HC Deb 17 June 1824 vol 11 cc1451-4

Mr. Fowell Buxton moved the order of the day for the third reading of this bill. If this subject had come under consideration at an earlier hour he should have called the attention of the House to the situation of certain Custom-house officers, and also to that of certain occasional tide-waiters. There was one subject, bow-ever, upon which he felt himself compelled to say a few words. It would be in the recollection of the House, that, in consequence of the distress which existed some few years ago, the superannuation act was passed, by which a certain percentage was taken from the salaries of all the inferior servants of the government. Coupled with that measure was another by which a voluntary contribution of 10 per cent was taken from the salaries of those who filled the higher offices of the state. Now, it appeared to him most clear, that the same principle which applied to the first class of these reductions of salary also applied to the second, and that if the? House gave its sanction to a measure Which gave to the inferior clerks their full maximum of salary, it should, by some clause in this act, virtually repeal that clause of a former act which took 10 per cent from the higher officers. Both were in fact parts of the same transaction: they sprang from the same cause: they took place at the same time: and they had the same object. One just objection to them both was, that they were a species of separate and exclusive taxation. It might be right, or it might not, to reduce the salaries of particular bodies of individuals; but it was unfair to subject them to exclusive taxation. Another objection to it was, that whilst we granted with one hand, we withdrew with the other—a practice which he considered in every way reprehensible, it being much better to give a certain sum at once, than to have recourse to such a double-visaged system. These reasons applied alike to the clerks and to the heads of offices; but, he had no hesitation in observing, that there was another, and a very forcible reason, for the suggestion which he was then making. He was one of those who thought that the ministers of the Crown were far indeed from being over-paid. Their salaries were by no means so large as they ought to be, considering the establishments they were obliged to keep up. Upon the principles which he had laid down, any gentleman who thought the salaries of ministers too great might vote for him to-night, and to-morrow come down to the House and propose that their salaries should be cut down by a direct and intelligible measure to the amount at which they now stood. These were his opinions, and he should not have been happy if he had not had an opportunity of stating them before parliament broke up. For all the reasons he had stated, he thought it highly desirable that it should be distinctly understood, that parliament, in sanctioning one of the cessations of deduction, should be considered as virtually sanctioning the other. It was not to be expected that his majesty's ministers were then prepared to give their opinion on the subject [a laugh from Mr. Hume]. All he wished was, that they would take it into consideration, and he was sure, notwithstanding his hon. friend's laugh, they would do so, as if the question had no personal reference to them whatever. He knew the meaning of that laugh, and also the sentiment which his hon. friend meant to convey by it. He would therefore state the reasons which had induced him to act as he had done. The clerks had applied to him to undertake their case. Upon mature consideration he conceived it to be a just one; but he declined undertaking it, recommending them to intrust it to some member of parliament who had greater influence with the House than he had. In consequence, they intrusted it to the hon. member for Yorkshire; and the result had been the introduction of the present bill. If he had introduced the bill, he should have made the same statement to the House on introducing it that he had just made to it. In saying this, he wanted no advantage to be conferred on any particular class; on the contrary, he should be satisfied if the House took such measures as would meet and answer the justice of the case.

Mr. Hume

reminded the House that the superannuation act had arisen out of a recommendation of his majesty to make a reduction in the salaries of the public officers proportioned to the change which had then taken place in the currency. The House accordingly did so, and he now called upon it not to be led away by erroneous principles of compassion. The noble marquis who brought that measure into parliament told them, that if a reduction of 15 per cent were made in the salaries of the clerks above 200l. which had been increased during the war, the clerks would be in a better situation, even when so reduced, than they ever had been whilst they were receiving their highest amount of salary. Considering this bill to be a great dereliction from the principle on which the former bill was founded, considering also that there had been a great diminution of taxes since the passing of [the former bill, and that the income of every man, save these clerks, had decreased in consequence of the change which had taken place in the public securities, he should move "That the bill be read a third time that day six months."

Mr. Bankes

seconded the amendment. This bill had not been sufficiently considered; and though it was very extensive of itself, the hon. member for Weymouth had wished to mix up with it another question totally independent of it. The reduction of salary to the higher officers of state was a voluntary measure, and was limited to a duration of five years. The reduction of salary to the inferior clerks was made perpetual. This bill would entail an annual expense of at least 20,000l. upon the public.

Mr. Croker

observed, that before the superannuation bill was brought in, a committee, consisting of the heads of departments, had sat daily at the chancellor of the Exchequer's and had revised and reduced all the offices. In his own office every clerk had lost 50l. a-year, or in that proportion. Even clerks with 150l. a-year had had the odd 50l. lopped off.

Dr. Lushington

approved of the bill, and thought that the chief officers of state were under-paid.

Mr. C. Forbes

complained that the secretary to the Board of Control was the only public officer for whose services, however long, no provision was made by law. He recommended some proceeding to remedy that hardship.

Mr. Canning

was of opinion, that the secretary of the Board of Control ought to be included in the same scale of provision as other public officers; because, independently of the labour which that functionary performed, it was desirable that a person who had gained the information necessary to the performance of the duties of that office—information which was not, perhaps, of so inviting a nature as that connected with European politics—should be tempted to continue in it. He thought it necessary to say thus much on this occasion, as it was, perhaps, owing to some feelings of his own, when President of the Board of Control, which prevented him from interfering in the pension bill, that his hon. friend, the present secretary was left without any remuneration.

The bill was then read a third time.