allow; the other of which
was to take a course which, in his conscience, he believed
could have the effect of throwing over the whole ques-
tion, not only for the present, but for the ensuing session
—a proposition to which he saw no end, and he could
not c snclude without calling on all Hon. Members,
whether they thought the country, though prospering,
could not afford extravagant salaries, or that the real
distress f the community was the cause of this pas-
sionate demand for economy, to support the amend-
ment.—(lioar, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—The objections which have been
made to the motion proposed to the House certainly will
not require very much answer from me, because they