§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, in rising to move—
That the General Order of the 3rd January, issued by the Board of Inland Revenue, is an unwarrantable interference on the part of a Public Department in the relations between Members of Parliament and their constituents, and an invasion of the privileges of this House,said, the House might judge of the feeling created amongst the officials in the Inland Revenue Department by the issue of this Order by the fact that 298 Petitions had been presented to the House on the subject, signed by 2,559 officers, amounting, he believed, to nearly 95 per cent of the whole Service. The General Order complained of practically prohibited any intercourse or communications whatever between Excise officials, whether individually or collectively, and Gentlemen in that House. He would like to draw attention to the wording of the Order in question, and would quote from documents laid upon the Table by the Treasury. The Order said—The Board regret to find that the spirit, if not the letter, of the existing regulations which forbid officers of the Revenue Service to seek promotion or removal or any alteration of their position by means of external influence has of late been frequently disregarded, more especially by deputations which waited upon Members of Parliament and others with a view to procure their influence to obtain an increase in their salaries and other alterations in their position.In the first place, that sentence was wholly inaccurate. No deputation had waited upon Members of Parliament, at any rate during this Session, from these Excise officials, for the purpose of soliciting an increase of salary, or obtaining any alteration of position. But there was a movement among Excise officials to bring about a Parliamentary inquiry into their whole status as compared with 1497 other Civil servants. That was the only object which the Excise officials had in approaching that House. The first Order on which the Treasury relied was that of the 26th of February, 1866, and the second was that issued on the 2nd of May in 1867.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he had never stated that these were all the Orders on the subject.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that it was quite possible, and, from what they knew of Her Majesty's Government, it was very probable that there might be some secret regulations controlling these relations with the Excise officers; but if the right hon. Gentleman was going to rely on other documents it was not treating the House fairly to keep them from its knowledge. The whole gist of the matter lay in this—that in the year 1868 the position of the Excise officials was entirely altered by the extension to them of the Parliamentary franchise. When that was conferred on them they were placed in the same position as any other voter in the country. One of the most valuable rights that the holder of the franchise possessed was that he was able to approach the Member who represented his constituency; and there was nothing the House was more jealous of than that any obstacle should be interposed between a voter and a Member of Parliament. In 1872 Lord Coleridge, who then was the Law Officer of the present Prime Minister, said that "the Inland Revenue officer's political status is free from any political restriction." It should be remembered that, after the passing of the Act which conferred the franchise on these officers, doubts arose as to its true construction. Thereupon, another Statute was passed, which allowed them to canvass and to belong to political organizations. He would not say whether that action on the part of the Legislature was right or wrong; but, having made that change, they must now either reduce the status, or else not allow any interference by Departments with the privileges of that status. He quite thought that a distinction ought to be drawn between an officer of the Excise who approached Members of Parliament for the purpose of soliciting, for his own private ends, pecuniary advantage, or promotion in his office, and a collective and representa- 1498 tive body who approached Members in order to ask for a Parliamentary inquiry. The former would be a grossly improper act on the part of any official, which the Government would have a right to resent, and which no Member would encourage; but the latter was as meritorious and as much entitled to encouragement as the former was the reverse. The terms of the General Order which had been issued were much too wide and sweeping, and were, in fact, inconsistent with the law and the spirit of the law of the land. The Board might pronounce a most unjust, iniquitous, and improper decision in a case or cases affecting the officers of the Excise Department; and yet, according to the second rule, any member of the Excise who ventured to bring the matter before Parliament would be liable to instant dismissal. It must be recollected that these men were public servants upon whom full and entire electoral freedom had been conferred; and yet, by this General Order, they must not ask, through their Members, for any change beneficial to their body in rates, salaries, and allowances, under pain of arbitrary dismissal. Was the House of Commons prepared to sanction that? He would show the impolicy and absurdity of that Order. These Excise officials did him the honour to consult him on the matter; and he had advised them that the best way to challenge the legality of the Order was by petitioning the House of Commons. The result had been that 95 per cent of the officials had signed such Petitions, and nobody had dared to insist on the enforcement of the Order. This Order had denounced public organizations formed for the purpose of sending deputations to wait on Members of Parliament. He was perfectly certain that in the old days—in the days when the Inland Revenue Board was wisely administered by Sir Charles Herries, Mr. A. Montgomerie, and others—there was no need for any organizations such as these, and they had none of these quarrels. Then, again, the Board said that they felt the less reluctance in issuing the Order because it was well known to all the officers that they might at all times approach the Board. But that was exactly what the officers had done; and it was only when the Board refused, as they thought, to give a just and a fair consideration to 1499 their case, that, in the exercise of their lawful and Constitutional rights, they solicited the aid and protection of Parliament in the matter. They had, in fact, acted on the advice of the present Prime Minister, who, in 1867, had told the officials, who were agitating for a beneficial alteration in their status, first of all to exhaust all their chances with the Board, and then to approach the House of Commons by way of deliberate appeal from the Board. That was exactly the course the officials had adopted. They had approached the Board; they waited upon it by deputation; and, in fact, in the words of the Prime Minister, they exhausted all their chances with the Board, and were about to approach Parliament, when the Board—with, he presumed, the knowledge and consent of the Lords of the Treasury—stopped them by the issuing of this General Order. He wished to tell the House that he was not advocating any claim on the part of the officials for higher salaries, or for any change whatever in their status. He confined himself to endeavouring to got the House to censure this General Order, and to give a distinct recognition, not only to the Constitutional rights of the officials of the Board of Inland Revenue, but also of the Privileges of Members of Parliament. Ail he advocated was that three or four superior clerks should not be able at will to deprive thousands of public servants of their Constitutional rights. Curiously enough, he found that the Marquess of Salisbury, when a Member of that House, had had to encounter the present Lord Sherbrooke, then Mr. Robert Lowe, on this subject; and he had used these words:—
The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) has spoken in bitter terms of the subordinates in the Public Offices.… I do not believe that in the service of the Crown any loyalty is due to the heads of Departments as against the House of Commons. The heads of Departments and the Departments themselves are alike subject to our jurisdiction; and if the employés have any complaints to make they do no wrong in laying them before the Representatives of the people.After all, Parliament was the employer of these people, although the Inland Revenue Board seemed to be under the impression that they were their employers. He would also advocate the great importance of keeping the Civil servants in a temper of cheerfulness 1500 and loyalty; and nothing had done more to destroy that temper of cheerfulness and loyalty than the action of the Board in issuing this General Order. He was simply seeking to restore it. All the immense Revenue of the country depended on these officials, and their work required at their hands the greatest tact and delicacy; and he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, supposing by these organizations, which the failure of the proceedings of the Board had forced the officials to adopt, they were led on to a general strike, would not the Board be put to the greatest inconvenience? Considering the amount of education to the work required by these officers, they could not easily be replaced, and this discontent might bring on a general strike. This General Order, he was informed on the best authority, was the work of Mr. Algernon West, who, curiously enough, had made his career for himself by pursuing those very practices which he forbade his subordinates to pursue—by belonging to political Clubs, hanging on to Members of Parliament, taking a leading part in election matters, and, no doubt, by continually soliciting, in one way or another, personal advancement. He was, in fact, a unique specimen of Whig jobbery. He did not know that the Prime Minister was quite as good a specimen of a Whig as he was; but, undoubtedly, Mr. Algernon West's origin might be traced to the predilection of Whigs for jobs and favourites. He was first discovered by Lord Halifax and then taken up by Lord Northbrook, two Whig Lords, and was finally handed over to the Prime Minister, who made him his Private Secretary, and afterwards gave him one of the best posts in the Civil Service. One of the greatest hardships inflicted on the Civil servants, and one which they most bitterly resented, was the continual practice of Prime Ministers of placing their Private Secretaries in the best posts in the Service; and now, curiously enough, the Prime Minister had placed another Private Secretary on the Board. Such action as this deprived men who had served long and faithfully in different Departments of the prizes of their professions. Unfortunately, too, the Leader of the Opposition was not altogether guiltless in this respect, for he believed the right hon. Gentleman had nominated one of his Private Secretaries to a place 1501 on the Inland Revenue Board; but the present Prime Minister had crammed the Board with his Secretaries. He not only appointed Mr. Algernon West, but he had placed Mr. Godley upon it, and there was not the least doubt that be would place Mr. Hamilton there too. Thus they had the extraordinary spectacle of an Inland Revenue Board made up of Private Secretaries, gentlemen who were not acquainted with the routine of the Department or the feeling of the Service; and, as a result, they had the issue of this General Order giving rise to a widespread feeling of discontent. He asked the House to put an end to this last relic of official jobbery, and to let the best posts in the Civil Service be thrown open to the whole body of meritorious officers. It seemed to him quite monstrous that the Prime Minister's Private Secretaries, whose chief experience of official life was gained—he would not say quite among the backstairs' intrigues and dirty work of office—["Oh, oh!"]—well, it was very well known what Private Secretaries did—it was monstrous that they should be allowed to draw an immense salary from the public taxes, and tyrannize over and worry hard-working and ill-paid public servants. It was to such an unfortunate instance of Private Secretary jobbery, ignorance, and intolerance as Mr. Algernon West at the head of the Inland Revenue Department at £2,000 a-year that this Circular was due. He believed him to be the sole author of this most ill-advised, foolish, and illegal Circular, which he now asked the House severely to condemn.
§ MR. MONK, in seconding the Resolution, said, he was anxious that there should be no mistake as to its scope. If the General Order of January 3, 1883, had been confined to the prohibition of Parliamentary influence for any personal advancement, or to any interference with the necessary and salutary discipline of the Board over its officers, no objection could have been taken to it. Such Orders had been in existence for many years, and had been readily acquiesced in by Civil Servants. The principle for which they contended was, that every elector, whether a Civil servant or not, should be entitled to approach his Parliamentary Representative, and to unburden himself of any grievance freely and unreservedly. He was under the impression 1502 that that principle had been embodied by legislation, and that it was distinctly settled, so far as the Inland Revenue Department was concerned, by 31 & 32 Vict., c. 73, when the Civil servants of the Crown in that Department were admitted to the franchise. That Bill had on its back the names of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney), the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means (Sir Arthur Otway), and his own; and he considered it right to the Civil Servants affected by that Bill that one of the Members who brought it in should rise in their defence. The disabilities under which, until lately, Civil servants laboured, originated in Acts passed as far back as the Reigns of William and Mary, and of Anne; and then, no doubt, Civil servants were not unwilling to be relieved of the privilege—if privilege it could be called—of a vote which they were compelled to give under the direction of the Government of the day. Circumstances, however, had now changed, and those disabilities had been removed. He was convinced that Parliament would not allow the Board of Inland Revenue, or any Government, to re-impose those disabilities to which Civil servants had been subjected by the Rockingham Administration in 1782, or by the earlier Acts to which he had referred, under very different circumstances. What, then, was the meaning of this Order of January, 1883? It appeared to be an attempt on the part of the Board to interfere between members of the Service and their Representatives; and, to his mind, it was more censurable than the brutum fulmen issued by the same Board in 1868, when it sought to affix a stigma upon its subordinates by raising objections to their enfranchisement, on the ground that they were not considered fit to exercise the electoral franchise. It was quite clear that the experience of the last 15 years had not taught the heads of the Department wisdom. He had no doubt that the whole Board was responsible for the Order; but it was an unwise Order, and had caused much discontent in the Department specially concerned. Nothing could be more unfair than to assume that the use of Parliamentary rights would be turned into an abuse. Believing that it was much better that discontent in a Public Department should be allowed to come to the light than 1503 that it should be left to seethe below the surface and so cause demoralization, he begged to second the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the General Order of the 3rd January, issued by the Board of Inland Revenue, is an unwarrantable interference on the part of a Public Department in the relations between Members of Parliament and their constituents, and an invasion of the privileges of this House,"—(Lord Randolph Churchill,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTESir, I request permission to offer a few observations to the House before the Government reply, because I have been personally and officially connected with several stages of the transactions of which the noble Lord has given so lively an account. Although I certainly found in his speech one of the characteristics which always distinguishes his speeches in this House, although I found that it was clever and amusing, I failed to find in it, what I have generally found in former speeches, evidence of a careful study of facts, and accuracy in the statement of facts. I do not think I ever heard a speech which, for its length, contained so many mis-statements and mistakes as the speech of the noble Lord; and I think it is right that the House should be made aware of one or two errors into which he has fallen. I will not discuss the meaning which the noble Lord attaches to the General Order. He said that it prohibits all communications between Civil servants and the Members representing them. Now, that is not the bearing or meaning of the General Order; but I will leave it to the Government to explain that that is not its meaning. The noble Lord went on to say that he cannot find what cause there has been for an Order of this sort, and that he cannot find that any deputation representing Civil servants has waited on a Member of Parliament this year for the purpose of getting salaries raised. But, as I understand the case, it was exactly because a deputation had waited upon a Member of Parliament, or a person who afterwards became a Member of Parliament, that the present 1504 Order of the Inland Revenue Department was issued.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLWill the right hon. Gentleman allow me to explain? I am informed that all they asked for was a Parliamentary inquiry. They carefully limited themselves to that.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEThat may have been so. I cannot say.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLOh, it was so.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEIt practically comes to the same thing. At any rate, there is one fact I wish to mention. There is a newspaper called The Civilian, which has a large circulation among members of the Civil Service. In an article on the contest at Edinburgh, which appeared in that paper on November 11, 1882, I find the following statements under the heading, "The Inland Revenue Salary Movement "—
The contest for the representation of Edinburgh in Parliament was decided on Friday, the 3rd inst. There were two Liberals in the field, and Mr. Waddy was returned. Of course, it is not for us to discuss the claims of the rival candidates. What we have to record is that the situation was fully taken advantage of by officers of the Inland Revenue, who wished to have their claims brought before both gentlemen.The article goes on to say that—Mr. Waddy lost no time in granting an interview.And that—Amongst the remarks made by Mr. Waddy, he stated that, in his opinion, the deputation had made out a strong case with regard not only to the inequality, but to the inadequacy of the salaries received.Now, when the noble Lord says that there was no cause for the Circular, because no deputation had waited on a Member of Parliament to discuss the question of an increase of salary—
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLThe gentleman before whom the deputation went was not a Member of Parliament.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEWell, he was an inchoate Member of Parliament; and it was with a view to obtain his assistance, as a Member of Parliament, that the deputation waited upon him, and, as The Civilian says, full advantage was taken of the opportunity in order to bring the claims of the officials before him. The next point on 1505 which the noble Lord made an observation was about the existing regulations. The noble Lord says the gist of his complaint is that in consequence of the Acts of 1868 and 1874 the whole position has been changed, and complete liberty is given to the servants of the various Government Departments to do that which the noble Lord admits it was not competent for them to do before those Acts were passed. The noble Lord went on to say that in the good old times, and until the present injudicious proceedings of the Board of Inland Revenue, there was no organization among Civil servants. Now, I should like to call attention to the circumstances in which the Act of 1868 was passed. I was then a Member of the Government, and I remember what took place. Speaking upon that Bill, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Ward Hunt) said that continual applications were made by Civil servants respecting their position and salaries, and that those applications had, of late years, taken a very peculiar form, not being made through the Heads of Departments, or by Memorials to the Treasury, but being made through the medium of resolutions passed at public meetings. Mr. Ward Hunt contended that the Government of the day would have far greater difficulty than before in ruling the various Public Offices if such measures were persisted in. That proves that at that time there was an organization which caused anxiety to the Government. Nevertheless, the Act of 1868 was passed, though Mr. Disraeli opposed it. It was, however, a very limited Act, which merely gave the power of voting, and did not give the right of taking part in public meetings, and otherwise interfering with elections. In 1874, the first year of the tenure of Office of the late Government, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) brought forward another Bill. Now, a very remarkable thing occurred in connection with that Bill. There were certain old Statutes which imposed heavy penalties upon persons in the Civil Service for taking part in election matters, and which placed them at the mercy of the common informer. The intention of the hon. Member for Gloucester was to relieve Civil servants from the disability to which these old Statutes referred; but his Bill, as originally drawn, went further, and there was a clause in it to the effect that no person 1506 should be subject to any penalty or punishment for taking part in political proceedings at an election. The Government did not oppose the passing of the Bill; but when the Committee stage was reached, I, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, drew attention to the great width and breadth of the provision to which I have alluded, and I then made some observations to which, with the permission of the House, I will call attention.
§ MR. MONKobserved, that that Bill only affected Civil servants in the Post Office and Customs Departments.
§ SIB STAFFORD NORTHCOTEAt all events, I will read what took place. What I said was this—
Although he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the law should be altered, and that old, obsolete, and inconvenient restrictions should be removed, he thought the House should do nothing to restrain the Executive Government from taking such stops as they might find necessary for preventing any unseemly or inconvenient interference of their own officials in electioneering contests. Now, the 1st clause might cause some difficulty. It provided that no person engaged in the Revenue Departments should he liable to any pains or penalties by reason of his having solicited the vote of any elector, or addressed any assembly of electors in reference to the choice of any person to serve as a Member of Parliament. If they passed so broad an enactment as that, it seemed to him they would inconveniently impair the action of the Executive Government, and the Board of Inland Revenue, or of the Customs might be hold to have violated the Act, if they issued any order whatever with regard to the officers taking part in elections. Therefore, what he proposed was that the Bill should be amended by striking out that section; that they should limit themselves to a repeal of the enactments which now prevented officers from taking part in elections; and that they should explain in the Preamble that the reason for passing the Bill was, that the officers of the Revenue Department were still subject to severe penalties with reference to electioneering matters to which the officers in other branches of the Public Service were not subject, that it was desirable to abolish such penalties, and that then they should leave the matter to be dealt with at the discretion of the Government. He thought it very probable that the Board of Customs and of the Inland Revenue might think it necessary to issue some Orders on the subject."—(3 Hansard, [219] 799.)To that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) replied that he cordially agreed with almost every word that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These Orders were issued shortly afterwards, and there have been other Orders. There was an Order on December 2, 1507 1878, sent out by the Board of Inland Revenue, much to the same effect as the present Order. It was subsequent to the alteration of 1868 and 1874, and it was ordered to remain in force until a new edition of the old Order was put forth. That entirely upsets the case of noble Lord. When he tells us that the old positions of these officers have been altered, and that what was right before became wrong after, I say that he does not take into account what were the circumstances of the alteration made in 1868 and 1874. The noble Lord has told us that the position of the Inland Revenue officers is free from any political restriction, and has endeavoured to raise a distinction between an individual wishing to get his salary raised, and that of a number of persons having a common object in view.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLThe case of any grievance.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEOf any grievance not connected with salary. I believe there ought to be nothing to prevent Civil servants bringing under the notice of Parliament a general statement of grievance. But it is a different thing for them to attempt to get their salaries raised. I think Parliament would be doing a most dangerous thing if it permitted Civil servants to appeal from the decisions of their own immediate superiors to Parliament in order to get improvements in their salaries. The House cannot do this unless it is prepared to take upon itself the responsibility for the administration of the Civil Service. If it should do this it would be a most dangerous thing, not only to the interests of the Service, but to the character of the House of Commons and Parliament. I can assure the noble Lord from my experience, which is not inconsiderable, of the work of Public Departments, that there is no indisposition, and never has been, to carefully and fully consider all the claims put forward by Civil servants for improvements in their position. No one is so interested in the maintenance of contentment in the Civil Service as the Government at the head of it. The late Government were at the trouble to make a most careful inquiry—culminating in the arrangements of 1876—into the stations, salaries, position, and employment, the number, the classification, and the work of the Customs and Inland Revenue officials, and a large 1508 and liberal settlement was subsequently made. To permit the members of the Civil Service afterwards to come to the House would be a most dangerous thing. I trust nothing will be done which will in any way weaken the hands or reduce the responsibility of the Government in the matter. The Government must bear the responsibility. If the Inland Revenue authorities acted without the authority of the Executive Government, the Government would take them to task for what they had done. The House itself has nothing to do with the position of the Civil Service; it can only look to the Government and hold them responsible. I maintain that the House of Commons must resolutely refrain from interfering with administration of this kind. When we consider that there are about 100,000 members of the Civil Service in various positions in different parts of the country, it is clear that anything relating to them is a matter of great delicacy and importance. It is almost impossible to benefit one member without doing an injustice to another. If the House were to take upon itself to interfere in this matter, elections would take place in which Civil servants would obtain pledges from candidates on the representation that they were not receiving so much as they ought, having regard to other employments. Encouragement would thus be given to corruption of all kinds, which would utterly destroy the character of the House. It would lead not only to cases of individual corruption, but the House would have placed itself in a position which would very much affect and weaken its character, and might lead us to consequences we have reason to dread. Our warmest thanks are due to the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) for the great service he did in going into the whole subject and introducing an improved system of organization. We have to guard against the evils I have mentioned, and the Circular seems to be directed against them. Therefore I hope Her Majesty's Government will absolutely decline to accept the Motion made by the noble Lord. It is impossible that such a Motion can be accepted, and placed on the Books of the House, without greatly weakening the hands of those who have the administration of the Public Service; and were the House to accept such a proposal it would not be 1509 very long before it would have reason to regret it.
§ MR. WHITBREADsaid, he had listened with very great pain to the almost offensive attack made by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstook (Lord Randolph Churchill) upon Mr. Algernon West, the Head of the Inland Revenue Department. In his opinion, it was both ungenerous and uncalled for. The noble Lord had spoken of Mr. West as some Private Secretary brought in from the outside, and thrust over other servants until he got to the head of a Department. He (Mr. Whitbread) remembered Mr. West's first introduction into the Civil Service. He first served as a young clerk in the Inland Revenue Department; he afterwards went to the Admiralty, and then to the Treasury, and thence to the Inland Revenue Board. He had also been Private Secretary to different Ministers. He did not think the noble Lord had had experience in that rank of life. Private Secretaries were not generally called upon to do the dirty work of their superiors; and the first duty a Private Secretary learnt was to be accurate and moderate in his statements. It was the fact that Ministers who had once employed Mr. West as their Private Secretary subsequently endeavoured again to obtain his services, and often recommended him to their Successors. The noble Lord had said that Mr. West owed his position to two jobbing Whigs, Lord Nortkbrook and Lord Halifax; but he believed Mr. West really owed at least one step of his promotion to the Party opposite, and in particular to Lord Beaconsfield. His talents and industry which were recognized on the one side of the House were recognized also on the other, and he had steadily worked his way up after 33 years' service. The duties which the Civil servants of the Crown had to perform were of a very important and delicate character, and were spread over every part of the United Kingdom, and therefore nothing could be more foolish than the advice tendered to them by the noble Lord when he suggested to them to strike.
§ MR. WHITBREADsaid, he could only compare the noble Lord to the gentleman who said to the people in stormy election times—"There are stones, and there are windows; do not say that I 1510 recommended you to break them." He must tell the noble Lord that words such as he had used caused pain. If Her Majesty's Government resisted the; Motion of the noble Lord they should have his hearty support, for he was convinced that it was absolutely necessary to stand up against organized demands for increase of salaries. No one valued more than himself the services of the j Civil servants; but he felt bound to say that bringing Parliamentary pressure I to bear on their part ought to be discouraged. If the House were to follow that course, as recommended by the noble Lord, it would be one of the worst steps in the interests of the Civil servants themselves, because there would arise a reaction against such pressure, and the Civil servants, instead of standing well, would lose their position very considerably.
TUE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GUILDERS)said, that although much of what he had intended to say had been already anticipated by the admirable speech of the right hon. Baronet opposite and by his hon. Friend behind him, still he felt it his duty to state, on the part of the Government, the view that they took of the Motion of the noble Lord; and in doing so he would state his regret that the Motion came on as an Amendment to Supply, so that it could only be met by what was virtually the Previous Question, instead of by a direct negative. There was one personal matter which the noble Lord had introduced into his statement. The noble Lord had asked him whether he held himself responsible for this General Order. He would reply most distinctly that he was responsible.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman was absent from London at the time.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that was so; but he should be sorry to rely on his absence from London as releasing him from responsibility. On the contrary, he considered himself responsible for the General Order. It was an excellent General Order, and he was prepared to stand by it. Without some such Order it would be practically impossible for any Government to carry on the discipline of the Civil Service or any part of the Civil Service with efficiency and economy. The noble Lord's Motion im- 1511 plied, and in his speech he had stated in effect, that Civil servants had a right to apply to Members of Parliament collectively or individually, in order to obtain increase of salaries, promotion, and other advantages, this being what was prohibited in the General Order.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that all he stated was that they had a right to ask for a Parliamentary Inquiry into their grievances.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDRES)said, the noble Lord's speech and the speech of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) most distinctly covered the ground he had stated.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFrose to Order, and asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in continuing to impute expressions to his noble Friend which his noble Friend disavowed?
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the noble Lord has disavowed the expression attributed to him, that disavowal ought to be accepted.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, if the language the noble Lord used was not intended to convey what the words meant, he would accept the disavowal. In the case of his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester he took the words down. The hon. Member said that every elector, whether in the Civil Service or not, might approach his Parliamentary Representative and unburden his grievances, whatever they might be. But the foundation for the Motion was that, whatever might have been the case formerly, Civil servants, being now electors, had the right to approach Members of Parliament; and in this connection, another argument of the noble Lord was that the rights in this respect of members of the Civil Service were derived from the circumstance that Parliament was their employer. That doctrine seemed to him fraught with the gravest consequences. It was not Parliament which employed Civil servants, but the Crown, acting through the Ministers, who were responsible to Parliament. The noble Lord's proposition was, therefore, based upon a fallacy, and ought not to be assented to by the House. But, putting aside this argument as really beside the question, what he wished to 1512 point out was that the doctrine put before them by the noble Lord did not only concern Revenue officers, but every branch of the Service—soldiers, sailors, and the whole body of civilians, whether employed under the Admiralty and War Office, or in the Civil Service proper. The noble Lord's contention was that something had been done with respect to Revenue officers, some privilege had been conferred on them which did not apply to other officers. But he would remind the House that soldiers and sailors and members of the ordinary Civil Service had always enjoyed the franchise. As to soldiers, George III. once blamed Lord North and Lord Barrington for not bringing up the Guardsmen to vote at an election. The present state of the law was remarkable as to soldiers. It was quite true that in Great Britain regiments were not allowed to be in a constituency at the time of polling for an election; but from that was expressly excepted the right of soldiers having votes to exercise the elective franchise, and even to go to their polling places without asking leave. So that the House would see that this Motion not only affected the Inland Revenue officials, but the whole of the Army, Navy, and Civil servants; in fact, every person who was paid by the Crown, with some limited exceptions. The effect of the Enfranchisement Act of 1868 was simply to put the Revenue officers on a footing with all the other officers of the Crown in regard to these privileges. Therefore, the whole foundation on which the noble Lord and his hon. Friend built their superstructure fell to the ground. He had taken some pains to place the facts as to the Public Service in this respect before the House; and the Treasury and Admiralty Minutes which were circulated utterly disposed of this supposed right to approach Members on questions of pay and promotion. All the different classes of the Service were governed by the same rules and subjected to the same restrictions. He would point out one absurdity which would follow from the noble Lord's proposition. It would follow that those public servants who were electors might approach Members of Parliament on those questions, while those who were not so would be debarred from that privilege. Indeed, it would almost follow that they could only approach their own Members. This would make it necessary for 1513 Heads of Departments to keep registers, so as to be able to tell which of their subordinates were voters and which were not, and to what constituency each voter belonged. But he would also point out what was far more serious, and that was, that if public servants were to canvass Members for this purpose, offering their support to those who would help them, they would naturally select those who had the greatest influence with the Government—that was to say, supporters of the Government. The effect of that would be that, in the long run, the whole body of public servants would be on the side of the Minister in power. In other words, whoever was the Minister in power would be able to wield the whole influence of the Public Service. The result would be that they would gradually arrive at the state of things which prevailed in the United States; and, as the inevitable result, at every change of Government a large number of Civil servants would be deprived of their offices. He would turn for a moment to what had been said in the debate with regard to Mr. Algernon West. He wished to say, in regard to that gentleman, that he knew no public servant who discharged his duty with so much fidelity, and he believed he should be borne out in that statement by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. But, in his attack on the Circular for which Mr. West was responsible, the noble Lord was guilty of a strange omission. He read through two of its sentences, but he carefully omitted the words relating to salary, the express subject of the Circular.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI especially avoided dwelling upon the question of salaries.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GUILDERS)said, it was true that the noble Lord had guarded himself against advocating any increase of salaries; but he omitted from the Circular the words about salary, which were its essence. They had heard a great deal about the right of Petition; but neither the Treasury nor the Inland Revenue had ever questioned the right to address a proper Petition to that House. He certainly had refused to discuss this question of the right of Petition except in debate and when they had the exact words of the Petition before them. The whole of this controversy was a question of salary and promotion. He had laid On the Table of the House the Corre- 1514 spondence between the Board and the Treasury, and between the Board and its officers; and, from beginning to end, anyone who perused it would see that it was entirely a question of salaries. Those salaries had been settled in 1876, on fair and just terms, and the whole of this agitation was aimed at re-opening the settlement through the assistance of Members of Parliament. He would say again that it would be impossible, in his opinion, to exercise due control in the direction of economy, over the expensive Public Services of the country if the principle advocated by the noble Lord in his Motion were for a moment admitted. Already the salaries of the Civil servants in this country—although he did not think them excessive—were probably about twice as high as they were in France, and still higher than in any other country in Europe. There was always going on a constant struggle between the Treasury and the different Departments of the Public Service to maintain the economy which, in the opinion of the Government, was absolutely necessary to be maintained. But whether prices were high or low, the Treasury poor or wealthy, the country prosperous or otherwise, the agitation for more salary went on in the Public Departments. Under these circumstances, therefore, and considering how difficult it was for the Government to secure support from the House in dealing with questions of this class, however the House might endorse economy in the abstract, he was bound to say that if they added to the weight against the Treasury—that was, against the taxpayer—this facility for every public servant to go to a Member of Parliament and to get his assistance in redressing his so-called grievances, it would be impossible to act upon the Resolution lately moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) with reference to the Public Expenditure, a Resolution which had received the support of both sides of the House. Such a Motion as that of the noble Lord was simply in the teeth of that economy to which the Government were pledged, and he did hope the House would not accept it.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) had accused his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph 1515 Churchill) of mis-statements and mistakes. It was most remarkable that both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Baronet had entirely ignored one circumstance, How were these Papers laid on the Table? His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had asked for the Circular itself, on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer offered, not only to lay it upon the Table, but also some Papers which he volunteered as necessary to this subject. And the whole of this discussion turned upon Papers volunteered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, his noble Friend had been perfectly justified in adverting to those Papers. The right hon. Gentleman had said that Members of Parliament ought not to press on the Government for an increase of salary for public servants. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) perfectly agreed with him, and so did they all. All they had a right to do was to bring particular cases before the Government, and ask for a discussion upon them. But in the very Treasury Minute the right hon. Gentleman had laid on the Table the question of an increase of salary was included as one within the rights of Members of Parliament to press the Government upon. That Minute, however, had been issued by a much wiser Treasury than they had at present. He would ask the House to consider one question. The Treasury Minute of 1866 had been published by the Treasury as a great Public Department. If Ministers of State chose to bring forward on their responsibility any regulations they were at liberty to do so, facing, of course, any opposition. But he maintained that it was a different case where permanent servants made regulations. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Treasury Minute of 1866, which prohibited Civil servants from appealing to Members of Parliament on questions of salary, applied to members of the Inland Revenue Board, or whether a Commissioner might approach his own father, if a Member of Parliament, on this subject, and whether the General Order under discussion applied to the Commissioners? In the year 1867, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister advised certain Civil servants who applied to him in the matter in these terms—"Exhaust your chances with your Board first, and then come to the House of Commons." Did the right hon. Gentle- 1516 man recognize those words as his own? [Mr. GLADSTONE: No."] He inquired whether they represented the substance of what was said, and had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would say something on the subject when he addressed the House? How were Civil servants to present Petitions to Parliament unless they were permitted to have access to their Members? He only wished to say one more word about the constitution of the Board of Inland Revenue. He was not going to attack the members of that Body; but he maintained, as a principle, that they had no right to issue the Circular; it could only be issued by a responsible Minister of the Crown, directed to every rank of officer under his control. With regard to the question of the appointment of Private Secretaries to those posts, he would maintain that, whatever might be the merits or the virtues of this gentleman, the Inland Revenue Commissioners had no right to issue this Circular without distinct instructions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. GLADSTONESir, I need not detain the House very long on this subject; but it is impossible for me, both on account of the reference which has been made to myself, and also considering my position in the Government and the view I take of the importance of the question, to pass it over altogether in silence. I am extremely sorry that personal matter of this character should have been introduced into the debate, and I cannot conceive why it should have been introduced. The hon. Member for Portsmouth? (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) has said that the right hon. Gentleman the Baronet opposite has been influenced by family affection in procuring an appointment for his son, and that expression going forth to the world might make it appear that the right hon. Gentleman has deviated from the path of perfect justice by placing his son upon the Board of Inland Revenue. That being so, I wish to take this opportunity of doing that which justice absolutely demands. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman did or did not have anything to do with the appointment of his son by the late Prime Minister on that Board, but whoever made the appointment deserves great credit and honour for it. No better appointment could have been made, and all I can say is that I wish there may always be forthcoming a 1517 series of men as well fitted to discharge the important duties of that Office as is the son of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. But why did the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) attack Mr. Algernon West in this extraordinary manner, and why did he profess to know that it was by Mr. West's authority that this Circular was issued? From the noble Lord's account Mr. West would appear to be a gentleman bad beyond reclamation; and not only so, there are two other gentleman as bad as Mr. West—Lord Halifax and Lord Northbrook—through one of whom Mr. West was in part promoted. But there is another individual who, it seems to me, is worse than either of them, and that is the Prime Minister himself, for if he employs his Secretaries in back stairs intrigue and dirty work, which appears to be the staple commodity in which Private Secretaries, according to the noble Lord, are engaged to deal, it appears to me, according to the principle, that the briber is worse than he who takes the bribe, that if Mr. West has been employed in this guilty occupation, the man who employed him is still more deserving of reprobation than that gentleman himself. I am extremely sorry that the noble Lord, with his capabilities for applying himself to Public Business, should, I might almost say, debase, certainly disparage, his own abilities by the introduction of such worthless trash. That expression may seem a strong one, but it is really justified by the facts of this case. Mr. West is a gentleman who has risen step by step to a high position in the Public Service, and every one of these steps has been achieved by honourable and able exertion, and by no other means. The duties of a Private Secretary are most arduous, and those of a Private Secretary to the Prime Minister are certainly arduous far beyond all others, and it was Mr. West's merit and nothing else which led to his appointment, an appointment subsequently recognized by our political opponents, so that he stands in the position of a gentleman whose ability has been acknowledged by both sides of the House. We know from the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) that the expression of the noble Lord will give pain; but on the whole I am really inclined to think that it will not give pain, and that the testimony borne to 1518 that gentleman's character and services is such that he may safely dismiss from his mind all that has fallen from the noble Lord. I wish to say one word as to the statement I am reported to have made in 1867 in connection with a Memorial or document prepared by Civil servants of that day. That quotation cannot be verified by reference to any document or authority.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLIt appears in the Report of the Committee of the Civil Servants drawn up at that time, when the negotiations were in progress. That, I admit, is the only record of the statement.
MR. GLADSTONEYes; it appears in the Report which I hold in my hand, though I was entirely unaware until quite lately that that passage was in circulation, and was being used to give my authority to a certain course of proceeding. I was unable to obtain a copy of the letter to which my communication was an answer; but on referring to my journal, which I keep of all the letters I write, I find that that letter is mentioned in my journal, and there are words corresponding to the words quoted in the Memorial, but they do not amount to a recommendation to try the Board first, and then Parliament. There is, however, this expression in the letter—
I should have expected that any representations proceeding from members of the Civil Service in such a matter would have come through the Heads of the Departments, or else by way of deliberate appeal from them.Unfortunately, as I have said, these officers have not been able to produce their letter to which this was a reply; in that case, however, the question was that of the amalgamation of certain Departments of the Service, and I said they might be justified in appealing to Parliament on that subject—in my opinion, they would be perfectly entitled to appeal freely against any grievance—and, under such circumstances, a grievance might arise. I have no assistance in the matter from recollection, or from any other documents; but I can see a great distinction between the right of Civil servants to petition freely against grievances and the pretended right to come to Parliament to use their influence with their constituents, for the purpose of altering their contract which they had entered into with the public to the dis- 1519 advantage of the public, when that contract has always been liberally fulfilled on the side of the public. I think the proposed access to Members of Parliament is a most dangerous claim, and I am glad to find the hon. Member who has just sat down does not think it advisable, at any rate where their salary is concerned.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI admit that too.
MR. GLADSTONEI am glad to hear, Sir, that that admission has now been made by the noble Lord also. If it be admitted, with regard to salary, that the attempt to influence Parliament is intolerable, I cannot help saying that the effect of the debate has been considerably to narrow the difference between us; for it is now recorded, I hope, as the unanimous sentiment of the House, that applications to Parliament for increase of salary, or, à fortiori, for promotion in the Service, ought not to be made by the Civil servants of the Crown. I think the House understands pretty well the grounds on which we say it is impossible to attach any blame whatever to the issue of this Circular to anyone apart from the Government. The whole responsibility rests upon the Government, and the House of Commons ought not to arraign permanent officers of the State who are not here to defend themselves, and the whole responsibility for whose acts passes over to the Government of the day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are responsible for this Circular; the Secretary to the Treasury will not be disinclined to take his share of the responsibility; and we ask the House to support us in maintaining the principle declared in that Circular. We do not propose to shut out a multitude of cases that are conceivably, it may be, cases of grievance. There may be demands of intolerable labour or circumstances of intolerable inconvenience in the performance of labour. It is not necessary to sketch the contingencies in which real causes of grievance may exist; but any approach to the House for the purpose of altering the contract into which these gentlemen have entered with the State will, I trust, remain upon record after this debate as unequivocally opposed to the wishes of the House. The noble Lord says he has heard me bear testimony to the efficiency of Civil servants in these Departments. 1520 It is true I have done so again and again, and it was only common justice that I should do it. While I have commended gentlemen with whom I have had confidential intercourse, my action never stopped there. It is my belief that efficiency, skill, and zeal go down through all the ranks of the Departments. Therefore, I hope it will not be supposed I intend to pronounce any severe censure on those whose action I think the House should discourage. It is no wonder that they are tempted by the facilities which I am afraid Members of Parliament sometimes offer—facilities the extension of which would inevitably lead to reaction—and it is far better that the intention of the House should clearly beascertained and declared. The question is not confined to the Revenue Department; the privilege might be extended to soldiers and sailors; and it is for Members to consider what the effects of such extension would be. When the hon. Gentleman proposes to censure the appointments of Private Secretaries, I shall contend that such appointments, although in some cases they may be extremely bad, have in many cases been the best that could be made. From the days of Mr. Huskisson there have been many men eminent in the Public Service who have first entered it as Private Secretaries. There is no possible relation in political life which gives such knowledge of the qualities and capacities of a man's mind as knowing him in the character of a Private Secretary. I shall not hesitate to affirm, especially in regard to such offices as have been held by my own principal Private Secretaries, that they have required qualifications that would often suffice for the very respectable and creditable discharge of many political offices. It is suggested that on the occurrence of vacancies Private Secretaries are first thought of; but my first question always is whether the office can be abolished. In three instances I have abolished offices altogether; in two I have appointed Private Secretaries. One of them was Mr. West, whose capacity has been attested by those who differed from him in politics. The other was Mr. Godley, with regard to whom I may say it was my good fortune to introduce his father into the Public Service in 1853, and not less my good fortune to obtain the son as Private Secretary; and no two men have 1521 more worthily distinguished themselves in the Civil Service. We have not neglected the consideration of the claims of those who have risen in the Service itself. I have had the pleasure and satisfaction of appointing to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue Mr. Young, who had risen from the ranks, and had passed a long life in the service of the country—an able and honourable a man as is to be found in the Civil Service or out of it. I hope the House will come to the vote with the full understanding that this is a question of the greatest importance and of wide application, and one with respect to which they will discharge their duty best to the Civil servants as well as to the State by unequivocally discountenancing attempts to procure increase of salary or interference with promotion through action and influence brought to bear upon Members of Parliament.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that if the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), had proposed to disfranchise the Civil servants of the Inland Revenue Department, he was not sure that he should not have voted for that Motion; but as the noble Lord had proposed that the franchise of these Civil servants should be respected and held inviolable from any interference on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers with the free exercise of it, he should vote for the Motion before the House, in case the noble Lord should decide to divide the House. These Civil servants were competent to judge for themselves of the limits imposed upon their actions by their position, and if they were not, they were unfit both for the franchise and for employment under the Crown. He (Mr. Newdegate) clearly understood the difficulty which had arisen. According to the Constitution of the United States, the whole of the Civil servants vacated their situations on every change in the Presidency, and were re-appointed or discarded by the new Administration. That was one method of preventing the difficulty which had now arisen in this country; he (Mr. Newdegate) did not say that this American system would exactly suit England, but it solved this difficulty in the United States. Of one circumstance there could be no doubt, and this was that an imperfect franchise 1522 invariably engendered political corruption. Nothing would induce him to vote for the continuance of an imperfect franchise. He should therefore vote with the noble Lord, if he went to a division, on the ground that these men ought to be wholly disfranchised, or else that they ought to be entitled to the free use of the whole political influence which attached to the franchise.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 37: Majority 83.—(Div. List, No. 115.)
§ Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."