CASE OF MR. T. REEVES. (Hansard, 9 March 1841)

§ Mr. Kelly
, in moving to refer the petition of Thomas Reeves (presented on the 4th February) to a Select Committee said, that in the year 1835 Mr. Reeves had retired after twenty-two years' service as a surveyor of taxes, and it was a matter of importance to know what pension he was entitled to. He would state, and he had no doubt he would be corroborated by the gentlemen connected with the Treasury, that there was nothing against the character of Mr. Reeves to disqualify him for the allowance he was entitled to under any Act of Par- 78 liament, On the contrary, he had performed certain services which, at the least, entitled him to the most favourable consideration of the Government. Mr. Reeves, at the time of his retirement, possessed a salary of something under 100l. a year. He was also in the receipt of various emoluments, consisting principally of a per centage upon surcharges, which were made when any deficiency or error was made apparent in the assessment of any party to the taxes he was justly entitled to pay. When those surcharges were made the Government generally received much more than the first assessment, and frequently more—sometimes even double the amount, and the Surveyor was entitled, even by Act of Parliament, to a certain per centage upon such surcharges. By that means Mr. Reeves for many years before his retirement had greatly added to his income. The year before his retirement, the per centage amounted to somewhere near two hundred pounds, thus making his income about 300l. per annum. The Government admitted that Mr. Reeves was entitled to a pension, but they claimed the right to make certain deductions in the amount. He would say a few words as to those deductions. With respect to the amount of salary, nearly 90l. odd, the Government admitted his claim to six-twelfths, or one-half of the salary, but the deductions which they made reduced the sum from 45l. to 24l., and that was all the allowance that was made to him. The reason given for the deduction was this: it was said that Mr. Reeves had, by contributing to a certain fund, called a Saperanuation Fund, entitled himself to a very considerable amount of retiring pension, and that it was the custom of the Treasury, when a party had contributed money for such a purpose, although he did so out of his own earnings, to hold him disentitled to the full amount to which he would otherwise have been entitled under the Act of Parliament: on this ground the pension was reduced to 24l. Considering that for a great number of years, certain extra duties had been imposed upon Mr. Reeves, which, though he might fairly and legally have refused to perform them, he had discharged with the greatest diligence, he thought he might, have been fairly held entitled, under another clause of the Act of Parliament, to some additional allowance; at all events, his retiring income should not 79 have been reduced from 45l. to 24l. It appeared by the petition of Mr. Reeves that he claimed a retiring pension of 6–12ths under the Act of Parliament, not merely in relation to his salary but in relation to the emoluments of his office, amounting to twice the amount of his salary. The Treasury rejected the claim altogether, on the ground that the per centages were not emoluments within the legal meaning of the Act of Parliament which regulated those pensions. If the Government were right in that opinion, he admitted Mr. Reeves had no claim. But if it should appear, as he would venture to say he should be able to make it appear, that the letter had been written without consulting the law officers of the Crown, and that if they had been consulted they must have given a different opinion, he thought he should not appeal in vain when he asserted that the case must undergo reconsideration, and be submitted either to a committee or the Law officers of the Crown. The Act of Parliament which regulated the superannuation allowances was the 4th and 5th of William the 4th, chap. 24, and the case of Mr. Reeves came within the provisions of the 9th section of that Act. He would read to the House the answer Mr. Reeves had received, after some correspondence with the Government, and many applications, and, as Mr. Reeves hoped, after much serious consideration of his case by the Government. The letter was dated June 16, 1837, from the Board of Stamps and Taxes, and set forth fully the grounds on which the pension was granted and limited. It appeared to him that the simple question was, whether the board was right in saying that the per centage came under the head of emoluments or not. It appeared to him clear, that the board had proceeded upon an erroneous view of the case. The Government taxed him upon his commission, not for his salary only, but for his salary and emoluments. So also under the income tax, he was charged not for his salary alone, but also for his emoluments. Now, he would defy any lawyer to say, that a strict construction was to be put upon an Act of Parliament when against a party, and otherwise when in his favour. He would say but one word more with regard to the law of the case. He could assure hon. Gentlemen he would not have brought it under the notice of the House, if he did 80 not feel that the case was that of a very deserving man, of whom he begged to state he had no personal knowledge whatever, nor did he come from that part of the country, which he (Mr. Kelly) was acquainted with; he had been merely recommended to him by a Gentleman who knew of the hardship of his case. The hon. and learned Gentleman here proceeded to read the opinion of Sir William Follett, which had been given in favour of Mr. Reeve's case, and concluded by saying, if the question were referred to a Select Committee, he could prove every statement which was made in the petition.

§ Mr. John Parker
said, that the Government acted in this case according to what had invariably been the practice of the Treasury; and, in support of this statement, read extracts from a correspondence which took place between the Board of Taxes and the Treasury in July, 1812. In that correspondence the Board of Taxes stated, that a surveyor's salary amounted to 90l. a year; to which there was an additional salary of 20l. also yearly; and the Board wished to know from the Lords of the Treasury whether the superannuation pension should be extended to the latter portion of the salary. It appeared from the Treasury minutes, that the Lords of the Treasury were of opinion, that the superannuation pension ought to be extended to the salary of 90l., but that the smaller salary should be exluded. That correspondence showed that the point had before arisen; and that the superannuation allowance was settled on the permanent salary of 90l., and that it did not include those sums of poundage and per centage which his hon. Friend sought to have admitted into the present allowance. Since that period the practice had uniformly been to allow the pension on the permanent salary only. Mr. Reeves entered the public service in 1813 or 1814, and he could not therefore say that he was injured by a rule which had been subsequently introduced. The practice of the Treasury was now as he found it when he entered upon the office; and he had no right therefore to complain. In denying the claims of Mr. Reeves, he begged it to be understood, that the Government cast no imputations upon him, he might have suffered a grievance; but he had only been subject to that which every other public servant was, In the course 81 the Treasury had pursued in this case, they were only following what had been adopted for the last twelve years.

§ Lord Teignmouth
supported the motion. The ground that had been taken by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, was quite different to that taken by his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, last year. The present surveyors of taxes had been placed upon the same footing that they wished Mr. Reeves to be placed upon; and he trusted, therefore, that his right hon. Friend would reconsider the case, and accede to the motion.

Mr. A. Stanford
felt bound in justice to this gentleman, who was personally known to him, from his having performed the duties of surveyor of taxes in the neighbourhood with which he was more particularly connected, to say that he thought he had not been quite fairly dealt with. He could vouch for the respectability of his character, and, from the arduous nature of the duties which he had performed, he thought that he was entitled to some further consideration.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had three times given the same explanation which had now been afforded by his hon. Friend (Mr. Parker). No doubt he might have construed the case differently if he had chosen, but the Treasury had the power to lay down general rules and to act upon them, without any distinct reference to what might be deemed the strict legal position of the case, and although certain emoluments of office were given, it was not therefore, that they were not to pursue that course which they deemed fit upon consideration of the nature of those emoluments. No deduction had been made from the salary of these officers with a view to the granting of pensions, and therefore no pensions had in any case been given.

§ Mr. Hume
said, that he had some years since strongly condemned the vexatious system of emoluments, by which the officers were enabled to raise their salaries from 100l. to 200l. or 300l. a-year. He represented it to the House as an oppressive system, and he believed it was partly in consequence of that, that the system was pat an end to. It clearly appeared from the precedents which had been cited, that there was not the least necessity for any further inquiry.

§ Mr. Kelly
would detain the Mouse for 82 a single moment, to correct an error into which the hon. Gentleman had fallen. This question had been treated as if under the terms of the Act of Parliament the Government had the discretion either to grant an allowance or to withhold it. He denied that any such discretion was vested in the Government under the Act of Parliament. There was a discretion as to the sum, but none as to whether an allowance should be granted. The individual was just as much entitled to an allowance as any hon. Gentleman was entitled to the rents of his own estate. He had heard that statement with the greatest astonishment, and he trusted that the House would not be induced to sanction it.

List of the AYES.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Neeld, J.
Farnham. E. B.	Pringle, A.
Freshfield, J.W.	Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.
Grimston, Viscount	Richards, R.
Halford, H.	Round, C. G.
Hepburn, Sir T. B.	Rushbrooke, Colonel
Hodgson, R.	Sanford, E. A.
Hughes, W. B.	Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Inglis, Sir R. H.	Trotter, J.
Jones, J.	Turner, E.
Lockhart, A.	Vere, Sir C. B.
Mackenzie, T.	Vivian, J. E.
Mackenzie, W. F.	TELLER.
Miles, W.	Kelly, F.
Morgan, O.	Teignmouth, Lord

List of the NOES.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T.	Howard, P. H.
Barnard, E. G.	Howard, hn. C. W. G.
Beamish, F. B.	Hume, J.
Blake, W. J.	Humphery, J.
Broadley, H.	Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Brocklehurst, J.	Maule, hon. F.
Brotherton, J.	Muskett, G. A.
Busfeild, W.	Pinney, W.
Butler, hon. Colonel	Seymour, Lord
Childers, J. W.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Clay, W.	Thornely, T.
Dalmeny, Lord	Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Duke, Sir J.	Williams, W.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Wood, B.
Ferguson, Colonel	Worsley, Lord
Gordon, R.	Wyse, T.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Yates, J. A.
Hamilton, C. J. B.
Heathcoat, J.	TELLERS.
Hector, C. J.	Parker, J.
Hodges, T. L.	Tufnell, H.