The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-10 00:00:00

affairs.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that it was not his intention.
CASE OF MR. T. REEVES.
Mr. KELLY, in movine to refer the petition of Thomas
Reeves (presented on the 4th February) to a Select Com-
mittee mei 1, that in the year 1835 M-. Reeves ha 1 re trod
after 22 years' service as a surveyor of taxes, and
it was a matter pf impottance to know what
pension he was ertitled to —(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
He would state, and he had no doubt he would be corro-
borated by the Gentlemen connected with the Treasury,
that there was nothing against the character of Mr. ReeveS
to disqualify him for the allowance he was entitled to under
any Act of Parliament. On the contrary, he had per-
formed certain services which, at the least, entitled
him to the most favourable consideration of the Go-
vernnaent.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. Reeves, at the time
of his retirement, possessed a salary of something under
100/. a year. He was also in the receipt of various emo-
luments, consisting principally of a per centage upon sur-
charges, which were made when any deficiency or error ea;
made apparent in the assessment of any party to the taxes
he was justly entitled to pay. When those sureli irges
we c made the Government generally received much
more than the first assessment, and frequently mora—
sometimes even double the amount, and the Surveyor was
et-aided, even by Act of Parliament, to a curtain per centage
upon such surehaig'e.- By that means Mr. Reeves_ for
many years before his re tirement had greatly added
to his income. The year before his retirement, the per
centage amounted to somewhere near two hundred pounds,
thus making his income about 300/. per annum. The
Government admitted that Mr. Reeves was entitled to a
pension, but they claimed the right to make certain de-
ductions in the amount. He would say a few words as to
those deductiont With respect to the amount of salary,
nearly 901. odd, the Government admitted his claim
to six twelfths, or one-half of the salary, but the de-
ductions which they made reduced the sum from
451. to 24/. and that was all the allowance that was made
to him. The reason given for the deduction was this: it
was said that Mr. Reeves bad, by coatributing to a certain
fund, called a Superannuation Fund, entitled himself to
a very considerable amount of retiring pension, and that
it was the custom of the Treasury, when a party had
contributed money for such a purpose, although he did so
out of his ewn earnings, to hold him disentitled to the full
amount to which he would otherwise have been entitled
under the Act of Parliament; on this ground the pension was
reduced to 241. Considering that for a great number
of years, certain extra dutes had been imposed upon
Mr. Reeves, which, though he might fairly and legally
have refused to lerform them, he had discharged with the
greatest diligence, he thought he might have been fairly
held entitled, under another clause of the Act of Ps rlia-
ment, to some additional allowance ; at all events, his re-
tirieg income should net have been reduced from 45/. to 241.
It appeared by the petition of Mr. Reeves that he claimed
a retiring pension of 6-12ths under the Act of Parliament,
not merely in relation to his salary but in relation
to the emoluments: of his office, amounting to twice
the amount of his salary. The Treasury rejected the claim
altogether, on the ground'that the per centages were not
emoluments within the legal meaning of the Act of Par-
liament which regulated those pensions. If the Govern-
ment were right in that opinion, he admitted Mr. Reeves
had no claim. But if it should appear, as be would
venture to say be should be able to make it appear, that
the letter had been written without consulting the Law
Officers of the Crown, and that if they had been consulted
they must have given a different opinion, he thought
be should not appeal in vain when he asserted
that the case must undergo reconsideration, and he
submitted either to a Committee or the Law Officers of
the Crown. The Act of Parliament which regulated the
superannuation allowances was the 4th and sth of William
IV., chap. 24; and the care of Mr. Reeves came
within the provisions of the 9th section of that Act.
He would read to the House the answer Mr. Reeves hat
received, after some correspondence with the Government,
and many applications, and, as Mr. Reeves hoped, after
much serious consideration of his case by the Government.
The letter was dated June 16, 1837, from the Board of
Stamps and Taxer, and set forth fully the grounds on
which the pension was granted and limited. (The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman then read the letter.)
.It appealed to him that the simple question was, whether
the Board was right in saying that the per cen-
tage came under the head of emoluments or not. It
appease I to him clear that the Board had proceeded
upon an erroneous view of the case. The Government
tatted-him...upon hie commission got for his salary owl j, hut
for his salary and emoluments. So also under the in-
come tax, he was charged not for his salary alone, but
also for his emoluments. Now, he would defy any lawyer
to say that a strict construction was to be put upon an Act
of Parliament when against a party, and otherwise when
in his favour. He would say but one word more with re-
gard to the lay of the case. He could assure lion. Gen-
tlemen he would not have spoken at such length if he did
not feel that the case was that of a very deserving man, of
whom be begged to state be had no personal knowl,,dg-.,
wha•ever, nor di i he come from that part of the country
which he ( Mr. Kelly) was acquainted with; he had been
merely recommended to him by a gentleman who kne w of
the hardship of his case. The Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman here proceeded to read the opinion cf Sir William
Follett, which had been given in favour of Mr. Reeves's
case, and concluded by saying, if the question were re-
ferred to a Committee, he could prove every statement
which was mode in the petition.
Mr. PARKER said that the Government acted in this
case aecordieg to what ha i invariably been the practice cf
the Treasury ; and, in support of this statement, read ex-
tracts from a correspondence which took pica between
the Board cf Taxes and the Treasury in July, 1812. Ia
that correspondence the Board of Taxes stated that a sur-
veyor's salary amounted to 901. a year ; to which there
was an additional salary of 201. also yearly ; and tho
Board wished to know from the Lords of the Treasury
whether the superannuation pension should be extended to
the latter portion of the salary. It appeared from the
Treasury minutes that the Lens of the Treasury were of
opinion that the superannuation pension ought to be e.e-
tended to the salary of ninety pounds, but that
the smaller salal should be excluded. That cor-
respondence showed that -the point had before arisen;
and that the superannuation allowance was settled on
the permanent salary of 901., and that it did not in.
elude those sums of poundage and per centage which his
Hon. Friend sought to have admitted into the present al-
lowance. Since that period the practice had uniformly
been to allow the pension on the permanent salary only.
Mr. Reeves entered the public service iu 1813 or 1814,
and he could not therefore say that he was injured by a
rule which had been subsequently introduced. The prac-
tice of the Treasury was now as he found it when he en-
tered upon the office ; and he bad no right therefore to
complain. In denying the claims of Mr. Reeves, he begged
it to be understood that the Government cast no imputa-
tions upon him, he might have suffered a grievance; but
he bad only been subject to that which (very other pub-
lic servant was. In the course the Treasury had pursued
in this case, they were only following what
,had beer
adopted for the lest twelve }ears.
Lord TEIGNdIOUTH supported the motion. The
liad
jg.itzirsi ogt uhintad.
Hdt boo anwt. hadnF,
rwi
ehanesdengt
htuaei kt
ece nhdabinyffcet
ehrleel
ot!rtl oontfo. Gentleman
qn wu
ebhyro
his
last
year. The present Survey( re of Taxes had bees placed
upon the same footing that they wished Mr. Reeves to be
pllioacne.dFuripoenod;waond ui d hre,.
et rounsstiet
tthhee rcefasoer,e, a
ntdh at
cc
ehdi se
tRo i real:
et
motion.
Mr. SANFORD thought Mr. Reeves had not been
treated with that justice which he deserved. Mr. Reeves
had, when in office, 300/. a year, and he was not at the
present moment, with his superannuation allowance, in the
receipt of more than 301. a year.
Mr. V. BARING sail the question had been three
times before the House, and in each case the House had
come to the same decision. There was no doubt that if
they had consulted the Law Officers of the Crown upon
this matter, they might have construed those emoluments
as emoluments under the Act. But he contended that the
Treasury had always had entire discretion in those cases
to make whatever general rules they thought proper. It
was not an ordinary case of superannuation, and net
being included in the Act, the Treasury might, if they
pleased, have refused to grant a pension.
Mr. HUME said that he had some years since strongly
condemeel the vexatious system of etnelnments, by which
th officers as re enabled to raise their salaries from 100/.
to 200/. or 3001. a year. lie represented it to the Hour
as an oppressive system, and he believel it was partly' i°
cl.ton
creqareleynaceppoefarteldiatfrtohmat
tthhee
cited that there was not the least necessity for arty im`L"
psyresteeemdewntass wphuitel:nhaerdn_bufehr

inquiry.
Mr. KELLY would detain the House for a tingle mo-
ment to correct an error into which du Hon. Ge
ntleman
had fallen. This question had been treated as if under the
terms of the Act of Parliament the Government had the
discretion ei:her to grant an allowance or to withhold it.
He denied that any such discretion was re;ted in the Cc-
verarnent under the Act of Parliament.
whe th Therean was
a discretion as to the turn, but none as to er al-
lowance should be granted. The individual was just as
much entitled to an alowance as any 'lon. Gentleman was
entitled to the rents of his own estate. He had heard tha
statement with the greatest astonishment, and he truster
that the House would not be induced to sanction it.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and
the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 27

it 3B
Against
Majority —ll
On the motion of Mr. HUME returns, under different
heads, of the manner in which the several sums vct•-d for
were expended. Alin, cf
tlhBe39, insurrection 647,
t 0 0 I.
;i n n
r,Canad
i: la,
Bv4i
oz :, 5
5i n 3 ,
01080318. :
amounting,
ii nn
ether fire.armF, of swords, mai
ry stores, sent to and lauded
ttitvhnhhaceet threeeScinsTuuiral number
bt: chilstreicynoa wcarfihrndojt uolakesliklynoe:df7t 10stoh:af 4:10r todiriltt.allA'
British army,
Eng-
lish, Scotch, and Irish non-commissioned officers and pri-
vates of the number of
in each of the years