HC Deb 21 May 1883 vol 279 cc687-93

Order for Second Reading read.

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

MR. BIGGAR

said, he begged to ask, as a matter of Order, whether this Bill could be brought in after half-past 12, when Notice of opposition had been given to it? He knew there was money in the Bill; but there were also a great many other matters in it, and he therefore submitted that it did not come within the definition of a Money Bill, and was, consequently, under the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule.

MR. SPEAKER

This is a Bill to provide for the pay and pensions of the Constabulary and Police of Ireland, and, no doubt, it is a Money Bill, and, therefore, exempted from the operation of the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he had no wish whatever to delay the pro- gress of the measure, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) would take the second reading with the general assent of the House; but he could not allow this opportunity to pass without entering, he would not say a protest, but a caveat, with regard to a principle laid down in the Bill which it might be proposed to extend to the police of counties and boroughs in England. He was well aware of the critical condition of the Government in Ireland, and of the absolute necessity there was for supporting them in any measure they might think important or necessary for the satisfaction of the Constabulary in Ireland, which had behaved so well under very trying circumstances, to which every Member of the House felt they owed so much, which had been for some time past so dissatisfied; and into whose position the Government had made inquiries, satisfying themselves that it ought to be improved. He had, therefore, no objection to take to the Bill, applying, as it did, to Ireland; but, under other circumstances, he might have been inclined to take exception to it. However, in assenting to the Bill, he must not be understood as assenting to the principle of absolute right to pension on retirement after 25 years' service. That was a principle of compensation given for the first time to the Irish Constabulary, and it was a principle which by-and-bye, perhaps, it would be proposed to extend to England. If he assented to it now, he must claim the right to object to it when it was proposed to apply it to counties and boroughs at the cost of the ratepayers, in respect of which it was his belief, in accordance with his experience, it would be a bad system. The Police Force in England should continue as it had been heretofore. In making these concessions to the Irish Constabulary, the Government had adopted what appeared to him to be a somewhat dangerous course, and one for which, so far as he knew, there was no precedent either in the Military, Naval, or Civil Services. The system of superannuation upon approved service was, of course, a most valuable one, which he should always readily support. It had always been held that, except on certain conditions of length of service or of a certain age being arrived at, there should be no right to demand compen- sation. In the Civil Service of this country the age was 60, and the period of service 40 years; but in the Bill it was proposed to give the Irish Constabulary pensions after 25 years of approved service. In the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman might make he should like very much to hear him explain more fully the meaning of the 11th clause, which had regard to the contributions towards the superannuation fund of the members of the Constabulary Force themselves. It seemed that the constables were no longer to contribute to the fund. Not very long ago the whole Civil Service of the country was required to contribute towards the expenses of its own retiring allowances; and it was owing to an unfortunate combination of Parties in that House that that payment of a contribution of 5 per cent was abolished. He understood that, at present, the Irish Constabulary paid a contribution of that kind to their superannuation fund, but that, in future, they were not to do so; and he would therefore ask whether it was the fact that two descriptions of payment would be going on at one and the same time—that was to say, whether one class of constables would be contributing towards the fund, whilst another employed side by side with them were not? He should very much like to have that point cleared up, in order to enable him to form his judgment as to the other measure which the Government would shortly introduce. One felt that the Constabulary in Ireland was a quasi military force; and that, under the circumstances of the country, the Government must be held responsible for placing it in a satisfactory condition. If it was found necessary to increase the salaries of the constables or their pensions, or improve their position, the Government came with a very strong case to recommend the alteration, which was at the cost of the public funds; and those who might object to the principle of the proposal of the Ministry had very weak hands to resist them. For his own part, he could not accept the responsibility of adversely criticizing the Government proposal or of opposing it; therefore, he had not a word to say against the second reading of the Bill, and he would therefore, as he had said, only enter a caveat with regard to some of the contents of the Bill, so that he might be able to op- pose the principle when it was brought forward in the case of England.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, he would move the adjournment of the de bate for two reasons—first, because he had been under the impression not only that this measure was not a Money Bill, but that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to treat it as such—

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he had given a distinct pledge to bring the Bill on at whatever time the Order might be reached.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, that, at any rate, many of those who best understood the Bill had remained away under the impression that no Irish Business was to be taken for the first few days after the re-assembling of Parliament. It had been distinctly understood that no Irish Estimates would be taken far some days after the Whitsuntide Holidays; and, surely, if the absence of Irish Members was a reason for putting off the Estimates, it was an equally powerful reason for putting off this important question of the pay and pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary. He would strongly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to postpone the second reading; and if he would not do that, he (Mr. M'Carthy) should be bound to persist in his Motion.

MR. SPEAKER

Does any hon. Member second the Motion?

MR. BIGGAR

intimated his willingness to second the Motion, and said, he did so for the reason that no Irish Member had believed that this question would come on that night, the Prime Minister having intimated some time ago that no Irish Estimates would be taken in the beginning of the week. The result of the understanding on the part of the Irish Members was that some of the most active Members of the Party were absent from London; and, more than that, that some of those who had been present that night had gone away under the impression that no Irish Business would come on. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had been present half-an-hour ago; but he had gone away, as had also the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and the hon. Member for Dungarvan(Mr. O'Donnell). Both Members for Queen's County had also gone away; and all these absences were owing to the fact that the Irish Members had not expected that this Bill, which they had intended to oppose very strongly, would come on this evening. Those hon. Members had implied, from the pledge of the Prime Minister, that the Estimates would not be taken, that no other Irish Business could come on. They never dreamed that such an attempt as the present would be made to steal a march on the Irish Members—they had never expected that the Government would push on this Bill at such an hour, when there was no possibility of discussing it, even supposing there had been anyone present who understood the question to talk about it.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Justin M'Cartluj.)

MR. CALLAN

said, he trusted that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would give the House an assurance that if the second reading was taken that night that the Committee stage would be postponed for some time—that he would defer it for at least a week, so as to give hon. Members from Ireland, who took an interest in the subject, time to be present. If the right hon. Gentleman would give that pledge all purposes would be served, and the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. M'Carthy) might withdraw his Motion. There was a general feeling in favour of the Bill—he did not know what proportion, but probably five-sixths of the Irish Members were in favour of the principle of the measure. [Mr. BIGGAR: No, no!] He maintained that, whatever the Irish Members might think about it, there was a general feeling in Ireland that the Bill, slightly amended and improved, should be passed into law. He did not often differ from his hon. Friends; but he took the liberty of doing so on a question in which he believed much interest for a very deserving class was felt.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, it was extremely important, with the growing difficulties which they found, for various reasons, many of them almost the natural growth, in carrying on the Business of that House, that while pledges that were given should be religiously adhered to, none which had not been given should be imagined. [Reference had been made to a pledge of his that this Bill, though a Money Bill, should not be brought on after half-past 12 o'clock. Well, that pledge had been given most distinctly with regard to the Poor Belief Bill, which was a Money Bill, and very little more than a Money Bill, but, at the same time, a measure which raised a question of great interest to Irish Members. With regard to that Bill, he had given a pledge that it should not be brought on after half-past 12 o'clock; but as to the present Bill, he had given no pledge of the sort, nor could he have consented to give any pledge that would seriously delay the consideration of the Bill by the House. On a previous occasion, when the Bill was read a first time, the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), a most representative Irish Member, had specially urged him to bring it in at half-past 1 in the morning, because, as the hon. Member stated, the subject created such an interest in Ireland that speeches upon it would be reported, even at that late hour. The hon. Member for Carlow had made a speech of great weight and importance on that occasion, and he (Mr. Trevelyan) had tendered an explanation of the Bill, which had been listened to very attentively by hon. Members. He should not have thought of bringing forward the second reading at this moment if it had been necessary for him to make a lengthened statement. Then he came to the pledge of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. It was said the right hon. Gentleman had promised that no Irish Estimates should be taken that night, and undoubtedly that was the case; but during the same evening, and, if he recollected right, in the very same brief discourse, the Prime Minister stated that the Government looked upon tills measure as one of absolutely primary importance, and considered that it should be put in front of all Bills, not so much on account of its intrinsic importance, as of the enormous importance of turning it into law with all possible despatch. He (Mr. Trevelyan) did not wish to enter into the question of the urgency of the Bill. This matter was familiar to many hon. Gentlemen, and perhaps to the Whole House; but one reason for the urgency was that the very large Service whose interest the Bill touched had waited and waited for a very long time, and had waited, too, very patiently, and in a manner that did them very great credit, for a change in their condition. Under these circumstances, he earnestly appealed to the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Adjournment not to press the Motion. The condition upon which the Bill should be read a second time, mentioned by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), was one which, after consulting with the noble Marquess on his left (the Marquess of Hartington), he considered he should be justified in accepting. It was important that the Bill should be pressed forward; but it was most important that the House should have an opportunity of discussing its details in Committee. The Government were, therefore, prepared to pledge themselves that if they got a second reading that night the Bill should not be proceeded with further this week. His impression of the disposition of hon. Members, when the Bill was read a first times, differed from that of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar); his impression was that the Bill was received? with almost universal acceptance. [Mr. BIGGAR: No, no!] He only gave his own impression, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Biggar) seemed to dissent. He believed the principle was accepted, although some hon. Members might consider that the measure would require discussion in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth) seemed to object to the principle of the system of pensions proposed in the Bill; but it should be remembered that pensions in Ireland, at the present moment, might be given after 30 years' service, and this Bill only enabled those pensions to be bestowed after 25 years' service. The provisions of the Bill would require examination to see whether the advantages given to the Irish Police were such as to alarm economists; but these were questions into which he had no right to go, seeing the Motion before the House was only for Adjournment.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, he should withdraw the Motion; but he must say that his impression had been that the assurance of the Prime Minister referred to this Bill as well as to the Estimates.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

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