[BILL 158.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 24 February 1887)

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY) (Wigton)
Sir, I may point out that this Bill was brought in last year by the late Government, and that it has been taken up by the present Government.

§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)
I rise to Order, Sir. I see that there is Notice of opposition to this Bill by the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare), and I ask whether the hon. Baronet is in Order in proceeding with the Bill?

§ MR. SPEAKER
It is a Money Bill.

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL
I am afraid the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare) cannot have made himself familiar with the provisions of this Bill before putting on his Notice of opposition; otherwise, his acquaintance with the forms of the House would inform him that a Money Bill may be taken at any time at night. The Bill 553 is introduced to remove a difficulty which prevents officers in the Colonial Civil Service accepting Governorships. That difficulty consists in the fact that their service as Governors does not count for pension, unless it extends over a period of 10 years. The object of the Bill is to remove that disability, and to enable Colonial Civil servants equally with Imperial Civil servants to earn pensions, provided that a portion of these pensions be defrayed out of the Colonial funds. I do not think it is necessary, at this hour of the morning, to occupy the House with any further explanation of the details of this Bill, which, as I have stated, was framed by the late Government and taken up by the present Government.

§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)
Having heard the arguments of the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill, and having regard to the advanced hour of the morning; taking also into account the fact that the Bill is an important one, and consists of many clauses, I think it right to move that the debate be adjourned until such time as we can amply discuss the measure.

§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
It is true that I have placed a block against this Bill; but I do not think it lies in the mouth of the hon. Gentleman who proposed the Second Heading to taunt me with not having read the Bill; considering that it was his action in blocking a Bill of mine which was not printed that caused me to give Notice of opposition. With reference to the Motion proposed by the hon. Gentleman behind me (Dr. Tanner), I may say that I have a strong objection, apart from the reasons which induced me to put down Notice of opposition to the Bill, to take a measure of its importance at this hour of the morning. It may be true that the Bill was prepared by the late Government when in Office; but I would point out that that has nothing to do with the question of its being taken at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning. The House has had no opportunity whatever of discussing this 554 measure, and I object to its being taken now, although it is a Money Bill. It seems to me to be the policy of the Government to play ducks and drakes with the money of the country.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I must point out that the hon. Gentleman is not confining himself to the Question before the House.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
I think because it is a Money Bill, there is all the more reason to adjourn the discussion, and for that reason I oppose its Second Reading at this hour of the morning.

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)
Hon. Members know that, in the latter part of the Session, it is usual for us to sit until a late hour of the morning, for the purpose of passing various measures. But I protest that the necessity for that has not yet arisen. It is now a quarter past 1 o'clock, and the Government are proposing that we should become a reformed Parliament, and content ourselves with reasonable hours. Again we are told that this is a Money Bill; but I say that is no reason why it should be put through sub silentio at this hour of the morning. The hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) has not given us any reason why we should adopt this Bill on its own merits. He said that the present Government is responsible for the measure, which was framed by the last Government; but I submit that we should have this Bill, in the same way as others, submitted to us at a reasonable hour. With the exception of a few Members who have been kept here by the Whips, the House generally had no idea that any other Business was to come on, and accordingly the great majority of Members have left. For these reasons, I heartily agree with the Motion of the hon. Member below me, that the debate be adjourned; and I say that there is no justification or excuse for bringing the Bill on at this hour; and, further, that there is no such urgency at the back of the Bill to warrant the Government in breaking through their own regulations.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Sir HENRY HOLLAND) (Hampstead)
I venture to hope that the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate will not be pressed. After the remarks that have fallen from my hon. Friend (Sir Herbert Maxwell), I can 555 only say that difficulty is placed in the way of the Colonial Service, owing to the disability which this Bill is intended to remove. There is no unfairness in the proposal; it is simply a matter of justice that, where a man has served for a certain time, he should be entitled to a pension for that service.

§ DR. COMMINS (Roscommon, S.)
The hon. Gentleman (Sir Herbert Maxwell) has not advanced a single argument in support of the Bill. He has not even given what I may call a good or intelligible summary, but only a very short summary of the provisions of the Bill. Before this measure passes a Second Reading, the House ought to know the scope and extent of it. We ought to know what charge is going to be put on the Treasury. We ought to know what is the amount of the pensions to be paid, and to what extent they may reach. The pension list is already large enough, and we are bound to examine very carefully what additions are made to it. We ought also to know to what extent the services of the gentlemen who it is proposed by this Bill to pension off may be called Imperial services. All these matters require explanation, before we can assent to the passing of the Bill. [Cries of "Divide!"] To cry "Divide!" does not, in the smallest degree, tend to increase our disposition to assent to the Bill. Dividing may decide the question whether we adjourn or not; but it will not decide the questions I now ask.

§ MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)
I do not intend to trespass long upon the attention of the House. There is no unfriendliness on these Benches to the Bill in the main; but at the same time ours is a legitimate protest to make. I believe that if the House consents to the adjournment of the debate, this Bill will pass without any substantial opposition when it comes on again. I might remind you, Mr. Speaker, if I am in Order in doing so, that there is clear evidence of the wearisomeness of the House in the yawning of the distinguished Members of Her Majesty's Government now present. I am fully persuaded it would conduce to the more pacific passage of this Bill at a future time if the Government can see their way to meet us now in a friendly spirit and agree to the Motion we now make.

§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)
I venture to suggest a compromise. Whether the Bill is objectionable in substance or not, we are aware the Government could at the present moment defeat the Motion for Adjournment of the Debate; and we are also aware that under the Rules of the House the Government are entitled to proceed with a Money Bill after half-past twelve o'clock at night. I would suggest that my hon. Friend (Dr. Tanner) should withdraw his Motion if the Government will agree to postpone the Committee for some time.

§ MR. JACKSON
I am quite willing to accept that suggestion.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Does the hon. Member for Mid Cork withdraw the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

§ DR. TANNER
I will withdraw it, Sir, but I should like to explain my reason.

§ MR. SPEAKER
There is no need to do that.