The Press.
London, England, 1857-08-01 00:00:00

THE PRESS, AUGUST 1,1857.

merely came to Parliament, as a servant to a master,
to ask that a bad system might be remedied, and
that they might be relieved from deductions to which
they objected. If there had been an increase in the
salaries of late years that would, he admitted, afford
some answer to his :case, but he would show from a
reference to the Admiralty and Customs that that
was not the fact. In 1834, in the Admiralty 109
persons were employed at a cost of 59,2601., th e average
annual salary being 2971.; whereas in 1856, 262
persons were employed at a cost of 74,3851., the
average annual salary being 2831. In 1834, there were
employed in the collection of the Custom duties 4,856
persons at a cost of 722,5001., the average annual salary
being 1491., and in 1856 there were 5,570 persons
employed at a cost of 814,0001., the average annual
salary being 1461. But the Secretary of the
Treasury was not consistent in his statements on
the subject, for on the 23rd of July, during the dis-
cussion on the bill, he stated that there Lad been a
large increase in the salaries; and only a month
before he had stated that notwithstanding that
there had been a large increase of business, there
had been an absolute diminution of the amount of
salaries. The noble lord denied that this bill was
for the benefit of the rich, and stated that it woukl
affect salaries of 1401. There would be no loss to
the public purse from the passing of the measure ;
on the contrary, he was prepared to show that the
interest of the superannuation fund would leave a
large balance in the Exchequer. Another objection
made to his measure was that it did not deal with
the whole question of superannuation allowances,
and that it did not carry out the recommendations of
the commissioners. What were the recommenda-
tions of the commissioners? The principal recom-
mendation was that there should be a total abolition
of deductions from salaries in the civil service for
superannuation, without a corresponding reduction
in salaries, and it was to carry out that object that
his bill was introduced. The whole sense of the
country was against the existing system ; great dis-
satisfaction wits created by the question being left
open, and he trusted that the Government would not
stand in the way of the carrying out of the report of
the commissioners, as nothing less than that would
satisfy the civil servants.
Mr. GLADSTONE admitted the right of the civil
servants to two things—a full and respectful hearing,
and a clear end definite decision ; and he hoped the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would state distinctly
that it was—as he did not doubt it was—the intention
of the Government to maintain the systems of remu-
neration of the civil service mainly as it was. Not-
withstanding the disclaimer of Lord Naas, that he
(lid not propose an increase of salaries, the bill of
the noble lord was plainly and exclusively a bill for
the increase of salaries, and was in diametrical oppo-
sition to the opinion a committee of the House of
Commons, whose authority he preferred to that of
the Royal Commissioners. If this proceeding were
encouraged, the House must not be surprised if an
early result should be a proposal to augment the
salaries of the political officers of the State. An
erroneous notion was entertained, he observed, of
the intention of the Superannuation Act. Its rral
intention was that the deductions should be in lieu
of a general diminution of salaries. It was all very
well to come down with chivalric ideas of generosity ;
but the house must have some regard for the public,
and consider the principle upon which remuneration
should be given to public servants. This remunera-
tion came out of the produce of the taxes, which
were paid out of the labour of England, the wages of
which were regulated by the law of demand and
supply. The civil servants of the Crown were in his
opinion not an ill-paid, but, on the contrary, rather a
well-paid class, and the house would not be just
towards the taxpayers of England if it acceded to
this bill, to increase salaries indiscriminately to the
extent of 70,0001. a year, which in substance was,
moreover, prohibited by the rules of the House of
Commons, without the consent of the Crown.

Mr. DISRAELI observed that the Government had
acknowledged the expediency of legislating upon
this subject. They had introduced a bill, which they
submitted to a committee, whose rerrt was in favour
of the principle contained in the present bill. Not
satisfied with this, they submitted the subject to a
royal commission, whose verdict concurred with the
previous recommendation of the parliamentary com-
mittee. Although he looked with distrust upon this
system of referring to parliamentary committees
questions which the house or the Government ought
upon their own responsibility to determine, yet he
thought, in this case, such irresistible authority bad
been brought to bear upon the question as to pre-
clude the house from recommending the investigation
ab initio upon which they originally entered. He
did not consider that the question of a general in-
crease of salaries had any connection with the ques-
tion before the house. As the Government did not
move in the matter, Lord Naas had very properly
brought forward this bill, in order to obtain the
decision of the house regarding the abolition of the
dellaotiouo authorised by tke eaistiag act;-.

It has no connection whatever with the question whether
we ought or ought not to free the civil service from a tax
which previous discussions in this house, as well as the
investigations of committees and' commissions and the
opinions entertained with regard to it by successive
Ministries, testify to be an imposition which is both unjust
and impolitic. Under these circumstances I trust my
noble friend will upon this occasion succeed in obtaining
the assent of the house to a measure the operation of
which I think will be virtually to settle this important
question. I may remind hon. members that even should
that measure pass into a law it will still be open to the
Government to carry out all those other arrangements
with respect to the civil service which have been recom-
mended by the various committees and commissions, or
which they themselves may deem it desirable to introduce.
It will be perfectly in their power to take that course with
the concurrence of Parliament, and they may even without
that sanction revise the salaries of those off►cers who
would be affected by the proposal which is made by my
noble friend. In conclusion, I have only to say that if
this bill be carried the result will be to terminate a con-
troversy which is at once painful and impolitic, and, be-
lieving that to be the case, I shall give to the measure my
cordial support.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
question might be regarded under three aspects—as
a question of feeling, or of equity and justice, or of
expediency. He utterly disputed the claim of the
civil service on the ground of equity and justice,
maintaining that the contract in the act wlO3 clear
and precise, and that the conditions had been strictly
fulfilled. He, moreover, contended that it was
utterly impossible to show that if a fund had been
created the civil servants would have benefited
thereby. For other reasons he insisted that a claim
upon the footing of justice and equity for a rateable
increase of salaries altogether failed. Then with
regard to expediency, the committee, in recommend-
ing the abolition of the abatement, also recom-
mended a corresponding reduction of salaries, and
the Government bill gave authority to the Treasury
to revise salaries. The commissioners, who repu-
diated the claim of the civil service on the ground of
right, advised, as the present system was full of
anomalies and otherwise objectionable, the uncon-
ditional remission of the abatement. If the house,
in a spirit of generosity, was prepared to surrender
this sum to the service indiscriminately, without
reference to merit, it could do so ; but, if not, it
might accompany the abolition, by calling upon the
Government to make a reduction in salaries equiva-
lent to the abatement.

Upon a division the motion for the second reading
of the bill was carried by 171 to 111—a majority of
00 against the Government.

OATHS BILL.

Lord J. RUSSELL, in fixing Monday for the second
reading of the Oaths Validity Act Amendment Bill,
hinted, somewhat obscurely, that Baron Rothschild
might be enabled to take his seat, independently of
the bill.
Sir F. THESIGER

The noble lord has talked of some mode by which Baron
Rothschild may take hie seat in this house without any
bill being passed for the purpose of altering the oaths ; but
he has not given the house any information as to the time
when an attempt of that kind will be made. It would be
very convenient to hon. members if the noble lord would
furnish them with any information which he has ou that
subject.
Lord J. RUSSELL :

I have no information of that kind. lam not aware of
Baron Rothschild's intention on that subj eat ; hut if
should receive any communication from Baron Rothschild
I will take care to give notice to the house, fur I think it
is very necessary that they should be informed of the
course which he intends to take.

The second reading was then postponed till
Monday next.