§ MR. BOWLESI beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can acquaint the House with the exact terms of the Departmental Rule by which the Treasury now interprets the financial limits of its statutory power under Section 7 of the Superannuation Act, 1859, to award to any person retiring or removed from the public service in consequence of the abolition of his office such special annual allowance by way of compensation as on a full consideration of the circumstances of the case may seem to the Treasury Commissioners to be a reasonable and just compensation for the loss of office; whether he can say at what date this rule was first adopted; whether it is applied in the case of Civil servants who 1790 entered the service before that date; whether it has any and, if so, what Parliamentary sanction or authority; and whether, and if so, when and in what form it has been communicated either to the Civil Service or to this House.
§ MR. HOBHOUSEThere are no financial limits on the statutory power of the Treasury under Section 7 of the Superannuation Act, 1859, except the limits imposed by the provisions of that section. In ordinary cases the amount of the special annual allowance by way of compensation for abolition of office does not exceed the amount of superannuation allowance to which the retiring officer would be entitled if his retirement were due to ill-health. This rule is the outcome of a gradual growth of precedents, and it was stated to the House of Commons by Mr. Goschen as long ago as 22nd August, 1889. That statement was made in view of a Resolution by the House of Commons carried against the Government of the day on 12th June, 1888, condemning the grant of such allowances altogether. In considering awards under the section in question, the Treasury has felt bound to have regard to the wishes of the House of Commons as expressed in that Resolution and to the pledge given on behalf of the Executive by Mr. Goschen. The actual amount of the award, however, in each case is settled by the Treasury in virtue of the discretion given them by the section itself after due consideration of the merits of the case. There is no difference of practice as between officers who entered the service prior to, and those who entered the service since, any particular date.
§ MR. BOWLESWas not the pledge given by the Goschen Committee strictly limited to six months, and was there not a promise of legislation at the end of that time?
§ MR. HOBHOUSENot so far as I am aware.