HC Deb 08 August 1882 vol 273 cc1243-62

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.

Clause 2 (Revised scale of pay for certain officers).

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he wished to move the Amendment that stood in his name, to leave out the word "six," and insert the word "three." The Amendment was a very reasonable one, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland could object to it.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, leave out "six," and insert"three."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)

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

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the object of making the period a comparatively short one was to show that the scale of pay was to be fixed once for all. The object would be obtained more completely by accepting the shorter date, therefore he should be glad to agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment agreed to; word inserted accordingly.

MR. SEXTON

said, that he desired, in the same line of the same page, after the word "sanction," to insert the words "of Parliament, and." The clause, as it at present stood, was to enable the Commissioners of the Treasury to sanction the Lord Lieutenant to carry out the powers; and his (Mr. Sexton's) desire was that the sanction of Parliament, as well as that of the Commissioners of the Treasury, should be necessary. He desired to take away from the Lord Lieutenant the unrestricted power which he would have under the present scheme. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given certain figures; but those figures, and the speech in which they had been given, did not bind the Lord Lieutenant, and could not be held to be binding on the Irish Executive. They might believe as much as they liked that the figures would bind the Lord Lieutenant; but they could not be sure of it. He wanted to know what was the meaning of the new departure taken in the Bill with regard to the fixing of salaries? When he went back to the year 1864, when the last Bill for fixing the salaries of the Constabulary in Ireland was passed, he found that when the Government desired to make an increase in the pay, they set out section after section, and mentioned each officer in each grade, setting a limit, beyond which the Lord Lieutenant should not go; and that, he (Mr. Sexton) took the liberty of saying, was a proper statutory method of proceeding. It was for that House to oversee that expenditure, and take care that no officer of the Executive, however exalted he might be, had power to deal with these matters as he liked. The Government should say, for instance, how much the maximum salary of a first class County Inspector should be, and how much the salary of a Sub-Inspector. He proposed his Amend- ment, with some confidence that it would be accepted by the Government.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, lina 8, after "sanction," insert "of Parliament, and."—(Mr. Sexton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he was no more certain of the object of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Sexton) than he was of the process by which he wished to attain that object. Last time they discussed the subject on going into Committee, the hon. Member had said that he should be glad to see the scale of pay fixed in the Bill, and, in order to meet the hon. Member, he (Mr. Trevelyan) had prepared a clause and Schedule with all the rates of pay; but he had fancied that by his (Mr. Trevelyan's) allowing the first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) to be put and carried, that he (Mr. Sexton) intended to acquiesce in the terms on which the Government proposed to fix the pay for the Constabulary. He did not think the present Amendment would meet the purpose. If the Amendment were agreed to, after the Lord Lieutenant and the Commissioners of the Treasury had fixed the pay of the police, they would have to take Parliament into their councils, and an Act would have to be passed for the purpose of sanctioning the salaries decided upon. That, of course, would have been almost impossible if they had retained the words "six months" in the Bill, and utterly impossible if they left in it the words "three months."

MR. SEXTON

said, his object was only to enable the right hon. Gentleman to do what he seemed disposed to do—namely, to put the rates in the Bill.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he was not sure that it was not too late to do that; but, at any rate, it might be possible to put some words in the Schedule, if the Committee should determine upon having the scale fixed. Personally, he should deprecate it, because there was always some chance of a mistake being made, especially at this distance from the Central Constabulary Office. He wished the Committee would allow him to read to them the Schedule, and to give them a positive assurance that the rate of pay therein stated would be eventually ordained by the Lord Lieutenant, because it was the rate sanctioned by the Treasury. If the hon. Member would be satisfied with that assurance, it might be unnecessary to proceed further in this respect. A part of the clause might be left out and a Schedule inserted, and he would propose to leave out from line 10 to the end of line 12, and to say, "the rates specified in the Schedule of this Act." If hon. Members were seriously intent on that form of proceeding, he should be glad to make that alteration, and in that case he would ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. SEXTON

Certainly; on that understanding, I will be glad to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 11, to leave out "such rates as the Lord Lieutenant," in order to insert the words "rates not exceeding those specified in the Schedule of this Act."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

MR. SEXTON

said, he wished the rate of pay to take effect from the passing of the Act, therefore he proposed to leave out from "thirtieth," in line 14, to "eighty-two," in line 15, inclusive, and to insert "passing of this Act." He was not aware that the usual rule in such cases had been adopted. The Government had dealt with past services of constables and sub-constables by means of a special gratuity. If they thought that the officers deserved payment for past services, and gave them a special grant, why should they not deal with them in the same way as they had dealt with the men? Why should this Bill come into operation on the 30th June?

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 14, leave out from "thirtieth," to "eighty-two," in line 15, inclusive, and insert "passing of this Act."—(Mr. Sexton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he would read the Schedule containing the rates of pay. It was as follows;— For county inspector £350 per annum on appointment to that rank, increasing by £20 per annum to £450. For sub-inspectors: For sub-inspectors of the 3rd class, £125 per annum; for sub-inspectors of the 2nd class, £165 per annum during the first five years of service in that class; £180 per annum during the remaining service in that class. For sub-inspectors of the 1st class, £225 per annum during the first three years of service in that class; £250 per annum during the subsequent three years of service in that class; £275 per annum during the subsequent six years of service in that class; and £300 per annum during the remaining years of service in that class. As to the proposition that the pay should begin on the 30th of June of this year, it was convenient that it should begin on quarter day; and the Government, in the date they had fixed, had only followed the precedent of the last revision of salaries on the 17th of August 1874. The scale at that time came in operation on the 1st July previous. The increase had practically been promised in the House of Commons to the officers for a month past; and the allowances both to the men and officers, to the best of his belief, came into operation on a date so far back that the gratuity which the men would receive to-morrow would be given to them on a principle which would go back three years. The hon. Member had no objection to retrospective action, but simply said they ought to pay for the past by gratuity. At this time of the Session it would be inconvenient to proceed in that way.

MR. SEXTON

I said if you pay the officers for the past, you should do it by way of gratuity.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the Government did wish to pay them for the past, on account of their great labours and the sacrifices they had made, just as they wished to pay the men, without taking into consideration the proportion received by the different classes; and for that reason they thought it convenient to give back pay from the 30th June.

THE CHAIRMAN

There are some words here that ought not to be left in, therefore it would be well that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

MR. HEALY

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) proposed to press the Amendment. The Bill would give pay back from the 30th June; but he would point out that on that date this Bill was not so much as thought about. They might as well go back to the 30th June, 1870, as to the 30th June, 1882, because they had as much notion on the former date of passing a measure of this kind as they had on the latter. Hon. Members might think this a small matter on the part of his hon. Friend to object to the payment being made in the manner proposed by the Government; but, after all, a principle was involved, and the question naturally arose, why were they so nice in dealing with the officers when they could not deal in a liberal spirit with the men? Coercion Acts might be retrospective; but this was not a Coercion Act—it was a beneficent measure. No doubt, some pressure had been put upon the right hon. Gentleman by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Dublin University (Mr. Gibson). That was the genesis of the measure, and the right hon. Gentleman was making the matter still worse by adhering to that date, the 30th June. The right hon. Gentleman completely exposed the harsh character of the treatment of the men on the one hand, compared with the kid-gloved handling of the officers on the other.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment, as proposed, will not read. The words, "with such sanction as aforesaid, may think fit," would be struck out. If that alteration is not made, it will have to be amended on Report.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Pensions and allowances, 37 & 38 Vict. c. 80).

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, to leave out the word "five" in line 25, and insert "seven." The sub-section would then read— The gratuity referred to in sub-section one of the said section may be granted to any county inspector or sub-inspector whose service has exceeded seven years, and has been less than ten years. The reason why he proposed the Amendment was that five years was really too short a term for any County Inspector or Sub-Inspector to serve before he was entitled to the gratuity. Seven years was the very least term they could be expected to serve before the gratuity might be granted to them. He knew the right hon. Gentleman would say he had copied the Act of 1874; but still, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) hoped the Go- vernment would see their way to accept his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 25, to leave out "five," and insert "seven."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)

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

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the object of this gratuity was one common enough in all branches of the Public Service—namely, to meet the case of a person who had done respectable service, and who had retired on account of ill-health, before he had come to that period of service at which he could obtain a pension. This provision was inserted in the clause on account of the change in the salary of the future officers of the Force that was made in the next sub-section. Hitherto, Constabulary officers had began, in respect of pension, after 15 years' service; but it was proposed they should begin after 10 years' service. Consequently, the gratuity was given at the end of 10 years' service, instead of 15 years. There was always a certain objection to amending a clause which was merely a re-assertion of an admitted principle in the management of a Force. In the Civil Service a gratuity could only be granted on a medical certificate; and in this case it would not be granted, as he knew full well, having had to do with gratuities of this description, if the ill-health for which the man retired from the Force had been contracted owing to some previous illness which he had concealed when he entered the Force, or if it was caused by circumstances unconnected with the Force. In the Civil Service Act, 1859, there was actually no minimum of limit to these gratuities; and, therefore, to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would be to put the Constabulary of Ireland in a decidedly disadvantageous position, as compared with other branches of the Civil Service.

MR. SEXTON

asked, what would be the maximum amount of gratuity in the case of a County Inspector, and also of a Sub-Inspector? Of course, it would to some extent meet the objection to the granting of a gratuity at the end of a short period of service, if the amount was moderate. He would like to know whether it was by this Bill, or by previous legislation, that the period had been lowered from 15 to 10 years?

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the amount of gratuity given would be one month's salary for every year's service; so that if a man had served for six years he would get six months' salary, according to the scale of pay for the time being. On the question of pension, he might make his remarks now. The pension which was laid down in the Sub-section (b) was the well-known pension of the Civil Service Act of 1859, which the Government proposed to adopt for the Constabulary officers, with all the reservations and conditions which were always made when a new scale of pension was adopted. They had, at the same time, not thought fit to adopt the regulations which were adopted in the case of the Forces Act, 1874, by which a certain number of the Forces were put in a very much too good a position.

MR. SEXTON

said, his question was, whether the proposal to make an officer entitled to pension at the end of 10 years was new?

MR. TREVELYAN

said, it was new under this Bill. So far, the officers would be benefited; but no officer would retire between 10 and 15 years' service, except he was actually broken down. Generally speaking, the new scale would not operate until an officer had served 36 years, and then it would be slightly better.

MR. HEALY

asked what the right hon. Gentleman meant by "respectable service?" The clause provided— The gratuity referred to in Sub-section 1 of the said section, may he granted to any county inspector or sub-inspector whose service has exceeded five years, and has been less than ten years; and then he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say this gratuity was to be given for what he called "respectable service." Was respectable service to be measured by the number of people a constable had caused to be sent into gaol under the Coercion Act?

MR. TREVELYAN

said, by the word "respectable," he meant what was meant in all Services under the Crown—namely that a man should have done that which was considered by the proper authorities to be his duty in the position he occupied.

MR. HEALY

said, he took an interest in this matter, because he found that there was a Bill before the House dealing with another class of public ser- vants. That Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. H. Gladstone), and it went upon entirely different principles. He presumed that the public servants dealt with by the Bill of the hon. Member for Leeds were as much entitled, in their own sphere, to gratuities and pensions, as the rough-riders of the Irish Constabulary; and he wished to know on what principle these gratuities were to be given, and why it was that, in dealing with other Services, the Government did not make pension compulsory? Under this Bill, the men would have the option given to them of retiring either upon the old or the new scale. Under the Bill of the hon. Member for Leeds, retirement was to take place upon the old scale of payment. Why was it that these special privileges were only to be held out to the Royal Irish Constabulary?

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he spoke without book. He should say that among the 80,000 persons who, in one capacity or another, were employed under the Admiralty, there was probably not one who did not, in one way or other, enjoy the prospect of gratuity. As he had said before, in case of retirement, under this Bill, a man would get six months' pay after having served six years; and this was the actual gratuity allowed by the Civil Service Superannuation Act, which regulated the entire Civil Service of the country. With regard to pensions, when a new scale of pay was laid down, as in the present case, it had sometimes been the case, and certainly was in a very marked way in the Bill of 1874, with reference to the men retired before the year 1866, to allow them to keep the old reckoning of the pension, and the new scale of pay, and in that way to place them in an extraordinary position; and that was the cause of a great deal of the discontent which existed in the Irish Constabulary, because they saw men who were treated in an exceptional way, and were treated as these officers would be if they were allowed to take this new scale of 4/6 0/0, or their old scale of pension with the new pay now being laid down. It was not proposed to treat them in that way. Under the Bill they were obliged to take the new scale of pension and the new scale of pay, which did not put them in a more advantageous position than at present, or they were obliged to take the old scale of pension and the old scale of pay. It might be fairly said that the officers of the Constabulary did not gain anything perceptibly by the pension provided by this Bill. He thought it would be found that a great many would prefer to retire on their old pensions.

MR. HEALY

said, he was anxious to know why the Government should wish to place the Royal Irish Constabulary on a higher level as regarded pay and pensions than the other classes of the civil servants? Did the Government favour a particular class of Her Majesty's servants above others? If not, why did the Committee find this principle of gratuity introduced in this perfectly novel Bill brought in last week, whereas, in the Bill introduced at the commencement of the Session by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. H. Gladstone), dealing with another class of public servants, there was no mention of gratuities? He objected to gratuities; but if the principle was to be adopted, it ought certainly to be applied uniformly.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the principle of gratuity was introduced in the Act of 1866. It was continued in the Act of 1874; and it had been in operation ever since, and was so at that moment.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HEALY

said, he found that it was proposed to include in the pension given to the Constabulary officers allowances for their servants. While he was quite willing to agree to the principle that what these gentlemen had received should include what might be fairly considered house-rent, and so on, he thought allowances ought not to be made for servants. During their term of office, these officers had a horse, and they received an allowance for a groom; but, surely, when they left the Constabulary they should not receive an allowance for a servant they no longer required. It was said, with what truth he could not say, that Mr. Clifford Lloyd kept a man to roll his cigarettes. Surely, the Government did not wish to provide a pension for this cigaretteer! On every ground an allowance for servants was too much to ask. He was ready to agree to the principle that "house-rent and lodging" should be included; but he thought the words "and servant" should certainly be omitted. He was very curious to know what defence could be made for the inclusion, of servants. He would propose to omit the words "and servant."

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 14, to leave out the words "and servant."—(Mr. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'and servant' stand part of the Clause."

MR. TREVELYAN

said, that, in the Civil Service, where a man got his salary and absolutely nothing besides, his pension was calculated on salary alone. The general object of this Bill was to increase the pay of the Constabulary, and to regulate their pensions without seriously increasing them. To enable the officers of the future to have as good pensions as the officers of the present, it was necessary to regulate their pensions upon their pay and allowances, or their pay and a portion of their allowances. If so many quota parts of the pay and the whole of the allowances were granted, the pensions would have been larger than it was thought the country was bound to give. If pay alone had been taken into account, the pensions would have been decidedly smaller than they were at present, and, therefore, he presumed, smaller than the country should give. There was no intension to put the retired officer of Constabulary of the future in a worse position than the retired officer of the present time. He held that a very good scale of pension was found by taking the pay and certain allowances, those allowances being the fixed allowances for lodging, house, and servant. The allowances in the Bill were chosen for the purpose of making the pension of the officer of the future practically the same as the officer of the past.

MR. HEALY

said, he would like to know how the pay of a servant was arrived at? Was it provided, under the Constabulary Rules and Regulations, that a Sub-Inspector and a County Inspector should have a servant?

MR. TREVELYAN

said, every officer in the Constabulary had a servant, the allowance being £45.

MR. CALLAN

asked whether, in addition to the allowance of £45 a-year for a servant, there was not also given to a Sub-Inspector and County Inspector the service of a sub-constable?

MR. HEALY

said, that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, he would withdraw his Amendment; but he would suggest, that as there were so many allowances—namely, one for servant, one for horses, one for forage, and so forth—it would be better to lump them together, and give the officers their salaries as such.

MR. CALLAN

said, he had asked his question in the interest of the Force, itself. In addition to the servant, the officers took an orderly, who had to do the most servile work.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

asked, whether officers in the Royal Irish Constabulary had the same privilege as officers in the Army, of having a man from the ranks appropriated as their personal servant? If that were so, he objected to the system very much, because it was simply increasing the expenses of the country for the benefit of individuals. He was appalled at the charges now being put on the country for the extension and perpetuation of this military force in Ireland, when it was patent to most people that a civil force was required in the place of it. He wished to know, whether, in addition to the amount allowed for servants, the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary were allowed to appropriate a constable for their own personal service?

MR. CALLAN

said, that the young men employed in the manner indicated by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) were, as a matter of fact, taken out of the Constabulary Force and made use of as stable-boys—they were not even allowed to wear the uniform more than once a-month. He knew that this was the cause of considerable dissatisfaction amongst the men, who said they entered the Service to be policemen, and not servants and supernumeraries. In this way the ranks were deprived of the services of some of the best men. The County Inspectors and other officers, whenever they noticed a smart man in the Service, asked him to act as their orderly, saying, "You won't have the same chance of promotion, but you will have an easy life."

THE CHAIRMAN

reminded the hon. Member (Mr. Callan) that the question before the Committee was simply whether the amount of allowance to officers for servants should form part of the pension.

MR. LEWIS

said, the Proviso at the end of this clause seemed to be very doubtful in its meaning, and he took that opportunity of calling the attention of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to the fact, in order that he might furnish the Committee with some explanation. The provision was to the effect that no County Inspector and no Sub-Inspector respectively appointed before the passing of the Act, should be qualified to receive pensions of greater amount than either might be granted to them respectively under the scale prescribed by the Act, or than it would have been lawful to grant them if the Act had not been passed. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the effect of this would be to take away entirely from a certain class of officers, who had been in the Service 30 or 40 years, the benefit of an Act which was passed in order to give them full retiring pensions? The first part of the clause limited the pensions to officers who had served 40 years to two-thirds of their annual salary. He believed the Proviso originally was intended to provide that the officers should be entitled to the same pensions after the passing of this Act as they would in some cases have been entitled to before; but, as a matter of fact, there were two alternatives given in the Proviso as it was now worded, and an officer who came within either one of them was caught by it. The particular words of the Proviso which he had before him were— Shall be qualified to receive pensions of greater amount than either may he granted to them respectively under the scale prescribed by this Act only," &c. In his opinion, the effect of this would be to take away from the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary the benefit of the Act to which he had referred.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the officers of the Constabulary had the advantage under this Bill either of the scale of pensions under Sub-section (b) with the new salary, or they had the benefit of the clause with the old salary. But they were not to have the old scale of pensions with the new salary, which would give them considerably larger pensions than they would enjoy under either of the two systems which were open to them.

MR. LEWIS

said, the point raised by the Proviso was a difficult one, and with regard to its effects, a considerable number of competent persons were in favour of the view he had expressed. He was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to make a mistake in this matter, and he could assure him that there were at least 100 officers of the Constabulary who, if the clause were passed in its present form, would be excluded from the old pensions they were now entitled to. The right hon. Gentleman, he was satisfied, desired only that the fullest justice should be done to the officers of the Force; and on that ground he appealed to him closely to study the effect of the Proviso before it was passed. It stated that the officers were not to receive anything greater than one of two amounts, and that wording, he submitted, could only bear the interpretation he had placed upon it.

MR. TREVELYAN

pointed out that if the Act were not passed, the officers would get a pension of a certain amount. That they might still have. But if they chose to take advantage of the new scale, then they would get another pension; but what they could not get was a pension compounded of the new scale and the old pension.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would answer his question with reference to the employment of constables as officers' servants, and not shelter himself behind the plea of irrelevancy. If the question were not answered, then he should feel it his duty to raise the whole question at a future stage of the Bill.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he believed it was a fact that officers of the Constabulary did have the service of orderlies, chosen from amongst the men.

MR. CALLAN

pointed out that the clause contained the words "and servant." The cost of a servant was allowed for in the salary.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, it had been ruled out of Order to discuss the question of officers' servants on this clause. The question as to the propriety of the employment of the men as orderlies had nothing whatever to do with the clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 4 (Retirement of officers).

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. CALLAN

said, he had a considerable objection to urge to the provisions contained in this clause, which enacted that on the 1st day of October, 1882, every Assistant Inspector General and County Inspector and Sub-Inspector should cease to be a member of the Force if he had on that day attained the age afterwards defined in the Bill as the specified age for retirement, and should be qualified to receive the maximum pension of the rank and class in which he was then serving, notwithstanding that he might not then have served the full number of years which qualified him to receive it. The next paragraph of the clause specified the age of retirement as 65 years in the case of an Assistant Inspector General and County Inspector, and 60 years in the case of a Sub-Inspector. He thought there was no sufficient reason for compelling the officers of the Irish Constabulary to retire at the ages specified. He knew a number of officers who had passed those ages, and who were perfectly well able to serve the country for years to come. There had been one of them in the Lobby that evening, as hale and active a man as many younger men in that House. Why should that officer be compulsorily retired at 60 years of age? Surely it would not be wise to part with the services which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was able to render to the country, because he was verging upon the age of 60. There were many hon. and gallant Members of the House who, notwithstanding their years, probably believed themselves still able to command the Channel Fleet or fight Arabi Bey. He did not see why they should retire men at 60, many of whom were in the prime of life. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was in the prime of life. Why should he be retired from the service of the country in a few years because he would then have attained the age of 60? If there was no reason for retiring the right hon. and learned Gentleman to whom he had alluded, there was no reason for retiring the Sub-Inspectors of Constabulary at an age when they were still able usefully to serve the country. Again, there was no reason why these men should be imposed upon the country as pensioners in the prime of life, when they were still capable of performing their duties. He begged, therefore, to move the omission of the paragraph contained between lines 21 and 23 inclusive.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the Amendment could not now be put. No Amendment having been moved, he had put the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. TREVELTAN

said, he would point out that the principle of retiring officers at a certain age was established in all the Services of the State, although there might be some doubt existing as to the age at which they ought to be retired. The principle was acted upon in the Army and Navy, where the duties were analogous to those of the Constabulary, which, he believed, it would not be denied were so far of a military nature that they required for their performance robust and energetic men, as well as men of intellectual and moral qualities. It was therefore deemed essential to have a clause in the Bill that fixed the age of retirement, which, in the case of an Assistant Inspector General or County Inspector, was 65 years, and in the case of a Sub-Inspector 60 years. But it did not follow that the services of these men would be lost to the country at the ages specified, as it sometimes happened that a man at 60 or 65 years of age had still got some years of very good work in him; and the Government retained the liberty to keep anyone they chose out of the operation of the rule, and the consequence was that when it was found that men were fit for further employment, they were always continued in the Service. It was, however, necessary to have some rule with reference to the age at which persons in case of need could be retired.

MR. DALY

said, the rule in question constituted a great hardship on many deserving men, notwithstanding the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He regarded it as shabby treatment on the part of the Government to compel the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary to retire at the ages specified, when, as a rule, they were not physically impaired or disqualified for their work.

MR. CALLAN

said, he should vote against the clause unless there was some promise made or intimation given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he would fix the age for the retirement of Assistant Inspectors General and County Inspectors at 70 years, and that for the retirement of Sub-Inspectors at 65 years. Taking up Dod's Parliamentary Companion, he thought it would be a great hardship if the Members of that House were obliged to retire who had reached the age of 60. It would be undoubtedly a hardship if the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees were compelled to retire at his present age; and he was bound to say that at the age of 63 the right hon. Gentleman was just as active as any Sub-Inspector who would be required to retire at 60 under this clause of the Bill. He contended that the retiring age of Sub-Inspectors should he fixed at 65, instead of 60 years; and he certainly felt inclined to divide against the clause if that limit were not adopted by Her Majesty's Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 5 (An additional county inspector may be appointed).

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, he objected to the clause, which empowered the Lord Lieutenant to add one County Inspector to the number of County Inspectors appointed under the Acts in force at the time of the passing of this Act. The Bill professed to be for the purpose of regulating the pay of certain officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary Force, yet it went on to provide for the appointment, or to allow of the appointment by the Lord Lieutenant, of new officers. There were already 35 County Inspectors, including the official Inspector for the town of Belfast, and as there were only 32 counties in Ireland, the number of Inspectors was three in excess of the number of counties. That was a sufficiently large number of Inspectors for all purposes, and he could not see that there was any necessity to make a single addition to it. Besides this, he was disinclined to allow the Viceroy to have any arbitrary power whatever. He admitted that, in the present instance, no great evil could come from it; even the most arbitrary Viceroy could not do much harm by adding one Sub-Inspector to the number already existing; but he saw no use in giving him this power, which appeared to him entirely inappropriate to this scheme of legislation. He therefore moved that the clause be omitted.

Amendment proposed, "To leave out Clause 5."—(Mr. Justin M'Carthy.)

MR. TREVELTAN

explained, that the Lord Lieutenant would only exercise the power of appointing a new County Inspector when it became necessary to fill up a vacancy which might be caused by the promotion of one of the County Inspectors to the position of Inspector at Dublin Castle. If that explanation satisfied the hon. Member for Longford, he (Mr. Trevelyan) trusted he would withdraw his opposition to the clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.

MR. LEWIS,

in rising to move the following Clause:—

(Calculation of pensions of persons who retired before the passing of the Act of 1874.)

All persons who, previous to the coming into operation of 'The Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1874,' retired from service in the Royal Irish Constabulary are hereby declared to be entitled to have the superannuations or pensions granted to them respectively under the provisions of the Act passed in the Session of Parliament held in the tenth and eleventh years of Her present Majesty, entitled 'An Act to regulate the superannuation allowances of the Constabulary Force in Ireland, and of the Dublin Metropolitan Police,' calculated upon the scale or rate of pay of which they were respectively in receipt at the respective dates of their retirement, said, it was rendered necessary in consequence of the questions which had arisen as to the interpretation of the clause relating to pensions in the Act of 1874, with regard to persons who joined the Force before 1866. This question of interpretation had been raised several times during the last Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer under the late Government (Sir Stafford Northcote) undertook, on one occasion, to take the opinion of the English Law Officers of the Crown upon the subject. The result of this reference, which was afterwards communicated to the House, was that the Law Officers of the Crown advised that the Government had power to award pensions on the scale provided by the Act of 1874, but that they were not legally bound to do so. A constable who retired before the passing of the Act of 1874 was awarded a pension calculated on the salary payable between the years 1847 and 1866, although he might have continued to serve until 1874; in other words, his pension was not calculated upon what he was receiving at the time of retirement, but upon what he had received some years anteriorly, whereas a constable who retired after a certain day in 1874 received a pension of larger amount, although he had not served for so many years. Thus it sometimes happened that persons received pensions 100 per cent greater than those received by others of the same rank and longer service. Again, a constable who entered the Force after 1866 had 2½ per cent deducted from his pay, so that the men were worse off in two respects. He believed he had put the case of the men correctly before the Committee as it was affected by the Acts of Parliament to which he had referred, because he found that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) had stated the matter in the same way in a letter which he sent to the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon); and, therefore, he took the present opportunity for moving the second reading of a new clause, which would rectify the inequalities now existing.

Clause (Calculation of pensions of persons who retired before the passing of the Act of 1874), brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the Government were not in a position to admit the clause into the Bill. In the first place, it dealt with the position of the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary; whereas the Bill was for the purpose of regulating the pay of the officers of that Force. That might not be a very great objection to hon. Members who took a strong interest in the Bill. But he said that if the Government had proposed to deal with the officers, as the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) proposed to deal with the men, there would have been an outcry that would certainly have wrecked the Bill. He did not propose to go into the question from a legal point of view—first, because he did not feel competent to do so; and next, because the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken the opinion of the Law Officers upon the meaning of the Act of 1874, that opinion being that it would have been legal for the Government to pay the sums in question had they been pleased to do so, but that the Act of 1874 did not render this obligatory. Under those circumstances, he thought the Government were entitled to regard the question from an administrative point of view. Looking at it in this light, the question stood thus. The men appointed before 1847 received a very low scale of pay as compared with that which the men at present enjoyed; but with this low scale of pay, they were entitled to pensions on a much higher scale—that was to say, after 20 years' service they obtained a pension equal in amount to their pay. But in 1847, and afterwards in 1866, the scale of pay was very much raised; and the question presented itself as to whether the men were entitled to receive, with a higher rate of pay, pensions upon the same principle as had been in operation when the salaries were so much lower. It was obvious that that would be a very great burden indeed on the public; and such a change was not the intention of the Legislature at any time, because the 7th section of the Act of 1866 said that— Whereas it is expedient that the present members of the Constabulary force should continue to be entitled to receive retiring allowances calculated on the rates of pay existing before the passing of this Act. It was quite true that the persons who retired between 1866 and 1874 did enjoy exceptional advantages—advantages so exceptional that the contrast between those and the men who were now beginning to retire was a part, and a very serious part, of the cause of the feeling which now existed in the Force. But it was very hard on the Government, if a certain number of persons enjoying very special advantages made everyone who came after them discontented, and that hon. Gentlemen in this House should also urge the case of men who came before the recently-appointed men and had retired long ago on pensions. The men referred to did not enter the Service under the condition of getting this pension. They entered under conditions that they thought good enough at the time, and he did not think it would be to the public advantage to go back and grant to the men the new scale of pension, adding to it all the arrears of pension that would accrue to them.

Question put, and negatived.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.