CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.

HC Deb 30 November 1888 vol 331 cc614-711

(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £139,510, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1889, for Superannuation and Retired Allowances to Persons formerly employed in the Public Service, and for Compassionate or other Special Allowances and Gratuities awarded by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

remarked that the other evening the First Lord of the Treasury had said that he wished to take this Vote on the ground that it involved a large sum of money. He quite agreed with the reason which had induced the right hon. Gentleman to prefer this Vote to others. It did involve a very large sum of money, and he desired to draw the attention of the Committee to the Vote generally, and the principles upon which it rested. No branch of the Estimates deserved a more careful discussion than that of the superannuation and compassionate allowances. The Vote under discussion was a very small portion of what was annually voted for Civil Service pensions. The Vote put by the Chairman was for the balance of a sum of £450,610 for superannuation and retired allowances to persons formerly employed in the Public Service and for compassionate and other special allowances and gratuities. But if hon. Members would look at the Estimates they would see that this Vote formed but a very small portion of the sum annually voted by the House for Civil Service pensions. The aggregate amount of the other payments was no less than £1,437,443, and there was, therefore, in Civil Service pensions alone an annual sum of nearly £2,000,000. It would be found that the War Office and the Admiralty took between them £500,000, and that £500,000 had nothing to do with the other military and naval offices. It represented purely the Civil branches of the Admiralty and War Office. The Customs and Inland Revenue took £200,000; the Post Office £100,000; the Telegraphs £25,000; the Irish Constabulary £239,000; and the Dublin Metropolitan Police £39,000. In Civil Service pensions alone a sum of more than £2,000,000 was voted annually, and that sum was altogether exclusive of the pensions that were given for military and naval services. Checking those pensions roughly, but as accurately as he could, and not making them appear to be more than they really were, he found that our military and naval pensions amounted to within a fraction of £3,500,000, and, therefore, the entire pensions of the country amounted to the enormous sum of £5,500,000. He presumed that he would be corrected by the authorities of the Admiralty and War Office if his statement of the figures was wrong. He was not going to argue whether it was right to pay nearly 3d. in the pound Income Tax in the shape of retiring pensions, but his contention was that the amount was increasing at such a rate that it was the duty of the Committee to take the matter into consideration with a view, if possible, of diminishing the amount, or, at all events, of modifying its rate of increase. He was not going to say one word in regard to any other pensions except those involved in the Civil Service List, but he wanted to call the attention of the Committee to the practice which regulated the granting of these pensions. The unfortunate and ineffective manner in which the administration of the pensions had been conducted had come before the Royal Commission on the Civil Service Establishments. The Reports of that Commission were, unfortunately, entombed in the Blue Book in such a mass of evidence that it had not received so large a share of attention as it deserved. Everyone was frightened by the evidence, nobody read it, and nobody regarded it; and it failed to receive the attention it demanded. He thought the Committee should understand the general principles on which retiring allowances were granted; and he therefore proposed to refer to the able Memorandum prepared by the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigton (Sir Herbert Maxwell), who, as another Lord of the Treasury, had the Department under his control. He did not think he could do better than read an extract from the Memorandum of the hon. Baronet, which explained succinctly the existing qualifications for the grant of a superannuation allowance. The hon. Baronet said— In order to qualify a Civil servant for the grant of superannuation allowance he must comply with the following conditions:—He must (a) if appointed since the passing of the Act of 1859, have been admitted to the Service with a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners, or hold an office specially excepted from this requirement; (b) have given his whole time to the Public Service; (c) draw the emoluments of his office from public funds exclusively; (d) have served for upwards of 10 years. He came now to debatable ground, to which he proposed to call the attention of the Committee hereafter. He must (e) if under the age of 60, be certified to be permanently incapable from infirmity of mind or body from discharging his official duties, or have been removed from his office on the ground of his inability to discharge his duties efficiently; (f) be certified to have served with diligence and fidelity to the satisfaction of the Head of his Department. The scale of superannuation allowance is, for each year's service, one-sixtieth of the emoluments enjoyed by the Civil servant at the date of his retirement, subject to a maximum of forty-sixtieths;"— in other words, of two-thirds. Then again, the salary was not calculated upon the average salary the officer had received, but of the salary he was receiving at the time of his retirement.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY) (Wigton)

On the average of the three years previous to retirement.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

Quite so; and it was a point to which the Royal Commission had called attention. There were two or three other regulations, and pensions might be granted at a reduced rate if the misconduct or demerits of the officer appeared to the Treasury to justify such a reduction. The pendulum, however, was swung the other way, and pensions in excess of the ordinary rate were granted to Civil servants if they had rendered special services in the course of their career. That was a condition with which no one would find fault. If a man rendered distinguished special services, such services were entitled to special recognition. Then, again, if a Civil servant was compelled to retire from injuries received in the performance of his duty, he could obtain a pension in excess of the usual scale; and a higher pension than could be obtained by the ordinary scale could also be awarded to holders of offices requiring special or professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the Public Service. These conditions were the general principles on which pensions were granted. He had now been dealing with eases in which pensions were granted to persons who retired from ill health or in consequence of advanced years. Another fruitful source of pensions was when an Office was abolished or when an officer was compulsorily retired in order to facilitate arrangements by which greater economy might be secured. In such cases the Civil servant got a pension on "abolition terms," with the addition of a certain number of years' service; and "abolition terms" were much more advantageous even than when he had served his full term and was retired on the ground of ill health. He wished to draw the attention of the Committee to two or three of these "abolition terms," as they were called, as far as they were brought before the Royal Commission. First came a point upon which questions had been put both to the Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the present Session, with the understanding that the whole matter was to be gone into when the pension question was raised upon the present Vote. The Committee would observe that before a man could be pensioned on account of ill-health or mental incapacity, there must be a medical certificate of incapacity to discharge his duties. Upon this point he should like to call the attention of the Committee to a question put by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) to one of the witnesses before the Commission, the hon. Baronet opposite, the Junior Lord of the Treasury— Q. 14,495. That is to say, that anybody, then, who, being under the age of 60, gets a medical certificate that he is permanently incapable and infirm in mind or body, would get his pension without any investigation by the Treasury as to whether his physical or mental condition was fairly described in the certificate?—I have never known an investigation, and I do not know that we have any means of ordering one. Sometimes further inquiry is directed, and explanations asked of the medical officer. He himself (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) then put this Question to the hon. Baronet— Q. 14,500. Therefore, if a man can get a friendly surgeon to send in a friendly certificate, there is no investigation into the authenticity of the circumstances detailed in the certificate?—No; neither is there in most cases of army pensions, because the men are living all over the country, very often beyond the reach of any army surgeon, and we take the report of private practitioners. Q. 14,504. I understand you to say that you think that an independent check upon this medical certificate would be desirable?—Yes; I think it would be an assistance. Q. 14,505. And that it would be in accordance with the practice of all large bodies and institutions that grant pensions?—Yes. Upon the same point the hon. Baronet was asked by Mr. Harvey— Q. 14,553. Take the case of a man who has, on a single medical certificate, entirely unchecked, received a pension; within six months of his leaving the Treasury he finds that he is in a position which requires a very considerable amount of mental and physical vigour and resource. Would it not be possible for the Treasury to announce to that man that clearly the conditions under which the pension was granted have been proved by his subsequent career to have been fallacious and untrue, and that, therefore, they did not propose to include his name in the pension list in the Superannuation Vote next year?—We have no power to do that. Once you accept the medical certificate and grant a man his pension, we have no power to withhold it. Q. 14,554. I will put it again, whether, in your view, a man having received his pension on the certificate that he was unable to discharge his duties efficiently, owing to infirmity of mind or body; and supposing that, within six months, he being still under 60, the Treasury finds that he is discharging duties elsewhere for which he is receiving a large salary, the discharging of which duties is entirely inconsistent with infirmity of mind and body, would it be possible for the Treasury to announce to him that they were not prepared to include his name in the Superannuation List for the next year?—No; we have proceeded on the medical certificate. We might call upon him to enter the Public Service again if you could find a place to put him in. Mr. Mowatt, in his evidence before the Commission, was examined as to a case which occurred in the Treasury. This question was put to him— Q. 14,933. Now, just following up for a moment, before we go into the general question, the points which Mr. Lawson has been putting to you with reference to specific pensions, I will go into your own office. I will give no names, but I will take a man pensioned. I have got before me the list of pensions that are now being made payable in the year 1888. A gentleman was pensioned from the Treasury in the year 1871, on the ground of failing health, at only 56 years of age, and with a pension of £1,200 a-year. That gentleman, as I presume, has been receiving that pension of £1,200 a-year from 1871 till to-day?—I presume so. Q. 14,934. Has the Treasury any knowledge, or any means of knowing, whether that gentleman has been engaged in the employment of a large public Company?—No; no official means. Q. 14,935. But if it should come to the knowledge of the Lords of the Treasury that one of their clerks, whom they pensioned off in the year 1871, on the ground of failing health—just note that as being distinct; all other Treasury pensions, except this gentleman's are given for ill health. Failing health seems to be a sort of earlier gradation in the process of decay which has not reached the stage of ill health; it is the contemplation of it. Now, if it could come to the knowledge of the Lords of the Treasury that this gentleman was earning a salary, let us say, of twice his pension, or perhaps three times his pension, in the discharge of important and responsible public duties, would the Treasury not interfere? Would the Treasury regard it as consistent with their duty to the public to go on paying that gentleman £1,200?—I cannot say what the Board of Treasury would think. The case would call for inquiry, certainly. I should point out that after four years, when the officer attained the age of 60, he became entitled to retire on pension. Q. 14,936 What machinery should you have to bring that case before, say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer?—If the circumstances of the case were brought officially to the notice of the Board, no doubt they would be laid before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Everybody connected with the Treasury know this case as well as he did. It would be noticed that the officer in question was retired on the ground of "failing health." This was a singular phrase. The general phrase was "ill health;" "failing health" was quite new and a rather delicate, ladylike expression. He would put it to the Committee if it was right and proper that a gentleman should have been retired on a pension of £1,200 a-year and be now receiving several thousands a-year for the discharge of important duties connected with a public company. He only gave the case as an illustration of what these medical certificates were worth. That was his point, and he thought there ought to be some machinery devised which should prevent men from receiving pensions on account of failing health, who were able to earn largo incomes elsewhere. Following up the case, these further questions were put to Mr. Mowatt— Q. 14,940. Would there he any difficulty in laying down a rule that every man who has been disabled from the public service on the ground of ill health should produce a certificate that that disability still continues, and that he is disabled from pursuing any other business or profession?—It would be practicable. Q. 14,941. I need hardly ask you whether, as a matter of right, you consider it improper that a man should he receiving public money on the ground of physical disability, and at the same time be drawing a salary for doing full work somewhere else. To this question Mr. Mowatt properly replied "Certainly." Upon the subject itself the Royal Commission make this representation— We are of opinion that it should be the duty of the Treasury to satisfy itself by independent medical testimony that the required conditions are fulfilled. That was the first reform he would suggest. The friendly medical certificate should be done away with before a man was granted a pension. The Commissioners further said— We do not think the present security adequate, and we are of opinion that pensions have been sometimes granted on the ground of alleged physical incapacity when such incapacity did not exist. There was power to compel a man who had been retired before 60 years of age on the ground of physical incapacity to come back again into the Public Service if the circumstances would warrant such a course, but the evidence showed that that power had never been exercised, nor did he think that it would be as desirable as the non-granting of a pension at all. The next point to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee was the singular addition of a certain number of years to a pension on the ground of a man's professional abilities. The theory was that if a lawyer, or an engineer, or a doctor was appointed to a position in the Public Service, which he was quite willing to take at the remuneration offered, although he had not served the public for the full term of years to entitle him to a pension, the custom was to add ten years to his pension for what were called his professional claims. This was also explained by Mr. Mowatt in his evidence before the Royal Commission. Mr. Mowatt said, in answer to Q. 14,681— I have explained to the Commissioners why I think the professional addition is uncalled for; but I should like to show, by one or two examples, how very unequally it acts. The assumption on which it is founded is that a man has received no remuneration, but has spent money for a certain number of years in fitting himself for the professional office. It is only in some exceptions that that really occurs. I could explain it perhaps by an example better. Take the case of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland. They receive 10 years' professional addition. Many of them, I think most of them, are men retired from the Army with a retired pay or half-pay. Therefore, during the 10 years for which you give them a professional addition, they have received salary the whole time, and they have earned in addition their half-pay. Then they are appointed to this professional office, and you re-pension them the whole way over again, so that their service for that 10 years is counted twice over. Let me give one other case which has just occurred, and which struck me as illustrating it very strongly. A very distinguished officer was superannuated from the Indian Service with the full amount of pension he could receive. He came over to this country, and was appointed to a first-class professional office, carrying with it 10 years' addition, on the ground that he had been preparing himself at his own expense and without remuneration for the professional duties he had to perform. Those exceptions to the rule are so numerous that there ought really to be examples.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

asked, where this evidence was to be found?

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he was reading from the evidence of Mr. Mowatt, before the Royal Commission, in answer to Q. 14,681. The Committee would that night be asked to sanction an increased grant of pension on the judicial Vote. It related to one of the Official Referees whose services were discussed a fortnight ago. He was sure that the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) would follow this case with interest. They were asked, on page 487 of the Estimates, to give this gentleman—he would not mention his name—a pension of £525 per annum. It appeared that he was 75 years of age, but the length of his service was only 11 years, therefore he must have been appointed when he was 64 years of age—four years in advance of the time when the whole system of pensions required a man to resign—namely, 60 years. There had been added to this gentleman's service of 11 years 10 years more, on account of his professional qualifications for the post, and, therefore, he was pensioned as having served the country for 21 years.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)

What date did he retire?

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

It is not stated; but I think it was in October, 1887. This is the first Vote.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

That is the very man then.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, that a Return, which had been published at the instance of his hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Cozens-Hardy), showed the exact work done during the last seven years by these Official Referees. The gentleman to whom he was referring sat during seven years of the 11 years 136 days per annum, and the amount of fees received in respect of the proceedings which took place before him was £1,091. In 1883 he had nine cases; in 1884 nine cases; in 1885 11 cases; in 1886 17 cases. No doubt, this gentleman did very efficient service so far as it went, but he thought that, deducting Sundays and holidays which would leave at least 300 days, the country had a right to expect 250 days' service per annum. Having been paid £1,500 per year for 11 years, he was pensioned, and the Committee would be asked to sanction a pension of £525 for the remainder of his life. Could that be justified upon any principle of administration? He was not blaming the present Government, and did not wish to make it a Party matter. What he was attacking was the system and the legislation—for it had been the work of legislation—under which these exorbitant claims could be made. Upon this question the Royal Commission had expressed the opinion that the better plan to adopt was to pay a man a sufficient salary. He did not think that anyone would say that the salary of £1,500 received by the official to whom he had referred was not sufficient. There was another great abuse to which he wished to call attention—namely, the "abolition terms." That question was capable of very great expansion, but he would not weary the Committee by going at length into details. Retired on abolition terms meant that a certain amount of pension was given to a man they wanted to get rid of on account of his incompetency. A question was put to Mr. Mowatt by his hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, the Chairman of the Royal Commission (Sir Matthew White Ridley)—Question 14,710 of the evidence— Of course I leave misconduct altogether out of the question. Nobody alleges that a man dismissed for misconduct should receive any compensation or money whatever, but in the case of a man who is dismissed or sent away, not for inefficiency, but because he is found redundant, or because, for other reasons, his services are not wanted, the Treasury has power to grant a retiring allowance, has it not? The Act of last year says—'Where a Civil servant is removed from his office on the ground of his inability to discharge efficiently the duties of his office, and a superannuation allowance cannot lawfully be granted to him under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 and 1859, and the Treasury think that the special circumstances of the case justify the grant to him of a retiring allowance, they may grant to him such retiring allowance as they think just and proper, but in no case exceeding the amount for which his length of service would qualify him under Sections 2 and 4 of the Superannuation Act, 1859, without any addition under Section 7 of that Act.' That was drawn to meet the case of an officer not so inefficient that the head of his Department would dismiss him, but practically so inefficient that he could not be with safety to the Public Service longer employed. Mr. Mowatt dealt with this case in one of his answers. He was asked— Q. 14,958. Do you say generally, on what is euphemistically called a 're-organization,' that men were pensioned off on abolition terms on the ground that it was not desirable to retain them. Is it your opinion that pensions were granted to Civil servants whom it was desired to retain in the Civil Service?—I think the fact of the heads of Departments finding it difficult to get rid of the men who are not efficient is very often the real reason of re-organizations, and this, in fact, insures a special pension above the ordinary rate to the incompetent officer whom they want to get rid of. Q. 14,959. Do you think that such a course of procedure could be followed in any other office in this Kingdom except the Government of re-organizing an office with the object of getting rid of incompetent servants, and in the process of doing that giving those incompetent servants a higher rate of pension than they would have received, if, being competent, they had been disabled by ill health?—I would rather say that where there is a difficulty in getting rid from any establishment of an inefficient officer some such plea was not uncommon. The Royal Commissioners characterized these as a class of cases which had given rise to great abuses under the Civil Service Act. An official whose office was abolished, or who was compulsorily retired, might receive compensation allowance on the same scale as if he had qualified for a pension. The intention of the clause in the Act was to facilitate arrangements by which greater economy and efficiency might be secured, but as a rule this result had not been obtained. The rule was often used to get rid of incompetent men, who, upon the plea of abolition of office, received an extra pension for their inefficiency. The Commission recommended that these nominal re-organization schemes in order to get rid of incompetent men, or to secure the flow of promotion, should no longer be allowed, and that any large re-organization of office should invariably be carried out by Act of Parliament, or at least by a Provisional Order approved by Parliament. He was sorry to have occupied the attention of the Committee so long, but this abolition of office on the plea of re-organization in order to get rid of incompetent men was one of the greatest evils of the whole system. He desired to say nothing that should partake of a Party character. He believed that the Party to which he belonged were as guilty as the Party opposite, and that the Ministry were as guilty as the Opposition. Every one of the re-organization schemes had been defended on the ground that they promoted efficiency and economy, but they had always resulted in enormous additions to the Pension List, and had in no way promoted efficiency. If a Minister wanted re-organization let him come to the House of Commons. He thought the Departments would be chary of making new arrangements which would have to undergo the scrutiny of that House. There was another point upon which he had no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say something—namely, the principle upon which these pensions were granted at all, or rather the principles upon which they were to be defended. The Royal Commission had reported in favour of the continuance of the system of granting pensions. He contended that there were only three grounds on which the granting of pensions could be justified. First, on the principle that a pension was deferred pay, which he thought was the view of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Herbert Maxwell). The whole strength of the hon. Baronet's evidence was that it was deferred pay. [Sir H. MAXWELL: In theory.] It could only be justified, secondly, on the principle that the person receiving the pension had been deprived by injuries sustained in the Public Service, of the power of further earning his bread; and thirdly, that the pensioner had been worn out. Those were the only three grounds upon which, as he contended, the granting of pensions could be defended at all. If it was deferred pay, they were either not paying a man what he deserved, or they were keeping back part of his pay to make provision for him in old age; if a man was incapacitated by injuries received in the Public Service, he was fairly entitled to a pension, and so also if he had become worn out in the service of the State. To such cases he thought the House of Commons would feel disposed to give full and ample consideration. Mr. Mowatt did not agree with him that the granting of a pension should be confined to these three points. He said there was a fourth ground, which he explained to the Commission—namely, that it was the price paid by the State for the privilege of discontinuing services which it no longer desired to retain. He would ask men at the head of large private manufacturing and commercial establishments, whether they could carry on business on the principle that when they had servants whom from incompetency or inefficiency it was not desirable to retain, they must pension them off? His own opinion was, that the administration of the public money should be conducted upon the same principle as that of private firms. The Commissioners considered that the men to be pensioned should contribute towards the funds from which the pensions were paid, and they recommended a compulsory reduction of five per cent from all future salaries, and that, in the event of the Civil servant voluntarily leaving, or dying before he was entitled to pension, his contributions, with compound interest at the Savings' Bank rate, should be repaid to himself or his representatives. The principle of the recommendation was that Civil servants, like employés of the London and North Western Railway Company, or of the Clearing House, should themselves contribute towards the pension fund by a compulsory reduction of five per cent from salaries, and there should be no attempt to make a profit out of those men, but that they should be linked in the building up of the fund out of which the pensions were to be paid. On that point the Commission was unanimous. The Commissioner further thought that the average salary of the man's whole service should be the basis on which his pension was fixed, and not the highest salary which he had received. The Committee would be anxious to hear what view was taken by the Government of these recommendations generally, and whether they would be carried out. Assuming that the Commission had not taken a correct view, he thought the Committee would agree with him that the time had arrived for some other scheme to be laid down. The present system was unsatisfactory. It involved a large and increasing expenditure, and if not revised it would break down some day, with perhaps some disastrous results, and he held it to be in the best interests of the service that the matter should be put on a wise and sound financial basis, which they could all defend. Unless some step were taken he was afraid that the public indignation would be aroused, and in dealing with what was bad the fear was that that which was good would suffer. He believed that there was no Civil Service to approach the English Civil Service. There were no better or more able public servants in the world, and none who more deserved the confidence and the approval of the public; but Parliament, while they must be just to that Service, had also a duty to the taxpayer and the Exchequer, whose funds ought to be administered on the same principle as they would administer their own.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

said, that his first duty was to express his thanks to the Commission on which the right hon. Gentleman had sat, for the very laborious duty they had undertaken, and for the manner in which they had discharged it. His hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Sir Matthew White Ridley), the Chairman of the Commission, was not in his place, but he wished to convey to him through the right hon. Gentleman, and to all who had served on the Commission, the thanks of the Government, and he might say also of the House and of the country, for the great services they had performed. It was a happy inspiration of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) to appoint the Commission, and he thought he might assure the right hon. Gentleman that the labours of the Commission were not likely to be barren of results. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that possibly the enormous amount of evidence taken might have obscured the issues raised in the Report. He did not know whether that would be so, but he hoped it would not. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman's able speech would turn the attention of hon. Members to the Report, and as Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking on behalf of the Government, he heartily hoped that many hon. Members would read it with the greatest care. He might say, generally, that there were many recommendations in that Report which the Government would accept with the greatest readiness, and endeavour to pass into law; but he warned the Committee that they would require the full support of the House of Commons in carrying that out, because, while there were many instances in the Blue Book which appeared to be unsatisfactory, and in which pensions had been granted clearly contrary to what the necessities of the case might have required, they might have had another Blue Book of much larger dimensions, containing the number of applications for pensions which had been made and refused by the Treasury. Indeed, the Treasury had great difficulty, on many occasions, in resisting the pressure brought to bear upon them. The right hon. Gentleman wished that they should administer the pensions in the same way as a private firm or a public company would administer them; but it should be remembered that private firms and public companies could administer their affairs without being exposed to the extraneous pressure on every point which was so difficult to resist, and which made the position of a Government so different from theirs. The right hon. Gentleman said the Government should administer these pensions as they were administered by private firms. Now, a private firm might turn away an incompetent clerk at any stage, and they were not called upon to justify the dismissal by presenting papers; the incompetent clerk would not secure the powerful advocacy of Members of that House in bringing his case forward, and put the Government in the position of having to resist the pressure used on his behalf. Moreover, incompetence, though it existed, might not always be capable of being proved in Blue Books to the satisfaction of the House of Commons. There was one observation he desired to make on this point, which had impressed itself on his mind as one of the chief difficulties they had to contend with. It was this, that while one would wish to administer the Civil Service on general business principles, the circumstances under which Civil servants came into the Public Service, and the watchfulness which was exercised over their interests by the House of Commons, constituted a difference between public and private establishments which offered considerable difficulties, and could not be entirely overlooked. He was glad to see, however, that the House of Commons was alive to the difficulties which arose from the situation. He felt that they were still suffering from the pressure continually brought upon successive Governments. Indeed, Governments had always suffered from the desire of the public to take up the case of Civil servants who might be dismissed, and to hamper the Executive—with the best intentions—when it was believed that injustice had been done to a particular person. The Committee must not suppose that he had any desire to run counter to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; but while he agreed with that speech, and he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that they needed improvement, he was afraid that the only protection against abuse must be to have a more or less cast-iron system. They could not put the Government in the position of dispensing pensions according either to its own discretion or the discretion of the Heads of Departments. Therefore, certain rules must be laid down, and it was their duty to examine the existing rules in order to see in what direction they could be improved. But the first question to be considered was this—ought there to be pensions at all? The right hon. Gentleman laid down four rules, but did not accept any one of them.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

Yes, three of them.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he thought that on the whole the right hon. Gentleman was disposed to object to the system of pensions altogether. Although objection might be urged against the system of pensions, there was one warning which, with all humility, he should like to give to the Committee—do not let them raise salaries with the intention of abolishing pensions, and in that way make up for the pension which the servant would ultimately get. It was certain that a future House of Commons, when a servant came to the end of his service, would feel the hardship of casting him out on the world without means and without pension. The House of Commons, therefore, would find themselves bound to pay the pension, notwithstanding the fact that the salary had been increased. There was a strong objection on the part of companies or of individuals to see an old servant leave them after long and good service without making some provision for him.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, that that view was referred to in the Report and was defended.

MR. GOSCHEN

Yes, it was defended, but as the right hon. Gentleman had not dwelt upon the point, he had considered it of importance to call the attention of the Committee to it. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to underrate the amount of pension given elsewhere than in the service of the State. He knew that in many private firms no official who had remained in service for 20 or 30 years was ever discharged without a pension or a largo gratuity. His own belief was that private firms largely pensioned old servants who had been with them for years, and had rendered good and faithful service. Like the House of Commons, they did not like to see their old servants leaving them without some provision for their later years. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the State would pension when servants became incompetent. Now incompetence frequently occurred from growing years, through being worn out in the service in which persons were engaged; and both private firms and public Companies granted a man who had become incompetent a very considerable pension, He knew Insurance Companies which gave larger pensions, on the whole, to their servants than those that wore granted by the State. They must, therefore, he was afraid, make up their minds to believe that they could not entirely break down the system of pensions, and it would be dangerous to move very far in that direction. Of course a distinction must be drawn between existing persons and persons who entered the service for the first time. Any arrangements the Treasury might make with regard to pensions for the future would, he presumed, with one exception, to which he desired to call attention, be regarded as prospective only. He was far, however, from saying that the matter did not deserve the fullest attention. No doubt it was a growing evil which ought to be met by the closest examination of the existing rules, by putting down all abuses, by curtailing extravagant pensions, rather than by looking forward to doing away with them altogether. Reference had been made by the right hon. Gentleman to joint pensions—that was to say, pensions which came from a fund to which both the Government and the Civil servants contributed a certain percentage. He understood that Sir George Cornewall Lewis was defeated on that point by the House of Commons. A deduction had bean suggested or had been made at that time; but in the end an Amendment was carried against the Government by a majority of 60. The House of Commons was probably in one of those moods when it rather took the side of the Civil servant than looked exclusively to the interest of the State. Such moods did occasionally occur. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in that respect, and he thought it was well worth consideration whether such a system might not be devised. Turning from the question of the system of pensions to the particular recommendations made by the Royal Commission, he wished to say, without pledging himself to details, that the Government agreed in substance with the three recommendations made by the Royal Commissioners with regard to pensions. The Committee would remember that he had stated, a few days ago, that the Government would be prepared either to legislate where legislation was necessary, or to make regulations where regulations would suffice, for dealing with those important points to which the Commission had wisely called attention. The first point which the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned was that of the medical certificate. He entirely concurred with what had been said on that point, and, acting on the recommendation of the Commission, the Government would take such immediate steps as were possible to secure that further evidence should be given besides the medical certificate sent in. He did not disguise from himself that it would sometimes be said, "It is not right when an honourable man sends in a certificate from a medical practitioner that you should go behind it?" The Government must be guided by the general feeling of the House of Commons. Speaking generally, without pledging him self to particulars, it must be laid down that it would be wiser to have some general system by which, when always possible, such evidence should be required in what were called "suspicious cases" only, because that which was to a Government a suspicious case was frequently a strong case in the eyes of the friends of the applicants for pensions? Therefore, the Government, speaking generally, would adopt the recommendation of the Commission with regard to the medical certificate so far as it could be carried out. He now came to another recommendation of the Commission—namely, that which dealt with "abolition terms." Much evidence was put before the Commission on that subject, especially by Mr. Moore, than whom there was not a more able public servant, and who had taken the greatest possible interest in the pension question. In Mr. Moore, in fact, they had a most capable adviser on the pension question. The Government would most carefully consider that part of the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, which consisted in this—that any plan for re-organization with "abolition terms" should be in some form or another placed before Parliament. He presumed that it would not be right to include very small changes, but where there was a change on a scale vitally affecting the Pension List such changes should be submitted to Parliament in the manner suggested by the Commission. He recognized all the difficulties with regard to "abolition terms." Though it was extremely wrong, and contrary to the spirit of the Act of Parliament and the Regulations, that heads of Departments should endeavour, by "abolition terms," to rid their Departments of incompetent men, he would say, in justice to them—he did not defend or excuse them—that incompetent men were very difficult to get rid of in a Public Office. It was exceedingly difficult to prove that there was sufficient incompetence to justify the breaking of a contract with a man who had entered the Service under the competitive system, and who had from the beginning been subject to certain rules and in the enjoyment of certain privileges. Any directions given to the Treasury or the Government that incompetent men were to be dealt with in a more stringent manner would be carried out possibly for six, possibly for 12 months, or even two years; but as soon as the mood of the House of Commons underwent a change, the old difficulty would recur—the extreme difficulty of dealing with the class of incompetent servants. To recapitulate, he might say that the Government were prepared to consider the proposal for accompanying the system of pensions with a system of deduction of salary, so that a kind of joint fund might be established; beyond that, they were prepared to accept the special recommendation of the Royal Commission in regard to the abolition of additional years' service for professional services; further, they would require the strengthening of evidence upon medical certificates, and would consider the propriety of adding to the length of service upon the abolition of office. It was also desirable to take into consideration whether every scheme for the re-organization of office should not be laid before the House of Commons. He trusted that he had now satisfied the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee as to the spirit in which the Government proposed to deal with the question of pensions. He had only one more word to add in conclusion. He entirely endorsed all that had been said by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the general character of the Civil servants of the Crown. He had been glad to hear the valuable testimony which the right hon. Gentleman himself had given as to the services of that distinguished body. They were frequently subjected to attacks to which they were unable to reply. Their actions were constantly misrepresented, and as they were unable, however desirous, to rush into print, in order to defend their character, it was often supposed that they were peculiarly thick-skinned. He thought it only right and proper, therefore, that such testimony as had been given by the right hon. Gentleman should be submitted to the House. Taking the Civil servants as a whole, no other country possessed a body of public servants so devoted to their duty. In one country on the Continent—he thought it was Prussia—incompetent officers were very summarily dealt with, and not unfrequently attention had been called to the matter in the Reichstadt. The third point referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was the addition of so many years for professional service. Upon that point the right hon. Gentleman had the entire sympathy of the Treasury. There was no class of case which had given the Treasury more trouble and difficulty than this particular claim. The Government had had to resist not only personal claims, but others put forward by large and powerful bodies and associations for the reward of professional and special service. If the House of Commons chose to accept proposals by which these professional additions should be swept away altogether, there would be no hesitation whatever on the part of the Government to introduce such proposals. There might be a hard case or two where such pensions might be justified, but he was convinced that many more hard cases to the taxpayers arose in consequence of these additions of a certain number of years' service on account of professional service. The Government would examine this recommendation of the Royal Commission also, and he trusted that they would be able to submit satisfactory proposals to the House of Commons with regard to it, seeing that was a matter of immediate interest and importance.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he thought it was exceedingly fortunate that this question had been brought on at an hour when there was a probability of its being usefully discussed. He thought the Committee were much indebted to his right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) for having brought forward this question, and having stated so plainly his views upon it, for there could be no doubt as to the interest which it excited in the country. If any hon. Member was dubious upon this point he had only to visit any artizans' club, and ask what public question most interested them. He would find that their attention was always turning to the question of pensions. He hoped the Civil Service would not be disposed to resent any proposal of change or to oppose any reforms which might be suggested. In their own interests it was most desirable that their salaries and retiring superannuation allowances should be placed on a permanent and a sound basis, which the mass of the people would approve. It was desirable that this should be done in their own interests, because if it were not done the present arrangements would some day or other be very roughly dealt with by Parliament, and the members of the Service would find themselves treated with what might be great injustice in consequence of the course of action which Parliament might think it absolutely necessary to take in the interests of the State and of the taxpayer. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to imagine that, while this Parliament was in an economical mood, future Parliaments might be in an extravagant mood. He thought that was an illusory theory altogether, for he was certain that the moods of Parliament were not likely to change in the future in the direction of extravagance, but rather in favour of the interests of the taxpayer. The great changes in our electoral Body had brought to bear upon Parliament a motive power in favour of the taxpayer which Parliament would not be able to wink at. One or two points arose out of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer's encouraging and satisfactory speech, upon which he hoped the Committee would allow him to dwell for a moment or two. Often when a Minister got up to reply to the case which had been laid before the House, he practically admitted that a case had been made nut, but at the same time declared that there was no immediate necessity for reform. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not taken that course on the present occasion. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to admit that the present system of pensions was thoroughly unsound, that a reform could not be delayed, and also to announce that proposals would be submitted to Parliament by Her Majesty's Government in the direction of reform next Session. These were very large admissions, and so far as he was concerned he was extremely grateful for them. He thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) would take the same view. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather disputed the comparison which his right hon. Friend made between the State and private firms in the management of affairs by either, because he said first of all that private firms were not subject to the action of Parliament, and that the action of Parliament hampered public departments so far as they might be disposed to proceed economically. The answer to that reproach was that if ever there was extravagant management it was all the fault of the House of Commons. As long as he had been in the House of Commons he had never known any Government to have the smallest difficulty in resisting any claims put forward by any hon. Member in behalf of any increase of salary or in behalf of any individual. He had never known any Government to have any difficulty in that direction. He recollected, to his shame, that he did once in that House, in the Parliament of 1880, bring forward certain claims of Members of the Civil Service. He was bound to admit that he knew very little of the Service at that time. Consequently he brought forward the claims somewhat rashly, and he looked upon the circumstance with regret. But the Government of the day had not the smallest difficulty in disposing of the matter, and he remembered that he was not supported in the Lobby by any appreciable section of the House of Commons. There could be no question about it that if Her Majesty's Government liked to be firm on these questions they could always carry the feeling of the House of Commons with them. So far as private firms were concerned they were able to carry on their business in a different way from the State, and they were never subjected to an unjust reproach at the hands of the House of Commons. There was one thing the House might consider upon this question. He thought the House might consider now, or might have to consider before long, whether they had been well advised in conferring the franchise upon the servants of the State. No doubt the Civil servants were a formidable body. They were highly organized, and when elections were closely contested they could bring immense pressure to bear in favour of a political line of conduct. He thought the question was certainly one which before long Parliament would have to consider. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather led the House to understand that private firms were in the habit of being animated by exuberant generosity towards old servants in regard to pensions. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had had a larger experience of commercial business and customs than he (Lord Randolph Churchill) had; but he owned that he had been taken by surprise at this statement. He knew that here and there they would find a private firm or a public company who would pension a servant who had been a long time in their employment and had rendered good service to a public company or a private firm, and here and there a liberal pension was awarded, but these cases were the rare exceptions to the general rule. But how many of such cases were there compared with the enormous number of men who wore turned adrift by the State with pensions? The number of pensions awarded by private firms and public companies would befound to be very few indeed in comparison with those granted by the State. As a matter of fact there was no proportion whatever between the two. He did not wish the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to understand that he was arguing against pensions. The view he held was this, that if the State gave a man a lower salary than he could get outside he might be fairly entitled to a pension at the end of a certain number of years' service. Men would probably accept employment at a lower salary than they could get outside the Public Service if there were an understanding that they would have a right to a pension at the end a certain period. But were the salaries of paid by the State lower? Personally he believed that they were considerably higher. If they would compare the salaries of the Civil Servants with those paid by private firms and public companies, it would be found that the State salaries were much the highest. Then if that were the fact, and he believed that as a general proportion it was—certainly it was in regard to what might be termed middle class servants—salaries which ranged from £400 to £600 a-year—and if the State paid higher salaries than private firms, the question of the pension became a very open one indeed. If any hon. Member would make a comparison between the salaries paid and the work done in connection with the State and the salaries paid and work done in connection with private firms, it would be found that the comparison was enormously in favour of private firms, and that while the State work was considerably less the salaries paid were as high, and in most cases much higher, than those paid by private firms. He quite admitted that there might be some danger in laying down a hard and fast rule, but the case for a modification of our present system was overwhelming, and he imagined that that must have been the view of the Royal Commission when they recommended that a totally new arrangement should be made with regard to pensions. If Civil servants were paid higher they should be compelled to contribute to a superannuation fund to draw upon when their services were no longer required.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he would point out that the Royal Commission had recommended a great reduction in the initial salaries, and a re-adjustment of all salaries, so as to prevent, as far as possible, incapable men from being advanced.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he was not aware that the Royal Commission had recommended a reduction of salaries.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

A reduction of the initial salary.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he was of opinion that a case had been made out for reform in that direction, and he was coming to the recommendation of the Royal Commission afterwards. In the India Civil Service men contributed to a pension fund, and he believed the Dockyard established men also contributed to a fund from which they drew a retiring allowance on their discharge. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] They certainly contributed to some fund from which they were entitled to draw when they retired or were discharged. He remembered that there was a great grievance felt in our Dockyards when established men, who had contributed to the fund, were killed and nothing was given to their families.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

said, he believed that the ground on which established men were distinguished from ordinary workmen was, that they were paid at a lower rate than the rate of the trade to which they belonged. That was the allegation.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, it came practically to what he had suggested—that the established Dockyard men were taken on at a lower rate of pay because they were entitled to a pension, and the grievance among the men was that if a Dockyard man died his wife and family got no pension at all, although the individual himself might lave been contributing to the fund for years out of his pay. He wished to know whether he was to understand from the Government that they had accepted the recommendation of the Commission on that point.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he thought that the statement he had made ought to be made perfectly clear. Certainly the recommendation and the circumstances pointed out by the Royal Commission were being considered, but he could not say off-hand how far they had been accepted. That, however, appeared to him to be the direction in which they ought to be moving.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he thought the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was fairly satisfactory. If there was to be reform and no total abolition of pensions, this appeared to him to be the only direction in which the Government could move. There were, however, certain things which the Government could do at once and might have done long ago. There were certain matters which would require no Act of Parliament whatever, and which might have been adopted long ago. The Royal Commission had made two Reports. One was the Report issued in the early part of the present year.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

No; last year.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, it was presented at the end of last year. It was the first Report of the Commission, and it contained many recommendations, not one of which had been acted upon. The last Report, dealing with the question of pensions, also contained some recommendations, and if the same amount of time was to elapse as had elapsed already before the recommendations were acted upon there would be another year or 18 months to wait. In that case the Royal Commission would have been grievously ill-treated, and the public would be fairly entitled to complain. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had intimated that day, to an hon. Member below the Gangway, that the Government were waiting, before taking action, until they got the whole of the Reports they were to receive from the Royal Commission. He was afraid that in that case they would have to wait for another two years, for it was not likely that they would have a complete Report until then. It was extremely unfair to the Commissioners that they should be put to the trouble of making interim Reports unless they were acted upon by the Government.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that what he wished to say was that while many of the recommendations of the first Report had been practically acted upon at once, no scheme for carrying out the recommendations generally had been fully determined upon. But the Government were taking the first and second Reports together, and endeavouring to decide upon some definite course of action which he hoped would give satisfaction to the Commissioners and carry out their recommendations.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he thanked his right hon. Friend for this information; but he wished to draw attention to the fact that there was one thing the Government could do at once without an Act of Parliament. He referred to the practice of adding 10 years' professional service to gentlemen who joined the Service with professional qualifications. The Treasury, he fancied, could make a Minute any day altering that Regulation. It was a perfect scandal when Irish Resident Magistrates absolutely set up a claim for professional qualifications. He did not cast any imputation on those gentlemen, nor had he joined in the attacks which had been made upon them by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the other side of the House; but he did protest against the system of allowing them to put forward professional qualifications. He knew too well by personal experience the way in which these gentlemen were appointed; he knew how extremely welcome was the appointment; how tremendous was the competition; how different their circumstances were after their appointment from what they were before. But these gentlemen, in addition to this piece of good fortune, actually set up a claim for professional qualifications. That was a claim which ought only to be mentioned to be repudiated in every quarter, and to which the Treasury ought instantly to put a stop. He was certainly not aware that the Irish Resident Magistrates came under the category referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The system of extra pension for professional qualifications ought only to be applied in very exceptional cases; and he believed that that was the purpose for which they were originally given. No doubt, there were occasions when the State would require the very highest qualifications, and in certain cases the State might not be able, without offering some extra inducement, to attract the men whose services they desired to obtain. The Rule itself was only intended, however, to apply to very exceptional cases, which might sometimes occur. He trusted that after the notice which had been taken of the matter that night, the Treasury would lose no time in modifying the principle upon which they appeared to have been acting. On that point, he believed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made no promise. He was glad also that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had drawn attention to the Official Referees. The moment the special case alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman was broached, he knew what was referred to. It was really a scandal that a man who received £1,500 a-year for sitting 120 days in the year should retire at the age of 74 after only 11 years' service on a pension of £500 a-year. There was now another pensioner on the way of being qualified on similar scandalous terms. He maintained that it was a scandal to have filled up the Office, and he was sure that any statement he might make in regard to the filling up of the Office would not be disputed—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The noble Lord is travelling somewhat beyond the Question before the Committee.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he had no wish to be irregular. He only wished to be assured that the filling up of this Office of Official Referee would not cause any ultimate addition to the Pension List. He was glad, however, that the question had cropped up. Then, again, the question of medical certificates was one in which no Act of Parliament would be required in order to carry out any reform. The Treasury had already ample power to make a change. They could do it any day they liked, and the only question was why they had not done it long ago. His only astonishment was that the Government had not dealt with it earlier, without waiting for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to call attention to it.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that he had distinctly stated a fortnight ago, before the right hon. Gentleman brought the matter before the House, that the recommendations of the Royal Commission on this point were under the consideration of the Treasury. He had made that statement before he had the slightest idea that the right hon. Gentleman was going to draw attention to the matter. Indeed, the Treasury had made up their minds to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners at once.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he was delighted to hear it. There appeared, however, to have been no unnecessary haste. What occurred the other day in the case of the ex-Colonial official, who had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, ought also to be considered. He saw no reason why the duty of granting medical certificates should not be cast upon a Government medical officer, as was already done before Army medical pensions could be granted. The applicant for a pension had to go before a Medical Board, and was not able to obtain a certificate from a friendly doctor. Why should Civil servants be allowed privileges on retirement which were not given to others? Why could they not lay down a rule that no pensions should be granted on a medical certificate, unless that certificate had been given by a Government officer especially employed for the purpose? Those were matters which the Government could take in hand at once. He admitted that any large question of pensions must take time and would require careful consideration. He hoped the House of Commons would give a unanimous support to the Government if they produced a well-considered scheme for the reform of the Pension List, and he believed that if this matter was not taken up the Government would assume a heavy responsibility, and at a future time they might find the greatest possible difficulty in getting this Vote in Committee of Supply.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

said, that when this matter was last under discussion the Second Report of the Royal Commission had not been presented; and when the Government accepted the Resolution proposed by himself, which they assented to early in the Session dealing with this question, they had not then the opportunity of having before them such a declaration as they had had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that night. He was sure that the Committee were very much indebted to the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) for having afforded the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of making a declaration that would be hailed with delight by the outside public. It was only because there were one or two points on which he entertained a different opinion from the views which had been expressed by the noble Lord who had just sat down (Lord Randolph Churchill) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he rose now for the purpose of taking part in the debate. He agreed that the question before them was a very large one, and that it would become an increasingly important one unless Parliament was prepared to face it at once. It was not a question of entirely stopping public pensions; but he was of opinion that they would do little to check the enormous increase unless they adopted the proposal which was made to Parliament more than 50 years ago by Joseph Hume that no man who was in the service of the State should be entitled to a pension unless he was injured in the service of the State in such a manner as to incapacitate him hopelessly from future service. Looking at the way in which this Vote had grown, he did not see the probability of its being checked in its growth unless some radical proposition of that kind were adopted. He did not quite agree with the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) that the people outside had the interest he seemed to think they had in preventing clerks in the Civil Service in obtaining those pensions, He quite agreed that they were very much interested in the discussion of the pension question, and that they were particular pensions which had decidedly attracted their attention. Upon many kinds of pensions there was distinctly a pronounced opinion. But the great difficulty financial reformers had to contend with was the mass of pensions which made up the huge totals of the Vote which the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton had drawn attention to. Many of these pensions were not attacked outside, and hon. Members would not be supported in reducing them. The great bulk of the smaller pensions, no doubt, a number of people thought they were interested in supporting; and if they were abolished there might be a certain amount of strong pressure brought to bear upon future Parliaments in their favour. The noble Lord, anticipating that part of the difficulty, said that it might be necessary to propose some disfranchisement of the Civil Service; but he (Mr. Bradlaugh) was of opinion that that was an improbable proposition.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that he had expressed no opinion either for or against the granting of the particular pensions in question.

MR. BRADLAUGH

said, he was quite sure that the noble Lord had given the Committee the advantage of his views. He had brought before them a proposition that he was prepared rather to support than to oppose. He thought, however, that the disfranchisement of the Civil servants was an impossible proposition—the feeling of the age was not to disfranchise, and it would be exceptionally difficult for any Government to make such a proposal, nor did he agree that future Parliaments were likely to be more economical than the present. He must avow that he viewed with great apprehension a possibility of exactly an opposite state of things prevailing. He believed that the more they extended the franchise the greater would be the demands in the direction of expenditure to be made by the Government of the day, especially in making provision for people who wore supposed to be old, incapacitated by ill-health, or who had any other claim upon the compassion of the State directly or indirectly. He thought that during the last three or four years the country owed a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord for the effort he had made to cut down the Public Expenditure. He did not think it would be right to enter into a general discussion on the whole question of pensions upon this Vote, and his only desire in taking part in the debate had been to put those two matters before the Committee, so that they should not be allowed to pass unchallenged.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

said, he thought that the declarations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if enforced, might lead to something. The Returns of the names of gentlemen pensioned under 50 years of age contained some startling cases. He found in this present year, on the 24th of July, an official at the Board of Trade retiring on the ground of "re-organization" on a pension of £266 13s. 4d. at the age of 48. There were similar cases in the Education Department and in the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Returns abounded with such cases as he had referred to. Clerks in the Law Courts had been pensioned off on the carrying out of re-organization schemes. A good deal had been heard about redundant clerks, who surely might serve the State in some other posts. If Parliament had been as vigilant as it ought to be, it would not have been possible to pass in 1887 an Act which should be condemned by a Royal Commission in 1888.

THE SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

said, he thought the hon. Member was mistaken in stating that the Act of 1887 had been condemned by the Royal Commission.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that if the hon. Gentleman would refer to the 99th paragraph of the Report of the Royal Commission, he would find that it was condemned in the strongest and most emphatic terms. He had given Notice of his intention to move an Amendment in the case of the pension to Mr. Clifford Lloyd; but he would not interrupt the general discussion by moving it so as to confine the discussion itself to the case of Mr. Lloyd. He thought they had got rid of Mr. Clifford Lloyd on very cheap terms, and he had not the smallest desire to argue the merits of that case in a personal sense. A very much larger question was now raised, and it would be much better to confine the discussion to that general question. His complaint was not that Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been given a pension of £300 odd per annum, but that the medical certificate awarded to that gentleman in 1885 had not been taken up till 1888. As that gentleman had been employed in the Public Service in the interim, he thought the certificate ought to have been reconsidered. The Secretary to the Treasury had told them that the pension was not awarded in 1885, but that the medical certificate on which the pension was given was granted in 1885, and the pension was not awarded until 1888. He certainly desired to have some explanation of the manner in which the pension had been awarded. His own opinion was that no great abuse could ensue from suspending a pension awarded in one year where there was subsequent employment. But it would appear that Mr. Clifford Lloyd obtained a certificate in 1885, but went conveniently afterwards into other employment. He was informed that Mr. Clifford Lloyd had himself given an account of the case, in which he made himself out to have been very much aggrieved. At the time the certificate was granted Mr. Clifford Lloyd was out of Ireland; and the Secretary to the Treasury, being sounded upon the matter, agreed to a small pension, upon which Mr. Clifford Lloyd refused. He gathered from the account which was given of the case that at the time Mr. Lloyd made an application for a pension he was not resident in Ireland, but was, he (Sir George Camp-boll) fancied, in Egypt. He therefore wished to know what the date was when the pension was agreed to? Mr. Clifford Lloyd went to Egypt first, but having made it too hot for himself there he was sent to the Mauritius, where, again, he made the place too hot for him, and was then offered other employment elsewhere. He was alarmed at the extraordinary way in which medical certificates had been dealt with in this case; and he therefore hoped that further explanations would be given as to the employment of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, the way in which medical certificates were given, and the award of a pension.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, that, as a Member of the Royal Commission whose Reports they had been discussing, he should like to endorse what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the effects of Parliamentary pressure upon appointments to the Civil Service, and the grant of pensions. He did not think there existed a difficulty to which the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) had referred. It was not so much the pressure in Parliament as the subtle influence which was brought to bear upon Parliamentary Chiefs by Members of the House on behalf of their particular constituents. A complaint was constantly made that one of the greatest evils in connection with the Civil Service was the difficulty in which the Heads of Departments were placed by the constant Parliamentary pressure brought to bear by Members in favour of their constituents. He was bound to say that there was another difficulty which had struck him forcibly—that was the difficulty of getting rid of incapable and inefficient servants. He had been struck by the fact that too many of the Heads of the Departments did not treat the Public Service as if it were a matter in which they were bound to take much interest, nor did they act with the firmness they would exhibit in private business. On the contrary, they showed too much tender-heartedness, and did not regard the public money as they would private money. There was one other point in connection with this question of pensions which he desired to mention, and it was one which he thought the Committee ought to bear in mind. It was abundantly proved before the Royal Commission that those pensions were granted not merely for the purpose of making up deficient salary, but by paying an addition to very good salaries indeed. The evidence was overwhelming that the salaries paid in the Public Departments of the State were, if anything, as a rule a little higher than would be paid for corresponding work in connection with private firms. He would give an illustration of this. The Commissioners had the Chairman of the late Playfair Commission before them, and they went carefully into the question of how far the salaries fixed represented the salaries for corresponding work paid by private firms. It was found that six-hour clerks were drawing the salaries recommended for seven-hour clerks, and that seven-hour clerks were being more highly paid than it was intended they should be. So much, therefore, for the fact that these pensions were actually in addition to very large salaries received. He now came to the point on which so great stress had been laid by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill)—namely, that it was perfectly possible for the Treasury, without coming to Parliament, by their own Regulations, to make very great changes immediately. One of the conditions on which a pension was granted was that the recipient should have devoted his whole time to the Public Service. That was drawn up by the Treasury itself; but never since then had the Treasury attempted to define what was meant by whole time. The answers of his hon. Friend the Member for Wigton (Sir Herbert Maxwell) before the Commission were to the effect that it meant the whole working day, and then, again, that it was a very difficult question to answer. It was also stated, in reply to Question 14,863, that there was a definition that the person should not belong to any trade, occupation, or employment; and in reply to a further Question the witness stated that he thought that was the only definition of the rule. The reply to another Question was— I am afraid there is considerable laxity, at any rate irregularity. Persona in humble grades of life are not entitled to pensions unless they give their whole time to the Public Service. A postmaster in the country, if he kept a shop, did not give his whole time to the post office, and does not earn a pension; but in the higher grades there are men who do not give their whole time to the Public Service, and if they are pulled up for it they say they do the work when taking a holiday. The effect of there being no definition of "whole time" was that men were held to have given their whole time to the Public Service who had yet made additions to their incomes in connection with Banks and Insurance Companies. The same rule ought to be applied to the higher and the lower branches of the Service. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would make careful inquiry into the subject; and he thought the House had a right to insist, that these pensions should not be given to public servants who had not strictly carried out the conditions upon which pensions by the existing Regulations had to be given. He would like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any attempt had been made to define the words "whole time?" The Rule had been laid down that the whole time of a public servant should be given, and that he should not engage in any trade or in public Companies. Perhaps the most scandalous violation of this Rule had occurred in the Treasury itself with reference to the Office of Solicitor. It was the Treasury that should set an example in a matter of this kind, and he said that where they had a Rule broken by the Treasury it would be found that there were other Departments doing likewise. Again, how far were the Treasury going to carry out in the future the recommendations of the Royal Commission, particularly with reference to the number of working hours which public servants gave to their work? If a certain number of hours were a necessary qualification for a pension, the Treasury should see that this Rule was carried out in the most literal sense of the word. But he was afraid that the recommendations of the Commission had not been carried out, or, at any rate, had been applied to the Lower Divisions and not to men of the Higher Divisions, who were getting larger salaries. He had been told that the Admiralty was one of the first Offices to undertake to carry out the recommendation of the Commission with regard to the attendance book. This recommendation was that every man, high or low, should be bound to come at a definite hour in the morning, and leave at a definite hour in the evening, and that he should state in a book, not only the hour of entrance, but also the hour at which he left. As he had said, the Admiralty was one of the first Offices to undertake to carry out the recommendation; but he was told that this stringent Rule was only applied to the Lower Division clerks. The Lower Division clerks at the Admiralty were forced to sign, not only their names, but to give the hour of their entrance and of their leaving, while the Higher Division clerks were only required to sign their names. That was certainly not carrying out the recommendation of the Commission. Then another Rule of the Public Service was that every public servant should be certified to have served with diligence and fidelity. But he had been surprised to have evidence come before him on Commission that with regard to one class of public servants drawing very large pensions—namely, the Royal Irish Constabulary, no evidence whatever existed that this Rule had ever been carried out by the Treasury.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY) (Wigton)

I said the certificate did not come before the Treasury, but that the Lord Lieutenant, before application was made to the Treasury for pension, satisfied him-self that the officer had fulfilled his duty faithfully.

MR. HANBURY

said, he could not do better than read the answer to Quession 14,508, which was to the effect that, as a rule, the certificate of diligence and fidelity came before the Treasury, and that the pension was awarded on consideration of that certificate; in some cases it was modified; but in the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary no certificate came before the Treasury. And the hon. Gentleman wont on to say that he felt it was very unsatisfactory to award pensions without the Treasury having some knowledge of the character of the men to whom they were given. He (Mr. Hanbury) was of that opinion also. He said the Treasury ought to be able to test the certificate of everyone applying for a pension. The main fault in the Act, which was smuggled through the House in 1887, was that power was given to the Treasury to grant pensions in some cases, not because men had served the public faithfully, but because they were so inefficient that they could not be kept in the Public Service, and the Treasury wanted to get rid of them. He believed that one of the first measures of the House next Session would be to do away with that Act. Again, he thought the Treasury might exercise a good deal more discretion in granting these pensions than they did. The Act said, "It shall be lawful," but the action of the Treasury had been to grant pensions in every case that came before them. But one of the most serious aspects of the question of pensions was in connection with those given on the abolition of Offices, and that was a matter which the Treasury could, to a large extent, deal with at the present moment. Why was it that pensions were given on the abolition of Offices? He supposed it was because no work could be found for the officials elsewhere in the Public Service. But whose fault was that? He should have supposed that it was the duty of the Treasury to lay down such uniform Regulations for all Departments of the Public Service with regard to sick leave, holidays, &c., that the days of service should be practically the same in all Public Departments; but the Treasury had never done anything of the kind, and owing to that defect the Public Departments were at variance one with another on all those points, the result being that it was impossible to transfer a man from one Department to another. They had had in evidence, over and over again, that, so far as work was considered, it would have been possible to effect a transfer, but that owing to the difference of Regulations it had been absolutely impossible, and so the Treasury had been obliged to give these monstrous abolition terms. Then the Treasury did not go behind the doctors' certificates, and in that respect they differed from the practice at the Colonial Office, which was one of the best regulated Departments of the Service in those matters. That Office required the certificate of a medical practitioner, and it also required that the certificate should be endorsed by a doctor of its own. It was a scandalous fact that a man might get a certificate from his own brother, who would naturally be interested in his getting a large pension. He contended that unless they went behind a certificate of that kind the pension might be given wrongly. The Committee should recollect that these certificates were only given on the belief of the doctor that the man was permanently incapacitated for work. The Treasury had perfect power to re-test the man's incapacity, and to inquire at any moment whether a public servant who six years ago was certified to be incapacitated was still in the same condition. He would like to know how far that power had been exercised? He did not believe that that had ever been done. The Treasury had also power to recommend a public servant incapacitated for one kind of work for work which he could do. He would like to know how often that had been done? As a Member of the Commission, he would like to see the most rigid Rules applied to the Public Service, and he did so for two reasons. In the first place, because he thought the more rigid the Rule, the more the good man in the Service would be benefited by promotion, and the more the bad man would be kept back. He believed that the State was never served better than it was by those in the Lower Division, whom they were now getting rid of.

MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)

said, he was glad that the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) had brought forward the advantage of public servants giving their whole time to the Service. He had always felt that that was the cause of the greatest unfairness in the Public Service. He thought he might say that the General Post Office was the only Public Department which was conducted on strictly business principles; it was the only Public Office in which the officials did give the whole of their time to the work on which they were employed. And he supposed that that was due to the fact that the work had to be done day by day, and that there could be no accumulation of arrears as in other Departments. The Admiralty was probably one of the most mismanaged Departments in the country; and he thought he was right in saying that there was more idleness among the persons employed there than in any other Department of the State. At the Admiralty, as was well known, the highest officials practically did as they liked with regard to their time of attendance. He did not wish to give examples, but the names and times of public servants had been given to him by those in whom he had the utmost confidence. He did not want to make them the subject of public talk, but he would say that amongst the highest officials the attention given to the work of their Department was simply disgraceful.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that that question was not immediately connected with the subject of the Vote. One condition as to pensions undoubtedly was that the person receiving a pension should devote his whole time to the Public Service. It would be quite in Order to bring forward a particular instance where this Rule had not been observed; but the hon. and learned Gentleman was entering upon the whole question of general management.

MR. MOLLOY

said, he had calculated that the Official Referees attended 120 days on an average, and if they attended for five minutes it was counted as a whole day. There was another matter, under the head of "Resident Magistrates," to which he wanted to refer. They had a number of Resident Magistrates who received pensions; but why they should receive those pensions he did not think even the Secretary to the Treasury could explain. The Resident Magistrates were appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; they were removable at a moment's notice; there was no stability in their appointment; they were not required to have any professional knowledge whatever; and, certainly, they had no legal knowledge. They were men who, as a rule, obtained their position simply through family influence, and it would be found that the brothers and nephews of noble Lords and Judges figured very largely on the list. But those men were appointed for special work, which might last for only three or six months; as he had said, they were not professional men, but were mostly retired military officers. When the subject was under discussion, he had drawn attention to the official characters of those men, and he had shown that one man had been appointed who had never been in Ireland in his life.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman were improperly applied to the present Vote, which dealt only with the pensions of these Magistrates.

MR. MOLLOY

said, he wanted to show why those magistrates should not have pensions.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the objection taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman was not relevant.

MR. MOLLOY

said, he, of course, bowed to the decision of the Chairman; but he had here an objection that was most relevant. Mr. Warren had served 10 years—it might have been 10 months—and yet he received a pension of £160 a-year. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury upon what ground he could justify the payment of a pension to a man who had only served 10 years? That gentleman had been withdrawn on the score of age. One of these magistrates had been appointed at the age of 60, so it appeared that a man, after devoting the whole of his life to other work, could, through family influence, after 10 years' service obtain a pension of £160. He did not wish to move the reduction of the Vote; but he certainly should do so unless the Committee received some satisfactory justification for the grant of this pension to a man who had only served 10 years, and then retired on the ground of age. Then there was another gentleman, Mr. Starkie, who retired at 32 years' service. They had been informed that those Resident Magistrates got 10 years added to their service in order that they might be given pensions. He did not know that that was done in any other Department of the Public Service. He had always understood that service was counted from the date of entering into the Service up to the date of leaving it. And he asked what was the age of the gentleman referred to who had retired on account of old age after 10 years' service, and if that was actual service, or was it based upon the additional 10 years?

MR. JACKSON

said, the explanation was very simple. Such a man was entitled, after he had served 10 years as Resident Magistrate, to a pension, and he was not entitled to it unless he had served that time. The case came under the Act of Parliament providing pensions for public servants whose duties were professional. The principle on which the pensions wore calculated might be good or it might be bad; but the Committee recommended its abolition, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had decided that effect should be given to the recommendation. The Treasury, as a Department, could only follow the Statute.

MR. MOLLOY

said, the hon. Gentleman had not told the Committee what was the age of the gentleman in question on entering the Service.

MR. JACKSON

said, it was quite impossible for him to carry in his mind the age of every individual on the Estimates. He would now endeavour to reply to several questions of importance which had been raised by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury). With regard to his remarks as to the distinction at the Admiralty made between the clerks of the Higher and Lower Divisions, in reference to the attendance book, he might say that some Representative of that Department would probably reply on that subject. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of there being no Report made to the Treasury of the diligence and fidelity of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary in cases whore pensions were granted. But that, again, was according to Act of Parliament; and the Treasury, although his hon. Friend had said he would be more satisfied if the information were given, had no power to act otherwise than they did in this matter. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be under the impression that the Treasury always granted the full amount of pension; but he could assure the Committee that this was not the case. There were many instances of the Treasury reducing the amount of pension in cases where the certificates were not everything which they had a right to expect. In no case did they grant the full amount, except first on a complete certificate with regard to fidelity; and, secondly, on a medical certificate that the officer was no longer able to discharge the duties of his office. The hon. Gentleman had said that the Treasury had laid down no rule to define what was "whole time."

MR. HANBURY

I said the Treasury had laid down a Regulation that no one should be qualified for a pension who did not give his whole time to the service of the State, but had never attempted to define what "whole time" was.

MR. JACKSON

said, that was exactly what he meant to convey. It was extremely difficult to define what "whole time" was; it would be difficult to say that a man did not give his whole time to the State if he earned money after office hours. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the other day pointed out, a man might possibly write for some of the periodicals and derive an income therefrom. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman would go so far as to say that in such a case a man would not be giving his whole time.

MR. HANBURY

I said that the Treasury had laid down this regulation as to whole time, and had attempted to define it as referring to engaging in trade; but they have not held to that, because they have allowed public servants to take part as directors of public Companies.

MR. JACKSON

said, he was aware that there had been in the past sanctions given to Civil servants taking positions which might, perhaps, be properly described as connected with the operations of trade; but he was not aware of any case for which the present Government was responsible, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated to the House a few days ago that he proposed to frame and issue some General Order agreeable to all parties to give effect to the wishes of the Committee. The hon. Member had said that the Commission had condemned the Act of Parliament passed last year, which he spoke of as having been smuggled through Parliament, and as having given a power which was calculated to add very considerably to the Pension List. In the first place, he must deny that the Act was, in any sense, smuggled through Parliament; and, in the second place, he claimed for it that it really limited and defined certain powers exercised by the Treasury prior to that time, but exercised, he was bound to say, outside the limits of the law. The Treasury desired to be armed against the constant applications made, and came to the House of Commons to sanction the Bill, undertaking, at the same time, to keep strictly within the limits of the Act. He believed the Treasury had done this; but he was quite aware that in some respects it was absolutely necessary that there should have been power of extension to meet the justice of certain cases that came forward. There were constantly coming before the Treasury cases of extreme hardship, whore men had served the State well who were not entitled to pensions, and with regard to whom there was no legal power to give a gratuity on retirement. He believed that, in the limited extent to which the Act had been applied, it had been of the greatest service to individuals, and in no case had it been applied where, he believed, its application would not have received the sanction of the House. With regard to the granting of retiring allowances to persons incapable of discharging their duties, he pointed out that it was provided in Sub-section 2 that in every instance the Treasury should set forth the amount of the allowance, the reasons for granting it, and that it should be laid before Parliament. The Treasury certainly thought that by this means they had carefully guarded the interest of the State, and he would add that the Act was founded upon evidence given from time to time before the Public Accounts Committee, and was intended to give the Comptroller and Auditor General a much stricter control of grants under statutory powers than he before possessed. Having, as he trusted, satisfactorily answered the various questions put by the Committee, he hoped the Vote would now be allowed to be taken.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

said, the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) had stated that the power of the Government in this matter of pensions was permissive and not compulsory; yet it appeared to him that the Government always argued that the granting of pensions was a matter of absolute compulsion. Now, if the hon. Member for Preston were right in his statement, he (Mr. Handel Cossham) thought they ought to hold the Government responsible for all pensions given on unsound principles. The result of the discussion had convinced him that the Government would be very much assisted in protecting the National Purse if a Committee of the House were constituted to consider all cases of pension before they went before the Treasury. The Government by this means would have the advantage of the assistance of a number of Gentlemen who would review each case, and give the Government the benefit of their examination, the effect of which would be to save the public purse, and bring the House into harmony with the arrangement that might be made. Such a Committee, he believed, the Government would do well to appoint, if they were anxious to protect the State and put an end to such gross scandals as had been brought forward that evening. Again, he thought it had been shown that the salaries in the Service were very much higher than those given in private establishments; indeed, he was surprised and shocked at the lavish nature of the expenditure in the Public Departments. Pensions were granted too readily, and he contended that those given upon medical certificates required to be carefully reviewed. If it were proved that a certificate of incapacity had been given in mistake—that was to say, if a man believed to be permanently incapacitated was restored to health—he could not see why the State should not rectify the mistake made in granting a pension under the circumstances. He thought that in the case of men receiving pensions on medical certificates, those certificates ought to be renewed annually. He had himself given pensions to men under the belief that they were incapacitated, but had withdrawn them on proof that they had been restored to health, and he thought the State should act in the same way. He wanted this discussion, which had been very useful, to have a practical result, and his view was, first, that a Committee of the House should be appointed to assist the Government in this difficult matter of pensions; and, secondly, that pensions granted on medical certificates should be subject to review as long as they were drawn. He believed that an arrangement of that kind would effect a considerable saving to the State.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, he wished to impress on the Treasury the great importance of the point referred to by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury)—namely, that a man receiving a pension should not continue to have the pension for life if he got well again, and could go back to the Public Service. He had been in the Public Service, and knew men who had received pensions, and afterwards recovered their health, and who were quite fit to continue their work. He also thought 60 too early an age at which men should be able to procure pensions, although the Treasury ought to have power to get rid of men at that age. Men at the age of 60 were generally in the prime of their official work, and a pension given then for doing nothing when they were able to perform their duties was a most extravagant arrangement for the State.

MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)

said, he had always observed in that House that not much was done by fixing attention upon particular cases; but they had that night launched into a general discussion of the whole question of pensions, and he believed that some good would result. The Civil Servants of the State had now become an enormous and powerful army, and it was essential that Parliament should now review its relations towards that Body. Accordingly, he thought that the whole policy of granting pensions must come up for discussion before the House again and again. He was disposed to agree with the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) that there was a great deal to be said in favour of the abolition of pensions; but, at any rate, it was essential, if they were granted, that strict and constant regard should be had to the salaries paid. He was afraid that investigation would prove that pensions were really given in addition to, and not in supplement of, the fair market value of the salaries paid. He asked whether it was not true that the applications for admission to the Civil Service were overwhelmingly in excess of those who were able to get employment; because, if that were so, it showed that the Service was really overpaid, and he did not think it wholesome that the rising generation should be brought up to look for State employment and pensions—if the State had to bear the cost of popular education it ought to receive some benefit from it. The effect of education was to qualify an infinitely larger number of the youth of the country for positions in the Civil Service; although he would wish to deal liberally with the Public Service, there was an obligation resting on the House of Commons not to throw money to one portion of the community which it took out of the pockets of the community at large. Another aspect of the case was that, in his opinion, the effect of the present system upon the minds of those in the Civil Service who enjoyed pensions, and their immediate relatives and dependents, was injurious—inasmuch as it led them to take up a position of a separate caste in the country and look on all public questions from a point of view of their own. He believed that pressure would come in favour of the principle that, while every public servant should have full and fair remuneration for his service, the State should exact from him complete fulfilment of the duties for which it paid; and, on the other hand, leave the duty of providing for the future to the individual himself. He did not believe that any industrial houses could carry on their business on such a plan as the State now followed. He was aware that the system of pensions was a means by which persons—whom it was impossible to continue in the State's service, because they were incompetent, negligent, or indifferent—were got rid of, but it was a most unsatisfactory plan, and he contended that there ought to be the will and power at the head of a Public Department to deal with incom-petency as it would be dealt with in any trading establishment. The noble Lord said that the House of Commons had already shown a much keener interest in questions of public economy generally, and in this question of pensions particularly, and he did not agree with the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, that future Parliaments would not support the Government in a more rigid action with regard to pensions; on the contrary, his belief was that the House of Commons would demand, at the hands of the Government, a vastly increased economy in the expenditure of public money under this head. For his own part, he would be willing to associate himself with other hon. Members in assisting the Treasury in protecting themselves from the onslaughts made upon them. He did not think the Treasury need be afraid of hon. Gentlemen who sat for Parliamentary constituencies in various parts of the country; he had observed that Members, having close relations with the Dockyards of the country, often pleaded on behalf of their own constituents, and there was no harm in bringing cases of agrieved persons before the House, but surely the House was always considerate enough, and had always proved itself willing enough, to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury, when they showed in the case of such applications that they had done everything which justice demanded. Of course, he said nothing as to other influences which the Treasury had to withstand, but whenever they made an appeal to the House under such circumstances as he had described, he was convinced that an overwhelming majority of the House would always stand by the Members of the Government, who were the special guardians of the public purse, in taking up any line which they might consider right.

MR. JACKSON

said, he must apologize for not having answered the question of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) as to the case of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. The hon. Gentleman, he was sure, was under a complete misapprehension of the facts, or he would not have applied to that case the word "job." He could assure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that in dealing with this pension the Treasury had exercised the greatest care, and Mr. Clifford Lloyd had received no more and no less than he would have been entitled to if he had been anyone else. The rule had been strictly and literally adhered to, and the statement which appeared in The Times, to the effect that the Treasury had promised to grant a special pension, must have been made under an entire misapprehension of the facts. The Treasury had simply awarded the pension which the length of service in the office entitled them to grant to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, who received no more than he was entitled to by his service. The hon. Member had asked him whether Mr. Clifford Lloyd was in any other Service. The certificate was granted in 1885. When Mr. Clifford Lloyd retired from his position as Resident Magistrate, or whatever his position was, in Ireland he was offered and accepted a Colonial appointment, and so long as he continued to draw the salary of that appointment he was not entitled to draw his pension, so that from this period till nearly the end of 1887, when he ceased to draw a salary from his Colonial appointment, he was not entitled to draw his pension. At the end of that time, when the question was decided by the Treasury, as he had before stated, Mr. Clifford Lloyd was not granted more than his service and office entitled him to receive.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he did not suggest that there was a "job" other than a white job. He wanted to know what had become of the medical certificate—what had become of it between 1885 and 1888? When, in 1888, the pension was granted, was there an inquiry made as to this gentleman's health, or was the pension granted on the certificate of 1885?

MR. JACKSON

said, that the medical certificate was given in 1885, and he thought it would answer the hon. Member if he told him that the Colonial Office satisfied itself that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was unable to continue his appointment in consequence of ill-health.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said, it was pretty clear from what he had read in the newspapers that the Treasury did not think they ought to give Mr. Clifford Lloyd a pension. They had given him a certain amount of money, and now he was asking for more. He thought it would strengthen the hands of the Government if, when the time came, a reduction was moved. On the general question he was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) say that the Liberal Party were as guilty as the Conservatives in the matter of expenditure. If the right hon. Gentleman had said "Liberal Ministers" his statement would have been true, but all Members of the Liberal Party did not accept responsibility for the acts of former Liberal Administrators. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton had declared himself an ardent economist, and though he had gone up to a higher place he still maintained his protest against expenditure of the kind under discussion; and, so far as he (Mr. Labouchere) was concerned, he was sure he had divided the Committee quite as much against Liberal Governments as against Conservative Governments on these matters. As to these pensions, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointed out that it would be an undesirable thing to see gentlemen who had long served their country begging their bread in the streets after the age of 70. The right hon. Gentleman had said the country would not stand it. Well, he (Mr. Labouchere) did not think the country would stand it, but what he thought was, that they gave a great deal too much to certain persons. He should like to see an allowance given, so that a man should not be absolutely begging his broad. If a man who had been in the Public Service had not put by any money and really required a pension, he would give him, say, £2 a-week, and that was the largest amount he would give to any species of official, whether Lord Chancellor or Prime Minister. They paid these officials large salaries, and he protested against paying them large pensions simply because they chose to spend the whole of their salaries instead of putting a little money by. He would require these officials, before he gave them pensions, to sue in formâ pauperis. On looking at the Pension List he found that while they gave large pensions to high officials, there were some people of a humbler class to whom they were giving only £15, £16, and £17 a-year, which was considered quite sufficient to keep them. What happened in regard to these pensions? It was true that the Act of Parliament was kept up, but it was kept up in the letter and not in the spirit. They could give a man a pension after the age of 60 years if he had served 10 years, but it was never intended that offices should be given to men after they were 65 years old—men who, according to the letter of the Act, would be qualified at once for a pension. A case had occurred the other day—that of Mr. Maconochie—who was appointed a County Court Judge by the Lord Chancellor at the age of 65 years. According to age, such a man was already qualified for a pension, and, if he had been in the Service 10 years, could leave on the plea that he was too old to continue. Mr. Maconochie, he supposed, would hang over 10 years, or until he was 75, and would then come sponging on the Government for a pension. This, he contended, was an abuse of the Treasury Rules, and it was never intended that a man should be appointed to an office at the age of 65 in order that he might go pottering on until he reached 75. With regard to the abolition of Offices, he protested against organizations taking place, and men being required to leave the Service with a pension, because he believed that, whatever abolition it might be desirable to make, they could always find employment of a light character for the individuals abolished without a job. He always himself trembled when he heard the word "organization" for the sake of economy, because he knew by pretty long experience what it meant. He found, on looking through the Estimates, that this year, in the Convict Establishments, a schoolmaster of 37 years of age, after nine years' service, had received a pension of £26 on the abolition of his office. Did anyone mean to tell him that this schoolmaster could not have been provided with some work something like school-mastering, instead of a pension being given to him for doing nothing? Under the Irish Estimates he found three warders, respectively of the ages of 50, 49, and 52, who were now receiving pensions of £60 perannum on account of abolition of office. He should have thought that the very last person who would have been abolished, and for whom employment could have been found in Ireland at the present time, were warders in prisons. Why, the stock of prisoners in Ireland was being kept up at an abnormally high rate by the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary. But it was absurd to say that these pensions were given because there were too many warders. The fact was that there was some cousin or second cousin of a Castle official for whom it was necessary to provide a pension. In regard to ill-health, there could be no doubt in the world that it was impossible to get the truth from a doctor. It was impossible to get a fair opinion from one's family doctor as to the condition of one's health. He (Mr. Labouchere) would tell the Government what he did when he wanted to find out about his health, and they might probably think it desirable to follow his example. He went into an Insurance Office, and said—"I want to be insured for £20,000;" and then, if he was warranted all right by the Company's doctor who represented the other side, he knew he was sound in wind and limb, at least for a little time. So far as the family doctor was concerned, when appealed to by a patient as to his health, he did not, as a rule, care about telling the man that there was something wrong with his heart, or that he had a cancer, but allowed him to go on for a time living in a fool's paradise. He would undertake, if the Government would promise to give him a pension, to get a certificate from an insurance doctor declaring him to be sound in wind and limb, and at the same time to procure three certificates from private doctors declaring him to be totally unfit to discharge any duty. There was no reason why these Civil servants, seeing that they did less work than most other people, should be more unhealthy than others. This whole system of ill-health was a system of humbug.

MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)

said, he could bear testimony as to what had been said outside the House to the constituencies on this subject, for he could assure the Government that there was very keen interest in this question amongst the public. He differed from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in saying that it was so common a thing for people connected with private firms to give pensions to old servants. He (Mr. Esslemont) had had a good deal of experience in private business; but he had not found that this system prevailed there to a very large extent. He had found, however, that wherever a pension could be got on the broad basis of taxation, those who administered the taxes were generally more willing to give their servants pensions when the sums required were collected from the ordinary taxpayer. And in all the great Public Companies, and also in the Municipalities of the country, it was the standard of the Government that was taken as an excuse in this matter of pensions. It was said that public servants in the employment got pensions, and upon that basis they themselves acted. But his purpose in rising was more particularly to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury for one moment to page 409 of the Estimates. They found there a very modest amount of superannuation and retiring allowances in regard to the Scotch Votes; but amongst the items they found that warders had allowance with superannuation at the ages of 40, 48, 47, 37, 39, 51, 50, and 56, the very oldest on the list being 67. Now, it appeared to him that either of two things must happen in connection with these people—either these Scotch warders must he men of poor health, or their employment must be unhealthy employment, because the proportion of young men retired from ill-health was certainly very much above the average in any ordinary employment outside the Government Service. Perhaps there was sufficient excuse for the Vote; but he thought the matter was of sufficient importance to entitle him to call the attention of the Government to it, because if the employment of those warders was so unhealthy that a great number of them retired at 40 and 50 years of age, the subject was one in regard to which something should be done at once. So far as he could see, there was nothing in the employment of a warder that could be destructive to his health. He should think, indeed, that the occupation was one which a healthy man could be employed at for a very long time. He would also call the attention of the Treasury to page 490, giving an abstract of superannuation and retired allowances in Public Offices in Scotland. They had an Examiner and other officers, £650; Lunacy Commissioners, £256; the Registrar General's Office, £248; and the Board of Supervision for the Relief of the Poor,£233. Then there was the Lord Advocate and Criminal Proceedings, £283. They had no account whatever as to what this money was paid for, and upon what condition the allowances were given. He submitted that these superannuations, which might be perfectly right in themselves, ought to be detailed in such a form that they could be criticized, and, if necessary, complaint could be made to the Committee with regard to them. There was the large sum of £5,630 for the Universities, as to which he saw no details whatever. Also, with regard to Prisons, an item of £2,027 was put down without adequate detail, as well as a sum for Courts of Law and Justice. It might be his inexperience which made this appear somewhat extraordinary; but, at any rate, he had not been able to find the details to which he referred in the Estimates. He submitted to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, he was sure, was always willing to give perfect details, and was always ready to put the accounts in the form in which they ought to appear, that it was desirable that his attention should be given to these facts. No doubt, whatever was wrong, the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to remedy it.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, he was glad that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Esslemont) had drawn attention to the case of these warders. The matter had been brought to his (Mr. Conybeare's) attention, and he was anxious to ask the Government for some information upon the point. He thought, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in the mood to give undertakings and pledges in the future, that he could not do better than to give them some assurance—not merely an explanation, but an assurance—that these things would be better arranged for in the future. As to the discussion which had taken place with regard to the proposals of the Government for the future carrying out of the recommendations of the Commissioners, to which reference had been made that evening, he sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give his whole time and attention to the consideration of that important question. He (Mr. Conybeare) should be inclined to regard the pledges the right hon. Gentleman had given to the House that evening on this subject as satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman would stand to them better than he had been in the habit of standing to his pledges on other matters. Something had been said in the course of this discussion as to the professional qualifications of Irish Resident Magistrates. He did not know what professional qualifications they might be supposed to possess which would entitle them to the excessive pay which had been described this evening. Some hon. Members seemed to think that they possessed no professional qualification whatever. He was not, however, disposed to take that view, because, to judge from the action of these Gentlemen—

THE CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Member was not present when I checked another hon. Member from entering upon that question.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, he was afraid he was out of the House at that moment; but, at any rate, he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had ruled the discussion of this point to be out of Order. Speaking on the question of organization, he (Mr. Conybeare) might say that he hoped when the Government were taking the matter seriously in hand they would deal out the same measure of justice to all classes of Civil servants. He referred particularly to the great difference which existed between the manner in which the humble classes of servants were treated, and the treatment accorded to Civil servants belonging to the upper grades. He was afraid if he were to go into particulars—for instance, into the question of Dockyard men, he should find himself again trespassing on ground outside the scope of this Vote; but, as the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) had referred to Dockyard men, he hoped he might be allowed to say in their interest, without going into details, that there was very grave reason for dissatisfaction with the manner in which they were treated. In the case of the higher officials in the Dockyards, not only were they served with notices that their services were to be dispensed with, but they received pensions when they left the Service, and he thought the same kind of treatment should be meted out to Dockyard servants generally. The same rule applied to other persons in various other branches of the Civil Service, and had even applied, he believed, to the Army and Navy. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a spirit which no doubt all Members of the Committee would re-echo, said they would not desire to see men who had served their country well for a number of years begging their way in the streets, or begging at the door of the House of Commons for the means to live. But if the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to see that in the case of men who had been in receipt for many years of large salaries, why should they allow their worn-out soldiers to drag out the declining years of their lives, as constantly was the case not only in the Dockyards, but actually begging their way in the streets? The principle he would insist upon was that the same method of treatment should be dealt out to the humblest as well as to the highest officers of the State or the Civil servants of the country. If the country provided sufficient means to enable a person to live in the one case it should also be done in the other. He did not think there was anything more discreditable to a rich country like this than that which we constantly see in our streets—namely, a Waterloo veteran begging for his bread; or what we constantly heard of—namely, some old veteran worn out in the Service dying in the workhouse. These men deserved more consideration than hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed disposed to give them, and he trusted, when hon. Gentlemen opposite proceeded to reform these matters, they would devote some attention to the points he had raised. He would supplement what had been said by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Esslemont) as to the warders. The hon. Member had referred to the warders of Scotland, but he (Mr. Conybeare) would refer the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to page 485 of the Estimates. He was not now anxious to go into the question of pensions given to men in humble positions such as these warders occupied; but it had occurred to him that it was a curious thing that on page 485 they should have a great number of prison officials—warders, chaplains, and scripture readers, and so on—all feeling ill after a term of service of eight, nine, or ten years. Was there anything in the kind of life that these prison officials had to live which accounted for this chronic state of ill-health after so short a service? The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury might answer that these servants were taken on at an advanced age. He did not wish to throw blame upon the warders themselves for being anxious to be treated as other Government officials were, but he thought the Committee deserved some explanation as to the curious chronic ill-health which seemed to characterize them after so short a period of service. If they looked at page 476—the abstract of this Vote—they would find that a very large number of the items were not dealt with at all in detail. For instance, if they took the item "Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum"—

MR. JACKSON

said, he did not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the explanation was this—for the purpose of saving printing the details were limited to cases which had been put on the list, and cases which had fallen off the list during the year. The abstract gave the total number of cases on the Pension List; therefore there was a discrepancy. The arrangement which had been adopted was merely for the purpose of convenience, and to save printing year by year an enormous list of pensioners.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, he was glad that the hon. Gentleman had given explicit explanation, as it was not now necessary for him (Mr. Conybeare) to go into details, but he was bound to say that it would assist those who were not very old Members of the House if a note were fixed to the items to which attention had been drawn, giving some explanation of the discrepancy. He quite appreciated the motive of the Government in leaving out this, perhaps, redundant information, they being most anxious to save the money of the country in the matter of printing as in other respects. If, on future occasions, notes were affixed to the items to explain them it would be of great convenience. Now, he desired to ask the Government for information, as they did not possess it in the Estimates, upon two or three points. First, as to the Duchy of Cornwall. He saw an item of £4, but they were without information to explain it, and he should like to know what it meant. A little further down he saw an item of £26 for fish dues, &c., which was a very enigmatical item, upon which they were entitled to have a little information. On page 477 there was a sum of £259 connected with the Royal Palaces. There was a strong feeling on that (the Opposition) side of the House that expenditure in connection with Royal Palaces should be paid for by members of the Royal Family, and unless he had some satisfactory explanation as to this item he should feel himself justified in saying a good deal more on the point. There were several other matters about which he should like to say a word or two, but which he would not go into at the present moment. There was, for instance, the Lord Privy Seal's Office £267, and towards the end there were several pensions connected with the Stationery Office and other Departments which ought to be explained, but which he would not press the Government upon just now. He should not have troubled the Government to give information upon these items if he had had any opportunity of ascertaining for himself what the items meant.

MR. ESSLEMONT

said, he wished to draw attention to the fact that all the warders whom he had mentioned had retired after nine years' service, and there must be something in that nine years remarkable and extraordinary. He was not at all satisfied that it was a proper thing to economize in the printing of the details of the items of these Votes. If economy were to be effected in this way, there, at any rate, ought to be a printed book accessible giving details to which hon. Members could refer from time to time.

MR. JACKSON

said, there was a published list of the persons entitled to pensions published periodically as a Parliamentary Paper and circulated amongst Members of the House. The present arrangement by which these Estimates were printed two years out of three without details was effected after very careful consideration. It had been thought that to present the complete details one year in every three would be quite sufficient to meet the requirements of the case.

MR. CONYBEARE

When was the list last published?

MR. JACKSON

said, he thought last year. The hon. Member opposite had asked a question with regard to warders, and there did seem to be a strong case on the face of it, seeing that the warders had apparently retired at the end of nine years. The explanation was this—that the period of service which was counted and charged for on the Estimates was the period of service since the prisons were taken over by the Government. It did not follow that the warders had retired at the end of nine years' service, for they had been taken over from the Local Authorities by Act of Parliament, which had vested the prisons in the Government. Up to the commencement of this period of nine years the Local Authorities themselves were chargeable with the pensions which had been earned by the prison officials. He thought it was in 1877 that the prisons were taken over—about 10 years ago. Therefore the service which these men had given to the Government and chargeable to the Government could not be more than nine years. As to the question put by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) in regard to each of the cases he had made reference to, there had been no addition in the amount of pension made during the year. He was afraid he could not, without reference, however, give any details. The hon. Member would find all the details in the statement of which he had spoken.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

said, they had arrived at the point in Committee of Supply when the information put before them on extremely interesting points was, practically speaking, valueless. Everything was done by the Government to try and prevent Members from having before them an exact statement of the case. He could not help feeling rather amused, on taking up this list of superannuation and retired allowances, when they came to the column of age to find what a reluctance there evidently was on the part of certain individuals to have their ages specified. It reminded one of a general Census being taken amongst the female population, when every one of them endeavoured, after having reached a certain period of life, to conceal her age.

MR. JACKSON

Will the hon. Gentleman mention one of these cases?

DR. TANNER

said, he would begin at the beginning and go right through the list if the hon. Gentleman liked, although he did not think that would be acceptable to the Committee. Take page 478. They began there with J. O. At well, a clerk about whom they knew nothing, except that he was a clerk in the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade. No information of the man's service was given, and the same tiling was to be said in the case of the assistant at the British Museum, who was 38 years of age and had given 13 years of his life. Then there was the case of S. W. Reed, whose age was not mentioned.

MR. JACKSON

In cases where no mention is made of the age, it is owing to the fact that the individual is dead.

DR. TANNER

said, he did not see why, because an unfortunate individual had happened to have shuffled off this mortal coil, the Committee should have no information as to his period of service and his ago. The major portion of these sums, no doubt, were most laudable—as compassionate allowances to deserving men who had served their country faithfully. Everyone should be most anxious to promote such allowances by every means in their power; but he found some of these items which had been presented to the Committee were not sums devoted to minor individuals, but to gentlemen in high positions who had not served very long, and who, whilst in the Service, had drawn a very considerable amount of pay. He should like to ask, for the information of the Committee, in case of a man who had died, whether the sum put down in the Estimate was the total, or merely a form of annual allowance?

THE CHAIRMAN

It has been laid down from the Chair that every Member is bound to bring to bear to the work of the House adequate intelligence and study, and it is plain that to speak without even elementary knowledge is to trifle with the Committee.

DR. TANNER

Certainly. Then he would like to ask in connection with this Vote a specific question. All hon. Members could not always command sufficient time to ascertain the details of every subject brought before the House. He would ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether Stand, who was retired for ill-health, and had the sum of £600 attached to his name, received that sum as a total pension or as an annual allowance?

MR. JACKSON

It is an annual allowance.

DR. TANNER

said, then he was right. He would pass from that subject to one which more directly interested every Irish Member, and which was of very material importance to the country. The question was, when Amendments of this kind were put down in columns of figures, whether the sum asked for was to be paid once and for all for services done, or whether it was merely an instalment paid to the Government? Passing from the consideration of the more general subject to which an Irish Member could not be supposed to bring to bear a proper amount of intelligence and knowledge as compared with other Members more cognizant with public affairs, he would draw attention to the superannuation and retired allowances on pages 492, 493, 494, and 495. In the first place, he would like to call attention to the number of retirements under the head of prisons in Ireland, and he would also call attention to the age at which prison officers were retired. When a Member was not possessed of practical knowledge or practical acquaintance with these various items which were presented to the House, when he saw an Estimate like this he could not help being struck with the fact that under the head of "Prisons" there were no less than 48 men retired, the major portion of them at a period of life when it might be expected that they might be perfectly capable of rendering satisfactory service to the State which employed them. He would not now call attention to the large sums which had been granted to these various individuals; but he should certainly like some little explanation from Her Majesty's responsible Minister whose name was connected with the Vote. In Ireland there was a great deal more spent in the support of luxury and in the support of imprisonment under this Estimate than in any other item brought forward for their consideration. He should like to ask for some explanation as to the retired allowances granted to the Professors of the Queen's Colleges. As he happened to be personally acquainted with most of these gentlemen, he would not say much upon the point; but he would draw attention to the fact that no idea was given as to the length of the service of these gentlemen or their ago, Mr. Starkey, a Resident Magistrate, had been retired. Well, that gentleman was able to do precisely what he did eight or nine years ago. He lived at Queenstown, but was able to go to Cork and transact whatever business it was necessary to transact there. How came it that that gentleman had been retired on the plea of age, whilst there were other magistrates who were older than him kept in the Service? Personally, he understood why it was that Mr. Starkey had been retired. He was too lenient, and the Government could not get him to enforce the extremely to be reprobated policy which Her Majesty's Government were trying to carry out in Ireland.

MR. JACKSON

said, that, so far as he had been able to follow the hon. Member, he had asked for information as to certain officials, and he would point out to him that probably he had overlooked the fact that he had been quoting from simple Memoranda showing those pensions which had fallen, and he would be glad to hear that in regard to those there would be no charge made in the future. As to Mr. Starkey, he would point out that he was retired because he was over 60 years of age.

DR. TANNER

Did he retire of his own free will?

MR. JACKSON

Certainly.

MR. ESSLEMONT

said, he referred to the full details as to the Scotch warders, and he found there was no break in the service of the men pensioned at the beginning of the period of nine years.

MR. JACKSON

said, that he had explained how it was that the periods of service in the case of warders did not appear longer than nine years. The Government was charged with only a a portion of the pension due to these men—namely, that which had occurred since the prisons had been taken over.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM

asked, whether an official was bound to retire at the age of 60?

MR. JACKSON

said, that he was not bound to retire at 60, but that after that age a medical certificate of incapacity to perform his duties was not necessary if a man desired to be pensioned. The hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) had asked him how it was that, comparatively speaking, so large a number of the prison warders in Ireland had been superannuated. He was glad to say it was partly due—perhaps he might say, even wholly due—to the fact that it had been found possible in Ireland, as it had been in England, to close a considerable number of prisons, and, therefore, to abolish a considerable number of warders.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, he did not wish to quarrel about the item of £4, which appeared under the head of the Duchy of Cornwall. He understood that that was a compensation allowance to the late Secretary to the Lord Warden of the Stanneries. As the Representative of a portion of Cornwall, he did not see that this amount ought to appear on the Estimates at all. The Lord Warden of the Stanneries was the Duke of Cornwall; and, in his (Mr. Cony-beare's) opinion, the Secretary of the Duke ought to be paid whatever compensation allowance might be requisite by the Duke himself. That, however, was only a matter of principle; but he hoped the Government would see that in future the allowance to the Secretary to the Lord Warden did not fall upon the Estimates. He had but very few words to say with reference to the second item upon the list. He felt it was absolutely necessary to protest against the allowance of £125 to the officers of the Order of the Bath. Formerly £389 had been allowed to these gentlemen. Considering the little interest which was taken outside the charmed circle of the Officers of the Bath, it was quite time these allowances disappeared from the Estimates. He did not intend to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, but simply to content himself with protesting against the retention of these charges.

DR. TANNER

said, that they had not yet received an answer from the Secretary to the Treasury, that in a case where superannuations had ceased, full information would be given, both as to the age of the gentleman in question, and also as to the salary paid and the number of years' service. Such information would be valuable, not merely as to the past, but as to the present. The Committee would also observe that reference was made to a deduction of £70 on account of an error in the previous Estimates. Perhaps it was as well they should have some information as to what the error was.

MR. JACKSON

said, he was afraid he could not explain how the error arose; but, of course, it was necessary to make the Estimates compare with the Appropriation Accounts. The hon. Member had asked him if they could not put in the age of the persons who had died, or had ceased to receive allowances. He could not help thinking that if they gave the age of such officers, it would only very much confuse the Estimates.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, there were two items in the Vote of some considerable importance. The first was for Consular Services, and the other for Diplomatic Services. In the Consular Services, he observed that there were 121 pensioners, which seemed to him a very excessive number, considering the number of men in the Service. On looking down the list, however, he did not see that he could complain of any particular item. The Diplomatic Service, however, was different. Up to 1866 or 1867 the Diplomatic Vote was not submitted to the House of Commons. The Ministers and Secretaries, &c., were paid out of the Consolidated Fund. He forgot exactly what the amount paid was; but he thought it was about £250,000. As long as the salaries to the diplomatists were kept within this amount they were not submitted to the House. At that time he moved a Resolution to the effect that the accounts of the Diplomatic Service should be submitted to the House, and that Resolution was carried. There was a special Act with regard to pensions to diplomatists; but there was a Rule in the Service that a gentleman had to leave the Service at the age of 70, and it was fully understood that he could not claim a pension until he was 70 years of age. There were several grades of pensions. The first grade was £1,700 per annum, the second £1,300, the next £900, and the next £700. Anyone must serve for any of these grades 10 years, and he was to serve for the first-class—namely, that of Ambassadors, three years, and for the second class, that of Envoy Extraordinary, five years. Of course, that was included in the 10 years. Why he thought the Estimate ought to be submitted to Parliament, and why he thought at that time he convinced the House of Commons that the Estimate ought to be submitted to Parliament, was that diplomatists were frequently given pensions long before they attained the age of 70 years. Diplomatists were given pensions because there was a great pressure put on the Foreign Office by persons who wished to obtain diplomatic posts, and the tendency on the part of the Foreign Office was to allow a man to retire in perfectly good health before he attained the age of 70. In fact, they did rather more. They strongly hinted to a man that it would be rather a good thing that he should retire in order that a friend or someone or other should be put in his place. In the present year, for instance, Sir Henry Thompson had been given a pension. His age was 57. It was not said that Sir Henry Thompson was in ill-health. He (Mr. Labouchere) did not believe he was; but still he was granted a pension of £1,300 per annum. Again, Sir Edward Thornton, who was 69 years of age, had been granted a pension of £1,700 a-year. Both those gentlemen were in possession of excellent health. He had lately seen Sir Edward Thornton taking part in proceedings of Public Companies; he was Director of several Public Companies, and a very good Director. Sir Edward Thornton was, no doubt, in perfectly good health; and he was quite convinced that if that gentleman had been asked he would have been perfectly ready to remain with £8,000 per annum at Constantinople, instead of being elbowed or bought out of the Service in order that someone else should be put in his place. Again, there was Sir Augustus Paget. He noticed that that gentleman was about to retire, which meant that he was about to be retired. Sir Augustus Paget was about 65 years of age. That system ought to be stopped. He did not think they ought to give pensions for the sole reason of ennobling other persons to qualify themselves for pensions. The terms of the Act regarding the Diplomatic Service were exceptionally favourable. Indeed, in his opinion, there ought to be a longer term of service than 15 years to qualify for a pension. What occurred? He did not want to mention names; but take the case of a gentleman who had been in that House. He was appointed to a diplomatic post; he served for 15 years, and then might get his pension of £1,700 a-year. That was not intended. Pensions were intended for those who had joined the Diplomatic Service and risen in the ranks from the lower grades. Under those circumstances, he trusted the same argument which convinced the House of Commons in 1866 that the Estimates for the Diplomatic Service ought to be submitted to Parliament would induce the Committee to agree with him now that pensions wore excessive and improperly granted. No one would deny that there were abuses; and he begged to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £500, in order that the House of Commons might use the authority which it had obtained in 1866 to restrain the excessive granting of pensions in order to give other gentlemen places.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Item A, Superannuation Allowances, be reduced by the sum of £500, in respect of Diplomatic Pensions."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

MR. JACKSON

said, the hon. Member knew full well that the pensions were given under a certain Act of Parliament; and that, therefore, the Committee had no power to refuse them. They were obliged to obey an Act of Parliament. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman would introduce another Act to amend the present, well and good; but he was afraid that as long as the present Act remained in force they must conform to its provisions.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he would willingly bring in a Bill if he were assured by the hon. Gentleman that the Government would afford facilities for its passing. He presumed that the hon. Gentleman did not know much about the subject. His point was that they had a right to give a man a pension after 15 years' service, but that they were not obliged by the ordinary Rules of the Foreign Office to give a pension to a man until he had attained 70 years of age. He found, however, that pensions frequently were given to men long before they reached the prescribed age. Supposing a Gentleman were made a Minister at the age of 22, which was the case with Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, did the hon. Gentleman mean to say that that Minister would have had the right to claim a pension of £1,300 at the age of 37, after he had been in the service 15 years? Unquestionably not. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe could not have claimed it. If he had asked for it at that age he would have been told—No; you are healthy, there is good work in you, and if we give you a pension we shall have to give another man your salary. The pension is an extra we cannot charge the country with. He (Mr. Labouchere) did not complain of the Act, but of the mode in which it was being carried out by the Foreign Office. He perfectly understood that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) did not know the technicalities. He (Mr. Labouchere) was brought up in the service, and he happened to know all about it. If the hon. Gentleman would assure him that he would look closely into the matter, that he would consult the Foreign Office, and that he, acting for the Treasury, would exercise, if he thought it justifiable, some sort of pressure to prevent these pensions being given to gentlemen when they had got service in them, and when they were quite ready to do service. He would not press his Amendment. He could cite 10 or 12 cases of gentlemen who would have been delighted to have continued as Ambassadors against whom nothing was said, but who were put on the shelf with a pension simply because there were others whom it was desired to put in their places.

MR. JACKSON

said, the hon. Gentleman had made a most reasonable demand upon him, and he had no hesitation in saying that he was quite willing to give the assurance asked. The fact was that they had been pursuing the very policy which the hon. Member recommended. Of course, the hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be very improper for him to give details. He believed they had been more or less successful; but he promised the hon. Gentleman he would look more closely into the matter, and do all he could to put a stop to the granting of pensions improperly.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he would ask leave to withdraw his motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, there was another item which required explanation—namely, "Grants in aid of expenditure in certain Colonies." He did not quite understand what this was. He saw that we were giving one gentleman, who, as Governor, had received £5,000 a-year, £1,000 per annum. He was under the impression that Colonial Governors, whether they were governors of Crown Colonies or otherwise, did not get pensions from the British taxpayers. If their salaries were paid by the Colonies, surely the pensions, if they got them, ought to come from the Colonies too. If the Colonies were not willing to pay the pensions, he did not see why we should pay them. He should like some explanation of the charge, and he should, also, like an explanation of the system that was pursued—as to whether it was not only Governors, but also other gentlemen in the Crown Colonies who received pensions. Let him give an instance. Some time ago there was a Gentleman in the House whom they all liked very much—he blocked Bills—Mr. Warton. Mr. Warton was appointed Attorney General to Western Australia by the Home Government. He (Mr. Labouchere) had seen it stated that Mr. Warton was about to receive a pension. He was always on friendly terms with Mr. Warton, but he certainly would object to him receiving a pension out of the Imperial Funds. He would like to know whether a gentleman in Mr. Warton's position, appointed Attorney General to one of the Crown Colonies like Western Australia, could, after two or three years' service, and without any certificate of ill-health, come upon us for a pension. He did not quite understand the subject; but he should be glad if the Secretary to the Treasury could explain what was done with respect to the pensions of Colonial Governors and of other gentlemen employed by us in the Colonies.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY) (Wigton)

said, that the pensions of Colonial Governors were all statutory, being provided for by the Statute 28 & 29 Vict. c. 13. They had no power to interfere with them.

MR. LABOUCHERE

thought they must mark their objection to this, because it seemed rather a strong measure that the Attorney General of Western Australia—he did not attack Mr. Warton personally—because he found it did not happen to suit him there—

THE CHAIRMAN

There is nothing in the Vote relative to that official.

MR. LABOUCHERE

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether there was any gentleman who was either Attorney General or in some such position included in the Vote?

MR. JACKSON

No, Sir.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Who is?

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

Colonial Governors.

MR. LABOUCHERE

asked, if he was to understand that the Colonial Governors cost us in pensions £14,048 per annum? [Sir HERBERT MAXWELL nodded assent.] Then he thought it was high time that this system should cease. If Colonial Governors got pensions at all they should get them from the Colonies. They took Tom, Jack, or Harry, and made him a Colonial Governor. Generally speaking, he was a Peer or a gentleman who had been a failure here. They made him a Governor, and he generally contrived to make an uncommonly good thing out of it. A Governor received something like £5,000 a-year, and when he had finished his term of office it seemed that the taxpayers were to be called upon to pay him a pension. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £138,510, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)

said, that the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) had said that these pensions were given under Act of Parliament. He (Mr. Molloy) had not had time to refer to the Act; but he understood that although there was power under it to grant pensions, the power was not compulsory. The granting of pensions was perfectly optional; but when objection was taken to the granting of a pension on any ground which was considered sufficient, they were always met by the Act of Parliament. The Secretary to the Treasury always told them they could not help themselves, as the matter was regulated by Act of Parliament. As the power was optional, he maintained there was no excuse for the granting of a pension if a pension ought not to be granted. The Act of Parliament under which pensions were granted was passed a long time ago, and now they had arrived at the days of economy. The whole of the debate upon the Estimates this year had been centred upon the one point—economy—and hon. Members had been answered from the Treasury Bench that their whole aim was economy. Let them throw aside this Act of Parliament. They were aware that if there was no authority to grant pensions, they would not appear on the Paper. The power was optional and it was the Treasury who was re possible for the granting of these pensions. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Northampton that a number of these appointments might be styled "family jobs" or "governmental jobs." He could mention an appointment which had been made which would not bear the light of day; he could name removals which had been made in order to create vacancies for others to fill. Under the circumstances it was only right that they should protest against the granting of these exorbitant pensions, pensions granted to men who had had large salaries, and had saved a great deal, much to the annoyance of the people over whom they had been put. He sincerely hoped his hon. friend would go to a Division. Short discussions were of no use. Divisions, however, were of considerable use, for they stiffened the back of the Treasury and the Government, and enabled them to withstand the pressure put upon them from all sides, a thing which he admitted it was very difficult for them to do.

MR. JACKSON

said, that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Molloy) was correct when he said that the Treasury had power under certain circumstances to regulate the amount of pensions—they had power to grant pensions not exceeding a certain sum. As far as he had been able to gather from the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman there was no suggestion that the pensions which the Committee were asked to sanction had been granted otherwise than properly. There was one ex-Colonial Governor who was receiving a pension of £1,000 a-year. That gentleman had had 22 years' service, and his salary was £5,000 a-year. He (Mr. Jackson) did not think that anyone would pretend to say that £1,000 a-year pension was disproportionate to the salary. Not a single case had been brought forward in which it was alleged that a pension had been granted on other than sufficient grounds. The hon. member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had referred to their old friend, Mr. Warton. Now Mr. Warton was no more entitled to a pension than the right hon. Member himself, and Mr. Warton was not likely to get a pension. It was quite true that the Treasury acted under Act of Parliament; indeed the Act of Parliament was the authority for their action. The Treasury was not compelled to grant the full amount, and in cases where the papers were not complete, and where the certificates were not complete, the Treasury had power to, and would, resist the granting of the full amount.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

said, with regard to the pension of Sir George Bowen, he should like to know whether the item in the Estimate was in addition to the pension from the Colony. The Committee should have a clear understanding upon this point. Was it, or was it not, in addition to the pension given by the Colony? The next case was that of the Resident Councillor at Penang. It seemed to him extraordinary that the Councillor should have been appointed at the age of 44 on a salary of £200 only, and that after 12 years he should get a pension. The pension was only £40, which seemed to him a very extraordinary amount for such an official.

MR. JACKSON

said, that that amount was all that was charged to the Imperial Exchequer.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that there were two kinds of Governors, Governors of Crown Colonies and Governors of Colonies that were not Crown Colonies. The Imperial Government paid the pensions in respect of the Crown Colonies, and the Colonies which were not Crown Colonies, it was to be presumed, paid the pensions themselves. What he should like to ask was, whether this country paid pensions in all cases, or whether they only paid pensions in certain cases. The point his hon. Friends raised was a most important one. No one had ever asserted, nor was it likely that anyone would assert, that a man could accumulate pensions. The only plea, as had already been pointed out, upon which a pension could be given, was that a man had not means enough to live upon; and surely, when they granted a pension to one of these Colonial Governors, they ought, at least, to know whether the Governor received a pension from the Colony or whether he did not. Let them understand the system and know for certain whether all Colonial Governors received a pension at the end of their term of office from the Colony. If they did, then the payment made by the Colonial Government should be sufficient. As a matter of fact, these gentlemen lived in a style more like Presidents of the United States than anybody in this country. Indeed, the President of the United States received no pension. It was a curious fact that Governors General of Canada received a pension from this country, whilst those intelligent people, the inhabitants of the United States, close by Canada, elected their best man as President and—

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out that the hon. Gentleman is now travelling beyond the region of this Vote. The hon. Member cannot criticize the Act of Parliament, but only its administration.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, he thought the House would not so often have these discussions if the Government would only give hon. Members more information. He did not know why it was that they had not the same kind of Estimate in the case of this Pension Vote put into their hands as they had last year. Last year the details of every pension under this Vote were given in full, and the House was able to arrive at an understanding as to the principle upon which the pensions were given. There was an efficient way of checking the Estimates. This year, however, they had no details of the kind, the only facts they were acquainted with being the amounts of increase and amounts of diminution of the different items. He thought the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would really shorten discussion if he would give full information.

MR. JACKSON

said, that the explanation on this point was that last year a full list of pensions was prepared and printed and circulated. The question of printing the lists of pensions in full every year was considered for some time in Committee, and it was decided that really, for all practicable purposes, if a list were issued periodically, say, every three years, and if in the Estimates themselves every year they merely gave the additions to the pensions and the amounts which had been taken out, that information, coupled with the information which was to be found in the printed list of three years previous, would answer every practical purpose. The preparation of a full list would not only cost a considerable amount, but would increase the bulk of the Estimate itself very largely. Of course, if the House were of opinion that it was necessary to provide this information every year there would be no difficulty in procuring it. It was a mere question of cost, and it was from a desire to try and avoid useless expenditure that a mere summary had been given.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)

wished to know specifically whether the grants to Colonial officials in the Estimates were in addition to the pensions granted by the Colonies themselves? If they were in addition the Committee ought to know what were the sums granted by the Colonies. Such in-formation was essential in order to show them whether or not the sum granted out of the Imperial Exchequer was excessive.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

said, that £14,000 was asked for in one class of items, and he submitted that the Committee ought to know the details of the Vote. Here was a Government desirous of effecting economy, and yet in the course of a discussion on the Estimates it turned out that when they had a discretionary power as to the amount of pensions they could allow, they gave the highest amount in every case. As a matter of fact, the Treasury treated a permissive power as if it were an obligatory one.

MR. JACKSON

said, he had stated three times at least that it was not true to say that the Government granted pensions to the full extent of their power on all occasions. The Treasury, if they had the smallest excuse for reducing the amounts of pensions given by annual grant, or in full amount, always did reduce them. They always required to have produced, not only certificates of diligence and fidelity, but also what other certificates were necessary to complete the whole case. It was not true, therefore, to say that the Treasury exercised the power of giving the full pension in every case. He was asked by the right hon. Member opposite (Mr. Osborne Morgan) whether other sums were granted than the pensions mentioned in the Estimates, and in reply he had to say that he believed no other sums were granted.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM

said, he was in the recollection of the Committee when he said that the hon. Gentleman had stated, when questioned as to how certain pensions were granted, that they were given under certain Acts of Parliament which left the Government no discretion in the matter. Well, when he (Mr. Handel Cossham) came to refer to these Acts, he found that the Government were not obliged to pay this money, but that their power was permissive.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, that these were to all intents and purposes obligatory powers. The officials entered the service on the understanding that, after a certain period, or in certain contingencies, they would receive a pension, and it was the duty of the House to see that the conditions provided by Statute were complied with. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Northampton, as to whether a pension could be received by Colonial Governors after two, three, or four years, he would point out that it was laid down by Statute that no first-class pension should be granted until a Colonial Governor had served 18 years. Colonial Governorships, as a rule, were not given except to men considerably advanced in life, so that when a man had served 18 years as Colonial Governor, he would have given the best of his years to the service of his country, and was well entitled to a pension.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

asked, whether the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) was to be taken as final, that no other money was given in the form of pension to those officials than that which they found in the Estimates? Was it the fact that these Governors got their pensions from this House alone? He knew that Sir George Bowen had served in many Colonies, but he noticed as very peculiar that no age was given to him in the list. Were the pensions of Governors the same wherever the Governors might have served?

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, they were told that a Governnor could not receive a pension unless he had served 18 years, and, if that were so in every case, he was afraid they would have to call upon some ex-Colonial Governors to refund a considerable sum of money. He had the Appendix to the Civil Service Estimates of last year in his hands, and he found there that there were other gentlemen besides Governors who received pensions. There were Chief Registrars; and even in one case he found that a pension was given to a pilot in the employ of the Tasmanian Government. In the West Indies many Stipendiary Magistrates received pensions, and he found here an item: "Austin, J. G., Lieutenant Governor British Honduras, aged 65, service three years." It was remarkable to know how this post, which seemed a very comfortable one, had been filled. Here was "R. W. Harley, Liuetenant Governor British Honduras, service 10 years." He also had received a pension. Then there was Major Munday, who had also been Lieutenant Governor, and after a service of 10 years had received a pension. He also saw Governors down with service of 10, 14, and 15 years, and it was obvious that most of these Governors could have no sort of right to pensions, as their term of service was within the limited period of 18 years. Under these circumstances he should certainly persist in his Amendment. According to the Estimates there was a Chaplain receiving £100 per annum, who was called a retired officer of the Indian Department. They ought to have some explanation as to the service of this gentleman. If the Government has not a copy of the Estimates he should be happy to furnish them with his—the Estimates, he meant, of last year.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, that last year they passed the Colonial Government Act, by which Colonial Governors were enabled to count towards pensions service in the other Colonial Departments of the State.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, he had referred to the 28th and 29th Vic., c. 113, of the Colonial Government Act, and it appeared therein that a Colonial Governor was entitled to a pension, not after the expiration of 18 years, but at the end of four years' service.

DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

said, it was quite possible, as stated by hon. Gentlemen on the Front Ministerial Bench, that these Governors, or some of them, might very fairly have earned their pensions, and that it would not be right to deprive them of their due, but what he understood hon. Gentlemen to say was, that the present system was wrong and ought to be altered, and, therefore, he thought the only effectual protest they could make would be to go to a Division, and express in that emphatic way their dissatisfaction with the Vote. The Government, if the Vote were against them, would re-consider the whole question, and come to some practical conclusion. Therefore, if he went into the Lobby with the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment, it was not because he objected to these officials, but because he thought the system was a wrong one.

MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)

said, he should like to probe this problem a little further. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Herbert Maxwell) had told them that service in other Civil Departments was to be reckoned in connection with the Colonial service for pension. Were they to understand then that if a man had a veneering of 12 months as a Colonial Governor, he was to be entitled to the highest rate of pension given to Colonial Governors?

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

No, no.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, the hon. Baronet had put the matter in that form—that where there had been three years' service as Colonial Governor a man would be entitled to reckon for pension service in other Civil Service Departments.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, that what he had stated was that when a Civil servant was appointed a Governor previous service in the Civil Service would count towards pension. Of course, if an official served only one year as Colonial Governor he would not receive a pension as Colonial Governor, but a pension at the rate which governed the whole service. A Colonial Governor who had not been in any other department of the State must serve 18 years before he received a first-class pension.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he would take the case of Lord Carrington, not from any personal reason, because he believed this gentleman's bona fides beyond question, but he mentioned him simply as a gentleman who might be so regarded. If Lord Carrington came back in two or three years and asked for a pension, would the Colonial Office think it their duty to give him one?

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, that Section 2 of the Act to which he had referred laid down the conditions under which the full rate of pension could be obtained. A first-class appointment must be held for four years before a pension could be claimed; but before a Governor could claim a first-class pension he must have occupied the position for 18 years.

Question put,

The Committee divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 114: Majority 33.—(Div. List, No. 319).

Original Question again proposed.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that before they passed from this particular item he thought that the House ought to realize the fact, which many would hear with horror, that Governor Eyre had been receiving since 1874 a sum of £750 a-year as a pension. He ventured to say that there were exceedingly few persons in the country who were aware of that fact, and this proved how exceedingly desirable it was that the Committee should have the fullest particulars given them with regard to these pensions, and how necessary it was that what was going on in connection with these Estimates should be thoroughly investigated.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, that the Committee were not furnished with sufficient information, and that the mere supply of an abstract two years out of three was insufficient.

MR. JACKSON

said, that in giving the full list of pensions only once in three years he was following the course recommended by Parliament itself. Of course, if it were thought necessary to publish full information every year it could be done, but there would be a great deal of labour attached to the work.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, the explanation of the hon. Gentleman was scarcely satisfactory. There was what was called a cheese-paring policy, which was a thing to be condemned, especially when there were many ways in which economy could be effected without curtailing the expenditure, it was necessary that hon. Members should have in their hands when dealing with Votes in Supply. He held it to be a mistake to cripple the capacity of the hon. Members for dealing with the Estimates. To say that they could go to the Library for this information was not the way to treat hon. Members in discussions upon the Supplies of the country.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £330, being the amount paid as a Home Office pension to Viscount Dillon. This was an interesting sample of the way in which the present system of pensions worked, and was to be found on page 34 of the Appendix issued last year. He found that this nobleman was appointed to the Home Office at the early age of 19 as supernumerary clerk, and that, after getting a salary of £660 for being a supernumerary clerk, in the year 1869 his services in that capacity were no longer required, and, being no longer required, he was given £330 a-year from the pocket of the taxpayer, and had received that sum yearly since February 1, 1869. He mentioned these facts for the purpose of drawing a comparison and instituting a contrast. Almost the next item that he found on the list were the pensions of two people who worked very hard at the Home Office, and had reached the age of 59. One of these persons he found was pensioned on £12 a-year, having been discharged for infirmity. The other received £14 a-year, having been discharged for ill-health. Now, these were charwomen. They were hard workers; they worked till they were 59, and a liberal Government gave them, after they were worn out in the service of the State, a pittance of £12 a-year. He placed these two cases in contrast—that of the charwomen with that of the Irish nobleman, who had received £660 for doing nothing for some years, and was pensioned at the rate of £330 a-year.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £139,180, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Hunter.)

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

said, he thought they should have some expression of opinion from the Government on this matter, as to pensions given to "the classes" who patronized them, and whom they, in turn, subsidized. He thought that when a reasonable argument had been addressed to the hon. Gentleman, who at the present time answered for the expenditure of the public money, that, at any rate, that courtesy, which was supposed to be the distinguishing characteristic of "the classes," should be extended to the Committee. It really seemed to him (Dr. Tanner) extraordinary that when an appeal was made as to the difference of treatment accorded to a poor woman and an Irish Peer no answer should be given. One would think that in order to curry some little amount of favour with the masses the hon. Gentleman would feel it his duty to answer. Because, however, the question was about an Irish Lord the hon. Gentleman did not think it suitable to the occasion to give any reply or to show that courtesy which usually existed amongst gentlemen. He sincerely trusted that the hon. Gentleman would now find it to his convenience to give an answer.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

said, he had to make an appeal to the Committee. He believed that Gentlemen on both sides of the House had consideration for the reputation of the House of Commons. He wished to point out that the Government were not in the slightest degree responsible for the insertion of a provision in the Estimates for a pension granted 20 years ago. The Government were compelled by their duties to insert this pension in the Estimates, provision for it having been made under Statute. If the provision was wrong it must be repealed by Statute, but the Government had it not within their power to refuse the insertion of the item. He was sure that hon. Gentlemen who had knowledge of the duties and practices of the House of Commons would see that prolonged discussion of questions of this character was not forwarding but would seriously retard the Business of the country and endanger the reputation of hon. Members. The functions of Committee of Supply were most important, but there were some things in which it would be possible for the Committee to take action, and others in which they had no power to alter the Vote. The Government had responsibility, and, so far as they were concerned, also, there were some things which they could do, and other things which were impossible for them; and one of the things which was impossible for them was to alter the regulations as to pensions. After a pension had been formally granted by Statute, it was not in the power of the Government to abstain from putting it in the Estimates. Unless the authority under which these pensions were granted was repealed by Statute it was beyond the power of the House of Commons to refuse to grant the pensions. He earnestly hoped that the Committee would make progress with the Business with which they were now seriously in arrear, and that hon. Gentlemen would have some care for the reputation of that part of the House in which they sat.

DR. TANNER

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have some care for the reputation of that part of the House in which he sat. When a Question was asked, instead of getting up and reading a sort of homily to the Committee, it would be much better to answer it.

Admiral Field rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Debate resumed.

DR. TANNER

said, it would be better for the dignity of the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman would content himself with merely answering the Questions asked. He (Dr. Tanner) was very seldom called upon to inflict a slight correction upon the right hon. Gentleman, but he trusted that these few words would not be thrown away.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, that as they had been promised a reform of these abuses in the coming Session, would it not be possible to introduce a repealing clause to get rid of them now, the right hon. Gentleman himself believing in the existence of those abuses?

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 126: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 320.)

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. William Henry Smith rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 75: Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 321.)

Original Question put accordingly, That a sum, not exceeding £139,510, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1889, for Superannuation and Retired Allowances to Persons formerly employed in the Public Service, and for Compassionate or other Special Allowances and Gratuities awarded by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 72: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 322.)

(2.) £4,400, to complete the sum for Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, as the Estimate was framed the Committee did not know what they were voting for, or the circumstances in which the pensions were given. In the Appendix for the Board of Trade he found a long list of Gentlemen who had got pensions on the abolition of their office or on re-organization.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he did not see how the hon. Gentleman connected this with the Vote.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, the Vote was for seamen's pensions; and there was a long list of superannuation allowances to officers on abolition or reorganization of office. [Mr. JACKSON: No, no!] That only showed how important it was to have the Estimates clearly drawn.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I have laid it down earlier in the evening that it is the duty of every hon. Member to bring to the discussion of Public Business adequate knowledge and adequate intelligence.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, under the circumstances, he had not adequate knowledge as to how the Vote was to be expended, and he did not feel himself justified as one of the guardians of the money of the public in assenting to it.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, his hon. Friend's contention was that the Committee had no means of obtaining adequate knowledge in respect of the Vote. He had himself voted against the Government on the last Division, not because he thought the Votes were wrong in themselves, but because he did not think the Government were justified in not giving the Committee adequate information, and he said the Committee were entitled to know what the present pensions were for before they voted the money.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.)

said, he thought he could explain the object of the Vote. Before 1851 it was compulsory on merchant seamen to subscribe so much a-year to a fund for pensions. The fund became bankrupt, and in 1851 an Act of Parliament was passed by which a considerable sum of the remaining funds had been paid to the Exchequer, and the liability for the pensions to those who had subscribed was taken over by the Exchequer. Ever since that time an annual Vote to meet the pensions had been asked from Parliament. That Vote, however, had diminished every year by about £1,400; in 1852–3 there were 26,000 pensions, and this year the number was only 5,000, so that in a few years the Vote would become extinct.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was entirely satisfactory.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) £488,000, to complete the sum for Pauper Lunatics.

DR. FARQUHARSON

said, he wished to suggest in the interest of the unfortunate people concerned that it was a doubtful policy to accumulate them in large asylums. He believed that the massing together of large numbers of insane people was a great disadvantage to them—that it crystallized them, so to speak, in insanity, and pressed them down in their unfortunate condition. He suggested that the Government should consider whether these large establishments should not be broken up and the inmates distributed in places where they might receive more individual attention than could be given under existing circumstances. Again, he suggested that every case taken into these large institutions should go through a regular course of hospital treatment. He believed there were many cases of persons drifting into hopeless insanity because they had not been treated systematically, and if for 12 months they were subjected to hospital treatment there would be a much greater chance for many of restoration to health. In Scotland they had carried out the Belgian system of boarding out lunatics; that system worked well, and he believed the influence of home treatment had been attended with excellent results. Again, he wished to refer to the bad effect of associating idiot children with lunatics, which was that the former incurred bad habits, and were at the same time terrified by their surroundings. He hoped the House would some day take into consideration the question of remedying the present condition of things, which amounted to nothing less than a public scandal.

MR. MOLLOY

said, that the reports showed that certainly one if not three cases of death had been caused by the violence of lunatics; inquests had been held in the majority of cases, and it was proved in one case that death had been caused by the treatment of the attendants. There was also the case of a broken arm, and another of a broken leg, which showed that the greatest violence had been used without any justification; and, although the verdict was that this was the result of unnecessary violence, nobody had been brought to account. As far as he could see the Commissioners had done very little in the matter, and he did not wonder at this, because it was utterly impossible for them to give adequate attention to the immense number of cases which they were supposed to look after. He asked the Home Secretary whether some investigation could not take place which might result in the more inhumane attendants being removed from the service. In Belgium such cases as he had mentioned were never heard of, and the number of cures owing to the humane system in operation there was far in excess of anything we could show in England.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

said, that as far as he was concerned, he should be extremely happy to promote investigation into cases of brutality coming under the hon. Gentleman's notice. Such cases, he regretted, would occur from time to time, but the Lord Chancellor was of course the chief authority in the matter, and the appointment and dismissal of the attendants would be subject to the Court of Quarter Sessions.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, as a guardian of some experience he had taken great interest in this question, and he must give his opinion that pauper lunatics greatly benefited by removal from the workhouse to the central establishment, inasmuch as they were then at once placed under enlightened medical treatment and submitted to the most careful consideration; they were treated on the highest and best principles, and the most gratifying results had fallowed. He did not know anything more gratifying to himself and the other guardians than to see the improvement which had taken place in workhouses by the removal of those miserable masses of pauper lunatics who used to crowd the wards, and who were now removed to central asylums of the Counties and there treated as he had said with the most beneficial results. With reference to the alleged prevalence of brutality which the hon. and learned Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) had spoken of, he confessed he was very sceptial on that subject, and he did not think the allegation was proved by adequate evidence. If any cases of outrage ever occurred he believed that they were very rare indeed, and that when they were discovered they were always made the subject of most searching investigation, and severe punishment inflicted on those who committed them. When charges of that kind were made, unsupported by evidence, he believed that great mischief and not benefit was caused to the patients themselves, and that injustice was done to those who were responsible to the country for their proper care.

MR. MOLLOY

said, the hon. Member who had just spoken had intimated that he had made a statement on this matter without justification and unsupported by evidence. The cases to which he alluded were reported in the public Press, and he had instanced cases where inquests had been held and verdicts of unnecessary violence returned, although no one was brought to account. The majority of them were cases in the Metropolis and not in the country; but as to the evidence on which they rested, the hon. Member had only to look for it in the reports, and he would find in the public Press during the last year leading articles calling the attention of the authorities to the subject.

MR. F. S. POWELL

said, he had admitted that some few cases of misconduct might occur where they were dealing with a great number of persons, and he said that every charge of that nature would be thoroughly investigated, and if misconduct were proved it would be severely dealt with.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, the hon. Member for Wigan and the Home Secretary himself had admitted that eases of the kind referred to had occurred, but he (Mr. Conybeare) respectfully dissented from the doctrine that it was not the right of Members of that House to bring them forward. He invited the Home Secretary to consider the suggestion that Members of Parliament for County Divisions, in which the asylums were situated, should have the right of visiting the pauper lunatics inside. So far as he was aware, Members of Parliament had no locus standi in this matter. It appeared to him that the knowledge that Members of Parliament had the right to visit asylums and see how things were administered in them would be very beneficial, and, therefore, the suggestion being not wholly without reason, he submitted it to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

said, it was desirable, in his opinion, that no false impression should go forth as to the frequency of cases of brutality in these asylums. There were, no doubt, instances in which the inmates had been treated with harshness; but he believed that a great many of the cases reported in the Press did not justify the general charges which had been made. He pointed out that there was a condition of the bones in cases of lunacy which rendered them easy of fracture. He made that remark in order that there might not go forth a false impression as to the frequency of such treatment as had been referred to. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) had done good service in drawing attention to the question of large numbers of lunatics being massed together in county asylums. His own opinion, however, was that it was very desirable that lunatics should be removed from workhouses, where they did not get special treatment, to county and borough asylums, where they would have the advantage of such treatment. He agreed with his hon. Friend that in many of those asylums they had too many unfortunate patients congregated together, because the system was injurious to the individuals themselves and to the prospects of recovery. It was well known that medical men often had far too many patients under their care for them to give that individual attention that was necessary to success in the treatment of insanity. He agreed that if we could introduce something similar to the Belgian system, much more good might be done in the treatment of mental disease. He hoped the Government would take the question into consideration with the view of issuing some orders by which this great aggregation of lunatics in central asylums might be avoided, and of seeing whether they could not introduce the system which had proved so useful in Belgium in humanizing these unfortunate people and contributing to their happiness and welfare while they are afflicted with this calamity.

MR. JACKSON

said, that while he agreed very much with the words that had fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite, he thought it would not long be in the power of the Government to deal with this particular question, because this would probably be the last time that the Vote would appear on the Estimates; the matter would in future be dealt with under the Local Government Act by the County Councils.

MR. LLEWELLYN (Somerset, N.)

said, that when the hon. and learned Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) stated that there were three or four cases of the kind he had brought forward, he believed he was within the mark. He thought, however, that if the cases which came before the public represented all that occurred, the small number was satisfactory with regard to the treatment of pauper lunatics. As to the number of the Commissioners, he thought it was an absolute farce that so few men should be expected to do the work relating to lunacy for the whole of England. It was not only a mistake from a medical point of view to keep lunatics in workhouses, but it was practically cruelty towards the inmates of those establishments, and accordingly he protested against it. He denied that anyone could suggest greater cruelty than to put into a workhouse ward, where a number of poor old people had to end their days, half-a-dozen lunatics.

SIR WALTER FOSTER

said, that although the county asylums would be handed over to the County Councils, the Guardians would still have the power of sending lunatics to county asylums, and it was desirable that some expression of opinion should be elicited in that debate with regard to the conditions under which pauper lunatics were grouped together in those establishments. He said that the Committee were not doing justice to the pauper lunatics if they did not utter some definite expression of opinion for the purpose of securing for them the best mode of treatment. Therefore, he hoped they would not allow it to go forth that they washed their hands of this question and threw it upon the County Boards.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)

said, that his experience as a visitor of County Lunatic Asylums, and of the work of supervision done by the County Magistrates, led him to believe that no institutions were better managed than the great county asylums throughout England. He thought therefore, the sweeping observations which had been made with regard to them were not quite justified by the facts. He had also had opportunities of witnessing the general practice with regard to imbeciles, and he was of opinion that a very great improvement had taken place in their condition and treatment. He believed that there was not a harder-worked class of men than the Inspectors of County Lunatic Asylums, and he did not like to hear one class of medical men attacking another class who had no opportunity of defending themselves.

SIR WALTER FOSTER

said, he had not attacked the gentlemen in question. He had simply said they had too much to do. Nothing was further from his thoughts than an attack upon the medical officers of the country; he said no more than that it was not desirable that so many lunatics should be grouped together in any asylum.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

said, he was glad to have elicited this explanation, because several hon. Members understood that an attack was made on the medical officers of the asylums, who, as far as he was able to see, looked to every individual case with the greatest care.

DR. TANNER

said, he had heard with much satisfaction the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite. He thought it would be a very good thing if before this matter passed from the control of the House, an arrangement were made that pauper lunatics should be relegated to places where they would be properly treated by specialists. He sincerely hoped that the Committee would do a good stroke of work that evening in favour of these unfortunate people.

Vote agreed to.

(4.) £13, to complete the sum for Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiency.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

said, he wished to point out that this deficiency should no longer exist. Parliament had brought into existence the Post Office Savings Bank in which there was Government security and no risk of poor people losing their money through the action of fraudulent trustees, and he hoped that the Government were prepared to change the existing law and place the savings banks referred to in the Vote in the same position as joint-stock banks, and benefit societies in the same position as insurance companies.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

said, that the hon. Gentleman and the Committee must be aware that a Committee had sat to consider the question of Trustee Savings Banks, and had not yet reported, except to the effect that they should be re-appointed next year, as no doubt they would be. The Government looked with interest to the recommendations which the Committee might make; as the hon. Gentleman would know he himself had taken considerable interest in the matter, and was most anxious to see the Trustee Savings Banks put upon a proper footing. With regard to the Vote the deficiency with which they had to deal was an accrued deficiency, and did not relate to one year only. They had to make good the result of what might be called an imperfect administration in the past, the deficiency having arisen under circumstances different from those which now existed.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

asked whether the Vote included any charge due to the reduction of interest on the National Debt?

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that would depend on various circumstances—the value and nature of the securities held.

DR. CLARK

said, he thought the Government should themselves seriously consider this matter before the Committee reported, because the Trustee Savings Banks offered larger interest than the Government.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM

pointed out that the Savings Banks and Friendly Societies were investing in all kinds of securities.

DR. TANNER

asked how it was that the deficiency was so very large?

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that the deficiency on the 20th November, 1877, was £1,820,000, and the insolvency was determined at that date.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £338, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1889, for certain Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances in Great Britain.

DR. CLARK

said, he hoped this Vote would be soon altogether removed from the Estimates. The unfortunate Spaniards to whom payment was made 80 years ago were still receiving their pensions. It was very curious to observe how long those who received pensions lived. Then there was Her Majesty's charity to Scotland, and he thought that these matters should be investigated by the Secretary to the Treasury, and the claims, where possible, commuted.

MR. JACKSON

said, he very much agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman, that commutation should take place where possible.

DR. TANNER

said, the Committee had no information as to how the Polish refugees mentioned in the Vote had become dependent for support upon this country. The only thing satisfactory about the item was that they had cost the country £5 less this year than last. Then with regard to the distressed Spaniards, if these were men who became connected with the British service during the Peninsula War be felt at liberty to ask the Secretary to the Treasury for some further information on the subject. He thought it well to inquire into the justice of such claims as these, because of having been witness to an immense amount of distress in the City of London which he thought ought to be dealt with before the case of these so-called distressed foreigners.

MR. BYRON REED (Bradford, E.)

said, that many hon. Members on those Benches desired information as to the precise age of the distressed Spaniards represented on the Vote. He should be the very last person to refuse payment to persons who were entitled to it by services rendered to the country, but he was bound to say that, chronologically, he could not understand how these Spaniards, on principles of ordinary longevity, could be receiving the money at the present time. He agreed that the amount was small, and might be passed on this occasion, but he hoped on this occasion only. There were some Members in that part of the House who felt that a continual leakage was going on with reference to small amounts in the Estimates which were very imperfectly discussed, and they who had to render an account to their constituents would like to be able to explain on higher authority than their own imagination how such matters as these arose on the Estimates. He would, therefore, be glad to have an explanation of the items in question or an assurance that they would not re-appear.

MR. JACKSON

said, he was sorry to find that his hon. Friend had a new leader, but would endeavour to answer his question. If his hon. Friend compared the present Estimates with those of the last few years he would find that this amount was steadily and continuously diminishing. The country had entered into an obligation to pay the money, which must be discharged, and although the Committee would not think it necessary for him to read them, he had before him the names of the distressed Spaniards who were in receipt of the pensions. Hon. Gentlemen in discussing the Vote had assumed that the money was given to persons who actually rendered service to the country. [Mr. BYRON REED: So it says.] But it might be that it was continued to the descendants or relatives of the distressed Spaniards, of whom two received £2 8s. a-month, and five were in receipt of £2 a-month. He had caused strict and searching inquiry to be made into the question as to whether the proper precautions were taken in the matter, with the result that he found that the payments were not made except on proof of identity, or that the individuals were entitled to receive the money. He had satisfied himself that the payments were made either on life certificate, or on personal application to the Government officer who had been in the habit of making them; but it was highly probable that in the course of a few years these items would altogether disappear from the Estimates.

MR. BYRON REED

said, he was bound to say his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had not quite met his objection. He was perfectly well aware his hon. Friend would be the last Member of the House or of the Government who would perpetuate anything like an anomaly in the shape of perpetual pensions. But his (Mr. Byron Reed's) complaint was that, if the case was as the hon. Gentleman represented—and, of course, the Committee would accept the hon. Gentleman's representation—it was not accurately and adequately expressed in the terms of the Vote, because the terms of the Vote were— For the relief of certain distressed Spanish subjects residing in this country —it did not say out of this country— without the means of subsistence, who were employed with the British Army, or under British Authorities in Spain, or who otherwise rendered service to our military operations in that country during the war from 1808 to 1814. It was no answer to that to say that this was in continuation of payment made to such persons, and he (Mr. Byron Reed) held very properly made. This Committee and the country had a right to know the precise terms upon which the money was voted, and it would not do for the Secretary to the Treasury to say that the money was to be applied to the descendants of persons on behalf of whom the obligation was originally contracted. According to the terms of the Vote before them, it was the original persons themselves who were receiving the relief. It might be that the Vote merely required a verbal Amendment. He had no doubt that was the case, and he was quite prepared with that reservation to accept the explanation his hon. Friend had made.

MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

said, he considered that this item for the relief of Spanish subjects who were employed with the British Army from 1808 to 1814 was a ridiculous one, and that it disgraced the Estimates. There was another item in this Vote which, though a very trivial one, he did not think the House of Commons ought to be called upon to vote. It was the sum of £5 6s. 8d. for "Creation Money payable to the Bursar of Trinity College, Cambridge, for the counties of Cambridge and Hunts." What was the real meaning of it? It was time, in his opinion, that most of these items were cleared off the Estimates.

MR. GILL (Louth, S.)

desired to ask one question before they left this interesting Vote. He wished to know from the Secretary to the Treasury exactly who the Polish refugees were, and also from what they were refugees? [An hon. MEMBER: From Ireland.] Were they gentlemen who, having been engaged in a struggle for Polish independence against Russian power, and having broken the laws of that country by an act of rebellion, were now—

DR. TANNER

, rising to a point of Order, said, he wished to know whether his hon. Friend was within his right in moving what was practically a Vote of Censure on a friendly Power?

MR. GILL

, continuing, said, he would like to know whether this was the case, because it would be a strange fact if the Government of Great Britain, who were now engaged in a most powerful resistance against the Irish people in their constitutional demand for some recognition of their national sentiment, were actually voting, out of the public purse, a sum of money for the purpose of maintaining certain Polish refugees, who had fled from justice in their own country.

MR. PICTON (Leicester)

said, that he should be glad if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would explain the items under Sub-head F. Why should we pay to the Corporation of Berwick for repairs of bridge, £90 9s.? That might be a just charge, but it certainly needed explanation. Then what was meant by the payment of £89 9s. to the Bishop of Sodor and Man, to be distributed among the incumbents and schoolmasters of the Isle of Man? The next item was a more serious one—namely, £1,000 as— Compensation for the loss of the privileges of printing and vending almanacks, originally granted to the Universities by Royal Charter under the Great Seal (44 Geo. III., c. 98). He could not see why we should go on paying £1,000 for what was considered to be a very gross abuse. He had no objection to vote money for the maintenance of seats of learning, but he could not understand why on earth there should be this large compensation paid annually. The other item on which information ought also to be given—namely, £5 6s. 8d., for Creation Money, payable to the Bursar of Trinity College, Cambridge, for the counties of Cambridge and Hunts, had already been referred to.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that with regard to the Polish refugees there was a very extraordinary fact which ought to be taken into account. The allowances were not for the maintenance of Polish refugees in this country, but they were allowances to Poles who might quit the country. The words of the Vote were— Allowances for subsistence, medical expenses, and commutations to Poles who may quit this country, including £25 for medical attendance. He should be extremely glad if the Secretary to the Treasury would explain this extraordinary item.

MR. JACKSON

said, he was afraid he could not give any more information with regard to Sub-head F. than was given in the body of the Vote itself. It was perfectly clear, as hon. Members must be aware, that these items were charges which Parliament had laid upon the Exchequer, and there was no power to get rid of them, except by commutation. It had been suggested that they should be commuted and got rid of, and he entirely agreed with that, and indeed efforts had been made, and the allowances from time to time reduced in number, by reason of some of them being commuted. [An hon. GENTLEMAN: Abolish them.] It was all very well to say they ought to be abolished, but these allowances were debts and obligations, and he was extremely sorry that anybody with any experience should suggest in the House that the State should repudiate its legal obligations. It was quite clear that there was no power to repudiate these obligations. One hon. Member had called attention to the pension to the widow of a French refugee clergyman. At one time there were a number of these pensions, but they had all been commuted except this one. In this case the terms asked for commutation were such that it was not considered to be to the advantage of the State to accept them. Then, the item of £1,000 for compensation for the loss of the privilege of printing and vending almanacks stood precisely in the same position. The privilege of printing almanacks was an old one which the Corporations of the Universities possessed, and he need not say that this charge had been continued under an arrangement made in the interests of the State. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Gill) and others had asked for information concerning the allowances to Polish refugees. He was afraid he could not give very much information upon the subject. No doubt hon. Members might think it somewhat strange if such charges were imposed in these days, but these were very old charges. When the allowances were first made, it was considered by the Government of the day that they were allowances which ought properly to be made. They had been continued by the House of Commons for many years, and he thought it was rather late to raise the question whether we should cease to discharge the legal obligations we had entered into.

DR. CLARK

said, that he tried, some time ago, to get an idea as to the age of the poor Indian who was receiving £6 as commutation for rations, and he was told that he was 115 years old. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had not referred to their old friend, the Indian. Now, by the proposed Universities Bill, the Scotch portion of the compensation for the loss of the privilege of printing almanacks was to pass away. He certainly thought that this compensation ought to be brought to an end some time or another. Again, why should not the Corporation of Berwick repair its own bridge? All the other Corporations had to repair their own bridges, and the cost of repairing the Berwick bridge ought to be placed either upon the new County Council, or upon the Corporation of Berwick. Then the charge of £99 9s. distributed among the incumbents and schoolmasters of the Isle of Man ought surely to be defrayed out of the local taxation of the Isle of Man, out of the school rates or the church rates of the island. He did not think that anything had been said by the Secretary to the Treasury which ought to induce them to vote this money. Were they to understand that the hon. Gentleman would endeavour before next year to get rid of these charges? If full and complete inquiry were made regarding the individuals by whom these monies were claimed, he had no doubt that the Estimates would be relieved of many of these items.

MR. PICTON

said, he felt it his duty to move to reduce the Vote by £1,186, being the total of the items under Subhead F. He did not think that the explanation given had been at all satisfactory; he did not think it was fair to say to the Committee that we were committed to the payment of these items. There ought certainly to be a re-arrangement made. It was playing with the House to ask them to discuss, and then to vote, sums of money which they were told they could not refuse. It was high time all this kind of empty formality was done away with, and therefore he begged to move to reduce the Vote by the total of the items under Sub-head F.

THE CHAIRMAN

There is only £338 left to be voted.

MR. PICTON

Then I beg to move to reduce the Vote by that amount.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman will therefore say "No" to the Question.

MR. BARING (London)

said, that the country could not repudiate obligations deliberately taken upon itself. Indeed, it would be very dangerous to the credit of this country, which was higher than the credit of any other country, if it did even in the smallest manner repudiate its deliberate obligations. On one matter he might, perhaps, throw some light. It was possible that hon. Members did not recollect that the Royalty or Kingship of the Isle of Man was taken over from the Duke of Athol, and that certain bargains were made which must be fulfilled. The Duke of Athol entered into certain conditions. Those conditions he presumed would not last long, but he thought the country ought not to degrade its honour by repudiating them. As to the compensation paid to the Universities, he had no doubt, speaking from experience, that the Universities would be very glad to commute the amount. Indeed, he thought it would be better that all these amounts should be commuted as soon as possible. So long as, however, they were not commuted they must and they should be paid.

MR. PICTON

said, that in order to put himself in Order he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £100 under Sub-head F.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member would be perfectly in Order in saying "No" to the Vote.

MR. PICTON

said, that he would prefer to move a reduction.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £238, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Picton.)

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he could not suppose that Consols would fall and that it would be impossible to issue loans if this £100 were not given to the incumbents and schoolmasters of the Isle of Man. It appeared, according to the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Baring's) proposition, that an engagement was made with the Duke of Athol. It was quite clear that this was a sectarian Vote in the interests of the Church of England, or of the Church of Man, or of Sodor, or of whatever it was. At any rate, he did not think that this was a Vote that the House of Commons, which was not sectarian, but which represented Members of all the different sects, ought to agree to any longer.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

could not allow the Vote to pass without protesting against the doctrine that the country could not abolish these old abuses without commuting the payments made in respect of them. He maintained it was in the power of the House of Commons to abolish any abuse. The mere fact that an abuse had existed for a long period was no reason why it should be continued for ever. It had been said that the allowance to the Bishop of Sodor and Man was made for a valuable consideration, but surely in the case of the compensation to the Universities for the loss of the privilege of printing and vending almanacks there was no valuable consideration. The Committee were unquestionably entitled to disallow these charges.

MR. JACKSON

said, that the Committee was no doubt aware that the privilege of printing and vending almanacks was granted to the Universities by Royal Charter in the Reign of George III. The privilege had been repealed, and the allowances in question were made payable out of the general stamp revenue. They were continued to be made out of the general stamp revenue until 1858, but in that year, under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, they ceased to be defrayed out of that revenue and were charged on the Votes of Parliament. He thought that the House of Commons would be hardly prepared to repudiate the obligation which had been entered into.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM

Why not let the Universities print almanacks again?

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

begged the hon. Gentleman to give the Committee some explanation of the item of £90 9s. which was paid to the Corporation of Berwick. Surely that Corporation ought to be able to repair its own bridges.

MR. JACKSON

said, that the allowance of £90 9s. was made under an old Charter of Charles II., and it was made towards the maintenance of this bridge, which was built by James I. There was a proposal that this charge should be paid out of the gross revenue, but it was on the recommendation of the House of Commons itself that that course was not adopted, and that the item appeared in the Votes laid before Parliament.

MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said, that he was under the necessity of having to vote against the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton). He had no interest in the Corporation of Berwick, still less in the Bishopric of Sodor and Man, but he desired to say that the £1,000 given to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge was given to them under Statute, in compensation for the abolition of a monopoly. It was all very well to say that the Universities might be allowed to print almanacks again, but it must be remembered that there was formerly a monopoly in such printing, and that this was a statutory sum given to them. He would be glad if the sum were commuted, but at present he could not support the Motion his hon. Friend had made.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, that one question was put which had not yet been answered—namely, how it came to pass that they were asked to vote £685 for "Her Majesty's Charities and Bounties to such indigent and necessitous persons as shall be approved of by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury?" If Her Majesty wanted to give charities and bounties, why should she not give them out of her own pocket?

MR. GILL

said, that with regard to the Polish refugees he did not wish it to be understood that he desired to say anything which could hurt the feelings of these patriots. Quite the contrary; his sympathies were entirely with them, and while calling attention to this very anomalous item, and the extraordinary fact that the British Government was engaged in voting money from the Treasury for the support of the refugees, he considered that the matter was highly creditable, both to the British Government and to the Polish refugees. He simply wished to enforce the observation that, when rebels were engaged against a foreign Power, and the nationality for which they were struggling was not a nationality at the Government's own doors, the Government of Great Britain was generous enough to vote money out of the public purse to support them.

DR. TANNER

said, he would appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury to give them information as to the Sub-head to which he had already called attention—namely, Sub-head E. Surely Her Majesty had quite enough money to mete out charity to her distressed subjects in Scotland without her coming upon the Treasury for this small subsidiary Vote?

MR. JACKSON

said, that these were charitable charges which were originally advanced out of the hereditary revenues of Scotland. They were gradually in course of diminution, because as any of them fell out they were not renewed. In 1874 the Treasury issued a Minute in which they stated they would not sanction the award of any new pension from the Queen's Charity Roll, and that they intended, as the existing pensions fell in, the Roll should be reduced and ultimately abolished. The charities wore small sums, never exceeding £10 a-year in any case, and ranging from about £3 or £4 up to £10.

DR. TANNER

asked when the last grant was made?

MR. JACKSON

Certainly not since 1874. The Roll is in process of extinction, for, as I have said, when grants fall in they are not renewed.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.