HC Deb 03 August 1857 vol 147 cc992-3

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed,

"That the Bill be now read the third time."

MR. AYRTON moved the adjournment of the debate.

LORD NAAS

submitted that no rational object could be attained by dividing the House on the third reading of the Bill, seeing that its principle had already been amply discussed on the Motion for the second reading. He therefore hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) would see the propriety of not putting the House to the trouble of dividing.

MR. AYRTON

said, he would urge as a reason for postponement, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) wished to address the House, and was not then in his place.

LORD NAAS

said, he had seen the right hon. Gentleman leaving the House an hour and a half ago. The right hon. Gentleman asked him whether he intended to bring on the Bill to-night, and he told the right hon. Gentleman that he did.

Motion made and Question "That the Debate be now adjourned" put and negatived.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he objected to the third reading of the Bill, on the ground that it would not settle the question. He would ask the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas) how he intended to deal with those parties who had already paid the sum of £760,000. In this summary mode of dealing with the question the House placed the Executive in a false position with the Civil Service. Whether he considered the Civil Service, the taxpayer, or the position of the Government, he objected to the third reading of the Bill.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he was not prepared to bring in a Bill before he received the report of the actuaries who had been appointed; but he must protest against its being said that Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to introduce, in due season, a measure which would have procured the best solution of this difficult question; but such was the impatience of the noble Lord, instigated by the clients whom he represented, that he could not allow a single week to elapse before giving them the benefits to which in a spirit of goodnatured credulity he considerd them to be entitled.

SIR JOHN TRELAWNY

said, the reason he had opposed the Bill was, because he wished to protect the notional exchequer. The better plan would have been to appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole of the Civil Service.

MR. H. BERKELEY

said, he was surprised to hear the noble Lord accused of goodnatured credulity. The Government might more justly be accused of illnatured obstinacy. Nine out of every ten men in cities were in favour of the noble Lord's Bill.

MR. AYRTON

said, he must complain of the undue haste with which the Bill had been pressed forward, and the extraordinary zeal which the civil servants had exhibited in soliciting hon. Members to support it. The measure, in short, was the result of an organized conspiracy on the part of the public servants, was unjust in its provisions, and based on erroneous statements.

Main Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 23: Majority 68.

The Bill read 3°and passed.