HC Deb 28 November 1890 vol 349 cc185-210
(5.19:) MR.BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I am afraid it is rather an old story with which I have to trouble the House, but I have the satisfaction of knowing that I need not trouble it at any great length, for all I propose to do to-night is simply to ask it to support the position taken up by its own Committee, which sat in 1887. The decision of that Committee was not the decision of a majority, it was the unanimous decision of a Committee having upon it an over-whelming majority of Conservative and Unionist Members. There were eight Members of the Conservative Party, headed by the Attorney General; there were two Liberal Unionists, and five Liberals, as well as two Members of the Irish Party. That portion of the Report upon which I to-night ask the House to express an opinion is a portion on which the Committee was unanimous, and I would suggest that unless the Government have very grave reasons for so doing they should be exceedingly careful about asking the House to depart from that decision. The Report recommends that all offices with salaries, without duties or with merely nominal duties, should be abolished; that existing perpetual and hereditary pensions and allowances should be determined and commuted; that in all cases the method of commutation ought to involve a real, substantial saving to the nation, and that the rate of commutation, usually adopted—namely, 27 years' purchase—is too high. It is the last words I have just read that the Committee affirmed without the slightest disagreement, without any Division, under the sanction of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England and with the concurrences of Members sitting in all quarters of the House, and I now ask this House to re-affirm them. I beg to move— That this House disapproves of so much of the Treasury Minute relating to perpetual pensions, hereditary payments, and allowances as proposes to commute some of such pensions, payments, and allowances at the rate of practically 27 years' purchase. In a Treasury Minute laid upon the Table on July 19th, 1888, the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated that in their opinion the terms on which the Treasury had commuted already involved a saving to the nation, and ought to be adhered to. I am far from denying that any commutation, however extravagant—does involve some saving to the nation; but the Committee, having examined the matter with great care, resolved unanimously that it was not a sufficient saving. I challenged the Government on the matter in 1889, and, before the Motion was brought on, the Secretary to the Treasury laid on the Table a Minute in which he showed that the saving would, by the proposition of the Treasury, be larger than had hitherto been made, because the Government would be able to borrow at 2¾ interest at 99 to the 100. But that Minute was not complete. I do not know why the Secretary to the Treasury omitted from the list certain pensions, but I need not now trouble the House upon that point, as I dealt with it fully on a previous occasion. I propose, however, to cite the case of the Pendrel pensions amounting to £450, as a specimen of the omission—

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON, Leeds, N.)

The Minute is as described by the hon. Member a statement of pensions, allowances, and payments charged on the Exchequer, but the payments, allowances, and pensions to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not so charged, and therefore could not be included in the list.

MR. BRADLAUGH

I am sorry to disagree with the Secretary to the Treasury who, with the greater information at his command, is so much more exact than I can hope to be; but if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Paper handed in by Sir Reginald Welby he will find that, while in point of form he is perfectly exact in what he states, in point of fact these payments form as much a charge upon the nation as any of the other pensions. It is perfectly true that in the original grants many of these pensions were charged in particular ways, such, for instance, as on the Post Office, but they are ultimately chargeable upon the nation. The Pendrel pensions are obtained by stopping the income of property which would otherwise be paid into the Exchequer, and I want to make it plain that there are pensions now payable which do not appear in the list laid on the Table by the Secretary to the Treasury. It is clear it will not do to be governed in our estimate of the saving by the supposition that the sum necessary for the commutation can be borrowed by the Government in 2¾ Consolidated Stock at 99 per cent. Indeed, at the present moment it is perfectly clear that the Government cannot borrow at 2¾ getting 99 per cent. It is wiser not to take figures yielding the highest economy which might be effected, but to take ordinary rates. In 1889 the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very fair promise, which has been fairly carried out, that in future the Treasury, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, would apply different methods of commutation, and the result would be laid on the Table, so that the House might have an opportunity of expressing an opinion before the commutation was carried out. On July 15 last year a Treasury Minute was laid upon the Table with regard to five pensions. As to three of these pensions, I shall have to make very few remarks. The decision of the House will turn on the two closing pensions in this Memorandum. The first is the pension to the Duke of St. Alban's. I will not say very much about that, because it has been much more efficiently dealt with on several occasions in this House by the hon. Member for Stockport, who will do me the honour of seconding this Amendment, and also by the hon. Member for Preston. But one most extraordinary thing is this:—As appears by the Report of the Committee that the sum of £965—a perpetual payment to the Duke of St. Alban's—is made up in this way:— A sum as salary for the Master of the Hawks, a sum for falconers, a sum for hawks, and a sum to provide for pigeons, hens, and other meats for the hawks. It was stated frankly by Sir Reginald Welby that falconers, hawks, and pigeons kept by the Duke there were none. What I have principally to point out is that with regard to the pensions to the Duke of Hamilton and the Marquess of Downshire this distinction is made, namely, that the keeper and the porter in the case of the Duke of Hamilton, and the warders in the case of the Marquess of Downshire, who have been and are actually employed at the present moment, and are in receipt of their salaries; the Treasury say, very properly I think, that these things ought to cease with their lives. But in the case of the falconers' salaries, which are not paid to persons employed as falconers, and of the hawks which do not exist, and of the food for them which is never furnished, these things are to be commuted as perpetual pensions. The word "dishonesty" is one that I should not like to use in this House, but it would appear that there is in the minds of the Treasury an idea that some sort of consideration is to be shown in the case of the falconers' salaries, which are not paid, which is not to be shown in the case of the warders, keepers, and porters who did actually exist in the other case. I hold that this proposal is downright monstrous. I have mentioned these matters in the hope that even at the eleventh hour the Treasury may be induced to take some other view than that which they have hitherto adopted. I do not propose to occupy the time of the House one moment longer on this point, but I would refer any hon. Member who desires any further information on the subject to the examination of Sir Reginald Welby, in which he will see all the facts duly stated. I now come to the real appeal which I desire to make to the House on the subject of the perpetual pensions which are bestowed upon Lord Exmouth and Lord Rodney. I regard these as test cases which ought not only to govern the decision of the House to-night in regard to these two cases, but which should undoubtedly govern the decision of the Treasury as to all other pensions coming within the same category. This would mean about £31,000 a year not commuted and still commutable. It is not desirable that I should trouble the House in regard to any other pensions of this class than these two, and I shall, therefore, confine myself to the cases of Lord Exmouth and Lord Rodney. I do not say that the Treasury have selected what are actually the strongest cases on which to argue this question, although no doubt they have taken two of the strongest cases. The original grantees of the pensions in each case had the grants conferred upon them for life and not in perpetuity; the fact being that they were afterwards made perpetual by the Parliament of the time, and I have now no right to impeach the action that was consequently taken. There were doubtless public services rendered by the ancestors of these persons—naval services which figure in the pages of our history, and which I should be wanting in decorum to attempt to minimise. But I would point out to the House that Lord Rodney and his successors have received no less a sum than £214,000 as the result of those pensions, while Lord Exmouth and his successors have received a total of £152,000. I affirm, therefore, that, however eminent their services may have been, they have been sufficiently recognised and rewarded by the State. The position I now take on this subject is that, keeping my promise and putting the matter on the broadest possible form, I have to point out that the whole subject was carefully examined and inquired into by the Committee, and the Committee unanimously held that not only was the spirit of the present time against this system of perpetual grants, but that all these perpetual pensions should be abolished and got rid of. They held that to commute them on the basis of 26.995 or, putting it roughly, 27 years would be an extravagant waste of public money, and I think that at least some concession might have been made by the Treasury to the opinion of the Committee thus expressed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) represented the Front Bench of the Opposition on that Committee. The Attorney General was there to represent the Government in this matter, and I may state that there was not a difference of opinion, and that even on the part of the Liberal Unionists there was no protest; they were all with us. Indeed, there was not one word of difference; it was a point upon which there was perfect agreement on the part of every Member of the Committee, and I think that, under these circumstances, it is too much for the Treasury to attempt to set the opinion of that Committee on one side. The conclusion they arrived at was not the result of any party or snatch Division; it was the result of mature consideration and reflection. There was no disposition on their part to take the ground which I personally should have been inclined to take, namely, that these people have been over-rewarded and that there ought to be nothing more done for them. On the contrary, a disposition was evinced that there should be fair and reasonable commutation; but it was said, that while there were declarations of misery and distress in the country, and while the House was appealed to on one side and the other to take steps in some way to alleviate this distress, it was an absolute farce to open the purse-string of the nation and allow money to continue to be poured out under a system which every one is agreed ought never to have been originated, and ought not now to continue. I think I should be acting with more wisdom in not detaining the House any further. I trust that this will not be considered a matter on which there is any need of party lines being taken; the Members of the Committee who sat with me through 12 months of the investigation will remember that I did not try in any way to provoke party or any individual hostility in regard to the cases into which I had to examine. I may add that in the evidence taken, in regard to which there was an immense amount of labour, we were greatly assisted by Sir Reginald Welby. There are some of the pensions which cannot now come under the cognizance of the House. I refer to two cases, one of which might well result in the early reversion of lands, which I believe will be of great value to the country; while in the other, though the reversion is more problematical, the lands are still of some considerable value. I say that the Government ought not to have administered to the Committee the slap in the face they have given by the manner in which they have treated its recommendations. To say that the conclusions arrived at by that Committee amount to nothing is a little too much, seeing that their own Attorney General was a member of that body. If this had been a Radical Committee, or a Committee with a Radical majority who had thrust their conclusions down the throats of the minority, I could understand the Government disregarding their views; but as that is not the case, I ask the Government not to make this matter a Party question. I am not at all inclined to cast any censure on Her Majesty's Government, because they are only doing what other Governments on both sides have done, and, therefore, criticism on one Government would be criticism on the other; but, at the same time, I would point out that this perpetual pension system is condemned by the country, and I do therefore ask the House to act in accord with its own Committee, and to endorse the recommendations they have arrived at on the subject.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House disapproves of so much of the Treasury Minute relating to Perpetual Pensions, Hereditary Payments, and Allowances as proposes to commute some of such Pensions, Payments, and Allowances at the rate of practically 27 years' purchase,"—(Mr. Bradlaugh,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

٭(5.38.) MR. JENNINGS (Stockport)

I rise, Sir, for the purpose of seconding the Resolution moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, and I do so on the ground that the Resolution does nothing more than seek to carry out the recommendations of the Committee, who were entirely unanimous in making those recommendations to the House. As a member of that Committee, I may say that we searched carefully into every case, and inquired into every circumstance connected with it. Sir Reginald Welby afforded us a great deal of information regarding these circumstances. Having all the facts before them, the Committee recommended the House to terminate these perpetual pensions, and also to take into consideration the circumstances under which the several pensions were originally granted in arriving at a decision on the question of commutation. As far as the Report of the Committee is concerned, their recommendations have been entirely set aside by the Treasury Minute which has been laid upon the Table of the House. Had the circumstances under which the pensions were originally granted been taken into account, the House would hardly now be advised to commute the pension of the Master of the Hawks on the basis of 19½ or 20 years' purchase. Some of those perpetual pensions were more or less scandalous in their origin and nature, and I cannot but regard them as being a disgrace to the country. They were, for the most part, granted at a time when the public funds were regarded in the light of their own private property by persons occupying distinguished positions, and under this assumption they were distributed among the friends and acquaintances of those individuals in whatever manner they deemed proper. The worst of these cases is, no doubt, that of the Master of the Hawks. The hon. Member opposite has gone carefully into that case, and in so doing has abstained from using anything like strong language, but, for my own part, I do not hesitate to say that that pension has been received for many years under circumstances which amount to nothing less than a fraud upon the country. The money was originally given for certain specific purposes, and it was to be divided among certain individuals, distinctly designated in the Warrant. Those persons have, however, long since disappeared, if, indeed, they ever had any existence at all, and the money which was intended to be applied to a distinct purpose has found its way into pockets it was never intended to reach. The whole system has been one of fraud and wrong from first to last. I think that if the House were to commute this pension on the basis of only ten years' purchase it would be far too liberal an arrangement. If you were to take the opinion of the taxpayers of the country, I think you would find that they would not be disposed to give even ten weeks' purchase. They would say the pension has gone on too long already. With regard, however, to the Treasury, I admit that there is a legal claim upon them for the payment of the money, but I think they might have made a much better bargain for the country than they have proposed in suggesting a commutation on the basis of 19½ years' purchase. If the Treasury had intimated to the recipient of the pension that there existed a strong feeling on the part of the Committee against it, and a strong feeling also on the part of the House against it, it is very probable that much easier terms would have been obtained than those the country is now asked to accept. I think the House should remember that most of those pensions have been conferred in cases where no services whatever have been rendered, while in other cases the services that have been rendered have been of a highly scandalous and disgraceful character. We all know that Charles II. was a man who took things very easily, but I should say that that Monarch never imagined, even in his wildest dreams, that the British taxpayer would, in the year 1890, still be paying £965 a year to a descendant of Nell Gwynne's. For my own part, I do not hesitate to say that were it within my power I would stop the pension at once and pay no commutation at all. The country has been robbed enough, and the robbery should now cease. Had the House been aware that this subject was to arise to-night, it might not have been too much to ask Members to look at the brief Report of the Committee who set forth the facts. I venture to ask the House to consider, whatever may be the case made out by the Treasury on behalf of these pensions to-night, that the Attorney General sat on the Committee, and I believe also the Secretary to the Treasury.

MR. JACKSON

No.

MR. JENNINGS

Well, the Attorney General as representing the Government. All the objections which we shall hear to-night have been raised since the Attorney General agreed to the recommendations of the Committee. I venture to think that it is a little late in the day to put aside the facts and reasons which guided the Committee, whose decision, considering the whole of the facts, is worthy the support of the House. In these days nobody sympathises with paying a way the tax-payers' money merely because it is handed to the descendant of some King who never rendered any service to the country that I ever heard of. If the House supports the recommendation of the Committee, it will offer encouragement to Members to give their time to Committees, because they will have the knowledge that they will not make Reports merely to be thrown overboard by the Treasury. I hope the House will not hesitate to assent to the Resolution.

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member who has just sat down has said that it would be poor encouragement to Members to serve on Committees, if the proceedings of these Committees had no influence upon the Executive Government; but I can assure him, and I can assure the House, that the proceedings of the Committee had a considerable effect, and the very Minute now before the House shows that is the case. Various suggestions were made, one that all existing pensions should in time be brought to an end. We are endeavouring to bring about that result, but I will prove to the House how difficult it is to combine that recommendation with the subsequent recommendation, that the usual basis of 27 years' purchase is too high. The only way of getting rid of these pensions, unless our terms are voluntarily accepted by the pensioners, would be to bring in an Act of Parliament to compel the holders of pensions to accept arbitrary terms. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, while it is my duty to promote as far as possible the interests of the Exchequer, I have also to act as guardian of the public faith. The Committee did not go the length of saying that if we could not induce persons to commute at 27 years their pensions ought to be compulsorily commuted. Now I wish to ask Members whether, in cases where a grant of land has been made it is to remain in the hands of the descendants of the original grantee, and not to be resumed, while a money grant may at any moment be the subject of discussion in Parliament.

MR. BRADLAUGH

Hear, hear. Lands have been resumed by Parliament, and this repeatedly.

MR. GOSCHEN

I should be glad to learn that such a case has occurred within what I may call modern practice. I do not know whether the hon. Member goes so far, having succeeded with regard to perpetual pensions, as to make an attack on some of the lands which have been granted under circumstances perhaps no more creditable than those under which money pensions have been granted. But the hon. Gentleman suggests that we have not done sufficient as regards the recommendations of the Committee. We have looked into special cases, and as a result of the Report of the Committee we have made better terms in some of them than in any of the cases which have gone before. Previously all commutations took place at 27 years' purchase, and looking into special cases we have commuted on different and far more advantageous terms. I advised with the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether these grants and allowances were legally binding, and we were informed that they were legally binding. We have endeavoured, at the same time, to bring about that which the Committee desired and represented, namely, the abolition of perpetual pensions. We have accordingly negotiated with some of the recipients of those pensions, and we have commuted on far better terms than has ever been done before. With regard to the Keeper of the Hawks, my hon. Friend spoke as if the whole of the pension was due to the keeping of the hawks, but a portion of it was a perpetual pension standing on the same footing as other pensions. In all these cases we have endeavoured to make the best terms we could. My hon. Friend suggests that we ought to have informed the recipients of the public feeling with regard to them. I think they have had ample opportunity of reading the speeches of my hon. Friend and of the hon. Member for Northampton, and they know the feeling of the House of Commons. It is, no doubt, in consequence of their knowing that feeling that they have consented to the terms which we now propose. Hon. Members are aware that we have no power to stop these perpetual pensions, unless by Act of Parliament. But that is not the recommendation of the Committee. The Committee never faced that. They have not said that Parliament should say, "We will break faith." They have stopped short at that. We have endeavoured to negotiate in such a manner as to lighten the burdens which these pensions throw on the people, and do something which is recommended by the Committee. The Committee recommend that in all these cases we ought to ensure a real and substantial saving to the nation. I can tell the Committee what has been done in the two special cases referred to in the Resolution of the hon. Member. If we were to take the Consols value of each of their pensions of £2,000 a year, their value would be £75,000; their value at which we have commuted them is £54,000—a saving of £21,000 between the legal value and that which we have given, or 28 per cent. of the legal value. That may fairly be said to be a substantial saving to the nation. The hon. Member says that all these matters were known to the Committee, but some of the circumstances were not known to the Committee. I do not think it was brought before the Committee that negotiations were going on with regard to these two cases. I do not insist on that to any great extent, but it will, at all events, account to the hon. Member why these two cases are now brought forward.

MR. BRADLAUGH

Sir Reginald Welby stated that he hoped I would not press for the names, as the negotiations were going on, and they had been suspended in consequence of the appointment of the Committee.

MR. GOSCHEN

If the names had been pressed for, the matter might have been discussed by the Committee. I wish the hon. Gentleman had pressed for the names, because in the eyes of the Committee and in the eyes of the public a strong case has been prejudiced by a weak case. The recommendation simply states in general terms that the rate of 27 years is too high. It takes no account of good cases or bad cases. Now the hon. Member takes two of the strongest cases for fair consideration, those of Lord Exmouth and Lord Rodney, and asks the House not to sanction 27 years' purchase. But there is one circumstance which should have weight with Members of the House. Since the Committee sat, the rate of interest on Consols has been reduced, so that 27 years' purchase now represents considerably less cost to the nation than it did when the Committee sat. Therefore, the substantial saving to the nation will be greater now than it was before. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Mundella) knows that the price of Consols regulates the commutation, and those who commute their pensions now will receive less than they would have done at the time the Committee sat. This 27 years' arrangement is more beneficial to the public and less beneficial to the holders of pensions than it was at the time the Committee sat. So that there is the less reason to declare that the rate of commutation was condemned by the Committee. I am sure the hon. Member for Northampton would not have attacked these two pensions unless he had thought they would govern all the other pensions. We do not admit that these two pensions would govern the whole of the rest.

MR. BRADLAUGH

I suggested that £214,000 in one case, and £156,000 in the other, already received, constituted sufficient reward.

MR. GOSCHEN

That is a different point. The hon. Member objects to 27 years, because he thinks that if we adopt that proposal we shall set up a standard for the remainder of the pensions. We do not hold that that would be the case. We accept the view of the Committee that each case should be inquired into on its merits. Formerly all these cases were dealt with alike, but now the Government are inquiring into every case, and the Minute now before the House shows that out of five cases mentioned in it, in two only is 27 years' purchase proposed, while in the other three cases 19, 22, and 25 years' purchase are proposed. The hon. Member for Northampton asks us to disapprove of the commutation of Lord Exmouth's and Lord Rodney's pensions at 27 years. If the pensions are not commuted on these terms, to which the holders agree, what is to be done? Are we to bring in a Bill as regards these two pensions, and say to the holders that, although the faith of the nation has been pledged by Act of Parliament to the descendants of those two gallant officers, we will now arbitrarily fix the number of years' purchase at which their pensions shall be commuted? I must say that while I shall be always prepared to commute all pensions on terms as favourable as possible to the nation, I am not prepared to bring in a Bill to terminate a particular pension in an arbitrary manner. Without wishing to set up a standard to be followed in other cases, I would ask the House not to come to any determination that will stop the commutation of these two pensions —a commutation which, as now agreed upon, will be extremely beneficial to the nation—nor to make it necessary to bring in a Bill which will set aside the public faith. We have largely acted on the advice of the Committee, and we shall endeavour in all future instances to study the circumstances of each particular case, but, at the same time, to have regard to the fact, that these pensions are legally binding on us, and certainly I shall not be the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring in a Bill to terminate an arrangement made with the consent of Parliament.

(6.5.) SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)

I confess I have not been able to follow the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that 27 years is not to be a standard by which the Treasury will be governed. No man who has listened to his speech can fail to see that if the holder of a pension refuses to take less than the 27 years' purchase, he is entitled to have it, and the Treasury must give it him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech has made 27 years the standard. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Treasury are bound to give 27 years if the holder will not take less. Why, then, having so admirable an advocate as the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he is entitled legally to 27 years, should a holder take less?

MR. GOSCHEN

They have taken less.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Yes, but that was perhaps before they had heard so admirable an argument as that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A more conclusive argument why the holders should insist on 27 years it is impossible to conceive, because it amounts to this: ''If you will only hold out for 27 years I must give it you, and I beg you will do so." That is not what they call wisdom in the City, and I am quite sure that in other matters the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not deal with a money transaction on that footing. It is quite true that transactions in regard to these pensions in past times cannot be defended, and that the principle of commutation in past times cannot be justified. It is greatly due to the exertions of the hon. Member for Northampton that the matter has attracted much public attention. The Government consulted the opinion of a powerful Committee—which is a sort of microcosm of Members of this House, and which is representative of the taxpayer—as to what should be done in this matter. Having received the Report of that Committee, the Executive Government fly in its face. I say that is not a legitimate way of dealing with the question. I cannot understand the course the Government have taken. I should have thought that what they most would have desired would have been to be relieved of responsibility in so difficult a matter as this. The Committee took the responsibility on themselves. They told the Government they ought not to take 27 years as the figure, and yet the Treasury fly in the face of that opinion, and propose to give, in certain cases at least, terms not in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee. That seems to me a very independent course. I think the pension of the Master of the Hawks is a most indefensible pension. I was astonished at the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the point. He said he split that pension up into two. One part he regarded as standing on a personal footing, and the other as being in the nature of allowances. For the allowances he gave 11 years' purchase.

MR. GOSCHEN

We were advised—and the former Law Officers were of the same opinion—that these allowances, though they shock the right hon. Gentleman, were legally binding on us, and we now propose to get rid of an obligation legally binding on us perpetually at 11 years' purchase.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Oh, I quite understand that. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer was shocked to the extent of 11 years' purchase. He was so shocked that, instead of giving 27 years' purchase, he gave 11 years'. I do not see why allowances of this kind should be taken into consideration at all. I have the greatest respect for the opinion of the Law Officers, but I think the tax-payers are perfectly competent to form an opinion. If a pension has been given to a man for rendering services which he does not render, that is a point on which the public can make up their minds. The right hon. Gentleman was very much shocked at the notion of bringing in a Bill, but has he never heard of commutation of freehold offices on a fair basis? Transactions of that kind, I believe, have not been unfrequent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should have gone to the recipients of the pensions, and said, "A representative Committee of the House of Commons has laid down a certain scale, beyond which we cannot go; and if you are not content with that scale, we will take the opinion of the House of Commons in the form of a Bill." That would have been a perfectly legitimate position to take up. Why did you appoint a Committee when you did not act on their opinion?

MR. GOSCHEN

We did act upon it largely.

SIR W. HARCOURT

You acted upon it largely! You ought to have acted upon it altogether. Having asked the deliberate opinion of a Committee of the House upon the question, you ought to have told the pensioners that you would act upon their Report, and, if they refused to accept it, that you would ask Parliament for authority to enforce it. That would have been a reasonable and fair method of dealing with this question. I, for one, should heartily support the Motion.

(6.15.) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER, Isle of Wight)

I should not have intervened in this Debate but for two causes. In the first place, very prominent reference has been made to me in the matter by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), and, in the second place, we have heard a very extraordinary speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt). The Motion before the House has reference to a certain Treasury Minute. Two only of the pensions therein proposed to be commuted are complained of—Lord Rodney's and Lord Exmouth's—and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby would have been better advised had he consulted the terms of the Minute and made himself acquainted with the facts of the case before he attacked my right hon. Friend. The Motion is directed only to that portion of the Minute which relates to the two pensions proposed to be commuted at about 27 years' purchase. A great deal has been said about my own position. I am free to admit that, had I known what I now know with regard to the actual facts respecting the two pensions complained of, I would have opposed more strenuously than I did the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton. In a moment I will point out that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby did not do justice to the position in this respect of the Treasury authorities, whom he has described as flying in the face of the Report. It was originally proposed that the Report should state that the rate of commutation usually given—namely, about 27 years—was "far too high." It was pointed out by myself and others that we had not before us the particular circumstances in which the various commutations had taken place, but only the gross figures, although I did not shrink from saying that in many cases 27 years was too high a rate. The words of the paragraph were therefore altered from "the rate has been far too high" to the words "the rate is too high." For reasons which I think were fair, no special case was gone into, and the two cases now attacked were not gone into before the Committee.

MR. BRADLAUGH

The hon. and learned Gentleman must pardon me. We had the exact facts before us. The only thing the hon. and learned Gentleman objected to was the specifying in the Report the particular cases, but the full particulars were given in the Appendix.

SIR R. WEBSTER

The hon. Member is really interrupting not at all with reference to the point on which I am speaking. What I say is that the circumstances under which anything had taken place with regard to the commutation of these pensions was not before the Committee. The pensions of Lord Rodney and Lord Exmouth were before the Committee in this sense only, that they were known to be for services, and, what is much more important, they were ratified by Parliament in 1782 and 1814, so that the House has by Act of Parliament recognised them as being payable for ever at the rate of about £2,000 a year. I am not ashamed to say that if I had thought that the paragraph about the rate of commutation was going to be used in this House as an argument for saying that the rate of commutation of these two pensions was too high, I certainly should not have assented to the proposition. It was because I was aware there were differences of circumstances that I assented to the words. It may be I ought not to have assented to them, but I thought they did represent the meaning I now attribute to them, namely, that it was a high rate, unless there were special circumstances. But there is another point which I now know, and which, I regret, has not been gone into more fully—namely, that in 1885, before that Committee had sat, Lord Rodney had practically agreed to a commutation upon these terms at the instance of the Treasury Authorities, and the same was the case with regard to Lord Exmouth. Therefore, their claims would not have only rested upon statutory authority, but by reason of negotiations with the Treasury Authorities there was in equity, if not in law, a bargain that the commutation should be carried out on those terms. I think, therefore, that it is not just to say with regard to these two pensions that the Treasury are flying in the face of the Report. With regard to other matters, in my opinion, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has, I am sure unintentionally, been unjust to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not correct to say that the Treasury has not regarded the Report or its recommendations. The matter came before me in order that I might see how far it could legally be carried out, and, so far from the Report being disregarded, every case has been examined specially in order to ascertain its legal position. There is another matter which was not before the Committee, but which should be mentioned here. In not a few cases the claimants—the persons now receiving the pensions—were purchasers for value of the original pension; that is to say, they had invested money on the faith of sometimes a State and sometimes a Parliamentary bargain. I do not believe that anyone would wish to save his money as a taxpayer by breaking a contract made on the faith of the nation. With regard to this Treasury Minute, I appeal to the common sense of those present. I go so far as to say that in the case of Lord Rodney and Lord Exmouth, if the country is going to keep faith, if this House is going to keep faith, a less figure could not with propriety be adopted. It is wholly unjust to generalise from these two cases. I maintain that the Treasury has carried out the recommendations of the Committee, that they have done all they could consistently with the good faith of the nation, and I for one decline to be a party to anything amounting to a breach of faith in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has suggested that an Act of Parliament might have been brought in. For my own part, I can only say that any idea of compulsion was never presented to or discussed by the Committee at all. What was discussed was that there was power to commute these pensions, and that under ordinary circumstances the rate established would be regarded as being more than ought to be paid. But I say if there was to be compulsion, if a Bill was to be brought in, then in order to form a right judgment each particular case should be decided on its merits. With regard to the obligation of paying these pensions, it does not depend upon the opinion of particular Law Officers. It is a matter which, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian well remembers, has been considered for years gone by by successions of Law Officers, and it has only been when the legal authority of a pension has been proved to be established, that the Treasury has found it necessary to commute at a high rate. I do respectfully protest against the suggestion that the Government have flown in the face of the Report. On the contrary, they have, as far as possible, consistently with the faith of the country, given effect to every paragraph of it.

٭(6.27.) MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)

As I was Chairman of the Committee, I must take exception to some of the statements just made by the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the question of compulsion as applied to the determination of perpetual pensions was never considered by the Committee. Does he mean to say the Committee left it entirely to the option of the Master of the Hawks whether his pension should be commuted or not? What was in the mind of the Committee was that the Government should act upon the Committee's recommendation, and that recommendation was That all existing perpetual pensions, allowances, and payments, and all hereditary offices should be determined and abolished, not at the will of the recipients, but at the will of this House. The Committee felt that if an Act of Parliament were required to determine and abolish perpetual pensions, the Government should bring in the Bill, such a scandal did most of the pensions present. There were only five Members from the Opposition side of the House to ten Conservatives on the Committee, and I think it is to the credit of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the feeling against the continuance of the present system is quite as strong on their part as on the part of the Liberal Members. With respect to the pension of the Master of the Hawks, if the argument of the Attorney General is to be maintained, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right, we have no right to determine the pension without the voluntary consent of the Master of the Hawks. It is thought that at 11 years' purchase the commutation is very moderate. What are the facts? Within living memory a certain sum was to be paid annually for hawks, for meat, and for service. All these things have been taken as part of the income of the Master of the Hawks. No hawks, meat, or service have been provided, and yet the Attorney General takes credit for a commutation at 11 years' purchase.

MR. GOSCHEN

The right lion. Gentleman and his friends had been paying it for the last 20 years.

MR. MUNDELLA

Yes, but there was no Report of a Committee 20 years ago. The Committee made a Report on the point to the House, and it was understood that the Government would obey the behest of the Committee. If there is any force in the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it would be a breach of public faith to carry out the recommendation of the Committee, but we do not believe there would be a breach of public faith in carrying out that recommendation. We believe the whole system of perpetual pensions, even for good services rendered at remote periods, is in itself a vicious system. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer argues that the reduction of the rate of Consols entitles the owners of these pensions to receive larger rather than smaller sums, surely that is an argument that cannot be maintained, for the right hon. Gentleman must know that some of the persons purchased these pensions years ago when the rates were very different to the rates now, and the argument cuts as much one way as the other. In respect to this particular recommendation the Attorney General says he should have more strenuously opposed it if he had known some things that have since been brought to his knowledge. Now, I have in my hand the original draft of the Report as submitted by the hon. Member for Northampton, and this original draft stated that 27 years was "far too high." The Committee agreed to this draft, the only objection being in a suggestion made by the Attorney General that as the question had not been inquired into before it would seem too severe a censure on the Treasury—a retrospective censure on the Treasury—to use the word "far." "Let us leave out 'far,'" he said, "and say that 27 years is too high." I am bound to say we had all the pensions before us; we knew that some were for meritorious service at a distant date, and some were for scandalous disservices at a distant date; we held the opinion that 27 years was far too high, and I think it was the duty of the Government, had there been no other method of proceeding open to them, to bring in a Bill for the commutation and determination of all perpetual pensions, and to state in that Bill the terms upon which they were prepared to commute pensions. If this intention had been communicated to the recipients of the pensions, I believe there would have been no occasion for a Bill.

SIR R. WEBSTER

If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment—there was a proposal made in the Report that pensions should be compulsorily commuted, and this was struck out—negatived by the Committee.

MR. MUNDELLA

But what does the Attorney General understand by the paragraph in the Report which declares that all existing perpetual pensions, allowances, payments, and hereditary offices should be determined and abolished?

(6.35.) DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I regret very much that the hon. Member for Northampton should have introduced his Motion in this form with reference to 27 years' purchase, because, practically, it is only directed to the pensions granted to Lords Exmouth and Rodney, and does not touch the worst cases—the payments to the Duke of St. Alban's, the Duke of Hamilton, and the Marquess of Downshire. Now, on the last occasion when this subject was before us, I wanted to move an Amendment against the worst cases, but unfortunately I was not allowed to do so. I cannot see that the pensioners have much to complain of in the action of the hon. Member for Northampton, and really I think he deserves a testimonial from those who are interested. He has gone for the principle of commutation, and, with all deference, I think if this is fair Parliament ought not to haggle about giving a few years' purchase, more or less. So far as the pensions to Lord Exmouth and Lord Rodney are concerned, their pensions were deserved, and you are going to buy them out by fair treaty. I think these cases will compare very favourably with other cases of pensions commuted by the late Government when our Deputy Speaker (Mr. Courtney) was Secretary to the Treasury. As you have been paying at the rate of 27 years, and if the hon. Member for Northampton considers the proper method of determining these pensions is by commutation, I think you cannot get off with much less unless you introduce some new principle. I have been against commutation. Parliament has determined that some pensions shall be perpetual, and Parliament may determine that some shall cease. I do not think that the unborn have any rights. Those living have certain rights, and probably if you take these rights away you ought to give compensation, but Parliament may determine in the exercise of its power that no child shall be born the inheritor of these special privileges. I, for one, think if we are going to get rid of perpetual pensions, the best method is either to permit the living lineal descendants of great Admirals and Generals who in the past saved the country and assisted to make her what she is to enjoy these pensions during their lives, and to declare that with these lives the pensions shall cease, or to pay a fair price down, which is 27 years' purchase. The first would be a conservative method of putting an end to the pensions; your present method of making them perpetual at the cost of the present generation I object to very much. I do not see why the present generation should pay the whole cost. Technically, we are only discussing that portion of the Minute which affects the commutation at 27 years' purchase, but I fail to see why the hon. Member for Northampton should complain of these two cases. He can complain of the other three cases, but, technically, they do not come under his Motion, because 27 years' purchase is not the offer in those cases. The first and typical case is that of the Duke of St. Alban's. I do not think the hon. Member for Northampton represents the view of the Radical Party in this matter at all any more than on other points he does.

MR. BRADLAUGH

I am sure I am very glad.

DR. CLARK

I am sorry that on the last occasion when this question came up and I uttered these sentiments, the hon. Member was not present, and the report did not correctly represent what occurred. So far as over a million is concerned—because there is £600,000 now held by Trustees for the Duke of Richmond, and I think half a million more for the Duke of Richmond—these gentlemen hold these sums because the pensions were granted to heirs male, and, these failing, the amounts will return to the Treasury—

MR. BRADLAUGH

If the hon. Member will read the Report he will find the exact opposite to what he is saying.

DR. CLARK

I am talking from the results of several Committees. I am not referring to the late Committee, but to three or four Committees, and the conditions under which pensions were commuted. I may be corrected, but I think that is the case. The payment to the Duke of St. Alban's is on a par with these pensions, and you are commuting the pension which was to be paid to him perpetually as Master of the Hawks. Now, I do not see that any moral crime attaches to a country by reason of the fact that a particular leader has committed a serious social offence, but surely it is much more serious if you put upon generation after generation payment for the fruits of debauchery and adultery. I do not think it shows a high tone of honour in a nation to pay thousands year by year as the fruit of debauchery and adultery. Here is a perpetual pension paid to the Duke of St. Alban's simply because one of his female ancestors was frail and adultery was committed. For this the country has been put to perpetual expense. Really I think there should be a prosecution of the Lords of the Treasury and the Duke for making and receiving payments under false pretences. The pension was granted for keeping and feeding hawks, but the hawks do not exist, the feeding is not required, and still the Treasury permitted the man to continue to draw the money under false pretences; and now you are doing more—condoning the original offence and granting 19 years' purchase. Why, many a poor man under such circumstances would find himself in Bow Street Police Court. So far as the cases of Lord Exmouth and Lord Rodney are concerned, there is much to be said; but the other three cases are utterly indefensible. You might apply the principle applied in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath," and say the advantages having been enjoyed so long should content the recipients; but it seems this, though applied to tenants whose rights are stolen, is not recognised in these cases. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite right; we have to go beyond the point touched by the Committee; it is time we should abolish pensions that have a disgraceful origin, and we are not upon any principle of justice bound to give compensation where no services have been rendered.

(6.45.) MR. PHILIPPS (Lanark, Mid)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a point of the Government having made better terms with the pensioners than any Government before them; but surely if the pensioners are on the same footing as other holders of such privileges, they should have equally good terms. Government perpetual annuities are known to be worth considerably over 33 years' purchase; and if the Government have made a bargain for 27 years', it is obvious that the recipients believe there is something very different between the basis of their privileges and that of other annuities. It is well-known that this property is becoming more insecure every day, these pensions are getting worth less, because public opinion is being aroused as to their origin, and nobody has done more to arouse this public opinion than the hon. Member for Northampton. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts us in this dilemma: if we are not to commute on the best terms we can get from the pensioners, are we to do nothing, or bring in a Bill to pay a reduced sum? Of course, we should prefer a Bill to pay a very much reduced sum. We cannot expect that, but we may fairly ask the Government to wait. We know what the influence of public opinion has been; let the Chancellor of the Exchequer give more time, and we will develop public opinion a little further. We are all supposed to be guardians of the public purse, not of the privileges of the pensioners. I say if we only wait a short time, and let public opinion declare itself, pensioners will be glad to take a sum very far short of 27 years' purchase.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

(6.48.) The House divided:—Ayes 185; Noes 152.—(Div. List, No. 3.)

Original Question again proposed.

Back to