§ Order for Committee read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
§ MR. FAWCETT, in moving, by way of Amendment, the Resolution of which he had given notice, said, he desired to explain why he had not opposed the Bill at an earlier stage. He confessed his utter inability to understand the provisions and object of the Bill when it was first introduced, and, consequently, he asked the Prime Minister for an explanation. The right hon. Gentleman, with great courtesy, there upon explained the nature of the measure, and gave information which could not possibly have been gathered from the mere perusal of the Bill. After receiving this explanation, and giving the subject his best consideration, he came to the conclusion that the Bill ought to be opposed; but, being himself a supporter of the general policy of the Government, he was anxious that some one else should head the 859 opposition to it. He had hoped that a discussion would have been raised on the second reading, but the Bill passed through that stage late at night, after an Irish Church debate, the result being that not a syllable was uttered as to the very important principle which the measure involved. Seeing, therefore, that no one else was likely to oppose the Bill on its going into Committee, he had deemed it right to raise a discussion on its principle. He would now briefly state what the Bill proposed to do. Under the Act of William IV. relating to political pensions, the holders of certain offices were entitled to pensions, but the holders of other offices, to which he would presently allude, were excluded from the operation of that statute. The effect of the present Bill would be to render fifteen new offices subject to pensions which were not subject to them before. It might, therefore, at first sight appear that this would entail great additional cost to the country, but he did not wish to over-state the case, and he admitted that the Bill on the face of it appeared to reduce the charge imposed on the country in respect of pensions. Under the existing Act the amount which might be voted each year for political pensions was £21,500, whereas, under this Bill only £16,500 could be annually appropriated to that purpose. But although this plea might be plausibly urged in favour of the Bill. it. was merely a plausible and not a well-founded argument. The Act of William IV. not only included offices the holders of which could sit in that House, but the pensions of the permanent Under Secretaries of State also came under the operation of that statute. The present Bill, however, related solely to pensions attached to offices held by Members of that Mouse. Now, as the pensions of the five permanent Under Secretaries of State would, of course, still have to be provided for, he believed the reduction which might appear to be effected by the Bill was more nominal than real. Indeed, on examining the Bill closely, it would be found that there was a probability, amounting to almost a certainty, that the Bill would considerably increase the annual charge on the country, because, pensions granted under its provisions would be obtainable on much easier terms than they were formerly. Under the old system no holder of a sub-ordinate office could obtain a pension 860 unless he had held his office for ten years; and the result was, that at the present time there were only four pensions of the first class—namely, £2,000 —held by persons who had been Members of that House. Consequently, the amount annually spent at the present time for these pensions is only £8,000; but if. as this Bill proposed, the holders of subordinate offices would be entitled to pensions after five years' service, he believed the inevitable effect would be to ultimately increase the annual amount granted for pensions. Nay, further, he believed it was absolutely certain that it would have the effect of increasing the amount to be voted for that purpose both this year and next. He might, perhaps, be asked whether he did not think that the system of granting these pensions needed some reform. Well, he would at once avow his belief that the Pensions Act of William IV. required some revision, but not in the direction proposed by the present Bill. It seemed to him that the whole principle on which these pensions were granted was vicious and unsound. What, for example, could be more unsatisfactory, and even more wrong, than the declaration a man was required to make on receiving a pension? He had but to declare that in order to take Office he had been obliged to relinquish some profession, trade, or employment, that provided him with an income which he had lost in consequence of accepting Office. If a man had to make such a declaration as that he did not think the most earnest friend of economy could object to a pension being granted to him under the circumstances. Now, however, all that a man had to declare was, not that he had lost a single shilling by taking Office, but that a pension was necessary in order to enable him to maintain his station. On what principle was a declaration of that kind based, if it were not the principle that the position of an ex-official Member of that House was different from that occupied by a private Member? A principle such as that he regarded as unsound, and how, he would ask, did the declaration work? He knew it would be invidious to mention names, but anyone who looked at the 47th page of the finance accounts might discover how a Member of that House who, having been for many years a private Member, and not having resigned a single shilling on 861 his acceptance of Office, obtained a pension amounting to his full pay, for the term of his natural life, upon his making a declaration on his retirement from Office that a pension was necessary to maintain his station. A system of that kind he regarded as being radically wrong, and if anything were done in the direction of altering the Official Pensions Act, the alteration should, he thought, proceed on the principle that the position of an ex-official Member of that House was not in any degree different from that of a private Member, and that no pension should be granted to a man unless, in taking Office, he was obliged to relinquish some trade, profession, or employment, which, on his retirement from Office, he could not resume, and that in consequence he did not possess an income sufficient for his due maintenance. But he objected to the Bill for another reason besides that which he had stated. Certain Offices were excluded from the operation of the Act of William IV. because they were looked upon as sinecure Offices; and now. by one of the first measures introduced into a Reformed House of Commons, pledged to economy, it was proposed to attach to two sinecure Offices pensions which had never been attached to them before. The offices of Lord Privy Seal and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were those to which he particularly referred. Those he believed to be sinecure offices. Mr. Perceval held at the same time the offices of Prime Minister. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and when a new Administration was being formed, the last mentioned and the office of Lord Privy Seal were always treated in the newspapers as being absolute sinecures. Why, then, should a Reformed House of Commons, pledged to economy, attach to them pensions which they had never before enjoyed? Under this Bill a man at thirty-five might become Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and retain that office for five years, with a salary of £2,000 a year, and then at forty he would retire with a pension of £1,200 a year for life, the money value of which was £30,000. The result would be that for holding a sinecure office for five years a man might be enabled to get from the country no less a sum than £40,000. That could not be right, especially when the onerous 862 conditions imposed in the case of other pensions was taken into account. A man, for instance, who accepted the office of a colonial governor generally made greater sacrifices than those which were made by a Member of that House accepting Office in the Government. Yet, under the Colonial Governors Pensions Act no man could, he believed, obtain a pension, though he might have to serve far away from home and in an unhealthy climate, until he was sixty-five years of age, the utmost pension he could then receive being £1,200 a year. He would, under these circumstances, appeal to the Government not to proceed with the present Bill. They were engaged in carrying out wisely a policy of retrenchment and economy; but, in order to secure the support of the nation for that policy, it was necessary that the economy and retrenchment should be fair, just, and impartial. No one could tell the suffering that was caused to the clerk who was dismissed, and the dockyard labourer who was discharged. The clerk was turned out of employment at a time when there was a redundancy in the particular class of labour in which he was engaged, but both he and the dockyard labourer had many friends to sympathize with them; and it was impossible to carry out a policy of rigid economy unless the voice of the nation were with the Government in seeking to give it-effect. In the interests of economy, therefore, it was of the utmost importance that nothing should be done which would give to the public out-of-doors the impression that Parliament was not consistent in its attempts to secure so desirable an object. It was not so much because of the few thousands which the Bill would throw upon the country, but because of the bad results which would be produced, if the feeling should come to prevail that while our dockyard labourers were being discharged, Members of that House itself were to be rendered eligible for pensions which had not hitherto attached to the offices which they might hold, that he was so strongly opposed to the measure. He was of opinion that the Bill should not be proceeded with further until inquiry was made as to the duties which belonged to those particular offices. If it were found —as he believed it would be—that those offices were sinecures, then their holders ought not, he contended, to be entitled 863 to pensions. The whole question of political pensions required careful consideration; but the present Bill would, he maintained, create many new abuses, while it would not correct a single old one. Entertaining those views, he hoped the Government would withdraw it and introduce another measure next Session, based on the principle that a man should be entitled to a pension only when, in accepting Office, he relinquished his source of income, and, as a consequence, on his retirement from Office, found that he stood in need of a pension for his due maintenance. A Pension Bill founded on such a principle as that would, he felt assured, receive the cordial support of the friends of economy, both within and without the walls of the House.
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word" That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the further consideration of this Bill ought to be deferred until an inquiry has been made into the duties attached to some Political Offices which are now regarded as comparatively sinecure, and which offices for the first time will be entitled to Pensions under this Bill,"—(Mr. Fawcett,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. GLADSTONELet me, in the first place, say that I do not in the slightest degree resent any attempt which my hon. Friend may think it to be his duty to make in opposition to this Bill; because, although I look on its provisions as not only capable of being defended, but as useful in themselves, yet I feel as strongly as my hon. Friend that any measure relating to political pensions ought to receive, the close attention of this House. I am not in the least afraid of an unfavourable impression in regard to the Bill existing out-of-doors, and it seems to me that my hon. Friend must have felt that he supplied an antidote in some degree to any such apprehension when he said that he waited for a long time in the hope that some other Member might give notice of his intention to oppose the measure, but that, finding no one else did so, he had resolved to oppose it himself. As to the immediate effect of the Motion, it really affords no ground against going into Committee on the Bill. My hon. Friend wishes that inquiry should be made into the duties at- 864 tached to some political offices now regarded as sinecures—those of Privy Seal and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he did not admit that these were the only two sinecure offices. On the contrary, he thought that inquiry would show that others were sinecures also.
MR. GLADSTONEAnd I venture to think it would not. But these are really matters on which the public is pretty well informed. As far as I am aware there is not any office comprised within the Bill which could be charged as sinecures except these two. There is no necessity for inquiry upon that subject. The reason for the existence of these offices is well understood, and it is this —that in a Cabinet and in a Government constituted as our is, with two Houses of Parliament and with the immense diversity of duties that attach to the holding of administrative Office, it is for the public advantage that you should not have every one of the holders of Office heavily laden with the immediate duties of a Department, because the miscellaneous duties of administration under a Government like ours are so important, and of such constant recurrence, that it is almost a matter of vital necessity to any Government that does its duty and grapples with public questions as they arise to have some one or two of its members free in a great degree from merely departmental duties, in order that it may be able to discharge duties on the part of the Government at large. That is the whole case, and upon that case I freely invite the judgment of the House. I think we have done rightly to bring these two offices within the scope of the Pensions Act. At the same time, if my hon. Friend thinks otherwise, that is a question which may be perfectly well raised in Committee upon the Bill, but it is no question of sufficient magnitude to form a basis for postponing the further consideration of the Bill. The objections of my hon. Friend may be divided into those which are too small and and those which are too large for his Motion. His objection to those offices which may be dealt with in Committee is too small. But he gave utterance to opinions in the course of his speech which I think were too large for his Motion, because those opinions would, in logical consistency, have led him not 865 merely to suggest the postponement of the consideration of this Bill until we had examined into the constitution of two or three offices, but would have led him to move for leave to introduce a Bill to repeal the Act of 3 & 4 Will. IV. My hon. Friend propounded a principle totally different from that upon which political pensions are now founded. I do not intend to throw discredit upon his opinion. I only want to remind the House that that opinion points to a mode of regulating those pensions wholly different from that which Parliament has ever recognized. We have not ascended so high into the question. We have accepted the principle upon which the present Act stands, and have simply sought to introduce into the law certain amendments of detail. My hon. Friend propounds a rival principle. He thinks that political pensions ought to be given only in instances where gentlemen have relinquished a lucrative profession or business in order to take political Office. Now, I believe that if there were no political pensions at all, the service of the country would be carried on pretty well. But it was the polity of the Government of this country, at one of its very best and most reforming periods, and certainly the most economical period —namely, the year immediately following the first Reform Dill, to establish political pensions, and this was done advisedly, upon the ground that it was not desirable to confine the access to Office to wealthy men. The opinion promulgated by my hon. Friend, though I have no doubt he puts it forward sincerely in the name of economy, has a directly opposite tendency to the principle on which the Act of 1834 was based. He says—"I will give you nothing unless you show me. that you have relinquished a lucrative trade or profession." He, therefore, says that in the case of men who have nothing but their aptitude to serve the public, though they may have borne the highest offices under the Crown, may have been obliged to represent their country, and to live up to a certain scale of expenditure, he would offer to them no means of redeeming them perhaps from destitution. I do not want to argue that matter at large. I think it is enough to say that in 1834, which I look upon as nearly a model period in the history of this country—as the period of the most honest, upright, thrifty administration 866 ever known in England—the view taken by Parliament was that, in cases where gentlemen did not possess a competent fortune, it was not desirable that those who had served Her Majesty in great offices of State should be consigned to poverty after relinquishing those offices. I much doubt whether the Parliament of the present day will be disposed to differ from the Parliament of 1834 upon that question; and, again, I feel convinced that if we do differ from the Parliament of 1834, the proper way of raising the issue is by a Motion to repeal the Act of 1834, and not by a mere postponement of an improving Bill, leaving the Act of 1834 in full vigor upon the statute book. My hon. Friend says that this Bill brings in new offices which will quality the holders for pensions. That is quite true, and it appears to me that the proposal is most reasonable, because, while several offices have been abolished, a largo number have been created since 1834; many of them involve hard work; none of them involve high salaries; and if there are to be pensions at all, it is desirable that the holders of those offices should run their chance along with the rest. Setting aside the minor question as to the two particular offices mentioned by my hon. Friend, I do not think that that is a relaxation of the law to which the House would object. Then my hon. Friend says that some of the pensions under the Bill will be attainable after a shorter period of service than hitherto has been necessary. That is true, but the question is one to be decided by the Committee; and if my hon. Friend is disposed to restore the longer period of service, I should not be disposed to lend an unfavourable ear to such a proposal. But I must say that my hon. Friend has not given a perspicuous account of the important restrictions which this Bill introduces. In the first place it restricts the number of pensions which can be given. In the second place it lengthens, and not shortens, the term of service for the most important officers and the largest pensions. In the third place, it establishes a more just relation between salary and pension. My hon. Friend himself selected as an example of the defects of the present system that a gentleman may take under the present law a Cabinet office with £2,000 a year, may hold it for two years, and may then, other conditions applying, obtain a pension of 867 £2,000 a year. That is under the present law. My hon. Friend should have pointed out that that cannot now happen, because an official with a salary of £2,000 a year cannot obtain a pension of that amount; and then we propose to introduce a provision that only one of these pensions can be granted in any one year. That is a provision which I am satisfied is not excessive. It will not impose any inconvenient restraint upon the operation of the law, while it will certainly act as an important restraint against possible abuse. The real object of this Bill is to adapt the Act of 1S34 to the altered state of things which has arisen in the course of thirty-five years of very active political and administrative change, and likewise to introduce a variety of improvements into the provisions of the Act. Of course it is not necessary nor fair to take any credit for striking out from the Bill certain offices, because those offices—namely, those of permanent Under Secretary of Slate—would still be chargeable upon the public, though in a much better and more equitable form. In truth the administration of the present law has been found very embarrassing, so far as those offices are concerned, and it is better to separate them from offices which belong to the political category alone. Then we are asked why we submit this Bill, at the present moment. Well, I think the argument for submitting it sooner would be even stronger than the argument against submitting it now. A number of working offices have sprung up since 1834 for which no provision in the way of pension has been made, and if it is right that the holders of any offices should enjoy pensions, it is right that the holders of these new offices should. The hon. Gentleman expresses an opinion that there will be under the Bill an increased burden on the public; but I know not on what ground he founds that opinion. My own belief is that the tendency of the provisions of the Bill, taken in their general operation, will be towards a reduction and a fairer distribution of the public charge. Without pretending to enter into detailed discussion on the question whether any political pensions at all ought to be provided by law in this country, I am content to stand on the authority the present Act of Parliament rests upon, according to which it has been deemed that on the whole it 868 is conducive to the public interest that such pensions should be provided, and on the fact that, if they are to be maintained, occasion has arisen to bring new offices within the scope of the Act, the opportunity being at the same time taken to give greater stringency in various respects to its provisions, and greater, security to the public.
§ COLONEL SYKESsaid, he had no objection to the principle of the Bill, for he believed that the laborious duties which political officers performed in Parliament entitled them to a pension of reasonable amount on quitting Office. The pensions under the Bill were divided into three classes, and a high political officer having a yearly salary of £5,000 would be entitled to a pension of £2,000 a year after four years' service. That was an exceedingly liberal provision, and he thought that the public had a right to expect that the service qualifying for such a pension should be longer than four years, especially as the officer was to be entitled, if he had served two years in the second class, to count those two years as one year in the first class. The service, too, need not be continuous, but might be a tenure of Office for two years at one time and for two years at another time. He conceived that the period of service qualifying for a pension ought to be seven years and that the service ought to be a continuous service for that period. He wished the same liberal spirit had been manifested to the Directors of the East India Company when they were deprived of their political functions, many of whom had exercised those functions for twenty years and upwards, and were deprived of Office without a pension or a shilling of compensation.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 (Application of Act).
§ MR. FAWCETT moved that the Chairman report Progress. He said that he had refrained from dividing on his Amendment, because the Prime Minister 869 had advanced reasons showing that it did not meet the intended object. The right hon. Gentleman had also made some important suggestions, with reference to which it was not fair to ask for the decision of the Committee without sufficient time being allowed for their consideration. He trusted, therefore, that the further progress of the Bill would be deferred for a few days, so that he might be able, in the meantime, to place his Amendments on the Paper.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would allow the Committee to dispose of various points with respect to which Notices of Motion had been given for some time. With respect to the precise duration of service which should qualify for a pension, that was a question actually raised by an Amendment on the Notice Paper. With regard to the omission of certain offices, he did not know that it would not be competent for the hon. Gentleman to move their omission in Committee, and any other omission he might-move on the Report. With regard to the declaration, however, he never suggested that he should move the omission of it. That would be introducing a change too important into the whole law, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would allow them to go through the Bill as it stood, and if he thought fit to move Amendments that required detailed discussion they might be taken on the Report.
§ Motion by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. BOUVERIEobserved an expression in the clause which was entirely new in Parliamentary phraseology. The clause spoke of "any office in the permanent Civil Service of the State or in Her Majesty's Household." Was not this ignoring the service of the Crown?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he believed that the words "permanent Civil Service" though recent, were now statutory words. Still he thought the criticism so far just that he would move to omit the word ''State," and insert "Crown."
§ Amendmentagreed to.
§ MR. RUSSELL GURNEYcalled attention to the words in the clause "or to any legal office," which, taken in conjunction with the Return which had been presented to the House, might be 870 supposed to include the office of Judge-Advocate. That office was far more a political than a legal office, and specially called for the provision afforded by the Bill; because, generally speaking, the gentleman accepting it sacrificed a considerable professional income. He could hardly think it was intended to exclude the Judge Advocate from the provisions of the Bill.
MR. GLADSTONErather thought the argument was against including the office of Judge Advocate, for the Judge Advocate did not sever himself from his profession when he accepted the office. He might rise to a Judgeship, or become Solicitor General, as in the case of Mr. Stuart Worley and Sir David Dundas. There was nothing to prevent the present Judge Advocate from returning to the Irish Bar. He did not think that, on the whole, there was sufficient ground to ask the House to insert the office.
§ MR. RUSSELL GURNEYobserved that, being a Privy Councillor, the Judge Advocate could not practice in the same way as before.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he thought the whole of this discussion was a remarkable illustration of what he had ventured to state—that the subject required further inquiry. The Prime Minister said, and he quite agreed with him, that the Judge Advocate ought not to have a pension, because he could return to his profession; but was it not most anomalous that Lord Clarence Paget, having left the Navy to enter that House, and having been in Office for five years, during the whole of which period he was in receipt of £2,000 a year, he then left the House—showing that all this had not interfered with his professional career—took the command of the Mediterranean Fleet, and when he gave it up, because he had been five years in Office, he would be in receipt of a pension of £1,200? This was an anomaly which demanded rectification.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 2 (Classification of political offices).
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHobjected to the exclusion of offices with salaries of £1,000 a year, such as the offices of Lords of the Treasury, Junior Lords of the Admiralty, and Secretary to the Poor Law Board. The exclusion seemed 871 rather invidious, and he did not see why such a line of distinction should be drawn, especially as the tendency was more and more to overload those offices with work.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the tendency of the hon. Gentleman's argument was to introduce within the scope of political pensions a class of officers who were distinctly excluded by the Act of 1834, and to go down to a lower class of officers would be a very serious change. It was a mistake to suppose that political pensions were given as a reward of services; service was a necessary qualification, but did not entitle to a political pension. That was given rather on the ground to which he before referred—namely, that it was not for the interest or the credit of the country that those who had filled high political offices in the service of the State should be exposed to the evils of penury.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHremarked that many of those who had attained high political office commenced their career in those smaller offices to which he had alluded.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (Limit of amount of pensions).
§ COLONEL SYKESsaid, he thought a term of three years' service of a public servant was not sufficient to entitle him to a pension of £2,000 a year, particularly as nine-tenths of these public servants were possessed of independent fortunes. The general term for Governors and Councillors in India and for holding army staff' appointments in England and India was five years, and in a Bill sent down to them from the other House, Councillors of India were required to serve ten years. As the Bill stood, terms of service at intervals would be counted accumulatively. He held that a continuous service, if not of seven years, at all events of five years, should be required, and with that view he begged to move that in the first class the word "five" should be substituted for the word ''four."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, they had already gone a long way in making the Bill move stringent than the present law. The present law only prescribed "two" years. They now proposed to extend the period to "four" years, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman pro- 872 posed that they should go further still and make it "five" years. The fortunes of political parties were unequal, and it frequently happened that, owing to the relative predominance of one party or another at different periods, they held Office sometimes for a long period, while it was enjoyed only a comparatively short period by their opponents. Considering the Liberal majority in the House, he did not think that it was for Liberal Ministers to make very stringent rules on the subject, and if they did it might be construed to mean pensions for themselves and none for Gentlemen on the Opposition. But the obligations of the country to the Opposition, though sometimes less, were occasionally greater than to the Government; and, therefore, they ought not to introduce into the Bill anything that would operate unequally between one party and another.
§ MR. CANDLISHsuggested that they should report Progress, on the ground that the matter was not urgent, and that the subject of political pensions required further consideration. An hon. Member who had some Amendments on the Paper was not then present.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKthought it would be only fair to postpone the discussion.
§ MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, the Bill had been many times on the Paper, and hon. Members had come down night after night expecting it would be proceeded with. He therefore hoped the measure would now be discussed.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was very difficult in a Session like the present to find time for discussing measures of this description, and at the same time to allow duo intervals between the stages. Looking to the present state of Government Business, he really did not know when he could find another night for the purpose. It would be very inexpedient to have to discuss this measure at the end of July, when Members were exhausted with other business.
§ MR. BROGDENsaid, there had been no discussion on the second reading. he moved that the Chairman report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Brogden.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 94: Majority 79.
873§ Clause 4. (Mode of calculating tune of service.)
§ MR. RUSSELL GURNEYproposed several verbal Amendments, having for their object to carry out the principle of the Bill more effectually, by allowing time passed in a lower office to count towards a pension, if the office-holder were after wards promoted.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKobjected to these Amendments, which were all, he said, in one direction. Those who, like himself, had no expectation of getting pensions would very much prefer that the Bill should remain in its original shape.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Amendments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were simply calculated to adjust the provisions of the Bill, so as to insure their working uniformly and accurately in all cases. They had nothing whatever to do with the number of years which might be fixed upon as the qualification for a pension. The Committee had not thought proper to make any alteration in the Bill in that respect, but, of course, it was open to any hon. Member to re-open the question on a future occasion.
§ Amendments agreed, to.
§
MR. RUSSELL GURNEY moved in line 18, after "second class," to insert—
Any person who, having served for three years in a lower class, has afterwards served in a higher class for such time as would, if the service had been in the lower class, have entitled him to a pension in the lower class, shall be entitled to reckon the whole of his service as if it had been passed in the lower class.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved to insert at the end of the clause the following:—"Nor shall more than one pension under this Act be granted in the same year."
§ MR. HUNTthought the Amendment required some explanation. It was rather hard when two persons claimed pensions in the same year that one only should have his claim satisfied while that of the other was passed by.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was a jealousy against an indiscriminate granting of pensions. The object of the Bill was that, if persons who had been in Office should make a declaration that they could not maintain their position without a pension 874 they should be enabled to obtain that pension if otherwise qualified. He thought it was well to keep up this safeguard of a declaration, which was already adopted in respect to certain Members of the Government.
§ MR. HUNTagreed that the number of pensions should be limited, but could not see why the number to be granted in each year should be restricted to one. Who was to have the power of granting these pensions?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that that power would lie in the hands of the Prime Minister for the time being.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) appeared to imagine that this Bill would give a right to certain persons to these pensions; but the fact was that the Bill only empowered the Prime Minister for the time being to grant one pension a year to such persons who, having made the necessary declaration, he should think under all the circumstances were deserving of them. It was most important that it should be clearly understood that no person whatever would have any right or title to a pension conferred upon him by this Bill. The pensions would be granted by the Prime Minister entirely on his own responsibility.
§ COLONEL SYKESremarked that the statement just made by the Prime Minister was very satisfactory, and would remove serious apprehensions.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he did not think there was much force in the distinction which had been drawn by the right hon. Gentleman between title to and qualification for the pensions. If a man were to make the necessary declaration, and there were a vacancy, the Prime Minister could hardly refuse to grant a pension to the person asking for it. He was glad to hear that in future the Prime Minister would be responsible for the granting of these pensions.
MR. GLADSTONErepeated his declaration that the Bill would give no person a title to a pension. The Minister would have to inquire into all the circumstances of the case, and grant or withhold the pension at his discretion, for the exercise of which he would be responsible.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, that judging from past practice, he had imagined that, 875 when the necessary formalities had been complied -with, the Prime Minister had had no power to withhold the pensions; and on any other assumption he could not understand upon what grounds many of those pensions had been conferred. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the country did not wish to see those who had rendered valuable services to their country sink into poverty; but, if that were the case, why should the exercise of the national benevolence be restricted to relieving one person per annum?
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. HUNTproposed the following proviso:—
Provided that no office hereafter created shall be entitled to rank as one of the political offices within the meaning of this Act, unless such office shall have been created by Act of Parliament, nor shall any existing office be hereafter entitled to rank in any one of the three classes described by this Act in which it is not, at the time of the passing of this Act, entitled to rank by reason of any addition to the present salary of such office, unless such addition shall have been made under the authority of an Act of Parliament.The right hon. Gentleman said under previous Acts the officers qualified for pensions were mentioned by name; but in this Bill they were merely described by the amount of the salaries they received. Now, a new office might be created by Government without Parliament being consulted, or the salaries of officers might be increased without Par-lament being consulted. The object of his Amendment was to provide against anything being done in these respects without the consent of Parliament.
§ Amendmentagreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Pensions payable out of Indian revenue).
§ MR. HUNTsaid, the principle of the clause was that any pension granted should be charged upon the same revenue as the salary, but that applied only to India. Now, the Duchy of Lancaster was named in the Bill, and as the salary of the Chancellor of the Duchy was charged upon the revenues of that Duchy, he moved an Amendment that any pension which might be granted to any such Chancellor should be paid out of such revenue.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, this was an Amendment with regard to which the Government would have a special responsibility. It could not be adopted without the consent of the Crown, and he was bound to say at once that the Government could not give that consent, because it would not be just to Her Majesty, who was in the enjoyment of the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster on certain terms. The state of those revenues would, no doubt, be taken into consideration when the arrangement of the Civil List was made at the commencement of a reign, and if it was thought on general policy they ought to be changed, it could only be given effect to when the Civil List was rearranged. It was not considered when the compact was made with the Crown, and, therefore, the Amendment, however plausible, was not reasonable. The duties of the Duchy could, no doubt, be discharged more economically and in a different manner if there was nothing to contemplate except the purpose of the Duchy. The State was favoured by the Duchy by the arrangement that the maintenance for general State purposes of an office more highly paid and of greater consequence than the mere management of the Duchy itself required.
§ MR. HUNTobserved, that the latter part of the argument of the First Minister went to show that the entire salary of the Chancellor ought not to be charged on the Duchy. The principle for which he contended was that the pension ought to come from the same source as the salary; but, as the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government would not give the consent of the Crown to the Amendment, there would be no use in pressing it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 6 (Pensioner not to hold pension under another Act).
§ MR. FAWCETTasked whether a person who had held Office in the Colonies, and also in England, could draw one pension from the Colonies and another from the Imperial Exchequer?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would rather have the question in writing before he gave an answer. His belief was that such a person would not be competent to hold the two pensions at the same time. He, however, should not 877 like to give a decided answer to a hypothetical question before ascertaining what would be the real law of the case.
§ Clause agreed, to.
§ Clause 7 agreed to.
§ MR. FAWCETTasked the right hon. Gentleman to postpone Clause 8.
MR. GLADSTONEdeclined to do so, but said that his hon. Friend would have ample opportunity of moving an Amendment in a future stage if he should be disposed to do so.
§ Remaining clauses, together with the Schedules and the Preamble agreed to, with verbal Amendments.
§ House resumed.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 133.]
§ House adjourned at One o'clock.