ADJOUENED DEBATE. (Hansard, 16 March 1888)

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)
, in rising to a point of Order, said, in reference to the second Order of the Day which had just been read, he had to draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that this Order was on the Paper for the Morning Sitting; that it was under discussion at 10 minutes to 7; and that the new Rule of Procedure 1538 dealing with this point was in these words— That when such business has not been disposed of at Seven o'clock, unless the House shall otherwise order, the Speaker, or Chairman if the House shall he in Committee, do leave the Chair, and the House shall resume its Sitting at Nine o'clock, when the Orders of the Day not disposed of at the Morning Sitting"— and there was no Order but this— and any Motion under discussion at ten minutes to Seven shall be set down in the Order Book after the other Orders of the Day. Papers containing Orders of the Day were issued to Members for the Morning and the Evening Sittings. For the Evening Sitting the Orders were 11 in number; and, according to the clear words of the Rule he had read, the Order dropped at 10 minutes to 7—Report of Supply—should take its place as No. 12 on the list, while actually it had been called on as No. 2. He submitted that this was a complete departure from the Rule, and he asked the ruling of the Chair.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, the course followed was perfectly regular. After discussions on the Motion for going into Supply, the House passed to the Orders of the Day, and these the Government set down in the order they pleased.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, with all respect, he would ask the attention of the Speaker to the words of the Rule—"after the other Orders of the Day." True, the Government had the right to arrange Government Business in what order they pleased; but, in the exercise of that right, they should not pass from the clear direction of the Rule.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, what had been done was in conformity with the general practice.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)
said, it had been the general practice; but the House was entering now upon new practices and new procedure, and as, under the New Rules, this point had never risen before, he would ask whether the Government could act in spite of the words of the Rule?

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, when he spoke of the general practice he should have said the universal practice under Morning Sittings of the House.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, his question was this—Whether the Rule as regards setting down dropped Orders 1539 after the other Orders of the Day should only apply to private Members, and should not apply to Government Business?

§ THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)
said, on the point of Order the hon. Member was quite in error. What he called a New Rule was simply a repetition of the old Rule, not a Now Rule at all. If the hon. Member would look at the old Rule for Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays, he would find the same words as now were contained in the Standing Order. The only difference was that it was a Standing Order. The Rule always was that Orders not disposed of at the Morning Sitting should be put down after the other Orders of the Day. But the Orders of the Day for the evening were not settled until after the Morning Sitting on Fridays. On Tuesdays it was different, but on Fridays the Government had the settling of the Order of Business.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he regretted that he was unable to finish his remarks before 7 o'clock. He wished to challenge the Vote on the ground that the present First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) was not a proper person to be entrusted with the distribution of these funds, so far, at least, as that distribution affected Civil servants as such. He submitted that the right hon. Gentleman had manifested in the House, by his answers to Questions put to him, an indisposition to be equitable and fair. That was his submission, and the ground upon which he challenged the Vote. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) did not wish to shrink from the responsibility of what he was saying, and wished the House to understand that he was making what might be considered a personal attack upon the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman had shown by his answers in the House, at once evasive and contradictory, that members of the Civil Service had no ground to look to him for fair and equitable treatment in regard to any conduct they might think fit to adopt in respect to matters political. The right hon. Gentleman had been asked a number of Questions perfectly straightforward and simple, which it was open to him to consider carefully before he answered, but which 1540 he answered in such a way as to show that he was prepared to deal out one measure of justice to one set of persons and another measure of justice to another set of persons. Some time ago a challenge was thrown out from the Government Bench with regard to a gentleman employed in one of the Dockyards, and the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) justified his Department for allowing that official to exercise his political rights untrammelled and unchallenged. When that noble Lord had completed his answer, he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) invited the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to say whether the same rule obtained in all other Departments of the Public Service. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman was to the effect that the same rule governed all the Departments. On the first of the present month, he accordingly put to the right hon. Gentleman the Question whether the Board of Inland Revenue last year addressed to a Civil servant of that Department a letter in which the following sentence occurred— You cannot be permitted by them—the Board of Inland Revenue—to lecture, or openly speak, or take part in discussions upon Home Rule. Secondly, the Question went on to ask whether Sir Alfred Slade—Receiver General of the Inland Revenue Department—was at that time a prominent member of the Primrose League? Now, at that time it was a fact that an officer of the Inland Revenue had been censured—cautioned was the official phrase—but it amounted to censure—for taking part in a Home Rule meeting, and Sir Alfred Slade, who was one of the heads of that Department, had also taken part in proceedings of the Primrose League. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was that the words quoted were used, and that they expressed the rule generally throughout the Civil Service in regard to all shades of politics. He went on to say that Sir Alfred Slade—the Receiver General of the Inland Revenue—was trustee of a certain portion of the funds of the Primrose League; but, as such, he did not consider that that gentleman could be regarded as a prominent member of the 1541 League. Here, then, was an admission that, within the knowledge of the Government, Sir Alfred Slade was a member of the Primrose League. It might be mentioned, also, that in a subsequent answer the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Primrose League did come within the meaning of the rule. It was admitted that Sir Alfred Slade was a member of the Primrose League; that he was trustee of some of the funds; but it was implied that he was nothing more than a trustee of a certain portion of the funds. Now, what were the facts?

§ MR. DIXON-HARTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge)
rose to Order. Was the hon. Gentleman in order in going through the same arguments, and repeating the same observations, upon which he was engaged before 7 o'clock.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, the hon. Member was in Order. It did not strike him that the hon. Member was repeating himself. He was entitled to amplify the argument upon which he was engaged when Business was suspended.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he was sorry if he should appear wearisome with a twice-told tale, but he was saying no more than was necessary to make his case clear to the House at large. The same day he asked another question, whether the following rule was in force in the Customs Department?

§ MR. DIXON-HARTLAND
again rose to Order. Was it competent for the hon. Member to go on with exactly the same words he had previously used?

§ MR. SPEAKER
called upon Mr. Arthur O'Connor to proceed.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
continued— You are not to hold any corporate office, nor are you in any way to interfere in the proceeding's for the election of a Member of Parliament beyond recording your vote, nor are you to be a member of an Orange Lodge, or to take part in any party procession, nor to belong to any political society, nor are you to subscribe to or be a member of a political society, or attend public meetings held for political purposes, or subscribe to funds for such purposes. That was a totally different rule from that in the Inland Revenue Department. The right hon. Gentleman said the rule had been altered by the Board of 1542 Customs in 1874, when the Disabilities Removal Act was passed, and since that time the restraints as to taking part in elections beyond recording votes had been removed from the rule. Now, he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) asked the House to observe the evasive character of the answer of the First Lord of the Treasury. He could not contest the fact that there was one rule for the Inland Revenue and another for the Customs Department, but he said the rule referred to had been altered by the Act of 1874. Perfectly true, but not the whole truth. The rule that obtained in the Customs Department was that an officer should not hold a corporate office or be a member of an Orange Lodge, take part in Party processions, or belong to any political society. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Primrose League was a political society— Nor subscribe to, or be a member of, or attend any meetings of any association for political purposes"— the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that Sir Alfred Slade was trustee for the funds of the Primrose League— Nor one for to subscribe the funds raised for such purposes. Now his contention was that there were different rules in different Departments of the Public Service, and that in one Department there was one rule for the heads of the Department, or for those in high positions, and a totally different rule and practice for subordinates in that Department. The Inland Revenue officer in Norfolk or Suffolk was reprimanded, censured, and had a black mark recorded against him because he attended a Home Rule meeting, while the head of his Department was allowed to be one of the chief officials of the Primrose League, vice chairman of the League, a member of the General Purposes Committee, a member of the Finance Committee, and a trustee of the funds of the Primrose League. On the 6th of the present month he asked the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury if this was not so, and the right hon. Gentleman said that Sir Alfred Slade was trustee for some of the funds of the League, and ex officio he was a member of the League, but that he abstained from taking part in any proceedings of the League which would infringe the rule of the Inland Revenue 1543 —namely, that officials should abstain from taking part in, or speaking at, any political meeting. Upon that he asked a further question, whether it was true that at a certain political meeting held in Dublin, certain members of the Public Service—General Sankey, Chief Commissioner of Works, Mr. Roberts, Junior Commissioner, and Mr. Soady, Secretary to the Board of Works—had not only taken part, but appeared on the platform on the occasion when that meeting was addressed by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen)? The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury found himself driven into a comer to excuse those officials who had taken part in a political meeting. What excuse did he make? These gentlemen, he said, did attend the public meeting referred to, but they did so in their "private capacity." Well, the subordinate member of the Inland Revenue Service in Norfolk, who was censured for attending a Home Rule meeting, attended that meeting in his "private capacity." Every person who attended a public meeting, whether a Civil servant or not, attended in a private and not an official capacity. But the right hon. Gentleman was determined to screen his friends the heads of Departments, while ready enough to mete out the strictest possible justice, in an official sense, to subordinate offenders. Then the other day he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) asked yet another question of the right hon. Gentleman, 'who then thought it necessary to make a general statement of what the Government thought about the matter. Now, he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) heard, had read, and re-read that answer, and confessed he could not make head or tail of it; there was nothing definite in it from beginning to end. When, to-day, he asked, further, whether there were any reasons of a public character why a Treasury Minute should not be issued defining the rights or the limitations of the right of Civil servants in respect of their political action, securing also equal treatment for all Civil servants whatever their station, the right hon. Gentleman fell back on his answer of the other day, and refused to explain himself any further. What did that amount to, if it 1544 meant anything? It amounted to this—that there was some well-understood rule in the Service, so well understood that there were few infractions of it, according to which heads of Departments were to have authority to draw up regulations for the several Departments and their subordinates, which enabled the latter to realize clearly enough what their duties and what the limitations of their political rights were. Now, he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) objected altogether to the principle that heads of Departments should have the right to draw up in their several branches of the Service differing, conflicting rules in regard to the conduct of their subordinates, while they themselves, when offending against recognized rules, were to be protected by the First Lord of the Treasury on the ground that they acted in their private capacity. He could not see what possible objection there could be to treating all Departments of the Civil Service alike, no matter what the status of the official—that one rule for all should be promulgated, so that every Civil servant should know exactly how he stood. The Inland Revenue officer to whom he had referred asked what rule he had infringed, and the Board were unable to point to any such rule, for, in fact, it did not exist. His contention was that the right hon. Gentleman, having Questions put to him in such a way, throwing light the one upon the other, must have seen perfectly well that the rule asserted in one case was violated in another; but more than once he had justified the unfair treatment of subordinate officers, while shielding flagrant breaches of the rule on the part of heads of Departments. Therefore Civil servants could not expect unprejudiced, equitable, and fair treatment from the hands of such a Minister; and he must, therefore, object to the present First Lord of the Treasury being entrusted with the distribution of funds that included the payment of Civil servants. It was not consistent with discipline in the Service when the right hon. Gentleman had shown such a tendency to partiality and unfairness. The right hon. Gentleman had allowed himself to suggest that every Home Rule organization was illegal, and every Conservative association necessarily legal. In 1545 reply to a Question put to him, he had; the good taste to say that members of the Civil Service knew perfectly well what their rights were; but with regard to Home Rule he would only say they were entitled to belong to any association that was not illegal. He admired the lucidity and high authority of the right hon. Gentleman; but it was unnecessary for him to state that Civil servants were not allowed to belong to associations that were not legal. But there were Home Rule associations not in proclaimed districts in Ireland, but in every county in England, which were perfectly legal; and what he wished to ask was that Civil servants in this country—not in Ireland—should, whatever their position, be allowed as much freedom, as much liberty, in the exercise of their rights as citizens as was accorded to heads of Departments, and as secured to those heads of Departments by the Treasury itself. Under those circumstances he meant to object to, and vote against, the Motion that the House agree with this Resolution.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)
said, he greatly regretted that the answers it had been his duty to give to Questions put to him during the last two or three weeks had not been satisfactory to the hon. Member. It had been his desire to assure the hon. Member and the House that the Treasury and the Government intended to exercise, and had exercised, perfect fairness towards all members of the Civil Service without regard to political opinions. If he had failed to convey that intimation to the hon. Gentleman he deeply regretted it. He could not expect to entirely secure the confidence of the hon. Member; but there were other Members of the House who would understand that if he had the misfortune to be First Lord of the Treasury in a Conservative Government he had still the consciousness that it was his duty as a Member of that Government to see that equal justice was done to all public servants. That had been his aim and desire, and if he had failed to satisfy the hon. Gentleman entirely in his answers it was because he wished as far as possible to abstain from interfering with the liberty he desired that Civil servants should possess. The hon. 1546 Member laid stress on the fact that in his answer regarding Sir Alfred Slade he said the connection of that gentleman with the Primrose League was not inconsistent with the office he held in the Public Service; but he simply stated the fact communicated to him—he had stated fiat which he understood to be the truth—that Sir Alfred Slade had never on any occasion taken part in a public political meeting. He had drawn a distinction in such cases, and it was a distinction—the propriety of which would be recognized by hon. Members on both sides of the House—between such action and merely belonging to a political association. There were many Civil servants who belonged to political associations and political clubs, and who were never interfered with unless they took part in public meetings.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would excuse him for interrupting; but was it not the case that there had not been any rule in the Inland Revenue Department, the only known rule being that in the Customs against belonging to a political association?

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, he did not intend to enter into an argument with the hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, it was not an argument—it was a question of fact.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, all that he had said was that there was an under standing that Civil servants in the Inland Revenue and Customs Department should not take part in public meetings, and the understanding was one that the hon. Member himself and the House would recognize as a useful, important, and proper one. It was obvious that persons having to discharge duties in connection with Customs or Inland Revenue should avoid all conduct that would expose them to the imputation of partiality. But if it was the desire of the hon. Member to restrict the liberties of Civil servants—

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
On the contrary.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, then he trusted that the House would be content to leave with the Government the responsibility of dealing out equal justice to all the officers of the Public Service whoever they might be.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
That is all I ask.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, he regretted that he was unable to continue this discussion, because of the necessity for now coming to a decision on the Vote; he trusted, therefore, that if the hon. Gentleman had any further ground of complaint he would take another opportunity of referring to the subject.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, as the right hon. Gentleman had not answered him at all, he certainly should do so.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)
said, he had no intention of talking out the Motion.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, he would enter into the subject on a future occasion.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, then he would postpone his observations.