HC Deb 30 July 1857 vol 147 cc778-84

Order for Committee read.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that as far as he personally was concerned, he was prepared, even at that late hour (twenty minutes to two), to proceed with the discussion of the details of the Bill, but he thought that the subject was of such importance that, notwithstanding the decision at which the House had arrived the day before, and the adhesion of the Government to the measure, it ought not to be passed on hurriedly. His object was, to ascertain clearly what was to be the position assumed with respect to the remuneration of the civil servants. The Secretary for the Treasury had announced on a previous occasion that the financial effect of the measure would be, by its direct effect and its probable results, an increase to the public expenditure of from £200,000 to £300,000 a year, and that appeared to him to be a serious matter. He wished to remind the House, that they had been sedulously told that in voting for the Bill they were not voting for an increase of the public burdens; and he believed that the noble Lord who had introduced the measure (Lord Naas) had put it to the House that they were not called upon to decide as to an increase of salaries to the public servants, but simply as to the question of the abolition of the deductions for the superannuation fund. Now, what was the position of the House with regard to the legislation proposed? Why, the Bill, in point of fact, rested upon neither the report of the Parliamentary Committee, nor upon that of the Royal Commission, for the Parliamentary Committee recommended a uniform revision of the salaries of the public servants with reference to the amount of deduction remitted, and the Commission looked upon the charge upon the revenue as being of merely of a temporary character. He asked the Government for explanations of their intentions with respect to the revision of public salaries.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the decision of the House on the matter was one of the greatest importance. It was, however, now two o'clock, and the House would meet again at twelve. Therefore, without answering the right hon. Gentleman, he would suggest the postponement of this stage of the Bill, that there might be an opportunity of coming to a clear understanding what it was the Government was expected to do if the Bill passed, because the Bill simply repealed the reduction without conditions.

MR. AYRTON moved that the House do now adjourn.

LORD NAAS

said, he could not accede to that Motion. The time of the House was entirely in the hands of the Government, and it was impossible for him to bring on the discussion on the Bill early in the evening. The Government had promised not to oppose its further stages, and to postpone it, as suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have the effect of defeating the Bill altogether. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent the Treasury revising the salaries as they might think proper. He hoped the Government would adhere to their promise.

MR. HENLEY

said, they had, many of them, been there fourteen hours. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) very naturally asked for explanations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated that to give those explanations would occupy some time, and suggested the postponement of the Bill. That could hardly be regarded as opposing it.

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

complained, that upon the faith of the noble Lord's statement that the Government would not oppose the Bill many of its supporters were gone home. Advantage was to be taken of the hour of the night to defeat the Bill by delay. As a matter of justice and as a matter of honour the Bill ought to be permitted to go through Committee, and if it were not, no dependence could thenceforth be placed upon the assurance of the Government or of the leading Members of the House.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he must disclaim present opposition to the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had merely asked for time to meet the observations of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford. Perhaps those questions could be put and answered on the Report.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, it was only fair that he should know what the Government intended to do before the Bill passed through Committee.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he did not initiate any objection or any opposition. That charge lay at the door of the right hon. Member for Oxford University. He was asked a question, and he did not think it desirable to go into the discussion at that hour of the night. To prevent misconception, and, perhaps, a reversal of the policy once adopted by the House, of which there was more than one example, there ought to be a clear understanding what the consequences of the Bill would be, and what course the Government was to take upon it.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, that as the question stood it seemed to him a question of good faith—whether the promise of the noble Lord to his noble Friend not to oppose the Bill was to be kept.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he gave notice at six o'clock that he should raise a discussion on the Bill.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

suggested that the Bill should be put off for another day.

LORD NAAS

declined to accede to the suggestion.

Motion made and Question, "That this House do now adjourn;" put and negatived.

Question again proposed.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

asked if it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce any clause into the Bill.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

As I understand the decision of the House yesterday, it was that the clause in the Superannuation Act should be simply repealed. The effect of that will be to add 5 per cent to the salaries of those civil servants who are within the provisions of that Act and have more than a £100 a year, and 2½ per cent to the salaries of those who have less than that amount. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) explained to the House that as this was technically a repeal of a tax and not a grant of additional salaries, the noble Lord had a right to make this proposition. Substantially, however, it is a grant of additional salaries to the civil servants. In that sense I take it, and if the Government were subsequently to revise those salaries, so as to make a diminution in them corresponding to this increase, they would be directly defeating the vote of this House. In the Bill of last Session there were words which imposed upon the Treasury the duty of revising the salaries, having regard to the amount of the deductions which were remitted. Had there been similar words in this Bill the Treasury would have known upon what principle they were to proceed, but their intentional omission seems to me to indicate that it is the clear intention of the House that that principle should not be acted upon. I therefore wish to state distinctly, that if the Bill passes in its present form the House must consider that it has of its own free gift, without any addition to the duties of the civil servants, and without reference to individual merit, made them a present of the additions to their salaries which I have mentioned. Her Majesty's Government will act upon that understanding of the measure, and will take no steps to revise the salaries of the civil servants. It must therefore be understood that the House has done this against the consent and advice of the Executive Government, and has also placed the Treasury in a position in which it may not be easy to resist the claims of that portion of the civil servants who do not now receive superannuation allowances, which will entail a prospective addition in the same direction. I hope that these consequences are distinctly in the contemplation of the House, and with that explanation I am quite ready, after the vote of yesterday, to assent to the Bill of the noble Lord.

SIR JOHN TRELAWNY moved the adjournment of the debate.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, that after the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer everything seemed to be settled.

Motion made and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."

The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 77; Majority 59.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

House in Committee.

On the Question that the Preamble be postponed,

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he would not attempt to defeat the Bill by successive motions for adjournment, but he protested against their being compelled to pass it through Committee without discussion. He thought that the Government were now as much responsible for the Bill as if it had originated with them. He deprecated the lavish expenditure of the public money which it would entail.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

denied that the Government were responsible for the Bill. They had stated what they thought good objections to it, but the House, by a large majority, had overruled them. Having stated in the early part of the evening that it was not their intention to oppose the Bill, they could not in fairness now resort to any proceeding which could have the effect of defeating it by delay.

MR. AYRTON

remarked, that he thought it was strange that the Government could not muster more than seventy Members against the second reading of the Bill. The only explanation of the small-ness of the minority was, that the opinion of the House had not been fairly taken. Hence the necessity for further discussion.

SIR JOHN TRELAWNY

observed, that he had no intention to offer any factious opposition to the Bill, but he hoped that time would be given for further consideration.

LORD NAAS

said, the Bill had already been fully discussed, and, considering that it was very simple in its character, he trusted that no further delay would take place.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

remarked, that the simplicity of the Bill was one of his strongest objections to it. It touched only a small part of the question of superannuation. He thought that too much haste—more than the Government durst venture to attempt—was exhibited in pushing it through the House.

MR. HANKEY

said, the principle of the Bill was, that in future no deduction should be made from the salaries of civil servants. It did not enter upon the subject of future salaries, and it would be quite competent for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce a clause to meet the difficulty which he appeared to anticipate.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he wished the noble Lord (Lord Naas) to explain the operation of his Bill, which, consisting as it did of a single clause, negatived an existing statute which gave superannuation to certain officers. If that Act were repealed, would not these claims to superannuation allowances be weakened? The Chancellor of the Exchequer indeed might take the power to revise the salaries.

MR. WALTER

observed that he was in favour of, and had advocated the removal of the system of, deductions, which he believed to be altogether unsound in principle, but he had voted against the second reading of the Bill because he conceived it did more than assert a principle. If the noble Lord had simply intended to assert a principle he could have moved a Resolution condemnatory of the existing system, and he (Mr. Walter) would have supported such a Motion; but the effect of the present Bill would be to add from 2½ to 5 per cent indiscriminately to the salaries of 16,000 public servants. He could not, therefore, give his support to a measure the immediate effect of which would be to tax the public to be knew not what extent. The proper course would be for the Government to introduce a proposition stating that there should be some revision of the salaries of the civil servants, in order that the unsound principle of deductions might be abolished.

MR. AYRTON

said, he proposed to add a recital to the effect that it was advisable the salaries of the civil servants should be revised.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

did not think the words suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman would meet the case. The Treasury had now the power of revising salaries. What it was material to understand was, whether it was intended that salaries should be diminished rateably, in the same proportion as the House was of opinion now they ought to be increased. If so, that principle should be distinctly inserted in the Act, otherwise the Treasury, in the exercise of their prerogative of revision, might hereafter be accused of contravening a solemn decision of the House of Commons.

LORD NAAS

said, it was impossible to introduce into the Bill a clause for revising the salaries, as that could alone be done by the Treasury, which already possessed the power.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the Treasury could not take up the case of each individual whose salary would be affected by the Bill, as that would be virtually to repeal the Bill.

MR. NICOL moved that the Chairman report progress.

Motion made and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 49; Majority 18.

SIR JOHN TRELAWNY

suggested that all the civil servants who were affected by the Bill should resign their offices, and go in again on the competitive system.

Preamble postponed.

Clause 1.

Mr. AYRTON moved to add to it the words "that the salaries of the civil servants should be revised, having due regard to the amount of reduction hereby made."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

opposed the Amendment, because practically it would put the civil servants in a worse position than they were in at present.

MR. AYRTON

withdrew his Amendment.

SIR JOHN TRELAWNY moved the addition of the following words, "Provided it can be proved that any individual has lost any advantages which without this Act he would have enjoyed, he shall receive compensation to an equivalent extent."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the Amendment could not be considered, as it would not be competent for the House to make such a charge upon the Exchequer without a Committee of the whole House.

SIR JOHN TRELAWNY

was very unwilling to proceed with the debate at such an hour in the morning—ten minutes past three. The House was to meet again at twelve, and the pressure was exceedingly heavy upon the Speaker, upon Members, and upon the gentlemen who had to report the debates. He therefore would withdraw his Motion, and at the same time beg leave to move that the Chairman report progress and obtain leave to sit again.

Motion made and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 55: Majority 35.

MR. DILLWYN

then moved that the Chairman do leave the chair.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he hoped hon. Members would not throw any further obstructions in the way of the Bill. These repeated divisions were discreditable to the House.

MR. AYRTON

remarked, that he would remind hon. Members opposite that the opponents of the present measure were doing nothing more then they had done when a measure affecting the seat of a Gentleman who had been elected for the City of London was under consideration.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

suggested that the Bill should he allowed to proceed through Committee. Opposition could be resumed on the third reading.

MR. DILLWYN

withdrew his Motion.

Clause agreed to. House resumed; Bill reported without Amendment; to be read 3° on Monday next.

House adjourned at half-after Three o'clock