The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-01 00:00:00

DAY EVENING, MAY=: 1850.

other demands upon their funds, and at present th
could nut undertake more.—(Hear, hear.)
MEMBERS' OATHS.
Mr. WOOD asked the First Lord of the Treasury
whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government
to propose any measure, during the present session, with
reference to the oaths now administered to Members on
taking their seats in this House.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL had to say that it was the
intention of her Majesty's Government to introduce a
measure on that subject during the present session of
Parliament. He wculd take an opportunity, so soon as
public business admitted, of stating the precise nature of
the measure before it was introduced.
EVICTIONS IN IRELAND.
Mr. POULETT SCROPE asked the First Lord of
the Treasury;twhether he was aware that a vast number
of ejectment decrees had been recently served on a
single estate in the county of Galway, whereby several
thousand persons are liable to be in one day forced from
their homes, and their houses levelled ; that in
that and several other counties of Ireland evictions
and house-levellings on a similar wholesale scale
have been for some time past, and are still going
on; and if the opinion of the law officers of the Crown
had been taken as to whether such depopulations,
whereby large bodies of her Majesty's subjects are at
once deprived of shelter and livelihood, and many (as
may be easily proved) of life, be not illegal, and a high
crime and misdemeanour by the ancient common law of
the realm?

Lord J. RUSSELL said he had no official information
respecting the number of evictions which had taken
place in Ireland, and he saw that the Irish newspapers
which discussed this subjec,, were ♦ery much at variance
both as to the extent of the evictions and as to the
persons who carried them into effect. It was certainly
not his intention to submit any case to the law officers
of the Crown on this subject—indeed he thought it
would be exceedingly difficult for the law officers to give
an opinion upon the point mentioned by the Honourable
Member.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
Colonel CHATTERTON asked the First Lord of the
Admiralty, seeing the sum of 538,6421. charged in
the Navy Estimates for the years 1849.50, under the
head of " Victuals for Seamen and Marines," what
portion of that sum had been paid, or now remains
due, to houses in England, Ireland, and foreign houses
in the provision trade, for the supply of beet and pork
for her Majesty's navy.
Sir F. BARING said it would be difficult and inju-
dicious to apportion the sums among the different houses
in England and Ireland.
DUTY ON WHEAT.
In answer to a questtion from Mr. NEWDEGATE,
who complained of certain inaccuracies in the returns
presented to Parliament of the duty received on the im-
portation of wheat,
Mr. LABOUCHERE said he was sorry to say that
tho Hon. Gentleman had fallen into error in the method
of his calculations. It would require a more detailed
statement than he could at present lay before the House
to explain them, but he would just mention one instance.
The accounts which the Hon. Gentleman alluded to were
from the sth of January to the sth of February, and
not from the first of the month, as he had stated. Of
those, up to the 31st of January, corn entered at 10s.,
and the remainder at ls. duty.
After a short conversation, the matter was allowed to
drop, Mr. LABOUCHERE expressing a perfect confi-
dence that the Hon. Gentleman would find that the re-
turns were correct after he bad perused the statement
which he would lay on the table of the Reuse.
PREROGAI 'VII COURT—OFFICE OF
REGISTRAR.
Sir B. HALL rose to put a question to the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government with reference to
the office of the registrar of the Prerogative Court of
Canterbury, which he said was a sinecure office, the emo-
luments of which amounted to 12,0001. per annum. The
Archbishop of Canterbury had the power of appointing
to the office, and also of nominating two others in re-
version. Archbishop Moore had appointed his two
sons, Thomas and Robert Moore, the latter of whom now
held it, having succeeded his brother in 1845.
Along with the registrarship he believed that gentle-
man also held a prebend stall, and two rectories, having
a net income of 14,000/. per annum. Dr. Manners
Sutton, while ho was Archbishop, had appointed the
present Viscount Canterbury, his grandson, then twelve
years old, to the reversionary interest, while the late Arch-
bishop, Dr. Howley, had declined on conscientious grounds
to make any appointment at all. Tho questions which
he wished to ask were, whether the present Archbishop
had not filled up the vacant reversionary interest with
the name of the son of the present Bishop of Winchester,
and what the age of that son was; and, also, whether it
was the intention of the Government, in conformity with
the provisions of an Act passed in 1847, to introduce any
measure for the purpose of revising those appointments?
Lord J. RUSSELL said, as the Right Hon. Baronet
had given notice of his question, he had obtained in-
formation on the subject to which it referred, and he
found that Mr. John Moore was appointed to the office
by the late Archbishop Moore, and that Robert Moore
was appointed to hold it in reversion after the death of
his brother. It appeared, as the Right Honourable
Baronet had truly stated, that the late Archbishop
Howley did not fill up the vacancy which occurred
during his lifetime.—(Hear. hear.) He (Lord J. Rus-
sell) could not say whether the Archbishop made any
communication to her Majesty's Government on the
subject, but ho remembered perfectly well that in
a conversation which he had had with (him,
the Archbishop mentioned that an office had
become vacant, to which he did not intend to make an
appointment, but he did not state the nature of the office.
It appeared likewise that the second reversion of
the office had since been given by the present Arch-
bishop to hie nephew, Mr. Sumner, who was a young
man now studying at the Temple. (A laugh.)
With respect to the existing law, as it effected
that appointment, be might state, a Bill was introduced
and passed into a law in 1847, which provided that all
appointments subsequently made in the Ecclesiastical
Courts, should be taken subject to any regulations which
might afterwards be made by Parliament, either as to
their alteration or abolition.—(Hear, hear.) The
nature of the office in question was at present under-
going inquiry by a Select Committee of the House
and it appeared to him (Lord J. Russell) to he one of
those offices which, when Parliament dealt with the sub-
ject, would either oe abolished, or so altered that the
person holding it should perform efficient duties.—
(Hear, hear.) It appeared to him, likewise, that the
enormous salary mentioned by the Right Honourable
Baronet must be abolished, and, by the provisions of
the Act to which he alluded, the person holding the
office in reversion would be entitled to no compensation
whatever.
Sir B. HALL then gave notice that on Thursday nest
ho would move for certain returns connected with the
ofeers of the ecclesiastical courts in England and
Wales.

Mr. HORSMAN gave notice that on the same day he
would put a question to the Noble Lord (Lord J. Rus-
sell) respecting the purchase, by the Ecclesiastical Com-
mission, of the Bishop of Gloucester's interest in the
estate of Hawfield (as we understood).
DRAINAGE BILL.
In reply to Mr. DISRAELI,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
Bill which he bad mentioned in his financial statement

respecting drainage would be laid on the table of the
House in two or tht ee days.
OFFICIAL SALARIES.
Mr. HENLEY then rose to move that an humble ad-
dress be presented to her Majesty, humbly to request
that she would be graciously pleased to direct that a
careful revision be made of the salaries and wages paid
in every department of the public service, with a view
to a just and adequate reduction thereof, due regard being
had to the efficient performance of the several duties.
He believed this subject had not been to the fullest ex•

tent brought under revision since the Sear 1821. This
House then voted an address to the Throne on the then
circumstances, calling for a revision of the salaries paid
to all members of the service, and praying for a re-
duction of the numbers emplopst That motion
was afterwards referred, by minutes of the Trea-
sury, to the heads of the various departments, and
more alterations and reductions took place in conse-
quence. That measure was afterwards followed up by a
Committee of the House, which had referred to its consi-
deration the salaries paid the officials who held seats
either in that:or in the other House of Parliament, which
was somewhat analagous to the Committee which was
appointed a short time ago. Another Committee
appointed in the same year took cognizance of the
various officers who had heretofore been paid out of the
Civil List, and who from that time were thrown upon
the Consolidated Fund. These Committees led to re-

ductions, but not of a great extent, and since that
time there had been no further dealing with the sub-
ject. It would, however, be in the recollection of the
House that about two years ago the present Government
thought it right to refer th expenditure of the two
great branches of the public service to the consideration
of a Committee of this House, and he thought that of
itself was a pretty strong indication that there was some-
thing special in the times to induce the Government of the
country to take so very unusual a course. It chanced to
him to have the honour of sitting on one of those Com-
mittees, but while the report of the Committee on the
army estimates recommended reductions in the heads of

departments, that of the Navy Committee was altogether
silent on the subject; that brought them down
to what took place the other day, when the
Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment brought forward a motion which was carried
to refer certain limited branches of the service to a
Select Committee. With what view the Noble Lord
made that motion he did not know. He did not know

whether the Noble Lord thought any increase or any
reduction were necessary, because the Noble Lord did
not tell them ; but he could hardly suppose that the
Noble Lord had any other object but a reduction
• in view. But, however that might be, he would state
shortly to the House the branches of the public service
which the Noble Lord selected in the consideration of
this Committee. They were first the offices held by
gentlemen who held seats either in that, or the other
House of Parliament; then there was the diplomatic
corps ; and, lastly, there where what were
called judicial offices. Now, he was prepared to show
that each of these separate branches stand upon srecial
grounds, which some other branches did not. He would
take first in • order the judicial salaries. Now
since reference must be had to the remunera-
tion received by eminent men practicing in
the same profession of equal dignity, that
was an important element which must enter into
the consideration of the question of what ought to be
paid to an eminent advocate on undertaking a
judicial office, and therefore he maintained that
this branch of the public service stood upon grounds
of its own.—(Hear, hear.) He now came to the diplo-
matic service. Of course a separate element which must
enter into the consideration of that question must be
the restricted circle of men et ability from
whin they mild eeket ihtlividwile to fill the 4facf. They

must also take into account the expenses which an
Ambassador was necessarily expected to incur in the
various countries where the pubic service required
them to go.—(hear.) Therefore they stand upon sepa-
rate ground from all other branches of the public ser-
vice.—(Hear.) He came next to the official gentlemen
who held seats either in that or the other House,
of Parliament, who, he thought, he should be able So
show stood altogether upon grounds apart from he
great body of public servants who held perala-
nent offices in the various departments.—(Hxese,)
In the first place, those gentlemen were only in antl out
of office, and subject to a change by a thousand eSsease-
stances. But there was this peculiarity attache-Ilea t. eir
office, that while other servants of the Goverenient were
only required to work by day, the e:ervaz,s of the
Crown in this and the ether House of
ent were
called upon to work by night as well as by day. Therefore,
both on the ground of not having permanek possession
of their office, and of having to woile by day and by
night, he did draw a distinct line between, those gentle-
men and all the other branches of the public service. If
it was thought that the three branches of the public
service, the army, navy, and ordnance, stood in need of
revision, he wanted to know why it was that larger
amounts of the public expend' .re, which he should
bring before their notice, a- 3 not also to be subject
to revision and economy, . enomy was proper. With
respect to the army, navy, and ordnance, those estimates
had been annually under the revision of Parliament itself.
With respe t tc judicial offices and official salaries in
this and the other Houses of Parliament, those had been
recently submitted to more recent discussion than the
larger mass to which he should call their attention.
Now, he knew there was a very large number
of gentlemen, not only in this House, but out
of it, who had laid down the almost categori-
cal opinion that no economy could be practised
and no saving could be made except in the warlike estab-
lishments of the country. Great countenance had been
given to that opinion, not only by the Noble Lord the
First Lord of the Treasury, but also by the
late First Lord of the Treasury in his financial state-
ment in 1845. He (Mr. Henley) could not but think
there was a deal of error in that state-
ment. When it was considered how large
the expenditure of the country was, which never
came under the review of Parliament at all, he thought
it would be very difficult to show that if that large ex-
penditure were carefully looked into some con-
siderable saving might not be effected. He
found that under the head of Customs, Ex-
cise, Stamps and Taxes, Post-office, and Crown lands,
according to a financial return for 1848 to 1849, the
amount paid under the head of salaries and wages was
no less than 2,818,000/. He found also by the
same return the sum paid in various salaries to Com-
missioners was 271,000/.; the diplomatic salaries were
140,000/. ; and the salaries of officers in courts of
justice amounted to no less than 1,970,924/.;
making altogether the sum of 4,327,000/. odd, not one
farthing of which ever came under the review of Par.
liament.—(Hear.) Then in the navy, army, and
ordnance, the return of salaries and wages of
persons who had nothing to do with fighting
men showed a sum of 1,500,0001.; for salaries in the
commissariat 100,000/.•' salaries in miscellaneous esti-
mates, 1,131,000/. So that there was of sala-
ries which came under the annual revision of
Parliament a sum of about 2,647,0001. They had in
addition large sums paid in salaries under the control of
Government, though not paid out of the public Exchequer.
Taking the expenses of all the courts of law, they
amounted to 500,000/. per annum, thus making a total
amount of 7,000,000/. in civil salaries. He wished to
call the attention of the House to the amount of what
was paid to the army, navy, and ordnance. The whole
sum paid in round numbers was 6,500,000/., so that at
least one million more was paid for civil salaries than to
the army, navy, and ordnance; and yet they we-e
told that it was quite impossible to save anything out
of the civil expeases, and that the only way was te go
to the warlike expenditure.—(Hear, hear.) That seemel
to him very much like, to use a sporting phrase, giving
a " false hollow" to distract attention, and turn inquiry
from those items of expenditure where it was possible to
make a good case. A good deal had been said on this
subject out of doors, and it was thought that the army
was kept up for the benefit of the aristocratic branches
of the community. But how did that stand ? Out of
the army estimates 1,100,000/. went to the officers, end
2,200,0001. to the men. The men were generally take n
from the unskilled labourers of the country. They got
a full share of the army employment. The Noble Lord
at the head of the Government had held out that it was net
possible to save more in these estimates than they had
done. He had made such and such reductions. He had
saved 100,000/., and when opportuniny offered, he was
going to do a great deal more. Similar language had
been held out by the Right Honourable Baronet at
the head of the Government in 1845. Both
Prime Ministers very much agreed, and that
compelled him to look a little to the actual figures of the
case as they stood when those statements were
respectively made. The Noble Lord (Lord John
Russell) stated, that since 1832, reductions had been
made in the stamps and taxes whereby a saving was
mode of 259,000/. No considerable reduction had been
made since then. The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel)
had, he believed, made the statement in 1845, that it
was their duty to reduce these establishments so far as
was consistent with the public convenience and utility,
and due regard to economy, and that the revenue should
be collected with the least possible expensh. But still,
after that admission, and although the subject had occu-
pied the attention f every Government, nothing effec-
tive had been done.—(Bear.) He went on to say that
.he thought it would be a delusion to suppose that they
could materially reduce the public burdens by diminish-
ing the salaries paid to the civil officers of the state.
But when he (Mr. Henley) had showed that they
amounted to 7,000,0001., he thought he was justified in
differing from him in opinion it, upon inspection, it
should be thought just to reduce them.—(Hear, hear.)
Ho wished to know how far the Government had reali,ed
savings? That he would show from public accounts. He
came first in order with a statement of the compara-
tive expenditure of the country between the year
1838 and the year 1844. When the Right Honour-
able Baronet (Sir R. Peel) spoke in 1845, ho was about
to introduce very considerable modifications in the
tariff, which they were led to suppose would bring
about a very considerable saving. In 1838 the great
branches of the public revenue, the customs, excise,
stamps, and taxes, cost the country, in salaries and
wages, 1,993,5151. He found that in 1844, at a time
when they were told that great reductions had been
made from time to time, and that the tariff had been re-
vised, and various articles struck out of it, yet the cost
of collection had swollen up to 2,034,000/, That was no-
thing like a general reduction. But, further, there
was a very material item of expenditure. lie alluded to
superannuation allowances, which should be taken into
account, as well as the actual charge of salaries. In
some of the departments a great many persons were oc-
casionally discharged, and after a little while more
were taken on; and so far from reducing these al-
lowances in 1844, as compared with 1838, there was an
actual increase. From 228,000/., in the latter year,
they had swelled up in the former, to 254,000/. They
had not only bad an increase in salaries, but in the su-
perannuation fund, so they bad it on the right and on
the left. But that was not all; the revenue collected in
1844 was larger than that in 1838, and yet the expense
of collection, which was only five per cent. in the iatter
year, increased in 1844 to 5/. 48. 2d. per cent. There
was an increased per centage in the cost of collection in
the excise and stamps. He was not able to make a
comparison in the taxes. Having arrived at the year
1844 he wished to draw a comparison with the present
year, but he did not find that there was a reduction. In
the year 1844 they had the property-tax, which was on
also now, and therefore a comparison might be taken on
all the four great branches of expenditure at this period.
In the debate in 1845 they were promised distinctly by
the First Minister of the Crown that if they would con-
sent to the repeal of the auction duties the saving in the
collection of the revenue would be very great. The
Right Honourable Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), forget-
ting for a moment his usual caution, travelled some-
what out of his course, and said that, with regard to
plate glass, if the duty was taken off there would be a
saving in the cost of collection. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer said the same also with respect to the auc-
tion duty, but he found that the supposed saving did not
reach the sum indicated. In 1844 the amount of sala-
ries in the four great departments of the revenue was
2,244,0004, and, with the superannuation allowances, the
amount was 2,288,580/. In 1848.9 the aggregate amount
of salaries and superannuation allowances in the same
departments was 2,294,648/. After allowing certain re-
ductions, the result of the comparison was, that they had
2,205,000/. against 2,218,000/. • Therefore, all the mani-
fold savings from joining offices together in some in-
stances, and abolishing them altogether in others was,
that they were now better by 83.498/. than they were
in 1844. Taking one year with another, the whole
expense did not decrease. Looking back twenty
years, when there were nearly double the duties
to collect, and indirect taxation had not been
substituted for direct taxation, there was not that gain
which they had a right to expect. He had dwelt more
upon the collection of the revenue than upon the other
branches of the public expenditure, because it was the
largest, and it was most difficult to collect information
respecting it. He had trespassed, perhaps, at too great
length, upon the patience of the House, but it was not
possible, without the dry detail of figures, to make the
subject understood. The Government had not made out
such a case of • continued reduction in these items that
they could show that further reductions could not take
place.—(Hear, hear.) At all events he had shown that
with regard to the revenue, it could be carefully revised.
With regard to Commissioners of Customs, they should
consider hew far these Commissioners could come under
this revision. Many of these Commissions should be
inquired into. The Commissioners of Lunacy, for in-
stance, received 2,000/. a year salary. Why should they
receive 2,000/. a year, and a county court judge only
I,oool.?—(Hear, hear.) It was impossible to say that
many of these salaries needed no revision, or that
many of them might not be abolished.—(Hear, hear.)
He now came to another branch of the subject.
He rejoiced at the course taken by the Noble Lord
of suggesting inquiries upon such matters. It was ne-
cessary at periods to take a review of the affairs of na-

Lions as well as those of individuals. It was beneficial
occasionally to overhaul their aff.:irs. Unless the Noble
Lord (Lord J. Russell) had seen something special in
their circumstances he would not have adopted that
course. He (Mr. Henley) was not one cf those who
attributed the existing depression to recent legislation.
There was certainly extreme depression, but he did not
intend to go into that ; but it was perfectly just and
legitimate to show that it was mainly owing to two great
causes; first, the great alteration in the value of money;
and, secondly, to the consequent decrease in the rate of
interest, which had thus the effect of lowering the rate
of profit, and stimulating competition.—(Hear, bear.)
All these things made it extremely difficult for persons
of small capital to make sufficient gain to support
tLefaitirell read thei,V **lies; 4114 0010 causes of

niecessity rendering any fixed salary infinitely
;Awn, valueb'e than it was twenty years ago, this
sapped squally to salaries as as to income derived
Prom other sources. Now, in addition to this, he should
snot be considered to trench upon his privilege when he
said that the legislation of the last three or four years
had been carried on so as to secure the present low prices
in every article of consumption. When the interest of
the public debt increased so mech for the last twenty
years, he considered that the income must have, increased
in proportion to enable the Government to pay such
high salaries to so great a number of officials as were at
present employed, Flo would not dwell any further on
this point, but refer to the case of emigration, which was
well worthy the consideration of the House, es it tended
to show that while the efficitals of Government were fat-
tening on the income cf the country, the people were
forced to see k for sustenance in a foreign lend,
and that, naturally, much against their
nation ; and he would ask to what was thet
attributable ? The only rinse or that he would
venture to give was, to compare the number of emi-
grants in the years 1543 and 1848. In the former year
there were only 26,000, but in the latter there were no
less than 248,000. Again, he would call the attention
of the House to the state et crime and the number of
criminals in the years 1831 and 1848. In 1831 there
wete only 19,601 ; in tt e letter year, 20,349. While he
admitted that the population had much increased he
could not at the erree time adroit that there was any
proportion between the increase of population and the
increase of criminals. This is also a feat lire worthy the
consideration of the House, and worthy of being traced
to its proper source. He would next direct their att-n-
-tion to the official value of imports and exports, for in
1828 the official value of exports amounted to only
22.000,0001., and of imports to 36.000,0001.; whereas in
1848 the exports amounted to 132,000,000/., and the im-
ports to only 52,000,0001. This showed that the pro-
duce cf the country is fast failing, end that there is
something requisite to be done by a Government that
derives so great an income from the revenue accruing
from such an increase of revenue; and it also affords
sufficient grounds for considering why so many needle-
women, tailors, shoemakers, and other tradesmen are
depressed and penniless, for the value of their work in
1831, 1843, and 1844 was ten times more than in 1848.
When the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) some time
since stated that there were several articles that ob-
tained a higher price at present than in any of' those
years alluded to, he should say in reply that they were
not more than four in number, whereas there were nu-
merous others that suffered materially. He would call
the attention of the House to those home articles that
were so much depreciated. The articles he (Mr. Henley)
alluded to on which a reduction was made in 1848-9
were—first, bread, on which 17 per cent. was lost; next
groceries, on which was lost 25 per sent.; cotton, 30 per
cent.; wool, 10 per cent.; beer, 20 per cent.; shoes, 7 per
cent.; together with several other articles which he could
enumerate but that he did not wish to trespass too much on
the attention if the House. He therefore could not agree
with the Noble Lord, for the appreciation of the one or
two articles that he (Lord J. Russell) had previously
referred to were of a recent period. His principal ob-
ject in making that motion was to show that there was
a general cry throughout the country for more work,
and as one of the trustees of the public he would never
be found to flinch from his duty, particularly as it was
a matter of very great importance in a commercial point
of view, and should his opinion be erroneous he had only
to console himself that it was net from design, but in the
discharge of a sacred duty that he erred. He hoped he
would not he understood to make any unfair or unjust
allusion to the men at present in authority—for them
personally he felt bound to say that he held the highest
respect—but hoped they would consider that as the
times changed so ought Governments. He knew that
there were many applications from boards of guardians
in various localities for the reduction of the expenses of
the country, and should this question be staved off, and
that any ospression should come on the people, he fish
assured that Governmenment should adopt some plan
similar to his for the relief and satisfaction of the public.
These were his reasons for bringing the question before
the notice cf the House, and he had to thank them for
their kind indulgence.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said her
Majesty's Government had shown that they were not at
all indisposed to the ostensible object of the Hon. Gen-
tleman's motion; but, at the same time, they could not
conceive the motive of the Hon. Gentleman for bringing
it. forward at that moment. If the Government had
been negligent in revising the public establishments, or
if they and those who preceded them had not exercised
economy in point of reduction if expense year after
year, his Noble Friend and he would not be indisposed
almost to acquiesce in the motion of the Hon. Gentle-
man; but when they felt that this was a course that had
been pursued by them for a long period, and also by
their predecessors in office, that large reductions had
been effected, as was stated on another occasion by his
Noble Friend, he could not see that the motion had any
other object than to express a censure which the Go-
vernment felt they did not deserve, or to create confusion
in the case, which the Government could not coun•
tenance. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
hardly knew what the Hon. Gentleman meant
by his motion. He had gone into a number
of topics, altogether unconnected with the ques-
tion at issue ; and when he (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) had come down to answer the Bon.
Gentleman on the subject of salaries, he was compelled
to answer also the Hon. Gentleman on the subject cf
prices, though he had no notice to enable him to pre-
pare for so doing. The Hon. Gentleman had taken as
a test the price of haberdashery, and by that test had
endeavoured to prove his case. But it should be borne
in mind that a great proportion of that article which wee
originally prepared by hand, was now prepared let
machinery, in Glasgow and other places. When, there-
fore, the Hon. Gentleman argued on that hypothesis, hi
was utterly and entirely mistaken in his premises, en(
also in his conclusions. Tho Hon. Gentleman had com-
plained of the distress of that large class of poor person,
living by needlework, and stated that the tailors said
their throats were cut by their wives and children;
and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) learned from
these persons that the great cause of the depression was
the low price for nicking soldiers' clothes. But ii
the proposition of the Honourable Gentleman was
adoptad, there would be a still further depression
in that respect, and those who lived by making these
articles would be much worse off than before.—(Cries of
" Oh, oh.") Their distress in fact would be aggra-
vated rather than lessened by its adoption. The Hon.
Gentleman seemed to blame his (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer's) Noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) for stating
that many items in the expenditure of clerks with 120/.
a }'ear under the Government had not diminished of
late years, but how far was the Hon. Gentleman just'.
fled in so doing? It was perfectly true that the price of
many articles that necessarily entered into the consump-
tion of a person of that salary had not only not dimi-
nished, but had actually increased. Potatoes, for its
stance, and other matters. He (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) held in his hand a return of the expeedi•
ture of the Marylebone Workhouse in 1849, as com-
pared with that of 1843, and he found by that return
that the averaae cost of supporting each pauper had
considerably increased, including of course food, fuel,
lighting, medical attendance, &c. In 1843 the average
rate for each individual in that establishment was 4s.
44d. per week; in 1849 it was sa. 0111. In 1849 the
price of wheat was higher than in 1843. The other
principal items of expenditure stood as follows:-
1843. 1849.
Flour—. 349. 10.1. per sack
Potatoes. 963. Od. per ton lo7a. 6d.
Oatmeal.. lls. Od. per cwt 1 is. 44d.
Therefore, in his (the Chancellor cf the Exchequer's)
opinion, his Noble Friend was fully justified in stating
that upon many of the items that compose the necessa-
ries of life there had been no reduction, while the in-
crease of what was called the green-grocer's bill more
than compensated for any reduction that had taken place
in other items of inevitable expenditure. He (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) stood in a very painful
and unpleasant position in this matter, for he was con-
stantly appealed to, by the very persons who would tell
him that salaries should be reduced, respecting the hard-
ship of individual cases of clerks in the employ of Go-
vernment, and those who reproached him meat :in that
House for not reducing them were those who complained
most strongly of these cases of hardship at his office.
It was no pleasant thing to carry into effect motions such
as that of the Hon. Gentleman, and the pain that he
felt in doing so was not, he could assure the House, at
all lessened by the imputations of cruelty which were
freely indulged in on those occasions. The principle,
however, upon which the Goverment proceeded,was not
as laid down by the Honourable Gentleman.
He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) believed
that a general reduction such as that Hon.
Gentleman proposed would not be wise or just. IL
believed, on the contrary, that-to exact a greater amount
of labour for existing payments, and to reduce future ap-
pointments, was a mode far more conducive to the ad-
vantage of the public service, as well as a far wiser
and more just economy. But the Government had not
been negligent in the matter of reduction of salaries
either—not of existing salaries, because they believed
that would be unjust—but in the case of appointments
made upon the relinquishment of situations—uniformly
giving the successor to such situation less than his pre-
decessor, and imposing upon him more duties. That was
true economy. To reduce salaries when greater exer-
tions were required of persons long in office under Go-
vernment, would be, in his opinion, to act cruelly towards
those parties. The Government was bound to stand by
them under such circumstances, and to protect them by
all the means in their power. The Honourable Gentle-
man seemed to have omitted all reference to those higher
salaries which formed the subject before the Committee
app -Anted by his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's)
Noble Friend; therefore he (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) should say nothing about it. In regard to the
other salaries, he acquiesced, ns did also his Noble
Friend, in the principle of the amendment of the Hon.
Member for Buckinghamshire, that it was the duty of
the Government, on their own responsibility, to introduce
the measures that might be necessary for effecting every
reduction in the national establishments, consistent with
the efficient discharge of the public service; but
he believed that it would nut be consistent with
the efficient discharge of the public service to reduce,
generally, as the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ox-
ford proposed, the salaries of all public servants. He
did not say that on making any new appointments it
would be unjust to make them at a reduced rate of sa-
lary; but he did think it would be cruel to persons who
had been thirty or forty years in the public service to
turn round upon them and reduce them now. A great
deal was said about reduction; but how would that prin-
ciple apply to the lowest class of clerks in the public
offices? Those persona were not paid so well even as
menial servants. Was the House of Commons prepared
to be unmindful of the service of this excel ent and able
class of public servants? With regard to a reduetien of
expenses, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequ,r) would
just point out what had been done in past years by the
titivernment IV hich bad preceded the preient Geyern,