duty, he could not fill up the reversion of this sinecure
when it became vacant in 1845; and it remained vacant
at his death—not the only similar memorial of his pious
self-denial. When Dr. Sumner, the present Archbishop,
succeeded, he found the reversion of the office vacant,
and immediately filled it up, by appointing his son, a
young gentleman studying in the Temple. By the 10th
and 11th Vict. c. 98, sec. 9, every such person appointed
after the passing of the act is to hold office subject to the
regulations made by Parliament; and Sir B. Hall
desired to know what was the intention of Government
with regard to the reversion of this Office.—Lord John
RUSSELL assented to the correctness of the above statement.
The office in question, he added, was under
inquiry, and it appeared to be one that should be either
abolished or greatly altered; in which case there could
be no claim for compensation.

Mr. HENLEY moved for an address to Her Majesty,
praying for a Revision of the Salaries and Wages paid
in every department of the public service. He referred
to the examination directed two years ago by Government,
of various portions of the public expenditure, but
remarked that official salaries were not included in the
investigation, and that there had been no real inquiry
into this question since 1821, when important reductions
in salaries had been made. There was about four
millions of payments every year which did not come
under the revision of Parliament. He went through the
details of the payments made to Cabinet Ministers, to
"non-fighting" members of the military and naval
services, to the diplomatic body, and to legal officers of
all grades; and he contended that the principle upon
which the payments to this mass of officials ought to be
regulated should be the price of corn for the time being.
But he also thought that great reforms might be made
in the constitution of many of the departments,
especially in the diplomatic service, in which he considered
that both the number and the salaries of the attachés
might be reduced. Recent reductions in the army and
navy departments had affected the lower class of salaries
only, and ought to be materially extended; and a large
expenditure was kept up in order to preserve the
aristocratic character of certain branches of the public service.
He was of opinion that Lord John Russell's committee
was intended chiefly to defeat the present motion; that
the reductions, of which so much parade had recently
been made, were in reality insignificant; and he sought
to show that, though a number of items had been done
away with, no corresponding reduction had followed in
the cost of the departments wherein such reduction had
taken place. He next went into statistics of pauperism,
crime, and labour, to show the distressed condition of
the nation; and asserting that the country demanded
"more work for less money," he asked the House to
compel an inquiry which should lead up to real
economical reform.—The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
entered into a variety of statistical details in opposition
to the statements and conclusions of Mr. Henley. He
quoted from the Marylebone Workhouse accounts, to
show that a pauper costs more in 1849 than in 1843, in
the proportion of 5s. 0¾d. to 4s. 4¾d. He showed that
considerable reductions have been made in late years on
the numbers of departmental employés, and in the
aggregate of their cost; in the Excise alone, since 1833,
there have been reductions of 2,054 persons, receiving
nearly half a million in salaries; in the Pay Office,
consolidations which save £16,000 a year. Affirming that the
cost of collecting revenue has no fixed relation to its
productiveness, he quoted figures to show that the cost of
collection is lower for 1850 than in 1848, in all the
departments. Lastly, he referred to the salaries of the
servants in the great establishments organised by
private enterprise—the Bank, the East India Company,
&c.—the scale of which is equal to that of the Government
establishments. He concluded by saying that
there were not above 50,000 persons engaged in the
civil service of the country; that there was no nation
served by so few people, proportionately to the work
they had to do, and served so well; and that the way to
ensure heart-service, and not lip-service, was, in every
department, to pay poor servants well, treat them with
consideration and kindness, and not to discourage them
by seeming willing to sacrifice their feelings and
interests.—Colonel SIBTHORP supported the motion
in his usual quaint way, and kept the house in a state
of merriment during his speech. He said it was very
evident there would be no reduction or revision of
salaries. He never thought there would. He never
expected anything from Lord John Russell's committee
above stairs, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
only showing them how he could get rid of the question.
But after all, such motions as that of his honourable
friend did some good. It did a great deal of good to
stir those people up. There was the grossest job that
ever existed, the Comptrollership of the Exchequer, a
nice fat place for the noble lord who enjoyed the ease
and the emoluments of the office, some £2,000 a year.
He had tried to get that gross job abolished. He had
not succeeded, to be sure. He was refused, of course;
but he would try again. Aye, he would. And he
would tell the House that, even although he had not
succeeded with his motion, he had done some good.
The noble lord had never been in his office until that
motion had been made. But he was often there now.
The gallant Colonel then digressed to his favourite topic,
the evils of free-trade. He saw the other day an
engraved glass decanter, the price of which was sixpence.
How could native industry prosper in the face of foreign
competion like that? How could men not accustomed
to live upon sour krout, but who were used to beef and
ale, compete with such productions? And yet they
were obliged to contribute to the keeping of the gentlemen
upon the Treasury bench, who wallowed in
champagne and turtle. It was only by a dissolution
that they could expect to have a Government in a
different position from that occupied by the present
ministry.—Mr. NEWDEGATE argued that, as a rise in
prices has ever been deemed a good reason for a rise in
salaries, so the converse should hold good, of a reduction
in salaries along with the present fall of prices.—Mr.
HUME considered that the motion was not uncalled for as
a supplement to the committee lately appointed, whose
range of inquiry was much too limited. Without assigning
any blame to the Government who had recently done
much for economy, he wished that the proposition
of Mr. Henley should be adopted. He suggested the
appointment of a Board to examine into the
qualifications of candidates for places.—Mr. ROEBUCK,
approving of the proposed scrutiny, believed that its result
would show that the working officials who do the business
of the nation are wretchedly paid. He took the case of
the Treasury, where thirty-seven persons are employed.
Look at any man who has attained honours at either of
the Universities and entered the Treasury; he enters
there unused to business, as much a learner as in a
pleader's chambers, and remains two years with £90
a year. There are four classes; he remains in the first
class till he is thirty-three years old, and then obtains
£200: he then reaches the second class, in which he
may rise to £500 by the time he is fifty. And so he
goes on to the fourth class, at the head of which he
obtains £1,000 a-year; but not before he is fifty-nine years
old. Mr. Roebuck appealed to the House of Commons
—looking to the habits of this country, and they must
look to those habits—looking to all the exigencies a man
must go through before he could fit himself for office—
looking to the station he must hold in this great town,
to meet others in the position of gentlemen, in the
position of life in which he was, to be beyond the ordinary
temptations of life—was it to be said that in the highest
office of the working people of the state of this country
a man must be sixty years old before he could attain to
£1,000 a-year, and that that should be considered
overpaying in a hard-working service? Would any one say
that a lawyer in business might be deemed overpaid if
when he began life he hoped at sixty to attain £1,000
a-year? He had heard it stated that the heads of his
own profession were overpaid: he at once boldly said he
did not think they were. If, then, the heads of that
profession were not overpaid, and the heads of the
Government were not overpaid, and the subordinates were not
overpaid, where was the overpayment? It could only
be in the number of persons employed: and he was sure
the noble Lord would do well to allow the inquiry, to
show that the numbers were not over what they ought
to be; for if it be proved that they were more numerous