THE PARTY LEADERS IGNORE THEIR FEAR OF AN ORGANIZED CIVIL SERVICE
Mr. Disraeli, Chancellor of the Exchequer, opposes the
enfranchisement of the civil servants. Mr. Gladstone, Leader
of the Opposition, assents to enfranchisement, but expresses
grave apprehensions of evil results.
One of the most extraordinary of the numerous astounding episodes in
connection with the nationalization of the telegraphs was the fact that
in the debates in the House of Commons was not even raised the question
of possible danger arising from increasing enormously the number of
civil servants. That is the more astounding, since, in 1867 and 1868,
prominent men in both political parties had grave misgivings as to
the future relations between the State and its employees, even though
those employees who were in the Customs Department, the Inland Revenue
Department, and the Post Office were at the time disfranchised.
[Sidenote: _Mr. Disraeli on Civil Servants_]
In July, 1867, while the House of Commons was passing the
"Representation of the People Bill," Sir Harry Verney, a private
member, moved the addition of a clause to enable public officers
connected with the collection of the revenue to vote at elections.[70]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Disraeli, asked the House not
to accept the Amendment. He said: "He wished also to recall to the
recollection of the committee a Treasury Minute which had been placed
on the table, in which Minute the Government had drawn attention to the
impropriety and impolicy of officers in those branches of the public
service to which the honorable baronet [Sir Harry Verney] had referred,
exercising their influence over Members of Parliament, in order to urge
upon the Government an increase of their salaries. Even at the present
time an influence was exerted which must be viewed with great jealousy,
and every Government, however constituted, would find it necessary to
use its utmost influence in restricting overtures of that description.
But what would be the position of affairs if these persons--so numerous
a body--were invested with the franchise. From the experience of what
was passing in this city--and he wished merely to intimate, and not to
dwell upon the circumstance--he was led to believe the result would
be that there would be an organization illegitimately to increase the
remuneration they received for their services--a remuneration which,
in his opinion, was based upon a just estimate. He did not deny that
the class referred to by the honorable baronet were entirely worthy of
public confidence, but the conferring the franchise upon them would
place them in a new position, and would introduce into public life new
influences which would not be of a beneficial character. He trusted
therefore that the committee would not sanction the proposal of the
honorable baronet."
The amendment was lost; and in the following year, 1868, Mr. Monk, a
private member, carried against the Government of the day, a bill to
enfranchise the revenue officers.[71]
[Sidenote: _The Chancellor of the Exchequer on Civil Servants_]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. G. W. Hunt, said he felt bound
to move that the bill be committed this day three months--_i. e._,
be rejected. He said it was an anomaly in the laws that the dockyard
laborers were not disfranchised. "If the matter were inquired into
calmly and dispassionately, he was not at all sure that a good case
might not be made out for affixing to them the same disability that
is now attached to the revenue officers. The fact did not at all tend
to the purity or the impartiality of electors in places where many of
these men were employed, and strenuous efforts were made by members
representing them to increase the privileges of the dockyard men and
the number of persons employed, which did not tend to economy or the
proper husbanding of the national resources. Continual applications
were made by these gentlemen [the employees in the Revenue Departments]
respecting their position and salaries, and these applications had of
late years taken a very peculiar form, being not merely made through
the heads of departments, or by simple memorial to the treasury,
but in the form of resolutions at public meetings held by them, and
communications to Members of Parliament by delegates appointed to
represent their interests. He put it to the House, whether, in the
circumstances supposed, the influence possessed by them would not
be very considerably increased, and whether the Government of the
day would not have far greater difficulty in administering these
departments with respect to the position and salaries of the officers
concerned, if the measure were carried."[72]
[Sidenote: _Mr. Gladstone's Warning_]
Mr. Gladstone said: "The suggestion he would make would be that
Parliament should give the vote, and, at the same time, leave it in
the discretion of the Government of the day to inhibit any of these
officers from taking any part in politics beyond giving their simple
vote.... Again, before they proceeded to lay down the principle of
general enfranchisement, one thing to be considered was the very
peculiar relations between the revenue officers and the Members of
that House. There it was necessary to speak plainly. He was not afraid
of Government influence in that matter, nor of an influence in favor
of one political party or another; but he owned that he had some
apprehension of what might be called class influence in that House,
which in his opinion was the great reproach of the Reformed Parliament,
as he believed history would record. Whether they were going to emerge
into a new state of things in which class influence would be weaker he
knew not; but that class influence had been in many things evil and a
scandal to them, especially for the last fifteen or twenty years; and
he was fearful of its increase in consequence of the possession of the
franchise, through the power which men who, as members of a regular
service, were already organized, might bring to bear on Members of
Parliament. What, he asked, was the Civil Service of this country?
It was a service in which there was a great deal of complaint of
inadequate pay, of slow promotion, and all the rest of it. But, at the
same time, it was a service which there was an extraordinary desire to
get into. And whose privilege was it to regulate that desire? That of
the Members of that House...."
FOOTNOTES:
[70] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, July 4, 1867, p. 1,032 and
following.
[71] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, June 10, 1868, p. 1,352 and
following; June 12, p. 1,533 and following; and June 30, 1,868, p.
390 and following. Compare also: _Parliamentary Paper_, No. 325,
Session 1867-68: _Copy of Report to the Treasury by the Commissioners
of Customs and Inland Revenue upon the Revenue Officers' Disabilities
Bill_.
[72] The measure was carried against the Government by a vote of 79 to
47.