§ MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he would transfer the attention of the House from one form of official cruelty to another. He rose to call the attention of the House to the reduction proposed to be effected during the present financial year in the establishments of the Custom-house and Inland Revenue, and said that he was not going to pretend that such great financial measures as those with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to deal could be carried out without being accompanied as a matter of necessity by considerable reductions in the establishments. If, for instance, there was to be no more silk to weigh and no more freights to lock up, the number of lockers and weighers must necessarily be considerably reduced. But still he could not view, without some degree of apprehension, reductions to such an extent as £50,000 per annum in one establishment and £36,000 in another. Such reductions, he thought, could scarcely be effected without operating with extreme hardship on the officials affected by them; and if this were not the case, if they were to receive compensation, the compensation paid would necessarily form an item so large that if it fell on the Consolidated Fund it would considerably diminish the advantages which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to derive from that source. However great the public benefit conferred by any measure, it ought never to be accompanied by a large amount of private calamity—of injury for life to a large number of very 746 worthy and excellent men, and destroying generally that confidence in the public service which always attracted to it the best class of public officials. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might perhaps reply that the officials thus deprived of employment would soon be absorbed in the population. That term "absorbed in the population" was extremely vague in its character. He recollected an instance of "absorption" of this kind, the narration of which might perhaps give the House some notion of what really was meant by persons being "absorbed in the population." Once upon a time a large hotel proprietor enjoyed a flourishing business, and was on the high road to fortune. But a railway came in close proximity to the line of road on which the hotel stood, and took away all the traffic. Of course the hotel became worthless, its business was gone. Upon asking what had become of the proprietor, it was replied, "Oh, he was absorbed in the population." The man had become an ostler. He hoped his right hon. Friend would be able to assure him that, as far as possible, he would promote the necessary reductions with due regard, not only to the large body of persons mechanically employed, and who were perhaps young enough to turn their attention to other employments, but also to those old and deserving public servants who had spent their whole lives in becoming familiar with the duties of their office, who if now turned out would be unable to attach themselves to other pursuits, and having no resources would be exposed to extreme penury. Perhaps his right hon. Friend would inform the House how he proposed to carry out these large reductions, and that he would be guided by the principles of humanity and generosity, as well as by economical considerations.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERowned that he was very much embarrassed as to the manner in which he should answer the really very singular inquiry of his hon. Friend (Mr. M. Milnes). He was asked to give an assurance that in regulating certain reductions in the public establishments he would be guided by the principles of humanity and generosity. Well, in regard to the principles of humanity, he was not aware it could be justly alleged that where reductions were carried out in the public establishments of this country there had been displayed any want of humanity in the arrangements. He was bound to say, comparing the proceed- 747 ings of the State and Government of England with those of any other country, they were influenced by principles of humanity, equity, and consideration for private interests to an extent of which there was no other example on the face of the earth. As to generosity—he knew not what had excited the apprehension of his hon. Friend, and induced him to make this appeal for an assurance that these parties should be treated with generosity. Generosity was a great and noble virtue in individuals, but he confessed he had great distrust of generosity on the part of States, on the part of the House of Commons, on the part of Members of Parliament in behalf of public officers when spending public money. As to the practical part of the question it stood thus. When the Government first formed the intention of submitting to Parliament proposals which would render practicable a very considerable reduction of the public establishments, he had immediately communicated with the chiefs of both Departments, directing them to suspend their applications to the Treasury for new appointments, particularly in the more expensive class of officers. He had applied to his right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Board of Customs to know how he acted with respect to these coming or possible reductions. He said it would be impossible to give any estimate in detail which should affect the general estimates of the Department, because they could not take place before the passing of the law; the Department would require to be in perfect possession of all the measures before they could possibly consider in detail the arrangements of the establishment that would be consequent on these measures. Fully occupied with the measures themselves, he was not aware that any progress had been made up to this time in the Customs department with these arrangements, although no doubt some preliminary steps might have been taken. But he must say he had the most perfect confidence in the justice, equity, and consideration which his right hon. Friend at the head of the Customs would show in adjusting and determining these reductions with a view to the interests of the public service and the claims of individuals. The head of the Board of Customs was primarily responsible in this matter. The Chairman of that Board had to submit his plans to the Treasury, whose conduct the House of Commons had in turn to take under its review.
748 The hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Edwin James) had given notice of his intention to ask whether in the Bill introduced by him for the granting of wine licences, it is intended to exclude houses licensed for the sale of beer, under the provisions of the Acts regulating the sale of beer, from the right of obtaining licences for the sale of refreshments; and, if so licensed, then from the right of obtaining a licence for the sale of wines under the provisions of his Bill? His hon. Friend had lost his opportunity, but he would nevertheless answer his Question. He had no authority more than any other person to construe the language of a Bill, even though he might have framed it; but he would describe the intention of the Bill in simple terms; and this was the more requisite, inasmuch as the popular analysis of the Bill of the Government which had appeared in some of the newspapers did not rightly convey the effect of some of the enactments. The measure had two principal objects. The first related to refreshment houses universally and as a class, and was intended to remedy an evil much and justly complained of—namely, that those houses were entirely exempt from the supervision of the police. The provisions of the Bill would therefore compel all keepers of such houses—with the exception of certain small houses in country places—to take out a licence at a low rate. The holding of that licence would subject them to the supervision of the police, under certain penalties and restraints which he thought adequate for the purpose in view. The second principal object of the measure had reference, not to refreshment houses universally, but to such of them as might be properly called eating-houses. The Bill attempted both to define what was the true character of an eating-house and to provide the means of justly carrying out that definition in practice. Eating-houses, as thus defined, would entitle the keepers of them to apply for licences to sell foreign wines. The hon. and learned Member would have asked whether the Bill dealt with beer-houses. His answer was, that the measure was not intended in any manner to touch what were known as beerhouses—that was to say, drinking-houses kept open for the sale of beer, and licensed under the Beer Acts. With regard to whether a licence for the sale of beer would ipso facto constitute a disqualification for holding a licence to sell wine, that was a point on which the House would have to 749 exercise its own judgment; but undoubtedly it was not meant by the framers of the Bill that in the case of an eating-house a licence to sell beer should of itself disqualify the keeper for a licence to sell wine.