The Sun.
London, England, 1856-02-16 00:00:00

-men were efficient, but, he also believed they were well paid,
and had no just grounds of complaint. -(0hl and hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI thought that, after the intimation of the
right hon. gentleman, it would be improper to enter into a
discussion of the details of this question. The right hon.
gentleman had gone into a lag history of the affair, but its
real history was very short, and might be summed up in a
single sentence. They had promised a fund, and had exacted
a tax, and there was the fatal error which was the origin and
cause of the whole of the difficulties which they had to en-
counter. He was surprised to hear that this was the great.
est measure of Administra`ive Reform that the right hon.
gentleman and his colleagues were prepared to carry out ;
for, after all, this was but, codiparatively speaking, an infe-
rior question, a secondary subject, and even it was a question
not to be solved at once, but referred to a select committee.
There was no doubt, but this important matter which had
been alluded to in the report referred to by the Government,
would be afterwards referred to in that house. It could not
be supposed that a matter of such importance would be
allowed to pass over in such a trivia! way. He had himself,
on a previous occasion, called attention to the matter, but 01l
that occasion he was assured by the Government that there
was no intention of introducing a measure such as the pre-
sent measure indicated.

Mr. STAFFORD NORTHCOTE affirmed the necessity
there was for the measure, and pointed out the necessity for
it by referring to the bad management which existed in most
of the Government departments, He was quite prepared to
give a calm and indulgent consideration to the claims of those
public servants whose salaries were small, and whose incomes
were taxed in addition;to-the d einc,ions from those salaries,
but ho should be exceedingly sorry-it the right hon. gentle-
man the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by reason of any pres-
sure from the civil service, should give way or consent to
that which would be au equivalent to a direct augmentation
of their salaries, and which, indeed, should be considered not
only an increase of salary, but an increase of pension. (gear,
hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said that it was evident there was a gene-
ral disposition to have Vle subject investigated before a com-
mittee. He had himself been one of the individuals concerned
in drawing up the act of 1834, and he had for ono of his col-
leagues the right hon. gentleman the member for Portsmouth
—then one of the Lords of the Treasury—and the exact pur-
port of that act had been examined by them both. He (Sir
J. Graham) had then seine knowledge of the value, industry,
and integrity of the services of the civil servants. He had had
greater experience since, and every year had confirmed that
experience, that they formed the most valuable portion of the
community serving the state, and they should be liberally re-
warded by the public which they served so honestly. Nothing
could induce him to take part again,t theme, But as to the
act of 1834 promising them a fund—it did the exact contrary.
In 1818 and 1819 a fund was created, and then withdrawn ;
in 1828 the question was referred to a committee, a report
was made, and in 1829 a Treasury minute was issued, founded
upon that report, which, so far from promising a fund, laid
down the very principle of deductions : and the act of 1834
only gave a legal sanction to the Treasury minute, thus estab-
lishing the principle of imposing a tax, giving the parties pay-
ing it a limited interest in their own contributions, of which
they might be deprived under certain cases, of which the
Treasury was to be the judge. He denied that a fund was
ever technically promised ; and he could not believe that a
body of men so subtle, so acute, so versed in business as the civil
servants, would enter into the service of the state without fully
understanding the conditions offered to them. Persons were
certainly not unwilling to accept these conditions—on the
contrary, there was the greatest pressure to obtain them. The
only point which really required consideration was the impo-
sition of the income tax ou small salaries. Here were hon.
gentlemen opposite who in 1849 and 1850 had voted for the
reduction of 10 per cent. in the salaries of those very offi-
cials who were now said to be treated unjustly—and the
motion having been rejected—the salaries maintained—the
sweeping deduction of 10 per cent. having been refused—the
right hon. gentleman now talks of the history of superannua-
Cons being a history of spoliatious. Since 1828 the house had
acted on a fixed principle, and believing it was most desirable
to give this important body of the servants of the State an
impartial hearing, he was willing a committee of inquiry
should be appointed rather than that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer should give way to pressure without a full inquiry
first taking place.
Mr. DISRAELI, in explanation, said that he did not state
that the actof 1834 was an act of spoliation, but that, speak-
ing generally of the history of the-superannuation fund in this
country, he said it was an history of spoliation, and,n making
that statement I,e referred particularly, but not entirely, to the
statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to
the superannuation fund of 1811. That was a period of war, and
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made that an excuse for
that act of appropriation on the part of the Government.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS said he could not concur with the
right hon. baronet, the member for Carlisle. The true system
of legislation, in his,opinion, was to call things by their right
names, and when the house voted a salary of 1,010/., or 1001.,
there ought not to be, deducted from that salary a sunt of 51.,
or 50/., or 5001. It seemed to him that the act of 1854 was
founded upon that false system of legislation. The civil ser-
vants were under the impression that when a certain sum was
subetracted from their salaries, it was carried to the superan-
nuation fund, and they believed that having contributed to
that fund they would be able to draw from it in proportion
to the amount of their deductions. Now, the right hon. gen-
tleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had given a different
version of the matter, and he (Mr. Chambers) suggested to
him that there possibly had been such an error in the deduc-
tion from the salaries of civil service officers as has led to the
belief that that deduction was carried to a separate fund, In-
stead of salaries of 1001. with 51. deducted, the salary should
be really what it was, 951., and then the immediate result
might be, that those having only 951. per annum would not
be subject to the payment of income tax.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The income
tax is not charged on the entire salary, but on the reduced
amount.

Mr. CHANIBEILS—It was very desirable that every per-
son in the civil service should know the precise amount he
was to receive, for at present lie could not understand what
was the actual amount of his income. With regard to the
exclusion from the civil service of the relatives of those who
were in power, he could not agree in that sentiment. He was
in favour of that which was justly called Administrative Re-
form, but he did not think it formed any portion of ju,tice or
policy to exclude from the eivil service men of rank and posi-
tion. (Hear.)
Lave was then given to bring in the bill.
CAT HEDIt A. L CANONRIES.

• Mr. FERGUSSON moved for, leave to bring in a bill to
appropriate the income of such one 'of the canonries of the
cathedral church of Carlisle sis shall next fall vacant to the
augmentation of• certain ecclesiastical incumbrances in that