The Press. — London, England, 1855-09-01 00:00:00

W SErr. 1, 1855. CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION. CONSIDERABLE surprise was occasioned by an announcement made on the 22nd of June, by the CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER, to the effect that the Bill for the better regulation of civil superannuation pensions was to be post poned till the session of 1856. The impossi bility of passing it this year through the various stages was assigned as the cause of this unworthy conduct. In the month of March previous Sir G. C. LEWIS had baulked Mr. MACARTNEY'S motion on the subject, by the assurance of a shortly-coming Government measure. A similar statement had also been made in the month of May, in answer to ques tions put by Sir STANFORD NORTHCOTE. We will not, however, stigmatise as a breach of faith this course of action on the part of Sir GEORGE Lewis. We know that but few subjects are sufficient to overload his contracted though ponderous capacity ; and we will place a charitable construction on his somewhat astounding declaration, by assuming that the mass of public affairs had thrown a denser cloud than usual over his intellect. If the word of a Minister is worthy of any credit, another year cannot elapse without some legis lative enactment, to obviate the gross injustice at present inflicted on the Civil Service. Mean while, we propose to show the severe loss accruing to that service from the indolence of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and to point out some facts imperatively demanding alteration and improvement. It is unnecessary, as it would be tedious, to _ enter into the history of the rise and progress of the Civil Service Superannuation Fund. Suffice it to say that from a return laid before Parliament in 1853 it appeared that from the year 1829, when the fund was established, to 1852, the enormous sum of 621,5391. had accu mulated from the contributions of Civil servants, while, during that period, the total amount drawn for superannuation allowances amounted to 36,413/. Thus, had this first named sum been funded, the interest alone would have been sufficient to pay treble the amount of the actual superannuation allow ances. This large capital, however, has been scandalously appropriated to pay the retiring pensions of officers appointed to the service previous to the establishment of the so•called superannuation fund. These, without any annual contribution, are entitled to higher rates of pension than their juniors, thus taxed to pay off previously-contracted engagements of the country. The annual amount collected amounts to 64,0001. At the commencement of this year, when Mr. MACARTNEY proposed to bring forward the subject, the balance in the books of the Treasury had reached a total of something like 700,0001. The inactivity and folly of Sir GEORGE CORNEWALL LEWIS will add another 64,0001. to this overgrown extortion. Our readers will at once see the fearful injus tice committed, when they recollect that, in addition to the double income tax, the Civil servant of the Crown has to pay live per cent. on his salary, if exceeding one hundred pounds per annum. Thus, the delay caused by Sir GEORGE LEWIS will take from every member of the Civil Service drawing a salary of 5001. the sum of 251. in addition to the enormous taxes levied on the whole community. It is needless to point out the weight of the pressure occasioned by these unjust regulations, on men of small incomes and large families. Sir GEORGE Lewis, not subject himself to such calls, has selfishly disregarded, instead of endeavouring to mitigate, the evil. But the evil must be miti gated in two ways. The contribution must be diminished—the advantages given in re turn for it increased. At present the contri bution is compulsory. Thus let it remain. But we do not wish to see a clerk dying at his desk lose all the benefit of the contributions of years. He cannot retire before reaching the age of sixty-five unless physically or mentally incapacitated from work ; and even then the Treasury consider themselves authorised to dock the pension nominally secured by his subscriptions. It is to this last point that we particularly wish to call the attention of our readers. THE PRESS. The Civil Service Superannuation Fund was established by a Treasury minute of the 4th of August, 1829. This minute was sanc tioned by Act of Parliament in 1834 (4 and 5 William IV., cap. 24), the Act under which the fund is still in operation. Between the publication of the minute of '29 and the pas sing of the Act of Parliament, another Trea sury minute was issued, to the effect that "My Lords," being of opinion that the scale of allowances granted to Civil servants was not intended to be granted to all indiscriminately, considered themselves authorised to grant an allowance, equal to about four-fifths of the scale authorised by the Act, or even a less sum, according to their discretion. When the present the Act—of '34 was brought forward, it was endeavoured to embody therein this minute of '29. But the clause (clause X) to that effect was struck out by the House of Lords, and another clause (clause 23) inserted, giving power to the Trea sury to exercise their discretion in fixing the amounts of pensions, having regard to health, meritorious conduct, &c. In spite of this decision, however, the Trea sury minute of June '3l is made the founda tion of all grants of pension. This may he seen from the form of application, published in another portion of our columns, to be filled up by Civil servants wishing to retire. The docu ment in question, fallen by a curious chance into our hands, proves, not only that " My Lords" consider themselves entitled to dock one-fifth of every pension, thus reducing a pension of 5001. to 4001., but that applicants are not even allowed to ask for the full amount secured to them under the Act, and paid for out of their own pockets. There are two questions involved in the system established by this document. In the first place,—ls a Treasury minute rejected by an Act of Parliament intended to over-ride that Act. In the second,—By what right do the Treasury consider themselves authorised to subtract any portion of an allowance, granted out of a fund that should be considered private? The contributor is not allowed to omit one-fifth of his contribution. How, then, can the regulators of the fund pretend to deprive him of one-fifth of the pension entailed by that contribution ? If, under cer tain circumstances of brilliant services, an additional pension is considered the due of any public officer, let the Crown and country reward him for his services. Let every man receive the full amount to which he is entitled. Let something additional be given a man of eminence. According to the present arrangement, every one is bound to ask for less than his share, in order that a man of talent, by obtaining the full amount of his just dues, may consider himself placed on a higher pedestal than his less brilliant col league Ordinary services are rewarded by fraud. Great services are to receive nothing more than bare justice. NATIVE STATES. IT has been alleged that those persons must needs be the foes of humanity and the sup porters of every kind of abuse who are opposed in principle to the unnecessary annexation of native States. It is true that some of the greatest men and soundest thinkers have joined in this opposition, but that is held of little import among the possessors of the new light. Under these circumstances it may not be amiss to offer some observations calculated to remove the erroneous impression to which we have referred. We shall thus show that if the objection be true of any one, it certainly is not true of ourselves. To just and necessary war in India we are not, and never have been, opposed. If a native Power like Gwalior chooses to persist in the violation of its treaties, and assume an attitude which can leave no doubt of its hostilo intentions to us, we can see no reason for hesitating, after expostulation has proved fruitless, to attack it at once, and so anticipate its blow. Accordingly, we hold that there never was a more justifiable battle fought than that fought under Lord ELLENBoaOOOu's orders at Mahragpore. In the same manner, if another native State enters formally into a treaty with us, and then deliberately tears that treaty up, makes a murderous attack upon our envoy, consigns to plunder the Embassy, and then, sets tire to it and whatever in it remains—in that case, also, we hold that there is nothing to restrain us from inflicting the chastisement duo to so shameless an outrage on us as a nation. On that ground we share in none of the mock-humanity exhibited by some persons in discussing the case of the Ameers of Sciude. Again, if a great native Power seeks employ ment for its lawless soldiery by holding out to their ambition the conquest of a neighbouring State, and that State ourselves, of course there is nothing to prevent our doing to it as it has sought to do to us. And therefore no states man was ever more fully justified in resorting to arms than was Lord HARDINOE in the first Seik war. But there are cases wholly dissimilar from the cases which the later defenders of the principle of annexation bring up. To annexa tion per fag we have no objection—it is against annexation per nefas that we exclaim. Annexa tion grounded on the allegation that our government is better than the government we would supersede we view with suspicion, be cause the truth of this allegation is very doubtful; and, even were it not so, the mis government we protested against is within our power to remedy, being very much due to our own officials' misconduct or neglect. Wher ever we see gross misgovernment prevailing, our envoys have the fullest power to remon sti-ate—a power often exercised in Europe with effect, and which would be tantamount to a command when used towards any native State. Possessing, as wo do by treaty, the right of directly naming the Minister, or of interpos ing a veto on any improper nomination of a Minister by the native sovereign, and having equally by right of treaty a great latitude of interference in respect to all that the Minister thinks fit to do, it is clear that if we fail to give that salutary turn to the measures of any native sovereign which it may be desirable to give, the fault must lie in a very great measure with ourselves. But even were it otherwise, were the right to interfere to prevent bad go vernment less clear under treaties than it is, it would be absurd to suppose that our endea vours honestly put forward could be fruitless, or our duly supported remonstrances un attended to. The power that enables us to absorb any native State at pleasure is quite sufficient to insure our remonstrances being listened to when they are just. The real cause of their passing unheeded when offered is, that no serious attempt is ever made for their enforcement. On the contrary, the Machiavellian principle seems to have been deliberately adopted lately, of encouraging to the uttermost native misgovernment, in order to furnish an excuse for annexing such terri tories as we covet. It is thus that the through thick-and-Chin advocates of annexation are the real abettors of inhumanity and misgovern ment, and not those who, like ourselves, would by timely reforms prevent the occasion or necessity for it. While we pstly reprobate a policy on their parts so iniquitous, we cannot help equally condemning the method they have recently adopted to enforce it. In publishing the history of the " Private Life of an Eastern Kingr who is long since dead, as a justi ficatory plea for the present annexation of Oude, they are imitating the conduct of those Chartist leaders who have published similar scandalous, though for the most part untruth ful, memoirs of a Western King, for the avowed purpose of bringing monarchy into disrepute in England. In the same manner the first French Revolution was preceded by a floc,d of similar libels on the nobility and Royal Family of France. If professed revolu tionists held the reins of power at the India house, the proceedings in question would, of course, be intelligible; but that men saddled with the grave responsibilities of government should adopt such a course shows how little of calm reflection is to he found among the present rulers of our Eastern empire. The can e of a life dissipated foran king abrogationor nobleman afford nojust ground the monarchy and a confiscation of all lands InsiMmEIMINNWII.II 1 r