COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 5 April 1859)

§ MR. COGAN
said, he would move to substitute the word "seventy" for the words "sixty-five." He observed that it was not found that persons in other classes of life were unable to perform their duties, and he could not see why the civil servants should be compelled to retire from their situations at a time when they might be well fitted to perform their duties. Moreover, the compulsory retirements of these gentlemen would place a great burden on the country.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, that according to the present state of the law, the contemplated age of retirement was sixty-five, as no person could retire without a medical certificate until he reached that age. Of course there were cases in which persons were efficient beyond that age, and it was desirable that such persons should continue in the service of the country; but there were a great many other cases in which the employed became less efficient after a long period of service. It was always in the power of the Government to tell those individuals to go, but that was a painful step for any department to take, and it was, therefore, now proposed that at sixty-five years of age retirement should be the rule, and staying the exception. The effect of this would be, that efficient persons would be asked to stay. The number of persons in the public service to whom this clause would apply was not more than 300, and he thought it was very desirable for the interests of those gentlemen, and of the service generally, that the age of retirement specified in the clause—namely, sixty-five—should be adopted. The current of promotion was stopped when old officers retained their positions, and it was natural that such persons should desire to remain in office, in order to obtain the higher salaries to which they were entitled, rather than submit to a reduction of one-third of their incomes 1388 on superannuation. He believed the adoption of this rule would effect a saving to the public, and he thought it desirable that it should come into operation at the beginning of next year, instead of being postponed for three years.

§ SIR FRANCIS BARING
said, he had considerable doubts as to the propriety of the clause. Under the present law persons in the public service could not be superannuated, except on medical certificate, under the age of sixty-five; but after the age of sixty-five no certificate was necessary, and persons might then retire voluntarily or might be required by the Treasury to retire. He thought there should be a power on the part of the Treasury to enforce the retirement of persons who were beyond a certain age, and who were unfit to discharge their duties efficiently, but he did not see the advantage of making retirement at a particular age compulsory. Under such a system, officers who were immediately under the eye of the Treasury, and who were efficient servants, would be asked to retain their positions; but woe betide the unfortunate men at a distance with whose merits the Treasury were unacquainted. He doubted whether it was advisable to place in the hands of the Treasury a power which he feared even the most impartial Government would he unable to exercise without causing dissatisfaction.

§ MR. BLACK
said, he also must oppose the clause. The rule proposed of compulsory retirement at the age of sixty-five years would operate with great hardship in the case of those gentlemen who were already in the public service, particularly in the case of those who had entered the service at the age of about thirty. If they were able to perform their duties, and could produce a certificate to that effect, and if they attended at the office regularly, they ought not to be obliged to retire. It would be a most invidious task for the Treasury to perform to compel men to retire if they were able to go on with their duties.

§ ALDERMAN SALOMONS
said, he should support the clause as it stood, as he considered the age of sixty-five a very fair limit. It would be a great advantage if a public department like the Treasury should be able to refer to a fixed period of age as that at which public servants should retire. The Treasury had the power to enable persons to remain in their offices if it should be for the public advantage; but 1389 he objected to persons remaining so long in their offices as to entirely prevent all promotion amongst the younger men.

COLONEL NORTH
said, that what he objected to was the retrospective operation of the clause. It probably would be beneficial if in future the age of sixty-five were fixed as the period for retirement; but with the qualification, that if men continued to perform their duties efficiently, they might be permitted to go on. The circumstances of each case should be inquired into, and decided upon accordingly. As to any officers now in the service, they ought not to be compelled to retire except on their full salaries.

MR. WILSON
said, the House had already passed a measure which reduced the age at which public officers could voluntarily retire from the service from sixty-five to sixty, and having thus shortened the period of voluntary retirement by five years, it seemed but fair that they should fix a limit on what retirement should be for the compulsory clause. The effect would be to render the entire service younger and more efficient. In an old service all the clerks were at the maximum salaries of their respective classes, but in a younger service, although more efficient, the average of salaries would be lower. It was proposed, however, that heads of departments should have power to recommend particular persons for longer service, and it would be on their recommendation that the Treasury would act. The regulation had received considerable attention both from the present and the late Governments, and he should advise the House to accept it. It was erroneous to suppose that the expense to the public was to be calculated according to the amount of the pension.

§ MR. STEUART
said, he would move the insertion in line 24, after the word "shall," "after the 1st day of January, 1860, be compelled to." He thought the clause in its original form might fall with great injustice upon many gentlemen in the public service, who would be taken by surprise, and therefore he proposed a medium course by postponing the operation of the clause for three years.

§ Sin STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, he must oppose the Amendment.

COLONEL NORTH
said, he would than move that in Clause 13, line 27, the words from "receive" to the end of the clause be left out, with the view of adding the following words:— The full superannuation allowance which could be granted by the Act under which he entered the service for the service which the shall then have completed, and in addition thereto the allowance under this Act for each year's service beyond the quinquennium.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, that with respect to the quinquennium the hon. and gallant Gentleman must bear in mind that if a person served between twenty-five and thirty years be was entitled to a certain rate of remuneration.

COLONEL NORTH
observed, that he was satisfied with the explanation of the hon. Baronet, and would beg to withdraw his Amendment.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, he then moved the addition of the following proviso:— Provided that this enactment shall not apply to persons holding any of the offices mentioned in the schedule to this Act, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, by order or warrant, under the hands of any two or more of them, to add to the said schedule any other office or offices which now exist, or may be hereafter created or established, the nature and functions of which shall render its or their exclusion from the operation of the said enactment desirable; in every which order or warrant the reasons for adding such office shall be stated; and a copy of every such order or warrant shall be laid before Parliament within one month after the making thereof, if Parliament be then sitting, and if not then within one month after the next sitting of Parliament.

§ SIR FRANCIS BARING
said he wished to ask whether it was intended to exclude from the provision respecting compulsory retirement all heads of boards?

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
Yes. They were scheduled.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he thought that the schedule should be carefully considered, so as to include all the parties it was really intended to reach. He mentioned, for example, the cases of Assistant 1391 Secretary to the Admiralty, Assistant Commissioners for the time being. He apprehended there was no reason why such officials should not come under the same rule as Commissioners. There were also the cases of factory inspectors and of prison inspectors, which were not included in the schedule. There was a natural suspicion that such officers might he compelled to retire in order to afford opportunities for making new appointments; and the enumeration ought, therefore, to be made as complete as possible.

§ COLONEL FRENCH
said, he wished to ask under what class the Barrack-Masters and their Assistants would be placed. They were to all intents civil officers.

§ MR. W. VANSITTART
said, a petition had been sent by the Masters of Workhouses, praying that provision should be made out of the rates for superannuation allowances to them. He mentioned the matter that his hon. Friend might consider whether be could do anything.

§ MR. J. D. FITZGERALD
said, the fact of certain officers being excluded from the operation of a provision of the Bill would furnish a sound reason in law for supposing that others who were not mentioned in the list were intended to be included. He would instance, as an example, the office of Under-Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and that of the Registrar and Assistant Registrar of Deeds. He knew one of those Gentlemen in Ireland to be over sixty-five years of age. He hoped, if the Bill passed through Committee that evening, that it would be reprinted, so that it might be in its amended form placed in the hands of hon. Members on Thursday.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, it was not intended that the provision respecting compulsory retirements should affect officers of the classes alluded to. He admitted that the schedule was not sufficiently defined. He therefore proposed to reprint the Bill, with a more complete schedule. The measure did not profess to deal with the officers referred to by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. W. Vansittart.)

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he would suggest, as the hon. Gentleman proposed, to frame a new schedule, that the Treasury should have authority by warrant to add other offices to the schedule.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
observed that with that view he would propose to insert the words "from time to time."

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, he had heard no sufficient reason for proceeding with so important a Bill in the last hours of an expiring Parliament. The clause was so objectionable that he intended to move its rejection.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, he would suggest that the consideration of the clause he postponed for the present, and that in the interval the Secretary of the Treasury should consider and specify what offices should be included in the list of exceptions.

§ MR. GLADSTONE
said, he must join in the suggestion. The clause before the Committee was connected with another, and he was afraid that, do as they would, they would not be able to get over the giving a discretionary power to the Treasury; but he could see no reason, and he had heard none, why the Committee in legislating on a matter so delicate should not insist on carrying specification to the utmost point. Unfortunately, the clause had been drawn on the opposite principle. The exemptions from the operation of the Bill ought also to be as explicit as possible. He agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Craufurd), that at this moment this was the last Bill of all with which they ought to proceed in a hurry, seeing that it connected itself more or less with the electioneering interests of almost every hon. Gentleman on both sides of the House. He also hoped before the Bill passed that the Secretary of the Treasury would be prepared to give the House an estimate of the probable addition which it would cause to the public expenditure.

§ COLONEL FRENCH
said, he wished to observe that the office of Under-Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was not a permanent one.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
suggested that they had better name the offices to which the principle of compulsory retirement should apply. If it was only to apply to the clerks in the establishments of the public departments, would it not he better to make the clauses specify so much, and thereby limit its operation to that class of officials.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, that this clause was framed upon one drawn by the late Government. Such a provision was recommended by the Royal Commission, but he could assure the House that Her Majesty's Government had not introduced it for the purpose of obtaining patronage for themselves, They did not wish 1393 to press the clause as it now stood, if the House saw any objection to that course, but what he would suggest was that they should pass the clause now and leave the offices to be specified in a, schedule to be hereafter added to the Bill. If, however, it should be thought better to provide by the clause itself that it should only be applicable to clerks in the public offices, it would be necessary to postpone the clause altogether, and bring it up on the Report. The latter, he confessed, would be the least convenient of the two courses, as in that case they might have to fight the battle of seventy versus sixty-five, and so on over again.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he wished to know whether the Bill was to apply to the clerks in the Emigration Office. They were anxious to obtain information on the subject. He had just received information to the effect that an officer who was in the receipt of a high salary and in the prime of life was about to retire to make way for a member of the Government.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, that some of the officers in the Emigration Office were paid by salaries guaranteed by the Imperial Treasury, while others were paid by salaries guaranteed by the Colonial Treasury only. He apprehended that the former class would be included in this clause.

MR. WILSON
said, he thought the insinuation thrown out that the Government wanted to pass the Bill for the purpose of obtaining immediate patronage was disposed of by the simple fact that the Bill would not come into operation until the 1st of January next, It appeared to him that the better course to pursue was to pass the clause as it stood, and then make the schedule to be attached to the Bill as perfect as possible.

§ MR. COGAN
said, that after the feeling which had been exhibited by the Committee he must again press the Government to withdraw the Bill. There was no exigency in the case, and, considering the vast expense it would impose on the taxpayers of the country, it was only fair that the fullest opportunity should be afforded for discussing its provisions. If, however, it were proceeded with he would vote for the rejection of the clause as he had a strong feeling against compulsory retirement.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that except for public purposes, the Government were quite indif- 1394 ferent as to whether this Bill was proceeded with at present. If he followed his own inclination, indeed, he should have asked the House to proceed with no Bill previously to the dissolution; but it had been represented to him privately that there was very generally, much anxiety about this measure. He put it, as he thought, very fairly to a full House on the previous day. An hon. Gentleman on the Opposition side, who was a very great authority on those subjects, and who seemed to speak with the concurrence of both sides of the House, expressed an opinion that they ought to proceed with the Bill; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had not heard anything in the course of the discussion of the Bill in Committee which induced him to think that the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) was in error when he expressed that opinion. On the contrary, the attendance of hon. Members and the remarks that had fallen from several of those who had spoken, rather made him believe that the feeling of the House was in favour of proceeding with the measure. Therefore, believing that he represented the wishes of the House, he could not feel himself justified in not proceeding with the Bill. In reply to what had been said by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) as to some person who had been asked to vacate his office in order to make room for a friend of the Government, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had heard nothing of the case. If the hon. Member would favour him either privately or publicly with the particulars of the case he would make inquiries into it.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he had observed that he could not vouch for the story; he had only heard it; but he was sure that such cases would occur—he did not say under this or any other Government in particular—if a discretionary power was left with the Executive.

§ SIR FRANCIS BARING
said, he hoped that the Committee would proceed with this Bill and finish it. A feeling of great anxiety prevailed among public servants with regard to the Bill; and nothing would be more inconvenient to the public service than that this class of persons should be looking to Members of Parliament, and not to the Government.

§ MR. ELLICE (Coventry)
said, he hoped the Bill would be passed. The postponement of the question would do great damage to the public service during the approaching elections.

§ MR. J. D. FITZGERALD
said, he believed that if this compulsory retirement clause were abandoned, the Bill might pass with general assent. His objections to the clause had by no means been removed by anything he had heard in the present discussion.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
suggested, that the clause should be withdrawn, as it seemed difficult to make an exhaustive enumeration of officers to whom compulsory retirement should not apply. Indeed the principle of compulsory retirement was unnecessary as the Act only applied to officers held during pleasure.

MR. WILSON
said, that although he had supported the clause throughout, he now concurred in hoping the Government would withdraw it.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, the Government had not the slightest feeling with regard to the clause, except to make an arrangement which, upon high authority, they believed would be to the advantage of the Civil Service. The clause had been a good deal misunderstood, and therefore, under the circumstances, he would withdraw it.

SIR STAFFORD NORTECOTE
said, that in order to answer the question, "Who are to be deemed civil servants," he proposed to move the following clause:— For the purposes of this Act, no person hereafter to be appointed shall he deemed to have served in the permanent Civil Service of the State unless such person holds his appointment directly from the Crown, or has been admitted into the Civil Service with a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners; nor shall any person, already appointed to any office, be held to have served in the permanent Civil Service as aforesaid unless such person belong to a class which is already entitled to superannuation allowance, or to a class in which, if he had been appointed thereto subsequently to the passing of this Act, he would, by virtue of the provision lastly hereinbefore contained, have become entitled to such allowance; and no person shall be entitled to any superannuation allowance under this Act, unless his salary or remuneration has been provided out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or out of monies voted by Parliament.

MR. WILSON
said, he was perfectly satisfied with the clause, as he understood from the Secretary of the Treasury that the Civil Service Commissioners would, as a matter of form, countersign the appointments in the War Office, Admiralty, and other departments, on the representation of those departments that the requirements 1396 of the Civil Service Commissioners were complied with.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
could not see the use of the appointments in the Admiralty being countersigned by the Civil Service Commissioners, as they could not examine the candidates. What was the use of giving the Civil Service Commissioners a veto upon appointments the fitness of the person appointed to which they had no means of determining?

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, the Board of Audit would not grant superannuation unless the certificate of the Civil Service Commissioners was produced. The clause was for the purpose of introducing regularity into the service.

§ MR. GROGAN
then moved the following clause:— Whereas, by the Act passed in the 19t!i and 20th years of Her Majesty, chap. 110, intituled 'An Act for the better regulation of the House of Industry Hospitals and other Hospitals in Dublin, supported wholly or in part by Parliamentary Grants,' provision is made for the grant of Superannuation allowances to the officers or servants of such House of Industry Hospitals or of the Lock Hospital in Dublin, who from confirmed sickness, age, or infirmity, shall become incapable of executing their offices in person; and whereas the funds annually voted by Parliament for the maintenance of the said Hospitals are inadequate to maintain the said Hospitals, and to pay such Superannuation allowances, and it is expedient that provision for the payment of such Superannuation allowances be made under this Act. Be it enacted, 'That it shall be lawful for the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to grant such Superannuation or compensation allowances to the several officers or servants of the said Hospitals mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed, according to their respective periods of service, previously to 1st April, 1857, in the Civil Service of the State, and subject to the like rules and provisions as they are hereby empowered to grant to persons who shall have served in the Civil Service of the State.'

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, he was sorry to be obliged to oppose the Amendment of his hon. Friend; but he did not think that the institutions mentioned in the clause came within the scope of the Bill. If it was thought desirable that a scheme of superannuation should be applied to them, it ought to be done either by a separate vote, or by a Bill introduced for the purpose. He would rather not go into the circumstances of the particular cases, but would simply say, that it was impossible to introduce them into the Bill.

§ MR. VANCE
said, he thought that these were exceptional cases, and that it 1397 was very hard that they should be omitted from the Bill.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
contended that such hospitals as these were mere private institutions, though they were partly supported by the Government.

§ MR. GROGAN
said, that the hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken in this respect, for these hospitals had been supported from their first institution by the Government, and never had any other support except about £130, which they derived from private endowment.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, that hon. Gentlemen would remember that he had stated on a former occasion that he would endeavour, as far as possible, to make some kind of estimate of the expense the measure was likely to entail upon the public, but it would be found excessively difficult to form an accurate estimate upon the subject. As he had stated previous to going into Committee, no reliance could be placed on any calculation, because it could only be based upon the average age and period of service at which persons were now in the habit of retiring. At present they were retiring from the civil service under a scale of allowance which was much more favourable than the scale to be put in operation hereafter. He had endeavoured, however, to make an estimate, supposing that the rate of retirement would continue to be the same as now, and he calculated that, under the operation of this Bill, it might possibly cause an addition not exceeding, at the very outside, the sum of £70,000 a year. That was the result of bringing the Post Office within the operation of the measure, by which a very large number of persons would be added to those who were already entitled to superannuations. In fact, the great mass of addition to the expense would be occasioned by in-cluding the Post Office servants within the provisions of the Bill. There would be 6,000 or 7,000 persons thus brought under the operation of the Act, whose superannuations would cost about £40,000. The charge for officers in the dockyards and Customs could hardly reach £10,000, and it was just possible that under the operation of the modified scale some £20,000 might be added. Of course, when he put the total amount at £70,000; he put it at an outside figure; but he did 1398 not believe that it would be more than £50,000.

§ MR. COWAN
said, there was a class of civil servants who were paid not by salaries but for piece work. He alluded particularly to the clerks employed in the Registry Office in the city of Edinburgh. He wished to know if these persons were considered to have any claim under the provisions of this Bill to the benefit of superannuation?

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, he had considered the case of persons of this description, but he feared it was impossible to include any others than those who were paid by salary within the provisions of the Bill.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
asked if the Bill would place the country letter-carriers on the same footing as the letter-carriers of the metropolis?

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, that all persons who either gave up or were required to give up their whole time to the service of the public were included; but there were persons employed under the Post Office who did not give up their whole time, but were engaged in other pursuits during a considerable portion of the day, and these would not be included. The country postmasters and letter-carriers who were wholly employed in the service of the Post Office would of course be included in the Bill.

§ SIR DENHAM NORREYS
said, that he looked upon the Bill as one of the most unfortunate measures that had passed the House for a long time. He believed that, but for the private influence which had been brought to bear upon hon. Members, such a Bill as this, unconnected as it was with any revision of salaries, would never have received their assent. If he thought for a moment that he could get any support he would oppose it on the third reading.