§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON (Essex, Epping)
I ask the House to affirm the principle of this measure by reading it a second time. It has long been before the consideration of various Parliaments, and the principle was affirmed by the Government which existed before the present in a Bill exactly similar to this. I am quite aware that it is extremely difficult for a private Member to pass a Bill through at this period of the Session; but I would ask the House to affirm the principle, for it would be only doing justice to a deserving body of public servants.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
§ BARON DIMSDALE (Herts, Hitchin)
I will offer no objection at this stage, but I reserve the right to urge the objections I have to the Bill on its later stages.
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
I do not think we should be in a hurry to affirm the principle embodied in this Bill which extends the pension 650 list, superannuations, and civil pensions, which is already so great as to cause alarm in the minds of many financiers, and there is likely to be some discussion on this subject when we come to the Superannuation Bill now on the Orders as to whether there should not be some limit to the system. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) admits that it is impossible to carry his Bill this Session, and therefore I would appeal to him, is it worth while to take the opinion of the House and possibly hamper the proper consideration of the subject next Session? I do not say that I altogether condemn the Bill so far as I have ascertained what is in it, but it is an important Bill which a Government should take up rather than leave it in the hands of a private Member. I also quite agree that the police as a body are well deserving of every consideration; but I demur to committing the House at this period of the Session, when there is a thin attendance, to a principle that may or may not be sound, but at any rate deserves more consideration than it is possible now to give it. It would, I think, under the circumstances be better to allow the Bill to stand over to next Session.
§ MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)
Seeing that the right hon. Baronet does not seem disposed to adopt the very reasonable suggestion made, and seeing that we have had no explanation whatever of the provisions of the Bill and that it is now the end of the Session, I think the most convenient course will be to adjourn the debate.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Biggar.)
§ The House divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 64: Majority 45.—(Div. List, No. 380.) [2.45 A.M.]
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.