MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 23 February 1886)

§ MR. HANDEL COSSHAM,
in rising to call attention to the disparity in the salaries and duties of persons holding public offices under the Crown and otherwise appointed; and to move for a Select Committee To inquire into the method of appointment and apportionment of salaries and duties under the Crown, said, the object which he had in view was to see whether he could be instrumental, in however small a way, in the reduction of the public burdens. That there was room for reduction was evident from the fact that the Civil Expenditure had now reached nearly £18,000,000, and he thought very largo reductions could be made in that sum without any injury to the Public Service. It was admitted on both sides that the country stood in need of economy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite acknowledged that taxation was too high, and he hoped he should have their assistance in reducing it. On all hands we heard of the serious depression under which trade and commerce were suffering. He begged the House to recollect the enormous rate at which the Civil Expenditure had been growing, and as he had the honour to represent an industrial community (Bristol) which suffered greatly from the depression of trade he felt bound to try to do something to lighten the burdens of the people. The point he had especially to establish was that the salaries paid were out of proportion to the work done. He did not aim at any reduction in the salaries of the smaller class of public servants; they were underpaid. The class at whom he aimed were high up in the scale, and received very large salaries for little work. The higher they went in the scale the higher the salaries were for little work. The Lord Chancellor received £10,000 a-year—a sum equal to the salary of the President of the United States. He ventured to say that the duty devolving on the Lord Chancellor was much loss than that devolving upon the President of the United States, and yet the Lord Chancellor not only received £10,000 a-year while in Office but £5,000 a-year after quitting Office. He did not so much complain of the salary of the Lord Chancellor while in Office as he did of his 1075 pension. Not only did we pay one Lord Chancellor in Office, but at the present moment we paid two ex-Lord Chancellors, the late Lord Chancellor having earned a pension of £5,000 a-year by a service of only seven months. Was there any other country in the world that would suffer this? There was no country in the world with so many highly paid servants out of office, and that fact alone would justify him in asking for a Select Committee to inquire into this state of things, and he appealed to the House to assist him with a Motion, which if carried out would, he believed, result in a considerable reduction in the public burdens, without any loss of efficiency. He had referred to the salary of the Lord Chancellor. He would now pass on to the salaries in the Post Office, the Savings Banks, and the Telegraph Department. He found there that the Controller of the Savings Banks had a salary of £900 a-year, while the men who did the work had salaries of £150. In the Post Office £108,000 was voted for superannuation salaries alone. The engineer of the telegraphs had £1,100 salary, while his assistant had £850, and the men who did the work only £150. Did there not need to be some adjustment there? He was exceedingly surprised to find that the King of Greece got £4,000 from this country, in addition to £20,000 from his own country—as if money was no object. Then in the Education Department the Chief Inspectors got £900 a-year salary, and the Sub-Inspectors £500 each, and so on with the whole army of Inspectors—an amount of remuneration out of all proportion to the work they did. He would not trouble the House with entering at any greater length into the details of this very important subject. It was wholly unnecessary for him to take up the time of the House by doing so, because in order to lay the foundation for his Motion for a Select Committee it was quite sufficient that he should make out a primâ facie case, and that, he must submit to the House, he had already done. He was aware that the question of public economy was in the most competent hands of his hon. Friend the Member for the borough of Burnley (Mr. Rylands), and he need hardly say that he had not the slightest wish to interfere with his hon. Friend's conduct of a case of which he was so great a 1076 master, and with which he was so thoroughly able to deal. He was aware that his hon. Friend had on the Notice Paper a Motion somewhat to the same effect as that which he was now submitting to the House; but he did not think that the two Motions would interfere with each other. On the contrary, he was inclined to think that it would strengthen the position of his hon. Friend if the House would be good enough to accede to the Motion which he (Mr. Handel Cossham) was then making. He sincerely hoped that the House would be good enough to take that course. If they did he was in a position to pledge himself to lay before a Select Committee an abundant array of facts in support of his Motion, and of the case he was then endeavouring to lay before the House. He had, on that occasion, taken the course of moving for a Select Committee, by whom the subject might be carefully investigated, because that was, he believed, the only Constitutional manner in which they could reach the object—the promotion of economy—which he and those who thought with him on this subject had in view. He had not made a direct Motion in the sense of the opinions he had expressed, because he thought that it would in the long run save the time of the House if he were to submit the facts in his possession to a Select Committee instead of laying them in the first instance before the House. If they were laid before the House they would rest, to a certain extent, upon his statement; whereas they could be sifted and placed beyond dispute by a Select Committee. He would, therefore, not trouble the House by entering further into the details of the subject, but would conclude that short speech by making the Motion which he had already submitted to the House.

§ MR. SAUNDERS
seconded the Motion. He spoke in the interests of the working classes, and protested against the constant diminution of the salaries of lower class officials who worked very hard, and the constant increase in those of those more highly placed. It was the latter, and not the poor letter-carriers, in whose remuneration a saving ought to be effected. In the Telegraph Department, for instance, the Controller in London received seven times the salary of a first-class telegraphist, whereas in Switzerland the Director 1077 General of the whole of the telegraphs only received twice as much as a first-class telegraphist. In Switzerland the telegraphs were so well managed that with a rate of 10d. for 20 words they had been able to repay the whole of the original capital outlay for construction; and at present, on a rate of 5d. per 20 words, the profit provided the expense of the necessary apparatus in constructing telephones, whereas a 1s. rate in this country had not been remunerative. In Switzerland the Prime Minister received only £700 a-year, and the other Ministers £500 a-year, which was in striking contrast to English official salaries. It was admitted that the Swiss Ministry was composed of very able men. In the United States the same example of economy was seen. The Controller of the National Bank, who had great powers over the whole banking system of the country—the finest system in the world—only received £1,000 a-year. The rate of the higher salaries ought to be diminished, and that of the lower raised; and he had, therefore, great pleasure in seconding the Motion.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)
said, he could assure his hon. Friend who had brought forward this Motion that proposals in favour of public economy would meet with no opposition from him. At the same time, it was undesirable that there should be any misapprehension among the public with reference to the subject of expenditure on the Civil administration of the country. There was a widespread belief that that expenditure was largely and unduly increasing. In reality it was not doing so. Although the work of all the Civil Departments had increased enormously in the last 80 years, the expenditure had not increased. It was true that the ordinary Parliamentary Estimate showed an increase in the expenditure; but that was owing to the inclusion of a number of items, such as increased educational grants and grants in aid of local taxation which were not strictly covered by the phrase, the Civil administration of 1078 the country. Prom a Return (No. 338) presented to Parliament, it appeared that in the years 1857–8 the charges for Civil administration properly so called were£5,931,000,andinl880£5,930,000, or £1,000 less. That was a fact which reflected credit on those who were responsible for public economy. Speaking from his own experience, he could assure the House that no longer ago than 1859 the work of the Home Office was only one-fifth of its work now. Armies of Inspectors had been created in the last 30 years, and the number of Judges had been largely increased, and yet so great had been the care taken in connection with the Civil Expenditure of the country that, as he had shown, there had been in 1880 an actual diminution. In 1884–5 the sum of the expenditure was £6,233,000, an increase of £300,000 as compared with the year 1857. Therefore, in a period of 30 years there had been no substantial increase of expenditure, although four times as much work was done. The increase of £300,000 in 1884–5 was due to the acceleration of the Ordnance Survey, which accounted for £100,000; to the institution of the Irish Land Commission, which accounted for £110,000; to the purchase of the Blenheim pictures, which accounted for £65,000; to the determination of the House to establish a Memorial to General Gordon; and to grants for the South Kensington Museum and the British Museum, which should rightly be placed under the head of education. These sums put together amounted to nearly £500,000, so that if they deducted these exceptional charges they found that in 1884–5 the general charges of the Civil administration of the country were less than they were 30 years ago. He warned the House not to be led away by illustrations taken from countries whose circumstances were very different from those of the United Kingdom. The standard of public salaries or even ordinary wages in Switzerland was not applicable to this country. There wore many occupations in Switzerland which the working men of England would not undertake on similar terms. The Government of the United States, he was assured, made a great mistake by giving low salaries to public officials. It was almost impossible in that country to induce competent men to accept judicial posts, as the acceptance of them in- 1079 volved a great sacrifice of income. There were many men who even refused judicial appointments in the Supreme Court. He trusted that the public would not believe that the subject of the Civil Expenditure of the country had been carelessly treated. A private individual who could, say that his expenditure in 30 years had not increased although the work conducted by him had increased four-fold would certainly be held to be a good manager. Now, with reference to inquiry into this matter, it was not only necessary that things should be put right, but that everybody should know the real state of the facts. The question of appointing a Committee had been discussed for a year or two. There was a general opinion that the House should take some more careful cognizance of these matters than could be done in the haphazard condition of Committee of Supply. He himself in the Office that he held felt very strongly; and he might say that it was the intention of the Government to make proposals of that kind. He was not at liberty to anticipate what might be done with reference to the Procedure of the House; but the Government did desire that the Estimates should be in some form or other more fully, more satisfactorily, and more completely discussed. He thought he might, without imprudence, say that they were prepared to embody proposals with that object in the new scheme of Parliamentary Procedure. He hoped that the Proposer of the Resolution would be satisfied with that assurance, and would refrain from pressing for the appointment of a Committee until, at any rate, the suggestions of the Government should have been laid before the House.

§ MR. HANDEL COSSHAM
said, he was satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and begged leave to withdraw his Motion.