"FACTS- NOT FICTION."
[To THE EDITOR- Or THE " SPECTATOR."] must bow to. the editorial fiat that the correspondence on the issue raised by Mr. Roberts's letter on Civil Service emoluments cannot be continued, and readily appreciate that further protracted discussion would be tedious to your readers. I am therefore writing direct to Mr. Roberts in regard to certain points raised in his letter on which he appears still to labour under considerable misapprehension. In the interests of fair play, however, and in order that your readers may not be misinformed, I trust that you will allow me to make the following brief and altogether uncontroversial comments on certain questions of fact.
Mr. Roberts states he took his " facts " from " certain authoritative statements in Parliament—and the Press "- citing two letters by (1) Mr. Geoffrey Drage and (2) dolonel C. Waley Cohen, respectively; remarks, not altogether without reason, that he contends he had every right to rely on these statements, and justifiably points out that they " went unchal- lenged at the time." (1) Mr. Drage stated that " the Permanent Secretary of the Treasury (a) formerly received £2,000 per annum- . His duties are now divided among three officials, each of whom receives (b) a salary of £3,000, with a bonus of MO, which (c) appears to be approximately permanent, and (d) the pensions of these fortunate individuals are apparently to be based on their total salaries of £3,750." (a) As long ago as 1910, and probably many years before that, the salary of the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury was £2,500. Before the war there were two joint Permanent Secretaries, and in 1916 three (one at asoo). (b) The bonus was never £750, but £500 (now withdrawn). (c) The bonus was not " approximately per- manent," but variable with the cost of living. (d) The total salary was £3,500. not £3,750, and the Pension was specifically
not to be based on this total, but only on a stated proportion. Mr. Roberts is therefore mistaken in stating (on the authorits of Whitaker) that " the salary of the highest permanent official at the Treasury was raised from £2,000 to £3,500." (2) Colonel Cohen mentioned the case of "an official at the War Office who had a salary of £1,500 in 1919, but two years later was receiving £3,000 plus a bonus of £500 to £700 for exactly the same work." The official in question was receiving £2,300 in 1919, in 1921 £3,000 plus a bonus (now withdrawn) of £500; in the meantime, his status had been altogether changed, and lie had been raised to the Army Council with increased responsibilities.
I wrote a letter of correction to the Press on the day Mr. Drago's letter appeared; it was ignored. That is the complaint of the Civil Service against certain newspapers. Statements which are fallacious and even untrue are continually appear. ing, sometimes by design, more often by accident; corrections are refused, and as a result Mr. Roberts and many other members of the general public are seriously misled. Of course, the Civil Service does not expect to be immune from legitimate and truthful criticism. Mr. Roberts instances one more case, stating that "it was acknowledged in the House of Commons on April 16th that the Secretary to a department whose salary was normally .21,500 was receiving not only an increase of salary of £700, but a war bonus of £750 as well, so that his total remuneration had risen to £2,950. Unfortunately (ride Hansard), the House of Commons did not sit on April 16th, so that I have been unable to trace this to its source. Quite possibly it is true. Anyhow, the official—whoever he was—is certainly not now drawing more than £2,200, and if his duties and responsibilities have been largely increased—if, for example, an entirely new and important department has been superimposed on the old department in conformity with the findings of a pre-war Royal Commission (as has happened at the Treasury)—I suggest the increase may have been fully justified. It is a well-recognized principle in almost every walk of life that, within limits, increased responsibilities entail increased remuneration.—I am, Sir, &c., FACTS NOT FICTION.
[We think it only fair to our correspondent to publish his letter, but fairness also requires us to make a similar exception in the case of Mr. Drage, whose letter appears below. We must leave our readers to judge for themselves.—Ea. Spectator.]
Previous page
