§ Royal Irish Constabulary.
§ Clause 2 (Revised salaries for men of the Royal Irish Constabulary).
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he found that this clause provided that extra pay should cease after the passing of the Act. If that were agreed to, the men would be in a worse position than they now were.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he thought no constable would be in a worse position. The utmost amount of extra pay under the Proviso was £10, and that was in the case of head constables. The constable would get only £4 extra pay a-year; and he had no doubt those men would profit to the extent of £11 by this Bill. The hon. Member might set his mind at ease upon that point.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (Right of constables to pensions).
MR. O'BRIENasked how many men there were in the Force who would gain no present advantage under this Bill—that was the men who had not completed seven years service? It seemed to him that the Bill was, to a great extent, devised to punish these men, who were, to a large degree, the backbone of the agitation that had brought about this Bill.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, there was no doubt that a large number of the men would not receive any present ad- 1043 vantage under the Bill; but when it was considered who those men were, he did not think their position could be regarded as one for commisseration, but rather as one for envy, because they were men of under seven years' service—men of from 22 or 23 to 27 or 28 years of age—and, after careful examination by the Committee, the conclusion had been arrived at that those men were singularly well off, compared with other persons in their own station, and that at the age of 22 or 23 these men married and began to settle in life, and they would obtain great advantages under the Bill. At their present age their position was very desirable; and when they reached 30 years of age their position would be very much better, and would be very much improved by this Bill. The men who would gain by the Bill were the men who suffered from one defect only, and that the defect of all others most easily cured—namely, youth. The Bill was for the benefit of men who had stayed in the Force, and in benefiting them the Bill benefited the whole Service.
MR. O'BRIENasked whether the large proportion of constables who would receive no benefit under the Bill were not also the men who had made themselves most conspicuous in the agitation? It seemed to him to be a Bill which, in the scale of pay, was very ingeniously devised, in order to make these men the scapegoats, and to draw the sting of the agitation, and break up community of feeling and sentiment among the men—giving nothing to those men who were the backbone of the agitation, and giving a handsome increase of pay to the old and hardened and more favoured ranks of the Service, in order to keep them isolated from their comrades. If he was right in his reading of the Bill, no man was to receive any increase of pay unless he had completed seven years' service—that was to say, the young men were to be made the scapegoats; the Force was to be broken up into various categories; the married men were bought off in one way, and the head constables, who did all they could to thwart the action of their younger Comrades, were to get the larger share of the advantages. It seemed to him that the younger constables were to be left out in the cold; and if they grumbled, it would be perfectly safe to dismiss them without much 1044 ceremony. What he wished to elicit was whether the men who were to receive nothing were not the men who had principally helped to bring this Bill about?
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, this clause provided that a man might voluntarily retire from the Police after 25 years' service and receive a pension for life. He objected to that principle, and held that so long as a man was able physically to perform his duties it was undesirable that he should be allowed to retire. Anyone who had lived in Ireland knew very well that there was a considerable number of stout, active, and intelligent men who were at the present time receiving large pensions from the Constabulary, although they were thoroughly competent to perform all the duties of the Force. Ono of the great aims of these men was to retire on a pension, and then take public-houses. That was their ordinary mode of selecting careers. The age at which policemen entered the Force was between 21 to 23 years, and by this clause they would be able to retire on full pensions at 46 or 48 years of age. Those men were selected just because they were men of large physical power; they led a healthy life; they had very little to do; and they lived under the best possible conditions; so that at the time when they were to be allowed to retire they were of more value to the Service than they had been at any other time. No one could pretend that at the age of 46 or 48 a man was unfit for any of the ordinary occupations of life. If the limit were extended from 25 to 45 years' service that would be much more reasonable. One of the subsequent clauses of the Bill authorized the retirement of a policeman if he was unfit, from any physical cause, to perform his duties; but this sub-section enabled policemen to retire on full pension while still able to perform the duties.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 12, to leave out sub-section (a).—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the object of this Amendment was to strike out voluntary retirement after 25 years' service altogether. If that was done, no man could retire except on the ground 1045 of incapacity. The present rule as to officers and men appointed since 1868 was that they might voluntarily retire after serving 30 years. If they had been appointed before 1866, they must get a medical certificate. The Committee of Inquiry had carefully considered this question, and were in favour of the 25 years' period for retirement. This suggestion was adopted for the Bill of last year, and the principle was adopted from the principle in the Civil Service, from which a man could retire after a certain age without incapacity. These questions of retirement were extremely difficult; but, on the whole, the most practised authorities were in favour of naming an age after which a man was not likely to be efficient, and allowing him to then retire voluntarily. The period of service after which a policeman was not likely to be fully efficient was considered to be 25 years. In the Royal Navy the term was 26 years; but he thought that might be somewhat shortened. If a period was named, and then men were allowed to stay, the almost certain result would be that they would be kept on and not allowed to go until a considerably longer time had elapsed. On the other hand, the men would be discontented when they passed the age of average efficiency. Beyond that, Members of the Committee must not think that constables would be without temptation, and a very solid temptation, to remain in the Service as long as they were capable of performing the duties of the Service; because, in the first place, a man's pension would be very much less than his pay. If he retired after 25 years' service, his pension would only be 30–50ths of his pay, and the difference of two-fifths of pay, in that rank of life, was very sensible. And, in the next place, if he stayed on, not only would he earn his money for a longer time, but his pension would be considerably improved, because it would rise by additions of l–50th until he obtained two-thirds of his pay. The Government had partly adopted the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry.
§ MR. BIGGARsubmitted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had given no substantial reason why the Amendment should not be adopted. The right hon. Gentleman simply said that, as a general rule, some 1046 particular time in life should be made, beyond which a man should not hold office. But he had not told them that 46 or 48 years of age was anything like a proper limit. It appeared to him (Mr. Biggar) that the limit fixed in the Bill was exceedingly low. The right hon. Gentleman had not told them why the retirement should be allowed at so early an age. As a matter of fact, if the depopulation of Ireland continued at the rate at which it had been proceeding of late, there would in future be great difficulty in getting recruits for the Police Service; but, apart from that, it seemed to him (Mr. Biggar) absurd to allow a man in the prime of life to retire from service. He should, therefore, press his Amendment.
§ MR. SYNANpointed out that if the Amendment of his hon. Friend was carried there would be no limit mentioned at all, and no possibility of retirement after 30 or 40 years' service. He therefore hoped that his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment. His hon. Friend contended that the limit was too low; let him, therefore, propose to strike out the present limit, and move the insertion of one more in conformity with his views.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Synan) misapprehended the effect of the Amendment. The Amendment only provided that a man could not got a pension as long as he was able to perform the duties of his office. If a man chose a particular profession, he (Mr. Biggar) saw no reason why, as long as a man was energetic and able to perform his duties, he should consider it any grievance that he was required to continue in the Service. Hon. Members knew perfectly well that in all cases it was the easiest thing in the world to get a medical certificate, as soon as a man's capacities became at all doubtful. He did not mean to insinuate that medical certificates were given fraudulently, but that it was a matter of ease, or comparative ease, to get them.
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONconsidered the system of voluntary retirement provided by the Bill a vital part of it. After 25 years' service a man should certainly have the option of voluntary retirement. He knew that the system was regarded by the police themselves as a great been; and, therefore, he hoped the Committee 1047 would pass the clause without amendment.
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the duties of the Police were not those of ordinary Civil servants. The Police had arduous work to go through; and when one of them arrived at the age of 45, it stood to reason that he was not able to go across country as lie was at the age of 30. At such an age as 45, a man naturally found his joints stiff.
MR. O'BRIENwould support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan, unless he received some assurance with regard to the pensions of a deserving body of men who had already retired from the Service—men who had served honourably in the Force at a time when, to some extent, it was a Civil Police Force, and not a Military Garrison. He hoped that those men would not be left in any worse position because they had not made campaigns with buckshot against their countrymen, or because they were not in a position to rise in mutiny. He trusted to receive some declaration from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that might be satisfactory in respect to the class of men he referred to.
§ MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, he had had some conversation with members of the Force during the Whitsuntide Recess; and if he at all apprehended the feeling of the Force on this point, it was that the permission to retire at their own option, after a service of 25 years, was regarded as one of the greatest boons conferred by the Bill. Indeed, several of the men expressed to him the feeling that the permission given to them to retire was even a greater boon than larger pay or larger pension. It would, perhaps, be well for some hon. Members to be aware of the fact that men desirous of retiring had a good deal of difficulty in obtaining medical certificates; there was much going backwards and forwards to Dublin, and no end of red-tape generally. He hoped the Committee would pass the clause.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, the remarks just made by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) were germane to the new clause of which he (Mr. Lewis) had given Notice. They seemed to have no bearing whatever on the matter now under discussion.
§ MR. BIGGARobserved, that it had been said that this clause was very 1048 popular with the people. No doubt it was, because they were to be given considerable increase of pay and pension at the public expense. Hon. Members were not sent to Parliament to legislate for any particular class, but to do that which would be most beneficial for the British ratepayer. It seemed to him that to' give a pension to a man of 45 or 48 years of age was simply preposterous. A good deal was heard about retrenchment in the public funds; but if they were to multiply indefinitely the number of pensioners, the expenditure of the Kingdom would be very largely increased before many years were over.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 190; Noes 9: Majority 181.—(Div. List, No. 105.)
§ MR. BIGGARproposed, in page 2, line 18, after "is," to insert "permanently." The sub-section provided that if a man had completed not less than 15 years service, and was incapacitated from the performance of his duty by infirmity of mind or body, he should be entitled to retire and receive a pension for life. The Committee would see that in that case 15 years' service was mentioned, and not 25, as in other cases. Considering that the service was fixed at so low a period, he considered that a man who was under 40 years of age, and whose incapacity was only of a temporary character, should be required to resume his duties when he had recovered. It was only proper that the Force should not lose the benefit of the man's service, simply because he had been temporarily disabled, and for this reason he moved the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 18, after the word "is," to insert the word "permanently."—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'permanently' be there inserted."
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Government duly recognized that the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was, in his criticism of this Bill, actuated by public spirit. The Government were aiming at the same object; but they considered that there were conditions in the Bill by which they could attain it more effectually than it would be attained by the proposal of the hon. Member, The hon. Member would find that Clause 6, 1049 Section 1, enacted that the Inspector General must be satisfied that the incapacity was likely to be permanent before he granted a pension. He must, "yearly or otherwise, from time to time, also satisfy himself that such incapacity continues;" and if the incapacity ceased the man would either have to return to the Service or forfeit his pension. If the incapacity partially ceased the pension might be reduced. There was a defect in the Amendment as compared with the provisions of the Bill, for it was impossible to say at the time a man received an injury whether his incapacity would be permanent or not. If the Amendment was adopted, the man must either be kept on full pay or he must be dismissed with a pension. Under the provisions the Government had adopted he could neither do one or the other.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORappealed to his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) not to go to a division on an Amendment of this kind. He was glad to find the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary recognized the spirit in which his hon. Friend proposed the Amendment. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not quite sympathize with the "Joseph Hume" view his hon. Friend had taken of the Bill. It seemed to him that the Government, in the pensions and other rewards which they were distributing to the Police, had taken leave of that spirit of economy which he thought had always animated the Treasury. At the same time, he considered that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had shown that the precautions which were adopted by the Government in the Bill were rather better than the precautions proposed by his hon. Friend. Under the circumstances, he should be pleased if his hon. Friend would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that, after the appeal made to him by his hon. Friend, and the explanations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. It was well, perhaps, that he should say that he was thoroughly aware there was some provision in a subsequent part of the Bill which would more or less effect the object he had in view. He was still of opinion that when a medical man had given leave to a policeman to retire on a pension after 25 years' service, he 1050 should be well satisfied that the injury received was likely to be permanent. It should not be a matter in which it was only possible that the incapacity should be permanent. The right hon. Gentleman would himself see that when a man had once left the Service it would be very difficult, indeed, to get him back. Seeing that the Inspector General was required to make examination from time to time, which would have the effect of attaining the object he had in view, he would not press his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that before the Question was put, he should like to propose an Amendment in "Sub-section A." It was provided that—
Every constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary who became a member of the force on or after the tenth day of August one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, or who shall become a member of the force after the passing of this Act, if he has completed not less than 25 years' service, shall be entitled, on the expiration of two months after he has given written notice to the Inspector General of his desire to retire, or of such less time after that notice as the Inspector General allows, to retire and receive a pension for life.His (Mr. Biggar's) opinion was that all policemen, whether they had joined the Force after or before the passing of the Act, should come under the provisions of the Act. As a matter of fact, all the men of the Force would get the benefit of the Act, and therefore all of them should be bound to return to the Service in pursuance of Clause 6, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had just referred.
THE CHAIRMANI have put the Question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill, and therefore the hon. Gentleman is not in Order in moving another Amendment.
§ MR. CALLANasked for information with reference to the meaning of Subsection 6 of this clause, which provided that—
When any constable who became a member of the force on or after the tenth day of August one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, or who shall become a member of the force after the passing of this Act has completed a service of twenty-five years, the Inspector General may, if he thinks fit, require him to re- 1051 tire upon the terms as to pension prescribed by this Act.This sub-section had given rise to considerable doubt in the minds of some of the persons interested, because the Act said that in computing the pension a man's length of service should be taken at 30 years. It would relieve the unfavourable impression that existed if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would explain in what way that subsection would act in computing the pensions of men required to retire.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he did not quite gather, from the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, what was the point of his objection. Did the hon. Gentleman object to the compulsory retirement provided for by the sub-section? This clause was introduced for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the Police Force; but in doing that it was necessary to preserve the vested rights of existing constables, one of which was that a man should not be retired before the age of 30 years against his own will, except on the ground of proved incapacity. The extra five years secured to the men was of very great importance to them in the computation of their pension. The Government thought it necessary to preserve to the men the full amount of pension, which would not have been paid unless this Act were passed; but it was not thought necessary to extend the principle to those who had not remained in the Service the full period.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Pension allowances and gratuities to widows and children) agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Reckoning of service in other police forces for pension) agreed to.
§ Clause 6 (Proof of incapacity for duty and return to service of pensioner on recovery from incapacity, and revision of pension) agreed to.
§ Clause 7 (Forfeiture of pension or allowance).
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought that after the prescribed period of service, 15, 20, or 25 years, as the case might be, a constable should be allowed to receive his pension, unless any substantial charge were preferred against him and proved, 1052 when, of course, it would be legitimate and proper that the pension should be taken away. But, as far as he could see, there was no provision in the Bill that any official inquiry should take place as to whether the complaints which might be preferred were justified by the facts of the case. Knowing, as they did, how the law was at present administered in Ireland, Irish Members had no confidence that it would be better administered in the future; and therefore it was felt, unless the present clause were amended, the unfortunate pensioners might be left in a very difficult position. He therefore begged leave to move the omission of Sub-section (c), which provided that—
If the grantee refuses to give to the police all information and assistance in his power for the detection of crime, for the apprehension of criminals, and for the suppression of any disturbance of the public peace, his pension will be forfeited.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out sub-section (c).—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words Proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he hoped that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would consent to modify the sub-section, which was badly drawn and open to considerable objection. It was not desirable that such power should be taken, which would allow the Inspector General to ruin a man who had served faithfully for 30 years, and that, too, under circumstances for which pensions could not be withdrawn from a soldier serving Her Majesty in the Army. He asked why, if the Police were so loyal a body, if they had earned the approval of the whole country for the efficient manner in which they had discharged their duties, why should they be placed under a disadvantage which did not apply to a man in the Military Service? Was it to make the Police of Ireland slaves, not merely to the law which they had always obeyed, but slaves to every whipper-snapper Inspector of a district? He knew that the Proviso which it was proposed to enact had given great offence, and he thought, therefore, that it should at least undergo some modification. He should persist in his opposition to the sub-section unless the right hon. Gentle- 1053 man agreed to its modification, because he regarded it as altogether unnecessary, unwarrantable, and gratuitously offensive, while, at the same time, no grounds had been alleged in its defence. He would suggest the postponement of the clause; but, if that were not agreed to, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would consent to a modification of the subsection in question.
§ MR. O'KELLYsaid, he thought the Government would see that the subsection treated with great injustice a body of men who had served them faithfully and honourably for a great number of years. It seemed to him that when a policeman had done his duty and served his time in the Force, and received the pension he was entitled to as a reward for work done, he entered again into the position of a citizen. He regarded it as an offensive interference with the rights of these men that the Government should pursue them into the privacy of life, after they had quitted the service of the country, and make them practically the slaves of men who were still in the Public Service. He did not know that in any country in the world pensions to public servants were conferred under such onerous conditions as those proposed to be enacted by this Bill. The men had a right to those pensions as the result of work done—they had the same right to draw them as civilians had to draw the dividends on their money from a bank; and, in his opinion, nothing of the kind suggested by the clause could afford any justification for those pensions being forfeited. He thought the Government would be well advised if they consented to reconsider this portion of the clause.
§ COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he hoped the Government would consent to drop the sub-section. He could not himself regard it as necessary, and it certainly had the appearance of being offensive to a deserving body of men.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he hoped the Government would retain the subsection. He could not conceive anything more objectionable than that a body of men should be in receipt of pensions from the State, and, at the same time, decline to give the Government all the assistance in their power.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that, under any analogous circumstances, he should not have had the slightest hesitation in 1054 considering that a pension of this sort was essential. The principle involved was one that was recognized both in the Military and Naval Service of the country. Inasmuch as it was the duty of a soldier or a sailor to fight against a foreign enemy when called upon, so it was the duty of a policeman to fight against internal crime; and, in his opinion, that duty only ceased when his physical and mental powers incapacitated him from continuing that warfare. The provision to which hon. Members opposite objected was embodied in the Act of 1866, and in the Act of 1874, and he hoped it would remain a part of the present measure. It was also introduced into the English Bill dealing with the same subject. The subsection did not impose any duty upon retired constables which ought not to be the duty and privilege of citizens; it only formulated the Common Law duty of all persons, and imposed a penalty for disobedience in this case. For these reasons, with all respect to hon. Members, he must decline to modify the subsection.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had, on a former occasion, appealed to his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to withdraw an Amendment to the Bill, because it seemed to him that he was interfering with the generous intentions of the Legislature with regard to the Constabulary Force. But now he thought his hon. Friend was quite justified in the course he had taken, inasmuch at he was clearly standing up for the rights and privileges of that Body. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that a certain Proviso was introduced into an English Act, and his argument was that it ought, therefore, to be introduced into an Irish Act. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot that there was a great difference between the conditions existing in Ireland, as to the government and the control of the Police Force, and the conditions which existed in this country. The differences in this respect between England and Ireland were as great as those which existed between England and Russia. Therefore, he said, that what might be admitted in such a Bill, as applied to England, could not to be tolerated with respect to Ireland. The pension of a constable might be taken away under this sub-section, although he might have been 30 years in the Service, and have done his duty 1055 to his country honestly and efficiently. The sub-section provided that—
If the grantee refuses to give to the police all information and assistance in his power for the detection of crime, for the apprehension of criminals, and for the suppression of any disturbance of the public peace, the pension may be forfeited.But what were criminals in the eye of the Government? They were persons who spoke in any way against the policy of the Government of the day. His hon. Friend the Member for West Meath (Mr. Harrington) was a criminal in the eyes of the Government, because he gave advice to the people of Ireland which was distasteful to the authorities, but which, nevertheless, afterwards found its way into the columns of The Times. If such men were considered criminals at Common Law this clause might have been passed without any opposition whatever; but that was not the case, and what the present Government considered a criminal was any political opponent who had spoken unfavourably of their policy. Then with regard to the words "suppression of any disturbance of the public peace;" why, any public meeting would come under that category at which political opinions opposed to the policy of the Government might be expressed. It was for such offences as these that the sub-section, if it passed into law, would enable the pension of a constable to be taken from him. The terms of the subsection were as vague, general, and wide as they could be made, and they would include anything like political action on the part of a person who had once been a constable in the Police Force. But what was the tribunal that would decide upon these offences? The pension of the constable might be withdrawn by the Inspector General—that was to say, the Head of the Force who at the moment happened to be a portion, and, without speaking it offensively, he might say, the instrument, of the Executive, had the power to deprive every retired constable of his pension on such vague and general charges as he had described. What was the meaning and intention of this sub-section, and why did not the Attorney General for Ireland get up and enlighten the Committee upon this point? Its object was to have a privileged class of spies spread over the country—in other words, it 1056 was that, having given to the police a pension to which they were entitled by 30 years of hard, perilous, and loyal service, the Government wanted further to keep them as a body of spies for the detection of what he called patriotism, but which they called a criminal offence. He did not know what were the feelings of the policemen themselves with regard to this sub-section; but so far as the Bill was intended for their relief and due reward, it had his hearty approval and co-operation. Up to the present time he had only given one vote against the Bill, and he felt a certain amount of regret at having done that. But he regarded this clause with entirely different feelings, inasmuch as it would introduce into Ireland the system of the mouchard, which had been universally condemned by the public Press of this country a short time ago.
§ MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, he thought the opposition to the sub-section on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite was intended to show that on such occasions as were contemplated by the Bill a considerable amount of partiality might be shown. He would therefore suggest that the insertion of the words "with the approbation of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland" would obviate the difficulty, and be most agreeable to the great body of the people of this country.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he rose to point out that at the inquiry which had taken place no objection whatever was raised to this provision of the Bill. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) asked if any question was put to the men on this subject? No question was asked on the subject, nor was any question asked upon any subject in the manner suggested by the hon. Member. The form adopted was, "Is there any other matter you wish to refer to?" But he repeated, that out of the large number of constables who consulted with their fellows not one raised a single objection to this provision.
§ MR. O'KELLYwished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he thought it had ever presented itself to the minds of the constables that such a clause as this would have been introduced to the House and made into law? In his opinion, the absence of objection arose from the fact that the Police never conceived it possible that 1057 the Government would be so mean as to propose such a clause.
§ Mr. T. A. DICKSONsaid, from no policeman in his county had he received any complaint against the provision contained in this sub-section, and he did not believe that there were a dozen policemen in all Ireland who objected to it. For his own part, he considered it only fair that pensions should be given to constables, on condition that they assisted in the prevention and detection of crime; which meant nothing more than that they should give their services to the State as ordinary citizens.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the clause in question was, contrary to the misapprehension that seemed to prevail amongst some hon. Gentlemen, not a new one. It had been in force, without any objection being made to it, since 1866.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, that the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson), being a faithful Member of the Government Party, and one of their servile followers——
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he withdrew the words, although he had heard them used on a former occasion without reproof. The hon. Member had stated that he sent a copy of the Bill to the members of the Constabulary in his county, and had not received a single objection to the clause. But he (Mr. Callan) held in his hand a number of letters from constables in various districts in Ireland who had addressed him on the subject. He did not intend to disclose the names of the writers, because the fact of any policeman making an objection to a Member of the House with regard to matters of discipline would certainly insure his dismissal from the Force. He only asked for a modification, not the withdrawal, of the sub-section. He would ask the Attorney General for Ireland, or the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, to inform the Committee how the Inspector General was to get the knowledge upon which to found his judgment. Was it to be by letter of complaint addressed to him, or would it be by Court of Inquiry, and, if by the latter means, how was that Court of Inquiry to be constituted? The man had a legal right to his pension, and he was, there- 1058 fore, desirous of knowing how he was to be deprived of it—what tribunal was to be invested with the power of declaring that a man had forfeited his pension? Was the inquiry to be held in the district in which the constable resided; was the constable to be allowed to appear by his legal adviser; was there to be any safeguard at all of the rights of the men; or was the charge simply to rest upon one of those "reasonable suspicions" which so disgraced the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when he arrested thousands of innocent men, and allowed the Phœnix Park murderers to remain at liberty? The whole of the Special Rules relating to the Police were in a Code which was kept from the knowledge of the House. He observed the Chief Secretary consulting the Code, and he asked him whether he would place in the Library of the House a copy of that document, to enable hon. Members to see how the Police Force in Ireland was governed? In conclusion, he expressed his surprise that Members from the North of Ireland had made no attempt to safeguard the interests of persons whom they professed so much to admire.
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he challenged the hon. Member for Louth to read from the letters which he had stated he had received one single objection to the sub-section.
§ MR. CALLANI have—["Order!"] If the observation means it is not in my power, I treat the insinuation with contempt.
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had received a great many letters about this Bill, and he might say he had the confidence of the police in the matter, and yet he had heard of no objection to the clause. The men were enlisted as fit to do their duty as loyal citizens; and was it to be supposed that after 25 or 30 years' service to Her Majesty they were going to discontinue to be loyal? In this matter the Committee seemed to him to be fighting the empty air.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, they were all aware what the hon. and gallant Gentleman meant by "loyal," and his statement must make the Government feel uncomfortable. The implication was that every man in Ireland was not loyal who did not believe that the landlord had still the right to evict, and starve, and murder. The hon. Member 1059 for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) said it was the duty of every loyal citizen to discover crime; but was the hon. Member so young and green that he did not know that what was understood by crime in England was one thing, and what the Government understood by crime in Ireland was another thing? If the Government meant by crime such things as were called crime in this country, and such things only, the clause would be unobjectionable. The hon. Member for Tyrone knew very well that what were considered political acts of a very good citizen for reforming the condition of the land in this country were denounced as crimes in Ireland. ["No!"] He heard some objection; but was not the reform of abuses in connection with the land the duty of every good citizen? Had not good citizens who had attempted to reform abuses in the Irish Land Law system, by speeches on platforms and judicious writing in the Press, been tried and convicted and punished as criminals? ["No, no!"] He heard exclamations of dissent from hon. Members opposite. They were not so familiar with Irish life as he (Mr. O'Connor), and he could give instances where the performance of legitimate duties in a perfectly legal manner had led to a man's being punished by the wretched, miserable pretence of Liberalism—by Gentlemen sitting on the Benches opposite and their mouthpieces on the Treasury Bench. The Treasury Bench could at that moment rejoice in the support of the county of Dublin. He congratulated them on the fact, and did not know whether they or the Party were more to be pitied for dragging themselves at the heels of this wretched and miserable clique of landlords in Ireland like a tin kettle at the tail of a mad dog. He wished to know from this Committee, assembled for the purpose of considering the condition of the policemen of Ireland, whether they had ever heard of any class of Her Majesty's servants being placed in such a position as these pensioners were to be placed in under the Bill? Was there a single class of Her Majesty's servants besides the Irish Police who had not some right of appeal when they believed they were unjustly treated? Here, however, they had the Police pensioners absolutely at the disposal of the Inspector General, without right of appeal or rehearing. Talk of the Star Chamber, was 1060 there ever a more monstrous system of Star Chamber inquiry, of Star Chamber punishment, than that which enabled the Inspector General for the time being—generally some wretched, docile, miserable tool of Her Majesty's Government—to deprive these poor men, after 30 years' hard service, of their pensions? This Bill, brought forward by the Government ostensibly for the purpose of giving boons to the police-constables, was really a Bill to cheat them out of all their rewards, unless they became the miserable spies of the Government in Ireland.
§ MR. TOMLINSONwished to be informed what was the exact nature of the change made in the Act of 1874, under which the jurisdiction to decide this question was the Lord Lieutenant? The jurisdiction now, it seemed, was the Inspector General,
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, in reply to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), he wished to say that it was a distinction without a difference, as the Inspector General was merely a tool of the Lord Lieutenant. It made no material difference with whom the power rested nominally, as, no doubt, the Lord Lieutenant would always say he acted under the recommendation of the Inspector General. The two now combined to perpetrate an injustice on the policeman. It seemed to him that the argument advanced by the Attorney General for Ireland was entitled to no weight whatever. Because the Act had been in operation for 17 years it was no reason they should not change it if they had an opportunity of doing so. This was the proper time for altering the law. He thought the law was one which required amendment; therefore he would make the Motion he had proposed.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the Attorney General for Ireland had made a great point of the fact that the Government were only following the precedents in the clause they had inserted; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman skilfully omitted that most important fact that in the Bill of 1866 it was the Lord Lieutenant who had the right of taking away a pension. Well, let them substitute the Lord Lieutenant, and that would be a slight improvement in the matter. He did not think it would be a great one; but, at any rate, it would be an improvement. The Lord Lieutenant 1061 might be a Member of the Cabinet—he was certainly a Member of either House of Parliament, and was a person, therefore, whose responsibility they could bring before Parliament; but this Head of the different Inspectors in the country was a person they could not reach by any means whatever. The Lord Lieutenant was not bound to approve of the conduct of the Inspector General. Suppose a constable were deprived of his pension, as it was believed unjustly, what would the Chief Secretary do if the matter were brought before the House? He would say—"What are we to do? This is not the action of the Chief Secretary, nor of the Lord Lieutenant." He (Mr. O'Connor) did not say they had done it intentionally; but they had so amended the Act that they had removed all responsibility from the person who took away the pension. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary might have been ingenuous enough to inform the Committee that this change had been made.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the subject of this Amendment was Sub-section (c), which was copied from former Acts. A question arose on a former Bill as to who was to be the authority, and the question was quite a different one from the state of things the hon. Member referred to. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Not at all.] In Clauses 3 and 4 they had recognized the position that the Inspector General was the person who was to determine these matters, and that had been done without the slightest objection on Amendment.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, the Attorney General for Ireland had made matters worse, because he had stated that the sub-section of the Bill was copied exactly from the Statute in force. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the Act in his hand and compare it with the Bill which he asserted was copied from it, and repeat his assertion in the face or the Committee? The right hon. and learned Gentleman probably thought he was pleading before the Nisi Prius Court in Dublin to mislead the Judges. What was the fact? The Bill said—
On his refusing to give to the police all information and assistance in his power for the detection of crime, for the apprehension of criminals, and for the suppression of any disturbance of the public peace;1062 whereas the Act contained the words "detection and apprehension of criminals." The passage in the Bill might be held to apply to persons attending a Land League meeting.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, he hoped the Committee would go to a division on this Amendment. Whatever might be the feeling amongst the Police—and on that question he could not pretend to be an authority, like some hon. Members—in the interest of the Irish people the Irish Representatives were justified in protesting against this clause. The life of the Irish policeman was odious enough, and the duties which it was necessary for him to perform were odious enough, without branding him as a spy to the day of his death, as he would be branded if the clause passed in this form. If the Police were to be protected, so, too, were the people of Ireland—to be protected against these men being turned into the plastic tools and Sepoys of the Government.
§ DR. LYONSsaid, that, according to the strict letter of the law, they were proposing that which it was impossible to do. They could not withdraw a pension—no such power was vested in the Inspector General. The Inspector General might report to the proper authority that such and such a pension should be withdrawn; but he could not withdraw it himself. The Government said this officer could grant a pension; but he could do nothing of the kind. He might recommend one; but it was as impossible for him to grant a pension as it was for him to withdraw one. He (Dr. Lyons) rose simply with a view of getting the clause properly and carefully drafted, so as to bear all criticism. The clause should be withdrawn, and brought up again on Report.
§ COLONEL O'BEIRNEsaid, he saw this objection to the clause—that the Inspector who withdrew the pension might not be the same who granted it.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 10: Majority 120.—(Div. List, No. 105.)
§ MR. CALLANsaid, that in Subsection (d) he found that if the grantee was guilty of any misconduct, or was, in the opinion of the Inspector General, disgraced, his pension was to be forfeited. Suppose a head constable took 1063 a public-house—as head constables, on entering into private life, very often did—if he lost his licence, or got it endorsed, would he be liable, under this Liberal cheese-paring arrangement of the Government, to have his pension withdrawn by the Inspector General? The Inspector General was to have power to forfeit the pension of the grantee if he were guilty of conduct which was, in his opinion, disgraceful. If the grantee, for instance, attended a Land League or Home Rule meeting, that would be "disgraceful," probably; or, in the words of that celebrated modern document, "if he spoke in disrespectful terms of people in superior station." On that—without any proof beyond "reasonable suspicion," the reasonable suspicion, perhaps, of some petty officer—the man's pension was to be forfeited. It would be only fair and respectful to the Committee for the Chief Secretary to give some declaration as to how this forfeiture of pension was to be guarded. Unless some explanation were given he should move the omission of Sub-section (d) from the clause.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 6, to leave out sub-section (d).—(Mr. Callan.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the explanation of the introduction of the Inspector General into the clause was simply that power was here conferred upon him analogous to that given throughout the Bill. It was the Inspector General who had to decide whether or not a man was to be invalided, whether or not he was guilty of conduct or habits discreditable to him, and who, within certain limits, settled what amount the pension should be. It was he who, throughout the Bill, had to be responsible for the discipline of the Service. The ordinary safeguards which existed against the misconduct of any Executive officer existed against the misconduct of the Inspector General. The Inspector General was a person of exalted position in the Service—like the Commander-in-Chief in the Army—and everyone knew that there could be no very great injustice perpetrated in any Service so long as the conduct of the Executive could be called to account in Parliament. Every high officer knew perfectly well 1064 that when he was settling the question of the fortunes of his men, if he acted with injustice he was liable to have Questions put to the Minister who was in charge of his Department in the House of Commons, and to give an account of the manner in which he had behaved. It appeared to him to be absolutely necessary, in the case of the Police, to have a clause of this nature. This clause was not the production particularly of a Liberal and cheese-paring Administration. The Act of 1866 was passed after a Liberal Administration had been ejected; and the Act of 1874 was undoubtedly passed by a Conservative Administration. Liberals and Conservatives, happily, upon this point of the management of the great Service by which the business of the country was carried on, were very much in accord. An Act of this kind might be borrowed by a Liberal Administration without any fear of being called cheese-paring. In this matter, over all others, it was necessary to watch men after they retired from active service. It was scarcely possible to conceive any retired officer who could make a more objectionable use of the information he had obtained in the Force than a policeman. It was not necessary to say how he might use that information; but in England and France—to say nothing of Ireland—there were offices where private detectives of a more or less disreputable character might be found to do work which the Government did not intend to be done by any of their pensioned Police. In the Indian Civil Service the authorities looked most carefully after the condition of Civil servants who had retired, and who lived in India, and took care that they should not, when enjoying their pensions, use the information they had obtained while in the Service for purposes of which they could not approve. This clause had stood the test of 17 years at least, and it was one which the Government considered necessary as part of this Bill.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, it was personally disagreeable to him to have to say anything unpleasant of the Chief Secretary; but he was almost tempted to say that the right hon. Gentleman's present Office was having a debilitating effect on his otherwise vigorous mind. Otherwise, he would not have committed himself to these platitudes. He had said 1065 that both Parties were agreed as to the management of the Irish Force. That was quite a good thing; but he had said the Inspector General was just as much amenable to that House as any other high officer. That was a truism; because, under the present dexterous management of Offices, the Lord Lieutenant might commit any act, and then the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would screen himself by saying he was not responsible for the Lord Lieutenant. It did not much matter whether there was an Inspector General or not. Again, he had to complain of a want of candour on the part of the Government in regard to this clause. In the Act of 1876 the words were—
If they enter into or continue to carry on any business or employment which shall be in the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant disgraceful or injurious to the public interest.The right hon. Gentleman might have explained that the words "or injurious to the public interest" had been left out, but they gave a much more explicit meaning to the Act. The act of a constable must be "disgraceful or injurious to the public interest;" but under this Bill the act might simply be what appeared disgraceful to the Lord Lieutenant. If the hon. Member went to a division he would support him, in order to protest against the action of the Government upon this clause.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he was willing to withdraw if the Government would give an explanation of the mode of procedure by which the Inspector General would arrive at his decision; and whether, if he held an inquiry, the person concerned would be allowed to attend and hear the evidence, and have a legal adviser with him; or whether the Court of Inquiry would be a Star Chamber, in which the evidence would be taken behind his back, with no opportunity of being represented by counsel? Would he be permitted to meet his accuser face to face, or was it to be a mere arbitrary act on the part of the Inspector General? Would the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table, or place in the Library, a copy of the Police Code, by which Members might see the mode in which these inquiries were to be carried on, and so be able to see how the Police were administered? If he did not receive a satisfactory explanation he must persist with his Amendment.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would reconsider the question of proceeding to a division. He had made his protest and stated his objections; but the previous division was practically taken on the same principle as was involved in this matter, although the hon. Member had stated his reasons slightly more in detail upon this clause. This clause was not new. It had been familiar in the Irish Police Code for many years, and had worked without any objection on the part of the Force. He had received a large number of letters from various members of the Irish Constabulary, and they had expressed no objection to this particular clause. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had just pointed out that the drafting of this clause showed the advantage of close verbal criticism. This clause was less oppressive than the existing clause, because it left out one of the conditions upon which the Inspector General would deprive a man of his pension. He could understand objection being taken to giving to a Sub-Inspector, or even a County Inspector, who was a very high official, this considerable power over a pensioner; but the Inspector General was the highest officer in the Force, and it was reasonable and fair to give this power to him, and to retain it in him. In these cases of high discretion someone must always be trusted, and nothing better could be done than to trust the highest officer that could be found. Anyone who took up this 7th section, would find that in the first three lines the whole power was given to the Inspector General. They had been already passed, and therefore in the last section, which the Committee were now upon, it would be illogical and unreasonable to take out what had been placed in the Act. As this clause was not new, he hoped the hon. Member would see his way to not dividing on the question.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, the Chief Secretary had not condescended—probably, and as he believed, because he did not know—to inform the Committee what procedure the Inspector General would adopt. To save time he had asked that a copy of the Police Code should be placed on the Table, so that Members might see the powers now given to the Inspector General. He did not intend to take a division on this matter, but would yield 1067 to the appeal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson). At the same time, he must express his disappointment that, although he had met the Bill with a desire to facilitate its progress, no attempt to remove objectionable portions of the measure had been made.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CALLANasked whether the Chief Secretary would give any explanation?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, it was out of no disrespect to the hon. Member that he had not answered his questions. He hardly imagined that the hon. Gentleman required him to enter into the process adopted in a Departmental Inquiry into the conduct of men for whom the Department was responsible, Under the Civil Service Act of 1859, no Civil servant of the Crown could get a pension, unless he obtained a certificate from the Head of his Department that he was of due ability and high character; and he did not imagine that he was expected to inform the House of Commons of the way in which that officer satisfied himself of the man's ability and character. The process of inquiry was not judicial, and could not be laid down by Act of Parliament. If these inquiries could not be made privately, no administrative Service could be carried on. As to a copy of the Code, that had been asked for more than once, and the Chief Secretary had always found it necessary to decline to lay it on the Table.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 8 (Suspension of pension).
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought it would be unreasonable for the Government to ask the Committee to go on any further at that hour of the night, and he would move that Progress be reported.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. P. O' Connor.)
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the period of the Session was now late, and it was many months since the Police and Constabulary were informed that their complaints should be inquired into. Eighteen months had elapsed since then; and it 1068 was certain that if the Committee would not now take this opportunity of going on in the extremely business-like manner in which they had been engaged, an almost indefinite period must elapse before the matter could be fully dealt with. He could not say that he had ever seen a more business-like House than the present; and it would be only under absolute pressure from the majority that the Government would consent to the Motion.
§ MR. CALLANsuggested that the Chief Secretary might facilitate matters by saying that he would not go beyond the 12th clause, which dealt with the Constabulary. The Committee could then proceed until they reached Clause 12; but if the right hon. Gentleman wished to run the whole Bill through, the Committee might as well at once see whether Progress was to be reported or not.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought the Chief Secretary was unreasonable, and that it would be better to go on to the 12th clause, and then report Progress.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, that all these matters were more or less relative, and it could not be said, he thought, that there had been anything like substantial opposition to this Bill. It had been before Parliament a considerable time, and there had been no Amendments except upon clauses, and those Amendments were all in the same direction, leaving out a line here and a line there. That was rather a destructive than a constructive line of Amendments. The hon. Member must see that the Amendments to the Metropolitan part of the Bill were exactly the same thing in principle as those he had put down on the Constabulary part. The hon. Member must see, with that sense of humour which everyone recognized, that when the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) made some of his ablest speeches he invariably differed from the hon. Member for Cavan. That was a matter not to be lost sight of. Tolerably substantial progress had been made, and if the Committee persevered for a little while longer they would find that they had got through the Bill in almost a miraculous way.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that, as one who had supported the Government against hon. Members below him, he considered the proposal to report Progress perfectly reasonable; and he could 1069 not conceive anything more reasonable than asking the Government to state at what point they would stop. Hon. Members were told that, under the New Rules, they would be allowed to go home at reasonable hours. One of the Grand Committees must meet at 12 o'clock, and were hon. Members to go right round the clock without any sleep at all? He should support the Motion.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that if the principle of his Amendment was the same as the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had said, it would be easy to get through the Bill in a single night, for he did not intend to raise any factious opposition. He did not mean to divide over and over again on questions of the same kind, and he would attempt no Amendments which were not thoroughly justified by the facts of the case. He thought it was now a reasonable hour for adjourning the discussion, and in a single succeeding night they could easily get through the Bill.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had been in the House all the evening, and had been as anxious to go to bed as the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Alexander); but there was business to be done, and this was important business. When they had once got possession of a subject it saved time to go right on with it, rather than to drop it and then take it up again. Therefore, as this Bill was an essential measure, and one not very complicated, he hoped the Committee would go on for some time longer.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, if the Government did not intend to keep Members there all night they might say when they would stop. That was a reasonable proposal; but the Government seemed to wish to go on until the Bill was finished.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he would make another appeal to the Chief Secretary. He was most anxious that this Bill should pass; and he thought it would have been much better if, instead of coming and interfering with the discretion of the Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary had remained away, for the Bill would have gone on much more smoothly. He and his Friends numbered 12, and were ready to try conclusions. It would not be the first time.
THE CHAIRMANA Motion for reporting Progress having been made, 1070 the hon. Member must confine himself to that Motion.
§ MR. CALLANasked whether the Chief Secretary would mention an hour at which he would stop? Besides the meeting of the Grand Committee, the Liberal Party had to meet at 11 o'clock, and for that reason it was desirable to report Progress now, in order that they might meet fresh at the Foreign Office to hear their Leader. If the right hon. Gentleman wished they could separate in half-an-hour, having settled the first part of the Bill. If not, the sooner they proceeded to war the better. He and his Friends were ready for the fray.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, he had not the least desire to delay the Bill; but he doubted whether the Government would accomplish their object by persisting. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had referred to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) as the only Member having Amendments on the Paper; but he himself had a most important Amendment, and he should be exceedingly sorry if it could not be taken at a time of night when it could receive the serious attention of a sufficient number of Members. He was sure there had not been the smallest spirit evinced to give any unnecessary trouble to the Government, or to cause any undue delay; and he could not imagine that there would be any difficulty to going into Committee at 1 o'clock on Friday morning. If the right hon. Gentleman would agree to adjourn now there certainly would be nothing lost.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, he was very sorry the Chief Secretary had not seen his way to meet the very moderate proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), and to meet the appeals which had been made to him from various quarters. The Government ought to be pretty well pleased, and even surprised, with the amount of progress they had already made with the Bill. It was thoroughly characteristic of the present Government that the only piece of Irish legislation this Session that they were so anxious about, and in regard to which they would not report Progress at 2 o'clock in the morning, was a Bill to keep their Police in good humour.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the appeals that had been made came from quarters where he hardly expected them, and they likewise came from some Gentlemen, 1071 specially from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Alexander), who could scarcely have studied the Bill. The appeal of the Government was that questions of principle had already been, for the most part, discussed, and that the great number of the Amendments which were put down by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) were principally Amendments which amounted to a desire, on his part, to bring the pay and allowances of the Police below the amount which the Government had named in the Bill, and below even the point they already enjoyed. The Government had come to the conclusion that it was not very likely that the Bill would pass, as a whole, that night, except after a sharp and sustained fight. That sharp, sustained fight, so far as he was personally concerned, he was pefectly ready to engage in. He would willingly sit up until 6 o'clock in the morning in order to let the Police in Ireland learn, in course of to-morrow morning, that this Bill had passed through Committee. There was one condition, and one condition only, on which, so far as he was individually concerned, he would consent to abstain from that conflict, and that was, that if they only passed Part I. of the Bill that night, there should be an honourable understanding that when the Bill was brought on on Thursday evening, even at a somewhat unsual time—not as early as it was brought in to-night—hon. Members would consent to sit up and see the Bill through. On that condition, providing he could induce hon. Members to take a friendly interest in the Bill, he should be willing to recommend the Committee to leave off after they had passed Part I.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that if they resumed the reconsideration of the Bill before 1 o'clock on Thursday night, there would be no difficulty in getting through the Bill that evening. Of course, it was impossible to make any pledge, because he did not know what other hon. Members would do. Certainly, there was no Member of his Party so much opposed to the Bill as himself; and, therefore, he did not suppose that any of his hon. Friends would raise a protracted opposition to the Bill.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
1072§ Clause 9 (Punishment for obtaining pension, &c, by fraud) agreed to.
§ Clause 10 (Provision as to pensions of men appointed before August 1866, 10 & 11 Vict. c. 100, s. 3).
§ MR. LEWISsaid, he had only one word to say. He desired to draw the attention of the Committee to the word "not" in line 33. The new clause of which he had given Notice seemed to him in a direction different to the one now under consideration, and he objected to the provisions of the clause on the ground that it was undefined whether the Irish Constabulary were or were not, as a matter of fairness or justice, entitled to that increase of pay. He did not understand why the Government did not, when asking for the proposed increase of pay, ask also that the men should have their pensions relatively increased. They all knew that for many years the Irish Constabulary were very much underpaid, and that it was doing but a tardy act of justice in increasing their pay. He thought it was doing it in an unfortunate way to say that they should not have relative increases of pensions. It was a cognate matter, and he did not think it would be an illiberal accompaniment to the increase of pay to provide that there should be a relative increase of pension.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he had an Amendment on Clause 9. He was aware it was now too late to move it; but he wished to point out that the object of his Amendment was to insist upon the provision that a policeman who had enlisted under the Act of 1866 should still have to undergo a medical examination before retiring on a pension.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, that Section 10 did an injustice to one particular class, and he thought that he only need mention the injustice to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to cause him to at once remedy it. The men who joined before 1866 were, in law and equity, entitled, after 30 years' service, to a pension equal to their full pay. Under Section 10, however, of this Bill, they were debarred from such pension; they were debarred now of the rights they had under the Act of 1866. A head constable who joined before 1866 had, for instance, a vested interest in a pension of £101 per annum, provided, of course, that he served long enough to 1073 entitle him to receive that pension. Now, if this Bill passed unamended, such a man would only get £91 per annum, so that this Act would entail an absolute loss upon a head constable who joined the Force before 1866 of £10 a-year. He was sure that such a loss should not be entailed by the Bill upon any man, and he was confident that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would agree with him that such an injustice should be remedied and guarded against.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the object of all legislative measures was to remedy particular grievances, and the particular grievance of the Police and Constabulary was, that all of them considered that their pay was not sufficient, and that the younger men considered that their pensions were not sufficient. He must own he had never heard that the men appointed prior to August, 1866, considered that the amount of their pension was a serious grievance, and it was what no Government could possibly for one moment admit.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, the men admitted that their pension was a good one; but they said that the present Bill would in certain cases reduce it by £10 a-year.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that arrangements had been made in the Bill to the effect that a man would always be able to choose between either the new and the old scale, according as it would be most advantageous to him. The Bill had been so arranged that Constables and Inspectors in both the Metropolitan Police and the Constabulary would be pensioned on a somewhat more liberal scale than if classes in their respective ranks had been maintained. If the scale of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) were carried out, the Government would have to give a greater number of pensions than many men expected when they came into the Service. A man appointed in August, 1866, got sufficient pension now; and certainly the Government could not consent to the proposal of the hon. Member for the sake of bringing the scale in uniformity with the arrangement of 1874. They could not consent to make any alteration.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 11 (The Constabulary Force Fund) agreed to.
1074§ Clause 12 (Change of designations of certain ranks).
§ MR. KENNYsaid, that the clause provided that important changes should be made in the names of the different ranks of the Police in Ireland. He found that in the first part of the Bill it was proposed to retain the name "Acting Constable;" but he could not understand what the object was in changing "Sub-Inspector" to "District Inspector," and what object there was in altering "Constables" to "Sergeants" or "Acting Sergeants." He considered that the Royal Irish Constabulary was sufficiently military in its character already without introducing still more military titles. He did not know what the opinion of the Constabulary was themselves; but he fancied the proposed change would be rather unpopular with the principal proportion of the people of Ireland, if not with the Force themselves.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, there was no desire to turn the Constabulary into a Military Force. The desire was that "Constable" should mean the same thing in Dublin and the country, and everywhere where the language was spoken. He was told the officers and the men themselves were desirous of the change of terms. The term "Sergeant" or "Acting Sergeant" was supposed to assimilate them to other Police Forces, and not to Military Forces; and he (Mr. Trevelyan) had been informed that the term "Sergeant" was in very common use among the people in Ireland. He considered the changes were reasonable, and he was sure that they were not only acceptable to, but desired by, the Force.
§ MR. KENNYasked if he was to understand that "Sub-Inspector" had been changed to "District Inspector" on the suggestion of the men themselves?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was quite satisfied that the change would be acceptable to the men.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, that in changing the name "Sub-Inspector" they, unfortunately, did not get rid of the men. A more incompetent set of men than the "Sub-Inspectors" could not be imagined. They were, in fact, a disgrace to the Royal Irish Constabulary. If a mode were provided by which "District Inspectors" or simple Inspectors were appointed from the ranks, it would be one 1075 great step towards giving to the Force that promotion which it deserved. It was high time to break down the system of appointing the higher offices in the Constabulary to sons of broken down clergymen and officers.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.