SECOND READING.

HC Deb 04 August 1883 vol 282 cc1580-90

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)

MR. BIGGAR

said, he thought it extraordinary that the second reading of this Bill should be moved without an explanation. The Bill proposed to set at defiance the principles which were laid down by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) in a speech he made not long ago. In that speech the hon. Gentleman laid clown the principle that the system of Government in Ireland was so bad that it would be very difficult to make it worse, and that a great reform was needed in the way of giving the local authorities more power; yet in the face of that public declaration he now came down to the House and introduced a Bill which would have the effect of intensifying that system of centralization. Now, if he might presume to offer any advice to a young public man like the hon. Gentleman, it would be not to advocate one principle outside the House and another within its walls. That, he might say, was the besetting sin of the parent of the hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, of a very large proportion of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. He (Mr. Biggar) objected to this Bill, on the ground that it took the power of granting or refusing pensions out of the hands of the Poor Law Guardians, and handed it over to the Local Government Board. That he regarded as a very unsatisfactory thing to do. Again, the Treasury, at the present moment, paid half the salaries of the schoolmasters and medical officers of the Unions; and yet, under this Bill, the ratepayers of the different districts would have to bear the whole burden of the pensions. He had reason to believe that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) personally disapproved of the Bill, and that it had not the favour also of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, and that the hon. Gentleman now merely moved the Bill because, on a former occasion, it was placed in his hands by the late Chief Secretary. Another right hon. Gentleman, who was Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), had said that it was a perfectly preposterous measure; and, under all these circumstances, he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three mouths.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word now, "and at the end of the Question to add the words" upon this day three months."—(Mr. Biggar.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. MELDON

said, that this Bill was before a Select Committee, of which the hon. Member for Cavan was a Member; and there he understood the hon. Gentleman expressed himself in favour of the principle of the Bill, though objecting to some of its details. [Mr. BIGGAR: No, no!] At the present moment the granting of superannuations to Union officers in Ireland was altogether discretionary with the Board of Guardians; and these Boards, generally speaking, either gave too much, or they gave nothing at all. They dealt liberally with their own favourites, whether for political reasons or not he would not say, and they dealt unfairly with those officers with whom they disagreed. Some very strong evidence to that effect was given before the Select Committee. To an officer who was 70 years of age, and had served a certain Board for 25 years, no pension was given at all, and in other cases in which persons were 70 years of age with 22 years' service, 63 years of age with 16 years' service, 78 years of age with 28 years' service, 68 years with 38 years' service, and 68 with 25 years' service, no pensions whatever were given. On the other hand, it had been conclusively proved that a clerk with nine years' service and a salary of £90 a-year was given two-thirds of his salary; another with £75 a-year and 10 years' service was given £50 pension; another officer with £37 10s. and nine years' service was given £15; and so on through a long list of cases enumerated by Mr. Robinson before the Committee. He sincerely trusted, therefore, that in the interest of a respectable body of public servants this Bill would be passed. At the present time no officer could send in an application for a pension, nor could a Board of Guardians express any opinion as to whether an officer should receive a pension, until he had actually left the service. The result of that was that they would rather die in harness than leave the service on the chance of getting a pension. Those Boards of Guardians had shown conclusively, in cases in which they had been tried, that their discretion had not been properly exercised. It was suggested that as the Treasury paid half the salaries of the medical officers and schoolmasters, they should also pay half the pensions. He thought that would be a fair arrangement; but until that arrangement became law, he thought it would be a monstrous proposition that the pensions of so highly-respectable a body of public servants should be interfered with and confiscated.

MR TOTTENHAM

said, he hoped, in the interests of a very meritorious body of public servants, that the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time. These officers were absolutely dependent upon the Boards of Guardians as to whether they received a retiring pension or not; and as this Bill provided that that should no longer be so, he thought it a reasonable proposition. It had been a very long time be- fore the House, and he thought there was an almost unanimous feeling in favour of that body of public servants being considered.

MR O'KELLY

said, he opposed the Bill on two grounds. In the first place, it raised the question of whether pensions should be given to Civil servants at all. He, for one, did not see any reason why such pensions should be given. They were paid good salaries, and ought to be able to provide for themselves out of them for their old age. He opposed the Bill also on the ground that it took from the local authorities the power of managing their own affairs. Even since the Irish people had got some political power, a series of these Bills had been introduced from time to time to deprive the local authorities of all the rights which they enjoyed in the good old Tory times. If this Bill became law, the Boards of Guardians would have no power of controlling their own officers; and these officers would become as much part and parcel of the Government as the police or the immediate employés of Dublin Castle. It was a measure to increase the number of irresponsible officials in Ireland; if it passed, it would embitter the feelings of the mass of the Irish people, and would be a cause of constant conflict between the authorities and the people. Under these circumstances, he was determined to oppose in Committee the further progress of the measure that Session.

MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE

said, he made no explanation on introducing the Bill, because he was aware that hon. Members of the House had already had a full opportunity of knowing all it contained. The Bill was introduced early last Session; and after considerable delay, owing to the opposition of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), it was read a second time without a Division, to be referred to a Select Committee. That Committee sat for three or four days taking evidence, and afterwards sent in a short special Report; but, the Session being far advanced, the Bill was proceeded with no further at that time. He need hardly say that the hon. Member for Cavan was quite wrong in supposing that either the Chief Secretary or himself were opposed to the Bill. He quite admitted that there was in the Bill a centralizing tendency; and, therefore, he was not altogether sur- prised that hon. Members from Ireland on the opposite side should be opposed to it. If, however, the Bill had a centralizing effect, its justification lay in the way in which Boards of Guardians had misused their powers as to pensions; and on that he would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway to pay very particular attention to the evidence taken before the Committee last year. It was true that by the Bill the powers of the Irish Local Government Board would be virtually increased, because it was proposed to maintain most of the existing powers of that body with respect to pensions, and it was also proposed to abolish the powers of the Boards of Guardians over the pensions of Union officers. At the same time the Local Government Board had the power, under the present law, not only to cancel pensions granted by the Guardians, but to reduce them. [Mr. O'KELLY: It cannot confer.] No, it could not confer pensions; but it could reduce or cancel, and the 4th clause of this Bill proposed to maintain that power. If it would facilitate the passage of the Bill, there would be no objection to the omission of the 4th clause; and the result would be to reduce the power of the Local Government Board, and leave it only power of sanctioning or else of entirely refusing pensions. That did not seem to be a power of very great magnitude. It would be a very strong measure for the Local Government Board entirely to cancel the pensions of Union officers, and hitherto it had acted with extreme generosity in regard to them. The hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) had attached undue importance to the supposed political result the Bill would have, and had also said that it would open up the whole question of whether these officers ought to have pensions at all. But that was not so, for even if this Bill did not pass the existing law would remain in force, and the principle of granting pensions would remain. What the Government wanted to do by this Bill was to obtain some uniform and regular system to give a feeling of certainty to officers that when they had performed their duties with efficiency and honesty, they might look to receiving a proper pension in their declining years. In the Report of the Committee there was au instance of a medical officer in Cavan, aged 79, of 50 years' service, suffering from varicose veins, brought on by great walking, also from bad sight, partial deafness, and bronchitis, who had to continue performing his duties, because he could not obtain a pension. Although this was as bad a case as could be found, it was not exceptional. Many old and feeble officers were compelled to hold on to their offices, because, if they retired without a pension, they would starve. This was an injury to the Public Service and the ratepayers. He thought that hon. Members opposite need anticipate no serious political results from the Bill. In his opinion, it would bring a very great boon to the Union officers of Ireland; and he hoped that after the second reading hon. Members would examine the Bill carefully, and go into Committee without any spirit of hostility. The Bill was, he thought, supported both by hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House, and by hon. Gentlemen opposite—[Mr. BIGGAR: Tories.]—and he had very good reason to know that many Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite were not hostile to the Bill, though they might feel called upon to take a Division on the second reading. Before the Bill went into Committee, he should be glad to communicate with hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to any Amendments which they might put upon the Paper.

MR. HEALY

said, the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) had displayed the hereditary ability that might have been expected of him in the statement he had made; but he had not accurately appreciated the position of Irish Members with regard to this measure, the genesis of which was sufficient in itself to excite their suspicions. He was himself not at all opposed to the principle of the Bill; but it would be right to explain why Amendments would probably be proposed in Committee. It was during the régime of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) as Chief Secretary that a deputation waited upon the right hon. Gentleman at Dublin Castle, and asked his support to a measure of this character for reasons which deserved no sympathy from that House. The hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) was unfortunate in referring to the Report of the Select Committee; because it appeared from that Report that Mr. Henry John Chapman, President of the Medical Council, urged that the Bill should be passed, because it would take power from those Board of Guardians which were composed of the advocates of Fenianism and Land Leagueism. That showed, at least, that the measure had a political complexion. Could the hon. Member for Leeds, who was animated by a liberal spirit and a desire to meet the just demands of hon. Members from Ireland, wonder at suspicion being aroused in Irish minds by this Bill? He agreed that the Boards of Guardians were not the proper persons to be intrusted with too much power over the pensions of these officers, especially when they came to consider that the whole body was as a general rule, liable to be appointed from persons drawn from a class not in sympathy with the people. He thought the Bill might very fairly be treated as one of a non-contentious character, and that they might be content to go into Committee with unbiassed minds; but, on the other hand, there were principles in the Bill which made it practically impossible that they should subscribe to it in the interests of the ratepayers. He thought the control given to the Local Government Board in the matter was extremely unfair. It was a Board of nominees, and Mr. Robinson exercised the chief control. Nobody imagined that Mr. George Morris, the other Member, for the £5,000 or £10,000 salary he drew, did 5,000 half-pennies worth of work; indeed, few people believed that Mr. George Morris ever did any work; and as for Mr. Robinson, his attitude before the Select Committee was that of the hard, unflinching, promoted Castle clerk, who meant to grasp all the power he could, and to use it to the advantage of his own class. He dismissed Dr. Kenny in the North Dublin Union, which was a most disgraceful proceeding, and admitted that his action had never been questioned by the right hon. Member for Bradford. He objected altogether to give Mr. Robinson more power. He would, however, appeal to the hon. Member for Cavan, considering that this was a measure on which there must be a divergence of opinion among Irish Members, whether it was worth while to go into the Lobby upon it, and he suggested that they should allow the second reading to be taken. He thought they would find the hon. Member for Leeds, who had no arrière pensèe, and did not come to that House with many preconceived opinions, and who had displayed that spirit of tolerance which they might expect from a scion of the house to which he belonged, would be willing to treat fairly any Amendment which might be proposed in Committee.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he was glad to hear the tone of the remarks of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). He quite agreed that there were points in the Bill which should be considered in Committee; but he thought the whole gist of the Bill was one which recommended itself to the common sense and humanity of the House. He should give the Bill his support on the second reading.

MR T. D. SULLIVAN

said, he should feel hound to vote for the second reading, because if they rejected the Bill they threw overboard the claims of deserving officers, and left those officers to the chance of what Boards of Guardians might choose to do for them. He was very well aware that the majority of the Boards of Guardians throughout Ireland were perfectly willing to deal fairly with their officers who had done their duty; but it was also well known that there was a minority who would not give pensions under any circumstances. It was time, therefore, to effect a change. Let them deal with these bad Guardians as they had dealt with the bad landlords—compel them to do by force of law what others did from conscientious feeling. There were several points in which the Bill would require Amendment in Committee; but the principle that deserving officers should not, after many years of labour, be thrown on the roadside destitute was one which he felt bound to support.

MR DAWSON

said, that it was the principle of the Bill that he entirely dissented from. He thought it would go to the root of all their local government, if, instead of looking to their employers for their reward, these officers should look to such a body as the Local Government Board. He was astonished to hear the hon. Member (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) give his adhesion to a measure which would cut the ground from all authority and discipline. Let hon. Members be consistent. A few days ago they were seeking to strengthen and extend the representative scope of those Boards. Were they now going to diminish that elective power? Were they to say that the bodies the people elected were so incompetent to discharge their duties that they should have to give the power to Mr. Robinson? Let them do away with popular representation altogether rather than stultify themselves. In conversations which he had had with the distinguished person who now acted as Lord Lieutenant, that Nobleman admitted that one of the puzzles of the administration was its centralization; that he wished for the growth of local government and the decrease of that centralization. And were they, with a Nobleman of those sentiments in the Office of Viceroy, going to hand over some of the powers of the Local Government Bodies to the Local Government Board? He certainly should vote against the Bill.

MR CORRY

said, he had satisfied himself that this was a Bill that should be supported by the Irish Members, and he thought the principle of the Bill a good one. The Bill put into the hands of the Local Government Board such a power as would force the Boards of Guardians to do their duty.

MR O'SULLIVAN

said, he regretted the division of opinion in the Irish Party on this Bill. They were considering whether they would give superannuation allowance to Irishmen. ["No, no!"] Well, they were Irishmen who had faithfully discharged their duties. He knew a case, in the workhouse to which he belonged, of a gatekeeper who, because he was paid weekly wages, could not get a pension. This Bill would take in that class of men. Another man, a workhouse porter, was refused a pension, and died as a pauper inmate. There were many Boards of Guardians who would hardly give a shilling retiring allowance to anyone. The fault of the Bill was that there was no provision for the relief of those Unions which had dealt liberally with their officers. He was quite in favour of the principle of the Bill.

MR. O'BRIEN

said, he thought his hon. Friend had misconceived the scope of the objections to the Bill. They desired to protect officers against unreasonable Boards of Guardians; and there were unreasonable Boards and cases of hardship such as the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) had detailed, and he would support a Bill having that object to the fullest extent. But he did not see how anyone who had a respect for representative institutions in Ireland could consent to a proposition which removed the Union officers from the control of the Guardians who paid them. There ought to be a margin left within which the Guardians could exercise their discretion of giving either a large or a comparatively small allowance, as the merits of a case might require. If this Bill passed in its present form, the officers would not care a row of pins for the Guardians, so long as they retained the good opinion of the Local Government Board; and they all knew that the good opinion of the Local Government Board was to be obtained by putting themselves in opposition to the popular Guardians and the people.

MR. LALOR

said, from his experience of Boards of Guardians, he should say that they were, as a rule, anxious to deal liberally with their old officers. He maintained that pensions should be at the disposal of those that were the employers. The Boards of Guardians would have no control over the officers if the Bill were passed. Then, some officers were more deserving of pensions, such as clerks to the Unions; while the medical officers, who got their experience and practice out of the poor patients in the workhouses, left their positions as soon as they had got together a sufficient private practice.

MR PARNELL

said, he would be glad to vote for any measure brought forward by the hon. Member for Leeds, who had always shown himself so kind and just in his views regarding Ireland. He felt, however, that the principle of this Bill was very defective; and while not desirous of challenging a Division himself, yet, if a Division were challenged, he should feel obliged to vote against the second reading. He entirely agreed with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dawson), who, he thought, had hit the blot in the principle of the Bill, which removed from the Local Body the discretion of deciding whether an official should get any superannuation allowance or not. The hon. Member for Leeds proposed to make a change, and to transfer that power to the Local Government Board. He earnestly asked the hon. Member for Leeds to consider whether the suggestion thrown out by his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) was not worthy of attention—namely, whether a minimum pension should be fixed which would be compulsory on those Local Bodies, and after that there should be a discretion given to the Boards of Guardians to increase the allowance as they thought proper? He would thereby recognize the principle of elective responsibility in Ireland—a principle which, he trusted, the hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of supporting hereafter in the course of his career in that House, regarding both Ireland and England. By doing that he would be doing much to smooth the passage of his Bill through Committee. In offering this compromise they were offering all they could fairly offer as Members who were pledged to the principle of forwarding local self-government in Ireland. He had received communications from other Bodies in Ireland, asking that their employés should be included in the Bill, and that the Charter under which the Corporation of Dublin held its rights and privileges should be altered in order to put the question of granting retiring allowances in the hands of the Local Government Board. The departure was an enormous one, and he thought the compromise offered should be accepted.

MR LEAMY

said, he thought it was a most absurd thing to bring in a Bill to render it obligatory on Boards of Guardians to give pensions, and leave it afterwards to the Local Government Board to say whether they should be granted or not.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 25: Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 259.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.