COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 19 May 1892)

§ (4.40.) THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.
I beg to move— That the Order for Committee be read, and discharged, and that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee. This Motion is intended to give effect to an arrangement which was come to on both sides of the House to refer this Bill to the examination of a Select Committee.

§ (4.41.) GENERAL FRASER (Lambeth, N.)
If this Bill is referred to a Select Committee I hope the right hon. 1310 Gentleman will take into consideration the hardship that it inflicts upon a certain class of people by certain words which are included in the Bill. They are—

§ *MR. SPEAKER
The question is as to what tribunal this Bill shall be referred; whether it shall be considered in Committee of the whole House, or whether it shall go to a Select Committee. The merits of the Bill are not under discussion, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman is therefore out of order in discussing the merits of the Bill.

MR. MAC NEILL (Donegal, S.)
I do not see why this Bill should not be taken in Committee of the whole House. It has already been two nights in Committee, and it was not discussed on the Second Reading at all. It was slipped through, as many Bills are, and we did not know its purport or effect. The moment it came before Committee its real object was discovered, and it was openly charged against the Government that this was not a genuine Superannuation Bill. We think this matter should be brought to the knowledge of the public and not shut up in a Select Committee. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has got his majority, and he can force a Division, but I think he ought not to alter the course of business in this way. We want this matter openly thrashed out, and not relegated to a Committee, the majority of whom would be paid Ministers, who would be only too glad to assist the right hon. Gentleman in his schemes. You, Mr. Speaker, have already expressed a strong opinion on this practice which is springing up of taking Bills from the Committee of the whole House and referring them to Select Committees. You have said that the practice was unusual, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow this matter to be discussed in a Committee of the whole House.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)
Perhaps as I made the suggestion that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee I may be allowed to explain my position. The hon. Member is not quite right in saying that the Bill was in Committee two nights. It was only in Committee one night, and hon. Members who were 1311 present will recollect that a number of inquiries were put to the Treasury, and some rather discordant answers were given as to the working of the Bill. We were quite at a loss to understand to what class of officers the Bill would extend, and I submitted that as this subject was inquired into two or three years ago by a Royal Commission which was presided over by the hon. Member for Blackpool (Sir M. White Ridley), but this particular question was not raised, there should be a full inquiry into the facts. The First Lord of the Treasury agreed, and I have no doubt the Select Committee will be now composed, not as the hon. Gentleman thinks, but of independent Members of the House. When the Select Committee has examined the matter, it will have to come before a Committee of the whole House, and we shall then have the whole facts before us and know exactly to whom the Bill refers.

§ MR. KNOX (Cavan, W.)
I should like to say a few words why I consider that it is not desirable that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Select Committee would not take anything from the power of the House to deal with this Bill afterwards; but whatever doubt there may be as to what is in the Bill, there is no doubt that it will affect Resident Magistrates, because after much pressure we obtained a distinct assurance to that effect from the Secretary to the Treasury. We know for certain that whoever else is affected by this Bill, it affects Resident Magistrates, and that being so I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is really at this stage of the Session, and in the present condition of public business, any chance of passing through the House a Bill that proposes to confer benefits which they are not entitled to at present upon gentlemen with whom a large portion of this House is not in sympathy. It is merely fastening upon Members of this House a useless and laborious service which can have no legislative effect, and I hope hon. Members will assist us in resisting this proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

§ (4.47.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
We put the Bill forward in the House rightly or wrongly as a simple measure of justice to a certain number of officials, some of whom undoubtedly are Resident Magistrates. The Bill does not apply to Resident Magistrates as Resident Magistrates, but there certainly are Resident Magistrates to whom it does apply. Our opinion, as I have said, is that this is simply a measure of justice, and the intention is that when the persons affected under this Bill claim a pension, the Treasury should be honourably bound to give it them. If our view is right, this Bill ought to be passed without delay; if our view is wrong, the wrongness of it can be effectively shown before a Select Committee. I submit that a Select Committee is the proper place for the details of the measure to be thrashed out.

§ (4.48.) MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)
It is perhaps needless to say that there are different views of justice in different quarters of this House, and it is well known that a majority of the Members from Ireland are not disposed to consent to any increase in the emoluments or pensions of the Resident Magistrates without very serious and minute inquiry into the grounds of that proposed increase. Our feeling in regard to the present Motion is that if the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, on which the Irish Members will be but sparsely represented, facilities for effective discussion after the Bill returns will be greatly restricted, because the House is likely to be guided by the decision of the Committee. If this had been a non-contentious Bill, with regard to which there had been a general assent, I should not have objected to the matter being referred to a Select Committee; but the First Lord of the Treasury must admit that a Bill which deals in any way with Resident Magistrates is necessarily contentious in the highest degree. No doubt, however, the question is affected by the fact that after this Committee has dealt with the Bill it will come before a Committee of the whole House; and considering the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and considering the fact that we 1313 shall still have an opportunity of dealing with this Bill in Committee of the whole House, I am disposed to advise my colleagues not to prolong this discussion, on one condition. That condition is, that as the only contentious question involved in this Bill relates to officials in Ireland, the Committee should be so constituted as to give special representation to the Irish Members, and that they should not be represented merely according to strict arithmetical proportion. If the Leader of the House is prepared to accept that understanding, which is, I think, reasonable, it would meet our views; otherwise we shall have no security that our views will be brought forward effectively before the Committee.

§ (4.53.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I have no right to speak again except by leave of the House, but the hon. Member has addressed a direct question to me. He says that the only contentious point raised in this Bill is one on which the Irish Members feel strongly, and therefore they ought to have exceptional representation on the Select Committee which is to examine into this Bill. I think, in the first place, that is a proposal of an altogether unusual character, and in the second place the subject can be debated quite well in Committee. But it must not be thought that the only controversial matter in the Bill centres round the Resident Magistrates. I recollect that the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) raised very strong objections to that part of the Bill which relates to Indian Civil Servants, and several Members objected to the Bill because they thought it would increase the pensions of Governors in India and elsewhere. Therefore, the hon. Member is not quite right when he says that the objections came only from one quarter. I think the hon. Member will feel that this understanding would form a serious precedent. I hope he will not press it.