Sitting of 5 March 1873

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS$Ordered—First Reading—Weights and Measures (Metric System)* [90].
Second Reading—Municipal Officers Superannuation [6]; Salmon Fisheries [19]; Railways Provisional Certificate* [78].
Committee—Report—Marriages (Ireland)* [68].

MUNICIPAL OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION BILL— [BILL 6.]
(Mr. Rathbone, Mr. Massey, Mr. Birley, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Morley, M. Cross.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Rathbone.)
MR. FIELDENmoved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The system of pensions had for a long time been universally condemned by public writers, such as Cobbett; but of late the term "pension" had been changed to the milder form of "superannuation allowances." The system was most pernicious; for public servants, instead of acting as free men on receiving a fair remuneration for their services, trusted to being provided for in their old age, instead of providing for themselves. They were, in fact, what Dr. Johnson had described them, "hirelings of the State." If they looked at the way in which the Superannuation Fund had grown of late years, and to the effect of the superannuation or pension system—for they were identical—with regard to the nation, they would feel that it was not desirable to extend it further, but rather that they should give their attention to the best mode of striking at its root. The superannuation allowance of the State amounted in 1845 to £80,300 per annum; in 1850, it had increased to £108,768; in 1860, to £177,713; in 1870, to £338,377; and in 1872, according to the Estimates of last year, it had increased to the enormous amount of £1415,677. The tendency of all Governments on coming into power was to find places for their hangers-on — those who voted steadily for them—and the mode of operation was by reconstructing offices, when the holders of office who were in the prime of life and capable of discharging their duties efficiently to the State, instead of being transferred to some other Department, were compensated for the loss of their emoluments. The increase in the Superannuation Fund from 1845 was—in 1850, 35 per cent; in 1860, 121 per cent; in 1870, 300 per cent; and in 1872, 420 per cent. The House ought to pause before they did anything to-

1367
wards introducing this vicious system to municipal corporations. If this Bill passed, municipal corporations would reduce the salaries of their officers, and, of course, would be worse served; and if, in addition to the £500,000 already spent per year in pensioning public servants, we were to spend money in pensioning municipal officers also, the burden would soon become unbearable and intolerable. Such a burden would tend to reduce the poorer ratepayers to actual paupers. And if the principle of this Bill were generally adopted, would it not be consistent to pension our agricultural labourers who had no means of providing for old age, and who, in the time of their strength, had conferred great benefits upon the country? The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment.
MR. MELLOR,in seconding the Amendment, said, that he believed if such a Bill as this should come fully into operation it would increase the burden on account of pensions by one-third. The Estimates of last year showed that the sum voted for pensions amounted to 25 per cent upon the whole amount paid for services rendered in the Departments. In the Paymaster General's Office, indeed, the state of affairs was still worse, because there the amount paid for salaries as compared with that paid for pensions was as 12 s. 9d. was to 7s. It would be most unfortunate that a system which had worked so badly in the public service should be introduced into every borough in the kingdom.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Joshua Fielden.)
MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he thought that municipal officers should be well paid for their services as long as they continued in office; but that when they retired they should be expected to provide for themselves. That was the principle upon which he acted himself, and he saw no necessity for changing it.
MR. RATHBONEsaid, his Bill was only permissive; but he believed that the superannuation of municipal officers would be beneficial to the public by preventing losses arising from the retention of office in cases in which retirement was desirable. The Bill contained a provision enabling the municipal autho-
1368
rities, in the case of new appointments, to arrange with the officers that they should lay by a certain proportion of their salaries to go towards providing superannuation allowances. He hoped the House would be of opinion that these large bodies, to whom such important duties were entrusted, understood their business, and that they might safely be entrusted with a power which was already vested in a great many public Departments in the country. He brought forward the Bill in the interests of the taxpayers at large, believing that if it was carried, its effect would be materially to reduce the rates.
MR. WYKEHAM-MARTINsaid, he should vote for the second reading. The Bill was extremely well drawn, and he did not see how any job could possibly be perpetrated in the event of its becoming law.
MR. LOPESsaid, it was not to the details, but to the principle of the measure that he objected. It was a most dangerous principle to introduce, as it would be found impossible to restrict its application to municipal bodies. He feared that if the Bill should become law it would augment the heavy burdens already cast upon the ratepayers. He should therefore vote against the second reading.
MR. RYLANDS,while admitting that the Amendments he had proposed in the Bill last year had been introduced into it, said, his objection to it remained almost as strong as ever, because the principle which it laid down was a vicious one. As the question of superannuation allowances generally was likely to form the subject of investigation by the Select Committee on Civil Service Expenditure, he hoped the Government would not give its support to a measure of this character, which would only add to the difficulty of dealing with the general question. He believed that the system of granting retiring allowances would have, sooner or later, to be uprooted, because it was unjust to the taxpayers and vicious in the influence it exerted on public officers. No additional burden ought to be placed upon the taxpayers unless it was for the advantage of the taxpayers.
MR. SALTconsidered that, on the whole, the arguments were in favour of the second reading; but he thought, if there was to be a superannuation fund

1369
for municipal officers, it should come out of the local rates. The measure would be a very useful one if it were modified.
MR. DICKINSONbelieved that no preceding Parliament had done so much in the way of providing pensions for retiring officers as the present so-called economical one. He had no objection to a person retiring from office after long and faithful services, either from old age or ill health, having a moderate pension allowed him, having regard to his condition of life and the nature of his office. But it appeared to him that the pensions provided under this Bill, which adopted the Civil Service scale of pensions, were far too high, and encouraged a want of thrift in the officials to whom it applied. He objected to the permissive character of the Bill. If a man earned a pension let him have it. But a service of 10 years was too short to entitle a man to a pension, though he had become infirm. It was said that part of the Bill which enabled municipal corporations to grant to their officers pensions amounting to two-thirds of their salaries was justified by the conduct of private employers towards their servants; but private employers did not grant pensions at all approaching that amount. He viewed the superannuation system proposed by this Bill as one framed in the interest of the rich, or as a kind of Poor Law for the higher class of officials.
MR. E. WELLSsupported the Amendment, on the ground that the Bill was likely to increase the burdens of the already heavily-taxed ratepayers.
MR. ASSIIETON CROSSdenied that the measure would have the effect of increasing the burdens of the ratepayers. The question really involved was one which no hon. Gentleman had as yet alluded to—namely, how they could secure on the part of the ratepayers the best possible services for the smallest amount of money. They must select one of two courses—either to give their officials larger salaries, and tell them that when they become unable to perform their duties they should retire without any allowance, or to give them lower salaries, and let them know that if they performed their duties faithfully, and were obliged to retire from old age or ill-health, they would be allowed a certain pension. Now, he believed that the latter course was by far the more
1370
preferable one, that by pursuing it they would get better men, and that in the end it would be the more economical one, both as regarded the Government and the ratepayers. In many cases, in consequence of death or retirement from service, no pension would have to be paid. It appeared to him to be absurd to suppose that this measure would prove an incentive to men to abstain from work or act improvidently. In his mind it would produce the very contrary effects. In consequence of the high price of all commodities the Government would either be compelled to increase considerably the salaries of all their officials, or to provide pensions for them on their retirement.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEremarked that no pension could be given under this Bill, unless the restraints which it imposed were observed and the Home Secretary gave his approval. Municipal corporations were the representatives of the ratepayers, and they might well be trusted with reference to the employment and the reward of the municipal officers. In the interest of local self-government it was highly important that municipal corporations should be vested with the power proposed to be given to them by this Bill.
MR. BRUCE,in supporting the second reading, said, that the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) had argued that no increase should be made in the burdens of the taxpayers that was not for the public advantage; but that was an argument which begged the question. The question was, whether the principle of superannuation was not for the public advantage? The promoters of the Bill had come forward simply in the interests of the public, and all would agree that there was no economy more spurious or more misdirected than that which interfered with the efficient performance of public duties by public officers or by the officers of corporations. The hon. Members who had opposed the Bill had all, with one exception, been consistent enough in their opposition, because they were opposed to superannuation under all, or nearly all, circumstances; but the majority of the House had shown in recent legislation, that they were in favour of the system, and that they believed it to be conducive to the efficiency of the public service. The House could not assume that the

1371
whole system of superannuation would be set aside by the recently appointed Financial Committee, though no doubt the conditions and amount of pensions in various cases would form a legitimate subject of inquiry before that Committee. There was a strong pressure upon the Government from every part of the country to place the superannuation of the police forces on a firmer footing; and this, coming from such public authorities as justices in quarter sessions and watch committees, showed how general was the opinion that superannuation was a means of obtaining efficient service. It might be true in the abstract that when a man proved no longer efficient his employers would not hesitate to get rid of him; but they must take questions of this kind in the light that had been thrown upon them ever since men's characters were observed, and they would find that, even in private establishments, where profit was the first consideration, even there men were kept from motives of compassion when they were no longer equal to their position. He remembered once in early life, when he was a trustee in an important matter, the pleasure it gave him to superannuate an old servant who had outlived his efficiency, by giving him a handsome retiring pension. Municipal corporations were called upon to perform important functions, and it was the duty of Parliament to invest them with those powers which would enable them to get persons who would discharge their duties efficiently, and would not tempt them to retain those persons after they had ceased to be efficient. Without binding himself to the details of the measure, and agreeing to some of the objections which had been raised to some portions of it, he would give his hearty vote in support of the second reading.
MR. HERMONsaid, that having heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that applications for superannuation allowance were being made by almost all classes of public servants—a principle which he disapproved in all cases, except those where duties were performed which were dangerous to life or person—he should deem it his duty to oppose the second reading.
MR. COLMAN,believing that the arrangement contemplated by the Bill would be conducive to the efficient dis-
1372
charge of public duties in towns, would support the second reading.
COLONEL BARTTELOTopposed the second reading. Looking at the empty benches, it was evident that the House took no interest in the Bill; but if a measure of this kind was to pass at all, it should go much further than the present Bill. There were other important bodies besides the municipal authorities who had an equal claim to be invested with power to superannuate their officers; and why did the Bill not deal with them also? As to the police, they were doing what all public bodies ought to do—namely, they were providing themselves with a superannuation allowance out of their pay. But with what justice could Government do away with the pensions of soldiers—men who defended their country throughout the whole world, by the Short Service Enlistment Act, in order that the country should not be burdened, and yet support this Bill? That was a strong argument against the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In fact, the less they multiplied pension-lists the better for the whole country. He believed that the Bill would add considerably to the weight of local burdens without conferring any corresponding benefit, and he should therefore vote against the second reading.
MR. R. N. FOWLERsupported the Bill, and thought that the injustice done to soldiers was no argument for doing an injustice to municipal officers.
MR. WHEELHOUSEopposed the Bill, and argued that it was a fallacy to imagine that municipal corporations represented the ratepayers. The aldermen were a stationary body, and offices were almost invariably given, in a particular way, to the political friends of the members of the town council. Not an atom of power should be given to such bodies more than could be helped. The hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) asked why it was proposed to deal with municipal officers only. Well, he (Mr. Wheelhouse) asked the same question. There were Boards of Guardians and other parties, who ought to have the same powers as municipal officers. Upon these principles he opposed the Bill.
MR. PEASEapproved the measure. The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheel-

1373
house) must be aware that his own corporation had special powers to pension their superannuated officers. That a corporation had been badly managed was no reason for refusing all superannuation allowances to old and meritorious officers. The real point of the case was this—if a man served for a salary and a pension, his salary was so much lower; if a man served without a pension the salary was so much higher.
MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought that advantage would have arisen from the substitution of 20 years for 10 years. In some respects doubtless the Bill would be an improvement upon that of last year; for the Bill contained the provision that no pension should be granted to anyone whose whole time had not been occupied in the discharge of the duties of his office. Care, however, must be taken that a young man meeting with an accident should not be a pensioner for the whole of a long life. He had known cases of eminent Judges seized with illness after a few years' service, and who received pensions for 30 or 40 years. He hoped the Bill would not be passed this year.
MR. EASTWICKsaid, he thought it would be unwise economy to reject the Bill.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 44: Majority 57.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

SALMON FISHERIES BILL— [BILL 19.]
(Mr. Dillwyn, Hon. William Lowther, Mr. Assheton, Mr. Alexander Brown.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. DILLWYN,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained its origin. In consequence of statements made in Parliament in 1865, a Committee was appointed on the Salmon Fisheries, and in 1869 an Act was framed on the Committee's Report; but so many defects were found in this Act that the Commissioners of the Tyne River introduced a Bill to supply the deficiencies. The Government opposed the Bill, and said that if it were withdrawn they would
1374
take up the question of salmon fisheries themselves. Accordingly, the Bill was withdrawn, and the Government introduced another. This, however, was a somewhat crude measure; it met with considerable opposition, and that also was withdrawn; and a Select Committee was appointed to consider the whole question. The Committee was presided over by the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds)—in 1871 they reported; and, in that year, the hon. Member for Stockton introduced a Bill purporting to be founded on the recommendations of the Committee. It varied, however, in some essential particulars from their recommendations. This Bill was opposed by the mill-owners, by those interested in the lower waters, and by those interested in the upper waters. The hon. Member for Stockton did not conciliate all parties, he met with opposition, and this Bill also was withdrawn. Last year, the Tyne Conservators drew up a Bill, and at their request he introduced it. The Bill was read a second time, without a division, on the understanding that it should be referred to a Select Committee. The Bill was then thoroughly and fully discussed. It was too late to pass it last year; and this year he had hoped that the Government would take up the question. They declined to do so; but he believed that they were in favour of the Bill which he now proposed should be read a second time. The Bill was simply a repetition of the Bill of last year. The hon. Member for Stockton had brought in a Bill on the same subject; but they had endeavoured to reconcile their differences, which were rather in detail than in principle, and to join in support of the present Bill. [Mr. HERMON: Are both Bills identical with the Bills of last year?] No. That being the case, he would not trouble the House further. He proposed that the Bill should be read a second time that day, and committed pro formâ on Monday for the purpose of having some Amendments printed.
MR. STEVENSONsaid, that within a few years the salmon fishery at the mouth of the Tyne had become a very valuable industry; and the fishermen had taken £40,000 worth of fish in a year. These salmon were caught in the German Ocean, so that they ceased to be regarded as a river fish at all. This new source

1375
of supply was looked upon with great jealousy by the owners of the up-river fisheries; but he hoped that the House would not interfere with the salmon fishing in the German Ocean. Experience in the neighbourhood of the Tyne did not support the fears of those engaged in the up-river fisheries, that sea fishing would destroy the river fisheries altogether; yet the clauses restricting the size of the mesh and length of the net to be used would make sea fishing impossible.
MR. WALSHobjected to clauses from 17 to 27 as a cumbersome method of electing a Board which would not work. He also objected to the powers given by Clauses 28 to 31 to the water bailiffs and conservators, who very frequently were old poachers, and were appointed on the principle of "set a thief to catch a thief," and should oppose those clauses to the utmost of his power at future stages of the Bill. He thought the Salmon Acts sufficiently stringent, and believed that the reason why they did not fulfil the expectations of their promoters was that the upper proprietors had no interest in seeing their provisions carried out.
MR. ASSHETONrejoiced at the prospect of passing a Salmon Bill this year. He considered some regulation with respect to the lengths of the net absolutely necessary. With respect to the water bailiffs, he believed the regulations could not be efficiently carried out, unless the laws were acted upon throughout the entire river down to the sea; and that could not be done without the aid of the water bailiffs and the conservators, who ought to have power to examine into the proeeedings along the whole river.
MR. W. N. HODGSONsaid, he would not offer any opposition to the Motion for the second reading, though many clauses of the Bill were open to strong objection. He condemned the clause in particular which would prevent fishing at night. In that part of the country with which he was connected (East Cumberland) night was the only time at which the fishing could be carried on successfully, as the salmon would not strike the net by day. He trusted, however, that the Bill would be amended in its objectionable parts, and thus that the House would be able to pass a satisfactory measure this year.
MR. DODDSsupported the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, which was in the shape in which it passed the Select Committee last year. The subject was an extremely complicated and difficult one, and a combination of forces was necessary to secure the most valuable portions of the Bill, which he trusted would eventually lead to the best results. The meeting at which the arrangements referred to had been agreed on, had been attended by the promoters of the two rival Bills, as well as by other Members, and a considerable amount of attention had been bestowed upon the subject. The points of difference between the hon. Member for Swansea and himself were few and inconsiderable, and the points upon which they were agreed were very numerous. Indeed, many of the clauses in the present Bill were identical with the clauses of the Bill which he (Mr. Dodds) had introduced. There were three points which he regarded as of cardinal importance in all attempts to improve the Salmon Fishery Laws—first, with reference to the constitution of Boards; second, with reference to the power to make by-laws; and, third, with reference to the powers to place compulsory fish-passes over every weir or dam of whatever description. All the improvements wanted in the Salmon Fishery Laws might be classed under those three heads. The constitution of the Boards was unfortunately an extremely tender point, and an immense amount of opposition was created against the Bill he introduced, solely, he believed, because he sought to alter the present constitution of the Boards. The scheme of his hon. Friend with respect to this matter was rather illusory, so far as it professed to give an elective character to the Boards. The Select Committee over which he presided, and which inquired into the subject during the Sessions of 1869 and 1870, recommended that the Conservancy Boards should have an elective character imparted to them, and that the Boards should have power to make by-laws, &c. He said his hon. Friend's scheme was illusory, and he said so judging from his own experience in connection with the Tees. He had the honour to be a member of the Tees Board and the honorary secretary to it ever since its formation, and he knew what effect the change proposed in the Bill would have. He

1377
was bound to say that the present Tees Board worked very satisfactorily indeed; and he did not think any change was required there, unless it was rendered necessary in connection with increased powers. From what he could gather, the change proposed in the present Bill would affect the Tees Board in a very slight manner. By this Bill three representatives would be elected, whilst 80 members were nominated by the magistrates in quarter sessions; and there were 25 ex officio members, so that out of a Board of 108 members, there would only be three representing one interest, whilst 105 represented another. The hon. Member for Radnorshire (Mr. Walsh) said that in his neighbourhood the change proposed by his (Mr. Dodd's) Bill would have a different effect; but he thought that the rivers there must be of an exceptional character. Having had to encounter such an enormous amount of opposition last Session, he had this year kept from his Bill all reference to any change in the constitution of the Boards, but he was on no account less anxious that these clauses in his hon. Friend's Bill should be considered. He was satisfied that to meet the requirements of those who paid licence duties, the clauses as to representation must be made much more liberal than they were at present. With regard to the power to make by-laws, the two Bills were almost identical; but then the question arose—and he had no doubt it would receive due consideration from the House when the Bill got into Committee—as to how far power to make by-laws should be given to Boards, unless the constitution of them was made satisfactory. The two subjects were very closely connected with each other, and it was of great importance as regarded representation that all the various interests should be fairly and properly represented. The third point was with regard to the power to construct fish-passes over mill weirs and other obstructions. He regarded that question as being one of the utmost importance. The case of the Tyne had been referred to. He had occasion to refer to the removal of the Bywell weirs on the Tyne last Session, and he thought that if ever there was a case which showed clearly how important it was that these obstructions should be removed, the case of the Tyne would point it out to all time. He
1378
was extremely desirous that Boards should have compulsory powers to place fish-passes over weirs and other obstructions. What had been done within the past few years showed beyond the possibility of a doubt that passes could be constructed without interfering in the slightest degree with the milling interest of the country. He hoped his hon. Friend, in revising his Bill, would incorporate Clauses 24 and 25 of the Bill which he (Mr. Dodds) had introduced, and which bore on the subject. There were a few other points on which he regretted to say the Bill was defective, but ho thought it could be amended in those respects in Committee. The last point to which he wished to refer was with reference to constructing gratings across the head and tail-races of milldams. At certain seasons, of the year young fish got into mill-dams and were destroyed by the mill-wheel, or illegally captured. Gratings constructed at these races would be the means of saving a great number of fish. His hon. Friend proposed that all these powers should only be granted by the Home Office, but in his (Mr. Dodd's) Bill he proposed that the powers should be vested in the Conservancy Boards themselves. He did not think that the Home Office need be troubled on such minor questions as constructing a grating, although it was desirable that there should be a central authority to deal with more important questions. If the Amendments which he (Mr. Dodds) suggested should be accepted, the Bill might be made a good working measure. In the hope that these Amendments would be acceded to by his hon. Friend, he had consented to defer the second reading of his own Bill. The object of all was the same—to increase the supply of food for the people; and provided that were done by his hon. Friend's Bill, he should have great pleasure in helping to pass it through the House.
MR. PEASE,in supporting the Bill, called attention to the engineering evidence before the Select Committee, which was of the most interestingly practical as well as scientific character. He hoped that in Committee some compromise might be effected between the two sets of interests represented by the two hon. Gentlemen who had introduced measures on the subject. Unless Members representing the various interests concerned

1379
were content to give and take, this Bill, as a Private Bill, under the present regulations of the House, would necessarily fail. As to the question of the water bailiffs, which had been raised, he might say that, in his own district, the water bailiffs were chosen from the police force, and were men of high character, and did not belong to the reckless class of poachers which had been described.
MR. BRUCEcongratulated his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) on the support his Bill had received from his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, who, after presiding most laboriously over a Committee upon this subject for two years, had introduced a measure of his own, and now, in the most generous and self-sacrificing spirit, was willing to withdraw that Bill, and give the benefit of his labours and experience to render this rival measure entirely satisfactory. If any question was ripe for legislation, we might fairly suppose that the subject of salmon fishing must be so, for he believed no single Session since he was in Parliament had passed without the introduction of some Bill in relation to it either in connection with England, Scotland, or Ireland. There were, doubtless, many difficulties connected with the question, and as had been justly stated, they could only be successfully met in a spirit of forbearance and compromise. There were many conflicting interests such as those of the upper and lower proprietors; but he believed, when looked at with fairness, it would be found that what was good for one class of interests was good for all. It was the business of the Government representing the public to see that proper measures were taken in respect of salmon fishing with a view to the supply of food, and also to encourage the employment of the people. In that spirit they were prepared to give their support to this Bill, which, after incorporating the valuable suggestions derived from the experience of his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, he hoped would be produced in a form which would meet the approval of the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. JOHN BENJAMIN SMITH, Bill to establish the Metric System of Weights and Measures after a fixed period, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOHN BENJAMIN SMITH, Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY, Sir THOMAS BAZLEY, Mr. TORR, Mr. BAINES, Mr. PELL, Mr. MUNTZ, and Mr. DALGLISH.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 90.]
House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock.