§ Dublin Metropolitan Police.
§ Clause 13 (Pay of Dublin Metropolitan Police).
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the paragraph which his Amendment referred to provided—
That where any member of the force is at the time of the passing of this Act in receipt of a higher rate of pay than the rate specified in the Schedule in relation to such person, nothing contained in this Act shall be taken to reduce the rate of pay which such person is entitled to receive.That meant that if any person was receiving a higher rate of pay than was provided in the Act he was not to have his pay cut down. He submitted that the pay was fixed for the Police at an extravagantly high rate. He begged to move the omission of lines 33 to 37 inclusive.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 33, to leave out all the words from "provided" to "receive," in line 37.—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member for Cavan had hitherto subjected the Bill to a keen and intelligent criticism from the point of view of economy, and had raised with regard to it 1431 some interesting questions. The first part of the Bill doubtless required to be carefully watched; with reference to the last part of it he thought the hon. Member might fairly relax his vigilance. The increase of pay to the Dublin Police amounted to something under £2,000 a-year. This Proviso was introduced for the purpose of preventing a number of persons of less than two years' service from being damnified by the passing of the Bill to the extent of 6d. a-week. He hoped, after this simple but adequate defence, the lion. Member would not press his Amendment.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, as the amount at stake appeared by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to be small, he did not think it worth while to take a division, and with the permission of the Committee he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 14 (Application of provisions as to pension to the Dublin Metropolitan Police).
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of laying before the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the case of a public servant who had not been provided for by this Bill. He referred to the Surgeon of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Court, and he could see no reason why that officer should not be placed on the same footing as the Surgeon of the London Metropolitan Police. The Surgeon of the latter Force had always an enormous amount of practice, and was one of the leading men in the Profession; the Surgeon of the Dublin Metropolitan Police had no practice, because his practice was destroyed by his taking the appointment, and on that ground he had a far stronger title to a pension than the London Metropolitan Police Surgeon. Moreover, he did not know whether the Chief Secretary was aware of the fact, but he attended every day at the police-station, and saw personally those constables who required medical treatment. The case was entirely different with the Surgeon to the London Metropolitan Police, who attended but rarely; he was present when recruits were brought up for examination, but, except in serious cases, he never attended to the constables at 1432 all. So that, on every ground, the Dublin Surgeon had a greater right to a pension than the London Surgeon. Seeing that he could not move an Amendment to include this gentleman, if the Government did not see their way to do it, he sincerely hoped they would give an undertaking that the case would be seriously and equitably considered.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the case of the Doctor referred to was one which deserved a few words. The noble Lord would be perfectly in Order in moving an Amendment in the shape of a new clause to the Bill; but he (Mr. Trevelyan) should certainly deprecate such a course, as it was extremely important, in order to further the progress of the measure, that it should be confined solely to the rank and file of the Constabulary. He quite allowed that the Superintendents of the Dublin Metropolitan Police were affected; but these officers were promoted from the ranks. Therefore the whole body affected by the Bill, whether in the Royal Irish Constabulary or in the Dublin Police, might be said to be the rank and file, and those who had risen from the rank and file. If once the Government allowed the position of officers to be considered in the Bill there would be a delay; and one primary condition with regard to that measure was that there should be no unnecessary delay in passing it into law. There was only one precedent for the payment of a salary to a medical officer to the Police, and that was in the case of the Metropolis. In the case of the Liverpool Police Force, which was as large or larger than that of Dublin, the medical officers who attended on the men obtained no pensions. He could imagine, however, that a case could be made out for the Doctor to whom reference had been made from the point of view that, besides the Metropolitan Police, the only Force that was under the direct control of the Executive was the Dublin Police. It would be quite impossible for him to give a positive answer on that point. It would be necessary for him to carefully consult with his Colleagues in Ireland, and after that to make application to the Treasury. He could only tell the noble Lord that he would give every attention and consideration to the subject; and that if he found, when he had the honour to introduce his re-organization Bill at a later period of the Session—which Bill 1433 would deal with one or two of the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary, although it would not make any difference in the pay and emoluments of the great body of officers—that he could carry out the noble Lord's wish, if the noble Lord then chose to raise the question, he (Mr. Trevelyan) would not only not protest but would feel that the noble Lord was courteous in postponing his action until that occasion.
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he was glad to hear what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He (Colonel King-Harman) had intended to say a few words on the subject; but, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, he would refrain from so doing.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 15 (Provision as to pensions of men appointed before 12th August 1867, 10 & 11 Vict. c. 100, s. 10).
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he had put down on the Paper an Amendment to this clause, and he considered it a perfectly legitimate one in itself; but it was almost the same as the one he had moved at a former part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman very strongly contested the principle of allowing policemen of 30 years' service to retire from the Service on this boon being granted to them. The principle that ran through the measure was that a policeman should have an opportunity of retiring after 35 years, if he desired it, no matter how good his bodily health might be. Even supposing he moved his Amendment, he did not think he would have much chance of carrying it. Looking at the empty state of the Front Opposition Bench, he should refrain from moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Remaining Clauses agreed to.
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had a new clause relating to rewards for distinguished services to propose. He wished to provide that a head or other constable, who had served 15 years without an unfavourable mark having been recorded against him, should be entitled to wear a bronze badge as a token of meritorious services, that under similar conditions, a silver badge might be worn after 20 years', and a gold badge after 24 years' meritorious service. He 1434 was not certain whether this ought to have been brought up at all in the form of a new clause. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to consider it, and say whether he had any objection to inserting it; and, if so, whether he would not, in some form more satisfactory to himself, make provision for a careful order of merit for this most deserving body of men? The question was one to which much importance had been attached, and he certainly thought the men should have a badge to wear.
§ New Clause:—
§ (Rewards for distinguished services.)
§ "From and after the passing of this Act every head or other constable who shall have completed fifteen years' service, without an unfavourable mark having been recorded against him, shall be entitled to wear a bronze badge as a token of meritorious services; and,
§ "Every head or other constable who shall have completed twenty years' service, without an unfavourable record, shall be entitled to wear a similar badge in silver; and,
§ "Every officer who shall have completed twenty-four years in like manner, without an unfavourable record, shall be entitled to the honourable distinction of a gold badge of a similar nature,"—(Colonel King-Harman,)
§ —brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed' "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he hoped the Government would not accede to this clause, and that the hon. and gallant Member would not persist in it. No doubt, the hon. and gallant Member had better means of learning the views of policemen than he (Mr. O'Connor) could profess to have; but he should imagine that no proposal could be more objectionable than this to the vast majority of the Police. The clause was brought forward under the plea that it was to satisfy the wishes of the rank and file of the Constabulary and Police; but, so far as he could judge, the proposal would meet with a stronger opposition from this than from any other body of men. He would not subject the clause to anything like verbal criticism, although he thought it was open to it. It was a most objectionable proposal. Although badges, no doubt, were of service in the Army, they were altogether out of place in connection with a Force of a Civil character.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he recognized the spirit in which the hon. and gallant Member for County Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) had brought forward his proposal; but he believed that, carried out exactly as the hon. and gallant Member wished, it would not quite meet the wishes of the men. He would suggest what he thought a better way of carrying out the intention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Unfavourable reports had had the effect of stopping promotion, and the men had felt these reports very much. If they made the giving of these badges depend on a man's not having an unfavourable record, of course when they saw a policeman's shoulder without a badge it would bring to the mind of his superiors that he had an unfavourable record; and whether that did or did not operate in stopping his promotion it would have a bad effect on the minds of the men. Unfavourable records and punishments were things which with increasing zeal and meritorious conduct should be wiped out; and it would be well, therefore, to adopt some plan by which rewards could be given in cases where punishment had been inflicted, on the expiration of a certain period after such punishment; but to have some men stamped with a badge and others without it, showing that they had had unfavourable reports, would be very objectionable. The badges, if used as suggested—which would be amongst the sergeants and head constables, as well as the rank and file—would show that some were not such good members of the Force as others. He would recommend that badges should be given for general ability and good conduct, arid should not be made to depend on the absence of unfavourable records. There was many a man who had had an unfavourable record who, by subsequent activity, intelligence, and attention to his duty, had made a much better officer than others who had not had unfavourable records.
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had brought forward the proposal in consequence of representations from a considerable number of constables; but probably they had not considered the matter any more closely than he had. He begged to withdraw the clause.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
1436§ MR. LEWISsaid, he had a new clause to propose, providing that all persons who, previous to the Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1874, had retired from the Service should receive the pensions granted under the Act 10 & 11 Vict., 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 in receipt at the date of their retirement. This new clause would deal with an old grievance which had been on two or three occasions brought before Parliament. Three Acts of Parliament had been passed—one in 1847, one in 1866, and the other in 1874—dealing with the pay and pensions of the Irish Constabulary. The Act of 1847 fixed the amounts. In 1866 the pay was increased, but not the pensions. By the Act of 1874 men who had served 25 years were entitled to retire upon their actual full pay; but after 1866 they were retired upon the old pay, or the pay they had before the Act of 1866 was passed. That was thought hard and harsh on the constables who had retired before the passing of the Act of 1874. Under the Act of 1874 all who retired after the 1st of August of that year were retired on their actual salaries; but all who retired before—it might be on the 31st of July—had their pensions paid on the salaries fixed prior to 1866. The matter had been brought before Parliament on two occasions, and in 1876 the late Government agreed to take the opinion of the English Law Officers as to whether they had power under the Act of 1874 to give pensions to old retired officers on the same footing as those who retired after the 1st of August, 1874. They did so, and were informed that they could do this if they thought proper; but, in the exercise of their discretion, they did not think proper to put in force the power they possessed under the Act of 1874 in this particular. The Act applied to a body of 250 or 300 persons, whose number were diminishing daily as the men died off, and the old grievance of the surviving men who retired before the 1st of August 1874 still existed. The reason for the Act of 1874 was that the Act of 1866 was deemed a hardship on those who retired under the terms of the Act of 1866. The Committee had now an opportunity of putting the matter 1437 right, at a time when it was doing justice to the Constabulary of Ireland as a body. These men were unable to protect themselves; and, though they were old servants no longer serving the Crown or their country, in this particular, at all events, he hoped there were many men in the House, including Members connected with Ireland, who would be anxious to do justice to a deserving body of men by rectifying a mistake and a striking inequality, which was pretty generally admitted. He wished to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary to the fact that the clause he was proposing was not retrospective. He did not ask the Committee or the House, by passing this clause, to pay any of the arrears which might be claimed by pensioned policemen on account of the pension they had lost between their retirement and the present time. It would be observed that he had so framed the clause that the pensioners would not be entitled to any addition to their present pensions except from the time of the passing of this Act. The clause would place the old pensioners in futuro on the same footing as those who were lucky enough to resign after the 1st of August, 1874. He desired to press on the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary—whose feelings of propriety and justice they could rely on having fair play—not to pooh-pooh this matter. It had been looked upon as a grievance, not only by the old pensioners who had suffered, but by the members of the existing Force, who were of opinion that their comrades had not been treated fairly. The Government had now an opportunity of making a graceful concession to the Constabulary of Ireland, who as a body were deserving of every praise. They had received much at the hands of these men of late, and the Committee now had an opportunity of remedying an old grievance under circumstances which bad never existed before There were not many hon. Members representing Irish constituencies present; but that fact was owing to this Bill having come on at so late an hour. If it had come on earlier, and Irish Members had been aware that this simple act of justice was about to be sought, he had no doubt it would have been possible to have obtained the attendance of very many more.
§ New 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, as from the date of the passing of this Act, 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 ninth 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,"—(Mr. Lewis,)
§ —brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, that though, as the hon. Member who had preceded him had pointed out, there were not many Irish Members present, he believed that all those who were in attendance would vote for the clause, and he did hope it would receive the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government. To his own knowledge, the question had been before the House for the past eight or nine years, and there could be no doubt that these old Constabulary officers had a substantial grievance, an opportunity for redressing which now presented itself. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had explained the whole circumstances of the case; and, after his explanation, he (Mr. Dickson) hoped the very moderate demand which was made on behalf of the old policemen would be acceded to. He hoped the Government would yield to the representations which had been made to them, and allow the clause to be inserted in the Bill.
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he would merely add one word to the statement of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) as to the grievances of these officers. It was charged by some of these officers—and certainly there seemed to be considerable ground for it—that many of them had been kept on previous to the passing of the Act of 1874 beyond their usual time for retiring, while the provisions of the Act were being considered, and that then they had been suddenly shelved within 1439 a few days of the passing of the Act. It certainly had seemed as though they were shelved in order to prevent them from obtaining the advantage of the improved scale of pensions. He himself had had two pensioners on his demesne. They had retired within six months of each other; their period of service was the same; and yet, whilst one received £72 a-year, the other, who had retired before the passing of the Act of 1874, only received £40.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that hitherto the men had been refused any redress, and from what he could gather very justly so, seeing that they had no grievance. The alleged grievance of the ex-constables whose case the Committee were considering was that they were in a rather worse position than another class of pensioners. They did not allege that the Government had not kept faith with them, and had not fulfilled their contract so far as they themselves were concerned; but what they complained of was that another class of pensioners were in a better position than they. They had got their contract; and, that being so, he did not think they had any cause for complaint. Because some men got far more than enough, it did not follow that those men who got just enough should have an addition made to their pensions.
§ MR. FINDLATERsaid, there were several pensioners in the county he represented (Monaghan) who were in a position similar to that of the men referred to by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), and he thought they had a substantial grievance. Those constables who retired after the passing of the Act of 1847 had their pensions calculated on an increased scale, whilst those who retired before had theirs calculated on the old scale. This was scarcely fair, as the members of the Metropolitan Police, who were in a similar position, had received more favourable treatment.
§ COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he hoped the Government would see their way to making a concession in this matter. The point to Members of the Committee was a very trifling one; but it was a very great one to those whose interests were affected.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was sorry to be obliged to take an attitude which would destroy, to a certain extent, the 1440 harmony which had hitherto existed in regard to this Bill; but he was sorry to say that he had very seldom listened to a debate with more certainty that he was bound to take a particular course, and one adverse to the views of many hon. Members, than he felt on this occasion. It was quite true that the amount involved was not large as compared with some of the enormous sums with which they had been dealing so freely to-night; but the principle was very serious, indeed he believed it was the most serious that had ever been submitted to the House. It was, that when a man had done his service, and had retired under the conditions that were in force at the time, should his position be made a subject of revision by Parliament? The facts of the case had been put before the Committee very clearly. The Act of 1847 created a very liberal scale of pensions. Then came the Act of 1866, which added to the pay of the police; and it was enacted that the men who had been appointed in 1866 should be pensioned under the Act of 1847. That, he might roughly say, was the provision which had been introduced into the present Act with regard to pension as compared with pay. Then came another great rise of pay in 1874, and, unfortunately, as he thought, in that year Parliament was not so vigilant to observe the right principle in dealing with these matters. In a moment of weakness it was decided that all the men then in the Force should be entitled by the Act of Parliament to be pensioned on the scale of pensions according to the pay to which they had become entitled. He must say that men who were pensioned on the full pay of 1874 received a pension very much larger than should have been given in order to attract men of a certain class into the Service of the Crown. The hon. Member for Londonderry, who had advocated the claims of those men with great fidelity, told them there was a mistake in the Act of 1866. No doubt, there was a mistake; but it was one eight years later on, and in accepting the clause of the hon. Member they would be making that mistake greater still. The discontent of these men came not, as he maintained, from their having been badly used themselves, but because a certain number of men who came after them, but who came before the men the Committee were now dealing with, were well 1441 used in a most exceptional manner. The men who retired before 1866 did not get the 1866 scale of pay in computing pensions; whereas the men who retired after 1874 got the 1874 scale of pay in the computation. That there was an inequality no one could deny; but he did not see that it constituted an injustice, because the men were not in the Force now. The pensions awarded them were according to the law which was in force when they retired, and it could not be made inequitable; and he did not see that it could be made unjust by any subsequent transaction. If there was any inherent injustice in the Act of 1866, that ought to have been pointed out at the time; and the Act of 1874 should not have been waited for, before it was shown that injustice had been done to the men who came under the operation of the Act of 1866. He would ask hon. Members to reflect on the enormous number of public servants, civil, naval, and military, who were in receipt of pensions under a great variety of Acts, and to consider how wide and large a door they were opening when they began to consider the position of those servants who retired under Acts less favourable than Acts which had since been introduced. It was not a question of 200 or 300 men, but of hundreds of thousands of men; it was not a question of £2,000 or £3,000 a-year, but a question, if this principle was admitted, of millions. If there was any matter in which it was necessary to have a Statute of Limitations, it seemed to him to be the condition of men who left the service of the Crown. It was with great regret that he was obliged to turn a deaf ear to appeals made from both sides of the House; and he asked hon. Members to consider, if this Motion was pressed to a division, that they would be voting not only for a small concession, but for a large and a dangerous principle.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought that, upon the matter of principle, nothing could be added to the lucid argument of the Chief Secretary; but he wished to submit a point which would probably settle this question. This was a proposal to extend to certain persons, who had retired from the Police Force as far back as 1874, the benefit of certain provisions. The men in question were not in the Force, and he apprehended that an Act of Parliament involving a 1442 charge of money could not go beyond the provisions of the Resolution of the Committee upon which that Act was founded, and that the Resolution upon which the Act was founded was one making an increase in the pay and pensions of members of the Constabulary. That limited the scope of the Act founded upon the Resolution; and, therefore, as he took it, this clause was outside the powers of the Committee. It could not be inserted in the Bill under those circumstances.
§ MR. CALLANrose to a point of Order. The point he raised was that the title of the Bill was—"A Bill to amend the Laws relating to the Pay and Pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Police Force of Dublin Metropolis; and for other purposes;" and it was upon that title that leave to bring it in was given, and, as he had more than once heard it ruled, that Order for Leave covered the object of a Bill. He, therefore, submitted that the words "and for other purposes" covered the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Londonderry, and disposed of the argument of the economical Secretary to the Treasury.
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANheld that these men were practically members of the Constabulary, as they received Contabulary pensions.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the objection of the Secretary to the Treasury was a most narrow one. There wore no words whatever prescribing men now existing in the Force. That might be in the mind of the Financial Secretary; but, upon that principle, the pensions of any men might be dropped at any moment, because they were no longer in the Force. The question was not whether a man was actually serving in the Force, or had retired from the Service.
§ MR. PLUNKET, on the point of Order, begged to draw attention to the concluding words of the Resolution referred to—
And that it is expedient to amend the Act for regulating the Constabulary and Police in Ireland.He thought this Amendment was sustainable under those words.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORpointed out, in confirmation of the opinions expressed, 1443 that the proposal of the lion. Member did not go beyond the purposes of the Bill. This was pointed out by the Chief Secretary, a few evenings ago, in defence of Section (c) of Clause 7, which provided that persons who did anything calculated to disturb the public peace should be deprived of their pensions. These pensioners held their pensions on the condition of assisting in the detection of crime—that was, still fulfilling a portion of the duties of policemen; and their pensions could be withdrawn if they did not fulfil those duties, which wore essentially police duties. Therefore, the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) was right in saying that these men were still practically in the Police Force. The Chief Secretary had founded upon their having ceased to be in the Force his objection, but they still continued to be police constables; and, therefore, any proposal with regard to them came legally, equitably, and literally under the Bill.
THE CHAIRMANWith regard to the observation of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) as to the title of a Bill, no doubt that would be correct if it were an ordinary Bill; but in a Money Bill the circumstances are different, and do not apply. So far as I am able to form a judgment, it is this. I do not think that the men who have retired from the Police Force can be considered any longer members of the Force, and I observe that they are described in the clause. The Resolution on which the Bill is founded applies to certain members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Force; and certainly this clause relates to persons who, in my opinion, are not members of those Forces; and, therefore, I am of opinion that this is a clause which cannot properly be submitted.
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, these men were called Constabulary pensioners; and he gave Notice that, on the first opportunity, he should bring the case of these men before the House.
§ SIR HERVEY BRUCEgave Notice that, on Report, he should, if he had the power, move the insertion of a clause in respect to these pensioners.
§ MR. CALLANrose to move a new clause, which, he said, arose in consequence of what he believed to be a Departmental Rule. If a member of the 1444 Police Force was so studious and intelligent as to become fitted to pass a competitive examination, no Departmental Rule which had not the sanction of the House should bar his progress or his promotion to another branch of the Service. It happened that lately, and especially in the last year, the Constabulary authorities in Dublin had absolutely prohibited some of the young and most deserving and intelligent officers from entering examinations for other Departments of the Civil Service, and that had given great offence. In Scotland some young men went to a University for half-a-year, and in the other half they laboured to earn what they could to enable them to do that. In the same way, in Ireland, where there were no Universities of a cheap character, as in Scotland, young men being obliged to enter the Police Force for maintenance, educated themselves and entered for the examinations. The Departmental Rule had, however, forbidden them to do that, and the object of his new clause was to remove that prohibition. He thought that was a clause which would commend itself to the good feeling of the Committee; and he anticipated not only acceptance, but cordial endorsement, from one who had so identified himself with competitive examinations as the Chief Secretary.
THE CHAIRMANThis clause is altogether beyond the title of the Bill, which relates to pay and pensions.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he had no wish to delay the Bill; but, in consequence of that ruling, 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. Callan.)
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Motion, after he had given him an assurance that he would look into this question with considerable interest. He understood that this Departmental Rule had been laid down to discourage members of the Constabulary and Police, who had obtained the advantages of the instruction which could be gained in the schools of the Service, from utilizing that to get into other branches of the Service. He would look into the matter, 1445 and he hoped that promise would satisfy the hon. Member.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he would accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, and withdraw the Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Schedule 1.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the next Amendment was in his name, and it had reference to the standard of pay. He thought the rates of pay, on the whole, too high; and he would ask whether the Chief Secretary did not also think so?
§ Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 5, to leave out "40s." and insert "35s."—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ Question proposed. "That'40s.' stand part of the Schedule."
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he did not wish to raise the wrath of the hon. Member by questions of Order; but he must draw attention to the fact that the Resolution declared it to be expedient to authorize the payment of money to increase the pay of certain members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and he was afraid the hon. Member's Amendment would have a very different effect, because not only did he propose to diminish considerably the amount of pay which the Government proposed, but also to largely reduce the pay which the men at present received. A head constable at present got 38s., and the Government proposed to give him 40s., while the hon. Member proposed to reduce the amount to 35s. A constable at the head of his rank now got 28s., the Government proposed to make it 31s., but the hon. Member proposed to reduce it to 25s.; and while the Government proposed to increase a constable's pay from 24s. to 27s., the hon. Member proposed to reduce it to 20s. The hon. Member wished to raise two points; one, the amount of pay required to attract the right sort of men; and the other, the question whether, in a particular rank, the pay was in proportion to the length of service. As to the first point, the Bill was entirely founded on the theory that a distinct and solid increase of pay was requested. There was a charge brought against the Bill that the men in the lower ranks got no increase of pay; but he did not think that was a serious grievance with the men; but if it was considered a griev- 1446 ance, how much greater grievance would it be to the older men, when they were married and had families, and had given more of their lives to their country's service, if they did not get any substantial increase? As to the equalization of pay throughout the whole of each rank, he thought there was something to be said for it when they came to the upper ranks. He could easily imagine all constables having an average of pay, but that was not at all the case with the other large class which at present went under the name of sub-constables; and here he would call attention to the criticism of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) this evening. The hon. and learned Member said the old nomenclature was still retained in the Schedule, and altered it elsewhere. That alteration only took place on the 1st of October; and as this Bill, he hoped, would be passed on the 1st of June, it was proper to retain the old names. In the class of sub-constables, it was most important that the men of 20 years' service should be decidedly better off than those of 12 years' service, and the men of 12 years' service better off than those of four, three, or two years' service. The former men belonged to the older class; they were not likely to rise to the higher ranks; they were solid, respectable men, and they looked for comfort for themselves and their families. It was important that they should be kept contented by a marked increase of wages, and by pensions, which would give them a hope of increasing prosperity. Under all these circumstances he could not accept the Amendment.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he would withdraw this Amendment, and would not move any of the other Amendments in his name.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Schedule agreed to.
§ Schedule 2.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he proposed an Amendment which he hoped the Government would accept, as it came, he thought, within the scope of the Bill. He did not think the Secretary to the Treasury would object to it on the ground of technicality, with regard to the terms of the Resolution or to the terms of the Bill, which was clearly a Bill for providing pensions for the mem- 1447 bers of the Constabulary. The matter was partly arithmetical, and partly one of principle. If they had a scale of going up to 50 it was awkward to introduce two-thirds; and if they divided the unit into fiftieth parts, and wanted to take two-thirds of that, two-thirds would be 33 and two-thirds of 50. As to principle, in some cases there might be men who retained their physical vigour for 30 years sufficiently to act well as constables. Some men were stronger than others. Some matured more rapidly than others; but, suppose they considered 25 years as a fair term of service, still there might be men who could go on for five years longer than the average, and he held that 30 years was not a very long time for a man to retain his vigour and activity. He might go into the Force at 20 and be a good man at 50, while another might drop off at 25.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 7, to leave out "two-thirds," and insert "seven-tenths."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he could not assent to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member. In a matter of this kind it was absolutely impossible for anyone, even the Member of the Government in charge of the Bill, off-hand to disregard the recommendations which had been made by a Committee which had gone into the matter at very great length, which had taken the opinion of actuaries, and likewise the opinion of the members of the Force. The hon. and learned Member had said that if they were to go up by fiftieths in the last year the men would have a broken fraction. There was, however, one strong reason for sticking to the figure which was named in the Bill; and that was that the maximum pension in all the other branches of the Civil Service was two-thirds of the salary. It was recognized by everybody as the pension which a Civil servant always looked forward to. If a pension was given of any larger amount it was only given in consequence of special services, and the grant of the pension must be specially reported to the House of Commons. He trusted the hon. and learned Member would not press the Amendment.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not met his objection in any way. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of actuaries; but they were all more or less actuaries, and they could perceive the absurdity of the fraction. It was perfectly absurd, when they went up by fiftieths, to have such a fraction as two-thirds. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would agree to insert the words "seven-tenths" as a means of meeting the difficulty.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. BIGGARproposed to leave out lines 36 and 37 in page 12. Those lines ran as follows:—
(c.)If he has completed more than fifteen years' service, an annual sum not more than his annual pay.Those lines did not seem to him to agree with other parts of the Bill. If a man had completed nine years' service he was only entitled to 15–50ths of his annual pay; but if he had completed six years more he was entitled to full pay. If he had completed any service under 15 years he was only entitled to two-fifths. According to the sub-section, he now moved to omit, if a man had spent 16 years in the Service he was entitled to his full pay. It appeared to him that the proportion between the two sections was quite out of harmony; and he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that he should either substantially raise the rate of pension given under sub-sections (a) and (b), or very much lower the pension given under sub-section (c.).
§ Amendment proposed, in page 12, to leave out lines 36 and 37.—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to; be left out stand part of the Schedule."
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, a line must be drawn somewhere. Fifteen years did not appear to be a very long service for a man to get a pension which might, under certain circumstances, be equal to his pay; but if a man was wholly incapacitated on account of the amount of service and hardship he had gone through lie was entitled to some substantial recognition. The hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Biggar's) attention had not, perhaps, been drawn to the words of the 1449 sub-section (c) of Section 4 of the Schedule—namely—
If he has completed more than fifteen years' service, an annual sum not more than his annual pay.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not made it clear that the two sections were in harmony. A man would only get, under subsection (c) of the 2nd section of the Schedule, 15–50ths of his annual pay; but if he served 15 years, or six years more, he would get full pay.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid the question of pension had many sides to it. Fifteen years' service served as a minimum, after which, in ordinary cases, a man could obtain a pension. Up to 15 years' service it might roughly be said that a man, when he retired from the Police Force, only obtained a gratuity; but after 15 years' service he became eligible for a pension. That was the reason why only 20–50ths was given up to the period of 15 years' service. It must not be imagined that after 15 years' service a man who was injured in the Service, either accidentally or in a fight, or when arresting a prisoner, would necessarily receive a sum equal to his annual pay. That was only the maximum which was named in the case of any brilliant service, accompanied by some terrible incapacity. That was proved by the words which followed the sub-section the hon. Member proposed to omit—namely—
Provided that if he has completed fifteen years' service the pension shall not be less than the sum to which he is entitled under article one of this Schedule.Those words clearly showed the intention of the Bill, which was that the pension which was given might, under certain circumstances, fall below that to which a man would be entitled under ordinary conditions, if it were not for the Schedule. Those regulations had been taken from the existing London scale. In the case of London it had been found that the power of giving a very large pension in most exceptional cases had not been abused; and, from what he had observed of the manner in which pensions were awarded in the Royal Irish Constabulary, he did not think such a power would be abused in that body. He did not think there was any serious danger to the public Exchequer in allowing the Irish Constabulary to be 1450 put, in regard to pension, upon what was now called the English scale.
§ MR. BIGGARasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that, before the Amendment was withdrawn, he wished to remark that he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that a man who had done some brilliant action and sustained some terrible incapacity could be granted a pension equal to his full pay. That, however, was a breaking of the cast-iron rule of two-thirds. It was a very proper infringement of the rule, he admitted; but it showed that the rule was not so binding as the right hon. Gentleman had tried to make out.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had studied the Bill so carefully, and had conducted his opposition to it so courteously, that he hoped he might be excused for rising to offer another argument which, when speaking a few moments ago, he forgot, and which, probably, was the most important argument which could be used on this most critical part of the Bill. The man they were now speaking of was a man about whom there were no brilliant or special circumstances which would exempt him from the rule of two-thirds. The man had very likely been a brave young officer, who had every chance of being promoted, serving his full time, and retiring on a full pension. If, by the performance of an act of gallantry, he was incapacitated, it was but right the authorities should have the power of awarding him such a pension as he would have received had he been able to complete his time.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
MR. BIGGAR moved to leave out lines 27 to 32, inclusive, in page 13. The paragraph he wished to omit was as follows:—
Where, on account of the infirmity of mind or body of a constable having been brought about or been contributed to by his own default or by his vicious habits, the pension granted to such constable is of less amount than that to which he would otherwise be entitled, the diminution of such pension shall not exceed five-fiftiethsof the annual pay of such constable.
§ He could not imagine any argument that the Chief Secretary could advance in favour of such a paragraph. It seemed 1451 to him that one-tenth of a constable's pay was so small an amount to allow for pension that he might as well have nothing at all. Personally, he did not think that a man who had misconducted himself, and therefore rendered himself unable to perform his duties, deserved any pension at all.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 13, to leave out sub-section (7).—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the sub-section."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 70; Noe 1: Majority 69.—(Div. List., No. 114.)
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had an Amendment to propose to the Schedule, to the effect that—
The Lord Lieutenant may grant, out of money voted by Parliament, a sum not exceeding twenty pounds to any head or other constable who, at the time of his discharge on pension, may have completed a service of twenty-five years without an unfavourable record.He begged to move this Amendment. It might not be acceptable to the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), owing to the fact that it contained the words "unfavourable record;" but, whether or no, the object in view was a good one.
THE CHAIRMANI may save the hon. and gallant Member some trouble by at once saying that I cannot put this Amendment, as it goes beyond the terms of the Resolution upon which the Bill is founded, which relates to pay and pensions, and not to gratuities.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 4, to leave out from "or" to "and," in line 5, inclusive.—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he could not accept this Amendment, as it would effect a serious reduction in the pensions proposed to be given to the families of these constables—a reduction of £4, £5, or £6 a-year out of the small sum the Bill proposed to grant, and which was one of the advantages in the measure looked to with satisfaction.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, his Amendment would make the Bill more consistent. If the right hon. Gentleman would un- 1452 dertake to strike out the earlier part of the sub-section he would withdraw the Amendment.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, the Committee should consider, in the first place, whether the clause came within the terms of the Resolution, the Chairman having stated that that proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for County Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) did not. Let them consider whether widows and children were members of the Police Force.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the next Amendment of which he had given Notice was on the same principle; and, seeing that they had not divided on the former, he did not see any use in moving the next.
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he wished to move an Amendment on the question of pensions, to the effect that the Lord Lieutenant have power to make grants for the support of the parents of constables and policemen killed whilst in the execution of their duty. A case occurred only the other day where a constable was killed by the discharge of a double-barrelled gun—a bad weapon supplied by Her Majesty's Government, and the man's parents, who had been depending on him, were left entirely without support.
THE CHAIRMANThis Amendment also will not come within the terms of the Resolution, and cannot, therefore, be put.
§ MR. BIGGARhaving addressed a further question to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant,
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the object the hon. Member sought to attain was secured in the Bill as it stood. Under sub-section (a,) the pensions were calculated on the amount of the annual pay. Presumably, that annual pay had been the same for the last three years. Under sub-section (c), the constable whose annual pay had been raised during the past three years had had his pension calculated on the average of three years. Therefore, so far as he (Mr. Trevelyan) could follow the hon. Member's object, it was already secured by the Bill.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that sub-section (c) only applied to constables who became members of the Force after the present time. What would be the effect of sub-section (d)?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the effect of sub-section (d) would be pretty much the same as the effect of sub-section (c).
§ Schedule agreed to.
§ Question put, "That this be the Preamble of the Bill."
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORI wish to ask, Mr. Chairman, where the Preamble will come in, as you have put it before the whole of the Schedules?
THE CHAIRMANThat was not the Question I intended to put. The Question is, "That Schedule 3 be added to the Bill."
§ Schedules 3 and 4 agreed to.
§ Question proposed, "That this be the Preamble of the Bill."
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he wished to put a question to the Chief Secretary. This Bill was founded upon the Report of a Royal Commission or Committee of Inquiry; but, unfortunately, it did not deal with one portion of the inquiry. It did not deal with the promotion of discipline in the Force. Many complaints connected with the discipline of the men had been made of late, yet that vexed question was not touched by the Bill. The question had disturbed the Constabulary very much, and had, in no small degree, militated against its efficiency. There were one or two Amendments in connection with this subject which he had placed before the Chairman, but which the hon. Gentleman had declined to accept, although there were clauses in the Bill—notably the 12th clause—which had no more to say to pay and pensions than his Amendments. On Report he would follow the example of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel King-Harman), who had intimated his intention of raising a question on matters he was not allowed to submit in the form of Amendments to the Committee. Would the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan), at an early stage, bring in a Bill to deal with the discipline of the Constabulary, or give some assurance with regard to it? The question of discipline was one which affected the efficiency of the Force more than the question of pay and pensions. The sectarian character of the appointments amongst the officials in Dublin came under this head—the Sub-Inspectors, County Inspectors. The grievance was that Catholics were not promoted in due course. That was one matter to 1454 which he wished to call attention, and another was with reference to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry as to promotions to the office of Sub-Inspector. There was not the slightest doubt that all the efficiency of the Dublin Police, and a great portion of that of the Irish Constabulary, was dependent on the officering of the Force.
THE CHAIRMANOrder! The hon. Member for Louth is entitled, by the indulgence of the Committee, to ask any question of the right hon. Gentleman on this Bill; but he is not entitled to go into arguments, or develop his observations upon general questions affecting the condition of the Constabulary.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, the question he wished to ask was, whether the right hon Gentleman was prepared to give an assurance to the Committee that, for the future, the promotion would not be a quarter from the ranks, but would be a half?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, no; he was not prepared to give an assurance on that point. It would be a change of the greatest importance, and one which, he must own, from reasons he could hardly give at this moment, would be extremely dubious in its nature. Many questions arose on this matter; and he thought that, on the whole, the proportion, as it existed, was a good one.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.